US, France and UK fire missiles at Syria

[Beechey]

Just now, toddybad said:

The OPCW haven't even started their investigation into the latest chemical attack.

 

It's no.longer about regime change but it patently was previously. Until Russia got involved that was very clearly what we wanted. Now we're left on the sidelines knowing Assad will win so play to our home audiences with nonsense like last night's strikes which achieved absolutely nothing.

Which isn't really part of my point, there have been four before now, in which no action has been taken.

 

You really can't see the benefit in punishing those who use chemical weapons against their own civilian populations? If that's the case then there's no point in me trying to convince you otherwise.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Which isn't really part of my point, there have been four before now, in which no action has been taken.

 

You really can't see the benefit in punishing those who use chemical weapons against their own civilian populations? If that's the case then there's no point in me trying to convince you otherwise.

Explain to me what difference you think the attack on three locations is going to have on this particular situation. 

You'll note that it's been done before and had no effect so what effect do you think it will have this time?

[Beechey]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

Explain to me what difference you think the attack on three locations is going to have on this particular situation. 

You'll note that it's been done before and had no effect so what effect do you think it will have this time?

No, this hasn't been done before. The US strike last year was against the air base that the chemical attack was launched from (one of their six operational bases, affecting none of their production capabilities). The targets here are against the facilities used to produce and store their chemical weapons, so the effect should be pretty clear and obvious.

Edited 14 April 2018 by Beechey

[Guest]

Just now, Beechey said:

No, this hasn't been done before. The US strike last year was against the air base that the chemical attack was launched from (one of their six operational bases, affecting none of their production capabilities). The targets here are against the facilities used to produce their chemical weapons, so the effect should be pretty clear and obvious.

So you think they're producing as they use it? There's no stockpile? It isn't hidden around the country? Do you now believe they are unable to use those weapons again then?

[Beechey]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

So you think they're producing as they use it? There's no stockpile? It isn't hidden around the country? Do you now believe they are unable to use those weapons again then?

I was incorrect and edited my comment, one of the three sites hit was used as a store. The one we hit was the storage facility, 15 miles West of Homs. Obviously they will have other storage facilities, let's not be naive, but now they know that using their weapons will be met with the further degradation of their capabilities.

 

I'm still failing to see a downside to this.

Edited 14 April 2018 by Beechey

[Buce]

4 minutes ago, Beechey said:

No, this hasn't been done before. The US strike last year was against the air base that the chemical attack was launched from (one of their six operational bases, affecting none of their production capabilities). The targets here are against the facilities used to produce and store their chemical weapons, so the effect should be pretty clear and obvious.

 

I think it's a fair question to ask, 'why now?' considering we are being told this is just the latest in a long line of chemical attacks since the last time Trump decided a red-line had been crossed. It all seems rather arbitrary.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Beechey said:

I was incorrect and edited my comment, one of the three sites hit was used as a store. The one we hit was the storage facility, 15 miles West of Homs. Obviously they will have other storage facilities, let's not be naive, but now they know that using their weapons will be met with the further degradation of their capabilities.

 

I'm still failing to see a downside to this.

I'm still failing to see any real upside in exchange for taking a huge risk of escalation.

[Beechey]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

I think it's a fair question to ask, 'why now?' considering we are being told this is just the latest in a long line of chemical attacks since the last time Trump decided a red-line had been crossed. It all seems rather arbitrary.

Well I might not like Trump, but at least he's acted on his red line. He tried to send a message last year with his strike of their air base, they did another chemical attack so the response has been stepped up, it's pretty standard.

[Beechey]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

I'm still failing to see any real upside in exchange for taking a huge risk of escalation.

From who does the risk of escalation come from? Russia? Russia who has already deployed chemical weapons on the streets of our country?

Pretending the risk is "huge" is a crazy overstatement. I'd bet the response from Russia will be not much more than a whimper.

