pacino wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

pacino wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

pacino wrote:lots and lots of long-term diplomacy

so we've #$!&@ it all for another generation

I don't know. Chemical weapons and mass killing your own citizens will continue to happen over that long term. I don't know the answer but sitting by and watching isn't a great one either, pacino.

Obama used diplomacy to extract some chemical weaponry out of Syria. Extended diplomacy could've continued.

It's over, though. We have no standing and this war has gone on too long with too many suffering. There's no real solution. We missed the window.

I'm not sure what more bombs solves that is any better than 'sitting.'

Guess. Idk. They said they didn't have any. Then were going to give them up. Then used them again on their own people.

so what would you have done?

Don't know. Obviously not privy to lots of information. But just saying long term diplomacy is the answer so assuredly is off putting.

I think we have seen conclusively that bombing is not the answer

CalvinBall wrote:

pacino wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

pacino wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

pacino wrote:lots and lots of long-term diplomacy

so we've #$!&@ it all for another generation

I don't know. Chemical weapons and mass killing your own citizens will continue to happen over that long term. I don't know the answer but sitting by and watching isn't a great one either, pacino.

Obama used diplomacy to extract some chemical weaponry out of Syria. Extended diplomacy could've continued.

It's over, though. We have no standing and this war has gone on too long with too many suffering. There's no real solution. We missed the window.

I'm not sure what more bombs solves that is any better than 'sitting.'

Guess. Idk. They said they didn't have any. Then were going to give them up. Then used them again on their own people.

so what would you have done?

Don't know. Obviously not privy to lots of information. But just saying long term diplomacy is the answer so assuredly is off putting.

It's almost like I have an opinion on something.

If diplomacy never solved anything it'd be fruitless to even try. Thing is, it's helped lots of stuff and in the past helped create world order. Many things take a generation of care and thought and steady hands to progress on. Then it can get all fucked up over a war of choice and we all simply deal with the fallout for the next three decades. Continually chasing the rabbit is an option, but on my opinion a very foolish one with no actual goal or end in sight.

Sporadically responding with bombs may not be. Might be more effective to take out an airbase or two evryttime there is a chemical attack. Think there were 7 last year? Maybe more consistent pressure, targeted pressure would make Assad stop and think.

Diplomacy with a mad man is as good as no action at all it seems

Why don't we bomb Myanmar

What's the humanitarian action here? Will we increase our refugee cap? Are we using the UN to push for multilateral talks? Or are we dropping a few bombs to feel better about ourselves because we actually know there's no solution?

Isn't that a case of diplomacy failing?

“Operation Desert Stormy”

- Bill Maher

CalvinBall wrote:Isn't that a case of diplomacy failing?

Why do we not go into Myanmar but we are in Syria? What's the reason?

And what now?

Maybe bc Syria has been going on for 7 plus years and Myanmar for two?

And again, isn't that a case of diplomacy failing?

So what is your solution? You are the one that needs to provide a solution, not me.

Lol ok dude

CalvinBall wrote:Lol ok dude

Look, if you are advocating action you should have a plan, an idea of an objective, and a way out.

I don't view diplomacy as a one-time thing where you fail. You continually chip away for years and years sometimes depending on the issue and circumstance. And yes, perhaps you can be aided by a military action but there has to be a damned objective. I don't see one here, at all.

Russia and Iran don't want a solution. Hard to diplomacy your way to an end there imo.

Good story by Bloomberg on the strike. Wonder what their sourcing is for the meeting reports

Warship Ruse and New Stealth Missiles: How the U.S. and Allies Attacked Syria https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/arti ... cked-syria

The mission accomplished thing is unreal too. I'd assume that our military thinks this guy is a clown but who knows. The strike appears to have been well coordinated and effective which is a positive data point re Trump being able to collaborate w Euro leaders, but potentially big negative in that now he's comfortable throwing his new Lockheed missiles around like it's gonna add inches to his dick

joe table wrote:The mission accomplished thing is unreal too. I'd assume that our military thinks this guy is a clown but who knows. The strike appears to have been well coordinated and effective which is a positive data point re Trump being able to collaborate w Euro leaders, but potentially big negative in that now he's comfortable throwing his new Lockheed missiles around like it's gonna add inches to his dick

Nice that the 2013 treaties signed by Syria laid the groundwork for France and Britain to be able to join in with at least somewhat of a legal foothold.I'm certain Trump noted the usefulness of diplomacy in this case and credited Obama's efforts.

Trump relatively unhinged this morning on the Twitters

this morning