Morley_crosses_to_Withe Posted April 11, 2018 Share Posted April 11, 2018 Somebody needs to stop the moron from Tweeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted April 11, 2018 Share Posted April 11, 2018 Obviously we need to take this sort of thing seriously, however, that tweet in particular does look an awful lot like theatrics. God I hope we don't join him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted April 11, 2018 Moderator Share Posted April 11, 2018 1 minute ago, Jareth said: Obviously we need to take this sort of thing seriously, however, that tweet in particular does look an awful lot like theatrics. God I hope we don't join him. Of course we will. The government are desperate to find something to distract from Brexit. What could be better than a war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted April 11, 2018 Moderator Share Posted April 11, 2018 20 minutes ago, Morley_crosses_to_Withe said: Somebody needs to stop the moron from Tweeting. Don't worry. It's only taken him 40 minutes to change his mind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted April 11, 2018 Share Posted April 11, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said: Don't worry. It's only taken him 40 minutes to change his mind... Deffo theatrics - did the same thing with North Korea. If anything, it just confirms the Russia Trump narrative that he's in cahoots. My biggest fear is after Trump, when some Democrat gets in and their taking Russia to task for screwing America, now that would be WW3 nice and clean. Edited April 11, 2018 by Jareth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PompeyVillan Posted April 11, 2018 Share Posted April 11, 2018 Personally, I wouldn't be against Russia having it's wings clipped, but it's not worth people dying to do so. Even if it theatrics from Trump, it's an escalation in rhetoric, so whether he means it or not, it can be used by Russia as justification for further aggression. I don't see either side wanting to back down and I can understand a lack of patience with Russia, they seem to believe that they can act with impunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted April 11, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted April 11, 2018 13 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said: Don't worry. It's only taken him 40 minutes to change his mind... Ha. Worse than the Cold War. Ok... Really? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted April 11, 2018 Share Posted April 11, 2018 5 minutes ago, PompeyVillan said: Personally, I wouldn't be against Russia having it's wings clipped, but it's not worth people dying to do so. No one (sane) looks at it from the perspective of wanting people to die, but there is a bigger issue, imo. *puts on tin hat* For the sake of argument let’s assume, as seems likely, Assad has again used chemical weapons against civilians in Syria. If, as in 2013, we again fail to take a stand over battlefield chemical weapons use, then the world can conclude there is no penalty for doing so. What happens then if another state uses biological, or radiological weapons in a conflict where the major states don’t have a vital interest? Once the taboo against the use of CBRN is broken I don’t see how it’s rebuilt again, so IF the UK participated in any punitive action against Assad in the coming days then it’s not about the Syrian war - that’s decided. It’ll be about enforcing the international norms of conflict & standing against those like Russia who are working to tear up all the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted April 11, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted April 11, 2018 Syria could easily turn into a complete cluster ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted April 11, 2018 Moderator Share Posted April 11, 2018 16 minutes ago, Chindie said: Syria could easily turn into a complete cluster ****. It already is and has been for a long time, sadly. But Yeah, it could all escalate even more horribly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted April 11, 2018 Share Posted April 11, 2018 Come on, it's not like a million people are going to decide to walk and swim to europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted April 11, 2018 Share Posted April 11, 2018 51 minutes ago, Awol said: No one (sane) looks at it from the perspective of wanting people to die, but there is a bigger issue, imo. *puts on tin hat* For the sake of argument let’s assume, as seems likely, Assad has again used chemical weapons against civilians in Syria. If, as in 2013, we again fail to take a stand over battlefield chemical weapons use, then the world can conclude there is no penalty for doing so. What happens then if another state uses biological, or radiological weapons in a conflict where the major states don’t have a vital interest? Once the taboo against the use of CBRN is broken I don’t see how it’s rebuilt again, so IF the UK participated in any punitive action against Assad in the coming days then it’s not about the Syrian war - that’s decided. It’ll be about enforcing the international norms of conflict & standing against those like Russia who are working to tear up all the rules. If a state uses biological or radiological weapons in a conflict in which major states have no stakes, then there will be a completely different