The PokéCommunity Forums Off-Topic Discussions Deep Discussion
News Strike on Syrian Chemical

Deep Discussion Have a seat at Deep Discussion for in-depth discussions, extended or serious conversations, and current events. From world news to talks on life, growing up, relationships, and issues in society, this is the place to be. Come be a knight.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1    
Old 1 Week Ago (8:53 PM).
Vragon2.0's Avatar
Vragon2.0 Vragon2.0 is offline
     
    Join Date: Mar 2018
    Posts: 46
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/13/world/middleeast/trump-strikes-syria-attack.html
    This is an article by the New York Times so feel free to treat opinions with scrutiny. This is merely a thread to talk about it and whatnot.

    if you ask my opinion, this action done by the US, Britain and France is a bad move. While they say they have concrete evidence that links the Regime to being responsible for the chemical gas attack near Damascus last weekend. I have issues with this, but namely these three.
    1) If you have supposed "concrete evidence" that links the regime to this attack then why did you enact before revealing the connection? At this point it's acting on something you haven't and currently refuse to share which is shady if not reckless
    2) If you had done 1 there would be the matter regarding Russia. Now Russia has said they don't approve of all that the Bashar al-Assad regime does so after showing the evidence it would be better to conduct talks with Russia regarding this.
    3) This is about a chemical attack in Damascus and is something to ask about, "is it worth risking a plausible missile exchange with Russia over this?" I don't condone the actions by these attacks if they are indeed linked to this leader, however this situation will need to be handled carefully and ultimately a concern you better hope has plenty of actions for it.

    Anyway those are my thoughts. Have fun!
    Reply With Quote

    Relevant Advertising!

      #2    
    Old 1 Week Ago (5:32 AM). Edited 1 Week Ago by strangerhypno.
    strangerhypno's Avatar
    strangerhypno strangerhypno is online now
       
      Join Date: Jul 2017
      Posts: 1,353
      I wouldn't be surprised Assad's regime did do it. Russia saying they don't approve doesn't mean they actually don't approve, Russia is pretty corrupt itself. I don't see what talks can lead to with them, but I guess it's better than a missile exchange.

      I hope some good prevails in the end in of all this conflict.
      Reply With Quote
        #3    
      Old 1 Week Ago (12:04 PM).
      Bidoof FTW's Avatar
      Bidoof FTW Bidoof FTW is offline
      Bidoof is Pretty Rad
       
      Join Date: Nov 2013
      Location: Sinnoh
      Gender: Male
      Nature: Relaxed
      Posts: 3,263
      Russia called an emergency UN Council meeting today so hopefully we'll get some good news out of that.

      I just want to be done with Syria, Trump recently talked about pulling troops out and to see a missile strike by 3 major powers just makes me so uncomfortable. The sooner this conflict is over, the better.
      __________________
      Reply With Quote
        #4    
      Old 1 Week Ago (3:46 PM). Edited 5 Days Ago by FreakyLocz14.
      FreakyLocz14's Avatar
      FreakyLocz14 FreakyLocz14 is offline
      Conservative Patriot
       
      Join Date: Jun 2009
      Gender: Male
      Nature: Jolly
      Posts: 3,494
      This is terrible. The US President needs to get the authorization of Congress to commit acts of war. I don't know about the UK and French requirements, but Jeremy Corbyn seems to be saying that May needed to get the approval of Parliament for the UK to participate.
      Reply With Quote
        #5    
      Old 1 Week Ago (11:07 AM).
      Nick's Avatar
      Nick Nick is offline
      We come close to find Singularity
       
      Join Date: Nov 2009
      Location: Research Triangle
      Age: 20
      Gender: Male
      Nature: Adamant
      Posts: 5,317
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by strangerhypno View Post
      I wouldn't be surprised Assad's regime did do it. Russia saying they don't approve doesn't mean they actually don't approve, Russia is pretty corrupt itself. I don't see what talks can lead to with them, but I guess it's better than a missile exchange.
      Yeah, that is what the western establishment would like for you to believe. The logic actually follows somewhat like this:
      1. Assad is accused of using chemical weapons against his own people by the Western Bloc. No hard evidence is provided, and Western Bloc could be lying.
      2. Eastern Bloc interjects and says the Western Bloc is lying, also providing no hard evidence. Eastern Bloc could also be lying just as well.
      3. Since there is no hard evidence linking Assad to the attack, the finger-pointing becomes irrelevant as neither party is to be trusted.
      4. With the Blocs out of the way, we examine Assad and Syria to find that he has little or nothing to gain by attacking his people with chemical weapons, and a lot to lose by doing so. So why would he do that?

