+- +-

+- You

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+- Site Data

Members
Total Members: 80
Latest: John Oliver
New This Month: 1
New This Week: 1
New Today: 1
Stats
Total Posts: 112048
Total Topics: 4360
Most Online Today: 7
Most Online Ever: 55
(April 18, 2016, 06:09:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Author Topic: Well, we attacked Syria...  (Read 127 times)

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7426
Well, we attacked Syria...
« on: April 14, 2018, 10:55:46 am »
...at least the UK and France participated in a joint effort - I kind of get sick and tired of us acting as "world police" unilaterally.  I'm more comfortable when other nations are involved with us as a group effort.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43762251

Social Buttons


Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 6548
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: Well, we attacked Syria...
« Reply #1 on: April 14, 2018, 02:18:24 pm »
The shroud of the dark side has fallen. Begun, the clone of the Iraq War has.

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7426
Re: Well, we attacked Syria...
« Reply #2 on: April 14, 2018, 02:35:29 pm »
The shroud of the dark side has fallen. Begun, the clone of the Iraq War has.

Neville needs to find a case of vodka and a bunker to wait this out...

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7426
Re: Well, we attacked Syria...
« Reply #3 on: April 15, 2018, 09:55:17 am »
Nikki Haley's rebuttal to Russia condemning us for the Syria attacks...


Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you, Mr. Secretary-General, for your briefing today. This is our fifth Security Council meeting in the past week to address the situation in Syria. A week has gone by in which we have talked. We’ve talked about the victims in Douma. We’ve talked about the Assad regime and its patrons, Russia and Iran. We’ve spent a week talking about the unique horror of chemical weapons. The time for talk ended last night.

We’re here today because three permanent members of the United Nations Security Council acted. The United Kingdom, France, and the United States acted – not as revenge, not as punishment, not as a symbolic show of force. We acted to deter the future use of chemical weapons by holding the Syrian regime responsible for its atrocities against humanity.

We can all see that a Russian disinformation campaign is in full force this morning. But Russia’s desperate attempts at deflection cannot change the facts. A large body of information indicates that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons in Douma on April 7. There is clear information demonstrating Assad’s culpability.

The pictures of dead children were not fake news. They were the result of the Syrian regime’s barbaric inhumanity. And they were the result of the regime and Russia’s failure to live up to their international commitments to remove all chemical weapons from Syria. The United States, France, and the United Kingdom acted after careful evaluation of these facts.

The targets we selected were at the heart of the Syrian regime’s illegal chemical weapons program. The strikes were carefully planned to minimize civilian casualties. The responses were justified, legitimate, and proportionate. The United States and its allies did everything we could to use the tools of diplomacy to get rid of Assad’s arsenal of chemical weapons.

We did not give diplomacy just one chance. We gave diplomacy chance after chance. Six times: That’s how many times Russia vetoed Security Council resolutions to address chemical weapons in Syria. Our efforts go back even further. In 2013, the Security Council passed a resolution that required the Assad regime to destroy its stockpile of chemical weapons.

Syria committed to abide by the Chemical Weapons Convention, meaning it could no longer have chemical weapons on its soil.

President Putin said Russia would guarantee that Syria complied. We hoped that this diplomacy would succeed in putting an end to the horror of chemical attacks in Syria. But as we see from the past year, that did not happen.

While Russia was busy protecting the regime, Assad took notice. The regime knew it could act with impunity, and it did.

In November, Russia used its veto to kill the Joint Investigative Mechanism, the main tool we had to figure out who used chemical weapons in Syria. Just as Russia was using its veto, the Assad regime used sarin, leading to dozens of injuries and deaths.

Russia’s veto was the green light for the Assad regime to use these most barbaric weapons against the Syrian people, in complete violation of international law. The United States and our allies were not going to let that stand. Chemical weapons are a threat to us all. They are a unique threat, a type of weapon so evil that the international community agreed they must be banned.

We cannot stand by and let Russia trash every international norm that we stand for, and allow the use of chemical weapons to go unanswered. And just as the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons last weekend was not an isolated incident, our response is part of a new course charted last year to deter future use of chemical weapons.

Our Syrian strategy has not changed. However, the Syrian regime has forced us to take action based on their repeated use of chemical weapons. Since the April 2017 chemical attack at Khan Sheikhoun, the United States has imposed hundreds of sanctions on individuals and entities involved in chemical weapons use in Syria and North Korea. We have designated entities in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa that have facilitated chemical weapons proliferation. We have revoked the visas of Russian intelligence officers in response to the chemical attack in Salisbury. We will continue to seek out and call out anyone who uses – and anyone who aids in the use – of chemical weapons.

With yesterday’s military action, our message was crystal clear. The United States of America will not allow the Assad regime to continue to use chemical weapons. Last night, we obliterated the major research facility that it used to assemble weapons of mass murder. I spoke to the President this morning and he said if the Syrian regime uses this poison gas again, the United States is locked and loaded. When our President draws a red line, our President enforces the red line.

The United States is deeply grateful to the United Kingdom and France for its part in the coalition to defend the prohibition of chemical weapons. We worked in lock step, we were in complete agreement. Last night, our great friends and indispensable allies shouldered a burden that benefits all of us. The civilized world owes them its thanks. In the weeks and months to come, the Security Council should take time to reflect on its role in defending the international rule of law.

The Security Council has failed in its duty to hold those who use chemical weapons to account. That failure is largely due to Russian obstruction. We call on Russia to take a hard look at the company it keeps, and live up to its responsibilities as a Permanent Member of the Council and defend the actual principles the United Nations was meant to promote.

Last night, we successfully hit the heart of Syria’s chemical weapons enterprise, and because of these actions, we are confident that we have crippled Syria’s chemical weapons program.

We are prepared to sustain this pressure, if the Syrian regime is foolish enough to test our will.

Robert Neville

  • God-King
  • Zack Snyder
  • **********
  • Posts: 1794
Re: Well, we attacked Syria...
« Reply #4 on: April 21, 2018, 04:07:53 pm »
The shroud of the dark side has fallen. Begun, the clone of the Iraq War has.