Edited 14 April 2018 by Beechey

[Sampson]

Just now, Buce said:

 

I think it's a fair question to ask, 'why now?' considering we are being told this is just the latest in a long line of chemical attacks since the last time Trump decided a red-line had been crossed. It all seems rather arbitrary.

Because we've waited long enough and given them enough chances to show that they're not continuing to use them against their own people?

 

Because we've been so paranoid over Iraq that we became too happy to stick our fingers in our ears and said we can't do anything while it's continued to go on and now finally decided we have to actually draw a line in the sand?

 

I don't think it's arbitrary at all. I imagine it's based on thousands over hours going over different scenarios with military, intellegence and diplomatic experts who have far more information going on about what happened than any of us do.

 

 

[Buce]

Just now, Beechey said:

Well I might not like Trump, but at least he's acted on his red line. He tried to send a message last year with his strike of their air base, they did another chemical attack so the response has been stepped up, it's pretty standard.

 

No, apparently Assad has used chemical weapons several times in the interim; why is only this time that it's a crossed a red-line?

[Beechey]

4 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

No, apparently Assad has used chemical weapons several times in the interim; why is only this time that it's a crossed a red-line?

No, he's used chemical weapons four times since 2013 (as per the OPCW, 2013 was the first instance of it being used - the joint OPCW-UN fact finding mission was set up in 2014).

This is the second time under Trump, the first time being met with the cruise missile strike.

Edited 14 April 2018 by Beechey

[Beechey]

6 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Because we've waited long enough and given them enough chances to show that they're not continuing to use them against their own people?

 

Because we've been so paranoid over Iraq that we became too happy to stick our fingers in our ears and said we can't do anything while it's continued to go on and now finally decided we have to actually draw a line in the sand?

 

I don't think it's arbitrary at all. I imagine it's based on thousands over hours going over different scenarios with military, intellegence and diplomatic experts who have far more information going on about what happened than any of us do.

 

 

Nah don't be silly. It's easier if we pretend May and Trump met and the conversation went like:

 

"wanna bomb Syria?"

"yes"

"okay we will do it in a minute"

[Sampson]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I'm still failing to see any real upside in exchange for taking a huge risk of escalation.

Toddy if the UK government went rogue were dropping chemical weapons on their own people, would you just want the US and France and whoever just sit back and watch? Even if it risked escalation?

 

The problem now is that Iraq had led too many to believe we should never get involved and implanted this incredibly dangerous mindset into people that "intervention is always bad" and it will always turn out like Iraq - rather than taking each individual act of intervention on its own merit.

 

They'll be plenty of back alley diplomacy going on here - warning Russians to get out of the way of targets - it was done in the early hours to make sure people wouldn't be in the bases. This isn't just random bombs being dropped on civilians without warning.

 

I liked Obama in general but his biggest flaw in his presidency was undoubtably his lack of activity in the middle East had allowed many states and people to start looking towards Russia for help which has given them so much more power in this region than they had 10 years ago. We can't just keep with this inactivity forever unless we want more Assad style regimes through the Middle East protecteded by Putin.

 

[The Guvnor]

1 hour ago, Carl the Llama said:

When the Reds start lobbing nuclear warheads our way we'll all want to be lit imo.

Just take refuge round comrade Jezzers Gaff...............

 

Well it needed a bit of light hearted frivolity.

[urban.spaceman]

I think my favourite ever war commentary was on a billboard in Jo'burg back in 2006. It said:

 

"STOP THE WAR IN IRAQ! 

Pause live TV with DSTV+"

 

Brilliant. 

[Buce]

33 minutes ago, Beechey said:

No, he's used chemical weapons four times since 2013 (as per the OPCW, 2013 was the first instance of it being used - the joint OPCW-UN fact finding mission was set up in 2014).

This is the second time under Trump, the first time being met with the cruise missile strike.

1

 

Well, perhaps I'm misinterpreting this statement from the British government but it seems to imply otherwise:

 

A Foreign Office spokesperson said: “Russia has wielded its UN security council veto six times since February 2017 to shield the Assad regime from scrutiny for its use of chemical weapons".

