Trump deploys troops to Syria. Will this escalate?

  • Like what?

    World war III and it won't be a few thousand Syrians getting killed but Billions and the end of civilisation as we know it. Just not worth the risk IMHO.

    History is much like an Endless Waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.

    4312-gwban-gif

    If my post is in red it is moderation. Take note.

  • Post by Rob Alka ().

    This post was deleted by the author themselves: rebels sabotaging ceasefire ().
  • Like what?

    Set up international safe areas with no fly zones, would be a first step.

    World war III and it won't be a few thousand Syrians getting killed but Billions and the end of civilisation as we know it. Just not worth the risk IMHO.

    Without turning this thread into one solely about Putin, it takes two to tango.


    If Moscow were attacked, I would agree that the threat of WW3 would be very real. But the West's acquiesce to Putin over Eastern Ukraine, Crimea and other areas just emboldened Putin to lead him to do more and more nasty things, hence Syria.


    If a bully is not stood up to, does that make the bully less likely to behave badly in the future, or more likely. The way to deal with a bully is to give them a bop in the nose, which in this scenario I outlined above would be to shoot Putin's planes down if they entered a Western protected no-fly zone.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Some useful analysis of the major players involved here and their objectives.

    History is much like an Endless Waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.

    4312-gwban-gif

    If my post is in red it is moderation. Take note.

  • All the hallmarks for more bloodshed to come, yet if the West interned when it started, we have have prevented all this mess, the Russians, Iraniasn et all getting involved.


    Good article.:thumbup:

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Some of them are, Ron, yes.


    A lot of IS has been destroyed now, but not all. There's other jihadist groups, Kurds, other religious sects and religious groups amongst the rebels, so it's quite a group of people...

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Set up international safe areas with no fly zones, would be a first step.


    If Moscow were attacked, I would agree that the threat of WW3 would be very real. But the West's acquiesce to Putin over Eastern Ukraine, Crimea and other areas just emboldened Putin to lead him to do more and more nasty things, hence Syria.


    The way to deal with a bully is to give them a bop in the nose, which in this scenario I outlined above would be to shoot Putin's planes down if they entered a Western protected no-fly zone.

    How does one set up an International No-Fly Zone that is legally militarily enforceable and complied with by UN members? What happens if Russia vetoes it? I understand a sovereign country has an international legal right to set up a no-fly zone over its own territory but this doesn't apply here unless Assad requests a no-fly zone over Syria (which is obviously not going to happen).


    Yes of course WW3 would loom large if the West attacked Moscow. Bigly large! WW3 would still loom large-ish if, without UN ratification of the No-Fly Zone, the West shot down Russian planes flying over Syria. If Russia maintained that they were coming to the requested aid of their neighbour, Syria , it is most unlikely the UN No-Fly Zone would have legal traction.


    Let me get this straight: when saying "something must be done" and asked "such as?", the answer is to deal with Russia as a "bully" and discourage them with a "bop on the nose" by shooting down their planes over Syria? I'm sure Dr Strangelove would endorse that strategy.


    Any other ideas?

  • I'd rather give Putin a bop on the nose in Syria, than much closer to home, because if he is not stopped soon, he will be out of control. Note: his message today about his new nuclear "toys."


    As to your first question, because of the Russian veto, it wouldn't be a official UN mandate, but if the majority voted for a no-fly zone at the UN, then I believe legally, that would stand up in the international court of opinion.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • I'd rather give Putin a bop on the nose in Syria, than much closer to home, because if he is not stopped soon, he will be out of control. Note: his message today about his new nuclear "toys."


    As to your first question, because of the Russian veto, it wouldn't be a official UN mandate, but if the majority voted for a no-fly zone at the UN, then I believe legally, that would stand up in the international court of opinion.

    If a majority in the UN can legalise a no fly zone over Syria then maybe you're in business for bopping the bully. I just find it hard to get my head around the UN even being able to table that motion if it isn't asked for by Syria.

  • It doesn't need Syria to table the motion, but one member of the security council, but of course technically it wouldn't be legal, because Russia would veto the motion, so it would be a "moral" majority, rather than a legal one.


