The Political Discussion Thread

[Coco Pops]

better question what is Trump's game? (what's the real reason he attacked Syria?)

So that he looks good?

[SGalisa]

Well, at least someone on here "gets it" -- the idea of what might be going on with Syria & Russia...
(thank you Coco Pops)

So hang on if the USA attacks Syria Russia gets angry.

But if we tell Russia they move all the nice toys out of the way so that nothing gets damaged.

The whole thing is fishy.

Oh and Russia blames the UK for the chemical attack.

Fishy

Yup. Yes to all of the above.

Why else (logically) would Russia be included in the pre-discussions of this whole thing prior to it actually happening? Russia *was* included in the Syrian pre-missile meeting along with the UK, France, and the USA. I read someone asking (paraphrasing here) *so, what does Russia get out of all of this?*

I also read elsewhere on another discussion site about this that people were saying this looks more like theatrics just to remove some stuff that was already unwanted out of the way... but the other "actors" in the picture didn't want to do the dirty deed (by spending their money to do it, instead).

So, they agreed to let the US do it... but Trump couldn't go in there without a coalition group agreement, so France and the UK (with Theresa May's blessing) went along for the ride. Later, Canada also approved of the final results by supporting what the USA military did, but Canada didn't want to get its own paws/hands dirty in the actual deed.

Dems, MSM, and GOP (and anyone else) will simply condemn this whole theatrics (and already are) by redirecting the problem(s) back home at the scandals to impeach Trump for stuff he may or may not have done BEFORE he became President of the USA.

[LtColCarter]

He couldn't come close to an Annoyed style rant. None of you could. Annoyed style rants are the best there are!

M.R.G.A. - Make Rants Great Again.

Only if you like listening to a 5 year-old rant.

[thekillman]

I don't understand Russia's endgame.

Why prop up someone like Assad?

It's not about Assad or Syria. Russia wants to show that it'll defend it's allies to the death, while showing the West will throw anyone before the lions if it's inconvenient. Any former Soviet state, the entire east block, is what he's looking to.

So hang on if the USA attacks Syria Russia gets angry.

But if we tell Russia they move all the nice toys out of the way so that nothing gets damaged.

The whole thing is fishy.

Oh and Russia blames the UK for the chemical attack.

Fishy

It's just diplomacy. Trump shoots missile so it looks like he condemns gas attacks. he tells Russia so he hits nothing important (and so can neither frustrate their mission, nor escalate a war). To those that care, Trump looks good. To those that care, Russia looks good. Nothing really changes. Assad showed that he can do whatever he wants in his own country. Everyone wins, except Syrians of course.

I also read elsewhere on another discussion site about this that people were saying this looks more like theatrics just to remove some stuff that was already unwanted out of the way... but the other "actors" in the picture didn't want to do the dirty deed (by spending their money to do it, instead).

Do you really think that if Russia or Assad wants something out of the way, they'll inform the West about it? Russia can do whatever it wants in Syria, it has the air superiority.

Assad showed to his rebels that he can get away with everything. Bullets is one thing, but nothing is as terror-inducing as gas attacks. Russia showed it backs assad all the way. Trump shows strongman theatrics. Signalling the attack means it neither achieves nor frustrates anything.

Remember the last time he ordered a strike, it hit almost nothing of importance? yea.

[Falcon Horus]

Was gonna make a reply to some quotes, but TheKillman pretty much covered it.

[thekillman]

Was gonna make a reply to some quotes, but TheKillman pretty much covered it.

Thanks.

But yea, Trump's attitude to Russia didn't change. Russia's intention and Assad's intention didn't change.

[Coco Pops]

So what happens if Trump goes off script and attacks something he shouldn't?

[LtColCarter]

So what happens if Trump goes off script and attacks something he shouldn't?

I pray we don't have to find out...

[jelgate]

He'll claim it never happened and blame someone someone else

[LtColCarter]

He'll claim it never happened and blame someone someone else

Yes...Mango Mussolini is quite adept at attempting to device and misdirect. Only thing is...he's not that good at it and ALWAYS gets caught.

[thekillman]

So what happens if Trump goes off script and attacks something he shouldn't?

I don't think he gets to choose what to attack, nor do i think he really cares about what gets attacked. It's what generals are for.

[Womble]

I don't understand Russia's endgame.

Why prop up someone like Assad?

Simply put, Russia is establishing itself as a superpower equal or stronger than the USA, and it's doing it the only way it knows how.

Russia doesn't have the economy to play in the USA or China's league, but it does have the military power. So that is the only way they can make a play for big league status. Obama screwed up tremendously on all things Syria - first by refusing to back the moderate rebel factions and spinning Assad as a reasonable man willing to make compromises, then by drawing a line in the sand over Assad's chemical warfare only to prove that he would not put his military where his mouth was. He didn't even have the excuse of fearing open conflict with Russia at the time because Russia didn't have boots on the ground in Syria.

