This is a blip on the news cycle radar. We won’t be talking about it after this round of Sunday talk shows. The more likely explanation is that the traditionalists on the Cabinet have gotten their way. There is no slacking off of the investigation into Trump/Russia ties.
To those that are worried about WWIII, do you actually know in real number how strong (some would say bloated) our strategic military strength is relative to any other power?
Add in our closest allies and it is nearly insane how much damage we could deliver via conventional means. More carriers then the rest of the world combined, a far larger stealthier air force, more attack drones, a huge surface and submarine Navy. We could deliver knock out blows to all of our theoretical enemies in a short time, we just don’t have the current ability to occupy and subdue.
Previous US administration caused 300 thousand deaths in Syria. So anyone will think that a new administration can’t be worse especially when Trump was saying he would like to stay away.
I have no problem accepting a mistake as soon as I realize it. It’s not my fault if Trump was lying earlier.
But all useless against anyone with a reasonable nuclear reach.
Can we stop constantly saying that we are on the brink of World War III? The Korean War, Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam War, Six-Day War, Yom Kippur War, 1991 Gulf War, Kosovo, 9/11, 2003 Iraqi Freedom, 2008 Russian attack on Georgia, and 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine all didn’t lead to WW3, so maybe, you know…this time most likely won’t, either, OK?
LOL. It’s what young men like to do.
This thinking is like randomly shuffling draughts when experts are trying to beat some super computer at chess.
The real frightening thing to be focusing on now is the way, first, that Thrump did not expect to become President, so, spouted off many stupid things that can’t be sustained once he took office. Then, he, without any real understanding of how to do the job and without any decent advisors, surrounded himself with people with agendas, not with pragmatic people who examined all sides of issues before making their own recommendation.
So, here we are. Thrump was emotional motivated to strike a Syrian target associated with gas attacks. the Russians responded by rubbing his nose in his rather feeble effort. He feared a direct confrontation with Russia, and signalled it loudly by warn the Russkies to duck and cover. Russia got the base up and running the next day, and, guess what, to further embarrass Thrump, bombed the same town with nerve gas the next day.
They also are sending a token frigate to the area. Their motive is not to engage in a war with Thrump’s army and navy, but, rather, to stare him down, to force him to put his tail twixt his legs and back off.
In other words, Thrump is now shown to be a leader without the guts, skill, knowledge and experience to lead a country into a direct confrontation with Russia. How wise do the generals of the past sound "don’t jump into a conflict unless you have a clear objective. Don’t pursue that objective unless you have the will to absorb punishment and press on until the objective is obtained. Once in, play to win, only to win, never to ‘not lose’.
Doesn’t this make the case for economic sanctions even more powerful, now that we find ourselves in a position that we can only do anything in our interests in Syria by committing to taking a chance on, perhaps, a limited regional war with Iran and Russia?
Despite what the TDS crowd says, no WW3 is not imminent. The Syria strike was over a legitimate issue and the opportunity for Trump to say “I am not Obama.”
Cite?
He’s done nothing but lie from day one. What’s different about this lie from all the previous lies?
It kind of depends upon what is a “world war”?
Technically several countries are fighting in Afghanistan so is that then a “world war”?
Just in case anyone wishes to lose some sleep tonight. A simulation (which I have posted before) about how a war might start,
For those who believe that this is all “business as normal” and that we are no closer to global conflict than we’ve been in previous decades following World War II, consider the following points:
[ul]
[li]We have a new Presidential adminstration entering into office with significant concerns about competence and corruption and clear signs of internecine conflict but with a presumed mandate to demonstrate American military and economic prowess, i.e. “Make America Great Again”. [/li][li]The State Department–the organ of government which has the primary mission of formulating and communicating the intentions of the United States in its interests and support of allies around the world–is now led by a man with no government experience who eschews press coverage and avers from addressing policy decisions, has blundered in dealing with a major trading partner and potential strategic competitor, has not been granted the authority to even select his own deputy, and by several accounts didn’t want the job.[/li][li]Our chief strategic opposition in Europe is led by an egotistic autocrat who has manufactured reasons for invading and annexing other countries, has supported regimes that we’ve classified as harboring terrorism, and has authorized aggressive military action (flybys of US Navy ships, surveillance vessels within US territorial waters) to test US military resolve.[/li][li]Our chief strategic opposition in Asia has been acting in progressively more aggressive fashion toward allies (Taiwan, Japan) and building artificial islands to expand their claim to territorial waters while exporting weapons to nations supporting terrorism; and has also been reluctant in restraining its client state of North Korea from aggressive actions and proliferation of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile systems. [/li][li]Nationalism fueled by xenophobic fear is on the rise in Europe, much of Asia, and even in our closest ally (the United Kingdom), and the blame for terror attacks and unrest has been baldly painted on Islam as a whole even though the attacks are the product of a handful of fundamentalist Muslim extremist groups mostly based out of countries that are nominal US allies. [/li][li]Regardless of what you think of Donald Trump, he has absolutely no experience in international conflict or diplomacy, and his belief that he can apply his Art of the Deal business negotiation approach to international conflict is wildly naive and is already alienating long-standing strategic allies.