Ship of Fools: Syria

Thread: Syria Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005675

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

FUCKING HELL

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

And, of course, the White House says it's Obama's fault.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

This also happened in 2013. What you need to know about Syria and chem weapons.

Of course killing by chemicals is so much worse than killing by other military means. But how exactly?

Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
And, of course, the White House says it's Obama's fault.

It isn't?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
And, of course, the White House says it's Obama's fault.
It isn't?

If you're going to blame Obama for everything, at least get the reasons right.

(And yes: you don't make cheques with your mouth that your actions can't cash. Let the reader understand.)

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Of course killing by chemicals is so much worse than killing by other military means. But how exactly?

The main reason that I think it is worse is that it tends to leave problems for a long time into the future. More than explosives. But it is just another example of the atrocities in Syria.

It is worse possibly because it is in clear breach of international law, which Assad seems to feel is not a risk. Probably correctly.

I think the reason chemical and biological weapons are banned is because they attack people (not infrastructure) indiscriminately. They can be used to destroy populations, or armys, and leave their defences or weapons for capture. If you want to take over a town, traditionally, you have to bomb your way through it. If, instead, you can simply flood it with Sarin, and send your people in properly protected, that is much easier, much more dangerous, and totally indiscriminate.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

So was the deal that Russia swooped in with to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons program in 2013 a sham? (This was when Obama hesitated on a military intervention in response to Syria's crossing of the "Red Line" on chemical weapons use).

I thought the US and UN were pretty well assured that the elimination of Syria's chemical weapons program, despite the many other ways that Assad was and remains despicable, was genuine. If the deal was a sham, do you think Russia knew or even was complicit in covering up Syria's retention of chemical weapons?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Of course, but they are far too good at this game for us to ever know.

[ 05. April 2017, 13:26: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

It all plays so well for Lard-ass. 20 minutes ago he shot 50 missiles into a Syrian airbase. So now people can focus on the broadening of the war, unite behind their president, and the free world can fight once again for freedom. It will deflect nicely from his idiocy. Because everyone knows Syria did the nasty. Maybe he can invade now , it can be his Iraq. No impeachment now Hooray. [Help]

[ 07. April 2017, 03:13: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :

Obviously the bodies of those children in Syria still lie on the far side of Barry's red line...

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
It all plays so well for Lard-ass. 20 minutes ago he shot 50 missiles into a Syrian airbase. So now people can focus on the broadening of the war, unite behind their president, and the free world can fight once again for freedom. It will deflect nicely from his idiocy. Because everyone knows Syria did the nasty. Maybe he can invade now , it can be his Iraq. No impeachment now Hooray.

Is this his Reichstag fire, do you think?

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Oh MT, thy thoughts are a black as mine own. It will quell the anti-Lard rhetoric for weeks at least, probably months.

Or shall we bet there is another atrocity to bomb when this one fades?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

It won't. Though I, too, fear it was meant that way. (O my prophetic soul!)

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Don't forget: T has previously expressed interest in nuclear weapons...
[Paranoid]

We could sit him down to watch "War Games", but he'd most likely ignore Joshua's judgment of "Strange game: The only winning move is not to play".

Oh, and I checked: The Valley of Megiddo is not in Syria.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Folks on Facebook calling this a war crime. What are thoughts here on that?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Some members of Congress, particularly Barbara Lee, have said we need to reel this back in, decide if it's war, etc.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Folks on Facebook calling this a war crime. What are thoughts here on that?

There have been so many crimes and atrocities in this particular Theatre that many are inclined to think one more won't make a lot of difference.

Besides which the same old arguments go around and around, like.... what the fuck do we do?
Boots on ground, bomb the place flat? Produce even more conditions whereby chaos and bloodshed rules for ever and ever?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

There is some bluff and double-bluff going on here - however this morning's Russian response is interesting. It seems they might be having some buyer's remorse - Trump's WH is too chaotic to even be blackmailed effectively.

Whatever hold they had over Trump etc, it seems that his ego is bigger than it. He, and only he, can save the little children - and who cares what he previously told the Russians, what he tweeted last year (last week, this morning) about Syria, who he discussed it with in Congress or whatever else.

It's a simple way to deflect attention, and it seems a good way to get detractors like McCain onside - crank up the wars, fire some missiles.

The real question is how unstable his thoughts are, how many times he thinks he can make executive decisions without asking anyone else and, I suppose, ultimately what it will take to really piss off the Russians.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

That's the Russkies tough shit, shouldn't have helped the Donald get elected.
The Prump fumble under the duvet is over, now it's the glaring at each other across the kitchen stage. When you hear the bin-liners start to rustle then get digging.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

US intelligence must believe they have conclusive proof that Sarin or something similar was used in an air attack from that base. Sarin is a WMD and its use by a government against its own or other people is a crime under international law.

Is the US retaliatory action a crime under international law? If the Syrian air force was authorised to drop Sarin, I don't think so. Were the actions of the Syrian government a crime against international law? If they were as the US claim, undoubtedly.

And has Trump moved from an isolationist to a globalist view of the US role in the world? We'll see. At any rate, the action and the Russian response will certainly change the news focus away from his domestic challenges, including the intelligence investigations.

But I think it would be wrong to argue that the US response was motivated by domestic political considerations. Even if the Trump administration gains a bit of advantage that way. This seems more likely to be triggered by a Trump gut response. With no doubt a lot of behind the scenes discussion about what kind of proportional response might be possible and appropriate.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Folks on Facebook calling this a war crime. What are thoughts here on that?

