Syria
-
@duluth said in Syria airstrikes:
@catogrande said in Syria airstrikes:
I understand your scepticism and have that to a degree myself. If I could see some tangible benefit to the US in this matter I would be far more sceptical.
There are more possibilities than the official US story is true or the US has made it up. Another possibility is that one of the groups fighting Assad did the attack to draw the US in.
Yeah, I'd considered that possibility and certainly would not discount it but, especially given the fall out over the WMD debacle and Trumps avowed non-interventionism, that the US would be pretty certain about what occurred. If there was a tangible benefit to the US I could easily see things differently.
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:
@hydro11 said in Syria airstrikes:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:
@hydro11 said in Syria airstrikes:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:
@hydro11 said in Syria airstrikes:
The strikes are not about saving face. They are about preventing the normalisation of chemical weapons in warfare. It's definitely a worthy cause to fight for.
So you think that not bombing Assad would normalise the use of chemical weapons?
There are lots of causes worth fighting for, people are dying all over the world because of the horrific actions of govts... should the US attack them all? How does it choose which ones to attack? What if Russia used chemical weapons on Syrians? Should the US attack the Russian mainland?@baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:
@hydro11 said in Syria airstrikes:
The strikes are not about saving face. They are about preventing the normalisation of chemical weapons in warfare. It's definitely a worthy cause to fight for.
So you think that not bombing Assad would normalise the use of chemical weapons?
There are lots of causes worth fighting for, people are dying all over the world because of the horrific actions of govts... should the US attack them all? How does it choose which ones to attack? What if Russia used chemical weapons on Syrians? Should the US attack the Russian mainland?Yes, it would. Not bombing Syria would embolden them to use chemical weapons in future. Assad is a terrible person but there is no norm against bombing your own people or oppressing them. We should protect the norms that we do have so that Russia is strongly encouraged not to break them.
So it is a norm to starve your people, bomb them into oblivion or enslave them. But you think killing them by chemical weapons is not the norm?
I think all of them are bloody horrendous. All them are evil.All of them are bad. One of them is an international norm and the other isn't. I don't set norms but I think it is worth protecting the norms that we do have. There are reasons that bombing your own civilians is seen as more acceptable than attacking them with chemical weapons.
You are saying that starving, murdering and enslaving children are international norms? Seriously?
No. I am saying that there are not international norms against doing so. When Assad shot his own citizens for peacefully protesting, he faced sanctions. There was no serious attempts by the USA or the UN to jump in and enforce the fact that Assad is not allowed to do that. It is obvious from looking around the world that you can starve your own citizens and get away with it. Look at North Korea or even Venezuela. No one is suggesting those government be overthrown by foreign powers. North Korea faces huge sanctions but it is not prohibited from doing what it does and when it breaks international law, this is not enforced.
Chemical weapons are different. There is an organisation for the destruction of chemical weapons. There is not the same thing for bombs or guns.
-
@duluth said in Syria airstrikes:
@catogrande said in Syria airstrikes:
I understand your scepticism and have that to a degree myself. If I could see some tangible benefit to the US in this matter I would be far more sceptical.
There are more possibilities than the official US story is true or the US has made it up. Another possibility is that one of the groups fighting Assad did the attack to draw the US in.
If that was true (and I have not seen any evidence suggesting it is true) that is why the strikes were targeted at chemical weapons facilities. The strikes don't actually help the rebels win the war at all.
-
@duluth said in Syria airstrikes:
@catogrande said in Syria airstrikes:
I understand your scepticism and have that to a degree myself. If I could see some tangible benefit to the US in this matter I would be far more sceptical.
There are more possibilities than the official US story is true or the US has made it up. Another possibility is that one of the groups fighting Assad did the attack to draw the US in.
Let's also be quite clear that Russia consistently use their veto to prevent any investigation of these attacks by the UN.
-
Not exactly a benefit, but I think opinions on Iran play a role here. A large number of politicians and the majority of the military seem to want a more belligerent stance on Iran.
Some of the talk in the past week has been about having a larger presence in Syria to limit Iran’s influence over the regionMaybe some Trump advisors didn’t take much convincing? Or maybe they have water tight proof.. I’m just sceptical how fast this turned after Trump said he intended to pull the 2000 troops out of Syria just over a week ago
-
@duluth said in Syria airstrikes:
@hydro11 said in Syria airstrikes:
The strikes don't actually help the rebels win the war at all.
there aren’t just two sides in this war
I don't see who the strikes help (apart from potential statistics).
-
Al Nusra would be one. Not ‘rebels’, but fighting Assad
I’m not making definite claims about this. Others are claiming this is a simple black and white situation. It would have been great if the case was made to Congress rather than just go forward with an unconstitutional attack without the correct checks on the executive
-
@duluth said in Syria airstrikes:
Not exactly a benefit, but I think opinions on Iran play a role here. A large number of politicians and the majority of the military seem to want a more belligerent stance on Iran.
