[News] Syria/Russia/UN/Trump/Chemical Attack (think that’s it all covered)....

[larus]

Can’t see a thread on the recent ‘chemical’ attack in Syria by the Assad regime (if we believe the reports).

What do we make of it all?

Was there a chemical attack (or is it fabrication/propaganda)?
If there was, then it’s 99% certain to be the result of Assad and by implication, Russia, as he wouldn’t do it without their support, either explicit or implicit.
Do we think the Salisbury attack was the Russians or have the British got this wrong?


If the attacks are directly or indirectly linked to Russia, what is the purpose of the UN? Seriously. Whenever there are major issues, the UN can never resolve them, as one or more of the permanent members of the council will vote against.

Would you support the UK government if it takes part in action in Syria to stop the chemical attacks and weaken the Syrian Army? If we get asked by he US/France to partake (bearing in mind they supported us in expelling diplomats from Russia over the Salisbury attack). I know they are different, but if we asked for help in the future they may be more reluctant if we don’t stand with them.

Should we just keep having pretend discussions at the UN, knowing that this will never achieve anything so the rogue/bully-boy states will keep doing this stuff?

Personally, I believe that Russia is at the root of this and the West needs to start pushing back. I know war doesn’t really solve problems, but it does make the other side more wary if they get a bloody nose rather then just a few harsh words.

I’ll say one thing - there is no easy answer. Too many frigging egotistical nutjobs in positions of power. China, Russia, US, N.Korea.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Its a 'no' from me.

 

[Eeyore]

If there was a chemical attack, as is possible, it is not necessarily the work of Assad.

The town itself was about to be handed over to the Syrian government in return for a right to passage for the rebel forces and their families. There were also 3,000 hostages that the rebels had taken who they were refused passage for.

So questions have to asked:

1) Why would Assad attack a town with banned weapons that his forces had been granted occupation of ?

2) If the hostages could not be taken what would the rebel forces (Islamic militants) do about them given their strategic value ?

It is known that the rebel forces, in some areas, have access to chemical weapons.

So other possibilities have to be considered.

1) There was no attack.

2) The attack was perpetrated by the militants themselves to turn others against Assad.

3) The leak came from an attack on a nearby arms dump that contained chemical weapons after it was bombed by the Syrian air force.

These are all as plausible as the suggestion that Assad was behind it.

The trouble is the smoke and mirrors that exist. People talk about this war as though it is good v evil. Various international governments have agendas to follow. The fact is that the west is fighting a territorial war with Russia and others. People in this country seem convinced Assad is the only enemy because the UK is against him. But when May starts talking about supporting 'moderate' rebels- of which there are none- you realise that it is more complicated than that.

 

[mothy]

Russia says there was no chemical attack. So that's that

 

[sir albion]

Don't get what the fuss is all about as the west has dropped thousands of bombs and killed many yet a chemical attack seems to be far worse apparently lol
Another excuse to get involved in another pointless war? Yes

When will we ever learn that you can't win or get anywhere pissing around in the Middle East.....Just all pull out and leave them to it.I mean how many countries and firepower does it take to deal with a small country like Syria ?

It's all a load of shite with no end product possible !!

 

[LVGull]

Oil is the end product.

 

[knocky1]

Israel/Hezbollah/Iran/Saudis/Houthi rebels/Kurds/Turkey (still not quiet covered)........

 

[Eeyore]

Can’t see a thread on the recent ‘chemical’ attack in Syria by the Assad regime (if we believe the reports).

What do we make of it all?

Was there a chemical attack (or is it fabrication/propaganda)?
If there was, then it’s 99% certain to be the result of Assad and by implication, Russia, as he wouldn’t do it without their support, either explicit or implicit.
Do we think the Salisbury attack was the Russians or have the British got this wrong?


If the attacks are directly or indirectly linked to Russia, what is the purpose of the UN? Seriously. Whenever there are major issues, the UN can never resolve them, as one or more of the permanent members of the council will vote against.

Would you support the UK government if it takes part in action in Syria to stop the chemical attacks and weaken the Syrian Army? If we get asked by he US/France to partake (bearing in mind they supported us in expelling diplomats from Russia over the Salisbury attack). I know they are different, but if we asked for help in the future they may be more reluctant if we don’t stand with them.

Should we just keep having pretend discussions at the UN, knowing that this will never achieve anything so the rogue/bully-boy states will keep doing this stuff?

