Trump unleashes military strikes against Assad airbase in Syria

[Thorgal]

 
The only relevant bit is Russia's treaties with Syria. Saying that they apply "with or without Assad" is dependent on which alternative government is referred to.
 
The "self defense" argument, based on previous Russian interventions in Afghanistan and Chechnya is inane. See my previous post.
 
That there are veteran Jihadis of those campaigns fighting in Syria does not make it any less so. In accordance with this logic, the Russians have a standing justification to intervene wherever these appear.
 
 
 

Again, I'm not partisan.

None of the Western countries having foreign jihadis is eager to take them back, no, instead they favour a military intervention under a coalition.

Russia has also, many Russian citizens involved as foreign jihadis in Syria, but you qualify it as a deflection.
Self defense for Russia is inane ? Knowing that every potential returning jihadi is a menace to society.

Russia military intervention since the fall of USSR was only on request by the sovereign states implicated. So yes it's justified.

Putin and China explained clearly that there won't be a second Lybia in Syria.

On the other hand it's rather naive to persist that Afghan and Chechnya veterans went to Syria to bring democracy to the Syrian people...




Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Morch]

16 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

Nobody is trying to defend the Russians, that is a stupid thing to say. You are just being presented with facts. It is a fact that Russia has full Syrian Government agreement to be there and to act in a defensive manner. The US does not have any agreements and it's attack on Syria was potentially an act of war (we can let the men with thin arms argue it out) on a sovereign territory. Your argument that Syria is bombing civilians unfortunately has nothing to support it (as a reason to strike). Innocent civilians are being bombed in Yemen and the US is doing nothing, Innocent civilians are being killed throughout Africa and the US are doing nothing. Trump SHOULD have gone to Congress.

 

Today, official tweets from Russian Diplomatic sources have threatened that all of this may well result in a conventional war. If that happens there will be mountains of dead innocent children and babies.

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/08/boris-johnson-spearhead-diplomatic-drive-get-russian-forces/

 

There are actually posters on this topic who do defend the Russians.

 

Russia's agreement is with Assad's regime, the legitimacy of which is under question. I'd agree that's more to stand on than the US, when it comes to legalities, but it ain't that much.

 

Russia making threats is nothing new. What reason, precisely, would Russia have to go to war? Was Russia attacked?

[Andaman Al]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

That no one seems to have a good plan of how to deal with Syria if Assad is deposed, or even if he stays and the war is over - doesn't make the Russian intervention and Assad's practices any more palatable or right.

No it does not make it more palatable or right you are correct, but your main point is well made. No one seems to have a plan. 

 

Have we learned nothing. Now the US Ambassador to the UN is saying regime change in Syria is unavoidable. OK, well the first journalist should ask her "so what is the US Plan after regime change" ? there isn't one! This is a very very risky game being played on thin ice by Trump at the moment. Maybe Trump wants a war as he believes it will make him popular, the problem is he is heading for a war 100 times bigger than he is planning on. Buy Gold!

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

Again, I'm not partisan.

None of the Western countries having foreign jihadis is eager to take them back, no, instead they favour a military intervention under a coalition.

Russia has also, many Russian citizens involved as foreign jihadis in Syria, but you qualify it as a deflection.
Self defense for Russia is inane ? Knowing that every potential returning jihadi is a menace to society.

Russia military intervention since the fall of USSR was only on request by the sovereign states implicated. So yes it's justified.

Putin and China explained clearly that there won't be a second Lybia in Syria.

On the other hand it's rather naive to persist that Afghan and Chechnya veterans went to Syria to bring democracy to the Syrian people...




Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

Again, I'm not partisan.

 

Pull the other one.

 

 

And yes, you deflect. Having a country's civilians (and I'm guess you're making the comment tongue in cheek, considering many of them do will consider themselves as anything but Russian) fighting abroad is not a free pass to intervene wherever these pop up.

 

Russia military intervention since the fall of USSR was only on request by the sovereign states implicated.

 

See the first line in the post.

 

On the other hand it's rather naive to persist that Afghan and Chechnya veterans went to Syria to bring democracy to the Syrian people...