[/li][li]Trump also has absolutely no military experience or knowledge in strategic deterrence, does not appear to be educable in such, and has surrounded himself with like-minded people few of whom are even basically qualified to anticipate and understand the consequences of strategic escalation. [/li][li]The administration’s stance on NATO has been unclear and erratic, but the statements and actions that Trump has made have served to undermine the critical support for the NATO alliance which is crucial to protecting Europe from growing Russian expansionism.[/li][li]Deliberately false stories and misleading or unverified claims have been presented by this administration as fact, inflamming uncertainty and fear rather than calming public concerns and showing a strong leadership presence.[/li][li]In both previous world wars, the public opinion was consistently that the conflict would not grow into full scale ware even while aggressive nations continued apace and long standing ethnic conflicts were fueled into violence and then government policy. [/li][/ul]
The analogues between the precursors to previous world wars and the conflicts we are seeing develop here today are apparent to anyone critically assessing them. We may not go to war over the response to a single Syrian chemical weapons attack, but we are becoming increasingly politically entrenched in a conflict over which we actually have very little control or influence, and one that could readily lead to an open military confrontation between the US and Russia, even if by accident. And it is entirely plausible that Trump could engage us in a conflict over Syria, North Korea, or Iran (all of which he has openly threatened) that his fragile ego would not let him back down from. He is the worst of all possible characteristics in a president; ill-informed, uncritical, credulous toward factually unsupported claims, desiring of adoration and unearned respect, unwilling to accept responsibility for errors of judgment, and generally reflexive and volatile in judgment. He literally threatened a political opponent with prison if he won the election, has openly lied about election fraud in the popular vote, has promulgated blatantly untrue propaganda about the attendance at his inauguration despite photographic evidence to the contrary, has engaged in open slander toward the previous president in unfounded accusations of wiretapping his personal phones, and is generally a weak, ignorant, and mercurial personality who is clearly terrified in being called out for failure and will do anything to absolve himself of blame.
If there was ever a time when a new world war seemed most probable, it is between this and the Able Archer '83 incident, and at least then Reagan had smart, mostly rational people at the helm of his administration counseling restraint. Trump by all appearances has to advise him a talk radio white nationalist, his wealth-insulated fashionista daughter, and her husband, none of whom are experienced in dealing with high stakes international conflict. If you are not at least concerned about an unexpected conflict growing into uncontrollable open warfare, you are not paying attention.
Stranger
I’m thinking we’re probably more on the brink of Cold War II than we are World War III.
Stranger, so Trump has all of the vices of the 1914 Euro leaders in one person. The ambition of Kaiser Bill, a duffer like Czar Nick and the obliviousness of Asquith? :eek:
Thats…a scary though.
If only he were limited to just those flaws. Trump is basically educationally, experientially, emotionally, and philosophically unprepared to coach a Little League team, much less take control of the most powerful military and nuclear arsenal in the world.
“Christ, I miss the Cold War.” – M, Casino Royale
It’s all Judi Dench’s fault; that bitch gets away with everything!
Stranger
That’s why I look forward to your posts, Stranger, your indefatigable optimism.
I do agree with you. I’m terrified that Trump will bluster or blunder his way into one or more conflicts that will be more disastrous and even less justified than the 2003 Iraq invasion.
Oh, and remember that Trump wants us to have more nukes, and his statements on nukes in the past have suggested that he doesn’t see much reason not to use them if you have them. And his personal philosophy has been described as something like, “If you hit me, I hit back harder.”
I’m only old enough to have caught the tail end of the Cold War. Even so, I spent a lot of my youth worried about suddenly finding myself in a field of giant mushrooms. You know, I didn’t miss that feeling.
Why do people keep throwing up the fact Russia was notified as some kind of failing?
Russia HAD to be notified, there was a mutual deconfliction-agreement in place since 2015? between the US and Russia.
This is not the first time the agreement has been acted on, you do realize this right?
Do you want to quickly escalate to a bigger conflict?
Is that really worth having a new thing to bitch about Trump for?
Plus: he’s highly motivated to find a way to stop the investigation into his ties with Russia.
A hot war would be a great way to accomplish that: it would become positively unpatriotic to suggest that the investigation should continue.
A proxy war between America/Israel/Saudia Arabia/Qatar vs. Russia/Iran/Syria has been on for awhile now.
Supposedly (or maybe it’s fake news) some of the secret discussions between Team Trump and Russia were them trying to convince Russia to drop support for Iran, with Russia basically saying “lol no.” It’s crazy how long conservatives have been itching to get at Iran, all because the West couldn’t stand Iran wanting to nationalize their oil all those years ago.