Our potential response to the gas attack in Syria.

[Bromley boy]

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?

Yes they aren’t bothered about wars which don’t give them an excuse to blame the evil west for all that is wrong with the world.

 

[Bromley boy]

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)

The risk is if the warning is ignored or misunderstood, the wrong area is targeted, a missile goes of track etc. These things can be unpredictable.

 

[DarloRich]

Yes they aren’t bothered about wars which don’t give them an excuse to blame the evil west for all that is wrong with the world.

Surely not.

The risk is if the warning is ignored or misunderstood, the wrong area is targeted, a missile goes of track etc. These things can be unpredictable.

Agreed.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Yes they aren’t bothered about wars which don’t give them an excuse to blame the evil west for all that is wrong with the world.

No, no, no, you've missed the point. There is no wars that the evil west isn't directly responsible for. It doesn't matter if we were involved before or not, it's always our fault. Surely Stop the War has made that clear hasn't it? If you think otherwise then you must be ignorant or you either support, or you are in fact, a rich oil baron or banker who wants to exploit people's deaths for money because greed is all you live for.

(Obviously I'm just being a bit jokingly sarcastic, but isn't it scary how such top banter isn't entirely fictional whatever way you look at it?)

 

[Bromley boy]

No, no, no, you've missed the point. There is no wars that the evil west isn't directly responsible for. It doesn't matter if we were involved before or not, it's always our fault. Surely Stop the War has made that clear hasn't it? If you think otherwise then you must be ignorant or you either support, or you are in fact, a rich oil baron or banker who wants to exploit people's deaths for money because greed is all you live for.

(Obviously I'm just being a bit jokingly sarcastic, but isn't it scary how such top banter isn't entirely fictional whatever way you look at it?)

I got the sarcasm.

But yes agreed that is their usual narrative.

 

[Jonny]

Yes. We agree to a certain code of behaviour which should be obvious. Using chemical weapons is not acceptable.
"Are you RT in disguise?"

No I'm not... and it is a credible explanation. Besides, the US/UK governments have a history of lying... about Vietnam, about Iraq, about Libya... Why should we believe a word they say about Syria?

 

[DarloRich]

No I'm not... and it is a credible explanation. Besides, the US/UK governments have a history of lying... about Vietnam, about Iraq, about Libya... Why should we believe a word they say about Syria?

whatabout........................

Mr Putin would never lie. He is entirely trustworthy and his news arm RT is in no way a propaganda vehicle for him to wage an disinformation war against western democratic interests. Not at all. All a western plot. No doubt oil based. Meanwhile - civilians, women and children killed in chemical weapons attack. Yeah, bound to be a western plot.

 

[najaB]

Even if regime change was a desirable outcome (it’s not)...

It is. What isn't a desirable outcome is regime change that isn't well thought out or that is imposed from outside without involving the local population.

it is deflection against domestic issues - particularly the FBI investigation...

It's a response but not deliberate deflection. He's feeling cornered and so is lashinig out.

 

[Bromley boy]

whatabout........................

Mr Putin would never lie. He is entirely trustworthy and his news arm RT is in no way a propaganda vehicle for him to wage an disinformation war against western democratic interests. Not at all. All a western plot. No doubt oil based. Meanwhile - civilians, women and children killed in chemical weapons attack. Yeah, bound to be a western plot.

Have you thought about a career change into writing speeches for Jezza?

 

[SilentGrade]

You don't announce, in advance, your intention to bomb

which is incidentally exactly what he's criticised in the past.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/373054743742275584
No, dopey, I would not go into Syria, but if I did it would be by surprise and not blurted all over the media like fools.

I do however feel like it is time for the West to step in, in some way against Russia. Perhaps an overt propaganda offensive along the same lines as the one we are being subjected to at the moment could work, but I wouldn't hold out much hope.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Thinking about this lately, I am still somewhat unsure about what we should do with this situation. We still do not yet know who carried out the chemical attack, and a proper investigation is probably needed before we can decide on what to do. For all we know, Bashar al-Assad could've had nothing to do with it, or he could've been behind it. At this time it is unknown.