Neville needs to find a case of vodka and a bunker to wait this out...

I remember waking up on Thursday to our headlines stating "Trump's "smart" missiles" flew into Russia". Of course, that was clickbait that actually referred to Syrians retrieving two of the missiles and delivering them to us for analysis. This week's "Arguments and Facts" (one of the more prominent newspapers here, though that doesn't say much) also caricatured Trump on its cover with a Stars and Stripes bowler hat and a red nuclear button instead of a clown's nose. I didn't get to read much of it, though. However, if you want to get more insight into some people's perception of the events, I remember how one argument, in response to both the strikes, the Skripal backlash and the new sanctions was that it makes no sense to describe Russia as an aggressor when we never had our troops on the American or British territory, while the reverse happened during our Civil war, and, for latter, during the Crimean war.

Nikki Haley's rebuttal to Russia condemning us for the Syria attacks...

Not bad. However, it probably didn't escape your attention that the reaction appeared rather muted overseas. (I.e. perhaps I just didn't look at the news that closely, but I can't remember even British newspapers giving much stock to it.) I think a lot of the diplomats and foreign observers  still find the sudden emotional appeals to the role of the Security Council and to the international community unconvincing after her temper tantrum when that same international community made its feelings on the whole Israel embassy thing rather clear.

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7426
Re: Well, we attacked Syria...
« Reply #5 on: April 21, 2018, 07:08:12 pm »
The shroud of the dark side has fallen. Begun, the clone of the Iraq War has.

Neville needs to find a case of vodka and a bunker to wait this out...

I remember waking up on Thursday to our headlines stating "Trump's "smart" missiles" flew into Russia". Of course, that was clickbait that actually referred to Syrians retrieving two of the missiles and delivering them to us for analysis. This week's "Arguments and Facts" (one of the more prominent newspapers here, though that doesn't say much) also caricatured Trump on its cover with a Stars and Stripes bowler hat and a red nuclear button instead of a clown's nose. I didn't get to read much of it, though. However, if you want to get more insight into some people's perception of the events, I remember how one argument, in response to both the strikes, the Skripal backlash and the new sanctions was that it makes no sense to describe Russia as an aggressor when we never had our troops on the American or British territory, while the reverse happened during our Civil war, and, for latter, during the Crimean war.

Nikki Haley's rebuttal to Russia condemning us for the Syria attacks...

Not bad. However, it probably didn't escape your attention that the reaction appeared rather muted overseas. (I.e. perhaps I just didn't look at the news that closely, but I can't remember even British newspapers giving much stock to it.) I think a lot of the diplomats and foreign observers  still find the sudden emotional appeals to the role of the Security Council and to the international community unconvincing after her temper tantrum when that same international community made its feelings on the whole Israel embassy thing rather clear.

I think, at this point, almost all of the political posturing going on here is directed towards reactions here.  What I mean is, I don't think these politicians give one rat's ass about muted overseas reactions.  The Israel embassy thing was a bit funny in that, while so many voted against the move (which was a vote that meant nothing other than principle), many other nations jumped on the bandwagon to follow suit.  So, again, it was a lot of political posturing more than anything else.

Robert Neville

  • God-King
  • Zack Snyder
  • **********
  • Posts: 1794
Re: Well, we attacked Syria...
« Reply #6 on: April 22, 2018, 06:05:48 am »
The shroud of the dark side has fallen. Begun, the clone of the Iraq War has.

Neville needs to find a case of vodka and a bunker to wait this out...

I remember waking up on Thursday to our headlines stating "Trump's "smart" missiles" flew into Russia". Of course, that was clickbait that actually referred to Syrians retrieving two of the missiles and delivering them to us for analysis. This week's "Arguments and Facts" (one of the more prominent newspapers here, though that doesn't say much) also caricatured Trump on its cover with a Stars and Stripes bowler hat and a red nuclear button instead of a clown's nose. I didn't get to read much of it, though. However, if you want to get more insight into some people's perception of the events, I remember how one argument, in response to both the strikes, the Skripal backlash and the new sanctions was that it makes no sense to describe Russia as an aggressor when we never had our troops on the American or British territory, while the reverse happened during our Civil war, and, for latter, during the Crimean war.

Nikki Haley's rebuttal to Russia condemning us for the Syria attacks...

Not bad. However, it probably didn't escape your attention that the reaction appeared rather muted overseas. (I.e. perhaps I just didn't look at the news that closely, but I can't remember even British newspapers giving much stock to it.) I think a lot of the diplomats and foreign observers  still find the sudden emotional appeals to the role of the Security Council and to the international community unconvincing after her temper tantrum when that same international community made its feelings on the whole Israel embassy thing rather clear.

I think, at this point, almost all of the political posturing going on here is directed towards reactions here.  What I mean is, I don't think these politicians give one rat's ass about muted overseas reactions.  The Israel embassy thing was a bit funny in that, while so many voted against the move (which was a vote that meant nothing other than principle), many other nations jumped on the bandwagon to follow suit.  So, again, it was a lot of political posturing more than anything else.

According to Jerusalem Post, of all sources, "many other nations" currently equals to Guatemala, Honduras and now probably Romania. Crimea has more recognition than this, and a lot more absentions, rather than outright condemnation.

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7426
Re: Well, we attacked Syria...
« Reply #7 on: April 22, 2018, 11:04:31 am »
The shroud of the dark side has fallen. Begun, the clone of the Iraq War has.

Neville needs to find a case of vodka and a bunker to wait this out...

I remember waking up on Thursday to our headlines stating "Trump's "smart" missiles" flew into Russia". Of course, that was clickbait that actually referred to Syrians retrieving two of the missiles and delivering them to us for analysis. This week's "Arguments and Facts" (one of the more prominent newspapers here, though that doesn't say much) also caricatured Trump on its cover with a Stars and Stripes bowler hat and a red nuclear button instead of a clown's nose. I didn't get to read much of it, though. However, if you want to get more insight into some people's perception of the events, I remember how one argument, in response to both the strikes, the Skripal backlash and the new sanctions was that it makes no sense to describe Russia as an aggressor when we never had our troops on the American or British territory, while the reverse happened during our Civil war, and, for latter, during the Crimean war.

