Our potential response to the gas attack in Syria.

[Cowley]

I’ve just read that Teresa May has agreed with Trump that we need to respond to the probable gas attack in Syria.
This is just a small poll to see what others think we should do.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

I think a "Not Sure" option is in order, since I am somewhat torn with it. No matter what we do in Syria, the situation will not end in the short-term. We could do nothing as a country, but no doubt that the Americans will be wanting to get involved, and with the Russians propping up al-Assad the tensions aren't confined to just the middle east. But on the other hand, getting rid of another country's leader and doing nothing afterwards, which I have no doubt we would be stupid enough to do again, would leave a vacuum of power that a group like ISIS could try and fill. It's what usually has happened before after all.

Say what you want about Saddam Hussein in Iraq, but at least if he was still alive then groups like ISIS wouldn't exist there. He would've destroyed such opposition before they gained power. But then again, Saddam has proven that he isn't really much of a humanitarian even for his own people, and given he was a Sunni ruling over a mostly Shia nation, I imagine war may have broken out sooner or later anyway, so what to do? This gas attack is probably just a small part of an everlasting conflict in Syria, which may be just a part of the Arab Spring. I'm not even sure I've gotten it entirely right even. It's a hard situation to deal with really.

 

[Cowley]

I think a "Not Sure" option is in order, since I am somewhat torn with it. No matter what we do in Syria, the situation will not end in the short-term. We could do nothing as a country, but no doubt that the Americans will be wanting to get involved, and with the Russians propping up al-Assad the tensions aren't confined to just the middle east. But on the other hand, getting rid of another country's leader and doing nothing afterwards, which I have no doubt we would be stupid enough to do again, would leave a vacuum of power that a group like ISIS could try and fill. It's what usually has happened before after all.

Say what you want about Saddam Hussein in Iraq, but at least if he was still alive then groups like ISIS wouldn't exist there. He would've destroyed such opposition before they gained power. But then again, Saddam has proven that he isn't really much of a humanitarian even for his own people, and given he was a Sunni ruling over a mostly Shia nation, I imagine war may have broken out sooner or later anyway, so what to do? This gas attack is probably just a small part of an everlasting conflict in Syria, which may be just a part of the Arab Spring. I'm not even sure I've gotten it entirely right even. It's a hard situation to deal with really.

I’ve added a not sure option now...

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

I’ve added a not sure option now...

Much appreciated

 

[Domh245]

If someone like NATO or the UN calls for action, then we should respond to such a call, but whether or not that happens (or happens in a non-suspicious way) is a different matter.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If someone like NATO or the UN calls for action, then we should respond to such a call, but whether or not that happens (or happens in a non-suspicious way) is a different matter.

The obvious problem with looking for the UN to call for action is that Russia has a veto on the security council! I'm not entirely sure whether NATO is a good option either, since the purpose of NATO is supposed to be defensive. And while the chemical attacks in Syria, if confirmed, are utterly appalling, it's hard to see how they can be construed as within NATO's remit.

I therefore suspect any action would have to be simply a coalition of willing/concerned countries.

 

[Bromley boy]

I’ve just read that Teresa May has agreed with Trump that we need to respond to the probable gas attack in Syria.
This is just a small poll to see what others think we should do.

I must admit I am firmly in the “none of our business” camp on this one.

Not because I condone the use of chemical weapons on civilians - far from it - but because we’ve seen what happens when western powers go around trying to be the world police.

Plus I struggle to see what a limited “punishment bombing” campaign is really going to achieve. What’s the point of a slap on the wrist, which is all it ever could be? Even if regime change was a desirable outcome (it’s not) any kind of significant military campaign aimed at overthrowing Assad is going to be futile while he has Russia’s backing.

Best to leave well alone in my view and let the Russians deal with him when he gets too big for his boots as nasty little dictators have a habit of doing. Maybe he’ll end up drinking a radioactive cup of tea in due course...

 

[jon0844]

Trump needs something to make him look Presidential and strong. May could do with something to stop the press talking about Brexit.

So I think it's a given we'll do something in Syria. Although perhaps for us it will be seeking a trade deal.

 

[Jonny]

The risk of WW3 means that any intervention is not worth it.

Besides, I don't see
1.) How Syria is any of our business.
2.) Why I or anyone else who happens to be British should be put in jeopardy's way.

 

[carriageline]

Do we create more problems when we go and bomb these other countries? Both for them, and ourselves?

If you believe the press, when we go and bomb these countries, we take a lot of innocents along the way. They then grow to hate the West, and come over here and commit atrocities.

Are we just creating a never ending cycle?

 

[thejuggler]

As the MP said an Newsnight last night. Do you side with the Monsters or the Maniacs?

Unless there is a UN decision to send in hundreds of thousands of troops we are better off out of it. The Middle East is a mess, has been as long as I have been alive, it will never be peaceful.

My concern is Trump won't be happy until he has had the chance to show he is boss by chucking a few more missiles at the place.

 

[DarloRich]

My view, for what it is worth, is that if there is an international consensus (UN) or otherwise) for action we should consider joining in. Corbyn will vote against it mind.

Punitive action against a regime that has used chemical weapons on it's own people should happen. Its wrong and we cant turn a blind eye. If we are supposed to be a civilised nation it is our duty to stop this kind of behaviour and punish those who go beyond the norms of civilised behaviour.

If someone like NATO or the UN calls for action, then we should respond to such a call, but whether or not that happens (or happens in a non-suspicious way) is a different matter.

What do you mean by a non suspicious way?

I must admit I am firmly in the “none of our business” camp on this one.

Not because I condone the use of chemical weapons on civilians - far from it - but because we’ve seen what happens when western powers go around trying to be the world police.

Plus I struggle to see what a limited “punishment bombing” campaign is really going to achieve. What’s the point of a slap on the wrist, which is all it ever could be? Even if regime change was a desirable outcome (it’s not) any kind of significant military campaign aimed at overthrowing Assad is going to be futile while he has Russia’s backing.

Best to leave well alone in my view and let the Russians deal with him when he gets too big for his boots as nasty little dictators have a habit of doing. Maybe he’ll end up drinking a radioactive cup of tea in due course...

Surely we cant turn a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons. We have to do something to retard the ability of the guilty party to do it again. A few very public tomahawks into a few airbases and military compounds will do the job. The message is simple: kill as many of you like but use conventional weapons or else.

The point is "something is done" and other dodgy regimes get the above message. We wont interfere until you cross a certain line. Chemical weapons is a line you don't cross. If you do nice, shiny, expensive military things will go boom.

The risk of WW3 means that any intervention is not worth it.

Besides, I don't see
1.) How Syria is any of our business.
2.) Why I or anyone else who happens to be British should be put in jeopardy's way.

Where in the world will the use of chemical weapons stir you into action? When does it become your business? I am not advocating a ground invasion. Just park an Astute or Trafalgar class submarine somewhere close by and use tomahawk missiles.

Risk of WWIII? Don't be silly. Any action will be agreed with the Russians in any event. I am not talking about flattening the presidential palace or the Russian embassy but putting a hole in a couple of runways, knocking out some radar installations and the odd military HQ.

Do we create more problems when we go and bomb these other countries? Both for them, and ourselves?

If you believe the press, when we go and bomb these countries, we take a lot of innocents along the way. They then grow to hate the West, and come over here and commit atrocities.

Are we just creating a never ending cycle?

Nothing like relying on RT for your news comment and analysis.

 

[Domh245]

What do you mean by a non suspicious way?

When I wrote that I had Saddam's WMDs, or lack thereof, and all of the reports around them in mind. Something like that (albeit with the benefit of hindsight) where the US or some other country really wants to send the troops in, despite a lack of strong evidence supporting that position, is what I'd deem suspicious

 

[DarloRich]

When I wrote that I had Saddam's WMDs, or lack thereof, and all of the reports around them in mind. Something like that (albeit with the benefit of hindsight) where the US or some other country really wants to send the troops in, despite a lack of strong evidence supporting that position, is what I'd deem suspicious

OK - but the evidence of the weapons is obvious in this case. They have been used several times.

