A spectre is haunting the world

The right is destroying itself. The democrats are dead. Bernie Sanders–a so called "socialist"–is the most popular politician in America. Membership to the DSA has more than tripled. Melanchon might pull off an upset win. Now the state wishes to initiate WW3 when most of the population is deeply against it. The winds are in our favor. Dont let it go to waste.

And people say entryism doesn't work.

American luminism is awesome, OP.

you sure about that? i bet trump gets a bump in the polls. literally if the american military attacks anything the jingo spirit oozes out of the burger masses. doesn't matter what or who it is. if a big war happens it'll take years of bloodshed until it's safe to be anti-war again

His poll numbers have actually gone down after the attack. He's losing his core supporters.

Kek, have you got any nice charts to show it? I want to see how bad it is.

I'm enormously excited about Jean-Luc. I want him to be le president & believe he will be.

plus the lepen fanboys on Holla Forums and the daily stormer will cry for a whole year

it's win-win

That's absolutely not true. The American public despises war and rapidly becomes intractable once even a little American blood is spilled. People forget that Bush Jr ran on a nonintervention platform and there were MASSIVE protests against attacking Iraq. There were also huge popular movements against entering WW1 & WW2.

Vietnam showed that Americans will not tolerate naked imperialism, so the imperialist deep state has had to get very sanitary and sneaky about achieving its objectives without "wars."

They're starting to get sloppy and senile with this whole Russia debacle. They hadn't primed and buttered the public enough to re-accept Russia as a new bogeyman, so everyone is pretty fucking mystified as to why "we're" suddenly mad at Russia again.

Nobody wants this new aggression except the deep state. Holla Forums considers Russia semi-Aryan and is livid about more "Zionist aggression" inciting white on white bloodshed.

...

...

Spam,

MODS

Never change.

Spam is spam

Imagine if she doesn't even make it to the 2eme tour!

Because I posted 2 parts of the same article relatively quick it intrinsically becomes spam?

Please, my Nazi friend. Shed your ideology and also never reply to tripfags.

Still spam. Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse.

ignore him, he's the local nut

Nobody ignores me

I see.

Getting back to the topic at hand, I unironically believe that it was a smart move on Trump's part.

like pottery

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I'll explain it for you.

Someone used chemical (chlorine or sarin) weapons on 80-150 civilians under questionable circumstances.
It would have been a very dumb thing for Assad to do and a very smart thing for the rebels to blame on Assad.
Given we have no way of knowing for sure at this time, we have to examine things from the paradigm that has been set.

So "Assad gassed his own people" "for the seventh time" and the first under Trump's watch.
Trump called the Russians who contact the syrians and then he tells his generals to give him options.
A Syrian air Force plane flew a bombing run from the stacked airbase to the area that was gassed that day around the time it happened.
Trump launches 59 missiles devestating the airfield but avoiding Syrian army and especially Russian military personnel.

Now Trump looks Swift and decisive, as well as calculated and restrained.
The Russians and syrians aren't as pissed as they could have been because of the communication with American forces beforehand.
Everyone draws their red lines and looks tough.
Xi jinping also just happens to be meeting with DJT for the first time when news of the strike broke.


Obviously the rest is speculation but the way forward that I see, especially based on:


Is one of de-escaltion and renewed cooperation in defeating isis.

Literally everyone has won in this scenario.

Let me tl;dr that for you:

Bombing a sovereign nation is never a smart move. It's morally incoherent and not justifiable within a worldview that values self-determination of peoples, a commitment to pacific attitudes, and a rejection of imperialism.

I don't like psychoanalyzing decision makers because a material analysis is always more useful, but stepping back from my commitment there I have to say that I think the belief that the strike was based on a strategic assessment is inaccurate.

It's been widely reported (in favorable terms) that Trump dropped the bombs because he was moved by the images of the "beautiful babies." It's being portrayed by the corporate and bourgeois press as the awakening of a conscience.

If that's true, and I have no reason to doubt it, then this was an emotional decision; de facto not a strategic one.

