Trump Dump: Foreign Policy (Thread I)

[Flagg]

I think a lot of the impetus behind Trump ordering an airstrike is the visceral reaction he had to seeing kids gasping for breath and dying horribly on videos. It prompted an emotional reaction, followed by an emotional outburst, albeit one with missiles and high explosives. It wasn't some deeply thought out strategic move.

Otherwise, what Alyrium Denryle said.

Please, the day I believe that Donnie Douchebag possesses empathy is the day I go to Pike Place Market in downtown Seattle being filmed prancing around with my hands flapping while singing "I'm a little fairy, tra la la la la laaa" (a woodland sprite, not a homophobic thing).

He listened to his military advisors for once (After all, he didn't need a human prop for a speech, like the despicable use of the mother of a dead Navy SEAL sent on a mission by President Pussygrabber himself those same advisors were against), likely after mulling it over for 5 seconds before calling Vlad Barechest.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I think a lot of the impetus behind Trump ordering an airstrike is the visceral reaction he had to seeing kids gasping for breath and dying horribly on videos. It prompted an emotional reaction, followed by an emotional outburst, albeit one with missiles and high explosives. It wasn't some deeply thought out strategic move.

Otherwise, what Alyrium Denryle said.

Please, the day I believe that Donnie Douchebag possesses empathy is the day I go to Pike Place Market in downtown Seattle being filmed prancing around with my hands flapping while singing "I'm a little fairy, tra la la la la laaa" (a woodland sprite, not a homophobic thing).

He listened to his military advisors for once (After all, he didn't need a human prop for a speech, like the despicable use of the mother of a dead Navy SEAL sent on a mission by President Pussygrabber himself those same advisors were against), likely after mulling it over for 5 seconds before calling Vlad Barechest.

I don't really care why he did it. Just that he did. Broken clock, right twice a day.

[SpottedKitty]

Most likely all we've done is spend a bunch of money temporarily inconveniencing a single airfield.

The BBC has pictures now, from the Russians, supposedly of the attacked airfield. Lots of debris, some hits on Hardened Aircraft Shelters and munitions dumps, but at least one apparently intact plane. I don't think there were any views of runway damage, for what that's worth. I have to wonder what those Tomahawks were actually targetted on. You're probably right, that airfield will be flying planes again soon. Unless there's a golden shot or two, it takes a lot more effort than a few dozen cruise missiles to knock one out long-term.

[Flagg]

I think a lot of the impetus behind Trump ordering an airstrike is the visceral reaction he had to seeing kids gasping for breath and dying horribly on videos. It prompted an emotional reaction, followed by an emotional outburst, albeit one with missiles and high explosives. It wasn't some deeply thought out strategic move.

Otherwise, what Alyrium Denryle said.

Please, the day I believe that Donnie Douchebag possesses empathy is the day I go to Pike Place Market in downtown Seattle being filmed prancing around with my hands flapping while singing "I'm a little fairy, tra la la la la laaa" (a woodland sprite, not a homophobic thing).

He listened to his military advisors for once (After all, he didn't need a human prop for a speech, like the despicable use of the mother of a dead Navy SEAL sent on a mission by President Pussygrabber himself those same advisors were against), likely after mulling it over for 5 seconds before calling Vlad Barechest.

I don't really care why he did it. Just that he did. Broken clock, right twice a day.

Honestly, I don't know that what he ordered accomplished much if anything. Unless those missiles were specifically targeted at hitting the chemical weapons manufacturing or storage facilities then it was just expensive chest thumping that caused craters and knocked buildings down and hopefully didn't kill any civilians.

Then again, maybe the expensive chest thumping will make Assad not use chemical weapons again until he's in full on desperation mode.

[The Romulan Republic]

What's most disturbing about this, besides the potential for conflict with Russia, is that this is suggestive of how Trump will handle future domestic political crises. Now, I don't think this was entirely engineered- short of a far-fetched scenario where he coordinated with Assad, he had no way of knowing, most likely, that a chemical attack would happen right then. However, I don't doubt it played a role in how he responded, having a chance to distract from and obfuscate his own domestic troubles, while getting a popularity boost and distancing himself from Russia. If their's one thing Trump's good at, remember, its playing the media.