      Regardless of who says what, the logic forming the accusations against Assad isn’t there. He has everything to lose to do something so reckless and stupid in a civil war like this, so assuming Assad is capable of acting in his own interests, which for his entire past career he pretty much has been, then he would not do this.

      Of course, we don’t know for a fact what happened either way. For now, the chemical attacks are completely unexplained and the only big answers being pushed by the Blocs have no significant evidence and expect the public to take their word on the matter.
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Bidoof FTW View Post
      Russia called an emergency UN Council meeting today so hopefully we'll get some good news out of that.

      I just want to be done with Syria, Trump recently talked about pulling troops out and to see a missile strike by 3 major powers just makes me so uncomfortable. The sooner this conflict is over, the better.
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 View Post
      This is terrible. The US President needs to get the authorization of Congress to commit acts of war. I don't know about the UK ad French requirements, but Jeremy Corbyn seems to be saying that May needed to get the approval of Parliament for the UK to participate.
      People wanted to be done with Syria seven years ago, as President Obama began moving in to go to war with them. And like Obama, Trump seems to be following the same exact pattern: “We are going to war with Syria,” “I do not need Congressional approval,” “Assad absolutely did use chemical weapons [ad nauseam],” et cetera.

      The Presidents are checked by nobody, and for wartime purposes have as much power as an Emperor would to carry out their will. They count on the fact that the public won’t really care about the war that much, as long as they’re not personally inconvenienced, and in all likelihood they’re probably right on the money and prove it by getting reelected. They’ll continue doing what they want, making messes and leaving millions to waste away, and check right out on inauguration day like nothing happened as the next guy inherits their mess.
      __________________
      <Signature user="Alexander" />
      Reply With Quote
        #6    
      Old 6 Days Ago (3:18 PM).
      strangerhypno's Avatar
      strangerhypno strangerhypno is online now
         
        Join Date: Jul 2017
        Posts: 1,353
        Quote:
        Originally Posted by Nick View Post
        Yeah, that is what the western establishment would like for you to believe. The logic actually follows somewhat like this:
        1. Assad is accused of using chemical weapons against his own people by the Western Bloc. No hard evidence is provided, and Western Bloc could be lying.
        2. Eastern Bloc interjects and says the Western Bloc is lying, also providing no hard evidence. Eastern Bloc could also be lying just as well.
        3. Since there is no hard evidence linking Assad to the attack, the finger-pointing becomes irrelevant as neither party is to be trusted.
        4. With the Blocs out of the way, we examine Assad and Syria to find that he has little or nothing to gain by attacking his people with chemical weapons, and a lot to lose by doing so. So why would he do that?

        Regardless of who says what, the logic forming the accusations against Assad isn’t there. He has everything to lose to do something so reckless and stupid in a civil war like this, so assuming Assad is capable of acting in his own interests, which for his entire past career he pretty much has been, then he would not do this.

        Of course, we don’t know for a fact what happened either way. For now, the chemical attacks are completely unexplained and the only big answers being pushed by the Blocs have no significant evidence and expect the public to take their word on the matter.
        There's no evidence indicating that he wouldn't attack his people. Do you trust the word of the people running U.S. or the words of Russia and Assad? It's not like Russia and Syria are stable countries right now.