Nikki Haley's rebuttal to Russia condemning us for the Syria attacks...

Not bad. However, it probably didn't escape your attention that the reaction appeared rather muted overseas. (I.e. perhaps I just didn't look at the news that closely, but I can't remember even British newspapers giving much stock to it.) I think a lot of the diplomats and foreign observers  still find the sudden emotional appeals to the role of the Security Council and to the international community unconvincing after her temper tantrum when that same international community made its feelings on the whole Israel embassy thing rather clear.

I think, at this point, almost all of the political posturing going on here is directed towards reactions here.  What I mean is, I don't think these politicians give one rat's ass about muted overseas reactions.  The Israel embassy thing was a bit funny in that, while so many voted against the move (which was a vote that meant nothing other than principle), many other nations jumped on the bandwagon to follow suit.  So, again, it was a lot of political posturing more than anything else.

According to Jerusalem Post, of all sources, "many other nations" currently equals to Guatemala, Honduras and now probably Romania. Crimea has more recognition than this, and a lot more absentions, rather than outright condemnation.

Currently engaged in talks with 10 other countries:  https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/242300

These things don't happen overnight obviously. 


Plus, the fact that Israel's own prime minister saying that they themselves recognize Jerusalem as its own capital makes it even more obvious for us to move our embassy there.  Hell, each of our last 4 presidents before Trump promised to do so and never did anything about it - so it's not like this concept was completely out of left field.

Robert Neville

  • God-King
  • Zack Snyder
  • **********
  • Posts: 1794
Re: Well, we attacked Syria...
« Reply #8 on: April 22, 2018, 12:44:58 pm »
The shroud of the dark side has fallen. Begun, the clone of the Iraq War has.

Neville needs to find a case of vodka and a bunker to wait this out...

I remember waking up on Thursday to our headlines stating "Trump's "smart" missiles" flew into Russia". Of course, that was clickbait that actually referred to Syrians retrieving two of the missiles and delivering them to us for analysis. This week's "Arguments and Facts" (one of the more prominent newspapers here, though that doesn't say much) also caricatured Trump on its cover with a Stars and Stripes bowler hat and a red nuclear button instead of a clown's nose. I didn't get to read much of it, though. However, if you want to get more insight into some people's perception of the events, I remember how one argument, in response to both the strikes, the Skripal backlash and the new sanctions was that it makes no sense to describe Russia as an aggressor when we never had our troops on the American or British territory, while the reverse happened during our Civil war, and, for latter, during the Crimean war.

Nikki Haley's rebuttal to Russia condemning us for the Syria attacks...

Not bad. However, it probably didn't escape your attention that the reaction appeared rather muted overseas. (I.e. perhaps I just didn't look at the news that closely, but I can't remember even British newspapers giving much stock to it.) I think a lot of the diplomats and foreign observers  still find the sudden emotional appeals to the role of the Security Council and to the international community unconvincing after her temper tantrum when that same international community made its feelings on the whole Israel embassy thing rather clear.

I think, at this point, almost all of the political posturing going on here is directed towards reactions here.  What I mean is, I don't think these politicians give one rat's ass about muted overseas reactions.  The Israel embassy thing was a bit funny in that, while so many voted against the move (which was a vote that meant nothing other than principle), many other nations jumped on the bandwagon to follow suit.  So, again, it was a lot of political posturing more than anything else.

According to Jerusalem Post, of all sources, "many other nations" currently equals to Guatemala, Honduras and now probably Romania. Crimea has more recognition than this, and a lot more absentions, rather than outright condemnation.

Currently engaged in talks with 10 other countries:  https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/242300

These things don't happen overnight obviously. 


Plus, the fact that Israel's own prime minister saying that they themselves recognize Jerusalem as its own capital makes it even more obvious for us to move our embassy there.  Hell, each of our last 4 presidents before Trump promised to do so and never did anything about it - so it's not like this concept was completely out of left field.


That's February's article, back when only Guatemala recognised, so I think you can safely knock it down to 8 at the very best.

And I know that it was all preceded by a Jerusalem Embassy Act 20+ years ago, one that had nearly unanimous approval, so the reaction of many Democrats is pretty hypocritical. The outside world, however, doesn't care. They only know they can't let Israel have the entire Jerusalem to itself: in the framework we, and many other Middle Eastern players, have recognised, Israel will have to live with the West of the city, but Palestine must get the East.

For any country, moving embassies right now is asserting Israel should keep the entire city. Since Israel only got the Eastern half after 1967 war, any country with a border conflict of any kind that officially recognises the fruits of said conquest would then have a hard time complaining if/when they lose a chunk of their territory under similar circumstances. Obviously, all of that applies to recognising Crimea as well, and there are a few more such cases around the world: i.e. Turkish-controlled Eastern Cyprus. It would be nice if there could be a single global conference that could address all of this simultaneously, but we'll have to wait a long time before something like it could even appear feasible.

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7426
Re: Well, we attacked Syria...
« Reply #9 on: April 22, 2018, 02:49:21 pm »
The shroud of the dark side has fallen. Begun, the clone of the Iraq War has.

Neville needs to find a case of vodka and a bunker to wait this out...

I remember waking up on Thursday to our headlines stating "Trump's "smart" missiles" flew into Russia". Of course, that was clickbait that actually referred to Syrians retrieving two of the missiles and delivering them to us for analysis. This week's "Arguments and Facts" (one of the more prominent newspapers here, though that doesn't say much) also caricatured Trump on its cover with a Stars and Stripes bowler hat and a red nuclear button instead of a clown's nose. I didn't get to read much of it, though. However, if you want to get more insight into some people's perception of the events, I remember how one argument, in response to both the strikes, the Skripal backlash and the new sanctions was that it makes no sense to describe Russia as an aggressor when we never had our troops on the American or British territory, while the reverse happened during our Civil war, and, for latter, during the Crimean war.