Which has disturbing implications for future crises. I suspect he's holding "War with Iran/North Korea" in reserve for when the impeachment comes down, in the (likely accurate) belief that the opposition will rally around a war-time President rather than risk impeachment during a crisis.

[Elfdart]

Using Sarin on civilians is a crime against humanity.

Deliberately targeting civilians with any weapon is a crime against humanity, from bayonets to nukes.

Countries that use chemical weapons in war or to murder their own people need to be punished.

Why? Because you say so? Feel free to explain the real difference between Syria gassing (allegedly) a few score civilians to death on one hand, and the regular practice of the US and client states like Israel and Saudi Arabia of burning hundreds/thousands of civilians alive with incendiaries like Napalm, White Phosphorous and others.

If it was even Sarin, which I doubt. If it was actually Sarin, they wouldn't be doing Arab Hollywood Propaganda with dead bodies for the camera. They'd all be dead or suffering from nerve agent exposure.

The place gassed (if it was) was basically Al Qaeda in Syria central. I thought we were against Al Quaeda.

You thought wrong. The US/UK/Gulf States/Israel have supported ISIS and Al Qaeda in Syria for a few years now.

This is starting to look and smell like the "pivot" the US government made under the Von Reagan regime, where they (and Thatcher) started backing what was left of Pol Pot's forces after the Vietnamese Army had thrashed them. Which reminds me: One piece of agitprop used to justify climbing into bed with Pol Pot was the Yellow Rain Hoax, where American intelligence[sic] services insisted that a yellow residue found throughout SE Asia was a nerve agent sprayed by the Vietnamese and their allies in Laos. It turned out the "Yellow Rain" was a combination of pollen and the droppings of migrating bees.

[The Romulan Republic]

Are you implying that the gas attack (complete with images of choking children) was faked? Or that Assad is being framed as the guilty party?

Because if so, a) have the guts to say it outright, and b) provide evidence or concede.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, fuck...

