Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 168: Chemical Attacks are Syria's Business

(+) Yeah! (+)

Jakyl25 posted...

My biggest question about this intervention is what are we hoping to accomplish exactly, and will these strikes achieve that.

Assad was not deterred from our strike last year.

From my understanding, we are targeting chemical weapons manufacturing plants; which, while it won't stop the war, will at least theoretically help reduce civilian loss of life.

Very proud to be an American and once again standing up for human rights when few others will right now.
---

Do you agree that we should allow more refugees to come here? That would be an even bigger stand for human rights!
---

4/12/2018
TWITTER - Matt Viser (Boston Globe, CNN, Town and Country)

Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis: "I've never seen refugees as traumatized as coming out of Syria. Its got to end."

Number of Syrian refugees admitted to the United States:

2016: 15,479
2017: 3,024
2018: 11

https://twitter.com/mviser/status/984493450409267205?s=20

Seems topical.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Do you agree that we should allow more refugees to come here? That would be an even bigger stand for human rights!

I do!
---

I would take in a million refugees if we could. It's always heartwarming to take people from awful countries and plop them in Indiana or whatever and convert them to red-blooded patriots.
---

Chief Pentagon spokesperson Dana White told reporters at a press briefing on Saturday that the US had seen a 2,000% increase in Russian trolls in the last 24-hours.

Jeez Russia, how deep are your pockets for troll farms?
---

sephy sure didn't care a lot for the human rights of the innocent syrian civilians trump killed last year.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

sephy sure didn't care a lot for the human rights of the innocent syrian civilians trump killed last year.

?
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

?

trump attacked syria last year, remember? do you have short term memory loss?
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

?

trump attacked syria last year, remember? do you have short term memory loss?

I'm pretty sure literally no civilians died
---

so wikipedia is lying?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Shayrat_missile_strike
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

so wikipedia is lying?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Shayrat_missile_strike

9 civilians, 7 soldiers killed (per Syrian Government)[2]
9 soldiers killed (per SOHR)[3]

If you trust the Syrian government more than the nonpartisan Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, sure.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Chief Pentagon spokesperson Dana White told reporters at a press briefing on Saturday that the US had seen a 2,000% increase in Russian trolls in the last 24-hours.

Jeez Russia, how deep are your pockets for troll farms?

Link please?
---

Here's a nine month old-tweet about Donald's take on war six montha into his Presidency:

7/17/2017
TWITTER - Ben Rhodes (Obama foreign policy advisor and speechwriter)

This is a story that merits more attention. Huge moral and strategic consequences without an explanation from WH about why this is happening https://t.co/kWiS4v4ih3

*IN RESPONSE TO SAM STEIN*

Wow. Trumps campaign against ISIS has resulted in almost as many civilian deaths as Obama had in his entire adm https://t.co/PATP79vc7m

https://twitter.com/brhodes/status/886974395096477696

And here's a link from earlier this month about how he feels about non-terrorist family members of terrorists:

4/6/2018
WASHINGTON POST - For Trump and his generals, victory has different meanings

Later, when the agencys head of drone operations explained that the CIA had developed special munitions to limit civilian casualties, the president seemed unimpressed. Watching a previously recorded strike in which the agency held off on firing until the target had wandered away from a house with his family inside, Trump asked, Why did you wait? one participant in the meeting recalled.

On the campaign trail, Trump often said he would take out the families of terrorists.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/for-trump-and-his-generals-
victory-has-different-meanings/2018/04/05/8d74eab0-381d-11e8-9c0a-85d477d9a226_story.html

I can't speak precisely about how many of those deaths would be innocent Syrians, but let's not act like Donald has much regards for innocent people in countries we attack.
---

yeah perhaps i was wrong about trump killing syrian civilians, but i'm not necessarily fine with syrian soldiers being killed either. to say "oh it's fine they have no human rights" is pretty shitty.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

yeah perhaps i was wrong about trump killing syrian civilians, but i'm not necessarily fine with syrian soldiers being killed either. to say "oh it's fine they have no human rights" is pretty shitty.