Nikki Haley's rebuttal to Russia condemning us for the Syria attacks...

Not bad. However, it probably didn't escape your attention that the reaction appeared rather muted overseas. (I.e. perhaps I just didn't look at the news that closely, but I can't remember even British newspapers giving much stock to it.) I think a lot of the diplomats and foreign observers  still find the sudden emotional appeals to the role of the Security Council and to the international community unconvincing after her temper tantrum when that same international community made its feelings on the whole Israel embassy thing rather clear.

I think, at this point, almost all of the political posturing going on here is directed towards reactions here.  What I mean is, I don't think these politicians give one rat's ass about muted overseas reactions.  The Israel embassy thing was a bit funny in that, while so many voted against the move (which was a vote that meant nothing other than principle), many other nations jumped on the bandwagon to follow suit.  So, again, it was a lot of political posturing more than anything else.

According to Jerusalem Post, of all sources, "many other nations" currently equals to Guatemala, Honduras and now probably Romania. Crimea has more recognition than this, and a lot more absentions, rather than outright condemnation.

Currently engaged in talks with 10 other countries:  https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/242300

These things don't happen overnight obviously. 


Plus, the fact that Israel's own prime minister saying that they themselves recognize Jerusalem as its own capital makes it even more obvious for us to move our embassy there.  Hell, each of our last 4 presidents before Trump promised to do so and never did anything about it - so it's not like this concept was completely out of left field.


That's February's article, back when only Guatemala recognised, so I think you can safely knock it down to 8 at the very best.

And I know that it was all preceded by a Jerusalem Embassy Act 20+ years ago, one that had nearly unanimous approval, so the reaction of many Democrats is pretty hypocritical. The outside world, however, doesn't care. They only know they can't let Israel have the entire Jerusalem to itself: in the framework we, and many other Middle Eastern players, have recognised, Israel will have to live with the West of the city, but Palestine must get the East.

For any country, moving embassies right now is asserting Israel should keep the entire city. Since Israel only got the Eastern half after 1967 war, any country with a border conflict of any kind that officially recognises the fruits of said conquest would then have a hard time complaining if/when they lose a chunk of their territory under similar circumstances. Obviously, all of that applies to recognising Crimea as well, and there are a few more such cases around the world: i.e. Turkish-controlled Eastern Cyprus. It would be nice if there could be a single global conference that could address all of this simultaneously, but we'll have to wait a long time before something like it could even appear feasible.

Well as long as negotiations are happening, we don't know exactly what the number is.  And I realize that the outside world doesn't care - as they shouldn't.  It is OUR embassy, and as long as Israel is okay with it, we can move it wherever we want.  I would think/hope that we wouldn't care or get involved if another country wanted to move THEIR embassy somewhere, as long as the host city agreed to it.  I wouldn't characterize Haley's rebuttal as a "temper tantrum" with regards to the embassy moving. 

"At the UN, we're constantly asked to do more and give more -- in the past we have. So, when we make a decision, at the will of the American people, about where to locate OUR embassy, we don't expect those we've helped to target us," Haley wrote on Facebook and Twitter on Tuesday evening. "On Thursday, there will be a vote at the UN criticizing our choice. And yes, the US will be taking names."

Not a tantrum.

After the vote, she said this...

"What we witnessed here today in the Security Council is an insult. It won't be forgotten. It's one more example of the United Nations doing more harm than good in addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,"

Again, not a tantrum.  A tantrum is what Donald Trump tweets half the time - she is calculated in her messages and responses.

Robert Neville

  • God-King
  • Zack Snyder
  • **********
  • Posts: 1794
Re: Well, we attacked Syria...
« Reply #10 on: April 22, 2018, 03:35:12 pm »
The shroud of the dark side has fallen. Begun, the clone of the Iraq War has.

Neville needs to find a case of vodka and a bunker to wait this out...

I remember waking up on Thursday to our headlines stating "Trump's "smart" missiles" flew into Russia". Of course, that was clickbait that actually referred to Syrians retrieving two of the missiles and delivering them to us for analysis. This week's "Arguments and Facts" (one of the more prominent newspapers here, though that doesn't say much) also caricatured Trump on its cover with a Stars and Stripes bowler hat and a red nuclear button instead of a clown's nose. I didn't get to read much of it, though. However, if you want to get more insight into some people's perception of the events, I remember how one argument, in response to both the strikes, the Skripal backlash and the new sanctions was that it makes no sense to describe Russia as an aggressor when we never had our troops on the American or British territory, while the reverse happened during our Civil war, and, for latter, during the Crimean war.

Nikki Haley's rebuttal to Russia condemning us for the Syria attacks...

Not bad. However, it probably didn't escape your attention that the reaction appeared rather muted overseas. (I.e. perhaps I just didn't look at the news that closely, but I can't remember even British newspapers giving much stock to it.) I think a lot of the diplomats and foreign observers  still find the sudden emotional appeals to the role of the Security Council and to the international community unconvincing after her temper tantrum when that same international community made its feelings on the whole Israel embassy thing rather clear.

I think, at this point, almost all of the political posturing going on here is directed towards reactions here.  What I mean is, I don't think these politicians give one rat's ass about muted overseas reactions.  The Israel embassy thing was a bit funny in that, while so many voted against the move (which was a vote that meant nothing other than principle), many other nations jumped on the bandwagon to follow suit.  So, again, it was a lot of political posturing more than anything else.

According to Jerusalem Post, of all sources, "many other nations" currently equals to Guatemala, Honduras and now probably Romania. Crimea has more recognition than this, and a lot more absentions, rather than outright condemnation.

Currently engaged in talks with 10 other countries:  https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/242300

These things don't happen overnight obviously. 