        If I'm being played for like a fool that's fine, then I am a fool. But for now I'd like to believe that the U.S. has a good reason for what it's doing.
        Reply With Quote
          #7    
        Old 6 Days Ago (4:17 PM).
        Vragon2.0's Avatar
        Vragon2.0 Vragon2.0 is offline
           
          Join Date: Mar 2018
          Posts: 46
          Quote:
          Originally Posted by strangerhypno View Post
          There's no evidence indicating that he wouldn't attack his people. Do you trust the word of the people running U.S. or the words of Russia and Assad? It's not like Russia and Syria are stable countries right now.

          If I'm being played for like a fool that's fine, then I am a fool. But for now I'd like to believe that the U.S. has a good reason for what it's doing.
          While they say they have concrete evidence that links the Regime to being responsible for the chemical gas attack near Damascus last weekend.

          1) If you have supposed "concrete evidence" that links the regime to this attack then why did you enact before revealing the connection? At this point it's acting on something you haven't and currently refuse to share which is shady if not reckless


          Wanting to trust something doesn't equate to it being trust material. Fact is they say they have evidence, but haven't showed it. Another thing is that cons outweigh the pros in doing this against Syria. Frankly, even if Russia is lying, even if they're telling the truth, even if they show it, even if the regime is worse then they already are...is it worth staying in a war with Syria and potentially getting into a conflict with Russia just to, "have a moral obligation"?
          Reply With Quote
            #8    
          Old 6 Days Ago (7:19 PM).
          strangerhypno's Avatar
          strangerhypno strangerhypno is online now
             
            Join Date: Jul 2017
            Posts: 1,353
            I see what you mean. The last thing we need is another conflict especially with Russia's ICBMs, but I guess we'll have to wait and see how things progress from here.
            Reply With Quote
              #9    
            Old 6 Days Ago (7:33 PM). Edited 6 Days Ago by Nick.
            Nick's Avatar
            Nick Nick is offline
            We come close to find Singularity
             
            Join Date: Nov 2009
            Location: Research Triangle
            Age: 20
            Gender: Male
            Nature: Adamant
            Posts: 5,317
            Quote:
            Originally Posted by strangerhypno View Post
            There's no evidence indicating that he wouldn't attack his people. Do you trust the word of the people running U.S. or the words of Russia and Assad? It's not like Russia and Syria are stable countries right now.
            I trust neither blöc's word on the matter because there's entirely too much at stake for honesty to be floating at the forefront of developments on the matter, and the absence of evidence is precisely why.

            There is no evidence indicating that Assad wouldn't attack his people, and there is no evidence indicating that he would. Occam's razor, therefore, says he did not, because there are more assumptions that need to be made to say he did than there would be otherwise. Both blöcs are telling everybody in a cacophony that he did or didn't and neither have shifted the burden of proof anywhere, because what they say isn't necessarily what has taken place.

            Also, in the context of the chemical attacks, the assumption that he is responsible for them is what I am cutting out with the razor. It is better to say, we do not know who did those for certain yet, and consider a list of suspects of which the US, Russia, Assad and others are undoubtedly members of. Vragon brings up another interesting point to do with evidence, which is to say that if there was any hard evidence had on the Western Blöc's side linking Assad to the crime, then they have every reason to disspell that now, yet haven't for whatever reason. It suggests that they actually have no hard evidence whatsoever and would like for people to believe them regardless of that.
            __________________
            <Signature user="Alexander" />
            Reply With Quote
              #10    
            Old 6 Days Ago (7:44 PM).
            strangerhypno's Avatar
            strangerhypno strangerhypno is online now
               
              Join Date: Jul 2017
              Posts: 1,353
              I concede, there's nothing concrete to go on. It's all maybes at this point. Seems like Assad has no reason to attack his people. But nevertheless, there's the possibility that he did it, since he is a shady guy.
              Reply With Quote
                #11    
              Old 6 Days Ago (10:17 PM).
              Vragon2.0's Avatar
              Vragon2.0 Vragon2.0 is offline
                 
                Join Date: Mar 2018
                Posts: 46
                Quote:
                Originally Posted by strangerhypno View Post
                I concede, there's nothing concrete to go on. It's all maybes at this point. Seems like Assad has no reason to attack his people. But nevertheless, there's the possibility that he did it, since he is a shady guy.
                So let's say for the sake of speculation he did. Then what? What would be the justification of the missile strike when the peeps don't want to go to war to Syria and is in fact one of the reasons Trump was so popular, that being wanting to get out of foreign wars?

