U.S. Politics

[sharkyvilla]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

Seriously?

You think there is some tactical or strategic gain from killing civilians, when on the verge of taking the area, when the opposition are negotiating terms of surrender, and that this outweighs the massive risk of bringing the US back in when Trump has just expressed a wish to disengage?  What is that gain?

Or do you think Assad and Putin are just stupid?

Perhaps not stupid, but really **** nasty, especially Assad.  I'm not sure evil bastard dictators always need any potential tactical or strategic gain to kill loads of people, just pure spite.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

Seriously?

You think there is some tactical or strategic gain from killing civilians, when on the verge of taking the area, when the opposition are negotiating terms of surrender, and that this outweighs the massive risk of bringing the US back in when Trump has just expressed a wish to disengage?  What is that gain?

Or do you think Assad and Putin are just stupid?

I think a view that Russia knew in advance that “the US was about to somehow launch a CW attack on civilians in Syria“ ( in order to use that as a pretext to do whatever it is you apparently think the great Satan is up to) is playing people willing to believe almost anything that is alleged of the US as utter effwits. It’s just so easy for them. Mention, or just subtly imply Israel or the USA  and wahey! Job done, smokescreen swallowed, conspiracy theory nut jobs in the west do the rest for them. Free reign. Happy days.

US foreign policy is sometimes, often even, lamentable. Separating that out from tin pot tyrants like Assad or psychos like Putin ought to be really simple. People who oppress, murder, torture, gas and bomb their own citizens are vile. Assad and Putin are vile, Netanyahu is vile. I don’t get the excuses for any of them  “oh, the ideologically unsound West is the reason why, the US is the reason why... “ no  **** right off, they are vile tyrants  don’t make excuses around whichever ideology or conspiracy theory bullshit floats anyone’s boat.

 

[LondonLax]

Assad has been killing and maiming civillians in various ways including chemical and conventional weapons all the way through this war. Every time he uses a chemical weapon that line is trotted out "Why would he do it? What tactical advantage would it bring him?".

Well he seems to have gotten away with it, getting a tactical advantage every other time he's done it and as a result the war has gone pretty well for him so far. Frankly  I don't see why he wouldn't keep using them. It's not like it results in any negative repercussions, only positive ones for his forces. 

[peterms]

27 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

Perhaps not stupid, but really **** nasty, especially Assad.  I'm not sure evil bastard dictators always need any potential tactical or strategic gain to kill loads of people, just pure spite.

And yet these vile dictators struggle, and fail, to reach the numbers of people killed that our caring, democratic, accountable leaders manage.

Assad busses terrorists out of Ghouta, where the US incinerated a long column of retreating Iraqis, and Thatcher ordered the retreating Belgrano to be sunk, for example.  I suppose he was driven by political calculation rather than a sense of mercy, but it happened, let's not pretend otherwise.

I have difficulty with narratives of good and evil when it comes to world politics.  I don't find anyone especially good, not our side, nor the Russians, the Chinese, or any number of lesser powers.  I find the presentation of such narratives in our media (yes, other countries' media do the same) as us-good-guys vs baddies to be childish and deliberately manipulative,  in the service of some pretty bad stuff.

I'm sure both Assad and Putin are people I really wouldn't want to antagonise, on a personal level.  More so Putin.  But the idea that they are killing people for pleasure, or spite, is in my view profoundly misguided.  It's calculated, and political, and they will have weighed up alternatives.  It's a rational process much as a business might make an investment decision.  The idea that we are dealing with weird creatures driven by blood lust is really not the case.  John Bolton may be an exception to that general position.  Putin isn't, Assad isn't, Trump isn't.

[peterms]

12 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Assad has been killing and maiming civillians in various ways including chemical and conventional weapons all the way through this war. Every time he uses a chemical weapon that line is trotted out "Why would he do it? What tactical advantage would it bring him?".

Well he seems to have gotten away with it, getting a tactical advantage every other time he's done it and as a result the war has gone pretty well for him so far. Frankly  I don't see why he wouldn't keep using them. It's not like it results in any negative repercussions, only positive ones for his forces. 

What tactical advantage?  He has won Ghouta.  Rebels have been exiting on coaches for a couple of weeks now.  They have collapsed.  They are negotiating terms of surrender.  There is nothing to be gained for Assad by using CWs,  and a vast amount to be lost.  You must see that, surely?  Even if you don't accept the debunking of previous CW stories.

Are you aware that the (current, the pecking order changes) main opposition group in Ghouta has admitted to using chemical weapons?  They said it was a rogue element.  Which kind of debunks the idea that the discovery of their CW factories is just a made up story, even if western journos have been declining to visit and report on these places.

