Bay 12 Games Forum

Though even any damage actually related to the air base itself is of questionable import. Not like there's not more of the things, and even if the at-most ~4% of the air force the US claims was hit was actually key parts of the air force, it would have left a few hundred other planes of various sorts floating around. As most seem to be noticing and stating, this was either a political statement (of one sort or another), or it was a failure on all instead of just most fronts.

That said, you might be happy to learn much of the discussion wasn't about whether it was moral or just to stop the attacks in this manner, FD. More of it's been back and forth on whether the attack itself was worth a damn to one extent or another. Basically exactly what you came in to talk about :V

Actually about half sure an if statement wouldn't have saved you there, helg. That one would have caught you both if it caught either.

Though that said, I can offer you at least one better option than lobbing bombs at people: Get someone that's not the US to lead the bombing. We're fucking terrible at doing much good by it, and if you actually give a shit about the syrian people you'd damn sure want someone else to be at the reigns of any sort of intervention.

Nikki Haley has made it known that recent events hae made removing Assad from power one of the priorities of the US. She told CNN 'There is no possible solution that includes Assad as head of state'. When asked what other priorities she had in mind, she said that defeating IS, and removing Iran's influence from Syria are two.

Hey, for what it's worth, this administration being what it is it's entirely possible haley is the only one that actually thinks that.

Helg, I'm about the only one that's been talking in the direction of things being "too fast". You might want to read what the blue hell I've been fucking saying before you go on some kind of tirade about how we're hypocrites for not wanting to get more people killed and cause an erosion in international politics that is likely to kill even more, if you're going to go off on me about it. And no, support coming in after the fact doesn't shift the point being made one bloody iota. This shit isn't happening in a vacuum, and the context of previous administrations counts for roughly sod all in relation to the one trump's spent the last month or three purging the competence out of.

If trump had displayed even a fucking modicum of effort to find a better way, had gathered up all that goddamn support before the attack (and for the love of fornication, not the day before), had maybe done shit like told our goddamn congress before he told russia, you probably wouldn't be seeing me railing on the guy like I am. Not having spent the last three or four years (right up to days before the attack) screaming to the high heavens against every possibility and angle of a syrian intervention might have helped, too. Because as is the guy's history makes it abundantly clear he doesn't give a single shit about syria or the syrian people, which if you're that inclined towards intervention you should probably be aware of just how much of a problem that can be. Whatever reason the bastard's doing this, it damn sure ain't for anything related to what you want to happen.

... as for better or worse, hell if I goddamn know. It's certainly pretty damn unlikely it would have been better, considering the extent our intervention would have capped out at in relation to the problem, and it's not at all questionable that our history on the subject over the last decade or three is goddamn abysmal. And in context of the rise of ISIS, I'm not too sure I'd be willing to count out worse by a long shot. Another Iraq hamstrung by western military intervention to get gnawed on probably wouldn't have done the situation much in the way of favors. Assad's fucking terrible, but the position that it could be worse damn sure ain't an empty one, and fucking regardless doing shit like this isn't going to help a single bloody thing on that front.

In relation to this pile of shit, though, about the only way I can see it ending better than it was before trump did this is if it really is an act of collusion between him and russia to make him look better -- and "better" is likely going to mean "maybe no gas attacks until around the 2018 or 2020 election", with no reduction in deaths, no actual curtailing of assad, and even less attempts to actually get any sort of help into the area. That said, so far as better leads go, I can give you a good hint: Don't fucking do what trump just did. And bloody hell, for the Nth time that doesn't mean don't make air strikes, or don't intervene, or don't anything along those lines.

So far as the geneva thing goes, dun, would you happen to be able to point to some incidences of it being used to justify military force, especially of this nature? Trying for a bit to figure out exactly what that "every effort" entails, but my luck has been basically nil, and as near as I can tell it hasn't been used to support a sudden punitive attack at any point, particularly with any degree of support by multiple signatories. E: Though, that said, now that I notice the edit you might want to take an unfortunate look at what the protocol (doesn't) say about internal conflicts

Not easy is fine, too. Seriously, if complications are involved, take the effort and time needed to mitigate them instead of just doing whatever.

... in any case, I finally got around to checking the CWC on violations and response. Can say, one of the things it doesn't list as an action we agreed to follow according to the agreement? Unilateral punitive action without consultation of other signatories. Welp. All this shit and apparently treaty violation on top of it. Goddamnit.

... literally no other time in my life, as near as I can recall, did the use of chemical weapons warrant or receive an immediate response, especially a single incident of it, and particularly of the nature of this response. You're trying to paint a picture that's not been used previously dun, to excuse action that may very well cause more damage than what would happen to those hypothetical bombed people. I think at this point, it should be obvious why I'm pretty damn unhappy about what happened, and hopefully why you're having me disagree pretty damn hard with what you're saying.

And, y'know, again. Maybe instead of an action that, by US accounts, destroyed around 4% of their air force (and possibly a vital 4% of an air force stretched thin), we had hit something that was not involved in the military machine more or less period. And was actually involved in the capacity to deploy chemical weapons and little to nothing else. Y'know, a target that would have been worth a damn and actually supported the position you're agreeing is important, instead of actually doing what you're saying should be avoided and making little to no direct impact on their capability to field chemical weapons to boot.

