US Attacks Syria

[Shaymin]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/06/trump-syria-missiles-assad-chemical-weapons
http://www.vox.com/world/2017/4/6/15214758/us-syria-assad-bomb-cruise-missile

Activity.

So what do you think this means for the near future? Some say that it's the beginning of WWIII, but is it just hyperbole?

Go.

[Roxas]

Should've investigated the incident more thoroughly. This was a rushed and bull-headed attack that will come with mass repercussions. Syria wasn't our fight to begin with.

[Ayra]

I am fairly assured this was not a well thought out move based on reliable intelligence as the precursor to an entire operation with a clearly thought out end goal (preferably the removal of not just ISIS, but also Assad, they’re all vile scum whom must be wiped off the Face of Earth, preferably after a trial to show the world their evil, but I’ll take massive explosion or gun shot if nothing else works).

The problem is that Trump is such a short term thinker and more like a petulant child rather than a competent leader, so I doubt he is thinking beyond making himself look strong, hence why we’re sending over 50 missiles to a single airbase, which 1) seems overkill for a single target, and 2) does not have seem to have the value of attacking Assad personally or his weapons depot. Now I make those two comments are based on the presumption that there is nothing special about this target, though it may very well be an important target, which we naturally would have know way of knowing, if that were the case, as such information would be classified.

Moreover, this is useless if not followed up by the kind of long term nation building neglected by Bush and Obama and in which Trump has said he will not engage, thus this will be more creation of all the problems of Iraq and Afghanistan all over again with Iraq and Afghanistan still being problems, thus compounding conflict.

So unless they’re all deep thinkers and have been hiding it from us (yeah right), this is not an intelligent response but the acts of a weak pathetic person trying to show that he’s not the pathetic loser he is by lashing out without thinking. I sadly have no faith this is the start of the end of ISIS and Assad, but rather the catalyst to a clusterfuck of epic proportions.

[Dragonite]

I wouldn't say this is the beginning of World War III, but to all of my fellow draft-eligible people . . . have fun reading the news for the next decade or so.

Edit: Also this is who you voted for, are you satisfied yet?

[Blue]

It'd be great if this person was our president
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/375609403376144384 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/375609403376144384)

[Bricktoad]

we just wasted like 100 million dollars
we set an example for syria after they told their people "nobody cares about you guys"
united states cannot afford to get nuked (nobody can) and we may have dug a pretty deep hole. however, this probably isn't the end of the world. just expect your gas prices to shoot up. and go to college so they can't draft you as easily

[Roxas]

I wouldn't say this is the beginning of World War III, but to all of my fellow draft-eligible people . . . have fun reading the news for the next decade or so.

Edit: Also this is who you voted for, are you satisfied yet?

No one wins in a 2 party system. We would've been stuck with the same person regardless of the outcome. Not that I'm saying more parties necessarily helps, but we need at least 4 candidates to start making any real choices.

Unless they're all corporatist neocons like Trump and Clinton. At that point, we follow John Locke's advice about abolishing the current government and replacing it with a new one (preferably a night-watchman state).

It's time people ditched the social contract, btw.

[Ayra]

In what universe is either Clinton or Trump a neoconservative?

[Roxas]

In what universe is either Clinton or Trump a neoconservative?

Right....they don't deserve the "conservative" part...

Let's stick with corporatist war mongers.

[Ayra]

There we go

[Dragonite]

No one wins in a 2 party system. We would've been stuck with the same person regardless of the outcome. Not that I'm saying more parties necessarily helps, but we need at least 4 candidates to start making any real choices.

Unless they're all corporatist neocons like Trump and Clinton. At that point, we follow John Locke's advice about abolishing the current government and replacing it with a new one (preferably a night-watchman state).

It's time people ditched the social contract, btw.

Whatever your thoughts on the two party system, the reality is that we're stuck with it and the people who gave what's-his-face the protest vote - id est, you - are indirectly responsible for giving us a President with a trigger finger itchier than Dragonite playing Orion, an ego the size of Putin's bank account and the anger control skills of an atom of any given synthetic element.

Hillary Clinton, despite the spitballs you enjoy blowing at her character might say, is none of those.

Also, since when has "let's delete the current government and make a new one" ever gone as planned? (https://www.papermasters.com/john-locke-french-revolution.html)

[Roxas]

Whatever your thoughts on the two party system, the reality is that we're stuck with it and the people who gave what's-his-face the protest vote - id est, you - are indirectly responsible for giving us a President with a trigger finger itchier than Dragonite playing Orion, an ego the size of Putin's bank account and the anger control skills of an atom of any given synthetic element.

Hillary Clinton, despite the spitballs you enjoy blowing at her character might say, is none of those.

Also, since when has "let's delete the current government and make a new one" ever gone as planned? (https://www.papermasters.com/john-locke-french-revolution.html)

"The system is inefficient, but we are stuck with it."

Now don't take it personally, not that you have, but acquiescence to an inefficient system is no realistic way to change things. You must realize that in order to make a change, you have to do something different. Everyone has the ability to vote differently. Unfortunately, they use that same false dichotomy of us being "stuck with the current system" to excuse themselves of walking beyond their original political views. Now I'm no "partisan" Libertarian, and would just as much vote Republican or Democrat if a classical liberal or minarchist made to the general elections on those tickets. Besides, I have enough problems with all political parties in general.

Also, I would further note that a "protest vote" does not exist. Vote, or not vote, whatever your heart desires. Action and inaction speaks. This year's election spoke when a large number of people did not vote. This election was a disaster

For Clinton, I recall her clearly wanting a general no-fly zone in Syria and was willing to take out Assad's compounds in the same fashion as Trump. Either way, we were gonna get "Bush's 5th term".

By "corporatist", I define (or rather as it is generally defined) it as one who advocates for mixed markets and high government intervention in a capitalist economy, or "crony-capitalism" as it's known among those who prefer laissez-faire capitalism. This is both Trump and Clinton. Market centrism is corporatism.

Finally, I would point out that our founding fathers were heavily inspired by Lockean liberalism in the revolution that started our country after the despotism of the British empire caused them to secede and defend themselves. Along, with help from the French and inspirational writers such as Thomas Paine, we led a pretty successful revolution. Efficient or not, revolutions are important to keep powers in check and restore violated rights.

Note: Not all revolutions HAVE to be violent.

[Dragonite]

Now don't take it personally, not that you have, but acquiescence to an inefficient system is no realistic way to change things. You must realize that in order to make a change, you have to do something different. Everyone has the ability to vote differently. Unfortunately, they use that same false dichotomy of us being "stuck with the current system" to excuse themselves of walking beyond their original political views. Now I'm no "partisan" Libertarian, and would just as much vote Republican or Democrat if a classical liberal or minarchist made to the general elections on those tickets. Besides, I have enough problems with all political parties in general.

I'm not saying the system is brilliant and shouldn't be touched, so you can stop harping on that. I'm saying it's going to take more than Gary Johnson coming out of the blue and magically doing something that nobody else has even come close to ever doing to solve all of our problems and make everyone happy.


Also, I would further note that a "protest vote" does not exist. Vote, or not vote, whatever your heart desires. Action and inaction speaks. This year's election spoke when a large number of people did not vote. This election was a disaster.

Except for the fact that for a lot of people, that's what it was. In our current two party system, voting third party has the same end result as not voting. I'm not interested in whether it should be that way or not so you're screaming into the void at this point.


For Clinton, I recall her clearly wanting a general no-fly zone in Syria and was willing to take out Assad's compounds in the same fashion as Trump. Either way, we were gonna get "Bush's 5th term".

That's pretty cool. She might have even stuck to her word!


The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!


Note: Not all revolutions HAVE to be violent.

Yeah, but if we had another revolution which would you realistically expect to happen, the Founding Fathers or a free-for-all? In a country where half of the people literally can't buy their guns fast enough? Be honest.

[Roxas]

I'm not saying the system is brilliant and shouldn't be touched, so you can stop harping on that. I'm saying it's going to take more than Gary Johnson coming out of the blue and magically doing something that nobody else has even come close to ever doing to solve all of our problems and make everyone happy.



Except for the fact that for a lot of people, that's what it was. In our current two party system, voting third party has the same end result as not voting. I'm not interested in whether it should be that way or not so you're screaming into the void at this point.



That's pretty cool. She might have even stuck to her word!





Yeah, but if we had another revolution which would you realistically expect to happen, the Founding Fathers or a free-for-all? In a country where half of the people literally can't buy their guns fast enough? Be honest.

There's no telling, imo, what revolution will occur or how it will act. It may be peaceful, it may not.

Regardless if they keep their word, it's the act of the policy. If it happens, I'll disagree with it. I don't prefer either of them, so get out of the mindset that I'm harping at Clinton in an exclusive manner.

Also, what would it take if Gary Johnson wasn't enough? This assertion has not been elaborated on thoroughly enough to justify what is "enough" to take action to vote third party. Are you suggesting dogma and cultural influence are what drive a successful campaign? Marketing? These are valid, but mind you, you should vote with your conscience, especially when you may find both "major" candidates unfavorable.

I'm not saying Gary Johnson had to be perfect (he was far from it, anyway) but I noticed a lot of political centrists that were displeased with Clinton and Trump that were fond of Johnson's policies, but again forced themself into that fallacious false dichotomy "argument" that they had no choice. If those people were to have voted for Johnson, he would have had a considerably larger voter base (although I won't let Johnson off the hook because of his blatantly inefficient and self-destructive first impressions he left on many Americans).

Stop thinking that because the consensus is going to vote one way that you should too. There is no justification provided that one should vote for one of two authoritarian candidates when there are other options on the table.

Had Gary Johnson, Hitler, and Mussolini been in an election together, your false dichotomy argument would've likely elected Mussolini, going by the "lesser of two evils" voting method, compared to Hitler's Aryan race platform. Obviously there was more virtue in voting for Johnson in that scenario, even if he was third party.

You have not given me a good reason to not vote third party, especially when the major candidates were eerily similar and amassing high unfavorability ratings.

Might I also recall when the Republican party was a third party? Look at it now. How is there no hope or reason for a third party victory?

If you respond with "it just wouldn't work", I'm calling for a "begging the question" fallacy and leaving this debate.

Edit:


In our current two party system, voting third party has the same end result as not voting

Appeal to probability fallacy.

[Tuxy]

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/850380219961815040
this guy on twitter summed the whole situation up pretty well imo