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/relations-r ... -1.3359073

WASHINGTON -- After U.S. President Donald Trump's election victory, the United States and Russia appeared headed toward their smoothest ties in decades. Not anymore.
The former Cold War adversaries are once again spiraling into confrontation, punctuated by a U.S. attack on a military base controlled by Syrian President Bashar Assad, Russia's client. No longer optimistic about a "reset" in relations, the U.S. and Russia openly bashed each other Friday, trading caustic accusations about who violated international law.
"That's it. The last remaining election fog has lifted," Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev wrote on Facebook on Friday, declaring U.S.-Russian relations "completely ruined." He said Washington came dangerously close to "a military clash" with nuclear-armed Moscow by firing 59 cruise missiles on the Shayrat air base. Trump said Assad's forces launched a gruesome chemical weapons attack from the site earlier in the week.
RELATED STORIES
Trump's 180 on attacking Assad forces in Syria
U.S. missile strike could resonate beyond Syria
Timeline of key developments since 2011 in the conflict in Syria
Latest: Clinton says airstrikes are at odds with refugee ban
Trudeau convinced by U.S. info that Assad was behind gas attack
Canadian-Syrian group expresses surprise, relief at U.S. airstrikes
U.S. strike on Syria is widely praised, but angers Russia
Relations 'ruined': U.S., Russia trade accusations
Trump's Syria strike comes with diplomatic risks
Trump presents an overnight evolution in stance on Syria
Syrian strikes add to list of 21st century U.S. military forays
Trump launches U.S. missile strike against Syria
PHOTOS
On the deck of the U.S.S. Dwight D. Eisenhower
In this Nov. 22, 2016 file photo, U.S. Navy sailors stand by fighter jets on the deck of the U.S.S. Dwight D. Eisenhower. The carrier is currently deployed in the Persian Gulf, supporting Operation Inherent Resolve. (Petr David Josek / AP)
Russian planes at Hemeimeem air base
Russian fighter jets and bombers are parked at Hemeimeem air base in Syria, on June 18, 2016. (Vadim Savitsky / Russian Defense Ministry Press Service pool photo via AP)
Trump's intervention, designed to punish Assad, was the clearest demonstration of his willingness to challenge Russian President Vladimir Putin -- and in a way no American leader has in a long time.
Trump's praise for Putin, questionable assertions about Russia's military activity in Ukraine and Syria, and insistence on a new relationship with Moscow had generated the perception that the billionaire businessman wouldn't cross the former KGB agent. It's a perception that gained added currency as various U.S. investigations gained steam into possible collusion on election meddling between Trump's presidential campaign and Russian intelligence.
Now the question is if Putin will feel compelled to prove he can't be crossed with impunity.
Hours after the airstrikes, Russia announced it was severing a hotline the two countries have used since 2015 to ensure their aircraft don't accidentally clash in Syria's crowded skies. By midday Friday, the U.S. insisted that Russia would keep the "deconfliction" channel open. Russia then insisted the line would be suspended midnight Saturday in Moscow.
But Trump's administration shot back, as senior U.S. military officials said they were investigating whether Russia was complicit in the Syrian military's use of a sarin-like nerve gas, possibly by providing drone surveillance and helping Assad's forces try to cover up the attack. At the U.N. Security Council, U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley mocked Moscow for failing to rid Syria of chemical weapons under a 2013 deal.
"It could be that the Assad regime is playing the Russians for fools," Haley said.
Less than three months into Trump's administration, prospects have all but evaporated for collaboration with Russia on fighting the Islamic State group, reducing arms stockpiles and lowering tensions in Eastern Europe.
A key test of whether the relationship can be salvaged comes next week when Secretary of State Rex Tillerson becomes the first Trump Cabinet member to visit Russia. Tillerson may get an audience with Putin himself.
Despite the breakdown over Syria, where Russia has a significant military presence, U.S. officials insisted Tillerson's highly anticipated trip was still on. As top U.S. and Russian representatives raged against each other in public, their planning for the Moscow trip has continued without issue, said the officials, who weren't authorized to discuss private diplomatic conversations and requested anonymity.
For Tillerson, the trip is even more delicate than before: He must find a way to show the U.S. can stand up to Russia and safeguard elements of co-operation at the same time. He must also be prepared to deal with the notoriously unpredictable Putin, known for making guests feel uncomfortable when he wants to express displeasure.
"Let him come and tell us what they have been up to today," Maria Zakharova, the Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, told Russian television. "We will tell them everything that we think on this score."
If Putin is looking for a way to even the score, it might not be in Syria, said Julianne Smith, a former National Security Council and Defence Department official now at the Center for a New American Security. Faced with challenges to his country's dignity, she said, Putin always thinks in "asymmetric terms."
"We should be watching eastern Ukraine, we should be watching for a cyberattack, another drip-drip-drip of WikiLeaks," she said. "There's all sorts of things they can do."
Relations with Russia have deteriorated since its 2014 annexation of Ukraine's Crimea region and assistance for pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine. The Obama administration and Western countries slapped Moscow with severe economic sanctions that failed to get Russia to change course.
Central to the FBI and congressional investigations into Russia's election meddling are concerns that Trump, through his associates, may have signalled to Russia that he would lift the sanctions after taking office. Trump has denied that claim. It now appears unlikely the sanctions could be lifted anytime soon.
In Syria, at least, the two countries have strenuously avoided direct confrontation, even as their militaries support opposing sides in a six-year civil war. To Washington's relief, Russia said none of its troops were killed in Thursday night's strikes. Syria's military said seven of its own troops were killed.
But in response, Russia said it would strengthen Syrian air defences, already bolstered by Russia over the last year. Doing so raises the likelihood of a more serious military confrontation if Assad uses chemical weapons again and Trump feels compelled to respond.
AP Diplomatic Writer Matthew Lee in Washington and AP writer Vladimir Isachenkov in Moscow contributed to this report

Also reports that Russia is sending a warship to the region.

[Elfdart]

Are you implying that the gas attack (complete with images of choking children) was faked? Or that Assad is being framed as the guilty party?

Because if so, a) have the guts to say it outright, and b) provide evidence or concede.

