Syria

No.

The Russians have boots on the ground and have made Syria a strategic commitment.

Now the next time they cross the 'red line' (and they will) Russia/Iran will have to retaliate., the stakes will get even higher and more dangerous.

Putin is scrum, so is the Iranian theocracy, both are capable of being utterly unpredictable.
 
What is the real reason for Russian protection of Assad. ? I don't get the token show of force from Trump. Its likely to do more harm than good.
 
Nick Real Deal - 10/4/2017 09:50

What is the real reason for Russian protection of Assad. ? I don't get the token show of force from Trump. Its likely to do more harm than good.
Click to expand...

Just look at the Port facilities that they've had there since the Soviet Union, strategically they'd be exposed if Assad falls, as they'd lose them - it's the same reason they moved into and annexed the Crimea - Russia have made a long term strategic alliance with Iran against the west, Iran trains, arms and supports the Taliban and the Russians want us and their government to be bogged down, as all these 'hot spots' works to Russia's advantage of draining energy and focus away from it's main aim; to rebuild a buffer zone around Russia that it controls.

The Iranians are the next one's after North Korea we'll have to confront and Russia knows it.
 
So if the world unites and goes in to Syria to remove Assad it takes on Putin ?

Chemical weapons are being used despite Russian control and influence.

Is this a world issue now against Assad and Putin. ? Already the threat has come from Russia if the USA crosses the red line again. Trump has backing from other Countries for his actions. That's why I don't get the token show of force. Unless it is to provoke a diplomatic solution.

Trumps attack has not removed the threat of chemical weapons or the means to deliver them.

It appears to be the last straw, the last attempt before serious military intervention takes place. As a civilised world we have to find a peaceful answer. We can't regress into war again.
 
Nick Real Deal - 10/4/2017 10:21

So if the world unites and goes in to Syria to remove Assad it takes on Putin ?

Chemical weapons are being used despite Russian control and influence.

Is this a world issue now against Assad and Putin. ? Already the threat has come from Russia if the USA crosses the red line again. Trump has backing from other Countries for his actions. That's why I don't get the token show of force. Unless it is to provoke a diplomatic solution.

Trumps attack has not removed the threat of chemical weapons or the means to deliver them.

It appears to be the last straw, the last attempt before serious military intervention takes place. As a civilised world we have to find a peaceful answer. We can't regress into war again.
Click to expand...

Nick, the strike was a tactical strike, designed to disable the airfield and destroy aircraft on the ground, to that extent it was a complete failure. The Syrians are up and flying again already.

The Americans simply tried too hard to be proportionate, instead of using overwhelming force, their military (by any analysis) got the strike load required absolutely wrong; therefore it was a tactical failure. If I were Trump I'd be livid with my Military planners for so inadequately assuring him that it would render the runway/airbase unusable.

As they have done over the downed airliner over the Ukraine, the Russians have flooded their media and those gullible enough in the West to swallow it with a totally improbable set of cover stories, they will now try and beef up air defences, but with the kit they have 'insitu' it won't do much to deter action.

The Russians assured Obama that they'd removed/locked down the Syrians chemical weapons - it's clear that not only were these assurances utterly bogus, but they've since sanctioned Assads regime to use them. Obama was a useful fool, the same as he was over the nuclear 'deal' with Iran - which they too have already broken.

Obama's policies are to blame for this current mess, and the US are acting too late with too little to influence the outcome.

We are now on a collision course with Russia, I expect the next conflict point to be the Baltic states, where we don't have enough to either deter or hold without going nuclear.
 
The only way this will escalate into WW3 is if the Chavs lose 5 on the bounce and we look certain to win the league.
Cue all hell breaking loose.
Spursy.
 
Nick Real Deal - 10/4/2017 10:47

I guess the G7 will give us a more certain outcome. Hopefully it's a peaceful one.
Click to expand...

Well, once again our 'Allies in the EU' have chosen not to support us / Europe against Putin - I hope we remember that when they come begging for our troops and commitment to 'deter' teh Russians in the front line states.

Despicable.
 