    I'm going to do a thread on this soon, but I think with both Russia and China's disgusting behaviour against their neighbours, the authority of the UN with them as two of its main members is permanently broken.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Well, an aid convoy went in, then promptly left again. It was obvious that was not going to work. Assad's troops already now control a quarter of Eastern Ghouta.


    As I said, to protect civilians and things like aid conveys, we need no-fly zones to be implemented.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • we need no-fly zones to be implemented.

    How? This is not our country, it is a Russian assisted state. If we put our own planes in without their permission they'll be shot down. If we try to shoot down their planes expect swift and brutal retalliation irrespective of borders.


    Both ways we're the losers.

    History is much like an Endless Waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.

    4312-gwban-gif

    If my post is in red it is moderation. Take note.

  • The Syrian planes get taken out with attacks on their bases and if the Russian planes enter the no-fly zones, they get shot down. Even Turkey shot some Russian planes down without starting WW3, so anything is possible if there's a will to do it.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • How? This is not our country, it is a Russian assisted state. If we put our own planes in without their permission they'll be shot down. If we try to shoot down their planes expect swift and brutal retalliation irrespective of borders.


    Both ways we're the losers.

    Given that Syria is Russia's puppet state and could therefore enact an air cease fire and demand Syria follows suit - in the air and on the ground - but chooses not to do so, what would happen if the UN terminated Russia's membership and invoked trade sanctions, on the grounds that it has become a rogue state threatening world peace? How would Russia respond? By siding with North Korea or China? Unlikely I think.


    Maybe Russia would respond by telling UN members that it would enact a total cease fire for a short specified period on condition that the UN concentrated solely on an evacuation corridor for Syrian civilians rather than persisting in bringing in food, water and medical supplies, which is a road leading nowhere.


    Of course, if Syrian civilians still insist on staying - even with a permitted UN peacekeeping force to protect civilians from hostile fire during evacuation - then those civilians are sealing their own fate and their children's.


    Admittedly Syrian civilians are between a rock (aka bombs & rubble) and a hard place (UN safe haven - less comfortable than Hilton). But at least the haven offers survival and the possibility of a better life further down the line.


    Surely this is exercising realistic humanitarianism rather than interventionism.

  • When I talk about being a interventionist, I don't mean going round the world changing regimes, but only intervening for humanitarian grounds or self defence or deterrence factors.


    But without a no-fly zone, what happens if after agreed ceasefire, the Russians and/or Syrians attacked the evacuation corridor?


    Rob Alka , I'm going to create a thread about the UN later and I'll copy your comments from the first part of the your post into that. There are some other posts from last year which mentioned the UN too, so if I can find them, I'll copy those those too.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Quote

    Both President Erdogan and the Turkish army announced continuing operations to clear mines and any remaining resistance.

    "Most of the terrorists have already fled with tails between their legs," the Turkish president said.

    As I said in post 38, this is a mess that can widely escalate out of control.


    The Americans are still backing some Kurdish groups in northern Syria. Would the Turks really attack the American forces helping the Kurds? That would've seemed impossible even just a few months ago, but now seem more likely.


    I noticed at the recent "peace" conference a few days ago when the Russian foreign minister, Lavrov was slagging us off, he had the smirking Iranian foreign minister one side of him and the Turkish minister the other side. A new axis of evil in the making....?

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • At least 70 people have died in a suspected chemical attack in Douma, the last rebel-held town in Syria's Eastern Ghouta, rescuers and medics say.

    Volunteer rescue force the White Helmets tweeted graphic images showing several bodies in basements. It said the deaths were likely to rise.

    There has been no independent verification of the reports.

    Syria has called the allegations of a chemical attack a "fabrication" - as has its main ally, Russia.

    The US state department said Russia - with its "unwavering support" for Syria's government - "ultimately bears responsibility" for the alleged attacks.

    When the last major chemical attack happened, Trump launched a missile attack at the military airport from where the attack came from. Lets see if he does anything this time.


    This has all the hallmarks of Putin over this and he seems to be testing the west's resolve over the attack in Salisbury.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Looks like someone is getting involved, probably Israel, but Trump threatened Assad yesterday on Twitter calling him Animal Assad and saying he and Russia and Iran will pay.