 

It wasn't claimed by me, or by anyone else on this topic.

 

[Andaman Al]

16 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

There are actually posters on this topic who do defend the Russians.

 

Russia's agreement is with Assad's regime, the legitimacy of which is under question. I'd agree that's more to stand on than the US, when it comes to legalities, but it ain't that much.

 

Russia making threats is nothing new. What reason, precisely, would Russia have to go to war? Was Russia attacked?

Line 1: Fair enough.

 

Line 3: Not sure of Russia's precise reasons. They are rutting, and will not be backed in to a corner on this by the G7, it has got to the point where the matter cannot be taken lightly. Unlike N Korea who threaten war and destruction to the West every other week, this is not the type of threat that comes often from Russia. The problem is that Trump knows as much about diplomacy as he does about Quantum physics or integrity, his only tactic he has ever known is to attack aggressively and that is a strategy that whilst effective in the real estate business should be avoided with Russia and international politics. The US would likely win but I am not sure in the aftermath those of us left would have considered it worth it.

Edited April 9, 2017 by Andaman Al

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

No it does not make it more palatable or right you are correct, but your main point is well made. No one seems to have a plan. 

 

Have we learned nothing. Now the US Ambassador to the UN is saying regime change in Syria is unavoidable. OK, well the first journalist should ask her "so what is the US Plan after regime change" ? there isn't one! This is a very very risky game being played on thin ice by Trump at the moment. Maybe Trump wants a war as he believes it will make him popular, the problem is he is heading for a war 100 times bigger than he is planning on. Buy Gold!

 

Indeed, no plan. Same was true for the previous administrations.

 

Taking anything the Trump administration says seriously is problematic. One week deposing Assad is not a goal, a week later it is. Before the elections it was no-intervention-in-Syria, now it's pull-up-G-12-please. Who knows what position they'll be sporting next week.

 

I don't think there's much danger of things heading toward war. Not at this point, at least. Saber-rattling and chest-thumping are to be expected. Especially not on the cards if this was indeed a Trump move aimed at pulling attention from the Russia Connection issues.

 

Buying gold now is a bit too late. Oil, though, will go up if things escalate, so will certain arms manufacturers and secondary industries. Steel too.

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

Line 1: Fair enough.

 

Line 3: Not sure of Russia's precise reasons. They are rutting, and will not be backed in to a corner on this by the G7, it has got to the point where the matter cannot be taken lightly. Unlike N Korea who threaten war and destruction to the West every other week, this is not the type of threat that comes often from Russia. The problem is that Trump knows as much about diplomacy as he does about Quantum physics or integrity, his only tactic he has ever known is to attack aggressively and that is a strategy that whilst effective in the real estate business should be avoided with Russia and international politics. The US would likely win but I am not sure in the aftermath those of us left would have considered it worth it.

 

Reasons for what? Making tough talk? Its customary under the circumstances.

 

If this isn't scripted according to some Trump-Russia connection, than it's same old. One superpower pushes, the other pushes back. World War over Syria? Without any direct confrontation up to this point? Don't think so.

 

If it is scripted according to the same, then it will come to naught as well - after the drama will be played out.Not much to gain by a real war.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

The Russians and Assad's forces aren't very discriminant when it comes to opponents and civilians. Killing the latter seems to be at odds with the supposed underlying cause - saving Syria (unless, that is Syria equates with Assad). 

 

From a utilitarian (or even cynical) point of view, letting Assad and Russia deal with things might be the answer for some. As pointed out earlier, I have little doubt that some of those advocating it will have no compunctions blaming the US for standing aside and letting it happen, when this will serve.

 

That no one seems to have a good plan of how to deal with Syria if Assad is deposed, or even if he stays and the war is over - doesn't make the Russian intervention and Assad's practices any more palatable or right.

No, but it does make overthrowing Assad seriously stupid.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

No, but it does make overthrowing Assad seriously stupid.