decision tree so it's probably not much use to compare the situation to Syria, which has a major power ally. Presumably 'we' (as in, the same few western countries) would intervene militarily, with either a reasonable amount of 'success' (ie Sierra Leone) or far-reaching negative consequences (like a bomb in the MEN arena, for example), but since the UK, US and France especially are predisposed to military solutions it's a reasonable bet it would happen. Syria is different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted April 11, 2018 Moderator Share Posted April 11, 2018 56 minutes ago, Awol said: No one (sane) looks at it from the perspective of wanting people to die, but there is a bigger issue, imo. *puts on tin hat* For the sake of argument let’s assume, as seems likely, Assad has again used chemical weapons against civilians in Syria. If, as in 2013, we again fail to take a stand over battlefield chemical weapons use, then the world can conclude there is no penalty for doing so. What happens then if another state uses biological, or radiological weapons in a conflict where the major states don’t have a vital interest? Once the taboo against the use of CBRN is broken I don’t see how it’s rebuilt again, so IF the UK participated in any punitive action against Assad in the coming days then it’s not about the Syrian war - that’s decided. It’ll be about enforcing the international norms of conflict & standing against those like Russia who are working to tear up all the rules. I get your point, but I don't really share it. Even taking a longer view, I think taking the least bad course of action is usually wise. I think where I differ is that "taking action" has to involve us (the West) dropping bombs on an already bombed to heck nation, killing more people. There's no part of me that sees that as any kind of improvement on the situation we're already in. I don't think it's about precedents for CW use, I think each case is different. In Syria with multiple factions, several of whom have used CWs, where the whole place is a clusterpork, it should be considered on it's own merits, and not on the point of whether in the future some other nation or group might potentially use CWs. Essentially attacking Assad helps ISIS or whatever version of them is there at the mo', or weakens Assad - then what? I don't go with any notion of "but we must do something" (military) unless the something can be clearly defined, the outcome certain and also beneficial to the situation at hand. Get the bastard in due course, is kind of my thinking. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted April 11, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted April 11, 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, blandy said: It already is and has been for a long time, sadly. But Yeah, it could all escalate even more horribly. Well obviously. At the moment it's a particularly nasty mix of civil war and insurgency and just about every other type of unrest you can name with half a dozen different belligerent parties. It could escalate into something much worse when outside powers start to more overtly enter the fray, and their own motives get thrown in as well. Best case scenario Syria is left as an even larger smoking crater when will is sapped by the powers to continue. Worst case scenario? Well, you've got a tetchy power with a chip on it's shoulder who has very significant interests in Syria getting back to status quo, and they have nukes. And their rival is a political basket case spoiling for a fight and increasingly appears unbothered about who and how it antagonises. And like Vietnam, there's not really an ultimate motive, or victory scenario, or way of quantifying success It's a complete mess desperately trying to go critical and cause a global crisis. And more than a few onlookers are keen to poke it. Edited April 11, 2018 by Chindie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted April 11, 2018 Share Posted April 11, 2018 Just now, blandy said: I get your point, but I don't really share it. Even taking a longer view, I think taking the least bad course of action is usually wise. I think where I differ is that "taking action" has to involve us (the West) dropping bombs on an already bombed to heck nation, killing more people. There's no part of me that sees that as any kind of improvement on the situation we're already in. I don't think it's about precedents for CW use, I think each case is different. In Syria with multiple factions, several of whom have used CWs, where the whole place is a clusterpork, it should be considered on it's own merits, and not on the point of whether in the future some other nation or group might potentially use CWs. Essentially attacking Assad helps ISIS or whatever version of them is there at the mo', or weakens Assad - then what? I don't go with any notion of "but we must do something" (military) unless the something can be clearly defined, the outcome certain and also beneficial to the situation at hand. Get the bastard in due course, is kind of my thinking. I’m not disputing that Assad winning (and nothing will reverse that now) is the least worst option in Syria, it’s the ‘how’ he does it that actually matters. For better or worse the international community allows the use of bombs, bullets and bayonets as weapons of war, but doesn’t allow CBRN, as you