You're not okay with killing soldiers before they can kill civilians? Because that's what the Syrian military is doing
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

You're not okay with killing soldiers before they can kill civilians?

if they're just about to kill civilians sure, but if they're just sitting there drinking coffee hell no. this isn't fucking minority report. we shouldn't kill people for crimes they haven't committed yet.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

You're not okay with killing soldiers before they can kill civilians?

if they're just about to kill civilians sure, but if they're just sitting there drinking coffee hell no. this isn't fucking minority report. we shouldn't kill people for crimes they haven't committed yet.

This is a very childish viewpoint and the world would have been taken over by Nazis and Japanese Imperialists if others ascribed to it as well.
---

pretty sure hitler actually did commit crimes.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

pretty sure hitler actually did commit crimes.

So did Assad, if you're going to use that logic. Most soldiers in a war never even fire a weapon. That doesn't mean we can ignore them and still win.
---

http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/383045-wage-growth-well-short-of-what-was-promised-from-tax-reform

Great job with those tax cuts, guys.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

That doesn't mean we can ignore them and still win.

who said i want to ignore them?

but newsflash: you didn't "win" by those 9 soldiers being killed. the civil war in syria is still going on.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

but newsflash: you didn't "win" by those 9 soldiers being killed.

Trump tweeted Mission Accomplished though!
---

TheRock1525 posted...

http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/383045-wage-growth-well-short-of-what-was-promised-from-tax-reform

Great job with those tax cuts, guys.

There is something wrong with the numbers in that article. No one was projected to get a 4000-9000 dollar raise. Almost every estimate was everyone will see about $2,000 more dollars a year. Which is obvious if you just run your taxes last year with old tax code vs new tax code. Might have to add the hill as a dubious source after that article.
---

What concerns me is that supposedly we fired 100 missiles and around 30 of them were shot down. That seems like a lot for Syria to be able to shoot down. (No idea if numbers are accurate. Just saw that somewhere)
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

That doesn't mean we can ignore them and still win.

who said i want to ignore them?

but newsflash: you didn't "win" by those 9 soldiers being killed. the civil war in syria is still going on.

I'm saying you can't win if your philosophy is "we can't kill soldiers until they are imminently going to kill a civilian." It's nonsense.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

I'm saying you can't win if your philosophy is "we can't kill soldiers until they are imminently going to kill a civilian." It's nonsense.

i said that in the context of this specific case. trump killed 9 soldiers and then did fucking nothing for a year. that's not a winning strategy no matter what. so yeah, unless those soldiers were holding a bunch of civilians at gunpoint when trump fired those missilies i don't think they necessarily had to die. obviously things are different if we're talking about a competent leader trying to win a war with a country, not a moron like trump who has no idea what he's doing stumbling around.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

I'm saying you can't win if your philosophy is "we can't kill soldiers until they are imminently going to kill a civilian." It's nonsense.

i said that in the context of this specific case. trump killed 9 soldiers and then did fucking nothing for a year. that's not a winning strategy no matter what. so yeah, unless those soldiers were holding a bunch of civilians at gunpoint when trump fired those missilies i don't think they necessarily had to die. obviously things are different if we're talking about a competent leader trying to win a war with a country, not a moron like trump who has no idea what he's doing stumbling around.

So you want him to kill soldiers by the thousands so it makes more of a difference. I'm glad we finally found some common ground!
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

So you want him to kill soldiers by the thousands so it makes more of a difference.

well, obviously this is an incredibly complex topic and i don't think it's as simple as "just kill thousands of soldiers." but if you want to make a difference in syira killing syrian soldiers is unavoidable, yeah.
---

https://twitter.com/hrtbps/status/985189649164525568?s=21

Genius
---

Corrik posted...

What concerns me is that supposedly we fired 100 missiles and around 30 of them were shot down. That seems like a lot for Syria to be able to shoot down. (No idea if numbers are accurate. Just saw that somewhere)

Russia says that 71/103 were intercepted

The Pentagon says every target was successfully hit.

