Going to war with Syria?

[gimmepie]

I want to crawl in a corner now. What the fuck was he thinking?

I mean, this isn't a guarantee that actual open hostilities will begin. It's uh... not good though.

I'm not just talking about the "WW3 is happening!111!1!" people. The people calling the gassing a false flag attack are sickening. No matter who did it. Just an insult to the dead. Just as bad as people who called Sandy Hook and 9/11 false flags.

It absolutely does matter who did it. If it was someone other than the government the US just dropped a bunch of missiles on the wrong people.

 

[Bay]

This has been mentioned by a lot of folks in various social media already, but man so ironic Trump said the missiles thing is justified while he won't let Syrian refugees, those that tried to get away from the chaos happening, enter the US. This made me mad since my family were runaway refugees themselves long ago. Just wow, but I shouldn't be surprised.

 

[El Héroe Oscuro]

This has been mentioned by a lot of folks in various social media already, but man so ironic Trump said the missiles thing is justified while he won't let Syrian refugees, those that tried to get away from the chaos happening, enter the US. This made me mad since my family were runaway refugees themselves long ago. Just wow, but I shouldn't be surprised.

It's even more ironic when you look at some of Trump's past tweets:

 

[Arsenic]

I'm not just talking about the "WW3 is happening!111!1!" people. The people calling the gassing a false flag attack are sickening. No matter who did it. Just an insult to the dead. Just as bad as people who called Sandy Hook and 9/11 false flags.

Really, it doesn't matter who did it? Then what if it does come out that it was a rebel attack? Do you think it is justified that we obliterated a base and blew the limbs off 9 Syrian soldiers?

Or are we just going to believe what our Judge, Jury, and Executioner president says now? I mean he's the smartest man ever of all time!

 

[EC]

Or are we just going to believe what our Judge, Jury, and Executioner president says now? I mean he's the smartest man ever of all time!

No. I'd love to not believe him on this. But all the evidence points to this being Assad killing his own people. Again. If you think otherwise, especially if you think otherwise just because you hate the current president, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Mekkalynx]

I don't truly know how I feel, and apparently just now, Russian warships were spotted steaming forward to the american ships that shot the missiles. So...now we may be at war with Russia.

 

[pastelspectre]

welp... looks like trump is 10x worse than i originally thought. how nice.

edit: dont get me wrong, i still thought he was an awful orange cheeto puff, but..now he's even worse for doing this, wtf.

 

[EC]

We're not at war with Russia.
We are not going to war with Russia.
Russia is not at war with us.
Russia is not going to war with us.

Settle down with the hyperbole. Look up "sabre-rattling".

 

[Mekkalynx]

I don't know how this works, I admit. But I'm sure Putin won't be too pleased to know that some of his men were killed in the bombings. Either way, I don't know how to feel.

 

[EC]

Going to war with Russia will likely end in nuclear war.

The question you have to ask is... is Putin willing to die to attack America? Over this? Over anything?

Kim Jong Un, sure, probably. But Putin? No. Putin is a smart guy.

 

[El Héroe Oscuro]

I don't truly know how I feel, and apparently just now, Russian warships were spotted steaming forward to the american ships that shot the missiles. So...now we may be at war with Russia.

Do you have a link you can throw my way as to where you saw this? I'm at work right now but would like to read up on it if I can.

 

[Guest123_x1]

The LAST thing America needed was to start yet another bull**** war with some Middle Eastern country.
I wish Ron Paul or even Rand Paul was President right now... neither of these two would have EVER been stupid enough to bow down to the neocon warmongers.

 

[Corrin]

So he's mad enough at the chemical attacks to bomb them but not mad enough to help by taking in refugees?

 

[Mekkalynx]

https://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/...estroyers-that-launched-syria-airstrikes.html

 

[Bay]

So he's mad enough at the chemical attacks to bomb them but not mad enough to help by taking in refugees?

Yup. I mentioned that earlier and I'm shaking my head over this lol.

 

[Kanzler]

If you read the article, you'd find that the Russian warship was headed to Syria on a routine voyage. Even if that's not the real reason, we shouldn't immediately jump to the conclusion that Russia and the US are about to attack each other. Militaries want to be prepared for contingencies, and being prepared for an eventuality doesn't mean that they intend for that eventuality to occur.