know. The “we don’t allow that” must carry coercive force, or else becomes “we don’t approve of that” and the taboo dissolves. The Russians have probably murdered more than a dozen people in the UK over recent years, we’ve (correctly in my view) gone tonto over Skripal because of ‘how’ they tried to do it. Using nerve agent crossed a ‘red line’. CBRN use must carry a cost for its prohibition to have any meaning at all, so Assad needs to be hurt for doing so. Operationally there are various ways to go about it & killing regular joe Syrian soldiers to no purposeful end isn’t one of them, but - for example - inflicting major pain on Iranian & Hezbollah assets/HVT’s in country would be, and would also serve an operational purpose. I take the point about CW use by non-state actors, but by their nature they are very difficult to get at in the same way, and are already - if you take ISIS as an example - paying a very significant price for their whole repertoire of activity. The fact Russia is standing behind Assad giving it “yeah, and what?” isn’t a reason not to do it, imo. Putin is not going to start a fight with the West he cannot win, and if it got serious in Syria his airwing there is a speed bump, nothing more. They know this, but the fact Russia is working (on multiple fronts) to normalise chemical weapons use as a proxy for undermining the rules based order is itself an incentive not to let CW use pass unanswered. Again. Taking the ‘least bad course’ has often led to much greater trouble, further down the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted April 11, 2018 Moderator Share Posted April 11, 2018 2 minutes ago, Awol said: For better or worse the international community allows the use of bombs, bullets and bayonets as weapons of war, but doesn’t allow CBRN, as you know. The “we don’t allow that” must carry coercive force, or else becomes “we don’t approve of that” and the taboo dissolves. I'm not sure I agree "coercive force" need always be the method to punish someone using CWs Quote CBRN use must carry a cost for its prohibition to have any meaning at all, so Assad needs to be hurt for doing so. Operationally there are various ways to go about it & killing regular joe Syrian soldiers to no purposeful end isn’t one of them, but - for example - inflicting major pain on Iranian & Hezbollah assets/HVT’s in country would be, and would also serve an operational purpose. It should indeed carry a cost, and sooner is better than later, ideally. We're not in an ideal situation or circumstances with Syria and with Russia protecting Assad. I think "inflicting major pain on Iranian & Hezbollah assets" would be the wrong course of action. It isn't Iran (or Hizbollah) dropping CWs on the people of Douma. It would also even further drag Iran etc. into a maelstrom. Quote The fact Russia is standing behind Assad giving it “yeah, and what?” isn’t a reason not to do it, imo. Putin is not going to start a fight with the West he cannot win, and if it got serious in Syria his airwing there is a speed bump, nothing more. They know this, but the fact Russia is working (on multiple fronts) to normalise chemical weapons use as a proxy for undermining the rules based order is itself an incentive not to let CW use pass unanswered. Again. Taking the ‘least bad course’ has often led to much greater trouble, further down the road. Russia is a problem, as you say. Russia basically giving Assad carte blanche do do as he wishes is a key contributor to Assad's use of CWs. Not that I'm remotely qualified, but my kind of course of action would be to squeeze Russia with massive sanctions for supporting Assad, making clear exactly why, and in due course, as I said, getting Assad for his war crimes, as with other war criminals. The point about "the least bad course" can lead to trouble down the line is fair - essentially we need not to appease or let them think they can get away with it. The flip side is of course that we know from Iraq and George Bush II's rush to war there, that perhaps waiting and letting the inspectors finish their task might have been better than ...well where we are now. Massive pressure should be put on Russia, as much as we can do should be done to deal with Assad and his forces using CWs. As you say they've already previously used them, it's not like this is the first time. His time will come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted April 11, 2018 Share Posted April 11, 2018 Watching Zuckerberg getting absolutely grilled about Facebook IN us. Very entertaining Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted April 11, 2018 Moderator Share Posted April 11, 2018 Paul Ryan adding his name to the already HUGE list of Republicans not seeking re-election Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkyvilla Posted April 11, 2018 Share Posted April 11, 2018 59 minutes ago, bickster said: Paul Ryan adding his name to the already HUGE list of Republicans not seeking re-election I'm guessing he will be running for President in the not too distant future. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted April 11, 2018 Moderator Share Posted April 11, 2018 6 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said: I'm guessing he will be running for President in the not too distant future. Does he know something we don't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts