-
Posts
-
any views about this?
I’m actually not opposed to these attacks. They’re not a major military intervention into the war, such as Russia has carried out. They#’re a punishment for a chemical attack on civilians, apparently by the Assad regime.
A thorough inquiry may show Assad to be innocent, and it should be carried out.
That requires a cease-fire and truce.
Assad could also agree to the destruction of all chemical stockpiles, together with any chemical stockpiles held by the opposition.
the al Quaeda-dominated opposition may oppose (ISIS will certainly oppose) this, but that in itself points a finger of blame.
It’s far better than the US/UK strategy of covert military intervention in this appalling civil war to overthrow Assad by backing the opposition.
I do not approve of these strikes at all, it is the oposite of Trump said he would do during the campaign.
The main reason is that Syria is part of a military alliance with Russia, 60 years ago this would have been considered a declaration of war, and Russia and the US would now be war. This may still happen, it depends how Putin decides to react, and if more strikes are made.
I don’t like Assad, but the only thing removing him will do is give ISIS more influence in the region and further destabilise the Middle East. The last time chemical weapons were used in Syria it was by the rebels (ISIS), why is it suddenly so bad that Assad is using them in return? If he even was the one that actually used it.
On this issue, drac, I’m open to persuasion – by events.
Russia isn’t going to declare war. It’s apparently a one-off strike in protest against the use of chemical warfare against civilians – not the firs time Assad has been accused of this. Sarin – 20 times deadlier than cyanide – was used on innocent, including children and babies. Something has to be done to warn Assad, and anyone else who uses chemical/germ warfare, off. If it becomes acceptable, then expect the US and Russia to use it, maybe on us all.
Assad is not the leader of a sovereign state, as Russia claims, any more than South Vietnam was a sovereign state when the US moved it army in en masse in 1965. It’s one side in a very complex civil war situation, in which ISIS, al-quaeda, liberals, Turkey, Kurds, shi-ites are all involved. Saudi Arabia and Iran are fighting a proxy war against each other, with the US backing the Saudis and Russia backing Assad and Iran.
I would say keep out,do not intervene, and a one-off strike is not a military intervention in the way that Russia intervened to support one side in the war (or the US and UK have been covertly intervening to support the other side).
The two problems which causes me to hesitate in not opposing the strikes are
1 – Assad may not be the guilty party, something you mention, drac. This is a right time for the Russians and Assad to demonstrate beyond all doubt that they are not the guilty ones. If they fail to do so, and prevaricate, that points the finger of blame at them. If they can, then Trump will be seen as the guilty party.
The second problem is a far more serious one than intervention in Syria. The US is beginning talk of a military strike against Iran, which is Assad’s supporter. now that is alarming, and would spread the war fomr one end of the region to the other. The possibility of us all being dragged into all-out war is enhanced if that is the case.
Russia isn’t going to declare war.
We don’t know this yet, but it unlikely as Russia is very weak in reality.
It’s apparently a one-off strike
Trump said he wouldn’t take any action against Syria, this clearly wasn’t true. Why would you trust his administration now?
not the firs time Assad has been accused of this. Sarin – 20 times deadlier than cyanide – was used on innocent, including children and babies.
He was accused at first, but it was proven to be the rebels, something that I mentioned in my previous post.
Assad is not the leader of a sovereign state,
Why? Is Syria not a sovereign state?
I would say keep out,do not intervene, and a one-off strike is not a military intervention in the way that Russia intervened to support one side in the war (or the US and UK have been covertly intervening to support the other side).
We should be striking the rebel elemets that are aligned with ISIS, as they are our enemy. The Kurdish nationalists are not our concern they haven’t done anything to the west, although I would rather not support communists. So I would recommend leaving them alone to fight Assad if they want to.
Assad may not be the guilty party, something you mention, drac. This is a right time for the Russians and Assad to demonstrate beyond all doubt that they are not the guilty ones.
I don’t see what Assad would possible have to gain from using chemical weapons on his own people. It was either the rebels, or the Russians trying to provoke the US for reasons that I don’t know.
The second problem is a far more serious one than intervention in Syria. The US is beginning talk of a military strike against Iran, which is Assad’s supporter. now that is alarming, and would spread the war fomr one end of the region to the other. The possibility of us all being dragged into all-out war is enhanced if that is the case.
The only reason I would support any kind of action in Iran is to limit their access to nuclear technology, but as far as I know diplomatic options are still avaliable and working.
I don’t see what Assad would possible have to gain from using chemical weapons on his own people. It was either the rebels, or the Russians trying to provoke the US for reasons that I don’t know.
Or the US, to fabricate a reason to strike Syria.
Perhaps the strike was done in an attempt to distract from the current state/impotence of his presidency?
Perhaps the strike was done in an attempt to distract from the current state/impotence of his presidency?
Who knows, Lord Deleter of Posts?
I’m not sure I would count his Presidency as impotent just yet.
His strike sends a message to many more than his domestic critics. His economic nationalism and America First strategy doesn’t mean that he’s not willing to use military force when necessary.
I don’t see what Assad would possible have to gain from using chemical weapons on his own people. It was either the rebels, or the Russians trying to provoke the US for reasons that I don’t know.
Or the US, to fabricate a reason to strike Syria.
drac,
now is the time for Russia and/or Assad to show Trump as an aggressor. If they can now show that they were not responsible for the chemical weapons attack, it would out a major spoke in his wheels, embarrassing him intensely. Otherwise, we are left to draw out own conclusions.
Syria was a sovereign state, to answer your earlier point, if a very brutal one – look at the way Assad’s father took out Hama in 1982. It was ruled by a minority grouping using extreme force against the majority.
It will become a sovereign state again once this war is over, probably under Assad again.
But the war destroyed the state. The Russians, Turks, British, Americans have been and are fighting there, some against one another in a multi-dimensional civil war, all against ISIS.
You can’t just use the term rebels as you do – ISIS is one of a large number of ‘rebels’, and as brutal as any – I’m not sure you could call them the most brutal in this oparticular civil war.
A civil war of this kind means that the state has vanished. The Russians intervened to rstore the state under assad; the Turks intervened to get the Kurds; the British and Americans have intervened to set up a state under the control. of the ‘rebels’. the Syrian opposition, now controlled by al-quadwea.
keep out of it. It’s a mess. A US military strike may be the prelude to a major intervention, but we’ll see. At the moment, everything points to a one-off.
As it ism, to
These 3 countries could be dangerous to the whole world … worrying is all I can say right now.
Trump is bloody dangerous & it wouldn’t take a lot for him to “push the button ” me thinks.
-
This reply was modified 7 years, 6 months ago by
Arc en.
1 member liked this post.
Trump is bloody dangerous & it wouldn’t take a lot for him to “push the button ” me thinks.
Trump isn’t going to launch nukes, that is a little hysterical.
Obama’s policy was to strike Syria if they used chemical weapons, so nothing has really changed. Although I would haved expected that Obama would have used drones and killed more civillians as a result.
-
This reply was modified 7 years, 6 months ago by draculina.
-
This reply was modified 7 years, 6 months ago by
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!