Bombing a military base of a government which has routinely committed war crimes is not, itself, a war crime.

The major objection to intervention in Syria is that it could escalate into a regional or, God forbid, a global conflict. But stopping Assad using chemical weapons is a Good Thing. Credit where credit's due. Much as it pains me to say this, as things stand Trump has done more to stop Assad murdering his people than Obama managed. If he's done it and kept the Russians onside then he's done pretty well. OTOH, If he hasn't got the Russians onside then we could be heading into Threads territory, in which case Obama gets to say "I told you so" as long as he speaks loudly and quickly.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

.... and the Threads scenario is what prevented buttons from being pressed over a 40 year period and will again now ... provided the lunatics haven't taken over the asylum that is [Ultra confused]

Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Folks on Facebook calling this a war crime. What are thoughts here on that?
If he's done it and kept the Russians onside then he's done pretty well. OTOH, If he hasn't got the Russians onside then we could be heading into Threads territory, in which case Obama gets to say "I told you so" as long as he speaks loudly and quickly.

He hasnt and it might.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-air-strikes-syria-live-latest-updates-news-airbase-donald-trump-bashar -al-assad-regime-russia-uk-a7671586.html

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

Whatever hold they had over Trump etc, it seems that his ego is bigger than it. He, and only he, can save the little children

Oh, but not if it means letting them into our country as refugees of war.
[Mad]

sabine

[ 07. April 2017, 12:05: Message edited by: sabine ]

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

At least the important TV people are on message. Oh.... egg, meet face.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

It's a beautiful spring here in the bottom right-hand corner of the UK. We'd better make the most of it, as it might be our last...

Nice one, Chumpkin.

[Help]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

No Barnabas62. There doesn't have to any evidence of Sarin or anything else. Think Weapons of Mass Destruction. This is very happy for Lard-ass. Though he sounded brain-damaged as he hesitated between each of his horrible...words.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Much as it pains me to say this, as things stand Trump has done more to stop Assad murdering his people than Obama managed.

If we accept Trump's government's report of what happened. I am not inclined to.

quote:
If he's done it and kept the Russians onside then he's done pretty well. OTOH, If he hasn't got the Russians onside then we could be heading into Threads territory.....

The Russians have never been onside in this conflict. They have always backed Assad and we (US) have always backed the insurgents.

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
That's the Russkies tough shit, shouldn't have helped the Donald get elected.
The Prump fumble under the duvet is over, now it's the glaring at each other across the kitchen stage. When you hear the bin-liners start to rustle then get digging.

Can somebody restate this in English?

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

It's a word-picture of a typical English marriage (or relationship).

1. The sex (fumble under the duvet)
2. The arguments (glaring across the kitchen)
3. The throwing-out of one party, belongings in a black plastic bin-liner, as in the 'I've joined the Black Bin-Bag Club' often heard in pubs...).

IJ

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
US intelligence must believe they have conclusive proof that Sarin or something similar was used in an air attack from that base. Sarin is a WMD and its use by a government against its own or other people is a crime under international law.

Must they? It seems highly unlikely that this is how it went down.

---

A more likely scenario:

Trump watching Fox: gee, do you see those terrible pictures of kids dying in Syria? I gotta do something.

Turns to whichever minion is on duty during that moment: get me that military guy and whaterhisnameis who does my foreign stuff. Where's my dinner?

--- later in Trump's billiardroom ---

Trump: General, I want you to nuke this guy Assad

General: I think that would be a very bad idea, sir

Trump: Listen to me, I'm the president and I'm telling you to nuke the fuck out of Assad.
General: Sir yes sir. The problem is that we've got US military in Syria and if we drop nukes then they'll die.

Trump pauses with a fork full of steak halfway to his mouth.

Trump: so you're saying that we can't do anything? What is this, the United States of Micronesia? Haven't we got some of those kick-ass battleships near Syria

General: Yes sir. But they don't have any nuclear weapons..

Trump: OK forget the nukes. Find an airfield or some military target and bomb the fuck out of it.

General: But..

Trump: General, am I the Commander in Chief of this great nation? Am I ordering you to do something? Then get outta here and do it.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

mr cheesy, I think you've made Trump far more articulate than evidence warrants.

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
It's a word-picture of a typical English marriage (or relationship).

1. The sex (fumble under the duvet)
2. The arguments (glaring across the kitchen)
3. The throwing-out of one party, belongings in a black plastic bin-liner, as in the 'I've joined the Black Bin-Bag Club' often heard in pubs...).

Thanks. What's the digging part?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
mr cheesy, I think you've made Trump far more articulate than evidence warrants.

Possibly, but it is rather sickening to see how quickly Trump's liberal critics roll over when he starts bombing things. FFS.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Mousethief, the digging part doesn't usually occur in marriage break-ups, unless the aggrieved party has nukes to throw about.

IJ

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Tch. We aren't stupid. Have you seen the memes popping up? All of Lyin' Don's tweets from the past, pointing that Obama must must must not bomb Syria, no! There are at least a dozen tweets, and someone has neatly arranged them for posting.

What you should more properly fear is the base. Those deep-red voters who were vaguely confused and unhappy about losing all their health care and educational grants and rural benefits. They were becoming alienated. They will snap right back in line. Nothing like a virility demonstration to please the hicks. The popularity graph will go upwards. The level of dissatisfaction will drop. And, next time he needs a distraction, the Pussy Grabber will remember.