[Awol]

The Americans are in Syria for two main reasons: the first is/was to defeat ISIS, still unfinished business in the rural Euphrates river valley. The second is to disrupt the land bridge Iran is trying to establish with Lebanon, through Iraq and Syria. Deir-ez-Zur in eastern Syria is a key province that straddles the overland route, that’s why US forces are there. 

Why? If Iran has clear lines of supply to Hezbollah in Lebanon then the latter, along with a multi-national  IRGC led milita currently fighting for Assad, will eventually be turning their gunsights on Israel, and a war that’s bigger, wider and more destructive than anything that’s happened to date will engulf the Middle East. 

The French are there because of Paris and the numerous other attacks, but it was Paris that pulled them in. The Elysse directly requested assistance from London at the time to support them based on the bilateral UK-French alliance and Cameron, rightly, acceded.  

The same alliance has seen UK recently deploy heavy lift helicopters to Mali to support French efforts there. 

Its a very complicated situation, but tinfoil doesn’t help in getting a handle on what’s actually happening and why. 

 

[snowychap]

49 minutes ago, peterms said:

There is nothing to be gained for Assad by using CWs,  and a vast amount to be lost.  You must see that, surely?

What is there to be lost?

[peterms]

45 minutes ago, Awol said:

The Americans are in Syria for two main reasons: the first is/was to defeat ISIS

It's a puzzle why Isis have had so much US supplies over the years, then.

49 minutes ago, Awol said:

. The second is to disrupt the land bridge Iran is trying to establish

Much more plausible.

49 minutes ago, Awol said:

The French are there because of Paris and the numerous other attacks, but it was Paris that pulled them in

The French have been in Syria for a century.

50 minutes ago, Awol said:

tinfoil

Oh, please.

[peterms]

9 minutes ago, snowychap said:

What is there to be lost?

Everything, if the US seriously re-engage and change the outcome.  What is to be gained?  That will not be gained in the next day or two anyway?

[snowychap]

Just now, peterms said:

Everything, if the US seriously re-engage and change the outcome.  What is to be gained?  That will not be gained in the next day or two anyway?

If they do that. Have they done that on previous occasions when Assad has been accused of doing the same/similar things?

[Awol]

@peterms

It’s not a surprise that ISIS had so much US kit. The US totally equipped the new Iraqi military before leaving in 2011, and when ISIS took Mosul an entire Iraqi division downed (those US supplied) tools and ran. Over the following weeks ISIS swept up a lot more as they moved south, hence ISIS sporting a lot of US kit - they destroyed rather than deployed the M1A1 Abrams tanks they captured because they are complex to use, maintain and resupply. Even the 1000’s of Toyota Hi-Lux technicals ISIS used we’re primarily taken from stocks purchased by the US for the Iraqi State. 

The conspiracy about the US supplying ISIS with equipment is deep in tinfoil country, they simply picked up what the Iraqis dropped/abandoned. 

Edit: and the French haven’t been in Syria for a century, they were there a century ago, until the end of WW2, more than 70 yrs ago. So a more accurate statement would be “the French haven’t been in Syria for over 70 yrs.” 

Edited April 8, 2018 by Awol

[LondonLax]

2 hours ago, peterms said:

What tactical advantage?  He has won Ghouta. 

Exactly. His use of Chemical weapons has worked out great for him each time he's done it. 

[maqroll]

Malcolm Nance is worth a follow on Twitter. Great perspective on these issues.

[peterms]

7 hours ago, Awol said:

The conspiracy about the US supplying ISIS with equipment is deep in tinfoil country, they simply picked up what the Iraqis dropped/abandoned. 

Yes they did.

And as well as that, the US was supplying other groups with arms, much of which ended up with ISIS.  Trump apparently discontinued this covert arrangement last year.  Here.

Quote

...From the start, there were doubts that arming disorganized, often internally fractious forces would succeed. Officials in the Obama administration conceded that there was no way to predict the future loyalties of those who received American arms, despite a lengthy vetting process. That problem — getting the weapons into the right hands and assuring they were not passed on to others and used against American troops or allies — plagued the effort soon after it was proposed by Hillary Clinton, who was then secretary of state, and David H. Petraeus, the C.I.A. director at the time...

 

[peterms]

8 hours ago, snowychap said:

If they do that. Have they done that on previous occasions when Assad has been accused of doing the same/similar things?

The incident a year ago involved what seemed to be a symbolic US strike on an airfield, destroying a couple of defunct planes, having given Russia prior notice so that they could move things.

It was suggested at the time, and it seems likely, that the reason for such a limited response was that they very much doubted that Syria was behind the CW use, but Trump had to do something to placate Ivanka, who was upset by the photos of suffering and who accepted the story that Syria was responsible.

