1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Chemical attack in Syria

Discussion in 'Middle Eastern Politics' started by Aus22, Apr 6, 2017.

  1. Aus22

    Aus22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,739
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The chemical attack in Syria is a war crime. The Syrian government is responsible. But will any major power do anything. The last time Obama drew a red line. But when Syria cross it with chemical weapons it did nothing but compensate some weapons. I doubt if Trump will do any more. It will take hundreds of thousand American troops to stop Asaad. NO one will commit that many troops.
     
  2. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    16,942
    Likes Received:
    1,361
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
    Hard to say. He was pretty emphatic but no foolhardy lines in the sand just yet.
    This is a ten man job. No one will commit thousands.
    Real issue is creating a vacuum can be a bigger problem than the one you have.
    But the good news is we know who has Hussein wmd.
     
  3. grumpy

    grumpy Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2016
    Messages:
    646
    Likes Received:
    122
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Could be..
     
  4. Walter

    Walter Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,455
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Heart of Europe
    But it would only take a no-fly-zone to stop Assads planes.
     
  5. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    16,942
    Likes Received:
    1,361
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
    Yes it might stop them but it's hard to react in a timely way over that small an area. Could just kill the planes on the ground.
     
  6. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,834
    Likes Received:
    211
    Trophy Points:
    63

    Most of the planes are Russian as Russia has an air base in Syria. Destroy the runways.
     
  7. Aus22

    Aus22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,739
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    A no fly zone or even destroying Russian and Syrian planes will require a far greater commitment of American military than at present to be successful Hundreds perhaps thousand of planes would be necessary
    Unless successful it would be useless and make more enemies in the Middle Eeast and Russia.
    Political action like not speaking to the Assad government might help. But this would help Is and delay its destruction.
     
  8. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    16,942
    Likes Received:
    1,361
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
    And you have to have bases from which to operate. Expensive proposition. Easier to just turn the jets to rubble on the ground. But Russia would not be entirely happy with that.
     
  9. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,834
    Likes Received:
    211
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Not really. Jets require a certain distance to take off, and land. Take that away and you scuttle the planes. And Syria does not have that many.
     
  10. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,478
    Likes Received:
    281
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    Or you could just launch missiles and take out the military infrastructure.
     
  11. Aus22

    Aus22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,739
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    This seems to have happen. Thee USA fired 49 missiles from ships nearby that destroy an airfield. Russia and American allies were warned in advance. The Australia Prime Minter supports the attack we are waiting on more news.
     
  12. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,478
    Likes Received:
    281
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    Call me a cynic but I'd love to know what this has achieved apart from devaluing some real estate?
     
  13. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    16,942
    Likes Received:
    1,361
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
    No runway, no flying military jets.
    If he wants to gas people he will need a new delivery system.
     
  14. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,834
    Likes Received:
    211
    Trophy Points:
    63
  15. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,834
    Likes Received:
    211
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Isn't it laughable that in 2013 following Assads use of chemical weapons both Trump, and Paul Ryan, opposed military strikes. Of course, that was when Obama was President, and it was much easier to denigrate him for not doing so. Now they say:

    https://gma.yahoo.com/donald-trump-said-us-apos-072336022.html

    "Donald Trump has said the US missile strike on a Syrian air base was launched because preventing the use of chemical weapons is “in the vital national security interest”.

    But he was publicly opposed to military intervention when Barack Obama made the case for military action against the Syrian government four years ago.

    “Again, to our very foolish leader, do not attack Syria – if you do many very bad things will happen and from that fight the US gets nothing!” wrote Mr Trump in capital letters on 5 September 2013.

    Two days later, he added: “President Obama, do not attack Syria. There is no upside and tremendous downside. Save your ‘powder’ for another (and more important) day!”

    Mr Obama said a chemical attack carried out in August that year was “a crime against humanity, and a violation of the laws of war”, but decided against intervention after he consulted Congress, who did not support the air strikes." (And they have used that decision against him ever since.)

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/e8a63911-56c0-3c94-974a-e8f5eb69a12c/paul-ryan-2013:-syrian.html]

    "Paul Ryan 2013: Syrian strikes would look weak. Paul Ryan 2017: Assad must be held accountable."
     
Loading...

Share This Page