 

 

[Beechey]

Just now, Buce said:

 

Well, perhaps I'm misinterpreting this statement from the British government but it seems to imply otherwise:

 

A Foreign Office spokesperson said: “Russia has wielded its UN security council veto six times since February 2017 to shield the Assad regime from scrutiny for its use of chemical weapons".

 

 

That's just for individual countries requesting inquests into chemical weapon uses, it doesn't mean one per weapon use.

[Sampson]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

Well, perhaps I'm misinterpreting this statement from the British government but it seems to imply otherwise:

 

A Foreign Office spokesperson said: “Russia has wielded its UN security council veto six times since February 2017 to shield the Assad regime from scrutiny for its use of chemical weapons".

 

 

No it doesn't. It's implied what it says - that Russia have used its veto 6 times during UN mestings, not that chemical weapons have been used 6 times.

[EastAnglianFox]

 

[Rincewind]

Does this mean I will miss the finalee of the Walking Dead...or maybe even having a part in it.

[leicsmac]

Here's hoping this was a one-time only strike and indeed that the Russians were notified about where things were coming down beforehand - if that;s the case, then I can see this being a scenario where almost all the major players do get what they want.

 

1 hour ago, Beechey said:

From who does the risk of escalation come from? Russia? Russia who has already deployed chemical weapons on the streets of our country?

Pretending the risk is "huge" is a crazy overstatement. I'd bet the response from Russia will be not much more than a whimper.

Fair enough, but are you willing to gamble with the future of civilisation on that, though the odds be very, very long?

 

Escalation isn't likely at all but the possibility shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, either.

 

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

Because we've waited long enough and given them enough chances to show that they're not continuing to use them against their own people?

 

Because we've been so paranoid over Iraq that we became too happy to stick our fingers in our ears and said we can't do anything while it's continued to go on and now finally decided we have to actually draw a line in the sand?

 

I don't think it's arbitrary at all. I imagine it's based on thousands over hours going over different scenarios with military, intellegence and diplomatic experts who have far more information going on about what happened than any of us do.

 

 

2

I guess it comes down to having to trust those involved know what they're doing - but given the lack of information presented (as you say, they have much more of it that the public do) they have to accept there is going to be some scepticism when folks are asked to take what they're doing is good on what almost amounts to blind faith.

[m4DD0gg]

3 hours ago, toddybad said:

What a ridiculous argument.

 

Time and time again we enter conflicts that are nothing to do with us. Yes the use of chemical weapons is wrong but why do we believe ourselves, the U.S. and France should be judge and jury?

 

The strikes did nothing at all. They were pure theatre for the audience at home. We can't get involved to the extent that would have any real impact so instead play dangerous games.

 

Let's not forget that the flames of this conflict were fanned by the West when we attempted to arm a bunch of misfits not much better than those we usually regard as terrorists in order to try and being about regime change. Yet again. 

 

There's no prospect of Assad not winning. There's no prospect of Assad not being in power at the end. 

We'd be better off steering clear and dealing with the myriad problems we face at home. 

We are involved cos someone wants a decent trade deal with the yanks and french post brexit.

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, m4DD0gg said:

We are involved cos someone wants a decent trade deal with the yanks and french post brexit.

The fact you've added the French into that shows you know absolutely nothing about this at all, we can't have an independent trade deal with the French for what are very obvious reasons.

[Foxhateram]

Not as simple as some of you are making out. There is a fuel pipline being built near Syria, at the moment it is controlled by Russian forces acting on behalf of Syria, if it completes then the Oil will belong to Syria and Russia.

 

Iran wanted to build said pipeline, but were met by Russian and Syrian opposition and lost control of the area. Iran oil would be directly traded to the US and UK. 

 

It's only partly to do with the chemical attacks. That's a smoke screen, much like in Iraq, Suddam was a smoke screen for us gathering states with oil. 

Edited 14 April 2018 by Foxhateram