Concerning the American attack, I think it was a judgment call at the end of the day, much like Obama's decision to go after bin Laden. The use of chemical weapons should be deterred. Chemical weapons have been used throughout the Syrian Civil War, and it would be in the world's interest to hope that this doesn't set a precedent for the undeterred use of chemical weapons. At the same time, a direct attack on the Syrian government is so far unprecedented, and seems to imply that the US is willing to back up its statements that it wants to see an Assad-free Syria.

Assad, upon realizing that the US is serious about getting rid of him, might be more willing to compromise to a peace with the rebels while he still can. Of course, he might upon the same realization dig in his heels further if he believes that there is no compromising with the US about his status after the war and there is therefore nothing to lose from a war to the bitter end. Personally, I think the former is the likelier of the two, but it's possible that neither will occur.

I don't think this will push Russia closer to war, though. Their official comments are all about naming and shaming the act as an example of US aggression, but they haven't called for retribution or anything in return. Although the airstrike was the first American attack on the Syrian government, there's reason to believe that this doesn't represent any further escalation of US involvement in the conflict, because there was a clear scope for the attack - to punish Assad for the use of chemical weapons.

In summary, this issue isn't cut and dry. The US took the initiative to punish Assad to deter himself, and the world more generally, from the use of chemical weapons at the cost of potentially escalating the conflict. If there was no risk, then that would be absolutely an appropriate objective to achieve. Obviously, the US believed that the potential risk was justified, and so far I tentatively agree. We'll see what the consequences are over the coming days.

 

[gimmepie]

In summary, this issue isn't cut and dry. The US took the initiative to punish Assad to deter himself, and the world more generally, from the use of chemical weapons at the cost of potentially escalating the conflict. If there was no risk, then that would be absolutely an appropriate objective to achieve. Obviously, the US believed that the potential risk was justified, and so far I tentatively agree. We'll see what the consequences are over the coming days.

I think the issues is a lot more cut and dry than you're making out.

1. From what I understand, nobody actually has any concrete proof that Assad is responsible for the gassing. It could just as easily have been done by the rebels who are in no way innocent in all of the mess in Syria.

2. It was not the US' place to punish Assad. They are a foreign nation with no business being in Syria in the first place not a higher power that the rest of the other countries on the planet are meant to bow down to.

3. Sabre rattling or not, the escalating tension between Russia and the US is still a bad thing. The suspending of the policy that prevents open hostilities is not a good thing. We can talk about how Putin doesn't want a nuclear war or whatever, and I agree. However, people do stupid things over pissing contests all the time and if you think nutjobs like Putin and Trump aren't the type to get pulled into that kind of a conflict you're a terrible judge of character.

Just because the chances of open hostilities between the US and Russia aren't enormous doesn't mean they aren't there. It also doesn't mean that we won't see a repeat of the Cold War where they engage in a bunch of ridiculous proxy wars that drastically reduce global stability for the sake of their own egos.

I don't agree with making this out to be the end of the world but can we stop pretending this isn't a big deal either? It was a huge faux pas on Trump's part.

Edit: I have some updates for you as well

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39529264
https://www.news.com.au/world/middl...a/news-story/36820085601761ea254777dff2d315f5

 

[Kanzler]

I think the issues is a lot more cut and dry than you're making out.

1. From what I understand, nobody actually has any concrete proof that Assad is responsible for the gassing. It could just as easily have been done by the rebels who are in no way innocent in all of the mess in Syria.

2. It was not the US' place to punish Assad. They are a foreign nation with no business being in Syria in the first place not a higher power that the rest of the other countries on the planet are meant to bow down to.

3. Sabre rattling or not, the escalating tension between Russia and the US is still a bad thing. The suspending of the policy that prevents open hostilities is not a good thing. We can talk about how Putin doesn't want a nuclear war or whatever, and I agree. However, people do stupid things over pissing contests all the time and if you think nutjobs like Putin and Trump aren't the type to get pulled into that kind of a conflict you're a terrible judge of character.

Just because the chances of open hostilities between the US and Russia aren't enormous doesn't mean they aren't there. It also doesn't mean that we won't see a repeat of the Cold War where they engage in a bunch of ridiculous proxy wars that drastically reduce global stability for the sake of their own egos.

I don't agree with making this out to be the end of the world but can we stop pretending this isn't a big deal either? It was a huge faux pas on Trump's part.