Plus, the fact that Israel's own prime minister saying that they themselves recognize Jerusalem as its own capital makes it even more obvious for us to move our embassy there.  Hell, each of our last 4 presidents before Trump promised to do so and never did anything about it - so it's not like this concept was completely out of left field.


That's February's article, back when only Guatemala recognised, so I think you can safely knock it down to 8 at the very best.

And I know that it was all preceded by a Jerusalem Embassy Act 20+ years ago, one that had nearly unanimous approval, so the reaction of many Democrats is pretty hypocritical. The outside world, however, doesn't care. They only know they can't let Israel have the entire Jerusalem to itself: in the framework we, and many other Middle Eastern players, have recognised, Israel will have to live with the West of the city, but Palestine must get the East.

For any country, moving embassies right now is asserting Israel should keep the entire city. Since Israel only got the Eastern half after 1967 war, any country with a border conflict of any kind that officially recognises the fruits of said conquest would then have a hard time complaining if/when they lose a chunk of their territory under similar circumstances. Obviously, all of that applies to recognising Crimea as well, and there are a few more such cases around the world: i.e. Turkish-controlled Eastern Cyprus. It would be nice if there could be a single global conference that could address all of this simultaneously, but we'll have to wait a long time before something like it could even appear feasible.

Well as long as negotiations are happening, we don't know exactly what the number is.  And I realize that the outside world doesn't care - as they shouldn't.  It is OUR embassy, and as long as Israel is okay with it, we can move it wherever we want.  I would think/hope that we wouldn't care or get involved if another country wanted to move THEIR embassy somewhere, as long as the host city agreed to it.  I wouldn't characterize Haley's rebuttal as a "temper tantrum" with regards to the embassy moving. 

"At the UN, we're constantly asked to do more and give more -- in the past we have. So, when we make a decision, at the will of the American people, about where to locate OUR embassy, we don't expect those we've helped to target us," Haley wrote on Facebook and Twitter on Tuesday evening. "On Thursday, there will be a vote at the UN criticizing our choice. And yes, the US will be taking names."

Not a tantrum.

After the vote, she said this...

"What we witnessed here today in the Security Council is an insult. It won't be forgotten. It's one more example of the United Nations doing more harm than good in addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,"

Again, not a tantrum.  A tantrum is what Donald Trump tweets half the time - she is calculated in her messages and responses.

So you think all of this is just about the embassy alone, with no deeper significance? All right, let's skip to the future when the embassy is actually there, and then Trump hands over to a future president, whether in 2020, 2024, earlier if Mueller's FBI dig up whatever transcript they need, later if his true believers repeal the 25th amendment - doesn't matter. Do you then think said future president would be able to declare that United States thinks Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be solved in part through dividing Jerusalem between East and West, all while keeping their embassy there?

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7426
Re: Well, we attacked Syria...
« Reply #11 on: April 22, 2018, 05:37:59 pm »
The shroud of the dark side has fallen. Begun, the clone of the Iraq War has.

Neville needs to find a case of vodka and a bunker to wait this out...

I remember waking up on Thursday to our headlines stating "Trump's "smart" missiles" flew into Russia". Of course, that was clickbait that actually referred to Syrians retrieving two of the missiles and delivering them to us for analysis. This week's "Arguments and Facts" (one of the more prominent newspapers here, though that doesn't say much) also caricatured Trump on its cover with a Stars and Stripes bowler hat and a red nuclear button instead of a clown's nose. I didn't get to read much of it, though. However, if you want to get more insight into some people's perception of the events, I remember how one argument, in response to both the strikes, the Skripal backlash and the new sanctions was that it makes no sense to describe Russia as an aggressor when we never had our troops on the American or British territory, while the reverse happened during our Civil war, and, for latter, during the Crimean war.

Nikki Haley's rebuttal to Russia condemning us for the Syria attacks...

Not bad. However, it probably didn't escape your attention that the reaction appeared rather muted overseas. (I.e. perhaps I just didn't look at the news that closely, but I can't remember even British newspapers giving much stock to it.) I think a lot of the diplomats and foreign observers  still find the sudden emotional appeals to the role of the Security Council and to the international community unconvincing after her temper tantrum when that same international community made its feelings on the whole Israel embassy thing rather clear.

I think, at this point, almost all of the political posturing going on here is directed towards reactions here.  What I mean is, I don't think these politicians give one rat's ass about muted overseas reactions.  The Israel embassy thing was a bit funny in that, while so many voted against the move (which was a vote that meant nothing other than principle), many other nations jumped on the bandwagon to follow suit.  So, again, it was a lot of political posturing more than anything else.

According to Jerusalem Post, of all sources, "many other nations" currently equals to Guatemala, Honduras and now probably Romania. Crimea has more recognition than this, and a lot more absentions, rather than outright condemnation.

Currently engaged in talks with 10 other countries:  https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/242300

These things don't happen overnight obviously. 


Plus, the fact that Israel's own prime minister saying that they themselves recognize Jerusalem as its own capital makes it even more obvious for us to move our embassy there.  Hell, each of our last 4 presidents before Trump promised to do so and never did anything about it - so it's not like this concept was completely out of left field.


That's February's article, back when only Guatemala recognised, so I think you can safely knock it down to 8 at the very best.

And I know that it was all preceded by a Jerusalem Embassy Act 20+ years ago, one that had nearly unanimous approval, so the reaction of many Democrats is pretty hypocritical. The outside world, however, doesn't care. They only know they can't let Israel have the entire Jerusalem to itself: in the framework we, and many other Middle Eastern players, have recognised, Israel will have to live with the West of the city, but Palestine must get the East.

For any country, moving embassies right now is asserting Israel should keep the entire city. Since Israel only got the Eastern half after 1967 war, any country with a border conflict of any kind that officially recognises the fruits of said conquest would then have a hard time complaining if/when they lose a chunk of their territory under similar circumstances. Obviously, all of that applies to recognising Crimea as well, and there are a few more such cases around the world: i.e. Turkish-controlled Eastern Cyprus. It would be nice if there could be a single global conference that could address all of this simultaneously, but we'll have to wait a long time before something like it could even appear feasible.

