If you know how very not-functional all their armies are, you wonder what the heck they actually want to make war with? Sending some kids with slingshots?
Except for trade wars and confiscating money, they're not that much capable of anything anymore.
I assume it would mainly be waged from the air. I suspect the US Air Force has all sorts of advanced hardware its would love to get a chance to use in anger.
Air force - well, that indeed is still a great adavantage of Western alliances in most of their wars they lead.
But, thinking back of that F-16 follow-up jet disaster... The endlessly expensive jet that is not suitable for anything else than good weather...
Only if they take their old stuff out of the chest they've been making war with for the last 40 (!) years.
And then only if Trump thinks it's worth an investment (remember: Trump said "fuck Europe, if it doesn't use me!", something like that).
I think they've got stuff in toy box that's way more advanced than the stuff they regularly use.
Or the same old stuff they use whenever war outcome doesn't look favorable for them. (Remember, the West is capable for chemical weaponry too. Scattered fire ammunition - not banned for the US because they refuse to sign or ratify (one of both it was) the international treaty. Last but not least, that shit they dropped over the Balkan-countries and several other Middle East countries, their depleted uranium shit.)
Our leaders are the most terrible hypocrites and/or cynics.
You know, just mentioning this because - ever since WWI it is loudly cried about how terrible chemical warfare is, but if you take a look at those wars the West has lead in modern times, then you find this crap used by them over and over again. The whole Balkans area and Iraq is poisoned with it...
So, who really guesses they will cease to use this shit when they've done 20 or 30 years ago or even not 10?
...And knowledge about it hasn't been burned since WWI.
I've never really understood why poisoning people is so much worse than blowing them to bits. Either way they end up dead.
I'd say poisoning is a little worse than this because that material which does that keeps on existing for hundreds and thousands of years in the earth, in drinking water and everything people need to feed themselves from, even if the wars have long been over.
Still though, previously, this didn't stop anybody from using this stuff again after WWI. Worse - they developed new and more severe stuff through the time of Cold War and they even used it after this one's official end.
Those leaders in the West didn't care for a single bit if ground is going to be poisoned for generations of generations of people after their little intermezzos throughout the world. Main thing was they got from those countries what they aimed at for their international strategy...
It is quite terifying and when you add the mix in of the nutter in the Sates , but then again i thinkit is just testpsterone lead willie shaking.
Edited at 2018-04-10 12:31 pm (UTC)
Trump is just the front man- as Bush was. When it comes to War presidents are very much in the hands of their advisers and minders.
2018-04-10 01:28 pm (UTC)
Can we afford to take action only we ourselves are directly threatened, with 100% certainty? “First they came for the socialists...” Putin wants to upend the EU, NATO, cut away slivers of neighboring territory, upturn rival governments, as well as representing the creep of authoritarianism and propaganda.
Surely worth taking a stand against that? He will hurt us directly if he can get away with it.
You see, I don't believe Putin has any such designs. He's got quite enough on his hands keeping Russia pacified.
2018-04-10 09:23 pm (UTC)
But he already has done all the things I listed. He wants to trim NATO, break the EU, break our alliances, sow chaos with our allies and overthrow democratic structures, and he is doing all of that right now, by many reports. Part of him keeping Russia stabilized is him looking like a strongman as he drinks our milkshake. Our milkshake is getting drunk right now, and he benefits.
My reading of recent events- by which I mean the history of Europe since the fall of the Soviet Union- is rather different. In my view most of the encroachment has been done by NATO and the EU- and all Putin has done is push back a little. I'm not saying he's the good guy but then neither are we. What we're seeing is the push-me-pull-you of politics as usual and its terribly, terribly tiresome.
And Putin isn't Hitler. That comparison just doesn't stand up. If he's anything he's a latter-day Stalin but with much less blood on his hands.
Why is the answer always - kill, kill kill. 'Look they're killing people - oh lets kill some of them then'. Is it really believable that dropping bombs on someone - anyone - causes peace?
I don't believe it ever has.
2018-04-10 09:20 pm (UTC)
Sometimes you have to fight because there really are bad people out there who mean us harm.
Certainly we could have not fought in World War 2. We’d all be speaking German now though, there’d be no Jews left, no disabled or mentally handicapped, and we’d live in a totalitarian state.
There are bad guys. Sometimes you have to fight.
Assad isn't our enemy. Neither is Putin- though we seem hell-bent on winding him up. The world is full of bad guys- some of whom we're quite happy to supply with armaments.
Governments don't do morality. Syria isn't about good and evil. In origin it's a civil war (and civil wars are always peculiarly vicious) and Russia and Israel and Iran and the USA are using it to jockey for position and influence. If Syria didn't have oil they probably wouldn't bother.
I am a scientist. Putin is the most plausible theory, baed on the evidence. If you want me to believe something different, I would need better evidence. I'm not hearing it anywhere.
Have you read Craig Murray's blog? He doesn't claim to disprove the theory that Putin dunnit but he raises a lot of pertinent questions. There's a great deal that's fishy about the Skripal case.