Creeping towards World War Three

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think it is cute that Jason thinks Russia gives a fuck about someone in the Syrian military.

Talk about confirmation bias. Trump is concerned with domestic policy and not paying enough attention to foreign policy, therefore I somehow like him.

Wait, Trump is concerned about something other than any possible investigations on him?

 

[Elixir]

Wait, Trump is concerned about something other than any possible investigations on him?

WHAT, ME WORRY?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Talk about confirmation bias. Trump is concerned with domestic policy and not paying enough attention to foreign policy, therefore I somehow like him.

It's one of the confounding aspects of Trump is that many of his supporters won't admit publically that they support him. They vote for him, but won't admit it on forums or to pollsters. It's very sad to admit that Trump has far more broad support than what is reported.

And he has it because some people still see him as the lesser of two evils. The ones who actually support him as a good thing are not ashamed to admit their support of him.

And when he does something right, or is indeed better than others have been (in an admittedly very small number of cases), we get the same sort of hiding by those who hate Trump; they won't admit when he does something good/better.

This seems to lock right into the party polarization that is so thick in the US.

 

[funinspace]

It sounds kind of weird to say this, but I'm not so worried about US-Russian military activities spinning out of control, as both parties are quite used to this dance and I think they have a feel for the boundaries about just how far each can go with foreplay...ergo little concern about a WWIII. Additionally, the UN has pretty much been sidelined as it seems that half the world has brought their toys to this fuster cluck. Neither China nor Russia will allow any new western military/policing resolutions to pass regarding Syria/Iraq/ISIS.

However, many of our generals have a real hard-on for Iran and I suspect that many of them still think of them as just another third world hell hole that we can fuck with impunity. And Iran has pretty much made it clear that they are all-in on supporting the Syrian government. Will they gauge US actions/reactions in a mutually safe way? And Russia could work to provide air support to Iranian supported militias to allow them to push forward while the US would be wary of a direct fight. If the US pushes/punishes Iran forces too hard, Iran could easily boast Taliban support in Afghanistan as a asymmetric response.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-us-and-iran-are-headed-for-a-collision-in-syria-2017-06-21

Why would Iran have dealings with the Taliban? Aren't they a sunni group?

Yes, the Taliban are Sunni. The enemy of my enemy is my friend is one part. Also, Iran might find the Taliban to be less bad than ISIS. There have been increasing headlines (which from the western media I take with caution) that Iran has been at a minimum already talking more with the Taliban (along with Russia), if not plausibly providing some aid.

A Google of "Iran Taliban" will show lots of articles talking about the potentials. But here is one comment:
http://www.dw.com/en/china-and-russia-want-us-out-of-afghanistan/a-39250894

Following the assassination of an Iranian diplomat in Mazar-i-Sharif in the 1990s, the relations between Tehran and the Taliban became very tense, to the point where Iran openly campaigned for the overthrow of the Taliban regime. But gradually, the situation has evolved to a point where Iranian authorities might have replaced Islamabad as the main provider of external support to the Taliban.
The main financial pillar of the Taliban is drug trafficking, and most of Afghan narcotics are traded through Iran.
The killing of the former Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansour in Pakistan's Baluchistan province after his long stay in Iran also shows how close ties are now between Iran and the Taliban.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A state of war already exists there.

We shot down a plane that was attacking our allies terrorists.

FIFY

Evidence they are committing terrorism?

Hint: Attacking Syria isn't terrorism.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A state of war already exists there.

We shot down a plane that was attacking our allies.

ISIS? The US started this war, caused hundreds of thousands of casualties and possibly trillions in damage and to rehouse migrants and a handful of Jihadis in the West.
The result in Syria is ISIS have a foothold.

ISIS started in Syria, not Iraq.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And when he does something right, or is indeed better than others have been (in an admittedly very small number of cases), we get the same sort of hiding by those who hate Trump; they won't admit when he does something good/better.

This seems to lock right into the party polarization that is so thick in the US.