    At least 14 people have died or were hurt after a Syrian military airport was hit by missiles, state media said, amid global alarm over a suspected chemical attack on a rebel-held town.

    Monday's attack hit the Tiyas airbase, known as T4, near the city of Homs.

    Syria initially said the West was involved. The US and France threatened to respond to the alleged chemical attack, but deny striking the base.

    Israel, which has previously hit Syrian targets, has not commented.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • As I said before, I do think we should get involved in things like this, but there are so many players there already, that this field is a little bit crowded, so you maybe right.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • US President Donald Trump has promised a "forceful" response to the alleged chemical attack in Syria, as Western leaders consider what action to take.

    "We have a lot of options militarily," he told reporters. He added that a response would be decided "shortly".

    Theresa May is meeting her national security council right now to discuss our response to this attack. She has already spoken to the French president who favours military action against Assad and she will talk to Trump later.


    The Americans have just announced that they will call a security council meeting at 8pm our time. Sky News is speculating that the Americans want to get proper evidence of the chemical attacks (note, the pleural) before deciding on what to do. The Russians have also called a for a UN meeting.


    Blair has popped up on tv today also calling for UK action, but it's because of his Iraq actions that this Syrian mess happened. If it weren't for that, Cameron would've supported military action against Assad years ago and the Americans wouldn't have backed down then.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • If the UK gets involved which is looking more and more likely it will end up being another Iraq, I wonder if IS will appreciate the UK fighting on their side, nice to know we will be supporting the same organisation that has carried out attacks in the UK.

    Young boys in the park jumpers for goalpost that's what footballs all about isn't it.

  • I wonder if IS will appreciate the UK fighting on their side

    This is exactly why we shouldn't get involved. Both sides are as bad as each other and which ever one wins, and it sems Assad is likely, it'll be just as bad for the Syrian people.


    If the gas turns out to be chlorine. That could be made with any common household chemicals (e.g. Mix bleach and Vim) and since the hell is being bombed out of the place anyway this could just as well be a ghastly accident.


    The Russians are saying that they will target the source of any attack, such as ships or submarines, this could blow up into a full scale war. :rolleyes:

    History is much like an Endless Waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.

    4312-gwban-gif

    If my post is in red it is moderation. Take note.

  • Apparently May is not bothered what the rest of parliament thinks about us getting involved she is not going to put it to a vote in parliament, all sounds a bit familiar, will probably be getting a few sexed up documents ready to support us going in too.

    Young boys in the park jumpers for goalpost that's what footballs all about isn't it.

  • Here's the BBC story:

    The prime minister has summoned the cabinet to discuss the government's response to the suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria.

    Ministers will consider the options for backing military action threatened by the United States and its allies.

    Theresa May is prepared to take action against the Assad regime in Syria without first seeking parliamentary consent, sources have told the BBC.

    Of course Blair did have a vote in parliament, but it's the last vote when Cameron was struck down is what she is worried about.


    The Americans are going to attack in the next few days, of that I've no doubt and May has to decide does she support Trump in this attack, or let him and the French deal with this this.


    Because of the Russian (not anyone else!) chemical attack on us and now this, she is keen to send a message to Putin, that chemical warfare will not be tolerated. I fully support her and if it came to a vote, we know what Corbyn and comrades would do in any case, so why bother with parliament?

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Just not convinced that UK going in is the right thing to do, and I will stand by that, the ministry of defence should be just that, there to defend the UK and it's territories from aggressors, and not used for enforcing other nations regime change.

    Young boys in the park jumpers for goalpost that's what footballs all about isn't it.

  • Just not convinced that UK going in is the right thing to d

    I agree. According to reports the gas was Chlorine, this could be an accident or IS deliberately gassing civillians to make the West attack their enemy.


    We do know that IS will do anything to further their aims and as they're loosing badly any thing is possible.


    It would seem according to the latest Yougov poll taken on April 9th that the public are not convinced:



    History is much like an Endless Waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.

    4312-gwban-gif

    If my post is in red it is moderation. Take note.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member to leave a comment.