The old-school Cold Warriors were wise enough, when they needed a war, to find a conflict that was so safe as to be ridiculous. Thatcher had the Falklands; Reagan had Grenada. You might as well declare war against a cat shelter. The US invaded a Caribbean island. They won, they handed out medals by the carload, everyone was happy and Reagan got his big boost. Is Li'l Donny so wise?

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Well, if the Pussygrabber is now pissing off (or on) the Russians, somehow methinks these ridiculous (but still hateful) little wars of the past will pale into insignificance....

....and there'll be nobody left to care a toss about medals.

IJ

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

ISTM, Putin wants a Cold War. It is how he grew up, it will keep him powerful.

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :

Headline in the lead article at HuffPost:

Trump's Plan: Bomb and Ban

He'll use the "beautiful babies" as an excuse to bomb syria, but isn't much interested in actually allowing refugees of war into the country.

Hypocrisy.

sabine

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I hear that Pussygrabber's tame lapdog, Wacko Maybe (our unelected Prime Minister) fully supports the US action.

This will, I have no doubt, extend to refusing to allow the lovely little child refugees access to this country.

[Disappointed]

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Mousetheif:

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

quote:
Much as it pains me to say this, as things stand Trump has done more to stop Assad murdering his people than Obama managed.
If we accept Trump's government's report of what happened. I am not inclined to.

Which part of Trump's account is controversial? The Syrian government used chemical weapons. Trump blew up an airfield. Whether he was wise or prudent remains to be seen but the facts are hardly contested.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

It is also, whether by accident or by design, good timing when entertaining President Xi and discussing about possibly having to intervene against another unpleasant dictator - it shows that Trump means business with that sort of thing.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I agree with your broad analysis, Brenda Clough, but it's hard to see how the US could have suffered 19 killed and 116 wounded by invading a cat shelter ...

Mind you, as far as I can remember, many of the US casualties were down to mistakes, friendly fire and so on ... Marines loaded with heavy kit tend to sink when they are deposited a fair way out to sea instead of on the landing beaches ...

But yes, Grenada was hardly a risky undertaking and the temporary token ticking-off by Thatcher was soon forgiven and forgotten.

The Falklands was a riskier enterprise but once the British taskforce had landed successfully the outcome was in little doubt. And yes, 'The Falklands Factor' helped Maggie to retain power in the next Election.

[Frown]

As for Trump's latest escapade ... sure, it'll rally the hicks but it may divide some on the US Right. I've seen some very right-wing US Republicans and Libertarians I know online expressing dismay over this.

I maintain a few contacts on that side of things so I can hear view outside of my own particular bubble.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

@ mr cheesy

That's funny, but I don't think Mattis would agree to retaliate without the WMD argument. He's nobody's lapdog.

One thing is for sure. People were poisoned. And there will be evidence around of what the poison was.

So far as proportionate response is concerned, there is a pretty good dramatic reconstruction of how to handle a President who wants to make a disproportionate military response in Series 1 of The West Wing.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sabine:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

Whatever hold they had over Trump etc, it seems that his ego is bigger than it. He, and only he, can save the little children
Oh, but not if it means letting them into our country as refugees of war.

sabine

I hear you loud and clear Sabine. This is the bigger issue.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Mousethief, the digging part doesn't usually occur in marriage break-ups, unless the aggrieved party has nukes to throw about.

Thanks for that shrewd and accurate clarification of my early morning off-the-cuff analysis regardiing the current state of play between the World's two former Superpowers.

Now of course we have China to make it rather more interesting threesome.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

This is a twisty, paranoid and uncomfortable theory: that Putin knew. He let Trump have a bolstering win.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Callan--

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
OTOH, If he hasn't got the Russians onside then we could be heading into Threads territory, in which case Obama gets to say "I told you so" as long as he speaks loudly and quickly.

What is the "Threads" reference, please? Thx.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Just a little something that scared the ever-living crap out of an entire generation or three back in the mid 80s...

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Ah. Thx, Doc Tor.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Threads, and its American contemporary, The Day After, are as frightening now as they were when first produced.

I'm old enough to remember the black-and-white film The War Game, partly shot in a street close to my childhood home, and that was at first banned by the BBC in case of mass suicides taking place as a result..... [Paranoid]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I only saw Threads a few years ago. It was chilling, because it was about the effects of a nuclear strike on real people, on a real community.

Of course, this is the daily life of many in Syria today. Not nuclear weapons, but destruction raining down into communities, into normal societies.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I only saw Threads a few years ago. It was chilling, because it was about the effects of a nuclear strike on real people, on a real community.

Of course, this is the daily life of many in Syria today. Not nuclear weapons, but destruction raining down into communities, into normal societies.

I watched it for the first time in 2010 and it scared the ever-living crap out of me, partly because my dad worked in local government and I remember the discussion over tea(!) as to who got to go in the shelters and who didn't. (Dad didn't make the cut, although if Threads was any guide it wouldn't have affected his life expectancy much, either way.) If I'd seen it in 1984 when the government was planning, in all seriousness, for a nuclear war I'd have had nightmares for weeks.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I saw it the week before I started at Sheffield University. [Help]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

The USA dropped more than 26,000 bombs in 2016. About 3 bombs dropped per hour, every hour of the entire year. Mostly on Syria and Iraq, but also on Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan. Lots by drones. This kind of thing.

Which is why the chem weapons schtick is vacuous. Whose economic dominance and expansionist agenda requires the most killing?

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The USA dropped more than 26,000 bombs in 2016. About 3 bombs dropped per hour, every hour of the entire year.

