Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Airstrikes against Syria

1468910

Comments

  • "With the Syrian army having the upper hand on the ground against the armed terrorists, it would not be rational for it to use chemical weapons..." I also can't see the logic behind the chemical attacks. Would the west or revolutionaries pull a fast one? Unlikely but certainly not impossible. I think Corbyn is playing it right. Get the proof rather than make these knee jerk actions but a bit late now.
    Of course if there was no oil on offer none of the major powers would be involved in the region in the first place.

    I'd suggest you read the Reuters article linked in cafcfans post above. There's a good amount of information in there which might provide some context.
  • So to put this all into perspective, a sovereign nation has been attacked.

    The PM has launched weapons without putting it past parliament but in order to make Brexit happen after a referendum it has to be voted on in parliament....

    Destabilising a region by regime change will create a power vacuum and breed more extremism. Afghanistan and Iraq for reference.

    Everyone has spoken of "proof" yet no one has shown any, so should we bomb other countries based on heresay?

    As I started with, this is a sovereign nation who did not attack another country. No one on the ground has yet been able to provide any proof it was Assad that used chemical weapons. The US has to stop being the world police, but the military industrial complex runs it.

    Hopefully this doesn't escalate.

    Who exactly do YOU think used those chemical weapons?

    To be honest, im not quite sure.

    The use of chemical weapons hasnt been determined by an independent body on the ground. There are 3rd party reports of it but not verified independently.

    Also, the last time the US and UK went looking for weapons of mass destruction or chemical weapons it turned out there were none. How great was that intelligence? This from the onset appears to be exactly the same.

    Mrs May said: "Open source accounts allege that a barrel bomb was used to deliver the chemicals. Multiple open source reports claim that a Regime helicopter was observed above the city of Douma on the evening of 7th April.

    "The Opposition does not operate helicopters or use barrel bombs. And reliable intelligence indicates that Syrian military officials co-ordinated what appears to be the use of chlorine in Douma on 7th April."

    The Prime Minister also indicated there was other intelligence based evidence which she was unable to share with the public, saying: "I cannot tell you everything.”

    Again, this is a sovereign nation, i dont support chemical weapons use period, but there is a bigger picture here that people are not looking at. Why doesnt the US get involved in Yemen, Darfur, Cambodia... Those are all genocides? Why not promote regime change there, boots on the ground there?
    Wait...you don't think we're involved in Yemen? And that we weren't involved in Cambodia? Whose bombs do you think destabilized Cambodia and helped Pol Pot rise to power? Whose missiles and drones do you think Saudi Arabia is using there? Sod it, we've been using our own drones and missiles strikes in Yemen for 10-15 years. Sometimes we even send troops in!

    At least give us credit where credit is due. We actively make genocide worse thank you very much.
  • edited April 2018

    Am I the only one who reads the (very well put) arguments on both sides in this and actually agrees with part or sometimes all of posts on both sides?

    Just shows how hard it must be to make these decisions, but the important bit for me is the amount of information we are not privy too (for obvious reasons) which makes our ‘expert’ opinions somewhat pointless in my opinion.

    I don’t think there is a right decision, but rather the lesser of two evils.

    No you're not the only one, and I completely agree this is a matter of a lesser or two evils. And that has been the case with Syria for 7-8 years now. There are no good solutions, only degrees of bad ones.

    I think my post yesterday was maybe a bit snippier than it might otherwise have been, but it was very early in the morning and I'd literally just finished reading the fact that the US has accepted 11 Syrian refugees this year, so I was particularly fucked off. I understand @RodneyCharltonTrotta 's point. And I find a desire to stop evil in the world admirable and wholly necessary. My standard for doing so, especially post Iraq and Afghanistan, is "can we stop something bad happening without making things worse in the long term?" I think most scenarios involving us intervening in Syria end up far worse than things are now. Whether that's the case with this round of missile strikes remains to be seen. There is absolutely insight that those planning these strikes will have that I don't. Thus far it seems we haven't fucked off the Russians or Iranians too much, but only time will tell with that.

    I think it bears repeating, nobody is okay with chemical weapons attacks here. And the same should go for the awful carpet bombing Assad has used against his people, and at some point we should talk about how our "red lines" are dated. Assad is the bad guy. Full stop. So much so we debated intervening against him in 2012, which is when Obama made the (regrettable) "Red Line" comment. The problem with intervening against him was that there was no guarantee that we would not be aiding a young upstart offshoot of Al-Qaeda called ISIS, who had an awkward alliance with the Free Syrian rebels. Again, there has not, nor has there ever been, a good solution in this conflict.