1. https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/05/middleeast/idlib-syria-attack/

How concrete is concrete proof? Do you want a shell casing autographed by Assad himself? Yes, it's possible that Syrian government weapons can fall in the hands of rebels, so even if you could trace debris from the weapons back to the government, it's possible that they weren't the culprits. But despite what Hands says, there is strong evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons during the 2013 attacks. For that matter, I would like to see why Hands believes so definitively that "Rebels" were responsible for those previous attacks. But back to the point, the Syrian government used to have a significant chemical weapons program which they never made public for decades until shortly before agreeing to destroy them. If that's their history, it isn't out of the question that they wouldn't have relinquished or reported the entirety of their chemical weapons stocks.

There's never definitive proof to these sorts of things, but I believe the balance of probabilities tilts towards Assad being the culprits. The Ghouta attacks of 2013 that killed about 800 civilians were believed to have involved too much gas to have been caused by rebels, and there have been UN reports of government gas attacks since then. I would like to see the talk or speculation that the rebels were responsible ("could just as easily have been done") be substantiated. I would ask you, which side has more evidence in favour of its responsibility of the attacks?

2. No? So what happens when a country uses chemical weapons in violation of international law? If not the US, then whose place is it to punish those who use illegal weapons on so large a scale? Of course, it's always just a matter of the US trying to get all the other countries in the world to bow down to them, the deterrence of the use of chemical weapons means nothing.

3. I agree that tensions between Russia and the US is a bad thing. But politics being politics, the Russians had to do something to express their disagreement to the airstrike. You don't think Russia is contributing to the tensions as well? For perspective, Russia has played a much more active role in supporting "their side" - they've had thousands of troops on the ground for a much longer period of time (the US probably doesn't have more than a thousand, and they've only been deployed recently to support the advance to al-Raqqa), they've bombed "not-ISIS, not their side" for ages now (the Syrian opposition. American attacks against "not-ISIS, not their side" - the Syrian government - wasn't started even a week ago), and they've left a much bigger footprint in terms of destruction delivered (70,000+ strikes overall by Russia, 8,000 strikes by US and allies).

The tensions game is difficult to play - nobody "wants" to escalate things, but it would be foolish to allow the other side to do what they want without responding.

I can't believe it just boils down to a pissing contest to you people. And that you guys blame it all on Trump. Do you honestly think Clinton or Obama wouldn't have done the same? Like it or not, the US is the only country in the world capable of using force to deter and degrade those regimes that would violate international law and commit horrendous crimes. I'm not sure if you guys would be comfortable with the idea of a world where governments everywhere are confident that there would be no threat of force if they used "banned" chemical weapons upon their enemies, because that is what you are suggesting if you so denounce the airstrike as inappropriate.

And did I really suggest that the airstrike isn't a big deal? All I did was mention that maybe, just maybe, that the deterrence of weapons of mass destruction is a big deal, that the use of force might be appropriate in order to punish a regime that's already had a history of using such weapons on people it deems traitors, and that might provide some sense to a decision that most of the posters here have been so quick to judge. At the very least it would've been a break from the Chicken Little RT (Russian News) circlejerk. The point of my post was about how it was a difficult call to make from a risk-benefit standpoint, when none - I say again, none - of the previous posts in this thread had anything to say about possible rational motivations, because Trump is a giant cheeto and has a big ego? Like I get it's really popular to go against mainstream opinion (but are we really?) in this day and age, but you have to be a bit more critical than only considering one side of the story. At least seriously consider the fact that there are legitimate reasons why such a response to the gas attack could take place? Obviously nobody has to agree with what I'm saying, but RT (Roundtable) being RT, I would hope that people would actually weigh the pros and cons of all the angles of an argument instead of just latching onto the one that's immediately agreeable to their personal politics.

I'm not sure how much more cut and dry I can get than hedging with incisive phrases such as "possible that neither will occur", "tentatively agree", "we'll see what the consequences are", and "the issue isn't cut and dry".

The hyperbole in this thread is insane. Oh, look at me, I swallow my words.

RE: edit - what did you take away from those articles? What I took away is that of course the US should state that it is "prepared to do more", because what use is a deterrent that you can use only once? If you don't lay it out there that you are willing to respond to the same chemical attack in the same way, then the message you are sending is that the US is not serious about deterring the use of chemical weapons.

