Syria
-
-
@taniwharugby said in Syria:
so in response to the Chemical weapon attacks, Trump has ordered a military strike.
Massive win for Trump on the political side.
It is almost tailor made to show that he is a stronger president than Obama, sends a message to other countries... and was a pretty limited strike. -
About 10% of the cruise missiles used at the start of the Iraq war in 2003 which in itself is a worrying trend - the ability to engage in warfare without consequence. At least with troops on the ground, you have casualties which provide a moment of pause.
You can make claims about the need to act after evidence of poisonous gas strikes, but this merely prolongs the war; removing a capability for Assad to deal with ISIS and the Rebels. The longer this goes on, the worse it gets for everyone.
-
@antipodean said in Syria:
About 10% of the cruise missiles used at the start of the Iraq war in 2003 which in itself is a worrying trend - the ability to engage in warfare without consequence. At least with troops on the ground, you have casualties which provide a moment of pause.
You can make claims about the need to act after evidence of poisonous gas strikes, but this merely prolongs the war; removing a capability for Assad to deal with ISIS and the Rebels. The longer this goes on, the worse it gets for everyone.
Easier said than done when Assad and Putin are in bed together
-
@canefan Are you making an argument for regime change?
-
@antipodean Which one?
-
@canefan Take your pick, but they're currently fighting in Syria.
-
@antipodean said in Syria:
@canefan Take your pick, but they're currently fighting in Syria.
Always difficult, as we've seen in other countries, sometimes the new lot is worse than the current lot
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Syria:
Massive win for Trump on the political side.
It is almost tailor made to show that he is a stronger president than Obama, sends a message to other countries... and was a pretty limited strike.There's definitely some political positives.
However he is going against some clear statements from his campaign.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Syria:
Massive win for Trump on the political side.
It is almost tailor made to show that he is a stronger president than Obama, sends a message to other countries... and was a pretty limited strike.There's definitely some political positives.
However he is going against some clear statements from his campaign.
I think a chemical weapons attack on children is the best (most sellable) reason he could get for changing position.
-
I wonder what the next step is? A no fly zone?
-
-
-
-
-
This post is deleted! -
Not sure what point you guys are trying to make? He should not have bombed? That he should not change his mind in 4 years?
-
To his credit he has been anti-intervention in civil wars (especially against the recognised government) for years and right up until this week. It was a position that I endorse, and I think that he would do well to continue with it.
I do not think that taking military action against both ISIS and Assad's military is in the interest of anyone in the west.
-
Did Trump say that he would not get involved in Syria under any circumstances? If so, he's a massive hypocrite. On the other hand, should he do nothing?
That is the conundrum represented by the cluster fuck that is Syria. There is no good versus bad. The current regime is probably preferable to the guys they're fighting, but they use chemical weapons. It would seem that any course of action will have tragic consequences.
As an aside, I watched a doco on Saudia Arabia last night. Fark the middle east is a shit box.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel Military intervention is not the only option.
-
To his credit he has been anti-intervention in civil wars (especially against the recognised government) for years and right up until this week. It was a position that I endorse, and I think that he would do well to continue with it.
I do not think that taking military action against both ISIS and Assad's military is in the interest of anyone in the west.
I agree in all aspects of that, but I dont have an issue with him changin his position, that doesnt make him a hypocrite. Those tweets are meaningless.
If people want to criticise intervening, that is a worthy discussion, but tweets from 4-5 years ago?
I would have probably preferred he didnt bomb, I am not even convinced Syria actually did the bombing.... whats in it for them? -
It's easy to make a humanitarian argument in favour of military action. However he campaigned against this type of intervention just months ago
He borrowed the America First doctrine from Buchanan and now he's ditched that and adopted an 'establishment' Republican position that he was demonising
-
I'm sure he got a stack of advice saying it was the right thing to do.
Just not sure how launching US$100M of ordnance into Syria jives with the policies @Duluth talks about.