Itll be interesting to get real numbers
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

What concerns me is that supposedly we fired 100 missiles and around 30 of them were shot down. That seems like a lot for Syria to be able to shoot down. (No idea if numbers are accurate. Just saw that somewhere)

Russia says that 71/103 were intercepted

The Pentagon says every target was successfully hit.

Itll be interesting to get real numbers

Is there a Russian equivalent of Baghdad Bob?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

What concerns me is that supposedly we fired 100 missiles and around 30 of them were shot down. That seems like a lot for Syria to be able to shoot down. (No idea if numbers are accurate. Just saw that somewhere)

Russia says that 71/103 were intercepted

The Pentagon says every target was successfully hit.

Itll be interesting to get real numbers

Yeah, I don't know. This says they all hit and they fired 40 missiles at nothing afterwards. I dunno.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/14/russia-claims-ally-syria-shot-71-103-missiles-launched-us-britain/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/14/allies-dispute-russian-and-syrian-claims-of-shot-down-missiles
---

Im 100% certain the UK, US, French account is far more accurate than there was no chemical weapon attack at all actually it was terrorists actually it was the UK all along Russia.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Im 100% certain the UK, US, French account is far more accurate than there was no chemical weapon attack at all actually it was terrorists actually it was the UK all along Russia.

You forgot the initial "we may have accidentally bombed a rebel held chemical storage facility".

For what it is worth though, Syria State TV only claimed to shoot down 13 missiles.
---

Corrik posted...

This says they all hit and they fired 40 missiles at nothing afterwards. I dunno.

I guess its just that much fun
---

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/04/13/us/california-closer-to-split-into-three-states-trnd/index.html

Will never happen but it is funny.
---

https://twitter.com/JuliusGoat/status/985125198600069120?s=19
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

https://twitter.com/JuliusGoat/status/985125198600069120?s=19

Tell it to every President since like WW2. Lmfao.
---

Corrik posted...

Tell it to every President since like WW2. Lmfao.

Every president following Eisenhower should have been impeached tbh except maybe Carter
---

Kenri posted...

Corrik posted...

Tell it to every President since like WW2. Lmfao.

Every president following Eisenhower should have been impeached tbh except maybe Carter

Well 1 was at least!
---

Still time to go for 2!
---

Corrik posted...

Not_an_Owl posted...

https://twitter.com/JuliusGoat/status/985125198600069120?s=19

Tell it to every President since like WW2. Lmfao.

Congress did this to themselves. Just repeal the war powers act and stop crying.
---

Corrik posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/383045-wage-growth-well-short-of-what-was-promised-from-tax-reform

Great job with those tax cuts, guys.

There is something wrong with the numbers in that article. No one was projected to get a 4000-9000 dollar raise. Almost every estimate was everyone will see about $2,000 more dollars a year. Which is obvious if you just run your taxes last year with old tax code vs new tax code. Might have to add the hill as a dubious source after that article.

Trump's administration said that

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/16/kevin-hassett-americans-would-get-a-raise-if-us-cuts-corporate-taxes.html

The new report from Hassett, out Monday morning, projects that reducing the corporate tax rate to 20 percent will result in a windfall for U.S. workers. He predicted average U.S. household income would increase at least $4,000 a year but could rise as much as $9,000 annually.

Last week, Larry Summers, a Treasury secretary under former President Bill Clinton and an ex-Obama economic advisor, called an early look at the analysis flawed. "The idea that this is going to produce a $4,000 increase in wages is, I think, an absurdity," Summers said, arguing that "record highs" in corporate profits show that companies don't need an incentive to increase wages.

In response to Summers, Hassett said, "It's hard to respond to something where he says it's an absurdity, but he doesn't say why. And I can tell you he doesn't say why because he doesn't know why."

---

---

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/383045-wage-growth-well-short-of-what-was-promised-from-tax-reform

Great job with those tax cuts, guys.