You're going to get a severe case of carpal tunnel, clutching those pearls so hard. If you're prone to hyperventilating, grab your puffer and have it ready as I explain The Fact Of Life to you, Tootie:

1) The National Security State and its fluffers have such a well-documented track record of lying this country into war after war, that were I a gambling man, I would bet a least a few bucks on the possibility probability that the "Assad did it" story* is horseshit. Do I know for a fact that this is a hoax like Yellow Rain, the Gulf of Tonkin "incident", the Kuwait baby incubator story or the doozy about Iraq having WMDs and being in cahoots with Bin Laden? No, but last time I checked, it wasn't up to me to prove a negative. Besides, the fact that Don Corleorange insists the story is true gives me more than enough valid reason to doubt it.

*Not that I'd put it past him, but why would he give outsiders an excuse to fire a single round in his direction when, thanks to the Russians, Iranians and Hezbollah, he was winning the war?

2) A claim that is presented without evidence can and should be rejected without evidence. Until genuine toxicology tests are done on the victims, there is no evidence. People suffocate and/or die from toxic fumes in regular house fires. In a war zone like Syria, where countless buildings are being torched on a regular basis and where entire families and neighborhoods might cram into a single building to take cover from bullets and bombs, one explosion/fire can easily kill the lot (like the mosque full of civilians Drumpf blew up recently).

[The Romulan Republic]

Are you implying that the gas attack (complete with images of choking children) was faked? Or that Assad is being framed as the guilty party?

Because if so, a) have the guts to say it outright, and b) provide evidence or concede.

You're going to get a severe case of carpal tunnel, clutching those pearls so hard. If you're prone to hyperventilating, grab your puffer and have it ready as I explain The Fact Of Life to you, Tootie:

Oh go fuck yourself. Nothing I said was "hyperventilating". It was a reasonable question based on what you posted, and your subsequent comments make it clear that I was right about what you were implying, and about your unwillingness to be up front about it.

But because I have a reputation for "hyperventilating", some people find it a lazy cheap shot to use whenever they disagree with me, which only reinforces said reputation.

1) The National Security State and its fluffers have such a well-documented track record of lying this country into war after war, that were I a gambling man, I would bet a least a few bucks on the possibility probability that the "Assad did it" story* is horseshit. Do I know for a fact that this is a hoax like Yellow Rain, the Gulf of Tonkin "incident", the Kuwait baby incubator story or the doozy about Iraq having WMDs and being in cahoots with Bin Laden? No, but last time I checked, it wasn't up to me to prove a negative. Besides, the fact that Don Corleorange insists the story is true gives me more than enough valid reason to doubt it.

You're a fucking weasel.

This is why I called you out and demanded you say what you meant and prove it: because you are insinuating a conspiracy theory which you admit you cannot prove. And then, because you didn't explicitly say it (even though the implication is clear), hiding behind "you can't make me prove a negative."

Yeah, its possible that their's some bullshitting going on. It is even possible, to the best of my knowledge, that Assad didn't do it. However, he is the most likely guilty party based on his track record and the situation, and certainly the comparison to "Yellow Rain" is absurd, because it only makes sense if you are suggesting that no gassing occurred, which is a whole different level from "they got the wrong guilty party".

*Not that I'd put it past him, but why would he give outsiders an excuse to fire a single round in his direction when, thanks to the Russians, Iranians and Hezbollah, he was winning the war?

Because big brother Vladimir has his back, and dictators are not generally known for their carefully measured and restrained response towards revolts?

2) A claim that is presented without evidence can and should be rejected without evidence. Until genuine toxicology tests are done on the victims, there is no evidence. People suffocate and/or die from toxic fumes in regular house fires. In a war zone like Syria, where countless buildings are being torched on a regular basis and where entire families and neighborhoods might cram into a single building to take cover from bullets and bombs, one explosion/fire can easily kill the lot (like the mosque full of civilians Drumpf blew up recently).

Can I absolutely prove it was Assad? No. But at the same time, if you are going to allege a deliberate conspiracy, I'd say you should also have some basis for that claim.

[MKSheppard]

Are you implying that the gas attack (complete with images of choking children) was faked?

[MKSheppard]

Hey wait a minute. Does this mean.....

