jamiethekiller wrote:or you can go with that Assad didn't do the chemical attack and this was the rebels forcing us into the frey

Monkeyboy wrote:So a guy I work with asked why Assad did the gas strike in the first place. I said that many are saying it was due to Tillerson's comments. Then the guy pointed out that it's hard to believe Assad wouldn't know that Trump would HAVE to react to a chemical weapon.

So wouldn't Assad have to know Trump would react? Wouldn't he have to know Trump would have to do something or risk looking weak?

It's really hard to figure out why all the actors acted as they did in this thing. Usually everyone will act in their best interest, but it seems like several did not in this case.

Werthless wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:So a guy I work with asked why Assad did the gas strike in the first place. I said that many are saying it was due to Tillerson's comments. Then the guy pointed out that it's hard to believe Assad wouldn't know that Trump would HAVE to react to a chemical weapon.

So wouldn't Assad have to know Trump would react? Wouldn't he have to know Trump would have to do something or risk looking weak?

It's really hard to figure out why all the actors acted as they did in this thing. Usually everyone will act in their best interest, but it seems like several did not in this case.

I wrote a paper about the Iraq War, on the topic of Just War theory, that had a significant section on Saddam Hussein's rationality. This was before we could confirm that Hussein didn't have WMDs. I think it was well written, I got an A actually, but my analysis was flawed. I made similar assumptions about rationality -- why would Hussein kick out the weapons inspectors and induce an invasion if he didn't have WMDs -- and those assumptions didn't hold up. Leaders don't seem to behave rationally with respect to international relations.

In hindsight, domestic politics is often the driving force behind a leader's decision. Is it popular? Does it reduce my opposition? Does it consolidate power? The international fallout is usually secondary, and the leader assumes they can do damage control internationally because he knows that other countries don't actually want a war. I assume Assad, if he got guidance on expected retaliation from abroad, severely discounted it.

pacino wrote:The theory behind it being the rebels is it was in the building they bombed...pictures have surfaced showing the building being empty, however

swishnicholson wrote:

pacino wrote:The theory behind it being the rebels is it was in the building they bombed...pictures have surfaced showing the building being empty, however

I'm realizing how ill-informed I am. I need more facts to understand this sentence.

Bucky wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:

pacino wrote:The theory behind it being the rebels is it was in the building they bombed...pictures have surfaced showing the building being empty, however

I'm realizing how ill-informed I am. I need more facts to understand this sentence.

The Savior wrote:Airbase we shot missles at is functioning this evening per the twitters

pacino wrote:Sorry. There's a theory that the rebels had the gas in a building and when assad dropped bombs it released the gas. This is what russia/assad is pushing; pics of the building they bombed show it being empty and not full of sarin gas reserves.

pacino wrote:i completely and utterly disagree. one of the better things he did was pull back in 2013. his shift to asia was very important, too. the one major thing i disagreed with on clinton was her no-fly zone idea in syria. it's just setting up the potential for so much shit.