It makes little political sense but plenty of personal sense. Trump is destroying his base, getting deeply involved in another Mideast conflict. But it does help him personally by making the bourgeois elements in the press and the media his allies, and then there's the question of Russian election interference (which I don't believe in) which he can distract from.

You highlighted "coordinated somewhat with the Syrian regime" in the second image but I think you've misunderstood what Tillerson was saying.

How I think you interpreted that was that you thought Tillerson was saying the United States is coordinating the anti-ISIS campaign somewhat with the Syrian government.

But Tillerson was saying instead that the Syrian government is coordinating with Russian forces. In the sentence right before he notes "multiple engagements," and so the sentence in question is him describing some of those engagements.

Given all that above, do you still believe Trump made a smart move? Why did you believe he made a smart move, and do you still believe that? What, if anything, do you disagree with in what I just wrote?

I don't believe that his position was only or even mainly a moral one.
He's a porky businessman as you might say, and he understands power Dynamics.
But he cannot appear as a warmonger only out to carve up America's interests.
Not that I think that is his drive either.

For the last 8 years Obama has repeatedly drawn "lines In the sand" that went totally unenforced and forgot about.
Trump absolutely MUST differentiate himself from this if he is to keep long term support from his base.

I also believe that the fact it was a (so far) one off strike supports my conclusion.
Time will tell on that.

Lastly, It's important to remember that we have had special forces in country for, going on 3 years that we know of.
All this is is dick waiving and so far it appears to have worked.

This whole line of reasoning is predicated on the need to respond to pressure from the press, media, D.C. bipartisan imperialist consensus.

Why is it good that he looks swift and decisive, as well as calculated and restrained? These are D.C. newspaper terms, real people don't think like that. They see it for what it really is, another escalation in the middle east, the prelude to another money pit war.

I'll say it again because I think it's important, but all this talk of perception is only valuable to media hacks. It's the type of argument the editorial page of the New York Times makes.

Meanwhile, believing the result will be de-escalation and cooperation in defeating ISIS (I assume you mean with the Russians) is counter to the facts we know so far. As well as the deaths of Syrian soldiers and civilians, and damage done to that country's air force (which is fighting ISIS already), the real outcome of the strikes was the decision by the Russians to shut down the deconfliction line between the two armed forces.

That runs directly contrary to the goal of defeating ISIS, and the idea that the outcome will be greater cooperation.

And the political damage to Trump in his base is very great, more than I think you realize. He has lost a lot of support for this, as he should from anyone with any integrity.

I forgot this part
I don't think that's what he said. I believe the "and it is being coordinated somewhat" your referring to is a conjointive but differentiating reference to Russia and Assad as close Ally's who are being worked with as one "team" that is separate from "our team".

But people in positions of power, like xi jinping and Vladimir Putin do.
The Pew poll says most Americans agree with the strike.
Most people are also too stupid to understand complex geo-political affairs.
Source?
I don't believe this is true.

WE

LITERALLY

KILLED MORE PEOPLE

TWICE

LESS THAN A WEEK BEFORE IN TWO ROCKET STRIKES THAT BOTH KILLED TWO HUNDRED PEOPLE

YOU ADHD FORGETFUL CHILD

You will literally suck the blood out of trump's cock hahahahaha

You mean isis terrorists?

Nope. Children actually. We "missed" and hit a school, and then "missed" and hit a mosque.

It's ok Trump didn't say anything about it so there's no cum I can extract from his lecherous cock

We're they in isis territory and being used as weapons cache or Intel points?
Is there any proof that innocent people died? All I have to go on is you're conjecture?

No.

Proof

Proof that the chemical attack wasn't on ISIS babies?

What are you even rambling on about?

Proof that the chemical attack wasn't on ISIS babies?

What is this?

Proof that the chemical attack wasn't on ISIS babies?

Why didn't I learn?

TED WAS RIGHT

DEATH OF CIVILIZATION AND RISE IF ANARCHO PRIMITIVISM SOON

Proof that the chemical attack wasn't on ISIS babies?

Proof that the chemical attack wasn't on ISIS babies?