Doing something right only counts if he did it for the right reason.

 

[Will Wiley]

FIFY

Evidence they are committing terrorism?

Hint: Attacking Syria isn't terrorism.

terrorism
ˈtɛrərɪzəm/
noun
noun: terrorism

the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"the fight against terrorism"

You don't get to make up your own definitions.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I think it is cute that Jason thinks Russia gives a fuck about someone in the Syrian military.

Usually allies do actually work to help each other and even protect each other. What do you think the response from the US would be if Syria (or worse, Russia) were to shoot down a coalition member jet?

Evidence they are committing terrorism?

Hint: Attacking Syria isn't terrorism.

terrorism
ˈtɛrərɪzəm/
noun
noun: terrorism

the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"the fight against terrorism"

You don't get to make up your own definitions.

Technically, terrorism applies to non-state actors and acts of war applies to state actors, but it is in many ways a difference without a difference. Loren has yet to acknowledge that the US is waging an unprovoked war against Syria.

 

[whichphilosophy]

ISIS? The US started this war, caused hundreds of thousands of casualties and possibly trillions in damage and to rehouse migrants and a handful of Jihadis in the West.
The result in Syria is ISIS have a foothold.

ISIS started in Syria, not Iraq.

US actions built the sewers for ISIS, Al Nusra, Al Qaeda and other fanatics of their ilk to wallow and flourish. It created the preceding necessary power vacuum by removing oppressive regimes (in Syria in part) and made things worse than before.

 

[whichphilosophy]

And when he does something right, or is indeed better than others have been (in an admittedly very small number of cases), we get the same sort of hiding by those who hate Trump; they won't admit when he does something good/better.

This seems to lock right into the party polarization that is so thick in the US.

Doing something right only counts if he did it for the right reason.

If doing something right is right that could be reason enough.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I think it is cute that Jason thinks Russia gives a fuck about someone in the Syrian military.

Talk about confirmation bias. Trump is concerned with domestic policy and not paying enough attention to foreign policy, therefore I somehow like him.

Wait, Trump is concerned about something other than any possible investigations on him?

People have concerns about a lot things. It follows that Trump could be concerned about something other than real or possible investigations on him. He might be concerned about his golfing skills.

 

[Philos]

Jason,

I have tried a similar thought experiment with right wing Americans. Never had a response. Its because they know.

Alex.

The problem with that is how would the Syrians get a Jet to Chicago. The Syrians could use Western logic and say it is self-defence but we would call it terrorism. The Syrians I believe are not too dumb as to do such a thing. The Syrian regime separated Church from State and provided education for women. If the US Marionettes take over then it will be come a fractured state of warring factions including those who want a Theocracy.

wp,

Two different points:

1) The purpose of a thought experiment is to inspire clear thinking in the reader. I have asked the following of right wing folks living in America. "If the Muslim nations had invaded your country and were flying drones over your neighbourhood, picking off Americans they thought were going to fight back, would you join the fighters?"

I have never had an answer to the question. I assume that they think the question is a trap. By agreeing that they should fight back in that scenario, maybe they might assume that they are agreeing that the Muslims should fight back in reality, which of course they can never countenance. It would be an admission that the US military shouldn't be in other people's countries.

2) Re your separate point above, I agree that Syria is badly f*****, but they have made a fist of holding on against the Saudi and Western insurgencies, with a good amount of invited Russian and Iranian help. As we know, Syria is basically a proxy war zone between Sunni and Shia, with wider involvement from world powers with other agendas.

A.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The problem with that is how would the Syrians get a Jet to Chicago. The Syrians could use Western logic and say it is self-defence but we would call it terrorism. The Syrians I believe are not too dumb as to do such a thing. The Syrian regime separated Church from State and provided education for women. If the US Marionettes take over then it will be come a fractured state of warring factions including those who want a Theocracy.

wp,

Two different points:

1) The purpose of a thought experiment is to inspire clear thinking in the reader. I have asked the following of right wing folks living in America. "If the Muslim nations had invaded your country and were flying drones over your neighbourhood, picking off Americans they thought were going to fight back, would you join the fighters?"

