Syria - the nerve gas attack and the aftermath

Number24

We are all of cource shocked by the images from Syria, but what are your views on a US/UK/French retaliation on Syria?
Personally I'm conflicted. Obviously a nerve gas attack on civiliians is horrific and such an attack should not go unpunished. But the situation is as usual complicated. What will the effect of such an attack be on Syria and the region?

Also, why the hurry to attack before the UN weapons inspectors have concluded? This reminds me too much about Iraq before the invation. I don't want to come accross as a conspirational therory nut, but I did come accross a couple of articles on the net (where else ) I found interesting:


The Assyrian International News Agency is a privately funded, independent news agency which provides news and analysis on Assyrian and Assyrian-related issues. It was founded by Peter BetBasoo and Firas Jatou in 1995. (wikipedia)

http://www.aina.org/news/20130827003649.htm


The Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10266957/Saudis-offer-Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.html


I honestly find it unlikely that anyone but Assad and his forces are behind the gas attacks, but it would be nice to know before the US/UK/France strike.

Number24

Robert Fisk always has an interesting take on the Middle East - If (when the US attacks they will in essence be fighting on the side of al-Quida)

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/does-obama-know-hes-fighting-on-alqaidas-side-8786680.html

Napoleon Plural

It depends how sustained the attack is as to whether it really helps al-Quaida.

Russia has a different narrative regarding this stuff. The UK and US narrative is bound by their success in two world wars and not having been invaded, it shades their view of war. Others regard it as costly and humiliating, the latter being the key point.

But the Allies only won WWII because of Russian sacrifices on the Eastern front, some 20 million deaths! In fact, more Soviets died from being shot at their own court martials than the entire number of British soldiers during the war!! However, the Soviet efforts are overlooked because of the country's disgraceful behaviour before and after, where Stalin was happy to watch Hitler tear Europe apart by signing a non-agression pact with Germany, then when the Cold War kicked in and the Iron Curtain descended.

Also, Russia has form when it comes to firing on its own citizens, (see Georgia) so will side with Assad, added to which the Red Army was happy to stand back and watch the Warsaw uprising struggle against the Nazis and not lift a finger when it reached the Vistula during WWII, it does the old Blofeld trick with the two Siamese fighting fish. So long as it's not involved, that's a good thing is its attitude.

Thunderpussy

Cameron is Desperate to look macho, So British Troops, already over streched will be sent.

Napoleon Plural

Not likely at present, we're looking at cruise missile attacks rather than boots on the ground.

Then again, an election is on its way...

Number24

There will be no western boots on the ground, especially because it's an election. The West can't afford getting involved in a sustained war in the Middle East, neither politically or economically. This is the legacy of the Iraq invation and the financial crisis. Russia (and China) will vote against any reactions against the Assad regime. Partly because they are against any meddeling in a regime's internal affairs (after all they have such affairs at home) and partly because Assad gave Russia their only naval base in the Mediteranian. Al Quida fights the Assad regime, so any attack from the West against Assad will be advantagious for them.

Youknowthename

The Americans claim strong evidence - so go ahead, show us... We haven't forgotten about the weapons-of-mass-destruction-in Iraq excuse.

Number24

Youknowthename wrote:

The Americans claim strong evidence - so go ahead, show us... We haven't forgotten about the weapons-of-mass-destruction-in Iraq excuse.

Hear, hear!

chrisisall

Youknowthename wrote:

The Americans claim strong evidence - so go ahead, show us... We haven't forgotten about the weapons-of-mass-destruction-in Iraq excuse.

Yes, my Government has a history of *finding* the evidence it wants to find...

Thunderpussy

And any report can be "sexed up "

Number24

All true. The Russians are actually doing something smart: It seems very likely that the US/UK/France will attack soon after the UN Security Counsil rejects Britain's new proposal. The Rusdians know this and has responded by insisting the Security Counsil meeting must be AFTER the UN weapons inspectors have presented their report.

minigeff

To be honest I say let the Syrians get on with it.

Why is it that the UK has to be the ones who step in and police the world?

We'll send our lads in to get shot at, bombed and gassed by the very people they're trying to help, and for what end? To give democracy to the Syrian people?

Ok, liberating people and giving them democracy is all very gallant and brave, but I don't see the UK planning on 'liberating' the people of China, North Korea or Saudi Arabia anytime soon.