 

[gimmepie]

Snip

I don't recall ever saying that it was or wasn't Assad myself. I said that there wasn't actual concrete proof. All I see there is proof that Assad's government has in the past had and used chemical weapons. That's circumstantial evidence. If I happen to own a gun, I'm not automatically thrown in prison in a shooting that occurs on my street. Not unless someone can prove that I used my gun to kill someone.

At the very least, an unbiased third party/higher organisation. Instead, Trump made the decision himself in the moment without congressional approval, without UN approval and in violation of international law. Even his cabinet are trying to subtly distance themselves from the decision. It is not the US' job to dispense "justice" around the world especially when every time they do, wherever they go ends up in a worse state than before they got there.

Of course I don't think Russia are innocent in this. For one thing they openly support a raving lunatic dictator like Assad, basically because he's not ISIS or labelled a rebel. It's one of a million things the Russian government do/are doing that I don't agree with. Just the same as that they have always been a part of the animosity with the US. I don't excuse that and I won't pretend to. That doesn't excuse the fact that Trump just shot 59 missiles at a Syrian airbase, killed 9 people as well as damaged Syrian and Russian assets and quite intentionally added more strain to an already strained relationship on a whim without ever consulting congress or the UN and even though what he did was a total violation of international law because apparently the US government still believes that the law applies to everyone but them. So yes, I think that this particularly shitty situation is largely Trump's fault even if past events have been just as much on Russia if not outright more so at times.

It doesn't matter what Clinton or Obama have done or would have done. You're hiding behind the same rhetoric the alt-right spewed to get Trump elected in the first place. Clinton or Obama aren't the president. They didn't make this call. What they would or wouldn't have done is irrelevant, but quite frankly if either of them had done this I'd have been just as infuriated. Wrong is wrong regardless of who is doing it. Gassing a bunch of people is wrong, yes. So is deciding to play judge, jury and executioner with a country that you shouldn't have anything to do with based on an unconfirmed estimation.

What do I take away from those articles and just about all the others on this? Russia/US relations have been nothing but a pissing contest since before the Cold War and Donald Trump, self professed very smart person (and also a total hypocrite), just decided on a whim to break the law and drop missiles on a Russian ally. He could have waited for a proper investigation. He could have waited to consult with the UN/Congress. Instead, he just did what he felt like, like he always does, because he has an ego of an almost cartoonish size and thinks being the President of the United states makes him the highest authority on the planet. As a result, US/Russia relations are now probably the most strained they've been since the Cuban missile crisis and you know what? I'd be willing to bet pretty much nothing changes in Syria as a result of this. Even if this was Assad, he's never cared about the US sticking their nose in before so he's not about to start now.

 

[Kanzler]

I don't recall ever saying that it was or wasn't Assad myself. I said that there wasn't actual concrete proof. All I see there is proof that Assad's government has in the past had and used chemical weapons. That's circumstantial evidence. If I happen to own a gun, I'm not automatically thrown in prison in a shooting that occurs on my street. Not unless someone can prove that I used my gun to kill someone.

But this is a wartime scenario. The use of force is more urgent than it would be in a civilian scenario. Back in 2012, Obama called the use of chemical weapons as the "red line" that would not be crossed and gas weapons have been used since then until now. Even if there's no "actual concrete proof", on balance of probability, who conducted the gas attacks?

To tweak your analogy a little, if you happened to own a gun as well as an inordinate amount of bullets, which you were charged for the illegal possession of only when the police discovered that you were responsible for a mass murder on your street, and if the other residents of the street isn't capable of producing those weapons and could only gain access to your guns and bullets by stealing them, and if there's a second mass murder on your street, and by all means you seem to the only one capable of destruction on such a scale, I think you should be pretty damn sure that the police are going to come arrest you first. especially if the first time you shot up the neighbourhood you were "at war" with your neighbours, and you're still "at war" with your neighbours.

In other words, arrests and airstrikes are made on there being probable cause that the offending action occured, and I would challenge you to argue that there wasn't probable cause in either of the scenarios presented. Furthermore, chemical weapons are a bit more, shall we say, mass destructive, than guns and bullets, so I would venture you agree that there is a greater interest in ensuring either their safekeeping or destruction of the weapons themselves and the capabilities to use them. War being war, and given the knowledge that chemical weapons continue to exist in Syria, and given you can't just arrest and detain all the key players (the government, rebels, ISIS) for probable cause and then interrogate them and then after conduct investigations that won't be vetoed by Russia or won't be compromised by existing in a warzone, I hope you understand that the level of proof you seem to be expecting is unreasonable.

