tuco

Syria, Deterrence of Chemical Weapons and U.S. Policy in the Middle East – By Joshua Landis http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/syria-deterrence-of-chemical-weapons-and-u-s-policy-in-the-middle-east-by-joshua-landis/ So the way I understand it. - Accept Assad won - Do not abandon Kurds - Tolerate Iran and Russia in the region - Do not send new, nice and smart

President of the most powerful military in the world informs another president of very powerful military about military action over Twitter? I guess I am out of touch. What do I expect of Mr. Trump? I avoid paying attention to him whenever I can. I would rather Mr. Trump to call or visit Mr. Putin and talk about it as adult, intelligent and educated people. I do not have such plan. See my posts on previous pages for more details. And let me repeat. I can criticise simply because the action in question is open to criticism and I am not the president of anything so I do not need to have any plan. Make me president, give me few weeks and I will present you with a plan but I can tell you right now, as I mentioned in my previous posts, I would try to become part of the Astana process.

What do you mean? According to most let's say, experts, people who have much better understanding of the issue than any of us, Assad won the civil war. So unless the US, or someone else, will invade, its likely Syria's (civil) war will end in near future. That is why I asked before: What is the US gonna do, realistically? I was told .. kick in the balls. Hmm that is gonna change a lot, not.

Well, I don't use Twitter and I don't have ambitions to lead or command anything, however, I would wait for an investigation (that would prevent Russia from using rhetoric cited above among other things) and I would not escalate tensions (I prefer de-escalation and diplomacy). I would also not signal what I was gonna do, with regard to military actions, next. More importantly, I would care about Syrians through the whole conflict and not only when some of them die in a chemical attack. As I noted, killing civilians is unacceptable by any means and in my mind, chemical weapons are not my "red line". My "red line" is human suffering of any kind. Criticising? He sounds to me like 11 years old. That is a description, admittedly in negative connotations, and though I could use more sophisticated description, it would still be in negative connotations simply because I do not believe anything positive can come out of launching "nice, and new, and smart" missiles.

Should .. well, I can image referendum about this, which would determine this "should". It's certainly "doable": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Israel_Defense_Forces

Out of curiosity, what exactly are you thinking, with regards to said tweet? I can tell you what I am thinking. This statement comes from an angry 11 years old.

If Mr. Trump was not the president of the US nobody sensible would pay attention to him. Back on topic: Russia vetoes US resolution on Syria chemical weapons probe https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/04/russia-vetoes-resolution-syria-chemical-weapons-probe-180410193956669.html That is kind of hmm clever rhetoric, innit?

I see, thanks. Well, that ends the thread answers the OP or?

The point where the cost outweighs the benefit. btw can you point me to where I can read about this cut-off because I have not heard about it before.

The real question, to me, is who gets to decide this point, respectively who would want to be the decider?

For those interested in let's say broader analysis of the situation in Syria see this blog: Syria Comment - http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/ For example here: A Sustainable United States Policy for North Syria, the Kurds, Turkey and the Syrian Government – by Landis and Barber http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/a-sustainable-united-states-policy-for-north-syria-the-kurds-turkey-and-the-syrian-government-by-landis-and-barber/

On another board, there was an alleged Syrian who came into a thread about the Copenhagen giraffe outrage - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/09/danish-zoo-outrage-giraffe-marius - and said something like: You people got priorities fucked up. In my opinion, s/he was right.

Top U.S. general: Fair to say Assad "won" Syrian civil war - https://www.axios.com/top-us-general-not-too-strong-to-say-assad-has-won-syrian-war-1520967906-fd26dca0-108d-4578-8721-b5f0d135083f.html To me, accepting this is the starting point. No fly zone has to be agreed by Russia as Russia can veto. Refugee camps are not a long-term solution. In this regard, who is "we"? You or me? Apparently, my fellow citizens are not willing to let any Syrian refugees into the country. So who will take them? Besides, refugee camps are looming catastrophe as kids are not getting education, adults cannot work, conditions are far from decent etc. Not sure about economic pressure, sanctions, as in my opinion they showed mostly ineffective in past, recently after the Crimea affair. No argument about helping to rebuild. After all, our companies will not do it for free so I imagine they are eager to get some juicy contracts. --- btw what you are suggesting is about 6 or 7 years late. And personal note, if my kid was killed by chemical attack or conventional or a sniper or died from hunger or lack of basic medicine, I am not sure it would make much difference to me which one it was. Seems to me, the chemical attack is for some like waving a red cloth in front of a bull. Not sure the dead are as outraged as some of us are.

Right, so does a joint statement, for example. If you believe that launching rockets from a ship, like last time, is the proverbial kick in the balls and is more effective than a joint statement, then I nor anyone else will be able to convince you otherwise. To me its more like a spit on shoes but that is just my opinion. Approach through the UN is problematic in the same sense Israeli-Palestinian conflict is. There is the veto.