I used to be of the opinion that we should actually assist al-Assad in regaining control of his country again before literally double-crossing him and finding a way to deal with some of his brutal acts once the war as over. That way ISIS would be pretty much eliminated and the Syrian tensions could at least be constrained within the borders, allowing for a regime change should the leader step out of line. Not everyone would be pleased, but in the long-term, it could do some good and allow Syria to become a better place compared to the state it's in now.

Since then I am no longer of that opinion because while we the UK could've joined the Russians in keeping al-Assad, the Americans probably wouldn't have done so. Not to mention, the tensions with Russia wouldn't stop as soon as the war was over, because unlike the western powers, they seem to want to keep the current regime, whereas we seem to want to change it. I don't know. Perhaps some people could take that old opinion on board and build upon, or even tear it apart. I don't know, I actually am very unsure at the minute with my opinion on this matter, so maybe everyone else could help me out somehow with their views.

 

[Warwick]

What should we (the United Kingdom) do?
NOTHING.
There is hardly a country east of Turkey (and some west of Turkey) that hasn't been torn apart by a civil war or at least "unrest" following a do-goody "we are the world's policemen from the western powers which has then rebounded on them. The west spent it's time in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century invading foreign lands and establishing borders without reference to any tribal boundaries (and doing the same in sub-Saharan Africa) with the result that there was and is civil war.
What Assad does in his country to his people is his and their business, not ours. Haven't we learned anything from two disastrous forays in Afghanistan in the 19th century and another there in the twentieth, getting mired in Iraq, the mess that was Kosovo? Let alone all of the other set-to's that resulted in British servicemen dying. We have enough of our own problems in this country without taking on someone else's. Who is looking forwards to bodies being flow back into Brize Norton, to more acts of terrorism in our towns and cities in the name of whoever, to more divisions of society? It's easy to be brave on a keyboard. Someone - lot's of them - in government and elsewhere needs to wake up and smell the coffee. We are a second rate economic country with a third rate sized (not quality) military. We simply cannot afford to go to war in the middle east again. The U.S. is getting all het up because they see Syria as a step to-wards their real goal which is Iran and we will just get sucked along into that let alone the total ****storm when U.S. backed Israel joins the party. Putin sees himself as a modern Stalin - the iron man - and he has some impressive weaponry in the field.

 

[HSTEd]

Lobbing a few missiles in is not going to seriously punish Assad for using chemical weapons.
We would have to shatter his military and lose him the civil war to do that.

At which point we will have created yet another quagmire that will never be stable in our lifetimes.

 

[DarloRich]

What should we (the United Kingdom) do?
NOTHING.
There is hardly a country east of Turkey (and some west of Turkey) that hasn't been torn apart by a civil war or at least "unrest" following a do-goody "we are the world's policemen from the western powers which has then rebounded on them. The west spent it's time in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century invading foreign lands and establishing borders without reference to any tribal boundaries (and doing the same in sub-Saharan Africa) with the result that there was and is civil war.
What Assad does in his country to his people is his and their business, not ours. Haven't we learned anything from two disastrous forays in Afghanistan in the 19th century and another there in the twentieth, getting mired in Iraq, the mess that was Kosovo? Let alone all of the other set-to's that resulted in British servicemen dying. We have enough of our own problems in this country without taking on someone else's. Who is looking forwards to bodies being flow back into Brize Norton, to more acts of terrorism in our towns and cities in the name of whoever, to more divisions of society? It's easy to be brave on a keyboard. Someone - lot's of them - in government and elsewhere needs to wake up and smell the coffee. We are a second rate economic country with a third rate sized (not quality) military. We simply cannot afford to go to war in the middle east again. The U.S. is getting all het up because they see Syria as a step to-wards their real goal which is Iran and we will just get sucked along into that let alone the total ****storm when U.S. backed Israel joins the party. Putin sees himself as a modern Stalin - the iron man - and he has some impressive weaponry in the field.

it is a shame that the use of chemical weapons to kill women and children isnt of interest to you. We used to be a country that knew right from wrong. We used to know that this kind of behviour was unacceptable. At what point does it become our business? When does it become impossible to turn a blind eye?

