• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

World reacts to new chemical weapon attack in Syria

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I'm going to go have agree with DSF here. A strategic strike cratering Assad's runways would be an appropriate response. Grounds his planes for a while and does so with little to no collateral damage risk. Message sent.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
So you're OK with effectively no response (besides empty rhetoric) regarding their use of chemical weapons?
Click to expand...

Not really. I just think the alternative of a military attack on the Syrian government, who are backed by Russia whose military is physically present in Syria is worse. We can't risk war with Russia over Syria. At this point, condemning it, and condemning Russia for supporting it, and providing humanitarian aid, is our least bad option.

There is no "OK" with respect to anything about Syria these days. The word "OK" doesn't belong in the same sentence as the word "Syria" unless the word "not" precedes the word "OK."
 
woolfe9998 said:
Not really. I just think the alternative of a military attack on the Syrian government, who are backed by Russia whose military is physically present in Syria is worse. We can't risk war with Russia over Syria. At this point, condemning it, and condemning Russia for supporting it, and providing humanitarian aid, is our least bad option.

There is no "OK" with respect to anything about Syria these days. The word "OK" doesn't belong in the same sentence as the word "Syria" unless the word "not" precedes the word "OK."
Click to expand...
Qualify or parse "OK" until the cows come home, but that's what you're effectively saying. We've already tried empty rhetoric as our "least bad option".
 
MomentsofSanity said:
It's the indiscriminate nature of the weapon. It's like targeting hospitals, schools where it is known there is no military value whatsoever. There is no collateral damage with chemical weapons. You can't claim any sort of accident.

Every casualty is primary.
Click to expand...

like a drone attack at a wedding
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Qualify or parse "OK" until the cows come home, but that's what you're effectively saying. We've already tried empty rhetoric as our "least bad option".
Click to expand...

How do you suppose Putin will react when we start bombing Syrian government positions? What if we bomb a Syrian military position and there are Russian advisers embedded in it? The Russians are physically there. Maybe Obama should have bombed them back then, before Russia intervened. If so, that is on him. But looking forward, I think it's too dangerous.
 
woolfe9998 said:
How do you suppose Putin will react when we start bombing Syrian government positions? What if we bomb a Syrian military position and there are Russian advisers embedded in it? The Russians are physically there. Maybe Obama should have bombed them back then, before Russia intervened. If so, that is on him. But looking forward, I think it's too dangerous.
Click to expand...
Perhaps this an opportunity that could help deter future Russian imperialism and get us back that 'big stick of credibility' that the feckless one lost along the way.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Perhaps this an opportunity that could help deter future Russian imperialism and get us back that 'big stick of credibility' that the feckless one lost along the way.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is a possibility. It's also possible that it escalates into a direct military conflict. Even if that is less likely than not, I'm not willing to take that chance.
 
woolfe9998 said:
Yes, that is a possibility. It's also possible that it escalates into a direct military conflict. Even if that is less likely than not, I'm not willing to take that chance.
Click to expand...
And if Assad continues to use chemical weapons? What then? Just turn off the TV when the images start appearing of children profusely bleeding from the mouth? How many more of these horrific incidents must happen before you're willing to "take that chance"?
 
woolfe9998 said:
Yes, that is a possibility. It's also possible that it escalates into a direct military conflict. Even if that is less likely than not, I'm not willing to take that chance.
Click to expand...

There is an age old saying- Hope for the best, prepare to the worst.

Since Russia is a participant in all this people should ask "What is the worst that could happen" in the context of attacking Russia's proxy.
 
Good thing the war mongerer, Hillary, didn't get elected, we'd probably end up in another war!

Anyone heard from north Korea lately? That's a country Hillary surely would have gone to war with. Looks like we dodged another bullet by electing trump!



/s
 
ivwshane said:
Good thing the war mongerer, Hillary, didn't get elected, we'd probably end up in another war!

Anyone heard from north Korea lately? That's a country Hillary surely would have gone to war with. Looks like we dodged another bullet by electing trump!



/s
Click to expand...

Obama couldn't fix it. Trump can't either. That's not the fault of either. Hillary? Nope. Some things can't be fixed by anyone. I don't say that because of any feeling for or against her just that this is a no win situation. Her choices would be to do nothing or take military action and that means people continue to die by gas attacks or risk a larger conflict than intended. Hell you know I don't like Trump, but this is what it is.
 