Right, but what does in mean, in realpolitik terms? I can understand the outrage. I can even agree that violence against a tyrant is justified. But how does outrage or kick in the balls help to end the violence in Syria? Let's not forget, this is not about us, what we feel or think, this is about millions of Syrians in the first place. In other words, what you gonna do about the despot? Seriously, I am all ears.

As the article I linked mentioned Geneva, under the auspices of the UN, is in comatose. The Astana process seems to be the realistic way forward at the moment. I cannot comment on the US position though, with regards to peace in Syria, I do not think its determinant. My personal observation is that the US, populace, is not interested in Syria until chemical weapons are used and then there is short and loud outrage followed by disinterest again. My position, which is pretty much irrelevant, is as follows. To find out what Syrians want would be best determined in free elections, which cannot happen while there is a civil war. Thus end the violence asap and go from there. There are many issues to solve and war crimes by Assad are just one of them. There is Kurdish interest, there is reconciliation of various parties involved in the civil war, there are foreign militants etc.

I was not asking what Mr. Trump, amazing how one man determines for 300mil, I was asking what the US can realistically do? Where realistically means: In a way that demonstrates a sensible and practical idea of what can be achieved or expected. I would say nothing. In my opinion, sensible would be to work with the others - Putin, Erdogan, Rouhani - to end the civil war as quickly as possible and go from there. What can the UN, as you suggested, realistically do?

Regardless of what anyone can imagine, realities seem to be that Assad will stay in power. And I ask again, what will the US do, realistically?

I am led to believe that the solution for Syria is diplomatic. Removing Assad from power seems out of question. Putin, Erdogan, Rouhani extend circle of trust in Syria http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2018/04/trump-syria-withdrawal-iran-turkey-russia.html#ixzz5C6sblxcu What can the US administration do? Launch rockets again?

AAA statement on race, used as in OP, is sometimes interpreted as an act of political correctness rather than scientific consensus. OP starts with:

I can only assume as I noted. Such assumption is based, again, on drawing a historical parallel from personal experience from a country belonging to the Soviet Bloc during the late 80's. People were able to receive a terrestrial radio broadcast from the West (RadioFreeEurope) or even television broadcast if they lived near the border with Austria or West Germany. In addition, various printed materials were available to an admittedly small group of people, which were either smuggled in from the West or printed in small editions by individuals. At that time satellite broadcast was not available nor was the internet so I would assume access to information could be somehow easier than in 80's. For more see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_jamming_in_Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_North_Korea However, from the little I know about NK the disconnect, you mentioned, there seems to be much greater than it was in the former Soviet Bloc, so it's hard to tell how informed NK populace really is. The system, in the former Soviet Bloc, let's say from 70's was not held in place mainly by propaganda but by power - secret police, Soviet military, legal system.

Since "common attitude" is usually determined by an opinion poll, even better by kind of election, I would be surprised if it was known. As for the NK soldier anecdote, it might as well be close to reality, but one swallow does not make spring. While there seems to be a major disconnect with reality indeed, if we were to go by historical parallel Deutsche Demokratische Republik - Bundesrepublik Deutschland, it is perhaps quite possible that Koreans are still one nation with all perks that come with it. I would even think that many, if not majority, of NKs are aware of "the truth", just they can't do anything about it.

Robert Wright in Nonzero The Logic of Human Destiny puts it this way: more here: YOU CALL THAT DESTINY? - http://www.nonzero.org/intro.htm#grandiosity Let me just note that Robert Wright is not a scientist, Nonzero is pop science, and while his opinions do not necessarily represent mine, I like the way he thinks about things.

http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_part4.html#sec:ftlnotes edit: I guess I should note why I quoted this piece. The following quote from the same article explains it nicely: Perhaps it's obvious, perhaps not but it's imo important to consider that FTL does not necessarily mean moving faster than .. in an ordinary sense.

First let me say that our, Czech, governance is, in general, the opposite of efficient, competent, transparent and for the people governance but it is rather a self-serving machinery of opportunists. However, to answer the question in OP: Yes, important roles in the structure of ministries (we do not have agencies) are changed according to the political will of election-winning parties. The official reason is that the heads of ministries, ministers, want to have around people whom they can trust, though I think there is another one. Since parties function like corporations - where voters are customers, product are promises, and goal is to grow - they need to reward people who work for them with cozy government jobs, where they can capitalize on opportunities provided by such jobs - access to information, government tenders, ability to change legislation, contact with lobbyists etc. While the EU requires from its member to have "Civil Service Law", partly to prevent the negatives mentioned in OP (discontinuity, lack of a long-term goal, instability) , its implementation is up to each member state and in my opinion does not work very well over here.