Syrian civil war (6 Viewers)

[Juliano13]

no.

and the attack is a message/warning: "use chemical weapons [again] and we will destroy your military infrastructure, and then you'll never regain power of Syria".

That is just wishful thinking that can lead to bery bad outcomes. There are only 4 thigs America can do:
1. Bomb ISIS and Al Nusra to help Assad regain the country.
2. Bomb the Assad, which will help the terrorists.
3. Do nothing, in which case Assad will win, just not as quickly.
4. Send ground forces to get rid of all those scumbags, which is my favourite solution, but it won't get enough support anytime soon.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Ronn]

Bombing Assad cannot have the desired effect, unless the desired effect is ISIS to take control of the country.

It's just a warning, and I don't think anybody in US establishment wants to risk a confrontation with Russia over Assad. The simple reasoning is that unconventional warfare should NOT be the new normal.

 

[Maddy]

I agree.

And you know, it's a bit of a PR thing too.

Of course. Any foreign decision needs to be viewed in a domestic light as well. But honestly I think this is much more of a military decision than a political.

Biggest difference is Obama had the balls (by intellectual integrity, and yes you might hate obama. but dudes bright as fuck) to oppose the military, trump don't.

- - - Updated - - -

That is just wishful thinking that can lead to bery bad outcomes. There are only 4 thigs America can do:
1. Bomb ISIS and Al Nusra to help Assad regain the country.
2. Bomb the Assad, which will help the terrorists.
3. Do nothing, in which case Assad will win, just not as quickly.
4. Send ground forces to get rid of all those scumbags, which is my favourite solution, but it won't get enough support anytime soon.

yes. that's the kind of lists that solve international conflicts.

kudos

 

[Hængebøffer]

..

 

[ALC]

Definitely no to sending ground troops over. Bomb the shit out of Assad and ISIS. Chemical attacks on civilians are abhorrent. If you ask any normal person in Syria or the Middle East, they would ask for help.

 

[king Ale]

no.

and the attack is a message/warning: "use chemical weapons [again] and we will destroy your military infrastructure, and then you'll never regain power of Syria".

You really believe what you said there? US warning Syria because chemical weapons are their moral red line?

 

[Ocelot]

Definitely no to sending ground troops over. Bomb the shit out of Assad and ISIS. Chemical attacks on civilians are abhorrent. If you ask any normal person in Syria or the Middle East, they would ask for help.

That basically means bombing everybody.

 

[X Æ A-12]

Definitely no to sending ground troops over. Bomb the shit out of Assad and ISIS. Chemical attacks on civilians are abhorrent. If you ask any normal person in Syria or the Middle East, they would ask for help.

Or maybe stop getting involved? Yes i know we already have been messing around but at some point maybe its time to realise it never seems to help and just cut your lossees. Because weve messed things up before is a stupid reason to continue doing so. The "moderate rebels" lie is a fucking joke anyway and we shouldnt be doing dick to help these people.

Only people who should get any help from tge west are the Kurds but then again ISIS/Turkey will go apeshit

 

[DAiDEViL]

Agreed

But I think there were moderate rebels once, but not anymore.

 

[icemaη]

Agreed

But I think there were moderate rebels once, but not anymore.

Was it like 5 guys or something that the US spend millions on arming? That shit was funny.

 

[JuveJay]

That basically means bombing everybody.

Fortunately no one is dumb enou...

...ok never mind.

 

[Ronn]

Definitely no to sending ground troops over. Bomb the shit out of Assad and ISIS. Chemical attacks on civilians are abhorrent. If you ask any normal person in Syria or the Middle East, they would ask for help.

And then go in a build a new nation in that failed state? never fails

 

[king Ale]

And then go in a build a new nation in that failed state? never fails

Exactly. For some people somehow bombing the shit out of a country and killing thousands is less abhorrent than killing a hundred as long as you don't use chemical bombs.