 

[Robin Edwards]

This is something where we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Learning from recent history says that retaliation just leads to more innocent loss of life so I reservedly vote no. I would also ask the question whether being shelled with conventional WOMD is in some way better or more acceptable than innocent civilians being killed in other ways using non-ballistic weaponry?
I abhor politicians playing with innocent lives wherever and however they do so. Does however 'enemy' killing of children in Syria pain us more than 'allied' killing of children in Yemen, Iraq or Palestine to pluck just three examples?

 

[Bromley boy]

Surely we cant turn a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons. We have to do something to retard the ability of the guilty party to do it again. A few very public tomahawks into a few airbases and military compounds will do the job. The message is simple: kill as many of you like but use conventional weapons or else.

The trouble is the “few very public tomahawks” approach was tried last time Assad used chemical weapons and evidently didn’t really achieve anything as he’s used them again almost exactly a year later. In reality there probably isn’t anything that will prevent this apart from a much more significant military intervention which would be likely to bring about regime change - and then what will we end up with in his place (not to mention the risk of WW3 being triggered).

The unfortunately reality is that many middle eastern countries seem to need brutal dictators in order to prevent anarchy and a dangerous power vacuum.

I would also ask the question whether being shelled with conventional WOMD is in some way better or more acceptable than innocent civilians being killed in other ways using non-ballistic weaponry?

It’s hardly the same thing. A surgical cruise missile strike against military targets is quite obviously not the same thing as shelling a civilian village with chlorine gas shells.

 

[Harbornite]

It’s hardly the same thing. A surgical cruise missile strike against military targets is quite obviously not the same thing as shelling a civilian village with chlorine gas shells.

Indeed.

 

[DarloRich]

This is something where we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Learning from recent history says that retaliation just leads to more innocent loss of life so I reservedly vote no. I would also ask the question whether being shelled with conventional WOMD is in some way better or more acceptable than innocent civilians being killed in other ways using non-ballistic weaponry?

Yes - chemical weapons. As i said: Kill as many people as you like as long as you stick to conventional weapons. Use chemical, biological, nuclear or radio-logical weapons and we will do something. Realpolitik in action.

I also doubt we are just going to lob shells about willy nilly. Despite what RT tells you I expect higher standards from our armed forces.

I abhor politicians playing with innocent lives wherever and however they do so. Does however 'enemy' killing of children in Syria pain us more than 'allied' killing of children in Yemen, Iraq or Palestine to pluck just three examples?

But you don't abhor it enough to do anything about it except issue bland condemnations of all violence without blaming anyone in particular, tut, wring hands, ask for an investigation and then start the whataboutary at Israel/USA. Corbyn I name thee.

The trouble is the “few very public tomahawks” approach was tried last time Assad used chemical weapons and evidently didn’t really achieve anything as he’s used them again almost exactly a year later. In reality there probably isn’t anything that will prevent this apart from a much more significant military intervention which would be likely to bring about regime change - and then what will we end up with in his place (not to mention the risk of WW3 being triggered).

What we don't need is Trumpington riding into town like a 21st century Slim Pickens threatening Russia with here come the missiles! We need a measured international response to an heinous action. It cant be allowed by the international community. We need to show to others this behaviour is unacceptable and Assad needs to be checked. Obviously the response will be fairly minor as Russia wont allow anything else but we have to be seen to do something.

The unfortunately reality is that many middle eastern countries seem to need brutal dictators in order to prevent anarchy and a dangerous power vacuum.

I agree. however, they need to be on our side and behaving by our rules. LBJ ( although it may have been Sumner Welles) once said They may be b'stards, but they’re our b'stards and he was right.

 

[Bromley boy]

What we don't need is Trumpington riding into town like a 21st century Slim Pickens threatening Russia with here come the missiles!

I can’t believe it. I see he’s tweeted “get ready Russia”.

Unbelievable. Here is a man elected to the highest political office in the world, yet prepared to antagonise the Russians to make up for his having small “hands” (I don’t actually mean “hands”).

