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.
  • When will someone start to be less idealistic and more realistic about humanity?


    I'll just respond to this bit rather than the history lesson about Beirut etc.;)

    And I don't disagree with you about the reality, I just disagree about how to deal with it.

    People are like any other animal on this planet. We are tribal, can be viscous, greedy, jealous and many other things besides. Then you put into that mix, different races, religions, nationality. All combustible, I agree.

    What I disagree with is the overwhelming chorus now that "we mustn't get involved" "let em get on with it."

    This thinking led to the Syrian refugee crisis in Europe. We "let them get on with it" and in doing so it has empowered Putin (who MUST be confronted at some point), empowered Assad and caused chaos throughout Europe.

    But even if something were happening in a distant part of the world. If a regime and I am specifically talking a government's own actions. If a regime starts slaughtering it's own people, as a permanent member of the security council, one of the "policemen," I absolutely think we should intervene to stop atrocities. You cannot know what will happen afterwards and perhaps things will be worse, but you can stop the disgusting behaviour you know about.

    If Hitler had been confronted in the 1930s when he started on the Jews and starting to rearm, we might, albeit slimly, may have stopped WW2.

  • I mentioned Beirut because I once had a Lebanese step-family. They were Christians. They were devastated at what had happened to Beirut and viscerally detested the Arab militia. In the sixties this was a nasty civil war, if you remember. So I got how the Christian Lebs felt straight from the horse's mouth and they used to go over to Beirut yearly (took diamonds, brought back gold). Not much has changed except that the Muslims are overwhelming them now, it seems.

    I think Hitler wasn't stopped early enough for a number of reasons. Many thought he had a rather good idea in rebuilding Germany from the corruption of the Weimar Republic. The Jews were not a group of people dearly beloved of Christians so the eventual genocide got established before anyone realised what was going on. In fact I don't think people really realised it until the allies broke through to the concentration camps and found heaps of bones and what was left of the Jews who had not yet died from starvation, typhoid or gas.

    But one must try to keep in mind that Hitler and WWII wasn't about the Jews. It was about overrunning Europe with Germans. The Jews were an unfortunate by-product of Catholic venom and Hitler's madness. It is a great pity the art academy that rejected him didn't take him on as he was a rather good painter and if it had, the world might have been much different. Of course, humans would still be fighting. I don't see that coming to a more stable state until people are willing to acknowledge the reality of ethnic identity.

    Islam, like Christianity has infiltrated and converted many ethnicities. Huge masses of potential fighters were created this way. That didn't lead to anything but more aggro which is now turning rabid and driving people out of the Middle East.

    As things stand, it's hard to know what to do about the extant situation. Large urban multicultural communities and widespread intermarriage have created masses of people who now need a superficially common culture or they will have nothing to live around psychologically.

    Globalism isn't the answer. It's virtually impossible to argue with anyone over this because multiculturalism has become a sort of religion and its acolytes get really angry if you dissent. They fire barbs of "racist" and "bigot" at you for the slightest misdemeanor within the strict limits of their little mind box of beliefs.

    I don't argue with them anymore as they are beginning to give me the creeps.

  • It's a shame one of our new members never came back here, because I've had really good discussions with him over at the Times on this and he even created a blog here on the subject of interventions (or was going to.) And if you think I'm hardline on this, well, he's worse!

    I'll come back to all points later, haven't got the time at the moment.

  • Yes we have the military might but that is of little use in these types of situations. There is no easily identifiable and easily targeted enemy. When do you knock out a plane carrying chemical weapons?

    We've taken all the blame for Iraq when we should only take some of it. Destruction of that nation was inevitable, we just hastened its demise, but reality counts for sod all - we are now blamed for anything that went wrong there. Any discussion of the "real" reason for the problems over there is purely academic.

    Assad is of course a Putin ally. Obviously he cares nothing for the people but he likes the extension of Russian power and would not give it up without a fight.

    Putin would dump Assad in a second if it suited him. Putin is only interested in a Mediterranean base.

    On Iraq, you would need to spell out the "real" reasons for the problems, as you see them, before I could respond. But I agree with your first point, it's not all our fault. Iran's meddling and blowing up our soliders using IEDs hardly helped the situation. But I'm not sure that I agree with you that it was inevitable that Iraq would've collapsed whether we invaded or not. Saddam had an iron grip on the country as would've his sons after him.

    On your first point, I really don't understand. As soon as Assad started bombing his own people with chemical weapons, we should've have destroyed his air force there and then. Easy to identify his planes. Obviously not shooting down a plane laden with chemicals over a city, but destroying that plane before it ever took off to begin with, along with its airfield, comms and defences. A couple of dozen missiles launched from subs would've finished his airforce in one strike.