<singing>
Elfdart and Shep in a tree....kissing... K-I-S-S-I-N-G
</singing>

[MKSheppard]

<DEL> stupid argh

[The Romulan Republic]

Allegation that the attack was faked by "Al Qaida terrorists" (because obviously anyone who's against Assad is actually a terrorist- gotta parrot the Kremlin/Assad line), based on a single image from an unknown source and a dubious assumption (that responders in Syria would have access to the same gear that responders in Tokyo would).

You are operating on the level of 9/11 Truthers, or that shit bag Alex Jones claiming Sandy Hook was a false flag attack with actors playing the dead children. Since when was that level of shameless conspiracy theorist "debating" acceptable on this board?

Edit: I mean, Christ. I oppose this strike. And yet I cannot feel any sympathy for anyone else who criticizes it, because for some reason it seems to be obligatory now that if you do so, you also have to repeat Kremlin talking points and pretend Assad is just being framed by Islamist terrorists

[MKSheppard]

I would bet a least a few bucks on the possibility probability that the "Assad did it" story* is horseshit.

Back in 2013; the Rebels faked a gas attack to try and get Obama to intervene in Syria. What's to say they didn't do another fake gas attack to get Trump to intervene?

I mean; look at the photos -- they show all the signs of staged Arabwood propaganda. If a nerve agent was actually used, why is everyone in that photo not suffering from latent/mild exposure to nerve agents due to improper PPE?

So far, the only semi-authoritative source that says nerve agents were used are autopsies conducted by Turkish groups, which are known islamist sympathizers.

[MKSheppard]

Allegation that the attack was faked by "Al Qaida terrorists" (because obviously anyone who's against Assad is actually a terrorist- gotta parrot the Kremlin/Assad line)

But they are, you stupid hat-fucker.

This "attack" occurred in Idlib Province. What's so special about it?

Wiki:
As of late February 2016, the governorate is almost entirely under control of the Syrian rebels together with Al-Nusra, barring a small government pocket controlling the towns of Fu'ah and Kafraya just outside Idlib city.

The town is Khan Shaykhun...

Wiki:
During the Syrian Civil War, the town initially fell under control of the Syrian opposition, and later, in 2014 fell to Jabhat al-Nusra.[12] Deutsche Welle reported: "Idlib province, where Khan Sheikhun is located, is mostly controlled by the Tahrir al-Sham alliance, which is dominated by the Fateh al-Sham Front, formerly known as the al-Qaeda affiliated al-Nusra Front."

They're all Al Quaeda.

[The Romulan Republic]

Its an Al Qaeda-controlled area. Fair enough (though I'll note that you have again provided no source for your claims).

That doesn't necessarily prove that the people in the unsourced picture you posted are Al Qaeda, or that Al Qaeda faked the attack.

Granted, I'd take nothing from the Turkish government at face value. But that said, I'd like to see more evidence if people are going to allege a hoax. Just falling back on generalizations is not terribly compelling.

Edit: I also want to reiterate that I am not advocating in favour of Trump's strike, or deposing Assad by force. I believe that Assad is a monster and that were it practical, we would have every right to do so morally, but that due to the corruption and incompetence of our current government, and Putin's support of Assad, the risks of doing so are in practice too high. Weather or not this chemical attack was perpetrated by Assad will not change either of those positions. My sole motive here is my frustration with the poor quality of the arguments being made against it.

[Broomstick]

Are you implying that the gas attack (complete with images of choking children) was faked?

I've been seeing images like that since the attack.

Perhaps those distributing this argument should consider that the attack in Tokyo occurred in a city at peace with a well-equipped first responder force and intact infrastructure, and the attack in Syria occurred in a bombed, rubble-filled city with the responders using cobbled-together resources. If you don't have official hazmat gear hosing down victims - which we see here - is actually a proper response. Same concept as hazard showers in industrial settings for rapidly washing off victims of chemical accidents.

[The Romulan Republic]

Indeed.

Again, I'm not saying that the strike, or deposing Assad, is a good idea. I'm not even saying that Assad was necessarily guilty of launching a chemical attack a couple of days ago.

I just wish the people making those arguments would have the dignity and intelligence to make their case based on something more than poorly-supported conspiracy theories, vague assumptions, evasion, or spouting Kremlin/Assad talking points. I mean, you can make perfectly valid arguments against Trump's actions without doing any of that.

