Go Back  British Expats > Living & Moving Abroad > Canada > The Maple Leaf
Reload this Page >

US hit back at Syrian airbase

US hit back at Syrian airbase

Old Apr 7th 2017, 6:10 pm
  #31  
Listen to the Music
 
dave_j's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2013
Location: Fraser Valley BC
Posts: 4,649
dave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: US hit back at Syrian airbase

Originally Posted by Danny B
I think most civilised countries support retaliation against chemical attacks.
I agree, but the questions are 'Who did it?' and 'Who benefits?', 'Where are the bomb fragments coated with residue?', 'Why take the risk?'

The Iraq debacle illustrates the menace of unreliable intelligence.
dave_j is offline  
Old Apr 7th 2017, 6:29 pm
  #32  
Yo
 
Shard's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,459
Shard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: US hit back at Syrian airbase

After five awkward years on the sidelines, this? Trump was obviously itching to pull the trigger for his own warped purposes.
Shard is offline  
Old Apr 7th 2017, 6:38 pm
  #33  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
mrken30's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: Portlandia Metro
Posts: 7,425
mrken30 has a reputation beyond reputemrken30 has a reputation beyond reputemrken30 has a reputation beyond reputemrken30 has a reputation beyond reputemrken30 has a reputation beyond reputemrken30 has a reputation beyond reputemrken30 has a reputation beyond reputemrken30 has a reputation beyond reputemrken30 has a reputation beyond reputemrken30 has a reputation beyond reputemrken30 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: US hit back at Syrian airbase

Originally Posted by dave_j
I agree, but the questions are 'Who did it?' and 'Who benefits?', 'Where are the bomb fragments coated with residue?', 'Why take the risk?'

The Iraq debacle illustrates the menace of unreliable intelligence.
Exactly

mrken30 is offline  
Old Apr 7th 2017, 8:00 pm
  #34  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Almost Canadian's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: South of Calgary
Posts: 13,373
Almost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: US hit back at Syrian airbase

Originally Posted by dave_j
I agree, but the questions are 'Who did it?' and 'Who benefits?', 'Where are the bomb fragments coated with residue?', 'Why take the risk?'

The Iraq debacle illustrates the menace of unreliable intelligence.
It has been widely reported that sarin was used. Sarin is not bombed (as the explosion would destroy the sarin) so there will not be any bomb fragments coated with sarin.

I am baffled by your expression of "Who benefits?" If this is directed at the sarin attack, ones assumes those dispersing the sarin benefit when it kills their opponents. If this is directed at who benefits from the bombing of the airbase - I would argue that those that may have been killed during another chemical attack are likely somewhat grateful.

Why take the risk? What risk? Cruise missiles were used (minimal risk to those using them) and it would appear that the number of casualties at the bombing site were minimal. It almost appears to be a perfect scenario - inflict maximum damage upon one's foe while exposing oneself to minimal risk.

Out of interest, what would you have done?

Last edited by Almost Canadian; Apr 7th 2017 at 8:04 pm.
Almost Canadian is offline  
Old Apr 7th 2017, 10:16 pm
  #35  
Listen to the Music
 
dave_j's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2013
Location: Fraser Valley BC
Posts: 4,649
dave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: US hit back at Syrian airbase