Well as long as negotiations are happening, we don't know exactly what the number is.  And I realize that the outside world doesn't care - as they shouldn't.  It is OUR embassy, and as long as Israel is okay with it, we can move it wherever we want.  I would think/hope that we wouldn't care or get involved if another country wanted to move THEIR embassy somewhere, as long as the host city agreed to it.  I wouldn't characterize Haley's rebuttal as a "temper tantrum" with regards to the embassy moving. 

"At the UN, we're constantly asked to do more and give more -- in the past we have. So, when we make a decision, at the will of the American people, about where to locate OUR embassy, we don't expect those we've helped to target us," Haley wrote on Facebook and Twitter on Tuesday evening. "On Thursday, there will be a vote at the UN criticizing our choice. And yes, the US will be taking names."

Not a tantrum.

After the vote, she said this...

"What we witnessed here today in the Security Council is an insult. It won't be forgotten. It's one more example of the United Nations doing more harm than good in addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,"

Again, not a tantrum.  A tantrum is what Donald Trump tweets half the time - she is calculated in her messages and responses.

So you think all of this is just about the embassy alone, with no deeper significance? All right, let's skip to the future when the embassy is actually there, and then Trump hands over to a future president, whether in 2020, 2024, earlier if Mueller's FBI dig up whatever transcript they need, later if his true believers repeal the 25th amendment - doesn't matter. Do you then think said future president would be able to declare that United States thinks Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be solved in part through dividing Jerusalem between East and West, all while keeping their embassy there?

Honestly, to me, that's between Israel and Palestine.  I'm kind of sick of us playing world police to everybody.  However, I don't think the fact that our last 5 presidents (including Trump) wanting to move the embassy to Jerusalem should be anybody's business other than us and Israel.  The UN has absolutely ZERO jurisdiction over such a move, so for them to hold some pointless ceremonial "vote" that changes nothing except to get everybody's panties in a wad seems very media-like in their attempt to stoke fires that don't need to be.  I subscribe more to the theory of "my business in my business" and "your business is your business" for the most part.  Now, if someone is practicing mass genocide or attacks our allies or something like that, it's a different story.  But for the most part, I think we need to stay out of other people's affairs and, in turn, they should stay out of ours.

Robert Neville

  • God-King
  • Zack Snyder
  • **********
  • Posts: 1794
Re: Well, we attacked Syria...
« Reply #12 on: April 22, 2018, 06:05:17 pm »
The shroud of the dark side has fallen. Begun, the clone of the Iraq War has.

Neville needs to find a case of vodka and a bunker to wait this out...

I remember waking up on Thursday to our headlines stating "Trump's "smart" missiles" flew into Russia". Of course, that was clickbait that actually referred to Syrians retrieving two of the missiles and delivering them to us for analysis. This week's "Arguments and Facts" (one of the more prominent newspapers here, though that doesn't say much) also caricatured Trump on its cover with a Stars and Stripes bowler hat and a red nuclear button instead of a clown's nose. I didn't get to read much of it, though. However, if you want to get more insight into some people's perception of the events, I remember how one argument, in response to both the strikes, the Skripal backlash and the new sanctions was that it makes no sense to describe Russia as an aggressor when we never had our troops on the American or British territory, while the reverse happened during our Civil war, and, for latter, during the Crimean war.

Nikki Haley's rebuttal to Russia condemning us for the Syria attacks...

Not bad. However, it probably didn't escape your attention that the reaction appeared rather muted overseas. (I.e. perhaps I just didn't look at the news that closely, but I can't remember even British newspapers giving much stock to it.) I think a lot of the diplomats and foreign observers  still find the sudden emotional appeals to the role of the Security Council and to the international community unconvincing after her temper tantrum when that same international community made its feelings on the whole Israel embassy thing rather clear.

I think, at this point, almost all of the political posturing going on here is directed towards reactions here.  What I mean is, I don't think these politicians give one rat's ass about muted overseas reactions.  The Israel embassy thing was a bit funny in that, while so many voted against the move (which was a vote that meant nothing other than principle), many other nations jumped on the bandwagon to follow suit.  So, again, it was a lot of political posturing more than anything else.

According to Jerusalem Post, of all sources, "many other nations" currently equals to Guatemala, Honduras and now probably Romania. Crimea has more recognition than this, and a lot more absentions, rather than outright condemnation.

Currently engaged in talks with 10 other countries:  https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/242300

These things don't happen overnight obviously. 


Plus, the fact that Israel's own prime minister saying that they themselves recognize Jerusalem as its own capital makes it even more obvious for us to move our embassy there.  Hell, each of our last 4 presidents before Trump promised to do so and never did anything about it - so it's not like this concept was completely out of left field.


That's February's article, back when only Guatemala recognised, so I think you can safely knock it down to 8 at the very best.

And I know that it was all preceded by a Jerusalem Embassy Act 20+ years ago, one that had nearly unanimous approval, so the reaction of many Democrats is pretty hypocritical. The outside world, however, doesn't care. They only know they can't let Israel have the entire Jerusalem to itself: in the framework we, and many other Middle Eastern players, have recognised, Israel will have to live with the West of the city, but Palestine must get the East.

For any country, moving embassies right now is asserting Israel should keep the entire city. Since Israel only got the Eastern half after 1967 war, any country with a border conflict of any kind that officially recognises the fruits of said conquest would then have a hard time complaining if/when they lose a chunk of their territory under similar circumstances. Obviously, all of that applies to recognising Crimea as well, and there are a few more such cases around the world: i.e. Turkish-controlled Eastern Cyprus. It would be nice if there could be a single global conference that could address all of this simultaneously, but we'll have to wait a long time before something like it could even appear feasible.