  • As things stand, it's hard to know what to do about the extant situation. Large urban multicultural communities and widespread intermarriage have created masses of people who now need a superficially common culture or they will have nothing to live around psychologically.

    Globalism isn't the answer. It's virtually impossible to argue with anyone over this because multiculturalism has become a sort of religion and its acolytes get really angry if you dissent. They fire barbs of "racist" and "bigot" at you for the slightest misdemeanor within the strict limits of their little mind box of beliefs.

    I don't argue with them anymore as they are beginning to give me the creeps.


    Well, I can be racist and a bigot, so I've have no need to get into arguments with people over that. I'm open and transparent about it.

    I think multiculturalism will die off. It may take a few generations, but it will end.

    I like variety, it's the spice of life. But, especially with the neighbours I have... I am also a strong believer in good fences make good neighbours.

    We need strong nation states where every group of people can live with their own kind by their own customs and traditions, but mixing different groups together doesn't work. If everyone stayed on their own side of the fence, many of the world's problems would end.

  • LW, I know I opened the door to you when I mentioned Hitler here... (note to self, try not to do that again!:)) but it'll take the thread too far off topic. Perhaps we can that up in a future thread?? Although thinking about it there is a direct link of course as Assad's party takes its cue from Germany's nazis.

  • People don't like to admit this and have hysterics if you do, but the politically correct fascists of our day remind me a lot of them too. Plus I lived in a state practicing racism and national socialism on steroids so I know what that is like and the modern left reminds me of both the Nazis and the Stalinists. But, yes, stuff for another thread.

  • Putin would dump Assad in a second if it suited him. Putin is only interested in a Mediterranean base.

    On Iraq, you would need to spell out the "real" reasons for the problems, as you see them, before I could respond. But I agree with your first point, it's not all our fault. Iran's meddling and blowing up our soliders using IEDs hardly helped the situation. But I'm not sure that I agree with you that it was inevitable that Iraq would've collapsed whether we invaded or not. Saddam had an iron grip on the country as would've his sons after him.

    On your first point, I really don't understand. As soon as Assad started bombing his own people with chemical weapons, we should've have destroyed his air force there and then. Easy to identify his planes. Obviously not shooting down a plane laden with chemicals over a city, but destroying that plane before it ever took off to begin with, along with its airfield, comms and defences. A couple of dozen missiles launched from subs would've finished his airforce in one strike.

    Never going to happen - the West is too scared of the Russian response, probably with good reason. Even In Libya we didn't introduce a no-fly until there was widespread international support as well as strong local pressure.

    We'll never know about Saddam but I'm sure he wouldn't have lasted long. He had genuine support in some places but in the north and south he was always at risk.

  • There is invariably a power vacuum in any dictatorship so dumping the dictator often leads to insurgencies and chaos as it did in Egypt and Libya.I feel sorry for those who want to be free of fascist rule but it's no use having a revolt if you get an even worse dictator in its place, or your ranks are infiltrated by extremists who have other ideas. This is largely because your enemy's enemy is seldom your friend.

  • US President Donald Trump has condemned the killing of dozens of civilians in northern Syria in an apparent chemical weapons attack by Syria's air force.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39508868


    Russia has been sharply criticised by other world powers at the UN Security Council in New York over the chemical weapons deaths in northern Syria.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39500319

    Reports from Syria indicate that a chemical substance has been used in Idlib in a horrific attack.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39489998
    ====

    So, someone, likely Assad, attacked his own people again on Tuesday with chemical weapons.

    When Obama was president he said that this sort of thing was a red line and if crossed, he would act. This sort of thing did happen again and again, and Obama did not act.

    Yesterday, the UN met and the US and UK blamed Assad and berated Russia for helping him.

    Then afterwards, Trump condemned the attack, blamed Assad, but made no mention of Russia - yet.

    So, what happens next? Should something happen next?

    On Newsnight last night, there was a discussion about this and one idea put forward is that America might send a warning to Assad and bomb one of his airfields or something. Would that stop him? There was also discussion of going in and destroying the chemical weapons, but how could that realistically be achieved without major military action? The other idea put forward was asking Russia to help and destroy the chemical weapons....like they'd do that.

    Should we carry on and watch babies burn on our screens, or, risk a confrontation with the Russians and go after Assad?

    My opinion, is, sod the Russians, it's time for Assad to go... years overdue in fact.

  • I agree with you that using chemical weapons is morally reprehensible. Both Sarin and Chlorine gas weapons are gifts to psychos from the Germans in both World wars. Which shows how little dictators really care about anything but their own aspirations.

    I think doing things to antagonise Russia under Putin is probably the most delicate aspect of this response to what happens. But Russia can't go one supporting these regimes just because Russia is posing a greater war threat.