 

Assad's rule is not a magic solution to Syria's woes. Right now, deposing him (especially without much clue what comes next) would probably do more harm than good. A ways down the line? Maybe not such a stupid idea. Of course, with the caveat that there's some realistic reasoning behind it. If it was done in the early days of the conflict, perhaps things would have been different (for better or worse, not claiming otherwise), but that's water under the bridge.

 

As is stands, not only does the US does not have a real vision of post-Assad or post-war Syria, it doesn't even have a consistent policy with regard to the present. This was bad enough during Obama's term, and doubtful that it would improve under Trump.

[Jingthing]

Risks are abundant as is the incompetence in the trump regime "leading" their Syria non-policy (raising the risk):

 

Quote

 

When Secretary of State Rex Tillerson travels to Moscow this week, topic No. 1 will be Syria — and the stakes could not be higher. If the Trump administration and the Kremlin are not able to come to a meeting of the minds on Syria, it could set the two nuclear powers on a dangerous collision course.

...

As the afterglow and applause of the missile strikes fade, finding a way to advance American interests in Syria while avoiding a war with Russia is the urgent task at hand. After all, sinking into a Syrian quagmire would be bad enough. World War III would be far worse.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/04/09/what-could-go-wrong-for-the-u-s-in-syria-war-with-russia/

 

No, it's not that I don't value in pushing back against Assad's war crimes, it's just that I the current U.S. regime clearly doesn't have its act together and that's dangerous. No point in talking about Obama's Syria mistakes now ... we're past that. 

Edited April 9, 2017 by Jingthing

[stevenl]

10 hours ago, Morch said:

 

As said, that's not the argument I was making.

There are actually posters who do condone the Russian intervention, on this very topic.

Russia will veto any UNSC resolution that goes against its interests. You seem to be ok with this. When the same is applied on other matters, by the US, you object.

On all accounts, except for 'Russia will veto any UNSC resolution that goes against its interests.'  nonsense.

 

And since you're willing to make up arguments there is no point in this.

[Andaman Al]

I just new it !!!

 

Quote

Ivanka Trump 'pushed for her father to bomb Syria'

 

Quote

Donald Trump’s daughter persuaded him to strike targets in Syria, according to reports of a diplomatic memo.

 

A cable briefing to Theresa May and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson by Britain’s ambassador to Washington Sir Kim Darroch said Ms Trump was influential in bringing about the bombings, those who saw the memo said.

 

Sources who read the message said the first daughter's position on the atrocity was a “significant influence in the Oval Office”. Ministers were told it meant the administration’s reaction was “stronger than expected”.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/ivanka-trump-donald-bomb-air-strikes-sir-kim-darroch-syria-chemical-attack-sarin-idlib-province-a7674951.html

 

Absolutely great. First steps to a war between super powers by the Daughter whose only experience is in copying other designers lines of shoes and clothes. Well done Trump voters, you have responsibility for this.

[craigt3365]

11 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

Nobody is trying to defend the Russians, that is a stupid thing to say. You are just being presented with facts. It is a fact that Russia has full Syrian Government agreement to be there and to act in a defensive manner. The US does not have any agreements and it's attack on Syria was potentially an act of war (we can let the men with thin arms argue it out) on a sovereign territory. Your argument that Syria is bombing civilians unfortunately has nothing to support it (as a reason to strike). Innocent civilians are being bombed in Yemen and the US is doing nothing, Innocent civilians are being killed throughout Africa and the US are doing nothing. Trump SHOULD have gone to Congress.

 

Today, official tweets from Russian Diplomatic sources have threatened that all of this may well result in a conventional war. If that happens there will be mountains of dead innocent children and babies.

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/08/boris-johnson-spearhead-diplomatic-drive-get-russian-forces/

It's also a fact that Russia is bombing innocent civilians.  Something that's not defensive.  Don't deflect to Yemen.  This is about Syria.  Where foreign powers (Russia, Iran, etc) have killed thousands of innocent civilians.  So yes, I'm still amazed some support these actions.