We must be at the highest risk of WW3 since the Cuban missile crisis with that deranged, insecure child in the White House... He’s probably more dangerous than Putin.

 

[nlogax]

I can’t believe it. I see he’s tweeted “get ready Russia”.

Unbelievable.

Why is this 'unbelievable'? We've had a couple of years to get used to the measure of the man - or lack thereof. The only surprise I bring myself to express is that anyone is still surprised.

 

[DarloRich]

I can’t believe it. I see he’s tweeted “get ready Russia”.

Unbelievable. Here is a man elected to the highest political office in the world, yet prepared to antagonise the Russians to make up for his having small “hands” (I don’t actually mean “hands”).

We must be at the highest risk of WW3 since the Cuban missile crisis with that deranged, insecure child in the White House... He’s probably more dangerous than Putin.

it is deflection against domestic issues - particularly the FBI investigation - and I hope ( but sadly only hope) that cooler heads at the Sate Department and with allies are working with Russia to agree what is and isnt allowable. (The Russian response is also just as unhelpful but subject to similar caveats)

I think the risk of war was higher in the 80's under Reagan but it was less visible. Trump has the facility to gibber something to billions of people in an instant. it is all very public

 

[Jonny]

Where in the world will the use of chemical weapons stir you into action? When does it become your business? I am not advocating a ground invasion. Just park an Astute or Trafalgar class submarine somewhere close by and use tomahawk missiles.

Risk of WWIII? Don't be silly. Any action will be agreed with the Russians in any event. I am not talking about flattening the presidential palace or the Russian embassy but putting a hole in a couple of runways, knocking out some radar installations and the odd military HQ.

I hardly think it is just going to be a few more Tomahawks, or even that Russia would agree. Besides, unlike a certain nation in the Orient, Syria cannot reach outside of its own borders.

OK - but the evidence of the weapons is obvious in this case. They have been used several times.

Evidence of their use perhaps, but not who used them. Remember that Carbon Monoxide can produce a similar effect, and only needs a (possibly deliberately sabotaged) dodgy boiler, burner, poorly vented coal/wood fire or equivalent.

The trouble is the “few very public tomahawks” approach was tried last time Assad used chemical weapons and evidently didn’t really achieve anything as he’s used them again almost exactly a year later. In reality there probably isn’t anything that will prevent this apart from a much more significant military intervention which would be likely to bring about regime change - and then what will we end up with in his place (not to mention the risk of WW3 being triggered).

The unfortunately reality is that many middle eastern countries seem to need brutal dictators in order to prevent anarchy and a dangerous power vacuum.

Quite so, and Assad seems able to maintain his position with near-minimal force.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

The unfortunately reality is that many middle eastern countries seem to need brutal dictators in order to prevent anarchy and a dangerous power vacuum.

It seems that nations worked better that way before we disposed of the leaders, but in the case of Iraq I imagine there may have been rebellion sooner or later, or at least something along the lines of The Troubles we saw in Northern Ireland. Saddam was a Sunni ruler over a Shiite nation after all, plus how some of his people didn’t seem to like him anyway.

I agree. however, they need to be on our side and behaving by our rules. LBJ ( although it may have been Sumner Welles) once said They may be b'stards, but they’re our b'stards and he was right.

Is it really our place as a nation to decide what kind of rules another country may have with it’s leaders? I mean in principle I’m not entirely in opposition to what you’ve said, I think western values and laws are the world’s best, and we have some of the best Human Rights records when compared to Assad in Syria, and though our governments can be corrupt enough to even plan to attack their own people (Such as Operation Northwoods), it would be much harder to get away with and isn’t anywhere near as abundant as other places, in fact my example didn’t even happen thanks to JFK refusing.

Nevertheless, does that give us the right to be world police and set the rules? Obviously someone has to be I suppose, but still. I mean either way, clearly we can’t appease the people who carried out this attack. After all, Hitler invading one country wasn’t our business, so we did nothing. Thing is, it’s cause we did nothing that it didn’t end up as just one country in the end. Same principle applies here. If whoever carried out the chemical attack goes without any form of consequences, they won’t stop or even hesitate to do again. This isn’t he first time a chemical attack has happened in Syria, and the cynic in me doubts it’ll be the last.