[Mange]

I would bet a least a few bucks on the possibility probability that the "Assad did it" story* is horseshit.

Back in 2013; the Rebels faked a gas attack to try and get Obama to intervene in Syria. What's to say they didn't do another fake gas attack to get Trump to intervene?

Which 'faked gas attack' are you referring to?

[Formless]

Perhaps those distributing this argument should consider that the attack in Tokyo occurred in a city at peace with a well-equipped first responder force and intact infrastructure, and the attack in Syria occurred in a bombed, rubble-filled city with the responders using cobbled-together resources. If you don't have official hazmat gear hosing down victims - which we see here - is actually a proper response. Same concept as hazard showers in industrial settings for rapidly washing off victims of chemical accidents.

Broomstick, the point he is making is that those men should be fucking dying if this were sarin gas. They aren't even wearing fucking RUBBER GLOVES and they are handling bodies supposedly exposed to sarin! Surely they can afford that much protection? Sarin doesn't attack the lungs like these idiot hoaxers want you to think, sarin can kill you by being absorbed through the skin. The whole reason the people who developed sarin in the west liked the stuff is that its way more dangerous than things like mustard gas; sarin is an area denial weapon. Wearing anything LESS than the rubber suits the Tokyo authorities wore will make it worse, because the chemical will absorb into cloth and increase your exposure. This is such a well known weapon that anyone can look up its effects and lethal dosage on wikipedia, and guess what? Its doesn't take much. Hosing it down just isn't enough.

You people would have been fooled by Colin Powel holding up a bag full of "anthrax" back when they were pushing for the Iraq war. You should be ashamed of that.

[Formless]

Ghetto edit: also, sarin is an oily chemical that is water insoluble. That's why you can't simply wash it away with a firehose. edit wait, scratch that, I said you can look this up on wikipedia and it says that it is actually miscible with water. However, I still maintain that it wouldn't do any good because its not like acid safety where concentration in water matters. You would still have sarin mixed with water. Not a safe combination when the lethal dose for sarin is so damn low.

[Broomstick]

I thought it wasn't determined for certain it was sarin - admittedly, I have been a bit distracted this week and may not be entirely caught up with the news.

I'll also point out that while the rescuers in Japan used hazmat suits, not everyone exposed to sarin in the 1995 subway attack died. There were 12 fatalities, 50 or so injuries listed as severe, and several thousand who experienced lighter symptoms. So no, lack of a hazmat suit is NOT instantly fatal, based upon prior attacks in other places

[Formless]

Its claimed to be sarin. That claim is extremely dubious, especially since they always claim that its sarin. Sarin is relatively easy to make, but believe it or not the US developed even more dangerous chemicals. I think that's why I misremembered sarin to be oily and immiscible with water.

Yes, only a few people in the Tokyo subway attack died. However, that's because the Aum cult had the world's crudest method of delivering the weapon-- they literally just had plastic bags full of liquid sarin and had cult members stab the bags with pens and pocket knives. I'm also pretty sure their own cult members were injured by this. So then you had small pools of sarin on the floor evaporating (and sarin happens to be very volatile as well). Had their members just started stabbing people they probably could have killed just as many, although the number of people injured by the gas was in the hundreds. We're talking seizures and permanent nerve damage. This kind of damage is seen at even low dosages and exposure, and it happens within minutes.

The Tokyo subway attack is a testament to how dangerous and how potent Sarin is, especially in light of how crudely done it was. A properly built military delivery system for sarin would be far more dangerous, and again be designed to be as difficult to clean up as possible. Hell, even a crude bomb filled with sarin would be more dangerous than the Tokyo attack.

[K. A. Pital]

Sarin is a very dangerous and lethal weapon. I have no idea who or what kind of intelligence games are being played at the moment, but what Formless says is true. Even small concentrations of sarin in the air are very dangerous and I have no idea how a non-protected person wouldn't be crippled by the thing, and using water on an agent that is extremely dangerous when evaporating, even in miniscule concentrations... ???

Maybe Sea Skimmer, our resident expert on murder, slaughter and killing by way of modern weapons, could weigh in on that?