Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Breaking: US Navy Fires More Than 50 Tomahawk Missiles into Syria
NBC News: US military has launched more than 50 missile strikes on al-Shayrat military airfield near Homs, Syria
— Jesse Rodriguez (@JesseRodriguez) April 7, 2017
NBC News: Only tomahawks missiles fired, no fixed wing aircraft involved
— Jesse Rodriguez (@JesseRodriguez) April 7, 2017
Full story from the Washington Post:
The U.S. military launched approximately 50 cruise missiles at a Syrian military airfield late on Thursday, in the first direct American assault on the government of President Bashar al-Assad since that country’s civil war began six years ago.
The operation, which the Trump administration authorized in retaliation for a chemical attack killing scores of civilians this week, dramatically expands U.S. military involvement in Syria and exposes the United States to heightened risk of direct confrontation with Russia and Iran, both backing Assad in his attempt to crush his opposition.
The attack may put hundreds of American troops now stationed in Syria in greater danger. They are advising local forces in advance of a major assault on the Syrian city of Raqqa, the Islamic State’s de facto capital.
The decision to strike follows 48 hours of intense deliberations by U.S. officials, and represents a significant break with the previous administration’s reluctance to wade militarily into the Syrian civil war and shift any focus from the campaign against the Islamic State.
Senior White House officials met on the issue of Syria Wednesday evening in a session that lasted into early Thursday, and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, the national security adviser, have communicated repeatedly since Tuesday’s chemical attack, the officials said.
President Donald Trump is scheduled to make a statement tonight.
Update:
PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) _ President Donald Trump says strike on Syria in the `vital national security interest' of the United States.
— Ken Thomas (@KThomasDC) April 7, 2017
Published in Foreign Policy, Military, PoliticsBREAKING: Trump calls on 'civilized nations' to join U.S. in 'seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria.'
— The Associated Press (@AP) April 7, 2017
Did you read the article? It wasn’t attacking America for being an empire, it was criticising America for not being imperial enough.
If “monarchy” means what I hereby redefine it to mean, then America is a monarchy.
If “shoehorn” means what I hereby redefine it to mean, then America is a shoehorn.
They are not, but their country is imperial in its policies and international impact.
There is a disconnect – imo partly because you shrink from implications of your own power and its impact on others.
The only thing that can keep American imperium in check is the American people and you refuse to even accept that the imperium exists.
Guess what – if you don’t control it somebody else will.
I did read it. I don’t have to agree with it. And he opens with calling us an “empire”. Did you even read the bit I posted from the Dictionary?
The US government cannot even manage domestic control. No one can control and empire that does not exist. Your article points to our culture, something the government has no control over whatsoever.
Was there a Soviet empire?
Most certainly. It controlled not only Russia, but foreign states within the USSR, and used military force (as has been mentioned already) to control other nations. It was the model of an empire, exerting sovereignty.
None of that applies to America.
How many of your dictionary definitions did it meet – without stretching and caveats?
The first one:
1. a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire.
Don’t need to stretch anything.
Soviet is not Russian.
Who was the Emperor?
Was the office hereditary?
Mind – I agree there was Soviet Empire, I just don’t think it meets the narrow literal minded dictionary definition.
Ask someone who was in Czechoslovakia in 1968.
Of all the examples of circular logic, I like the ones with the tightest loops best. They take less time for the writer to write and less time for the reader to dismiss. If there must be nonsense, let it be efficient nonsense.
The first one:
1. a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire.
See bold. Politburo counts. Stalin Counts. Don’t need to stretch anything.
And why doesn’t the US Government count?
Because it is not a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire.
The United States does not have sovereign control over other nations.
It meets the definition in powerful sovereign or government. There is not need for a literal Emperor a General Secretary will do.
How do you define “domestic control”?
Local governments have a lot of control and are responsive to local control. Less than I would like, but, still very Republican.
It is a powerful sovereign or government. Just saying.
The American federal government does not rule over a group of nations or peoples.
::Eats popcorn::
That’s what this is all about. Zafar, like many on the left, started with the conclusion, that America is an imperial power, and is trying to redefine empire so that the statement becomes true. The way most non-ideologues work is looking at the established definition of empire and noting that America looks nothing like it.