Maybe there's a big pot of black gold under the Syrians which we'd also like to 'liberate'?

Number24

I actually doubt getting hold of Syrian oil is the motivation. The Coalition are probably not planning an occupation, the Iraqi experiance was to costly. The attack isn't because Syria isn't a democracy either. Like you wrote, there are stil plenty of dictatorships to bomb if that was the reason behind bombing. The attack from the West will be because of the nerve gas attack. They actually feel the gas attack was behond the pale and their voters feel the same. The only thing the Coalition attack will do to oil is rise the prize of it.

Number24

US inteligence services aren't really sure who launched the chemical attack:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ap-sources-in-spite-of-obamas-assertion-intelligence-on-weapons-use-in-syria-no-slam-dunk/2013/08/29/131c3284-107a-11e3-a2b3-5e107edf9897_story_1.html


My God, I'm having an Iraq flashback

I'm glad to see cooler heads seem to prevail in the UK Parliament

minigeff

Apparently Dr David Kelly's report on WMD has now been printed on a handy wipe clean board. Any ruling Prime Minister can now enter the country of choice before submitting the claims to parliament as justification for invading pretty much anywhere we like. Sorry, liberating them.

I can understand the reason of using chemical weapons, but it's not like there's other regimes out there that do equally appalling things to their own people while the world sits back and lets them get on with it.

What makes Syria any different and why must it be the USA and the UK that leads the fight yet again?

Number24

This is the first chemical attack in this millenium, and to my mind people who use WMD's belong in a special circle in hell. But I think this situation calls for caution and solid evidence. Syria is a hornet's nest.

minigeff

I love that 6 euro fighter typhoon jets of the RAF have been posted out to Cyprus in order to defend RAF Akrotiri.

Defend?! Who the hell are they trying to kid?

Number24

minigeff wrote:

I love that 6 euro fighter typhoon jets of the RAF have been posted out to Cyprus in order to defend RAF Akrotiri.

Defend?! Who the hell are they trying to kid?

I actually believe that. Military analysts sat the attack on Syria will most likely be cruise missiles launced from naval vessels. Of they use figther jets they run the risk of downed pilotes inside Syria. That would complicate the situation immensly. Syria has a good air force and anti-aircraft forces, so this is a real danger. It is also possible, but unlikely that Syria retaliates against coalition bases in the area. Then it would be nice to have a few extra fighters on the spot.

minigeff

Number24 wrote:

minigeff wrote:

I love that 6 euro fighter typhoon jets of the RAF have been posted out to Cyprus in order to defend RAF Akrotiri.

Defend?! Who the hell are they trying to kid?

I actually believe that. Military analysts sat the attack on Syria will most likely be cruise missiles launced from naval vessels. Of they use figther jets they run the risk of downed pilotes inside Syria. That would complicate the situation immensly. Syria has a good air force and anti-aircraft forces, so this is a real danger. It is also possible, but unlikely that Syria retaliates against coalition bases in the area. Then it would be nice to have a few extra fighters on the spot.

You don't think that the coalition will be on the offensive instead of the defensive then?

Number24

I think they will be on the offensive with cruise missiles and on the defensive with fighter jets.

Napoleon Plural

"Two little boys had two little toys..."

Number24

Strange how things turn out, Obama is pushing hard for an attack on a Middle Eastern country because of WMD. Who would have guessed some years back? Right now the Peace Prize looks a bit premature

On the other hand, when was the last time an American President asked the Senate and House of Reperesentatives before going to war?

minigeff

Personally, I think all the attitudes towards this situation from the world powers is very telling.

One thing can be sure, the syrian people have been attacked with chemical weapons, which is deplorable.

I for one don't want my country getting involved in another vietnam/iraq/afgahnistan style conflict. Plus i think everyone involved needs to know the facts and the truth before rushing to war based on assupmptions and guesswork.

The French will step in but only if America are involved and the UN report comes back with undeniable proof it was Assad's regime that fired the rockets.

The Chinese emphatically say no.

The Russians say it's an act of agression to go to war and stand by the Chinese, with Putin saying it would be illegal to go to war without the UN's permission.

The UK have said no (so far) but it's obvious Cameron was chaffing at the bit to be taken for a walk by Barak, much like Bliar did with Bush.

And the American government have declared that a red line has been crossed, we must go to war, only the Americans are capable of doing it right and it looks like it'll happen anyway.