That's a lot of profit for the arms dealers and manufacturers. (>$800k for one Tomahawk cruise missile.)

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Mousetheif:

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

quote:
Much as it pains me to say this, as things stand Trump has done more to stop Assad murdering his people than Obama managed.
If we accept Trump's government's report of what happened. I am not inclined to.
Which part of Trump's account is controversial? The Syrian government used chemical weapons. Trump blew up an airfield. Whether he was wise or prudent remains to be seen but the facts are hardly contested.

This is how I see it:

Obama wants to bomb Syria over chemical weapons.
Russia says they will make sure Assad has no access to chemical weapons.
Trump succeeds Obama.
Assad uses chemical weapons.
Trump bombs a Syrian military target, thus continuing with Obama's plan.

People are forgetting that Obama is a hawk.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Which part of Trump's account is controversial? The Syrian government used chemical weapons. Trump blew up an airfield. Whether he was wise or prudent remains to be seen but the facts are hardly contested.

Trump did not blow up an airfield. Within 24 hours they were taking off and landing planes again from that airfield. If you can't destroy a runway or two with 60 Tomahawk missiles, you were not actually trying to destroy the runway. I'll leave you to work out the implications of that.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Errr... 'Do that again and the next 60 Tomahawks will be aimed at your head' ?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Which part of Trump's account is controversial? The Syrian government used chemical weapons. Trump blew up an airfield. Whether he was wise or prudent remains to be seen but the facts are hardly contested.
Trump did not blow up an airfield. Within 24 hours they were taking off and landing planes again from that airfield. If you can't destroy a runway or two with 60 Tomahawk missiles, you were not actually trying to destroy the runway. I'll leave you to work out the implications of that.

It was a Trump PR exercise. He wasn't actually trying to do any lasting damage, he just spent 100M to make the point that he can order 60 penis shaped things to another country, and nobody can stop him.

Apparently, he has raised a pile of money for his campaign on the back of this, so it worked.

He doesn't care about the Syrians. He doesn't care about anyone or anything else, except making himself money, and being a "winner" in his own eyes.

Rarely have I seen such a total loser. He is an embarrassment to the US. And more, he is scamming the US for his personal game. Ignoring the implications, because he doesn't expect to be around to have to handle them.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

It would seem from The Guardian coverage that Tomahawks don't carry a hefty explosive payload in relation to their size and that they hit bunkers and things rather than the runway itself. There were seven civilian casualties including four children by some accounts - hit by shrapnel.

The Russians claim only 23 were on target, the US that only one went astray.

Apparently, you need hefty bombs to put runways out of action. They can be patched up fairly easily.

This was more a gesture than an attempt to put the airfield out of action.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
This is how I see it:

...
Russia says they will make sure Assad has no access to chemical weapons.
...
Assad uses chemical weapons.
...

So either Russia is unreliable, or has lost control of its client. Either way, it screams volumes that Emperor Trumperius hasn't pointed that out.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

The only thing that matters is whether the response will deter Assad in the future. He is aware, as are the Russians, that the US can do a lot more damage than that.

It's not just a gesture. It's a warning. And neither Assad not the Russians know what the US would do next if the warning is ignored. So they've been given pause for thought.

I don't know how well that will work as a play. Time will tell.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

This might be of some use:

"A human rights activist shared these ways you can help make a difference for Syrian refugees" (Hello Giggles).

In the last paragraph, there's a link to an article about how you can do something about Aleppo. (It's a few months old.)

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Russians claim only 23 were on target, the US that only one went astray.

So somewhere between the two. A bit more than half on target? Pretty appalling, given that this should have been a precision attack. 100M to demolish a few buildings is still ridiculous.

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Apparently, you need hefty bombs to put runways out of action. They can be patched up fairly easily.

You need something that will leave a big crater. The US have such things. They could have used them, but chose not to.

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
This was more a gesture than an attempt to put the airfield out of action.

It was a PR exercise for Trump supporters. It was not intended to worry Assad. It was not intended to actually cause any problems. It was just for Trump to be able to say "Look I can bomb things. I'm the best at bombing things. Nobody bombs things like me. Give me some money".

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Could be that these particular missiles were past there sell by date and just wanted using up.

AIUI Vlad the inhaler has got supersonic Cruise missles that could destroy an Allied aircraft carrier before any evasive action can be taken. [Disappointed]

[ 09. April 2017, 11:15: Message edited by: rolyn ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Oh, I don't think the Russians would use supersonic cruise missiles against US warships as part of their support for Assad. What would they gain by doing that, compared with what they would put at risk?

Mattis is used to such calculations. As are the Russian generals. This is a lot more like a military game of chicken than a PR exercise.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Russia is interested in Syria why?

Is it because of NATO moving east and the same motive for Donbass and eastern Ukraine? Disliking the relentless move east? Will Syria be in the Russian or American sphere of influence? Which means that continued chaos is in order.

The missing issue in the discussion is, as usual, economics. With pretense of ideology, being upset about atrocity, the value of life and other such ignorables when money is what this is about. Pray for these dead babies while killing other babies. It does manufacture support and consent.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The only thing that matters is whether the response will deter Assad in the future. He is aware, as are the Russians, that the US can do a lot more damage than that.

It's not just a gesture. It's a warning. And neither Assad not the Russians know what the US would do next if the warning is ignored. So they've been given pause for thought.