Well as long as negotiations are happening, we don't know exactly what the number is.  And I realize that the outside world doesn't care - as they shouldn't.  It is OUR embassy, and as long as Israel is okay with it, we can move it wherever we want.  I would think/hope that we wouldn't care or get involved if another country wanted to move THEIR embassy somewhere, as long as the host city agreed to it.  I wouldn't characterize Haley's rebuttal as a "temper tantrum" with regards to the embassy moving. 

"At the UN, we're constantly asked to do more and give more -- in the past we have. So, when we make a decision, at the will of the American people, about where to locate OUR embassy, we don't expect those we've helped to target us," Haley wrote on Facebook and Twitter on Tuesday evening. "On Thursday, there will be a vote at the UN criticizing our choice. And yes, the US will be taking names."

Not a tantrum.

After the vote, she said this...

"What we witnessed here today in the Security Council is an insult. It won't be forgotten. It's one more example of the United Nations doing more harm than good in addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,"

Again, not a tantrum.  A tantrum is what Donald Trump tweets half the time - she is calculated in her messages and responses.

So you think all of this is just about the embassy alone, with no deeper significance? All right, let's skip to the future when the embassy is actually there, and then Trump hands over to a future president, whether in 2020, 2024, earlier if Mueller's FBI dig up whatever transcript they need, later if his true believers repeal the 25th amendment - doesn't matter. Do you then think said future president would be able to declare that United States thinks Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be solved in part through dividing Jerusalem between East and West, all while keeping their embassy there?

Honestly, to me, that's between Israel and Palestine.  I'm kind of sick of us playing world police to everybody.  However, I don't think the fact that our last 5 presidents (including Trump) wanting to move the embassy to Jerusalem should be anybody's business other than us and Israel.  The UN has absolutely ZERO jurisdiction over such a move, so for them to hold some pointless ceremonial "vote" that changes nothing except to get everybody's panties in a wad seems very media-like in their attempt to stoke fires that don't need to be.  I subscribe more to the theory of "my business in my business" and "your business is your business" for the most part.  Now, if someone is practicing mass genocide or attacks our allies or something like that, it's a different story.  But for the most part, I think we need to stay out of other people's affairs and, in turn, they should stay out of ours.

Well, I mostly emphasize with that sentiment. Nevertheless, I still think that if Trump explicitly said you were moving the embassy to West Jerusalem only, and still open to supporting the negotiations on the status of the eastern half, there wouldn't have been anywhere near the same level of outcry. Similarly, if the "dealmaker" actually got some commitment out of Israel in return for finally doing so, the reaction again would have been better. Perhaps not even something directly related to conflict, the settlements and other difficult things. Since we started with her speech about chemical weapons, did you know that Israel still did not ratify the Convention for their prohibition? (effectively giving themselves the right to deploy them if things get bad enough.) Getting them to do something most of the world has done would have also made that speech you quoted, including the part where she refers to the very same Convention, sound a lot more convincing.

As it is, everyone gets the impression US has no interest in making Israel concede literally anything, and so Israel can keep doing what they are always doing and wouldn't need any actual peace agreement, since they are always winning anyway. So, the vote is more of a symbolic protest over that being the apparent reality for at least as long as Trump is president, since UN has no other real tools to do anything. (Party because of the very same Security Council veto you love to condemn when others deploy it.) At least, that is the way I see it.

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7426
Re: Well, we attacked Syria...
« Reply #13 on: April 22, 2018, 06:10:14 pm »
The shroud of the dark side has fallen. Begun, the clone of the Iraq War has.

Neville needs to find a case of vodka and a bunker to wait this out...

I remember waking up on Thursday to our headlines stating "Trump's "smart" missiles" flew into Russia". Of course, that was clickbait that actually referred to Syrians retrieving two of the missiles and delivering them to us for analysis. This week's "Arguments and Facts" (one of the more prominent newspapers here, though that doesn't say much) also caricatured Trump on its cover with a Stars and Stripes bowler hat and a red nuclear button instead of a clown's nose. I didn't get to read much of it, though. However, if you want to get more insight into some people's perception of the events, I remember how one argument, in response to both the strikes, the Skripal backlash and the new sanctions was that it makes no sense to describe Russia as an aggressor when we never had our troops on the American or British territory, while the reverse happened during our Civil war, and, for latter, during the Crimean war.

Nikki Haley's rebuttal to Russia condemning us for the Syria attacks...

Not bad. However, it probably didn't escape your attention that the reaction appeared rather muted overseas. (I.e. perhaps I just didn't look at the news that closely, but I can't remember even British newspapers giving much stock to it.) I think a lot of the diplomats and foreign observers  still find the sudden emotional appeals to the role of the Security Council and to the international community unconvincing after her temper tantrum when that same international community made its feelings on the whole Israel embassy thing rather clear.

I think, at this point, almost all of the political posturing going on here is directed towards reactions here.  What I mean is, I don't think these politicians give one rat's ass about muted overseas reactions.  The Israel embassy thing was a bit funny in that, while so many voted against the move (which was a vote that meant nothing other than principle), many other nations jumped on the bandwagon to follow suit.  So, again, it was a lot of political posturing more than anything else.

According to Jerusalem Post, of all sources, "many other nations" currently equals to Guatemala, Honduras and now probably Romania. Crimea has more recognition than this, and a lot more absentions, rather than outright condemnation.

Currently engaged in talks with 10 other countries:  https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/242300

These things don't happen overnight obviously. 


Plus, the fact that Israel's own prime minister saying that they themselves recognize Jerusalem as its own capital makes it even more obvious for us to move our embassy there.  Hell, each of our last 4 presidents before Trump promised to do so and never did anything about it - so it's not like this concept was completely out of left field.


That's February's article, back when only Guatemala recognised, so I think you can safely knock it down to 8 at the very best.

And I know that it was all preceded by a Jerusalem Embassy Act 20+ years ago, one that had nearly unanimous approval, so the reaction of many Democrats is pretty hypocritical. The outside world, however, doesn't care. They only know they can't let Israel have the entire Jerusalem to itself: in the framework we, and many other Middle Eastern players, have recognised, Israel will have to live with the West of the city, but Palestine must get the East.