Something I read on today's guardian website today was the German's input. The German intelligence agency has said that communications intercepted by them indicate that Assad's men did fire the rockets, but they've also said it might be the men acting alone, and NOT with Assad's personal approval. They've also said that it's possible the attack was carried out with a higher concentrate of gas, which resulted in higher death tolls. Chemical weapons have been used around 14 times during the 2 and a half year conflict, but non have resulted in this many deaths. The higher concentrate of gas could have been an error.

The other worrying factor is that France are saying the death toll is around 280, the USA however claim it to be around 1400, plus they make generous use of the terms 'women and children'. Are the yanks really being thoughtful of the syrian people, or do they have some hidden agenda going on?

I'm not against trying to end this bloodshed, but I think it would be very regrettable if it happened before the UN gave permission. With the USA, UK, France, China and Russia being the permanent members of the UN security council, I can't understand how the USA can go off on their own agenda. To do so would completely undermine the UN and make it virtually redundant.

The members of the UN security council should wait for the reports to come back, try their best to find out the facts of the conflict and then agree together the best way forward.

The other thing to remember here is that when we're discussing these countries, we're talking about the governments that control them, not the entire population. It's easy to pick out the yanks as war mongering gun toting nut cases, but i think that applies more to people at the top than the people they represent.

Polynikes

I don't think the case for intervention has been made out. Our armed forces have been badly run down and are already asked to do too much.... I would however always be prepared to back our allies. We may yet have to rely on each other in a fight for survival again one day.

Blackleiter

As an American, I am extremely wary about the possibility of the U.S. once again wading into a quagmire in the Middle East such as we did in Iraq. I do believe, however, that Syria's use of chemical weapons against its own population is an extremely troubling turn of events that requires a heightened response. Not only because of the brutality of engaging in such an act, but also because of the looming possibility that those chemical weapons could fall into the hands of Al Quaida and others who would seek to expand the use of such weapons against others. But I agree with those who believe that there needs to be unassailable evidence that the Syrian government did in fact authorize the use chemical weapons (no more "Oops, guess there were no WMDs after all") and that the U.S. should garner more support from the international community and not go it alone. I don't believe we're there yet on either count.

always shaken

talking of invading, there is this country where old people are routinely murdered in their homes
people are slaughtered at will in public, their education system fails their children, the have a crumbling health system that people are taxed to the eye balls to pay for, they allow any tom dick or harry to turn up on its doors step wich in turn puts housing shortages up school places shortages up and then expect
the citizens to pay massive tax bills to fund it ,this country has a failing legal system ,where criminals can rape your children and you cant do anything about it ,all their businesses and infrastructure and banking
is run by crooks ,why don't we invade this country first ,oh we cant its Great Britain

Number24

If Iraq hadn't happened, Obama would probably had little problem getting support for a strike at Syria after the chemical attacks. People and countries are much more suspicious of their governments now. This is a good thing. Also, there is less money in the West now for this kind of thing.

Getting more facts and a UN security counsil approval is important. But this shows a flaw in the UN system: It requires five votes from the winners of WWII (and France ... :v ) But two of the security counsil members are regimes who don't want intervention into internal conflicts in any country, mostly because they are dictatorships and are afraid of interventions (some time in the future) in allied coiuntries or their own country.

Blackleiter

Number24 wrote:

If Iraq hadn't happened, Obama would probably had little problem getting support for a strike at Syria after the chemical attacks. People and countries are much more suspicious of their governments now. This is a good thing. Also, there is less money in the West now for this kind of thing.

Getting more facts and a UN security counsil approval is important. But this shows a flaw in the UN system: It requires five votes from the winners of WWII (and France ... :v ) But two of the security counsil members are regimes who don't want intervention into internal conflicts in any country, mostly because they are dictatorships and are afraid of interventions (some time in the future) in allied coiuntries or their own country.

You make very good points.

Number24

Thanks. I think what happened to Libya scared Russia and China. The West got a vote in teh UN for bombing to safeguard the civilian population from the attacks of the regime. But we went far beyond the UN mandate and bombed enough to topple Gadaffi. Russia lost an ally and muslim fundamentalists gained a foothold. Russia and China don't want that to happen again.

chrisisall

I miss the Cold War.

Number24

chrisisall wrote:

I miss the Cold War.

The good guys had white stetsons and the bad guys had furry hats. but thank God the dying part still only happens in third world countries ....