The way democrats are praising Trump for this is so freaking hilarious. These attacks are only to redeem Trump (especially regrading his relationship with Russia). They can't even prove that Assad did that, and why on earth would he? (think about it, is there a single reason explaining the use of chemical weapons killing ~80 people?) If there was one single soul in the US government (this one and the previous) who cared about Syrians, the rebels wouldn't have been funded and armed. Sure, nobody in Russia or Iran gives a damn about Syrians either, but they don't claim to do so either.

 

[Juvellino]

Coulter v Kellyann

 

[duranfj]

I know you're joking, but...


- - - Updated - - -

And about this whole mess: I know way too little about the Syrian civil war to really say anything about the good or bad effects of this move - although in general, I'm pretty skeptical about any military intervention.

What is for certain is that this is another one of the many many lies in the huge sack of BS that have been Trump's campaign statements.

I forgot about that. I can't wait for one of his daugther run for the office and put an end at this trilogy properly

 

[lgorTudor]

yes. that's the kind of lists that solve international conflicts.

Sir, you got a minute to talk about our lord and saviour Sir Arthur Harris?

 

[duranfj]

I agree but it was more complicated than that. He wanted to get the congres approval since majority of the people who applaud Trump right now were against it back then.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/01/obama-strike-syria-congress-kerry

Agree but at the end It was his decision. He passed bills at the macho man way

- - - Updated - - -

Obama wanted to bomb Syria but Repubs said no.

Not using as bar or some kind of proper behavior but Trump didn't ask for anyone approval

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

Exactly. For some people somehow bombing the shit out of a country and killing thousands is less abhorrent than killing a hundred as long as you don't use chemical bombs.

The way democrats are praising Trump for this is so freaking hilarious. These attacks are only to redeem Trump (especially regrading his relationship with Russia). They can't even prove that Assad did that, and why on earth would he? (think about it, is there a single reason explaining the use of chemical weapons killing ~80 people?) If there was one single soul in the US government (this one and the previous) who cared about Syrians, the rebels wouldn't have been funded and armed. Sure, nobody in Russia or Iran gives a damn about Syrians either, but they don't claim to do so either.

I was wondering if it was confirmed anywhere that the Syrian Army did it, because I see everyone is just going along with that. Wouldn't doubt that it was them, but why use the chemical weapons now when they weren't using them before?

 

[Ronn]

Exactly. For some people somehow bombing the shit out of a country and killing thousands is less abhorrent than killing a hundred as long as you don't use chemical bombs.

The way democrats are praising Trump for this is so freaking hilarious. These attacks are only to redeem Trump (especially regrading his relationship with Russia). They can't even prove that Assad did that, and why on earth would he? (think about it, is there a single reason explaining the use of chemical weapons killing ~80 people?) If there was one single soul in the US government (this one and the previous) who cared about Syrians, the rebels wouldn't have been funded and armed. Sure, nobody in Russia or Iran gives a damn about Syrians either, but they don't claim to do so either.

I don't get the praise from the opposition either. Except perhaps they know bombing other countries is popular in general, so they don't wanna be seen opposing it. Look at this clown for example. I bet he's sexually aroused saying these words.
[video=twitter;850426241605926913]https://twitter.com/foreignpolicy77/status/850426241605926913[/video]
But as for reason Assad would do It's too simple to think he has none. First of all he committed so many atrocities that using Sarin to kill another 100 pales comparison. I can't think of any reasons for many of his past actions either because I cannot think like a psychopath. Why did he respond that fiercely to a bunch of protesters in 2011? Why did he use chemical weapons in 2013? Why doesn't he take an immunity deal and go live somewhere else to stop this horror? If Assad didn't do this, then who did? who has the power to manufacture Sarin which has a shelf life of a couple of weeks if it's not pure enough? To me it's much more likely that Assad (or a rogue element in Syrian government) did this rather than the rebels.

- - - Updated - - -

Agree but at the end It was his decision. He passed bills at the macho man way

Of course there's no excuse for Obama for drawing a red line and then doing shit and being bluffed by Putin and Assad. But Obama started to act unilaterally mostly after 2014 midterms.
But again, that's not an excuse. He fucked up his foreign policy, and congress helped him do just that.

 

[Hængebøffer]

Lol at the Assad apologies.