At the very least, an unbiased third party/higher organisation. Instead, Trump made the decision himself in the moment without congressional approval, without UN approval and in violation of international law. Even his cabinet are trying to subtly distance themselves from the decision. It is not the US' job to dispense "justice" around the world especially when every time they do, wherever they go ends up in a worse state than before they got there.

Congress might vote to declare war on someone, but they'd never vote to sanction this or that military action, so I don't think your expectation that congressional approval should've been obtained is at all reasonable. Having an independent organization investigate and collect their own data takes time - the first UN report on the 2013 Ghouta attacks took almost a month to come out, and the final report came out over three months later. You lose the justification of retaliation as deterrence the longer you wait.

What, then, do you propose would be appropriate justice against the use of chemical weapons, which is also in violation of international law?

Of course I don't think Russia are innocent in this. For one thing they openly support a raving lunatic dictator like Assad, basically because he's not ISIS or labelled a rebel. It's one of a million things the Russian government do/are doing that I don't agree with. Just the same as that they have always been a part of the animosity with the US. I don't excuse that and I won't pretend to. That doesn't excuse the fact that Trump just shot 59 missiles at a Syrian airbase, killed 9 people as well as damaged Syrian and Russian assets and quite intentionally added more strain to an already strained relationship on a whim without ever consulting congress or the UN and even though what he did was a total violation of international law because apparently the US government still believes that the law applies to everyone but them. So yes, I think that this particularly ****ty situation is largely Trump's fault even if past events have been just as much on Russia if not outright more so at times.

People die in wars. I think it says something that it took 59 missiles to kill 9 people. Clearly the targets were directed at materiel, not people, and I don't think I need to be an expert to say that. And even though the UN Charter doesn't sanction the use of force on another country without UN consent or in self defence, how else do you send the message that the use of chemical weapons is not okay?

It doesn't matter what Clinton or Obama have done or would have done. You're hiding behind the same rhetoric the alt-right spewed to get Trump elected in the first place. Clinton or Obama aren't the president. They didn't make this call. What they would or wouldn't have done is irrelevant, but quite frankly if either of them had done this I'd have been just as infuriated. Wrong is wrong regardless of who is doing it. Gassing a bunch of people is wrong, yes. So is deciding to play judge, jury and executioner with a country that you shouldn't have anything to do with based on an unconfirmed estimation.

The point I was making about this bit was that the decision was made in this way isn't specific to Trump, any more than it would've been to Clinton or Obama, and I would extend the argument to any other President. The kinds of military actions are made in accordance to the intelligence and urgency of the circumstances.

What do I take away from those articles and just about all the others on this? Russia/US relations have been nothing but a pissing contest since before the Cold War and Donald Trump, self professed very smart person (and also a total hypocrite), just decided on a whim to break the law and drop missiles on a Russian ally. He could have waited for a proper investigation. He could have waited to consult with the UN/Congress. Instead, he just did what he felt like, like he always does, because he has an ego of an almost cartoonish size and thinks being the President of the United states makes him the highest authority on the planet. As a result, US/Russia relations are now probably the most strained they've been since the Cuban missile crisis and you know what? I'd be willing to bet pretty much nothing changes in Syria as a result of this. Even if this was Assad, he's never cared about the US sticking their nose in before so he's not about to start now.

Well, I asked you about those articles specifically, because their headlines are more sensational than their contents ("Syria war: US warns of 'more' after missile strikes", "US warns of more Syria attacks during UN Security Council meeting"). The headlines suggest that there will be more attacks on the Syrian government, but what the articles actually say is that the US will continue to respond militarily to the use of chemical weapons, which is not the same thing - the former presents attacks as inevitable, the latter presents the attacks as conditional.

But since you're so adamant that their airstrikes were so wrong, what do you think should've been done about the chemical attacks? What would be the consequences of those actions? More generally speaking, what consequences, if any, should fall on those who use chemical weapons? So far you've been avoiding the difficult questions. If the extent of your analysis of Russia/US relations is that it's been "nothing but a pissing contest since before the Cold War", then I don't think you're having a serious discussion about the issues.