As an aside i don't think anyone is suggesting invading Syria. Punishing them with missile strikes perhaps but not invasion. That should only occur as part of an international consensus and after approval by the commons.

It is interesting that the rhetoric has been dialed back quite a bit over the last 48 hours. Anyone would think the USA didn't have a carrier group in range and that the Russian response to western comment has been more muscular than the last time.

 

[najaB]

As an aside i don't think anyone is suggesting invading Syria. Punishing them with missile strikes perhaps but not invasion.

Missile strikes would be symbolic but not much more than that.

 

[DarloRich]

Missile strikes would be symbolic but not much more than that.

Indeed - but all that is needed is the appearance of action and response. That is cynical but it sends the required messages.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is interesting that the rhetoric has been dialed back quite a bit over the last 48 hours. Anyone would think the USA didn't have a carrier group in range and that the Russian response to western comment has been more muscular than the last time.

In the end nobody (not even Putin) wants global thermonuclear war.

 

[DarloRich]

In the end nobody (not even Putin) wants global thermonuclear war.

Hopefully followed by the word obviously!

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

So after carrying out airstrikes along with France the Americans, Theresa May has justified the use of this military action despite there being no proper investigation as of now by saying that it is a message that chemical weapons cannot be tolerated in today's world. It's all well and good, but does that mean all the previous missile strikes are suddenly irrelevant? After all, they didn't stop the most recent chemical attack, so why would now be any different?

I shouldn't be surprised really, our leaders probably won't ever wait for a proper investigation, in fact there may not have even been one given the circumstances in Syria. It's not exactly the most stable place to carry one out after all. But speaking of proper investigations though, and I'm no totally mad conspiracy theorist, but is anyone else reminded of the Gulf of Tonkin incident all of a sudden?

 

[Jonny]

So after carrying out airstrikes along with France the Americans, Theresa May has justified the use of this military action despite there being no proper investigation as of now by saying that it is a message that chemical weapons cannot be tolerated in today's world. It's all well and good, but does that mean all the previous missile strikes are suddenly irrelevant? After all, they didn't stop the most recent chemical attack, so why would now be any different?

I shouldn't be surprised really, our leaders probably won't ever wait for a proper investigation, in fact there may not have even been one given the circumstances in Syria. It's not exactly the most stable place to carry one out after all. But speaking of proper investigations though, and I'm no totally mad conspiracy theorist, but is anyone else reminded of the Gulf of Tonkin incident all of a sudden?

Ah yes - the misunderstanding that led to the Vietnam war...

 

[Master29]

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

What evidence exactly? The same type of evidence Blair used in his WMD against Saddam Hussein?

 

[najaB]

but is anyone else reminded of the Gulf of Tonkin incident all of a sudde

Nope. The US wanted a reason to put troops on the ground in Vietnam. They don't want to increase the size is the deployment in Syria. In fact, Trump wanted to pull them out in 48 hours.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

So after carrying out airstrikes along with France the Americans, Theresa May has justified the use of this military action despite there being no proper investigation as of now by saying that it is a message that chemical weapons cannot be tolerated in today's world. It's all well and good, but does that mean all the previous missile strikes are suddenly irrelevant? After all, they didn't stop the most recent chemical attack, so why would now be any different?

Well, we'll have to see if it's any different this time. It does seem that this has been a bigger attack, so maybe it's inflicted greater damage on Assad's chemical weapons abilities.

I don't think the fact that this attack occurred despite last year's missile strikes gives a good reason for not responding this time as well. That logic would be like: Criminal gets released from prison, goes on to commit another crime, so we say, "Well, putting him in prison didn't deter him last time, so we may as well not bother to punish him this time. Just let him get away with it scot free instead." Hopefully the problem with that logic is obvious!