For any country, moving embassies right now is asserting Israel should keep the entire city. Since Israel only got the Eastern half after 1967 war, any country with a border conflict of any kind that officially recognises the fruits of said conquest would then have a hard time complaining if/when they lose a chunk of their territory under similar circumstances. Obviously, all of that applies to recognising Crimea as well, and there are a few more such cases around the world: i.e. Turkish-controlled Eastern Cyprus. It would be nice if there could be a single global conference that could address all of this simultaneously, but we'll have to wait a long time before something like it could even appear feasible.

Well as long as negotiations are happening, we don't know exactly what the number is.  And I realize that the outside world doesn't care - as they shouldn't.  It is OUR embassy, and as long as Israel is okay with it, we can move it wherever we want.  I would think/hope that we wouldn't care or get involved if another country wanted to move THEIR embassy somewhere, as long as the host city agreed to it.  I wouldn't characterize Haley's rebuttal as a "temper tantrum" with regards to the embassy moving. 

"At the UN, we're constantly asked to do more and give more -- in the past we have. So, when we make a decision, at the will of the American people, about where to locate OUR embassy, we don't expect those we've helped to target us," Haley wrote on Facebook and Twitter on Tuesday evening. "On Thursday, there will be a vote at the UN criticizing our choice. And yes, the US will be taking names."

Not a tantrum.

After the vote, she said this...

"What we witnessed here today in the Security Council is an insult. It won't be forgotten. It's one more example of the United Nations doing more harm than good in addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,"

Again, not a tantrum.  A tantrum is what Donald Trump tweets half the time - she is calculated in her messages and responses.

So you think all of this is just about the embassy alone, with no deeper significance? All right, let's skip to the future when the embassy is actually there, and then Trump hands over to a future president, whether in 2020, 2024, earlier if Mueller's FBI dig up whatever transcript they need, later if his true believers repeal the 25th amendment - doesn't matter. Do you then think said future president would be able to declare that United States thinks Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be solved in part through dividing Jerusalem between East and West, all while keeping their embassy there?

Honestly, to me, that's between Israel and Palestine.  I'm kind of sick of us playing world police to everybody.  However, I don't think the fact that our last 5 presidents (including Trump) wanting to move the embassy to Jerusalem should be anybody's business other than us and Israel.  The UN has absolutely ZERO jurisdiction over such a move, so for them to hold some pointless ceremonial "vote" that changes nothing except to get everybody's panties in a wad seems very media-like in their attempt to stoke fires that don't need to be.  I subscribe more to the theory of "my business in my business" and "your business is your business" for the most part.  Now, if someone is practicing mass genocide or attacks our allies or something like that, it's a different story.  But for the most part, I think we need to stay out of other people's affairs and, in turn, they should stay out of ours.

Well, I mostly emphasize with that sentiment. Nevertheless, I still think that if Trump explicitly said you were moving the embassy to West Jerusalem only, and still open to supporting the negotiations on the status of the eastern half, there wouldn't have been anywhere near the same level of outcry. Similarly, if the "dealmaker" actually got some commitment out of Israel in return for finally doing so, the reaction again would have been better. Perhaps not even something directly related to conflict, the settlements and other difficult things. Since we started with her speech about chemical weapons, did you know that Israel still did not ratify the Convention for their prohibition? (effectively giving themselves the right to deploy them if things get bad enough.) Getting them to do something most of the world has done would have also made that speech you quoted, including the part where she refers to the very same Convention, sound a lot more convincing.

As it is, everyone gets the impression US has no interest in making Israel concede literally anything, and so Israel can keep doing what they are always doing and wouldn't need any actual peace agreement, since they are always winning anyway. So, the vote is more of a symbolic protest over that being the apparent reality for at least as long as Trump is president, since UN has no other real tools to do anything. (Party because of the very same Security Council veto you love to condemn when others deploy it.) At least, that is the way I see it.

Well, it's not just Trump - Israel from our perspective is "always winning anyway" - that hasn't really changed with the election - we have always had close ties to Israel - so yeah, they are probably going to get preferential treatment from us based on the fact that they are our ally.  But, they same happens in many other cases.  Look at China and North Korea - China STILL doesn't condemn the shit North Korea does - only recently has China even started abstaining or voting neutral.  Same with Russia and Syria.  So Israel getting better treatment from us than others isn't some novel concept - it's reality, and it's not a break from how other countries interact with their allies.

 

+- Hot Threads

The Trump Presidency Thread by John Oliver
Today at 04:43:54 am

Movie critics/reviewers you regularly read/listen to by Tut
Today at 02:13:14 am

THE OFFICIAL MOVIE WATCHING THREAD by ChillinDylan Godsend
Today at 12:40:20 am

Best political ads by Tut
June 19, 2018, 10:51:07 pm

The D.I.E.G.O. System by Tut
June 19, 2018, 10:47:19 pm

2 Fudge 2 Knuckle by ChillinDylan Godsend
June 19, 2018, 08:10:44 pm

The Official "Going to see..." Movie Thread by Rupert Pupkin
June 19, 2018, 03:49:19 pm

What song are you listening to - Part II by Charles Longboat Jr.
June 19, 2018, 03:03:17 pm

Hereditary by Kale Pasta
June 19, 2018, 11:38:46 am

Incredibles 2 by ChillinDylan Godsend
June 19, 2018, 12:02:27 am

Rapper XXXTentacion Shot Dead. Age 20 by ChillinDylan Godsend
June 18, 2018, 06:46:16 pm

Has anyone played any of the Far Cry games? by ChillinDylan Godsend
June 18, 2018, 12:19:25 am

Tag by ChillinDylan Godsend
June 18, 2018, 12:16:49 am

2018 Standings by ChillinDylan Godsend
June 17, 2018, 10:16:29 pm

Started a Twitter Account for the Board by ChillinDylan Godsend
June 17, 2018, 10:00:19 pm