    The other thing is, and I'll shut up after this because I might have three posts on the bounce here, is a desire to see a *more* uniform standard to what is and is not acceptable on both the local and world stage. Using Yemen as an example, that's very much a humanitarian crisis we hear about even less than Syria, but because Saudi Arabia, the aggressors, are our allies, not a word is said about intervening for peace, and if anything we make it worse by feeding them weapons.
  • Someone I know quite well suggested recently the most effective military response would be to assassinate Putin. They would rather not be named.
  • Someone I know quite well suggested recently the most effective military response would be to assassinate Putin. They would rather not be named.

    I think Medvedev can tell you how easy it is to go against the wishes of the oligarchs and GRU et al
  • Leuth said:

    Getting on for a full house here

    We try.
  • Be interesting to review this all in a couple of years to see where we stand - hopefully things will be better.
  • Be interesting to review this all in a couple of years to see where if we stand - hopefully things will be better.

    You're welcome.

  • Chizz said:

    Be interesting to review this all in a couple of years to see where if we stand - hopefully things will be better.

    You're welcome.

    Anything can happen - Trump and Putin both seem psychopathic. As for Syria neither of them care for it - it's just suffering the fallout of their interference.


  • Sponsored links:


  • Chizz said:

    Be interesting to review this all in a couple of years to see where if we stand - hopefully things will be better.

    You're welcome.

    Anything can happen - Trump and Putin both seem psychopathic. As for Syria neither of them care for it - it's just suffering the fallout of their interference.


    The difference between Trump and Putin seems to be that Trump's enemies hang around.
  • "the homo sapien is the most fucked up animal on this dying planet."

    I'll be depressed for a month after reading this.
  • "With the Syrian army having the upper hand on the ground against the armed terrorists, it would not be rational for it to use chemical weapons..." I also can't see the logic behind the chemical attacks. Would the west or revolutionaries pull a fast one? Unlikely but certainly not impossible. I think Corbyn is playing it right. Get the proof rather than make these knee jerk actions but a bit late now.
    Of course if there was no oil on offer none of the major powers would be involved in the region in the first place.

    How do we get proof? The OPCW aren't even allowed on to the site by Russia or Syria.

    It would be much more honest if Corbyn simply said - I hate chemical weapons and they should never be used but if they are, it's not our place to intervene and stop them. I don't agree but that's an intellectually coherent view. But demanding proof when everyone knows that the site can't be accessed and if it were the Russians and Syrians would say it wasn't made up, that's just political cowardice.

  • edited April 2018
    Jints what are our aims for getting involved on Syria? What is our exit strategy? We overthrew Saddam in Iraq then fucked off and left the country in turmoil. Why are we putting our foot in? In what way is Corbyn responsible for anything?
  • Jints said:


    "With the Syrian army having the upper hand on the ground against the armed terrorists, it would not be rational for it to use chemical weapons..." I also can't see the logic behind the chemical attacks. Would the west or revolutionaries pull a fast one? Unlikely but certainly not impossible. I think Corbyn is playing it right. Get the proof rather than make these knee jerk actions but a bit late now.
    Of course if there was no oil on offer none of the major powers would be involved in the region in the first place.

    How do we get proof? The OPCW aren't even allowed on to the site by Russia or Syria.

    It would be much more honest if Corbyn simply said - I hate chemical weapons and they should never be used but if they are, it's not our place to intervene and stop them. I don't agree but that's an intellectually coherent view. But demanding proof when everyone knows that the site can't be accessed and if it were the Russians and Syrians would say it wasn't made up, that's just political cowardice.

    Corbyn will bend over backwards and tie himself in semantic knots to avoid calling Russia out on anything.
  • edited April 2018

    Jints what are our aims for getting involved on Syria? What is our exit strategy? We overthrew Saddam in Iraq then fucked off and left the country in turmoil. Why are we putting our foot in? In what way is Corbyn responsible for anything?

    The aim was to rid Syria of their platform to enable chemical bomb launches.
    There is no exit strategy because we are not still there to need an exit.
    Do you actually know what is going on ?
  • Jints what are our aims for getting involved on Syria? What is our exit strategy? We overthrew Saddam in Iraq then fucked off and left the country in turmoil. Why are we putting our foot in? In what way is Corbyn responsible for anything?

    We just bombed chemical weapons facilities. There were no casualties.

