Current Affairs Syria...

[peteblue]

What message have we sent? If you want to blow up civilians, only use normal high explosives?

Yes, if that’s how you view it. There is also the matter of a red line. Under Obama it meant nothing, under Trump it appears to mean what it says. So if Trump throws out a ‘red line’ to Iran or NK, my guess is that they will believe it. Russia has been shown that in spite of its threats, in spite of its bluster and lies, in spite of its supposed missile defence, the west will act decisively and as successfully as they wish. Russia’s failure at the U.N. tonight also shows that it’s lies and behaviour are being understood....

 

[deipnosophist]

The insidious 'deep state'/military industrial complex pulls the strings. Politicians are just bought-and-paid-for puppets.

 

[tsubaki]

Yes, if that’s how you view it. There is also the matter of a red line. Under Obama it meant nothing, under Trump it appears to mean what it says. So if Trump throws out a ‘red line’ to Iran or NK, my guess is that they will believe it. Russia has been shown that in spite of its threats, in spite of its bluster and lies, in spite of its supposed missile defence, the west will act decisively and as successfully as they wish. Russia’s failure at the U.N. tonight also shows that it’s lies and behaviour are being understood....

pete - this is daft.

For a start, the idea that its fine to kill people with conventional weapons but its not ok to kill fewer people with chemical weapons is patently absurd. NK and Iran probably find it hilarious that the part of the world that has overwhelming military superiority over every other part, and indeed which would almost certainly conquer every other part of it actually wanted to, draws a line in the sand like that; all they'll do is gleefully shell and bomb civilians in the sure knowledge that we aren't going to do anything because of what we have defined is ok.

As for "the west will act decisively and successfully as they wish" - we seem to have negotiated this in advance with the Russians and gone out of our way to not hurt anyone. It is basically war for the sake of gestures.

 

[peteblue]

pete - this is daft.

For a start, the idea that its fine to kill people with conventional weapons but its not ok to kill fewer people with chemical weapons is patently absurd. NK and Iran probably find it hilarious that the part of the world that has overwhelming military superiority over every other part, and indeed which would almost certainly conquer every other part of it actually wanted to, draws a line in the sand like that; all they'll do is gleefully shell and bomb civilians in the sure knowledge that we aren't going to do anything because of what we have defined is ok.

As for "the west will act decisively and successfully as they wish" - we seem to have negotiated this in advance with the Russians and gone out of our way to not hurt anyone. It is basically war for the sake of gestures.

Of course it isn’t fine killing people with conventional weapons, but there is a civil war going on in Syria, so at least we can stop the use of chemical weapons. The West could put a complete stop to it all almost overnight, but our people do not have the stomach for what it would take, therefore we state that we are not about regime change. NK and Iran most certainly will not find it hilarious that the West did what it did, in spite of all the bluster and threats from Russia which did nothing. I doubt anything was ‘negotiated’,

Russia will almost certainly have been told that there would be an attack, even we on here could have told them that, but not where nor when as this would have compromised the action and put lives at risk. We have gone out of our way not to hurt anyone, I thought you would be pleased with that approach......

 

[Lee Smith]

Alex Jones has denounced Trump over this. It just got real.

I assume you mean the mad American one, and not the sexy Welsh one?

 

[gonetomorrow]

I suppose we have to go along with America since they'll be our only pals after Brexit.

 

[Lee Smith]

I suppose we have to go along with America since they'll be our only pals after Brexit.

Is this comment tongue in cheek, or are you seriously implying that Brexit is going to weaken the UK's position in international defence?

 

[gonetomorrow]

Is this comment tongue in cheek, or are you seriously implying that Brexit is going to weaken the UK's position in international defence?

What do I know?

 

[Death]

I assume you mean the mad American one, and not the sexy Welsh one?

I just Googled her, I wouldn't kick her out of bed for watching Alex Jones conspiracy video's that's for sure.

 

[bol-uk]

pete - this is daft.

For a start, the idea that its fine to kill people with conventional weapons but its not ok to kill fewer people with chemical weapons is patently absurd. NK and Iran probably find it hilarious that the part of the world that has overwhelming military superiority over every other part, and indeed which would almost certainly conquer every other part of it actually wanted to, draws a line in the sand like that; all they'll do is gleefully shell and bomb civilians in the sure knowledge that we aren't going to do anything because of what we have defined is ok.

As for "the west will act decisively and successfully as they wish" - we seem to have negotiated this in advance with the Russians and gone out of our way to not hurt anyone. It is basically war for the sake of gestures.

This, we stand idly by while Assad is responsible for the deaths of over 400,000 civilians, but lose it once he kills a relative handful "unconventionally"

 

[peteblue]

This, we stand idly by while Assad is responsible for the deaths of over 400,000 civilians, but lose it once he kills a relative handful "unconventionally"

I’m with you. I’d rather the West stopped messing around and sent in troops and stopped the whole bloody mess........

 

[bol-uk]

I’m with you. I’d rather the West stopped messing around and sent in troops and stopped the whole bloody mess........

Too late, should have done it before the Russians got involved.

 

[MrPerfectNot]

I’m with you. I’d rather the West stopped messing around and sent in troops and stopped the whole bloody mess........

Problem is, with so many scenarios, what's next? So we put in 100k troops depose Assad and somehow have something resembling a calmer setting - who governs? How do we get our troops out?

Mind you, the same is applied to the "message bombing" just completed - what's next? More bombing? Disengagement because the "mission accomplished"?

 

[peteblue]

Problem is, with so many scenarios, what's next? So we put in 100k troops depose Assad and somehow have something resembling a calmer setting - who governs? How do we get our troops out?

Mind you, the same is applied to the "message bombing" just completed - what's next? More bombing? Disengagement because the "mission accomplished"?

Hey I’m just proposing a way of saving a further 400,000 deaths, yet you seem to be backing out now......I thought saving people was your primary thought. So let’s do it, or let’s stop pretending eh......

 

[peteblue]

Too late, should have done it before the Russians got involved.

Not really, just push 500,000 troops in, sort it out, put in a new government, then let the U.N. tell every country including Russia to get out.

This has nothing to do with what exists in Syria. Assad allows Russia Air and Naval facilities which Russia wants, so they will defend him for all they are worth. However, remove the war, remove the government and all bets are off. If Syria and its people want Russia, then so be it, it’s their choice, but it’s never too late.......