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
It has been widely reported that sarin was used. Sarin is not bombed (as the explosion would destroy the sarin) so there will not be any bomb fragments coated with sarin.
I am baffled by your expression of "Who benefits?" If this is directed at the sarin attack, ones assumes those dispersing the sarin benefit when it kills their opponents. If this is directed at who benefits from the bombing of the airbase - I would argue that those that may have been killed during another chemical attack are likely somewhat grateful.
Why take the risk? What risk? Cruise missiles were used (minimal risk to those using them) and it would appear that the number of casualties at the bombing site were minimal. It almost appears to be a perfect scenario - inflict maximum damage upon one's foe while exposing oneself to minimal risk.
Out of interest, what would you have done?
Ah, I haven't been clear as usual.
Not all bombs explode. Presumably if sarin had been delivered in a container, then fragments should still exist and residues will be present. There may or may not be notation on the container that may betray origin. It is to be expected that if such a container existed then it would be in the interests of anti-Assad groups to ensure that it would be made available.
The question of who benefits adresses the consequences of the act.
If Assad's forces delivered the agent then he would have gained by extending his reign of terror and by increasing the body count. However his extensive use of other munitions would minimise this effect since they are as indiscriminate as the use of sarin.
If however others delivered the agent then we mast ask what they seek to gain and the answers are self evident given the subsequent events and the effect is the same.
It's also concievable that third parties could have been involved, for example other sunni groups or to stretch a point the israelis. The latter would gain by bringing the US into the conflict to ensure it's active engagement against Assad.
The risk I mentioned was not taken by the US. I meant that Assad would be taking the risk by using the agent. My question adressed the risk taken by Assad and asked why he would take it, it was not a rational thing to do.
You ask what I would have done.
Trump seems to forget that this isn't Dodge City and he isn't Wyart Earp. The use of force in the Middle East by a third party not directly involved in the conflict needs to be well supported by evidence. I would have collated what evidence I had and if as damning as Trump must have believed, I would have presented it to the UN much as Adlai Stevenson did during the Cuban missile crisis. This would have placed Russia on the spot, would have silenced any critics and legitimised any subsequent action. If such evidence was unavailable or unconvincing then the action by Trump can only be seen as cavalier at best.

Last edited by dave_j; Apr 8th 2017 at 12:09 am.
dave_j is offline  
Old Apr 7th 2017, 10:25 pm
  #36  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
mrken30's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: Portlandia Metro
Posts: 7,425
mrken30 has a reputation beyond reputemrken30 has a reputation beyond reputemrken30 has a reputation beyond reputemrken30 has a reputation beyond reputemrken30 has a reputation beyond reputemrken30 has a reputation beyond reputemrken30 has a reputation beyond reputemrken30 has a reputation beyond reputemrken30 has a reputation beyond reputemrken30 has a reputation beyond reputemrken30 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: US hit back at Syrian airbase

Originally Posted by dave_j
Ah, I haven't been clear as usual.
Not all bombs explode. Presumably if sarin had been delivered in a container, then fragments should still exist and residues will be present. There may or may not be notation on the container that may betray origin. It is to be expected that if such a container existed then it would be in the interests of anti-Assad groups to ensure that it would be made available.
The question of who benefits adresses the consequences of the act.
If Assad's forces delivered the agent then he would have gained by extending his reign of terror and by increasing the body count. However his extensive use of other munitions would minimise this effect since they are as indiscriminate as the use of sarin.
If however others delivered the agent then we mast ask what they seek to gain and the answers are self evident given the subsequent events and the effect is the same.
It's also concievable that third parties could have been involved, for example other sunni groups or to stretch a point the israelis. The latter would gain by bringing the US into the conflict to ensure it's active engagement against Assad.
The risk I mentioned was not taken by the US. I meant that Assad would be taking the risk by using the agent. My question adressed the risk taken by Assad and asked why he would take it, it was not a rational thing to do.
You ask what I would have done.
Trump seems to forget that this isn't Dodge City and he isn't Wyart Earp. The use of force in the Middle East by a third party not directly involved in the conflict needs to be well supported by evidence. I would have collated what evidence I had and if as damning as Trump must have believed, I would have presented it to the UN much as Adlai Stevenson did during the Cuban missile crisis. This would have placed Russia on the spot, would have silenced any critics and legitimised any subsequent action. If such evidence was unavailable or unconvincing then the action by Trump can only be seen as cavalier at best.
I am totally with you on this opinion, however many people seem to be siding with Trump.
mrken30 is offline  
Old Apr 7th 2017, 11:46 pm
  #37  
Dichotomus tinker
 
not2old's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 6,660
not2old has a reputation beyond reputenot2old has a reputation beyond reputenot2old has a reputation beyond reputenot2old has a reputation beyond reputenot2old has a reputation beyond reputenot2old has a reputation beyond reputenot2old has a reputation beyond reputenot2old has a reputation beyond reputenot2old has a reputation beyond reputenot2old has a reputation beyond reputenot2old has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: US hit back at Syrian airbase

is there going to be another overnight missile attack - hopefully so
not2old is offline  
Old Apr 7th 2017, 11:56 pm
  #38  
BE Forum Addict
 