                The fact is that even if this is true, this "moral obligation" excuse isn't a good enough reason to take the risks. Unless there's an ulterior motive regarding Syria or some benefit they aren't elaborating on, there isn't much point.
                Reply With Quote
                  #12    
                Old 6 Days Ago (4:49 AM). Edited 6 Days Ago by Nah.
                Nah's Avatar
                Nah Nah is online now
                 
                Join Date: Nov 2013
                Age: 25
                Gender: Female
                Posts: 11,942
                Quote:
                Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 View Post
                This is terrible. The US President needs to get the authorization of Congress to commit acts of war. I don't know about the UK ad French requirements, but Jeremy Corbyn seems to be saying that May needed to get the approval of Parliament for the UK to participate.
                As I understand it, the strike didn't actually need Congress's approval in order to be done. It seems that the President can conduct military operations without the approval of Congress so long as a) they notify Congress 48 hours beforehand (he did) and b) said military operation(s) does not last 60 days or more without Congressional approval (it was a one day thing). Multiple presidents in the past have taken military action without getting the ok from Congress first.

                There's still the matter of whether or not it violated other laws, or if the strike should even have been conducted at all though.

                But I doubt that a lot of Americans will care if it was legal or not, or justified or not.
                __________________
                Nah ンン
                “No, I... I have to be strong. Everyone expects me to."
                Reply With Quote
                  #13    
                Old 5 Days Ago (9:41 PM).
                Kanon's Avatar
                Kanon Kanon is offline
                You've been talking, I've been all ears
                 
                Join Date: Jun 2013
                Location: Canada
                Age: 28
                Gender: Other
                Nature: Calm
                Posts: 14,633
                I didn't make this tweet but here's my super hot take
                __________________

                I am the result what's better left unspoken
                Violence begins to mend what was broken
                Reply With Quote
                  #14    
                Old 5 Days Ago (2:49 AM).
                dot hash's Avatar
                dot hash dot hash is offline
                   
                  Join Date: Mar 2015
                  Location: UK
                  Gender: Male
                  Posts: 29
                  To me, it's the same old story.
                  There are probably groups of people who are playing very large scale and long-term games with the world, they have their own desires and goals. To us, it would be impossible to really know who is the 'bad guy' in these matters. I mean it's hard to even get solid verifiable information on things that happened decades ago, let alone current developing events.

                  For us, we just get a lot of media stories and opinions based on barely any real information and mostly just made from assumptions, or made to support the story from either side. Like depending on who and where you are, you'll just get different propaganda. It seems to me like now it is very hard to ever find actual source material or documentation for most global events, it's like a big sea of 'information' that gets harder to search through every year.

                  Whatever the case, unless you're one of the people making money from weapons and violence, nothing good can come from these events. Not just from the direct damage it does to lives when international acts of aggression occur, but the long term effects on psychology for people worldwide. Many places now for many people in the world, there is no certainty they can even have any kind of life. How can you work to improve yourself and your community if you don't even know in 10 years who will be running things, who will be worshiped and who will be demonised, will your town or state even exist? What will even be right or wrong for anyone in such a volatile and confusing situation? It's impossible for many people to ever feel like they will have any place in the future of the world. It's very sad if you think too much about it.
                  __________________
                  If I'm talking a lot, tell me to stop squandering my free time, and to go and work on my hack!
                  Reply With Quote
                  Reply

                  Quick Reply

                  Join the conversation!

                  Create an account to post a reply in this thread, participate in other discussions, and more!

                  Create a PokéCommunity Account

                  Sponsored Links
                  Thread Tools

                  Posting Rules
                  You may not post new threads
                  You may not post replies
                  You may not post attachments
                  You may not edit your posts

                  BB code is On
                  Smilies are On
                  [IMG] code is On
                  HTML code is Off
                  Minimum Characters Per Post: 25

                  Forum Jump


                  All times are GMT -8. The time now is 1:26 PM.