US vs Russia

[_Robert_Participant]

Looks like we are all set for ego maniacs to bring us to war over Syria.

[JadeBlackOliveParticipant]

….And open for N. Korea…….

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Don’t look at Mueller, look over here!! Over 400,000 Syrians have been killed over the last 7 years. Over 5 million have fled the country and over 6 million are internally displaced. Over 1000 killed and about 5000 injured in Eastern Ghouta by the Syrian government in the last 6 weeks. Nothing done. Now about 50 are killed by gas and the world is disgusted and only now prepared to act? Fuck the morals behind that line of thinking.

[Tom SarbeckParticipant]

Does anyone else remember that, during the Cold War between capitalism and communism, when many people feared that nuclear war was imminent, Red China’s ruler remarked that China could afford to lose half of their six hundred thousand population?

They could afford to lose more than America’s entire population.

With the earth’s population now nearing 7.3 billion and growing, I see little reason to remark on the loss of only 400,000. I don’t want to go to war for so few.

 

[StregaModerator]

I’m with Reg.  Fuck that way of thinking

[tom sarbeckParticipant]

Fuck growing the population.

 

[_Robert_Participant]

Human population exactly follows our energy/food production capabilities. Conventional wars often result in a population explosion (e.g. the baby boom). No one really knows what the final result would be if Russia and the US exchanged nuclear arms. Of course millions would die from the immediate effects, but the impact on water and food supply may be even worse.

At some point in the next 50 to 100 years we could hit the planetary limit to support human population growth anyway. Religion has a hand in this irresponsible growth for sure. I don’t pretend to understand what this limit means except that the poorer regions will undoubtable suffer disproportionally.

As for the Syrian civil war cluster-phuck there is nothing to do but help the civilians when possible.

 

[NoelParticipant]

On a port of call at then Cubi Pt. Naval base in the Phillipines, back around 1980, spoke with a U.S submariner who joked that the Soviets submarine tech was so lousy we could hear their diesel engines in the Black Sea fire up with sensors in the Caribbean.

With that said this is all saber rattling on the part of Putin and Trump. Oh, and neither one of those two assholes gives a rats ass about the human toll in Syria. Come to think of it neither does the Arab League. You haven’t heard a peep from them. You know who does care? Israel. They see it as survival from the likes of Iran who have planes and soldiers in Syria. It’s why they bombed the crap out of one of the Syrian bases killing Iranian troops. And please don’t get me wrong, I don’t agree with the Israeli policy of shooting protesters cause they can. There self survival instinct is fucking warped.

I agree with everything you just said Reg. Those poor people in Syria. Their leader is the biggest asshole on the planet next to Trump and Putin and there isn’t anything they can do about that. When the bombs start falling to help those people they better duck because they’ll probably be falling on them.  This is a battle between men with little dicks. Trust me, I know a thing or two about ego and augmenting for lack of size. It’s why i ride a Harley…LOL!

I live by the mantra of “Ease the pain”. If I see someone fall I help them up, If someone’s hungry feed them, if someone is crying try and ease their pain. The leaders that be don’t live by that. They can give a rats ass….

[PopeBeanieModerator]

Adding to the negative, a TrumPutin world oligarchy could even be playing the world just to grow itself. I don’t think Trump’s smart enough to succeed like Putin, but he can leave behind a trail of super-rich bastards before USA recovers to elevate its good natured core. Just hope a war or two won’t engage most of us in the flag-waving, re-elect the war hawk, sky-is-falling mentality again.

[_Robert_Participant]

Post-WW2 major US military interventions in Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan…..all FAILs. Hearts and minds, hearts and minds. Can’t win that with guns and bombs. If the US or any major power intervenes in a relatively large country with violence, it had better be prepared for a complete conquering, long-term occupation with millions of troops and rebuild operation for decades.

• This reply was modified 6 years, 6 months ago by  _Robert_.

[David BootsParticipant]

This strike seems to be completely illegal. Under international law as I understand it, there exist only three ways force is allowed by one state in another state’s territory. The first is by mandate of the security council. The second is in self defence. And the third is where a population is in danger of imminent destruction.

Here there was no mandate, no imminent danger, and no population was in danger of imminent destruction. I would also make the following two cynical observations:

1. International law precludes the use of force as a routine tool of international politics.

2. Chemical weapons allegations are a remarkably convenient tool.

[jakelafortParticipant]

What does international law have to do with anything? Nations do what the fuck they please.  We have genocides and nobody does jack shit about it.  But ya know those may have been illegal!

[David BootsParticipant]

Well for one it means a country could issue an arrest warrant for say Theresa May and seek to have it enforced.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Do you think the attack carries a bigger message to Putin than it does to Assad. I mean  the “West” has not had a coherent plan for dealing with Syria for over 7 years. This latest “strategy” will change nothing in Syria and Assad is unlikely to react. We should be concerned about how Russia will react even though I suspect (hope) it will be with rhetoric rather than any major military operation. There are too many players involved in Syria and we don’t want to see it turn into a powder keg just like the Balkans 100 years ago. The UN must be the next stop – even with the Russian veto.

[PopeBeanieModerator]

Here there was no mandate, no imminent danger, and no population was in danger of imminent destruction. I would also make the following two cynical observations:

1. International law precludes the use of force as a routine tool of international politics.

2. Chemical weapons allegations are a remarkably convenient tool.

I’d say some Syrian populations were probably in imminent danger, but I’ll grant there’s no way to know ahead of time… one can only have proof when it happens again, or take pre-emptive action. I feel (so far) this pre-emption was justified, not just for potential future Syrian casualties, but as a message to other countries as well, including Russia wrt its tacit support of chemical weapons use, and other countries thinking about it.

As for international law, good luck with Russia’s security council support on stopping use of chemical weapons. Also wrt chemical weapons, I’m in favor of the international law against it, because of its in-discriminant,  non-surgical use against innocent civilians. Even archaic bombs can be more surgical than chemicals.

Finally, armed reaction to chemical weapons allegations is not nearly as “routine” as the use of chemical weapons. And this western ally reaction was as surgical was was possible, with the explicit goal of harming as few civilians as possible, unlike the use of chemical weaponry.

[Author]

Posts