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 2,900
carcajou has a reputation beyond reputecarcajou has a reputation beyond reputecarcajou has a reputation beyond reputecarcajou has a reputation beyond reputecarcajou has a reputation beyond reputecarcajou has a reputation beyond reputecarcajou has a reputation beyond reputecarcajou has a reputation beyond reputecarcajou has a reputation beyond reputecarcajou has a reputation beyond reputecarcajou has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: US hit back at Syrian airbase

If American voters had wanted this, they would have just voted for Hillary Clinton, who (not surprisingly) has been upbraiding Trump for not doing this sooner.

Most of the time there really isn't a difference between Coke and Pepsi despite the slick marketing or how nauseating the bottle looks.
carcajou is offline  
Old Apr 8th 2017, 12:14 am
  #39  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Almost Canadian's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: South of Calgary
Posts: 13,373
Almost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: US hit back at Syrian airbase

Originally Posted by dave_j
Ah, I haven't been clear as usual.
Not all bombs explode. Presumably if sarin had been delivered in a container, then fragments should still exist and residues will be present. There may or may not be notation on the container that may betray origin. It is to be expected that if such a container existed then it would be in the interests of anti-Assad groups to ensure that it would be made available.
The question of who benefits adresses the consequences of the act.
If Assad's forces delivered the agent then he would have gained by extending his reign of terror and by increasing the body count. However his extensive use of other munitions would minimise this effect since they are as indiscriminate as the use of sarin.
If however others delivered the agent then we mast ask what they seek to gain and the answers are self evident given the subsequent events and the effect is the same.
It's also concievable that third parties could have been involved, for example other sunni groups or to stretch a point the israelis. The latter would gain by bringing the US into the conflict to ensure it's active engagement against Assad.
The risk I mentioned was not taken by the US. I meant that Assad would be taking the risk by using the agent. My question adressed the risk taken by Assad and asked why he would take it, it was not a rational thing to do.
You ask what I would have done.
Trump seems to forget that this isn't Dodge City and he isn't Wyart Earp. The use of force in the Middle East by a third party not directly involved in the conflict needs to be well supported by evidence. I would have collated what evidence I had and if as damning as Trump must have believed, I would have presented it to the UN much as Adlai Stevenson did during the Cuban missile crisis. This would have placed Russia on the spot, would have silenced any critics and legitimised any subsequent action. If such evidence was unavailable or unconvincing then the action by Trump can only be seen as cavalier at best.
It's my understanding that the US tracked the plane that delivered the sarin from and to the airport that then bombed.

I also believe that you are forgetting that Assad did the same thing in 2013 too.

The bombing appears to have been precise and designed to stop the immediate issue. We are not talking about blanket bombing of a city.

The world did nothing previously and I doubt they would have done anything had the US not done so. Russia has a veto on the security council Do you really believe that they would not have exercised it?

I get that people don't like Trump. I don't like him either.

The world should hold its collective head in shame at what it has permitted to happen in Syria. Collectively, it has stood by while lots of people have been killed. maimed and displaced.

The UN, in this context, is completely impotent.
Almost Canadian is offline  
Old Apr 8th 2017, 1:59 am
  #40  
BE user by choice
 
MillieF's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Location: A Briton, married to a Canadian, now in Fredericton.
Posts: 4,854
MillieF has a reputation beyond reputeMillieF has a reputation beyond reputeMillieF has a reputation beyond reputeMillieF has a reputation beyond reputeMillieF has a reputation beyond reputeMillieF has a reputation beyond reputeMillieF has a reputation beyond reputeMillieF has a reputation beyond reputeMillieF has a reputation beyond reputeMillieF has a reputation beyond reputeMillieF has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: US hit back at Syrian airbase

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
The world should hold its collective head in shame at what it has permitted to happen in Syria. Collectively, it has stood by while lots of people have been killed. maimed and displaced.