There is something wrong with the numbers in that article. No one was projected to get a 4000-9000 dollar raise. Almost every estimate was everyone will see about $2,000 more dollars a year. Which is obvious if you just run your taxes last year with old tax code vs new tax code. Might have to add the hill as a dubious source after that article.

Trump's administration said that

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/16/kevin-hassett-americans-would-get-a-raise-if-us-cuts-corporate-taxes.html

The new report from Hassett, out Monday morning, projects that reducing the corporate tax rate to 20 percent will result in a windfall for U.S. workers. He predicted average U.S. household income would increase at least $4,000 a year but could rise as much as $9,000 annually.

Last week, Larry Summers, a Treasury secretary under former President Bill Clinton and an ex-Obama economic advisor, called an early look at the analysis flawed. "The idea that this is going to produce a $4,000 increase in wages is, I think, an absurdity," Summers said, arguing that "record highs" in corporate profits show that companies don't need an incentive to increase wages.

In response to Summers, Hassett said, "It's hard to respond to something where he says it's an absurdity, but he doesn't say why. And I can tell you he doesn't say why because he doesn't know why."

I think the larger point, too, is that it's nowhere near any of those fucking numbers. We just added $1 trillion in deficit so average person gets a couple hundred bucks a year.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/383045-wage-growth-well-short-of-what-was-promised-from-tax-reform

Great job with those tax cuts, guys.

There is something wrong with the numbers in that article. No one was projected to get a 4000-9000 dollar raise. Almost every estimate was everyone will see about $2,000 more dollars a year. Which is obvious if you just run your taxes last year with old tax code vs new tax code. Might have to add the hill as a dubious source after that article.

Trump's administration said that

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/16/kevin-hassett-americans-would-get-a-raise-if-us-cuts-corporate-taxes.html

The new report from Hassett, out Monday morning, projects that reducing the corporate tax rate to 20 percent will result in a windfall for U.S. workers. He predicted average U.S. household income would increase at least $4,000 a year but could rise as much as $9,000 annually.

Last week, Larry Summers, a Treasury secretary under former President Bill Clinton and an ex-Obama economic advisor, called an early look at the analysis flawed. "The idea that this is going to produce a $4,000 increase in wages is, I think, an absurdity," Summers said, arguing that "record highs" in corporate profits show that companies don't need an incentive to increase wages.

In response to Summers, Hassett said, "It's hard to respond to something where he says it's an absurdity, but he doesn't say why. And I can tell you he doesn't say why because he doesn't know why."

I think the larger point, too, is that it's nowhere near any of those fucking numbers. We just added $1 trillion in deficit so average person gets a couple hundred bucks a year.

Well...

1. That dude is not Trump.

2. That dude is using major hurdles to get to that number with "average household" and stuff added in. The average household is not defined by him. It sounds like his average household isn't very average to me.

3. This only talks about corporate tax cuts. Not the tax cut to Americans.

4. This article is stupid and the fact the Hill takes that as not stupid and runs with it to make this counter article is equally as stupid.

5. I don't think the corporate tax rate even went to 20%. Think 21.

6. "The paper never says when workers would get this wage boost. At one point, it forecasts this would occur in the medium term while at another it says the wage effects are long run but it never defines either time-frame. Nor does it say how the $4,000 would be distributed among income groups."

Just dumb shit all the way around on both sides of that right there.

So we have the Hill saying how they didn't meet their analysis for medium to long term annual gains within 3 months. Great article, The Hill! You know your user demographics well! Lol

Hassett claims that after companies use initial money to invest in equipment that in medium to long term the average household will see 4000 to 9000 annual raises. Doubtful depending on what his average household is. That is what the hill responded to.
---

ninkendo posted...

Jimmy Brooks!
---

"The tax cuts will pay off in the medium-to-long term" is just code for "we're gonna take credit for it when democrats fix the economy again" lmao
---

Kenri posted...

"The tax cuts will pay off in the medium-to-long term" is just code for "we're gonna take credit for it when democrats fix the economy again" lmao

Don't dance around it. Just say, yes, the Hill making that article was clickbait. We need to at least establish that first.
---