I have never had an answer to the question. I assume that they think the question is a trap. By agreeing that they should fight back in that scenario, maybe they might assume that they are agreeing that the Muslims should fight back in reality, which of course they can never countenance. It would be an admission that the US military shouldn't be in other people's countries.

2) Re your separate point above, I agree that Syria is badly f*****, but they have made a fist of holding on against the Saudi and Western insurgencies, with a good amount of invited Russian and Iranian help. As we know, Syria is basically a proxy war zone between Sunni and Shia, with wider involvement from world powers with other agendas.

A.

Point 1. Either join or provide a safe house for any resistance. No reasonable persons would not. Americans would do this. We could argue that extremists in our midst such as Nazis would also get involved on our side. The problem is that extremists turn on their own people, even before winning.

Point 2. Correct. The US just poured petrol on the fire and supplied some fireworks.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Wait, Trump is concerned about something other than any possible investigations on him?

WHAT, ME WORRY?
View attachment 11546

He could be concerned about whether he keeps his hair orange or dyes it blonde. That's something other than investigations.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Usually allies do actually work to help each other and even protect each other. What do you think the response from the US would be if Syria (or worse, Russia) were to shoot down a coalition member jet?

I think it is cute that you think Russia gives a darn about anyone in the Syrian military. All they care about is Syria's coastline.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Usually allies do actually work to help each other and even protect each other. What do you think the response from the US would be if Syria (or worse, Russia) were to shoot down a coalition member jet?

I think it is cute that you think Russia gives a darn about anyone in the Syrian military. All they care about is Syria's coastline.

If they care about the Syrian Coast then they care about the Syrian Government. If they care about the Syrian Government then they care about the troops as much as any government can care about any troop. Do you know what an ally is?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Evidence they are committing terrorism?

Hint: Attacking Syria isn't terrorism.

terrorism
ˈtɛrərɪzəm/
noun
noun: terrorism

the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"the fight against terrorism"

You don't get to make up your own definitions.

Note the "civilian" part--got some evidence we are attacking civilians?

Hint: Plenty of combatants over there don't wear uniforms.

- - - Updated - - -

ISIS started in Syria, not Iraq.

US actions built the sewers for ISIS, Al Nusra, Al Qaeda and other fanatics of their ilk to wallow and flourish. It created the preceding necessary power vacuum by removing oppressive regimes (in Syria in part) and made things worse than before.

I do agree we made the situation worse but that's not the same as causing it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

terrorism
ˈtɛrərɪzəm/
noun
noun: terrorism

the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"the fight against terrorism"

You don't get to make up your own definitions.

Note the "civilian" part--got some evidence we are attacking civilians?

Hint: Plenty of combatants over there don't wear uniforms.

Syria has not threatened the US. The US is committing acts of war against the government of Syria. What business is it of the US whether some of the combatants in Syria aren't wearing uniforms?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Some people want to think of this as a proxy Sunni-Shia war. Except it isn't. Syria is 73% Sunni. Iran, it's ally, is Shia. They are on the same side as the Eastern Orthodox Russians.

This is a proxy war, which is why I think this could lead to World War Three. Russia is taking advantage of the US being so inept over the last two decades in both diplomacy and military activity. The Russian sphere of influence in the Middle-East is growing, the US sphere of influence is shrinking. The military leaders of the US don't like that. This is a proxy war between the US and those countries that openly defy the US sphere of influence. That's why Russia claiming control of the airspace after the US military shot down an Syrian warplane is significant.

Some say this is because the US is the world's policeman, a role that isn't necessarily appreciated by the rest of the world. But here in the US we tolerate wrong-house warrantless no-knock raids that result in fatalities, so if the US is the world's policeman then it appears that the US treats other countries the way it treats its own citizens. And people wonder why countries like Syria invited the Russians in.