Personally, I believe that Russia is at the root of this and the West needs to start pushing back. I know war doesn’t really solve problems, but it does make the other side more wary if they get a bloody nose rather then just a few harsh words.

I’ll say one thing - there is no easy answer. Too many frigging egotistical nutjobs in positions of power. China, Russia, US, N.Korea.

No.

The war in Syria will only end once the Syrian forces have won their final battle. Western intervention has prolonged this war enough. It cannot be won- not unless a huge number of ground troops were committed and that means war with Russia. And even when that battle was won, as is unlikely, we would have regime change. Look at the history...

People have to accept this. It's been going on for seven years. And the opposition- so often backed by western governments- is a hideous mix of the very people we claim to be trying to rid the planet of.

 

[vegster]

I think the West has been hoping for a successful assassination of Assad, he can never rule the whole country properly again unless its supported by a reign of terror from the secret police, and his Iranian supporters. This will eventually stir up enough revulsion for another " popular " uprising. Sadly I can't see and end to this while Assad, is in the country.

 

[portslade seagull]

I think the West has been hoping for a successful assassination of Assad, he can never rule the whole country properly again unless its supported by a reign of terror from the secret police, and his Iranian supporters. This will eventually stir up enough revulsion for another " popular " uprising. Sadly I can't see and end to this while Assad, is in the country.

Am I right in thinking Assad went to public school over here

 

[Hyperion]

The US and the Russians trading blows at the UN Security Council meeting. Great

 

[StonehamPark]

When will we ever learn that you can't win or get anywhere pissing around in the Middle East.....

Regain control of oil fields and pipelines.
$$$ talks.

 

[vegster]

Am I right in thinking Assad went to public school over here

Not sure, I think his Mrs was brought up over here though. After yesterday in the UN we might see Trump lash out militarily..

 

[cloud]

Am I right in thinking Assad went to public school over here

No, he went to school in Damascus and then studied for a post-graduate qualification at a hospital in London.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Don't get what the fuss is all about as the west has dropped thousands of bombs and killed many yet a chemical attack seems to be far worse apparently lol

You mean apart from the fact that chemcial weapons are indiscrimate and provide for an exceptionly painful, and in some cases slow and drawn out, death ? Never mind that all countires in the world have agreed to ban then them bar four which are run by terrorists, dictators or madmen ? And ironically Syria has agreed to not use them despite being run by a terrorist, dictator and mad man.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

It's a mess and no mistake.

But if we do nothing, I believe this will lead to even greater atrocities.

We are between a rock and a hard place, but to sit back and watch, IMHO is not the best option.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

The U.S has hardly got the moral high ground here, given its use of white phosphorus and depleted uranium in Fallujah just a few years ago.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-considine/us-depleted-uranium-as-ma_b_3812888.html

They are all egotistical power-men, Putin, Trump, Assad, Erdogan . Xi JinPing. I fear for world.
No , I would not support British involvement.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

You mean apart from the fact that chemcial weapons are indiscrimate and provide for an exceptionly painful, and in some cases slow and drawn out, death ? Never mind that all countires in the world have agreed to ban then them bar four which are run by terrorists, dictators or madmen ? And ironically Syria has agreed to not use them despite being run by a terrorist, dictator and mad man.

Hospitals have been bombed too.

 

[vegster]

The Daily Mail today leading with " May's war on Prostrate Cancer "... Odd that a paper that was so critical of Corbyn for not being tough enough on the Russian nerve agent attack chooses to ignore Assad's chemical attack on civilians?

Do Syrian lives not count I wonder?

We could even be close to WW3 if Russian bases in Syria are targeted, but good old Mrs May...

 

[studio150]

Just shows how toothless the UN is given its current rules.

Many believe that Russia is involved, and a stand must be made against the use of chemical weapons to stop them becoming legitimised. However as Russia are permanent members of the UN security council, they can just use their veto to stop anything meaningful happening under the UN. The UN rules need to change so that in circumstances such as this, Russia is excluded from the debate and cannot use their veto.

The other major issue is how will Trump react. Given the ongoing 'witch hunt' (his words) he may well want an overseas conflict to flex American military might, to play well domestically and to divert attention from the ongoing investigation.

The concern here is how would Russia react, and even if Russia stood down, there is then the power vacuum in Syria which may well last years, and the west does not have a good record at rebuilding defeated countries in the middle east.

Mrs May will no doubt have to support the Americans regardless of what they do, due in part to the international support on a Salisbury incident.

Where does this leave us?

On the brink and all leaders need to count to 10 before reacting