Chemical attack in Syria

[Aus22]

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.

 

[dogtowner]

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.

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.

 

[grumpy]

But the good news is we know who has Hussein wmd.

Could be..

 

[Walter]

It will take hundreds of thousand American troops to stop Asaad

But it would only take a no-fly-zone to stop Assads planes.

 

[dogtowner]

But it would only take a no-fly-zone to stop Assads planes.

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.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

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.

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

 

[Aus22]

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.

 

[dogtowner]

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.

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.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

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.

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.

 

[The Scotsman]

Or you could just launch missiles and take out the military infrastructure.

In a statement it said missiles fired from Navy destroyers USS Porter and USS Ross had targeted aircraft, aircraft shelters, storage areas, ammunition supply bunkers, air defence systems, and radars at Shayrat airfield in western Homs province.
The Pentagon added that the strike was intended "to deter the regime from using chemical weapons again".

 

[Aus22]

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.

 

[The Scotsman]

Call me a cynic but I'd love to know what this has achieved apart from devaluing some real estate?

 

[dogtowner]

Call me a cynic but I'd love to know what this has achieved apart from devaluing some real estate?

No runway, no flying military jets.
If he wants to gas people he will need a new delivery system.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

No runway, no flying military jets.
If he wants to gas people he will need a new delivery system.

Again you are uninformed. The runway was not destroyed, and he can still fly.

Question is, "What now?"

https://www.boston.com/news/politic...-to-let-the-victims-of-assad-find-refuge-here

 

[Old_Trapper70]

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."