 

Congrats to Johnson.  Time to stop the insanity.  You support this?  I sure hope not.

http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-isis-civilian-deaths-united-nations-syria-2016-8

Quote

Report: In less than a year, Russia has killed more civilians than ISIS

 

[LannaGuy]

9 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Assad's rule is not a magic solution to Syria's woes. Right now, deposing him (especially without much clue what comes next) would probably do more harm than good. A ways down the line? Maybe not such a stupid idea. Of course, with the caveat that there's some realistic reasoning behind it. If it was done in the early days of the conflict, perhaps things would have been different (for better or worse, not claiming otherwise), but that's water under the bridge.

 

As is stands, not only does the US does not have a real vision of post-Assad or post-war Syria, it doesn't even have a consistent policy with regard to the present. This was bad enough during Obama's term, and doubtful that it would improve under Trump.

This is the point... it's not about loving Assad it's about the chaos (Iraq/Libya style) afterwards and the mass killings and retributions that would follow. The rebels are mostly ISIS and all this is about that Pipe anyway (sound familiar?)  Oil, Oil, Oil  

[Andaman Al]

2 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Time to stop the insanity.  You support this?  I sure hope not.

I do not support ANY of it.

 

The insanity has only just started! Watch and wait!

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, LannaGuy said:

This is the point... it's not about loving Assad it's about the chaos (Iraq/Libya style) afterwards and the mass killings and retributions that would follow. The rebels are mostly ISIS and all this is about that Pipe anyway (sound familiar?)  Oil, Oil, Oil  

Many rebels were not initially part of ISIS.  They joined after attacks by Russia and Syria.  There is no way it can get any worse.  Stop the bombing of innocent civilians.  They deserve better.

[craigt3365]

12 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

I do not support ANY of it.

 

The insanity has only just started! Watch and wait!

The insanity started years ago with Assad's brutal crackdown on protesters.  No way can it get any worse.  Impossible.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37534094

Quote

Syria conflict: Besieged areas of Aleppo a 'living hell'

 

[ilostmypassword]

19 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

The insanity started years ago with Assad's brutal crackdown on protesters.  No way can it get any worse.  Impossible.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37534094

 

No way it can get any worse for Syrians? Maybe. No way it can get worse for the rest of the Middle East? Really?

[ilostmypassword]

34 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Many rebels were not initially part of ISIS.  They joined after attacks by Russia and Syria.  There is no way it can get any worse.  Stop the bombing of innocent civilians.  They deserve better.

I love the vagueness of "Many rebels were not initially part of ISIS" It's certainlyl a statement that's impossible to refute unless you define how many is "many"?

[craigt3365]

8 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

No way it can get any worse for Syrians? Maybe. No way it can get worse for the rest of the Middle East? Really?

This thread is about Syria, not the entire ME. 

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, craigt3365 said:

This thread is about Syria, not the entire ME. 

No, this thread is about Trump's attack on Syria and, among other things, its consequences.  This is like saying that a discussion of America's invasion of Iraq should only be confined to its effect on Iraqis. Nice try.

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I love the vagueness of "Many rebels were not initially part of ISIS" It's certainlyl a statement that's impossible to refute unless you define how many is "many"?

Easy to research this.  Maybe this helps:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/01/main-u-s-backed-syrian-rebel-group-disbanding-joining-islamists.html

 

Quote

 

Main U.S.-Backed Syrian Rebel Group Disbanding, Joining Islamists

One of the last moderate Syrian rebel groups trusted by Washington is waving the white flag—and picking up the Islamists’ black one.

 

 

 

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

No, this thread is about Trump's attack on Syria and, among other things, its consequences.  This is like saying that a discussion of America's invasion of Iraq should only be confined to its effect on Iraqis. Nice try.

Exactly!  This thread is about Trump's attack on Syria.  Not the entire ME.  Not Yemen, not Libya, etc.

[LannaGuy]

10 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Exactly!  This thread is about Trump's attack on Syria.  Not the entire ME.  Not Yemen, not Libya, etc.

isn't it, ultimately, about a pipe?

[craigt3365]

3 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

isn't it, ultimately, about a pipe?