-
The Middle East is farked. Assad doesn't do shit unless Putin says it's OK. Putin won't allow his man to go down
-
The Middle East is farked. Assad doesn't do shit unless Putin says it's OK. Putin won't allow his man to go down
Which makes this move doubly interesting - depending entirely on who they're targeting - when Trump is Putin's rent boy.
-
I think Nicky Hagar should write a book about this attack, apparently people died!
especially as NZ knew about the attack prior...
•The US launched a cruise missile attack on Syrian government forces at about 12.30pm (NZT).
•The attack is in retaliation to a suspected chemical weapons attack against Syrian civilians earlier this week.
•Local Syrian governor says the missile strike resulted in deaths.
•This is the first direct attack on the Syrian government from the US.•US allies, including NZ, were notified before the attack.
•Bill English says he supports the US action.
•59 Tomahawk missiles, fired from warships in the Mediterranean Sea, targeted a Syrian air base believed to have been connected with the suspected chemical attack. -
The Middle East is farked. Assad doesn't do shit unless Putin says it's OK. Putin won't allow his man to go down
Which makes this move doubly interesting - depending entirely on who they're targeting - when Trump is Putin's rent boy.
A missile strike is a bit more token than boots on the ground. Hell of a token though....
-
I thought the deal was that Iran was in control of Syria as they provide the majority of combat-ready soldiers on the ground (including Hezbollah and Shi’ite militia fighters).
It remains to be seen how effective this missile strike actually was. Trump warned Putin, who I'm sure warned Assad.
-
I thought the deal was that Iran was in control of Syria as they provide the majority of combat-ready soldiers on the ground (including Hezbollah and Shi’ite militia fighters).
It remains to be seen how effective this missile strike actually was. Trump warned Putin, who I'm sure warned Assad.
The missile strike is a token but a one off attack doesn't do shit tactically
-
-
If Trump does the whole ground invasion/regime change (Iraq) thing against Russia's wishes, then I am done with him. I hate neo-cons.
On the other hand, the whole Putin's puppet meme is being challenged severely, it contrasts with 8 years of Obama hedging and waffling, and it will send a clear message to China, Iran and North Korea.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel Military intervention is not the only option.
What are the other options? Do nothing or send a really strongly worded letter?
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Syria:
@Rancid-Schnitzel Military intervention is not the only option.
What are the other options? Do nothing or send a really strongly worded letter?
In bold font?
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel
A red line you DO NOT cross. -
@Rancid-Schnitzel Economic sanctions, trade blockades, seizure of assets.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel Economic sanctions, trade blockades, seizure of assets.
Asset seizure is a good idea. Easy way to fill the coffers
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel Economic sanctions, trade blockades, seizure of assets.
The first two can't work if Vlad holds the back door open. And vetoes any UN resolutions anyway. I don't know if Syria has many assets in the US to seize either.
Having said that I'm not sure of the next step in a strategy that involves creating enemies of both sides.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel Economic sanctions, trade blockades, seizure of assets.
Isn't that what they did to Saddam after the first Gulf War? The question is how much that would affect the civilian population and also whether it would actually bring down the regime/lead to reforms in the long term. It's not like the regime has no other allies.
There are no good options in this situation, just ones that may be less catastrophic.
-
-
If Trump does the whole ground invasion/regime change (Iraq) thing against Russia's wishes, then I am done with him. I hate neo-cons.
On the other hand, the whole Putin's puppet meme is being challenged severely, it contrasts with 8 years of Obama hedging and waffling, and it will send a clear message to China, Iran and North Korea.
It does nothing of the sort. He's commenced a missile strike against a regime utterly incapable of striking back. He even went to the trouble of advising all and sundry that he was going to conduct the strike. There would have been clarity sought and provided that the intended target had no Russian resources in attendance.
Obama's been bombing the shit out of the Middle East for the term of his presidency and nothing's changed.