The scary thing is that it appears Pres Trump doesn't know either

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Killing to stop killing. Yes that makes sense. The details and discussion elsewhere is damning USA war economy and the media missile buy in. Can we have fewer than 26k bombs dropped this year? Please?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Russians claim only 23 were on target, the US that only one went astray.
So somewhere between the two. A bit more than half on target? Pretty appalling, given that this should have been a precision attack. 100M to demolish a few buildings is still ridiculous.

(snip)

It was a PR exercise for Trump supporters. It was not intended to worry Assad. It was not intended to actually cause any problems. It was just for Trump to be able to say "Look I can bomb things. I'm the best at bombing things. Nobody bombs things like me. Give me some money".

...or wiser minds in the military--perhaps those on the fighter jets--decided to give T the appearance of winning, but actually do as little killing and damage as possible...

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
...or wiser minds in the military--perhaps those on the fighter jets--decided to give T the appearance of winning, but actually do as little killing and damage as possible...

I hope not. That would be tantamount to mutiny.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Yes. But if they considered it an unlawful order, from a president gone mad, who may have been put in office by the Russians, and who is not getting any sane advice...and they don't want the US to get dragged into yet another war...

Ever see "Fail-Safe"?

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

During the war [Snore]

a significant number of german bombs fell in open farmland.
One view was that aircrews dumped them because they were pursued by British fighters, unlikely in this part of the country, the other view being that they were unwilling to kill civilians.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Interesting, rolyn.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

@ cliffdweller

In the Nixon era, deliberate use was made of the impression that Nixon was unpredictable, given to outbursts. There is evidence that Nixon encouraged the use of this tactic in foreign relations.

Likewise, Trump's unpredictability can be used to advantage by smart subordinates. And he has got a few of those. I should think that tactic has been used already.

[ 10. April 2017, 07:28: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
During the war a significant number of german bombs fell in open farmland.
One view was that aircrews dumped them because they were pursued by British fighters, unlikely in this part of the country, the other view being that they were unwilling to kill civilians.

Another is that the Germans were using an early radar bombing aid, bombing at the intersection of two radio beams. The British worked out how to interfere with this so instead of bombing towns and cities, the bombs fell in fields and woods. The Germans did the same with our bombing aids.

I'd be amazed that the Syrians don't have some kit that messes with missile guidance.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Russia is interested in Syria why?

Is it because of NATO moving east and the same motive for Donbass and eastern Ukraine? Disliking the relentless move east? Will Syria be in the Russian or American sphere of influence? Which means that continued chaos is in order.

The missing issue in the discussion is, as usual, economics. With pretense of ideology, being upset about atrocity, the value of life and other such ignorables when money is what this is about. Pray for these dead babies while killing other babies. It does manufacture support and consent.

Economics is important, but don't overlook good old fashioned national power games. Yes, the Russians have been worried for years about eastward expansion, but none of this is happening in a vacuum.

From the Russian side, they've been trying since the 19th century to get a naval base in the Mediterranean and avoid being dependent on whether the Turks will let them through the choke point that is the Dardanelles.

What was the first concession they wrung out of Assad when they started giving overt support? A Mediterranean naval base.

What's particularly interesting though is the extent to which Syria in and of itself represents an eastwards movement of NATO. The new Russian base pretty well faces the British bases on Cyprus, which have been there for over a century.

More to the point - "Russia is interested in Syria why?" - well, because it has been supplying arms to Syria ever since the optimistic days of the United Arab Republic. It saw a geostrategic opportunity in the 1950s to fill the gap left by the end of French rule - although Syria is officially Non Aligned it has always had a preponderance of Russian/Soviet kit in its inventory.

Russia is interested in Syria because it's got a handy strategic location for the Russian navy and it's a client state.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I was listening to a very scary podcast the other day about US presidential authority to launch nukes.

Spoiler: it turns out that the POTUS can single-handedly order a nuke attack and nobody has the authority to stop it. The military, in contrast, can't without presidential authority.

We've already seen Trump use conventional weapons in a very expensive and largely pointless symbolic move, how long before his hand hovers over the nuclear button?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
...or wiser minds in the military--perhaps those on the fighter jets--decided to give T the appearance of winning, but actually do as little killing and damage as possible...

No fighter jets were involved. The missiles were fired from two US Destroyers sailing in the Mediterranean.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I was listening to a very scary podcast the other day about US presidential authority to launch nukes.

Spoiler: it turns out that the POTUS can single-handedly order a nuke attack and nobody has the authority to stop it. The military, in contrast, can't without presidential authority.

We've already seen Trump use conventional weapons in a very expensive and largely pointless symbolic move, how long before his hand hovers over the nuclear button?

That's why we're afraid, yes. That's why we're mailing post cards, and marching, and knitting pussy hats. He needs to know, and to be reminded on a daily basis, that we're watching him.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
...or wiser minds in the military--perhaps those on the fighter jets--decided to give T the appearance of winning, but actually do as little killing and damage as possible...
I hope not. That would be tantamount to mutiny.

There are situations-- extreme situations, of course-- where mutiny may be the only moral course of action. It is quite possible we have entered into just such territory. I pray for such moral clarity and courage among those who hold the keys to our nuclear arsenal.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ cliffdweller

In the Nixon era, deliberate use was made of the impression that Nixon was unpredictable, given to outbursts. There is evidence that Nixon encouraged the use of this tactic in foreign relations.

Likewise, Trump's unpredictability can be used to advantage by smart subordinates. And he has got a few of those. I should think that tactic has been used already.

Also extraordinarily frightening-- given who those subordinates are, and where their interests lie.