 

[Bromley boy]

I think the risk of war was higher in the 80's under Reagan but it was less visible. Trump has the facility to gibber something to billions of people in an instant. it is all very public

Don’t underestimate the potential for escalation, though. In Putin and Trump we have two leaders who tend to make aggressive pronouncements and are proud, paranoid, despotic individuals who don’t want to lose face. It’s a dangerous combination.

The problem is how to tell what is rhetoric and what isn’t. Relations between Russia and the west are the worst they’ve been for a very long time and the situation has been slowly deteriorating over a number of years. I believe Putin has stated he has no intention of talking directly with western leaders which is a worrying sign.

If the US attacks Syria and Russia carries out its threat to counter attack the launch platforms things could escalate very, very quickly...

 

[DarloRich]

Is it really our place as a nation to decide what kind of rules another country may have with it’s leaders?

Yes. We agree to a certain code of behaviour which should be obvious. Using chemical weapons is not acceptable.

Nevertheless, does that give us the right to be world police and set the rules? Obviously someone has to be I suppose, but still. I mean either way, clearly we can’t appease the people who carried out this attack. After all, Hitler invading one country wasn’t our business, so we did nothing.

It was out business but we did nothing. Had we intervened early we may have stopped, delayed or changed WWII. We didn't. I understand why the governments of the 1930's sought to preserve peace. Many of them had served in the trenches and didn't want to see death on that scale again. It was very noble but it was wrong. It allowed Hitler to feel he could do as he pleased.

it isnt our job alone to police the world but it is the job ( imo) for liberal democracies to oppose such behaviour as part of a wider consenus for the very reason you set out. If we don't it will grow. At some point something will happen that we cant live with. It will be too late by then.

Thing is, it’s cause we did nothing that it didn’t end up as just one country in the end. Same principle applies here. If whoever carried out the chemical attack goes without any form of consequences, they won’t stop or even hesitate to do again. This isn’t he first time a chemical attack has happened in Syria, and the cynic in me doubts it’ll be the last.

I feel we cant allow this to go unchallenged. it is wrong. That doesn't mean we invade, that doesn't mean we send soliders or airmen into a risky area. It means useour stand off weapons to hurt the regime and show others that this wont be tolerated.

I hardly think it is just going to be a few more Tomahawks, or even that Russia would agree. Besides, unlike a certain nation in the Orient, Syria cannot reach outside of its own borders.

Thats ok then. You cant fire your chemical weapons outside your own borders so crack on and kill as many of your own as you like?

BTW - Which country in the orient do you mean?

Evidence of their use perhaps, but not who used them. Remember that Carbon Monoxide can produce a similar effect, and only needs a (possibly deliberately sabotaged) dodgy boiler, burner, poorly vented coal/wood fire or equivalent.

"Are you RT in disguise?"

Don’t underestimate the potential for escalation, though. In Putin and Trump we have two leaders who tend to make aggressive pronouncements and are proud, paranoid, despotic individuals who don’t want to lose face. It’s a dangerous combination.

The problem is how to tell what is rhetoric and what isn’t. Relations between Russia and the west are the worst they’ve been for a very long time and the situation has been slowly deteriorating over a number of years. I believe Putin has stated he has no intention of talking directly with western leaders which is a worrying sign.

If the US attacks Syria and Russia carries out its threat to counter attack the launch platforms things could escalate very, very quickly...

It is all posturing, hopefully. Both sides will know what is acceptable to the other and wont go beyond that line. Russia firing on US bases or ships or the US firing on Russian bases would be crazy which is why I expect any response to be very carefully targeted and signaled in such a way that any Russians are well out of the way.

 

[Robin Edwards]

Yes - chemical weapons. As i said: Kill as many people as you like as long as you stick to conventional weapons. Use chemical, biological, nuclear or radio-logical weapons and we will do something. Realpolitik in action.

I also doubt we are just going to lob shells about willy nilly. Despite what RT tells you I expect higher standards from our armed forces.

