Even without oil, they get an outlet on the Mediterranean.
Well, define “slap”. Is it worth slapping someone at a cost of $100 million? What if it cost 1000 American combat deaths? 10,000? And that’s just assuming the slap is tidily contained within the country of the murderer/plunderer and doesn’t spill over its borders.
Ideally, every major country would agree that use of chemical weapons on civilians was a “red line” and the perpetrating nation would be subject to instant and universal military and economic punishments until the leadership in that country changed, with the former leaders subject to trials for crimes against humanity. Until that happens, sometimes a relatively mild slap is all that can be managed without making the problem a lot worse.
You can end the problem entirely. You can also ignore the problem entirely. Either way people will die, so the way I see it is if I’m willing to kill 1 person to save 2 people, then i’m willing to sacrfice others for my own sense of right. Whether the means are justified or not I’d rather keep as many people alive and not suffering as possible.
Well, you could write that up as a policy proposal and forward it to the State Department.
Sixty Tomahawk missiles. (To get a perspective, the cost of this attack was about the same as the entire annual budget of the National Endowment for the Arts during the Obama years.)
Wikipedia shows $1.94 million as the cost of a “Block IV” missile. Is that the actual marginal cost of the missiles used yesterday? How does the financial cost of the attack compare with the financial cost to Syria of the damage done?
Well, yeah, that seems expensive, but Syria is gonna pay for it.
Of course the American tax payer is paying for this.
Meanwhile somebody got an order for 60 brand new cruise missiles to be built.
Doesn’t mean very much when they both have veto power.
I’m glad somebody got it… 
The Security Council is not the whole of the U.N.
If there’s anything funny about this conflict, it’s the desperate attempts to think of “real” reasons for going to war, in line with Iraq’s oil.
Pipelines crisscross the region. Putin is not going to give all the shits about one more. If we want to speculate about Russian motives that’s fine, but let’s keep it grounded in reality.
The US even more so. We have virtually nothing to gain and everything to lose by getting involved. So when Obama was weighing up military action, it was just humanitarian reasons in the “for” column.
The problem is that we have no way of knowing, in the grand calculation, whether we are killing one person to save two people, or killing two people to save one. Taking such a bold action in such a fraught and complex political climate could have disastrous ramifications that are even worse than Assad. I know little about the situation in Syria, but if Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. have taught us anything, it’s that seemingly straightforward actions have unforeseen consequences. (Well, some of us foresaw them.)
ISIS is about as close to cartoon evil as it gets. They literally use the sex slavery of infidels as an incentive in their recruitment materials. When women resist being raped and enslaved, they burn them alive. In fact, they burn a lot of people alive. Or stone suspected homosexuals to death, or throw them off buildings. You’re worried about Hitler? ISIS is Hitler. Assad, as best as I understand it, is a dude who wants to stay in power. ISIS is a dangerous, cancerous, contagious religious ideology that convinces ordinary people that it is acceptable to do great evil. By killing Assad, we risk allowing that sickness to grow and flourish. Do you understand? It’s one evil man vs. an entire ideology that has no limit to the number of people it may infect.
All that said, based on my limited understanding of the situation, Trump’s move seems appropriate to me.
The problems is that for the people of the region, the Americans are as much cartoon villains as ISIS is.
Khan Sheikhoun was struck again by aircraft. A Russian frigate is moving into the area. Is this a game of chicken?
A single Russian frigate sent alone against two far larger and better equipped US Navy destroyers (USS Porter & USS Ross) is not a game of chicken. This is posturing.
They aren’t my gut feelings though. My first post to you on this subject included:
[QUOTE=me]
I have a little trouble thinking Obama degraded the U.S.'s standing. As mentioned, his anti-terrorism “muscularity” was solid. Did he raise America’s moral authority? I think so. But did his lack of willingness to bomb the shit out of enemy bases make world leaders less worried about appeasing America? It is an arguable position despite the ugly odour.
[/QUOTE]
But I don’t think it’s directly measureable anymore than “who was the most influential author of the 20th century”. Book sales and page counts aren’t going to tell the story. The counter argument you seem to be making, that Russian and Chinese aggression was unchanged during Obama or was a continuation of a trend starting earlier is certainly a valid line of reasoning.
Yeah, looks like either the Syrians or the Russians hit the town again. There is speculation the Russians are trying to cover up evidence of the chemical attack, though might just be in retaliation for the US strikes on their air base (can’t hit us so might as well bomb some more civilians).
As to the frigate…well, I don’t think the Russians would really want to try and play chicken with even a couple of destroyers, let alone the carrier group in the Med. But it’s certainly the Russians trying to show the flag and demonstrate that they are taking this seriously. Since this particular frigate has fired their own cruise missiles into Syria it might be positioning to do that again, perhaps at US allied groups in the region.
The airbase use is a obvious “fuck you” to the American’s.
As for the frigate v the the two US destroyers that XT mentions I don’t know. The Russians love filling even small ships to the brim with long range AShMs, unlike the US. What kind of AShMs do these ships carry? I believe the anti Ship Tomahawks are retired. Harpoons?
The carrier group currently is where? If it’s off the Eastern Med then it’s a major factor. West of Italy, not so much.
I guess Putin learned one thing and the world another; when push comes to shove Trump runs at great pace for orthodoxy (and his one great potential strength was the unexpected).
Second, the USA continues to be great at blowing up shit in empty fields, is still next to impotent in the region, and is currently reduced to posturing alone.
I don’t think a single Russian frigate could take on a US destroyer squadron, especially since I’m reasonably sure there are US attack subs on station as well. I doubt the Russians would really want to confront the Navy directly even if they thought they could or would win, though.
As for the carrier group, no idea where it is. I don’t think the Navy really advertises precisely that sort of thing, especially with the carriers. I know in 2016 we had two carriers in the Med, but all I see with a quick Google search is that there is a carrier there somewhere.
USA?!?:dubious:
It started with the British. Divvying up the Ottoman Empire.
Or was it the Ottoman Empire?
Or Was it the Crusaders?
Or was it the Califates?
Or the Romans?
Egyptians?
Maybe the Sea Peoples or the Israelites?
Do you have any idea of how long the Middle East has been fucked up?