Yes, throughout this three month nightmare I've been plagued by the impression that there are unseen forces working behind the scenes. I'm trying to cling to the gospel hope that there are unseen forces for good at work in opposition to those unseen forces of evil. Called to prayer now more than ever.

[Votive]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
There are situations-- extreme situations, of course-- where mutiny may be the only moral course of action. It is quite possible we have entered into just such territory. I pray for such moral clarity and courage among those who hold the keys to our nuclear arsenal.

According to some interviewed in that podcast I referenced above, the US military weeds out people from the job of launching nukes who have any moral qualms about following orders.

I suppose we don't know how it would play out if the order actually came, but it seems to me that the assumption from the military is that the front-line combatants will just do what they've been ordered to do and let someone else do the worrying about it.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
but it seems to me that the assumption from the military is that the front-line combatants will just do what they've been ordered to do and let someone else do the worrying about it.

The assumption is that someone else had already done the worrying about it. When the front-line people - those with the keys - authenticate the Gold Code, they have to believe that launching is necessary and the decision reached only after compelling evidence and serious, albeit brief, discussion. They will be trained to have confidence in the chain of command. That the CinC is now a clown driven by alt-news and his dick may or may not lead personnel to ask that they be recused from that particular duty.

Tbf, the USSR system - which used to include an automatic launch in the absence of contrary orders - wasn't much better.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
There are situations-- extreme situations, of course-- where mutiny may be the only moral course of action. It is quite possible we have entered into just such territory. I pray for such moral clarity and courage among those who hold the keys to our nuclear arsenal.
According to some interviewed in that podcast I referenced above, the US military weeds out people from the job of launching nukes who have any moral qualms about following orders.

I suppose we don't know how it would play out if the order actually came, but it seems to me that the assumption from the military is that the front-line combatants will just do what they've been ordered to do and let someone else do the worrying about it.

Yes. And there's reasons for that. If you think it's important to have nuclear capability (not an assumption I share, but obviously there are some who do) you're going to want people in place who (unlike me) don't have an automatic, a priori assumption that all nuclear attacks are immoral or ill-advised. Similar to the way in trials for capital offenses in the US those who oppose capital punishment in all circumstances are not allowed to serve on the jury.

But opposing nuclear assaults in all circumstances is not the same as opposing nuclear assaults in any one particular circumstance. As noted above, turning the key to confirm a nuclear launch is dependent upon an almost unimaginable level of trust in the Commander-in-Chief who will have access to information you don't have. The last 3 months have proved that such trust in our current C-in-C is misplaced-- for a number of reasons, including his unwillingness to take 20 minutes a day to read the relevant information required to undertake such a fearsome task.

Like you, I highly doubt our current military personnel are being trained to make such discernments or navigate such morally fraught territory. I certainly wouldn't want to be in that position. But I do pray that they are, through whatever means, able and willing to undertake such a process.

[ 10. April 2017, 16:11: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I was listening to a very scary podcast the other day about US presidential authority to launch nukes.

Spoiler: it turns out that the POTUS can single-handedly order a nuke attack and nobody has the authority to stop it. The military, in contrast, can't without presidential authority.

We've already seen Trump use conventional weapons in a very expensive and largely pointless symbolic move, how long before his hand hovers over the nuclear button?
That's why we're afraid, yes. That's why we're mailing post cards, and marching, and knitting pussy hats. He needs to know, and to be reminded on a daily basis, that we're watching him.

I really hate having to say this Brenda, but if war fever is beginning to take hold, (and some of us are beginning to get that sinking feeling in the gut), then it will take more than pussy hats to stop it.
No harm in trying I guess.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

I doubt if Trump is listening, or even has the self-awareness to differentiate between crowds of protestors and crowds of adoring fans. The outrage seems to fuel him and his trumpeters-- that's what they're looking for.

But the hope is that there are enough Americans (the majority who voted for HRC, and those who didn't vote for the top spot) who are listening, and could be persuaded. And, while I have no hope of that moving Trump or his inner circle, I do hold hope that there are those among Congress who will be moved by those grassroots voters-- if not by the morality of the situation, then by the prospect of being voted out of office in the near future. That worked with Vietnam, I am praying it will work again.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

The people have some power: polling about the air strike in the POST. The money quote: "But Americans were even more emphatic about what they don't want to see next: any other unilateral strikes authorized by Trump or further involvement, period. And there is basically no vote of confidence when it comes to Trump's leadership.Seven in 10 — including a majority of Republicans — said Trump needs to obtain authorization from Congress for any more strikes. And a majority — 54 percent — say they are “uneasy” about Trump's approach to the situation in Syria, with just 41 percent expressing confidence in him."

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

A serious quote from comedian John Oliver:

quote:
“We have a president who feeds off praise, and he just got a lot of it for bombing someone,” Oliver said. “And that should make everyone very, very worried.”

I wish I didn't agree.

Posted by welsh dragon (# 3249) on :

What is a pussy hat?

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by welsh dragon:
What is a pussy hat?

A movement whereby women are wearing knitted hats with cat ears to protest the rise of the Pussy-Grabber In Chief. I understand they are also shipping pussy hats to the White House en masse.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Killing to stop killing. Yes that makes sense.

Indeed it does. The whole legal doctrine of self-defence depends on it.

Whether in any given case the doctrine is correctly invoked is a different question.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Killing to stop killing. Yes that makes sense.
Indeed it does. The whole legal doctrine of self-defence depends on it.

Whether in any given case the doctrine is correctly invoked is a different question.