But you don't abhor it enough to do anything about it except issue bland condemnations of all violence without blaming anyone in particular, tut, wring hands, ask for an investigation and then start the whataboutary at Israel/USA. Corbyn I name thee.

Two things stand out here DarloRich.
First is that you may be overlooking that nations that are our allies as well as some that aren't, use their weapons indiscriminately albeit, some more so than others. Lets not kid ourselves that it's only non ballistic weapons that are used in such this way.
Second is that you have no idea what I may or may not do about my lack of support for war-mongers away from a forum on Rail?. Look back at the last fifteen years and tell all that that an alternative approach might have been more productive. I'm happy that you may not support Corbyn and also happy that you might judge my non-military viewpoint as bland but similarly, I'm not seeing what you might do different if you were president for the day?

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Yes. We agree to a certain code of behaviour which should be obvious. Using chemical weapons is not acceptable.

Now that kind of goes without saying. Chemical weapons are against international law, so it shouldn't really be in question as to whether that kind of behaviour goes unchallenged, regardless of who enforces the law.

It was out business but we did nothing. Had we intervened early we may have stopped, delayed or changed WWII. We didn't. I understand why the governments of the 1930's sought to preserve peace. Many of them had served in the trenches and didn't want to see death on that scale again. It was very noble but it was wrong. It allowed Hitler to feel he could do as he pleased.

When I said it wasn't our business, I was merely saying it in an ironic sense even. That was what was thought back then, it's not really what I think so much. What I believe is that, though I don't like to really get involved in other country's business, there has to be considerations for longer than the short-term. I think these people who wanted to preserve peace and thought Hitler's conquest didn't affect them were thinking a bit short term. No, Hitler may not have originally wanted to invade Britain, so what's the worry about it? Well, if we stood back and allowed him to conquer more of Europe, he could've potentially became powerful enough to have a military that matches the skills of ours. For much of the war as it was then we struggled and got bombed a lot in the blitz, imagine how he would've handled continued resistance with a bigger force?

it isnt our job alone to police the world but it is the job ( imo) for liberal democracies to oppose such behaviour as part of a wider consenus for the very reason you set out. If we don't it will grow. At some point something will happen that we cant live with. It will be too late by then.

Yeah I'd agree with you there then. I suppose having a handful of nations police the world rather than leaving it with one would give a greater balance of power. I imagine that's what the UN Security Council is for, though the UN itself seems pretty useless at times in how it operates. Considering that Russia has veto power and is a permanent member, any action against Assad, if he was the culprit, would be pretty much off the table. What good is trying to police the world if some senior officers are in with some criminals?

 

[DarloRich]

Two things stand out here DarloRich.
First is that you may be overlooking that nations that are our allies as well as some that aren't, use their weapons indiscriminately albeit, some more so than others. Lets not kid ourselves that it's only non ballistic weapons that are used in such this way.

I don't understand your point. Can you clarify?

Second is that you have no idea what I may or may not do about my lack of support for war-mongers away from a forum on Rail?. Look back at the last fifteen years and tell all that that an alternative approach might have been more productive. I'm happy that you may not support Corbyn and also happy that you might judge my non-military viewpoint as bland but similarly, I'm not seeing what you might do different if you were president for the day?

Perhaps we can all join a Stop the War demo - I assume they are, at this moment, polishing their placards and petitioning the Syrian Embassy. Oh hang on it isnt an American war is it?

 

[Bromley boy]

The above is a worth a watch if you have a spare 40 minutes.

It’s an imaginary near future scenario which shows how a limited military exchange in the Mediterranean could spiral within an matter of days or even hours.

(I’m not usually into alternative future/alternative history type stuff but this one is quite sobering and well made).

 

[DarloRich]

It’s an imaginary near future scenario which shows how a limited military exchange in the Mediterranean could spiral.

It could spiral. However the mitigating factor is, perversely, the noise from Trump. You don't announce, in advance, your intention to bomb. You just launch the missiles. His statement is fair warning to the Russians to clear the area ( the same as last time)