This time round, there is a strong and growing lobby for more US involvement, and people like Bolton and Netenyahu seem to want that to extend to war on Iran.  It seems a more volatile and dangerous situation than a year ago, with many people actively looking for a pretext for bringing the US more actively into the conflict.  Use of CWs ssems to be one thing that could manage that.

The story about Syria using CWs in Ghouta doesn't stand up to examination.  The problem is, it may not need to, if enough momentum develops.  This morning, there are reports that people are telling Trump that if he doesn't act, people will laugh at him and not respect him, presumably because they think that will trigger him.  The truth or falsehood of the allegations is already fading as a determinant of what happens next.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, peterms said:

The story about Syria using CWs in Ghouta doesn't stand up to examination

Starting out from the perspoective that "America is always bad and to blame for everything , so now lets shape an explanation for anything that occurs around that theme, regardless of anything such as evidence that might lead a reasonable person to conclude otherwise doesn't seem like a healthy situation to be in.

The videos, the testimony from medics, rescuers and locals on the ground, the record and pattern of CW attacks as determined by the UN investigating teams to be perpetrated by Syria (until Russia vetoed any more investigations being conducted on further attacks) most clearly stand up to examination.

Your alternative "theory" that the Americans did it and the Russians knew the US was going to do it, or that no attack happened at all seems just mind bogglingly tin foil. Twisted.

[peterms]

3 hours ago, blandy said:

Your alternative "theory" that the Americans did it and the Russians knew the US was going to do it, or that no attack happened at all

Where did you get that?  You seem to have made it up.

Obviously the Americans didn't do it.  I think the most likely thing is that Jaysh al-Islam did it.  They possess chemical weapons (they previously admitted using them against Kurds, but say it was a rogue element; it follows that they possessed them).  They controlled the area where a CW factory was found (perhaps you discount that, as the western media choose not to report it?).  They have an extremely strong motive to stage an attack, as it might lead to greater US involvement against Assad.  They have a set of victims readily to hand, having held hostages in "repentance prisons" for some years.

Against that, Assad obviously has a very strong incentive not to use CWs, especially in a situation where the territory is won anyway, the opposition is leaving on buses, and there is no tactical gain.  There is also the strategic question, that it changes Trump's decision to withdraw from Syria, which is very obviously a very bad outcome for Syria and a very good outcome for those who want to see continued US engagement.  High risk, no return, it could only have negative consequences for Assad.

I see the Atlantic Council, struggling to explain the obvious lack of motive but determined that Syria must be to blame, falls back on saying it can be explained as blood lust:

Quote

For Assad this may have been a golden opportunity to indulge an addiction.  The more defenseless the target, the greater Assad's appetite for the terror-inducing properties of chemical compounds.

Mad as a box of frogs.

[villakram]

also, the very first discovery of chemical weapons in the Syrian conflict was in a warehouse in Turkey. These did not belong to Assad, but were with one of the freedom and democracy loving rebel groups, including AQ rebranded many times over the course of the conflict for the benefit of western audiences.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, peterms said:

Where did you get that?  You seem to have made it up.

From your posts quoted below, which seem to strongly imply it wasn't (in your view  - one shared by the likes of the BNP and a host of Russian twitter bots) done by Syria with Russia's knowledge, but by well, either no-one or the USA (or some sort of false flag they attacked themselves rubbish). At least Israel isn't mentioned anywhere, for full tin foil effect.

22 hours ago, peterms said:

It's strange, isn't it?  Russia warns that it has learnt a "provocation" is being planned.  Trump announces he wants to pull out of Syria.  His military bring new arms and construction materials into the country.  Then a  CW attack is launched, in an area which Syria has almost finished retaking, giving no strategic or tactical gain, but prompting an immediate threat of retaliation by the US and causing Trump to change his mind.  Whatever could have caused Assad to miscalculate so very badly, when even a child could predict the outcome?

and 

20 hours ago, peterms said:

Seriously?

You think there is some tactical or strategic gain from killing civilians, when on the verge of taking the area, when the opposition are negotiating terms of surrender, and that this outweighs the massive risk of bringing the US back in when Trump has just expressed a wish to disengage?  What is that gain?

Or do you think Assad and Putin are just stupid?

 

 

 

 

[peterms]

51 minutes ago, blandy said:

From your posts quoted below, which seem to strongly imply it wasn't (in your view  - one shared by the likes of the BNP and a host of Russian twitter bots) done by Syria with Russia's knowledge, but by well, either no-one or the USA (or some sort of false flag they attacked themselves rubbish)

Those posts neither say nor imply what you said, ie that I think the US did it or nothing happened.  You made it up.