All these herrings are red. They swim through the desert skies from heavily armed ships, merely another species of those endless bomb. Self defence isn't anywhere in this.

"The village idiot takes the throne
His the wind in which all must sway
All sane people, die now
Be lifted up and carried away
You've got no home in this world of sorrows" (Bruce Cockburn)

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by welsh dragon:
What is a pussy hat?

Just to clear up some possible confusion a pussy hat does not offer any direct protection against a nuclear bomb.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Sean Spicer - positive proof that even the very slightest hint of brain is not actually required to reach high office.

If he digs any deeper, a quick shovel and he could be buried for good.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Killing to stop killing. Yes that makes sense.
Indeed it does. The whole legal doctrine of self-defence depends on it.

Whether in any given case the doctrine is correctly invoked is a different question.
All these herrings are red. They swim through the desert skies from heavily armed ships, merely another species of those endless bomb. Self defence isn't anywhere in this.

As I said, whether the principle is correctly invoked is a different issue. But it felt as if you were maybe questioning the very principle.

Because killing to stop killing does make sense. It felt as if you were being sarcastic about that, but I'm being anything but sarcastic.

You should also be aware that "self"-defence, as a legal doctrine, extends to the defence of other people.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

We know you're a lawyer. Is it enough?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I saw it the week before I started at Sheffield University.

Tangent/

"Threads" was a chilling programme, devastating in its impact. Still remember that.

Strange coincidence, Doc. I was at Sheffield University during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Still remember just how chilling, how frightening, the news of real events was at that time.

/Tangent

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
We know you're a lawyer. Is it enough?

Is what enough?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I saw it the week before I started at Sheffield University.
Tangent/

"Threads" was a chilling programme, devastating in its impact. Still remember that.

Strange coincidence, Doc. I was at Sheffield University during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Still remember just how chilling, how frightening, the news of real events was at that time.

/Tangent

I can *just* remember that time. We lived in married quarters at RAF Hemswell*, where my Dad worked on the IRBM Thor missiles, on loan to Britain from the USA. During "the crisis" he slept in a bunker for five nights while we had a bag packed by the kitchen door. God alone knows where would have gone had the balloon gone up as we must have been Target #1.

*about 35 miles east of Sheffield.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

I knew families (or my parents did anyway) in the 1980s whose plan was to drive towards RAF Upper Heyford at the first sign of trouble. They'd seen Threads and The War Game and decided the best thing was to be at or near a first strike target on the basis that it was worse for the survivors.

Ironically they could have just stayed in Kidderminster, as more recently released Soviet plans show it too was a first strike target.*

*not because the USSR was anti-carpet, particularly, but more because it's where all the UK's rocket fuel is made...

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I live near the nation's capital, and we know that we are a target. My husband and I selected a rendezvous point, in case of attack. It's a motor lodge about 30 miles from here, likely to be out of the inner range of nuclear destruction, and upwind of the fallout.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

while we're on the tangent, one of the most memorable TV reviews of all time (for me) was the US for Threads - something like "makes The Day After look like A Day at the Races"

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
We lived in married quarters at RAF Hemswell*, where my Dad worked on the IRBM Thor missiles, on loan to Britain from the USA.

Somewhat surreally, Britain's ability to launch Thors was entirely dependent on the British Oxygen Company as they were liquid oxygen fuelled, and like any supercooled liquid the stuff constantly boiled off when the missiles were fuelled up.

AG

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I live near the nation's capital, and we know that we are a target. My husband and I selected a rendezvous point, in case of attack. It's a motor lodge about 30 miles from here, likely to be out of the inner range of nuclear destruction, and upwind of the fallout.

A lot of Brits used to favour the "so long as I'm pissed and sat right under it" fatalism approach. The makers of Threads cleverly had the character who spoke those very words as being one of those who survived.

In reality it was said that even if individuals had the resources to build a fallout shelter, then the hardest job would be keeping out the thousands upon thousands who would be desperately roaming the land following the destruction of major cities.

Many of us who lived through the Cold War years were blissfully unaware of just how real the threat actually was, and how seriously the government regarded the likelihood of a nuclear attack.
This doesn't seem to be the case at present , so I am guessing that most of the sabre-rattling and mumbling with regards to Russia is media fuelled hype.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Well, you will note that we have done nothing more than select this motor lodge. There is no prep at all, no go bag, no stash of guns/ammo/food/water etc. The preparedness movement is an entire separate and very deep rabbit hole, into which I refuse to fall.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Indeed, was just joking around really. Black humour finds no better playground than the possibility of nuclear total war.

In seriousness, what we are seeing with Syria and other war zones is clash of interest between the US and Russia which gives rise to fears of a gradual escalation in hostilities between the main contenders.
A lot of the bluster and bellicose that goes on in these situations is posturing rather than a desire to start wiping folks out en masse.

I dare say the prepers are twitching with the tin-openers and oiling their automatics at the minute. Then, Lo and behold, it all dies down again til next time.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I live near the nation's capital, and we know that we are a target. My husband and I selected a rendezvous point, in case of attack. It's a motor lodge about 30 miles from here, likely to be out of the inner range of nuclear destruction, and upwind of the fallout.

Apparently, the thing to do is get laser eye surgery, and learn to drive a motorcycle, so one can move through traffic zippily in the impending apocalypse.
That is, according to one piece illustrating the complete cuntery of the super-rich plutocrats.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Brenda--

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Well, you will note that we have done nothing more than select this motor lodge. There is no prep at all, no go bag, no stash of guns/ammo/food/water etc. The preparedness movement is an entire separate and very deep rabbit hole, into which I refuse to fall.