1) You made a direct complaint about the President going back on his word about military intervention in Syria.  You are either on board with the concept of intervention in the face of chemical attacks or you are not.

Dun, my complaint regarding the president is because doing that undermined his word to the entire goddamn world, after he spent something approaching a half a decade saying to everyone and anyone that intervention of this nature was the wrong thing to do -- he explicitly said this in regards to the last time chemical weapons were used in syria. You'll note again. My point with him is that he was stridently against the concept of intervention, even in the face of chemical attacks, for years, and this about-face turn is going to screw what credibility he might have had with the world on the subject of military intervention into the ground. Frankly, while I do agree chemical attacks are something worthy of intervention, I don't agree the cost involved with a response like this was worth its effects. In one unhesitating violation of his stated principles, Trump has done something that is almost certainly going to make it more difficult in the future to prevent things like that gas attack, because he's shown that any word he makes on the negotiating table in regards to what he will or will not do with the american military is worth less than shit.

I am not against the concept of intervention in the face of chemical attacks. I am against the concept of fucking stupidity and expending political capital and trust when it's not even remotely necessary and the desired results can be achieved without it, particularly when there's functionally no material guarantee results are going to be achieved with it.

2) It was not a surprise attack. Advance notice was given. The point is to give enough notice to move human personnel out while also not giving them enough time to move everything valuable out of the spot you want to blow up.

Advance notice was given. Maybe a day before the attack, with no allowance for recourse, communication, explanation, nothing. You can quibble over the exact terminology if you really want, but regardless this was an attack that was done in a way to intentionally limit the ability to respond (militarily or otherwise). If it's not strictly speaking a surprise attack it's close enough to barely bloody matters, and it was done in the face of not actually being in a state of open goddamn conflict with the nation in question. That. Is a good way to start a war.

And that's not getting into, again, that some of the definitions involved in this as to what counts as advanced warning was basically nothing.

3) We gathered allies, we identified the terms of stopping their chemical attacks, and took action that proved we were willing to act. This is diplomacy. Explicitly stating that we are going to destroy your ability to make war is actually war. I can't think of a more damaging military action than the one that was taken that does not amount to this.

The damage was barely existent by accounts both american and otherwise. We gathered no allies (our attempts at communicating apparently boiled down the political equivalent of, "Yolo motherfuckers, we're going in."), we stated no terms save stop and offered no means of demonstrating the intent to, and our action shat upon the reliability of the american word. As for better targets, hey. Maybe actually identify and hit a production facility, stop capability of use rather than maybe blowing up some planes and doing some damage to a single air base. Hell, that would have been even less of an attack on their ability to make war than what we did, which was actually attack their ability to make war, and it would have actually impacted their ability to produce and deploy the weapons in question.

4) Chemical weapons are internationally illegal. Immediate retribution of some kind is implied after their use, regardless of other existing treaties.

Odd, that isn't what happened last time. Or, near as I can recall, just about any other time it's been used, including when the US was overtly supporting it. That last time bought us, what, three, four years from a regime in near constant conflict of refraining from use, and making overt (if apparently insufficient) material motions to display a reduction in capability? Seriously, the existing agreement being spoken of was literally one about refraining from using chemical weapons and working to disarm the stocks. There would have been stipulations as to what to do in the face of a violation, that would have allowed for retribution without most of the negative issues political and otherwise this particular attempt did.

You seem to have a problem with the person who carried out the strike, rather than the strike itself.

I've got a serious goddamn problem with how the strike was done, since to all appearances it basically cocked up on every level except managing to land some bombs on an air base -- basically every other thing about it could have been done better, and generally significantly so. So far as this attack goes, my problems with trump are only to the extent he's the sort of shit that would go forward with a clusterfuck of this nature.

Point I've been making, isn't that a strike was a bad idea (it may have been, it may not have been, but that's not my immediate and largest issue with it), it was that a strike done in this manner was a bloody terrible idea. This was not a victory on the net. It was not an objective achieved, unless you for some reason consider wrecking a few runways and some planes as an objective worth mentioning. It was a symbolic expenditure of munitions that probably set us back on about a dozen fronts, for a gain that is quite possibly going to functionally be nothing. If it's not obvious at this point what my problem with this mess is, I'm not sure how to better communicate it.

Poorly, and in a way that both depends entirely on assad (or whoever) rolling over instead of just mothballing the stuff for a few months or a year or whatever and then doing it again and put unnecessary strain on foreign relations on top of it. Little to no damage to actual capacity to use, no agreement between other nations to act should it happen again, no substantial actual consequence for those who decided to commit the act to begin with. Explicit demonstration that the president's word on things like military intervention is complete shit, as he's spoken openly against what he just did as recent as last year and been strident about not doing it since at least 2013, which will almost certainly kneecap all sorts of negotiations going forward and in theatres far beyond syria.

We made a punitive strike, at substantial cost material and particularly political, with its efficacy towards achieving a limited goal (that does basically fuck all to limit deaths in syria, to boot, and may actually result in more than not doing it would have) entirely in the hands of at this point entirely hostile actors. We have no apparent step two, no apparent goal besides punch them and hope they don't meet the raise in stakes, no indication of one bloody iota of foresight or planning, with even the sodding attack itself apparently being an obama administration plan pulled out and used.

If this is what we're going to use as the baseline for objective achieved, these next four years are going to fuck the US into the ground.