I believe the initial spark was the Arab Spring uprisings.  Russia has been involved with Syria for a long time.  Syria is in the top 10 weapons buyers for Russia.  This is worth billions of dollars to Russia, who desperately needs the cash.

 

I have read about a gas pipeline that was proposed.  From Qatar?  It was going to supply gas to Europe, reducing the strangle hold Russia has on Europe.  Russia is also meddling in Georgia and Armenia with regards to a gas pipeline there.  So this is a possibility.  But most articles about this are from conspiracy theory websites.  This is a reputable media site, so could be true:

 

http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/is-the-fight-over-a-gas-pipeline-fuelling-the-worlds-bloodiest-conflict/news-story/74efcba9554c10bd35e280b63a9afb74

 

Quote

 

THE Syrian war often seems like a big confusing mess but one factor that is not often mentioned could be the key to unlocking the conflict.

 

Some experts have pointed out that many of the key players have one thing in common: a billion-dollar gas pipeline.

Factor in this detail and suddenly the war begins to make more sense, here’s how it works:

IT’S THE GAS, STUPID

 

 

 

Interesting read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War

 

[Orac]

Don't forget Russia's need for the warm water port at Tartus.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/warm-water-port.htm

[metisdead]

A post containing off topic deflection comments has been removed. 

[thaihome]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

I believe the initial spark was the Arab Spring uprisings.  Russia has been involved with Syria for a long time.  Syria is in the top 10 weapons buyers for Russia.  This is worth billions of dollars to Russia, who desperately needs the cash.

 

I have read about a gas pipeline that was proposed.  From Qatar?  It was going to supply gas to Europe, reducing the strangle hold Russia has on Europe.  Russia is also meddling in Georgia and Armenia with regards to a gas pipeline there.  So this is a possibility.  But most articles about this are from conspiracy theory websites.  This is a reputable media site, so could be true:

 

http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/is-the-fight-over-a-gas-pipeline-fuelling-the-worlds-bloodiest-conflict/news-story/74efcba9554c10bd35e280b63a9afb74

 

 

 

Interesting read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War

 

Please note the very last line in the quoted article from the "expert" used as  source for the theory the Syrian civil war is all about conflicting pipeline plans. 

 

...Prof Orenstein believes it’s more of a “free for all”, with the fight over natural gas acting as just another fuel.

 

Qatar has spent and continues to spend billions in LNG exporting facilities and is very happy to ship liquefied gas to customers all over the world. The idea of  pipeline from Qatar through Saudi Arabia and Syria was never seriously considered, primarily because Saudi Arabia would never allow it and the total cost and unstability of it route make in unfeasible.  The only people promoting this theory are conspiracy theorists. 

TH 

 

The supposedly competing Iranian route rose to prominence only in July 2011, with the Syrian revolt already under way, and seems more a gesture of Iranian solidarity to its allies in Baghdad and Damascus. The short length of its pipeline to Iraq has been repeatedly delayed by attacks in the volatile province of Diyala; a continuation through Anbar in western Iraq would have been even more vulnerable.

 

The theory, as with so much misinformation about the Syrian conflict, is dangerous. It turns Mr Al Assad from perpetrator to victim. It paints the Syrian opposition as unwitting pawns of foreign agents. And in simplifying the causes of a very complex war, it makes a diplomatic solution even less likely.

http://www.thenational.ae/business/energy/robin-mills-syrias-gas-pipeline-theory-is-a-low-budget-drama

 

 

TH

 

 

 

[F4UCorsair]

I note that the absurd contention that Trump's daughter put him up to it was given no oxygen here.....one post, then nothing.

[Andaman Al]

6 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

It's also a fact that Russia is bombing innocent civilians.  Something that's not defensive.  Don't deflect to Yemen.  This is about Syria. 

So you want to issue punishment to Russia for taking certain actions but say that citing the same actions by the USA is a 'deflection'. Are  the lunatics running the asylum?

 

Before a major conflict breaks out can you send your message to Putin that this bombing is only over Syria and what the Russians are doing there and that it is nothing to do with anything else and whatever the US is doing anywhere else cannot be included in the thought process. That ought to reduce world tensions.