    The solution is almost certainly with the people concerned. They need to be radically opposed to oppression and Islamic extremism enough to stand against it.

    I've just seen the video of the father who lost his wife and twin children. There is a perfect reason to stand against this bullshit. It is horrific, unnecessary and should not be permitted to go on.

  • Everybody seems to be assuming that Assad launched a chemical attack, but I question that because what has he got to gain from antagonising the west with such a ploy? He has enough firepower to take down the rebels anyway. An alternative narrative suggests that the raid had released chemicals from an IS stock pile and we know that IS has also used chemicals in the past. I seem to remember a while ago that Assad had surrendered his chemical weapons.

    What would replace the Assad regime? We could easily end up with a hardline Islamic regime that stones women to death for getting raped and throws gays off rooftops. The middle East and democracy make uneasy bed fellows.

  • The solution is almost certainly with the people concerned. They need to be radically opposed to oppression and Islamic extremism enough to stand against it.

    But they did stand against it... many are dead. Millions of refugees fled causing the European refugee crisis and possibly indirectly Brexit, and their cities are destroyed.

    I know you're against interventions LW, but what do you think? Should the West get involved? Trump already has "advisors" there...

    If we did get involved, what would be the end game? Regime change, or just degrading Assad's military capacity and capability to do such horrific attacks on his own people?

    What if the Russians protect him? What happens then?

  • Everybody seems to be assuming that Assad launched a chemical attack, but I question that because what has he got to gain from antagonising the west with such a ploy? He has enough firepower to take down the rebels anyway. An alternative narrative suggests that the raid had released chemicals from an IS stock pile and we know that IS has also used chemicals in the past. I seem to remember a while ago that Assad had surrendered his chemical weapons.

    What would replace the Assad regime? We could easily end up with a hardline Islamic regime that stones women to death for getting raped and throws gays off rooftops. The middle East and democracy make uneasy bed fellows.

    It's a quagmire, I agree, which is why we didn't get involved to begin with, but as a result there has been untold suffering.

    I think you're right to play devil's advocate, but there are UN experts on the ground who said if it had been an attack on a IS stockpile, the death and injuries would have been far less and localised. This gas was spread over a wide area, which means either artillery shells, or more likely, dropped by planes. We've seen before Assad use barrel bombs full of chemicals, so he has form here.

    As for antagonising the west, Assad isn't concerned by that, why would he? He crossed Obama's red lines and nothing happened and besides, now he has Russian support, something he didn't have at the beginning of the conflict.

    As for what would replace a Assad regime, I agree. We could end up with a far nastier regime than we have now. But this has all been done before though. We supported the Shah (King) in Iran, as an example, that led directly to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Iran and the rise to power of the clerics there which have since spread terrorism around the region and endangered the stability of the whole world.

    I agree, if you do something, you may get a lot more "somethings" further down the road which are a lot nastier. But, in my opinion, evil has to be confronted.

  • Yes, it's uncertain whose chemicals they are, but it seems agreed that they belong to the Assad regime as his planes were observed bombing that area prior to this. If I recall, Saddam was a fan of chemical attacks too.

    I agree with Heero that a power vacuum would exist if Assad were to fall as suddenly as Qaddafi, Saddam or Mubarak. The rebels are seeded with extremist insurgents now.

    It's the ordinary people I am sorry for. They are suffering the most intense trauma and it has to stop.

    You can't absorb any more refugees and the refugees have nowhere to go as their homes and cities are being bombed to kingdom come.

    Will someone please step up to the plate and put a stop to this insane carnage.

  • I'm not against intervention if it will do some good. I'm against it if it is to line the pockets of oil magnates and political opportunists and elites.

    I think dropping a few bombs on your enemy is useless.

    I don't know what should be done to save the hapless populations from both Islamic extremists and their own dictators. I think this would require a sort of "All Thing" (pagan Icelandic Parliament meeting) where representatives of groups make suggestions and work out a way to stop the carnage, oppression and sheer horror that is the Middle East today. No one can do this alone, or without the support and cooperation of the people.

  • I have no idea what a pagan Icelandic Parliament meeting is, but sounds interesting!

    I think a degrading of some of Assad's military such as bombing some of his airfields, may work. He saw what happened next door to him with Saddam and in Libya and there is a slim chance a few limited strikes might make him think again.

  • The Alþingi (anglicised as Althing or Althingi) is the national parliament of Iceland. It is one of the oldest extant parliamentary institutions in the world.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Althing

    Germanic tribes have brought its basic ideals into the modern world but few know this and think we owe it all to Judaeo-Christianity. (We owe Judaeo-Christianity bugger all, in truth, except the poxy legacy of the Crusades, sectarian warfare and heretic burning.) :p

Participate now!

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