Okeefenokee wrote:
Not to mention the tens of thousands killed in old fashioned arty strikes.
Exactly, the actual casualties inflicted by the chlorine attacks is negligible in comparison the HE that the Assadists ceaselessly lob into rebel territory.
Bottom line, they're using WWI tech here, it's not subject to interdiction by Gesture Bombing.
I would submit, if the Assadists are using chemical attacks at this point, it's because they know it baits America into Gesture Bombing, which means they want America to Gesture Bomb them, because it does no real damage, but it does incite their base to rally around them in the face of the American Foreign Devils.
Which is of course why the Russians don't actually mind and are in fact all for it, because the Russians know the Pentagon will meticulously avoid them and any target they are in situ with, while Gesture Bombing simply helps to prop up their client Assad.
So, totally ineffectual and to the Russians advantage in Syria, but on the bright side, not actually going to incite an escalation with the Russians in Syria neither.
In fact, Russia and their client Assad needs America as a menace to play off against in order rally support, if America buts out, then the ranks might start to get restless, which is their real fear.
Do you think Washington would actually risk an escalation with Russia over some dead Syrians? Of course not. Don't you think the Russians know that? Of course they do. So if the targets were actually vital, why didn't the Russians park right on top of them?
Well, I did say virtue signalling by force of arms, but I think Gesture Bombing is more apropos, because virtue signalling is not actually virtuous, it's simply a gesture, so Gesture Bombing more aptly describes the vacuous nature of it, ascribing actual virtue to it is being too generous.
Well, I did say virtue signalling by force of arms, but I think Gesture Bombing is more apropos, because virtue signalling is not actually virtuous, it's simply a gesture, so Gesture Bombing more aptly describes the vacuous nature of it, ascribing actual virtue to it is being too generous.
Virtue is one of those 'eye of the beholder' type deals, as I figure it.
HAIL!
Her needs America so they won't just take his shit away like in some pussy non gun totting countries can happen.
-Hwen
Well, I did say virtue signalling by force of arms, but I think Gesture Bombing is more apropos, because virtue signalling is not actually virtuous, it's simply a gesture, so Gesture Bombing more aptly describes the vacuous nature of it, ascribing actual virtue to it is being too generous.
Virtue is one of those 'eye of the beholder' type deals, as I figure it.
The definition is behavior holding high moral standards, but I suppose I would have to agree that morality is subjective, so fair point.
I prefer to be exact, so I think I will go with virtue signalling by force of arms in lieu of either.