Basic emergency preparedness is different from being a prepper, which is different from the folks who go wayyyyy down that rabbit hole.

Here in California, we're supposed to be ready to take care of ourselves for 72 hours, in case of any emergency. That includes both an emergency kit for home, and a portable one (AKA go kit). Ready.gov, affiliated with Homeland Security, has similar info.

ISTM a go bag is a very reasonable way to take care of yourself: a change of clothes, medication, comfort things, book, knitting, etc. Some experts advise keeping one at home, and one at work or in your car (if you have one).

FWIW. YMMV.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I live near the nation's capital, and we know that we are a target. My husband and I selected a rendezvous point, in case of attack. It's a motor lodge about 30 miles from here, likely to be out of the inner range of nuclear destruction, and upwind of the fallout.
A lot of Brits used to favour the "so long as I'm pissed and sat right under it" fatalism approach.

And why not? What's there to live for in a post-apocalyptic nuclear hell on earth?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And why not? What's there to live for in a post-apocalyptic nuclear hell on earth?

If there are survivors then it will be down to them to rebuild society as best they can. That seems to me to be as good a calling as any other.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And why not? What's there to live for in a post-apocalyptic nuclear hell on earth?
If there are survivors then it will be down to them to rebuild society as best they can. That seems to me to be as good a calling as any other.

"as god a calling as any other"? Dude, you have no imagination.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
In seriousness, what we are seeing with Syria and other war zones is clash of interest between the US and Russia which gives rise to fears of a gradual escalation in hostilities between the main contenders.

Both America and Russia regularly violate international law. More similar than different on that dimension. A dangerous doing away with rules. The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was as much a violation of international law as Russia's annexation of the Crimea in 2014. Both show that the right of the strong prevails when international law is violated.

trumpy's bomb strike may be morally comprehensible, but that does not make it legal. Which makes me question why we bother having international law at all if it cannot stop a dictator from committing crimes against his people? trumpy has merely reinforce 19th century thinking about ,might makes right. The behaviour of the strong is always justifiable. trumpy understands this. He's just the latest in the chain.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I'm pretty sure this is about North Korea. President Xi will have opened Donald Trump's mind to some of the complications involved in having North Korea as a neighbour. For all I know, the MOAB detonation, with its double effect, may well be the kind of "pause for thought" demonstration that Xi would, quietly, see a value in.

That's not necessarily the same as Xi agreeing to bombing raids designed to take out, or at least severely damage, the North Korean missile and nuclear capabilities. But China must be deeply worried by the failure of diplomacy and economic pressure to contain the nutcase in charge in North Korea.

They might well see the Donald as somewhat less of a nutcase. Particularly since he seems to be moving away from some at least of the nutty stuff he spouted during the campaign.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

There was no doubt in my mind that trump's giant bomb was for Kim to ponder and blasting a hundred or so IS fighters in the process was just the by and the by.

This is poker with bombs instead of chips, and fingers poised over buttons instead of revolver triggers.

Where is that bottle of Red?

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Let's have some proper sympathy for North Korea's president okay? When the USA wants your regime changed it can include being hanged like Saddam, or anally raped and shot like Gadaffi. Might nukes slow them mustangs down?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I do have sympathy for Kim Jong Un. For years he (and his dad) has been able to sable rattle and everyone has gently explained that, should he actually declare war on the rest of the known universe, he would be very quickly incinerated. But meanwhile he can convince his people that he is waging war on the imperialists.

Suddenly there is a US president who is so dangerously unstable he might actually decide to take pre-emptive action. I am sure that China is encouraging him - China could have taken insane action and would be vilified by the entire world, but they can encourage baby-boy to do it without any risk to their standing.

It is all a power game. And Trump is the pawn that others are using. The aim in this case is to sort out N Korea, while China ans Russia can both condemn the action and seem like the nice guys.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

When Kim Jong Un first took over, I hoped that he'd be saner than his dad. At least some of KJU's schooling was in the outside world (Switzerland), so I thought that might have opened his life and mind a bit. But news stories gradually made it clear that *he* was doing bad things, too.

OTOH, we don't really know what goes on there. Maybe the staff of KJU's dad's regime found a way to control KJU, if only to stay in power themselves.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

And suppose he repented. Suppose he realizes that he will go down in history as a dupe and a crook, and doesn't want to be remembered like that. (We will assume atheism, in absence of any other evidence.) How would he be able to alter his ways, change the narrative? (There is an entire novel in this, and I have written it.)

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Is Kim or Assad crack-pottier than trumpy? Are they equally crazed, or up different poles?

It's easy to determine who of these 3 I'd exclude from a dinner party. trumpy is the one who'd sexually assault the guests. Perhaps it'd be okay if everyone had a rape whistle?

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
It's easy to determine who of these 3 I'd exclude from a dinner party.

Kim would have to see my barber first. I wouldn't let him anywhere near my table with that haircut.

Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
It's easy to determine who of these 3 I'd exclude from a dinner party.
Kim would have to see my barber first. I wouldn't let him anywhere near my table with that haircut.

Wouldn't it be nice if Kim Jong Haircut and donald fart could get together for a friendly meeting? They could discuss the problems they have with their barbers instead of all this nasty missile stuff.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

What if they mated? Shudder the mutant hair. No shortage of volunteers to give away the brides I wager.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I wonder if men could accept their hair more, whether the world would be a safer place.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0