I shouldn't be surprised really, our leaders probably won't ever wait for a proper investigation, in fact there may not have even been one given the circumstances in Syria. It's not exactly the most stable place to carry one out after all. But speaking of proper investigations though, and I'm no totally mad conspiracy theorist, but is anyone else reminded of the Gulf of Tonkin incident all of a sudden?

Realistically, a proper investigation is probably not possible in the foreseeable future: Can you really see Assad and Putin allowing one? So we have to go on the information we have. And from what information is in the public domain, it would seem almost certain that Assad's regime did order a chemical attack on civilians: We know that regime has a track record of atrocities on civilians, and there seems to be no other plausible explanation for what's happened.

 

[Warwick]

it is a shame that the use of chemical weapons to kill women and children isnt of interest to you. We used to be a country that knew right from wrong. We used to know that this kind of behviour was unacceptable. At what point does it become our business? When does it become impossible to turn a blind eye?

As an aside i don't think anyone is suggesting invading Syria. Punishing them with missile strikes perhaps but not invasion. That should only occur as part of an international consensus and after approval by the commons.

It is interesting that the rhetoric has been dialed back quite a bit over the last 48 hours. Anyone would think the USA didn't have a carrier group in range and that the Russian response to western comment has been more muscular than the last time.

It's not of interest to me because of the reasons that I clearly stated. We are not the world's policeman. Our cemeteries - military and civil - are littered with the graves of young men and women that politicians sent to foreign lands to interfere with something that politicians didn't agree with.
Why didn't we act when the government of Botswana uprooted the Kalahari bush people out of the tribal lands that they had lived in for thousands of years to facilitate their diamond mining?
Why didn't we act when Mugabe slaughtered at least 20,000 of his own countrymen in Matabeleland?

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Why didn't we act when the government of Botswana uprooted the Kalahari bush people out of the tribal lands that they had lived in for thousands of years to facilitate their diamond mining?
Why didn't we act when Mugabe slaughtered at least 20,000 of his own countrymen in Matabeleland?

Because there wasn't really any other agenda that could be disguised as humanitarian action, perhaps? I don't know, maybe my tin foil hat has got the better of me and that it's just a coincidence that we've only intervened in areas that just so happen to be rich in oil reserves and that. Sure, we didn't find Saddam's WMDs in the end, but hey, elementary mistake right? We all make them, it only cost a few needless lives to topple Saddam and leave nobody else to fill the vacuum of power just for something that turned out to be false.

 

[najaB]

... we've only intervened in areas that just so happen to be rich in oil reserves and that.

Oh yeah, all that lovely Afghani oil...

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Oh yeah, all that lovely Afghani oil...

Afghanistan is kind of the odd one out, cause though it's surrounded by countries rich in oil, it's not got a lot in itself. Still, I suppose it's minerals more than make up for that, such as lithium, marble and gold and what not. We all know that lithium is vital for our everyday lives with the very computers, laptops or mobile phones you are are using to read this.

On a more serious note though before you might think I'm going off the deep end, I'm not going to outright say that we only ever went to the middle east for it's resources, but I certainly do not believe that there's a total humanitarian interest in these wars we have fought over the years and nothing else. I mean there's places that some might argue would've needed our help but we didn't do anything.

 

[najaB]

...marble...

Really?!

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Really?!

Yes. There's a whole section on Wikipedia of minerals in Afghanistan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_in_Afghanistan#Commodities

Afghanistan has abundant non-fuel mineral resources, including both known and potential deposits of a wide variety of minerals ranging from copper, iron, and sulfur to bauxite, lithium, and rare-earth elements.

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes. There's a whole section on Wikipedia of minerals in Afghanistan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_in_Afghanistan#Commodities

Yes but do you think that obtaining marble is a pretext for war?

Sounds like something from a Chris Morris sketch.