    The aim is very limited indeed, to say to Syria and anyone else that there will be reprisals if you use chemical weapons. Whether that's too much or too little is a matter of opinion but I don't see what exit strategy is required. It could not be further from the shocking situation in Iraq (where, actually, we didn't fuck off but ripped up all the institutions and then were surprised that the country we occupied was not functioning - well the Americans did this in spite of British protestation).

    Corbyn's not responsible for anything except his own intellectual dishonesty.

  • Sponsored links:


  • limeygent said:

    What good is "International Law" if it is ignored and not enforced. The strike against Assad's ability to manufacture these horrendous weapons is a sensible, measured and necessary response

    I think you will find that May's response was also against international law and two fingers to the democratic process in this country. Were any chemical weapons destroyed (putting nearby civilians at risk) or was it a political drama?
  • limeygent said:

    What good is "International Law" if it is ignored and not enforced. The strike against Assad's ability to manufacture these horrendous weapons is a sensible, measured and necessary response

    Nothing Trump has ever said or done is measured as far as I can see? I'd love to hear him talking about International Law.

    I'm still unclear whether Trump has a policy in the Middle East given that he constantly contradicts himself.

    If sending in a few air strikes is a policy and we all live happily ever after then obviously I will happily admit I was wrong. My concern is that nothing will really improve in Syria and tensions between Russia and the US will escalate.

    Where do we go from here? There has been trouble in the region since the late nineteenth century and I don't think anyone has a clue what to do.


  • Trump's administration has made it's policy in Syria clear enough, the U.S is in Syria ONLY to destroy ISIS.


  • limeygent said:

    What good is "International Law" if it is ignored and not enforced. The strike against Assad's ability to manufacture these horrendous weapons is a sensible, measured and necessary response

    Nothing Trump has ever said or done is measured as far as I can see? I'd love to hear him talking about International Law.

    I'm still unclear whether Trump has a policy in the Middle East given that he constantly contradicts himself.

    If sending in a few air strikes is a policy and we all live happily ever after then obviously I will happily admit I was wrong. My concern is that nothing will really improve in Syria and tensions between Russia and the US will escalate.

    Where do we go from here? There has been trouble in the region since the late nineteenth century and I don't think anyone has a clue what to do.


    Perhaps keep our noses out and let them get on with it?
  • I do think Parliament should’ve been consulted, however corbyn’s position that we shouldn’t take any action unless UN sanctioned is ridiculous considering one of the belligerent parties is a permanent member and would veto any resolution whatsoever (and has frequently done so re Syria).

    Also ridiculous considering his views on Palestine and the fact the US block any resolution on that.

    In short, Corbyn is (again) showing stubbornness in his ill thought out views of the world.
  • Kent. Corbyn didn't sanction an illegal airstrike on Syria. He has no power. Please restrict your critism to those that do.
  • Kent. Corbyn didn't sanction an illegal airstrike on Syria. He has no power. Please restrict your critism to those that do.

    I can see how my comment can be seen as a twisting the arguement to be a “Corbyn smear (TM)” so I’ll relent.
  • I do think Parliament should’ve been consulted, however corbyn’s position that we shouldn’t take any action unless UN sanctioned is ridiculous considering one of the belligerent parties is a permanent member and would veto any resolution whatsoever (and has frequently done so re Syria).

    Also ridiculous considering his views on Palestine and the fact the US block any resolution on that.

    In short, Corbyn is (again) showing stubbornness in his ill thought out views of the world.

    All politicians have ill thought out views of the world if you're going to make that argument. The best you can really manage is to say who is the least bad.

    The Balfour Treaty and the creation of Israel which both the US and GB had a hand in was clumsily implemented and helped create much of the tensions within the region. We seem to have struggled ever since....
  • I do think Parliament should’ve been consulted, however corbyn’s position that we shouldn’t take any action unless UN sanctioned is ridiculous considering one of the belligerent parties is a permanent member and would veto any resolution whatsoever (and has frequently done so re Syria).

    Also ridiculous considering his views on Palestine and the fact the US block any resolution on that.

    In short, Corbyn is (again) showing stubbornness in his ill thought out views of the world.

    All politicians have ill thought out views of the world if you're going to make that argument. The best you can really manage is to say who is the least bad.

    The Balfour Treaty and the creation of Israel which both the US and GB had a hand in was clumsily implemented and helped create much of the tensions within the region. We seem to have struggled ever since....
    Our cack-handedness with the region long predates the creation of Israel, I’m sorry to say.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!