Trump deploys troops to Syria. Will this escalate?

When making a post, please ensure it complies with this site's Main Rules at all times.
  • 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.

    Exactly anyone can manufacture chlorine gas if they have the right chemicals which are readily available anywhere, also like you say it could also have been an accident.

  • Why this exaggerated outrage when it's a gas or chemical attack?

    Is the agony of death significantly different between dying of wounds caused by an air strike versus a chemical attack?

    Is the proportion of dead versus seriously wounded significantly different between chemical versus non-chemical weapons??

    Does one really need to paint a bigger red line on the method of killing as opposed to extent of killing generally or extent of killing innocent civilians?

    Does anyone have enough knowledge to determine who is the real enemy, the bad guys?

    Does anyone know for sure who are the innocent civilians?

    Does anyone believe that in the madhouse that is the Middle East there is a military solution that can bring lasting peace or even a peace that lasts a few years?

    Does anyone believe the the best outcome for the West is to keep out of it, let them kill one another without interfering, meddling or taking sides, so that the bedraggled survivors can have a year or two of peace before starting all over again to kill one another for whatever reason enters their manic heads?

  • s long as Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell stay out of things

    Tony Blair has declared the UK "will have to" back any US-led military intervention in Syria or give "carte blanche" for the future use of chemical weapons.

    The former Prime Minister called for Theresa May to act and said she did not need the approval of MPs through a vote in Parliament.

    Speaking after a suspected chemical attack in the city of Douma that reportedly killed 70 people and injured 500, Mr Blair said those responsible must be "held to account".

    You just knew he couldn't not meddle with it and also, just as with Brexit, he want's to ignore the democratic process. :rolleyes:

    As for who's responsible we don't know for sure.

    Does anyone believe that in the madhouse that is the Middle East there is a military solution that can bring lasting peace or even a peace that lasts a few years?

    So long as there are two main versions of Islam out there that are implacably opposed to the other they'll always be at each others throats and lobbing a load of bombs and missiles at them will just kill more innocents.

    Iran and Saudi are also having something of a war by proxy in Syria and Yemen amongst other places. As I've stated before if you wade into a dog fight you'll be bitten.

    Let them kill one another without interfering, meddling or taking sides, so that the bedraggled survivors can have a year or two of peace before starting all over again to kill one another for whatever reason enters their manic heads?

    Until they can come to terms with each others religeous beliefs that is what will happen IMO.

  • The international outcry over the use of chemical weapons, as I'm sure you would know, is not related to how many have been killed. As you say, if you get blown to bits by conventional bombs, bullets, fire etc, these can all cause horrific injuries and death.

    This is all about sending a message that chemical weapons will not be tolerated by anyone. The world decided a long time ago that these weapons were not to be used as part of warfare and most of the countries of the world agreed to this. And without derailing this thread in a different direction, from the UK's point of view, we additionally want to send a message to Russia over their chemical attack in Salisbury.

    The real enemy is evil and unfortunately there is plenty of it in that region and no I don't think this region will be at peace until democratic governments can rise. All seems a long way off at the moment, but at least Iraq is a work "in progress." Military power can at least kill/tame the current crop of bad guys, but of course then others pop up to take their places.

    I'm an interventionist, as I believe that as Britain was the former world power which messed up half the world in the first place, we are uniquely placed to try and correct some mistakes of the past, or at least try and put current wrongs to bed.

    Most of the countries of the Middle East were created by ourselves and the French and like Africa, as an imperial power we seemed to have a habit in the past of drawing borders for places we had very little knowledge about which is the root of many of the problems in these places today. The Sunni/Shia thing, is something we'll never solve or should we. That's nothing to do with us and about the only mess we did not create in that region.

  • Iran and Saudi are also having something of a war by proxy in Syria and Yemen amongst other places. As I've stated before if you wade into a dog fight you'll be bitten.

    Israel attacked a Iranian base in Syria the other day, so it has all the ingredients for a "little" world war, or a big one if we start fighting the Russians.

  • As long as Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell stay out of things, I hope there would never be sexed up documents again.

    When it comes to politics and pushing through an agenda all politicians are capable of that it's not restricted to just one party, I know supporters of one political party or other will always try to paint the opposition as the devil, while viewing the party they support as holier than thou, it's like a disease of the mind.

  • barrel bombs containing the chlorine

    Barrel bombs are only filled with explosives and the Chlorine gas could easily be released at ground level to seep into the basements where people were sheltering. Had the gas been Sarin or another nerve gas then suspicion would fall squarely on Assad's forces and rightly so. But it's not clear cut IMHO.

    So: Yes there was gas, yes it was Chlorine but no evidence yet as to WHO released it. I strongly suspect this is why nothing has kicked off yet. Some evidence needs to be found (manufactured?) to put the blame ONLY on Assad's regime.

    Also what possible motive could Assad have for doing it? The army were about to overwhelm the dissidents and Assad also knew what the response would be from the West. He had nothing to gain whereas ISIS and other opposition groups have eveything to gain from getting the West to come in, effectively on their behalf.

  • The American defence secretary shares your caution Heero and he is after more evidence.

    If the barrel bomb was dropped by Assad and that matched the exact location and time of where the chlorine gas was released, that's conclusive in my opinion, and the Americans would already know who released that barrel bomb via their spy planes and drones.

    I suppose in conspiracy theory land, CIA agents, Israeli or others could've been on the ground waiting for the barrel bomb and then released the gas, but I think that's highly unlikely.

    On motive, Assad had overwhelmed the area, but in theory the place is so bombed out, rebel fighters could've hid out for ages. After the gas attack, they surrendered. Seems very clear motive to me.

    Perhaps the delay in the attack, is not because the allies don't know who did the attack, but because they do know. What if it were the Russians that did it?

  • There are just too many what ifs, buts and maybes, flying around, I can see it all going horribly wrong and ending up as another long drawn out futile exercise regards the middle east again, with a lot to lose and nothing gained.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!