Jesus christ .. half a million dead people over last couple of years. The war is essentially over. Putin and Assad won.
Now you want to engage? Prolong the suffering further? That is batshit crazy.
If Trump gets in on this action *now*, its the worst sleight of hand play i've ever seen and another testament to the lengths he will go to to serve his own ass.
I like Obama alot but he dropped the ball on Syria .. and that game is game-over.

EDIT : When/if Trump declares war, will he first announce it via Twitter or proper channels? My bet is on a tweet.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Obama couldn't fix it. Trump can't either. That's not the fault of either. Hillary? Nope. Some things can't be fixed by anyone. I don't say that because of any feeling for or against her just that this is a no win situation. Her choices would be to do nothing or take military action and that means people continue to die by gas attacks or risk a larger conflict than intended. Hell you know I don't like Trump, but this is what it is.
Click to expand...

I'm not blaming them for not being able to handle an unwinnable position, I'm complaining about those who said Hillary would get us into another war while that looks like the most likely outcome under a trump administration.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
And if Assad continues to use chemical weapons? What then? Just turn off the TV when the images start appearing of children profusely bleeding from the mouth? How many more of these horrific incidents must happen before you're willing to "take that chance"?
Click to expand...
What makes you so sure it wasn't the rebels? You'd better be darn sure before choosing to bomb Assad.

Let me be clear: Assad is still a monster for ever having them, but if the rebels are trying to draw us in by using them on innocents then we can't be so foolish to fall for it.
 
CZroe said:
What makes you so sure it wasn't the rebels? You'd better be darn sure before choosing to bomb Assad.

Let me be clear: Assad is still a monster for ever having them, but if the rebels are trying to draw us in by using them on innocents then we can't be so foolish to fall for it.
Click to expand...

these were Assad's weapons, no question about it.

"American intelligence has established with high confidence that a Syrian government aircraft carried out the attack."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/...responses-to-syrian-chemical-attack.html?_r=0
 
It's interesting that this happened around the same time the Nikki Haley made a statement to the effect that regime change in Syria is no longer a priority. And not to mention the Leader of the Free World initially seems to blame these attacks on Obama, instead of the people who actually carried the out the attack. It's possible Assad and Putin are emboldened by Trump administration's position on Syria. It's a way to test the United States. If the U.S. responds, they adjust their strategy accordingly. If the U.S. doesn't respond - which is what they're betting on - then they know they have a free hand to do whatever they want. Geopolitics 101. Or it is to prompt the U.S. in an even more active role in Syria, to come to the aid of Idlib. Propaganda warfare 101.

When you think about it, Assad had no good reason to gas these people. He's effectively won the civil war and this doesn't make his victory any greater. This could be specifically aimed at testing Trump & Co. and how they will react to provocation by a Russian proxy.

King Abdullah made it very clear today that he views the Israel/Palestine issue as the root cause of the disfunction in the region and that needs to be the priority. You could almost read between the lines that he was looking for some help from someone other than Jared Kuchner.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
And if Assad continues to use chemical weapons? What then? Just turn off the TV when the images start appearing of children profusely bleeding from the mouth? How many more of these horrific incidents must happen before you're willing to "take that chance"?
Click to expand...

He won't be "taking that chance" and neither will you. You should be remember that at all times. You are asking for the children of other Americans to suffer and die in a quagmire with no clear route to victory and no apparent American interests involved.

Civil wars are horrible and gruesome and Syria is no exception. The correct course of action may be to engage with China, Europe, Russia and the UN to see if the world community can come up with incentives for Assad (and his opponents) not to engage in genocidal atrocities. Unilaterally running in like a bull in a china closet may feel good but it is doubtful that the outcome will be good.
 
VRAMdemon said:
King Abdullah made it very clear today that he views the Israel/Palestine issue as the root cause of the disfunction in the region and that needs to be the priority. You could almost read between the lines that he was looking for some help from someone other than Jared Kuchner.
Click to expand...

Tribalism is no factor at all?
 
alien42 said:
these were Assad's weapons, no question about it.

"American intelligence has established with high confidence that a Syrian government aircraft carried out the attack."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/...responses-to-syrian-chemical-attack.html?_r=0
Click to expand...

The Syrian government carried out an air strike. That's the full extent of those printed words.
And if that airstrike hit a chemical stockpile?

How would we know the difference?
No where in that article is it printed that we do.
Because we don't know.
 
Trump says Syrian chemical attack 'crossed many lines'


193875_600.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top