Syria
-
Explosions heard in Damascus as Trump announces airstrikes are underway.
Syria air strikes: US and allies attack 'chemical weapons sites'
They say they hit chemical weapons sites in the biggest military action against President Assad so far.
-
God dammit...
I'm part way through this series on the Syria conflict and US intervention, 3 parts the first being at the time of the first airstrike a year ago and the last part came out yesterday.
Fascinating stuff but also equally disconcerting with these new attacks.
-
so are suspected Chemical weapons sites like WMDs?
-
@taniwharugby oooh, you are so on a list now mate. Spies will be looking at your browsing history as we speak, you leftie.
-
Seems like a VERY limited strike, more about saving face than anything else.
-
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:
Seems like a VERY limited strike, more about saving face than anything else.
Saving face? To who? His Twitter followers?
-
@crucial said in Syria airstrikes:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:
Seems like a VERY limited strike, more about saving face than anything else.
Saving face? To who? His Twitter followers?
The depth of your analysis is astounding. If you cannot figure out to whom I would be referring.... it explains a lot.
-
@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?@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.
-
@kirwan said in Syria airstrikes:
Did bombing him last time stop him this time?
Seems like more is needed, that could get messy.
Impossible to tell really but I imagine Assad would be using them constantly if there were no consequences to doing so.
-
@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. -
@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?You raise a few questions here really. Taking action against Assad or not? What difference would this make in the wider use of chemical weapons? What difference would it make to Assad's use of same?
I think regarding the wider use, probably not a whole lot of difference, hard to say for sure but that is my view. Such despotic people are not necessarily going to be rational and generally deterrents work better against rational people. Will it give Assad pause for thought? Quite possibly but by no means certain.
I really think the first question to be asked though is whether one believes that Assad did use the chems. I believe it to be true, mainly because I don't see how the current actions would benefit the USA or Trump. For Trump himself he is having go go against his non-interventist policies and for what? So on the whole I believe there is a great deal of truth in the chems story. If you accept that then the next question of what action to take if any becomes easier to answer.
Your wider question about there being many other causes worth fighting for is valid IMO and I would really like to know the arguments for picking which despotic maniac gets the arse and which gets left alone. I guess it would be a mix of not pushing things (ie Putin) too far and naked self interest.
-
@catogrande 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?You raise a few questions here really. Taking action against Assad or not? What difference would this make in the wider use of chemical weapons? What difference would it make to Assad's use of same?
I think regarding the wider use, probably not a whole lot of difference, hard to say for sure but that is my view. Such despotic people are not necessarily going to be rational and generally deterrents work better against rational people. Will it give Assad pause for thought? Quite possibly but by no means certain.
I really think the first question to be asked though is whether one believes that Assad did use the chems. I believe it to be true, mainly because I don't see how the current actions would benefit the USA or Trump. For Trump himself he is having go go against his non-interventist policies and for what? So on the whole I believe there is a great deal of truth in the chems story. If you accept that then the next question of what action to take if any becomes easier to answer.
Your wider question about there being many other causes worth fighting for is valid IMO and I would really like to know the arguments for picking which despotic maniac gets the arse and which gets left alone. I guess it would be a mix of not pushing things (ie Putin) too far and naked self interest.
Fair enough, I am far more sceptical of you that Assad actually did it. But like most of the population I just dont know, I am just more wary of believing the intelligence agencies.
I dont want WWIII over this. -
@baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:
Seems like a VERY limited strike, more about saving face than anything else.
The Times is reporting more than 100 strikes so far. Syria is claiming they shot down most of thes missiles.
-
@jc said in Syria airstrikes:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:
Seems like a VERY limited strike, more about saving face than anything else.
The Times is reporting more than 100 strikes so far. Syria is claiming they shot down most of thes missiles.
I read they only struck 3 places and all linked to supposed chemical weapons? Is my info out of date?
I think initially people were talking (including Trump) and about widespread shock and awe destruction of Assad forces. Just has not happened as far as Iam aware.
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in Syria airstrikes:
@catogrande 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?You raise a few questions here really. Taking action against Assad or not? What difference would this make in the wider use of chemical weapons? What difference would it make to Assad's use of same?
I think regarding the wider use, probably not a whole lot of difference, hard to say for sure but that is my view. Such despotic people are not necessarily going to be rational and generally deterrents work better against rational people. Will it give Assad pause for thought? Quite possibly but by no means certain.
I really think the first question to be asked though is whether one believes that Assad did use the chems. I believe it to be true, mainly because I don't see how the current actions would benefit the USA or Trump. For Trump himself he is having go go against his non-interventist policies and for what? So on the whole I believe there is a great deal of truth in the chems story. If you accept that then the next question of what action to take if any becomes easier to answer.
Your wider question about there being many other causes worth fighting for is valid IMO and I would really like to know the arguments for picking which despotic maniac gets the arse and which gets left alone. I guess it would be a mix of not pushing things (ie Putin) too far and naked self interest.
Fair enough, I am far more sceptical of you that Assad actually did it. But like most of the population I just dont know, I am just more wary of believing the intelligence agencies.
I dont want WWIII over this.Think of the awesome films we'll get in a few years time.