Some of the talk in the past week has been about having a larger presence in Syria to limit Iran’s influence over the regionMaybe some Trump advisors didn’t take much convincing? Or maybe they have water tight proof.. I’m just sceptical how fast this turned after Trump said he intended to pull the 2000 troops out of Syria just over a week ago
All of what you say is quite possible, I just feel it is the less likely position for reasons previously stated. Trump’s about turn is not much of a surprise as he does come across as a man ruled by his emotions
-
@rembrandt said in Syria airstrikes:
Anyone else get the feeling this actually has nothing really to do with the chemical attack and more about a show of strength from the US towards Russia.
Must suck to live in their playground.
There's definitely an element of the UK being eager to join in due to their recent dealings.
-
@rembrandt said in Syria airstrikes:
Anyone else get the feeling this actually has nothing really to do with the chemical attack and more about a show of strength from the US towards Russia.
Are there other chemical attacks that haven't been met with a show of force? I genuinely don't know - it seems a proportionate response
-
If — and I say a Big IF — it was about slaughters and human rights, they’d be bombing the crap out of Riyadh right now while “our” good Royal Saudi buddies are commiting untold atrocities right next door in Yemen — using weapons purchased from the West. But of course “we’re” not really concerned about human rights, it’s always a moral & ethical charade. (Kayfabe)
And by all means, if you haven’t read this, take a look. Not saying it’s 100% accurate, but some good food for thought:
-
What do you think the proportional response should be for the use of phosphoros, depleted uranium, napalm and Agent Orange used against civilians?
(Silly question, granted. Everybody knows it’s perfectly acceptable as long as the kids burned & killed with chemical weapons died for a pure & noble cause, and obviously the teams we support are ALWAYS good and pure and noble.)
-
@salacious-crumb said in Syria airstrikes:
What do you think the proportional response should be for the use of phosphoros, depleted uranium, napalm and Agent Orange used against civilians?
Your post raises a few issues:
- Agent Orange was designed to be a defoliant. Not that I agree with its use, particularly once the side effects became known. Most would accept its use under the Environmental Modification Convention is heavily restricted, if not banned.
- Depleted uranium is just heavy. The key lies in its name; depleted. It poses less risk than natural uranium.
- The use of napalm and phosphorous against civilians is a war crime as is targeting civilians, but you can use them to mark targets. As long as the chemical properties of phosphorous aren't the weapon themselves, it's perfectly fine.
-
@salacious-crumb said in Syria airstrikes:
What do you think the proportional response should be for the use of phosphoros, depleted uranium, napalm and Agent Orange used against civilians?
Not sure where that sits in teh Geneva Protocol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol), but they don't seem to be prohibited in the way that chemical weapons are.
War is shit, but it is important to have some lines that people don't cross. Nuclear, biological and chemical warfare to me is a far worse act than phosphorous, DU or napalm. Just being shot or blown up isn't flash either, but not 'illegal' in terms of international war
-
@salacious-crumb Any chance we could keep the conspiracy stuff to the conspiracy theories thread so I can ignore it? I started this thread specifically so it didn't go down the same path as the US Politics thread.
-
@salacious-crumb said in Syria airstrikes:
If — and I say a Big IF — it was about slaughters and human rights, they’d be bombing the crap out of Riyadh right now while “our” good Royal Saudi buddies are commiting untold atrocities right next door in Yemen — using weapons purchased from the West. But of course “we’re” not really concerned about human rights, it’s always a moral & ethical charade. (Kayfabe)
And by all means, if you haven’t read this, take a look. Not saying it’s 100% accurate, but some good food for thought:
All I got from that was pictorial evidence that Lewinsky had better taste in selecting her bit of squeeze than Daniels did. :smiling_face_with_open_mouth_cold_sweat: Sorry couldn't find a BJ emoji.
-
Gettin’ innerestin’...
The search for truth in the rubble of Douma – and one doctor’s doubts over the chemical attack
Exclusive: Robert Fisk visits the Syria clinic at the centre of a global crisis
[...]
War stories, however, have a habit of growing darker. For the same 58-year old senior Syrian doctor then adds something profoundly uncomfortable: the patients, he says, were overcome not by gas but by oxygen starvation in the rubbish-filled tunnels and basements in which they lived.
[...]
France, meanwhile, has said it has “proof” chemical weapons were used, and US media have quoted sources saying urine and blood tests showed this too. The WHO has said its partners on the ground treated 500 patients “exhibiting signs and symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic chemicals”.
At the same time, inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) are currently blocked from coming here to the site of the alleged gas attack themselves, ostensibly because they lacked the correct UN permits.
[...]