I see Russia veetoed a Nato motion to investigate chemical weapons use in Syria.

On what grounds ? The truth is essential whatever it is. To either condem Trump or vindicate him. Likewise Putin. By refusing investigation it implies guilt.

Apparently they block any such moves in regard to Syria.
 
Nick Real Deal - 13/4/2017 14:31

I see Russia veetoed a Nato motion to investigate chemical weapons use in Syria.

On what grounds ? The truth is essential whatever it is. To either condem Trump or vindicate him. Likewise Putin. By refusing investigation it implies guilt.

Apparently they block any such moves in regard to Syria.
Click to expand...

It was a UN security council motion they veto'd.

they are scum.
 
Sorry yes UN. Syrian govt saying US fabricated evidence to support rebels. If any truth comes out of this whoever is wrong should face war crime charges. Putin, Trump or Assad .
 
I think Trumps use of force at this time, in this place, is good strategically. It sets the scene rightly and his stated motive was a good one, I also liked the White House Press guys comment, Sean Spicer, that only people like Hitler do things like that to their own people. Why did so many people object to that? He was right.

Somebody in the world has to wave the flag at these morons who run countrIes like North Korea and Iran and pin them back, making them realise that they just can't make weapons that are totally unacceptable. Trump did it and people castigate him. I think this guys a lot more intelligent than we give him credit for.
 
Nick Real Deal - 13/4/2017 16:09

If chemical weapons are banned why is any country allowed to develop them ?
Click to expand...

they not, the international treaty which was signed in '98 by 165 countries gave them all until 2012 to destroy them - many countries still haven't destroyed their stocks. Russia supposedly did an audit of Syria's stocks and supposedly Syria were destroying them starting in 2014 - it's clear they have plenty in 'reserve' which is why the Russians are either complicit (as they gave the undertaking to the UN they had identified them and where they were) or the Syrians hoodwinked them.

It's why the Russians can't acknowledge what a lying piece of shit Assad is.
 
Welshtel - 13/4/2017 16:22

I think Trumps use of force at this time, in this place, is good strategically. It sets the scene rightly and his stated motive was a good one, I also liked the White House Press guys comment, Sean Spicer, that only people like Hitler do things like that to their own people. Why did so many people object to that? He was right.

Somebody in the world has to wave the flag at these morons who run countrIes like North Korea and Iran and pin them back, making them realise that they just can't make weapons that are totally unacceptable. Trump did it and people castigate him. I think this guys a lot more intelligent than we give him credit for.
Click to expand...

Spicer got beat up for saying "We didn’t use chemical weapons in world war two. You had someone as despicable as Hitler who didn’t even sink to using chemical weapons.”

Of course, he meant against other nations and their peoples and simply forgot that Hitler used gas to kill millions ...so the press pulled him up and in fairness to him, he immediately corrected himself, it was a piece of poor judgement - if he'd said "using chemical weapons puts Assad in the same category as Hitler" - he'd have been applauded, not beat up on for what he said - but the pressure of a rabid press conference sometimes means you speak first rather than pausing to think and then answering...

We had a great chance whilst Obama was president to bring these errant nations into line, we don't have that same level of opportunity now without some form of conflict; within 4 years both N.Korea and Iran will be capable of hitting us with ballistic weapons - what's on them may well start a nuclear exchange ..

...and Russia is supporting Iran all the way.
 
Nick Real Deal - 13/4/2017 18:41

Is it worth looking back in history to predict what happens when a nation escalates weapon capability. ?
Click to expand...

Iran and North Korea are unstable regimes one is a dictatorial theocracy that brooks no challenge to it's religious philosophy and as such is brutal in suppressing internal dissent (it executes around 1000 prisoners a year, often on the flimsiest of pretexts and has non-judicial killings by the revolutionary guards that go unopposed) and an unstable and belligerent North Korea where we should all now know how it willing starves it's own people to pursue it's ballistic and nuclear capabilities...

We could have stopped both from achieving their means of projecting fear and force, but I really do think it's too late now unless we're prepared to destroy their military capability in very very short order.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.