So with Obama's help, Russia edged the USA off the Syrian war theater with the faux-compromise of disarming Syria of chemical weapons (does anyone remember that Assad wasn't supposed to have any since 2015?), then moved in the troops at Assad's invitation and disproved the great myths of Western leftist politics - that war as a means of advancing politics is over, that war doesn't solve anything and that military power cannot put down insurgencies. Russia has accomplished in Syria in under two years what the entire Western alliance failed to accomplish in Afghanistan and Iraq in over 15 years - apparently, if you hit hard enough and do not let your war effort get paralyzed by navel-gazing "humanitarian" inquisitors, military power produces indisputable results.

I don't believe that the Russians would risk open conflict with a USA administration that showed genuine willingness to stare them down, because up until now, every time they were met with armed response they did not fire back but rather responded "asymmetrically" through economic or diplomatic means of retaliation. They did not risk open conflict with Turkey, a far lesser power, when a Russian warplane was shot down. They do not stop Israeli air raids on Syrian military bases and their weapons supplies to Hezbollah. If the USA was determined to hit Syria hard, Russia would not have stood in the way. The fear of World war III is mainly in the mind of fearful politicos.

[aretood2]

Simply put, Russia is establishing itself as a superpower equal or stronger than the USA, and it's doing it the only way it knows how.

Russia doesn't have the economy to play in the USA or China's league, but it does have the military power. So that is the only way they can make a play for big league status. Obama screwed up tremendously on all things Syria - first by refusing to back the moderate rebel factions and spinning Assad as a reasonable man willing to make compromises, then by drawing a line in the sand over Assad's chemical warfare only to prove that he would not put his military where his mouth was. He didn't even have the excuse of fearing open conflict with Russia at the time because Russia didn't have boots on the ground in Syria.

So with Obama's help, Russia edged the USA off the Syrian war theater with the faux-compromise of disarming Syria of chemical weapons (does anyone remember that Assad wasn't supposed to have any since 2015?), then moved in the troops at Assad's invitation and disproved the great myths of Western leftist politics - that war as a means of advancing politics is over, that war doesn't solve anything and that military power cannot put down insurgencies. Russia has accomplished in Syria in under two years what the entire Western alliance failed to accomplish in Afghanistan and Iraq in over 15 years - apparently, if you hit hard enough and do not let your war effort get paralyzed by navel-gazing "humanitarian" inquisitors, military power produces indisputable results.

I don't believe that the Russians would risk open conflict with a USA administration that showed genuine willingness to stare them down, because up until now, every time they were met with armed response they did not fire back but rather responded "asymmetrically" through economic or diplomatic means of retaliation. They did not risk open conflict with Turkey, a far lesser power, when a Russian warplane was shot down. They do not stop Israeli air raids on Syrian military bases and their weapons supplies to Hezbollah. If the USA was determined to hit Syria hard, Russia would not have stood in the way. The fear of World war III is mainly in the mind of fearful politicos.

If anything, we made Russia even more bold in its actions by tip toeing around it. The last strike should have gone after more military targets as a punitive measure and that's what it lacked, punitive measures. It was just a reaction that would only qualify as a mild annoyance and minor setback for Assad. Now they are more willing to play brinkmanship than before, each instance of cowardice actually brings conflict closer. I mean...did anyone not learn anything from Chamberlain's "peace in our time"?

[Coco Pops]

Hey guys Nikki has game.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...t-get-confused


Do you think she'll be the next one fired?

[Coco Pops]

Simply put, Russia is establishing itself as a superpower equal or stronger than the USA, and it's doing it the only way it knows how.

Russia doesn't have the economy to play in the USA or China's league, but it does have the military power. So that is the only way they can make a play for big league status. Obama screwed up tremendously on all things Syria - first by refusing to back the moderate rebel factions and spinning Assad as a reasonable man willing to make compromises, then by drawing a line in the sand over Assad's chemical warfare only to prove that he would not put his military where his mouth was. He didn't even have the excuse of fearing open conflict with Russia at the time because Russia didn't have boots on the ground in Syria.

So with Obama's help, Russia edged the USA off the Syrian war theater with the faux-compromise of disarming Syria of chemical weapons (does anyone remember that Assad wasn't supposed to have any since 2015?), then moved in the troops at Assad's invitation and disproved the great myths of Western leftist politics - that war as a means of advancing politics is over, that war doesn't solve anything and that military power cannot put down insurgencies. Russia has accomplished in Syria in under two years what the entire Western alliance failed to accomplish in Afghanistan and Iraq in over 15 years - apparently, if you hit hard enough and do not let your war effort get paralyzed by navel-gazing "humanitarian" inquisitors, military power produces indisputable results.

I don't believe that the Russians would risk open conflict with a USA administration that showed genuine willingness to stare them down, because up until now, every time they were met with armed response they did not fire back but rather responded "asymmetrically" through economic or diplomatic means of retaliation. They did not risk open conflict with Turkey, a far lesser power, when a Russian warplane was shot down. They do not stop Israeli air raids on Syrian military bases and their weapons supplies to Hezbollah. If the USA was determined to hit Syria hard, Russia would not have stood in the way. The fear of World war III is mainly in the mind of fearful politicos.

Russia is playing the long game.