The UN, in this context, is completely impotent.
If ever a point was better put, I certainly haven't seen it
MillieF is offline  
Old Apr 8th 2017, 4:03 am
  #41  
Yo
 
Shard's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,459
Shard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: US hit back at Syrian airbase

Originally Posted by MillieF
If ever a point was better put, I certainly haven't seen it
The alternative was world war, with even greater loss of life. The shame is with the fighting factions in Syria not the UN or the West.
Shard is offline  
Old Apr 8th 2017, 4:32 am
  #42  
Listen to the Music
 
dave_j's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2013
Location: Fraser Valley BC
Posts: 4,649
dave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond reputedave_j has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: US hit back at Syrian airbase

Originally Posted by Shard
The alternative was world war, with even greater loss of life. The shame is with the fighting factions in Syria not the UN or the West.
I agree. The UN might be a talking shop but it's all that separates us from international anarchy.

The alternative is to experience every Trump in the world who thinks he has a just cause sending his gunboats to hammer anyone he thinks he doesn't like. It's why we have courts and the rule of law.
dave_j is offline  
Old Apr 8th 2017, 3:55 pm
  #43  
Edo
BE Forum Addict
 
Edo's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: Near the Northern Lights
Posts: 1,466
Edo has a reputation beyond reputeEdo has a reputation beyond reputeEdo has a reputation beyond reputeEdo has a reputation beyond reputeEdo has a reputation beyond reputeEdo has a reputation beyond reputeEdo has a reputation beyond reputeEdo has a reputation beyond reputeEdo has a reputation beyond reputeEdo has a reputation beyond reputeEdo has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: US hit back at Syrian airbase

Originally Posted by kimilseung
"hit back" Did Assad attack the US?
Good point. But that's the only person they wouldn't go for so this can keep going.

Last edited by Edo; Apr 8th 2017 at 4:55 pm.
Edo is offline  
Old Apr 8th 2017, 4:13 pm
  #44  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 9,990
morpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: US hit back at Syrian airbase

Originally Posted by dave_j
Ah, I haven't been clear as usual.
Not all bombs explode. Presumably if sarin had been delivered in a container, then fragments should still exist and residues will be present. There may or may not be notation on the container that may betray origin. It is to be expected that if such a container existed then it would be in the interests of anti-Assad groups to ensure that it would be made available.
The question of who benefits adresses the consequences of the act.
If Assad's forces delivered the agent then he would have gained by extending his reign of terror and by increasing the body count. However his extensive use of other munitions would minimise this effect since they are as indiscriminate as the use of sarin.
If however others delivered the agent then we mast ask what they seek to gain and the answers are self evident given the subsequent events and the effect is the same.
It's also concievable that third parties could have been involved, for example other sunni groups or to stretch a point the israelis. The latter would gain by bringing the US into the conflict to ensure it's active engagement against Assad.
The risk I mentioned was not taken by the US. I meant that Assad would be taking the risk by using the agent. My question adressed the risk taken by Assad and asked why he would take it, it was not a rational thing to do.
You ask what I would have done.
Trump seems to forget that this isn't Dodge City and he isn't Wyart Earp. The use of force in the Middle East by a third party not directly involved in the conflict needs to be well supported by evidence. I would have collated what evidence I had and if as damning as Trump must have believed, I would have presented it to the UN much as Adlai Stevenson did during the Cuban missile crisis. This would have placed Russia on the spot, would have silenced any critics and legitimised any subsequent action. If such evidence was unavailable or unconvincing then the action by Trump can only be seen as cavalier at best.
Or simply the evidence collected by intelligence sources was clear and convincing but Trump doesn't share the opinion of the UN being a decisive and timely group of characters to decide on policy and to get it implemented it. So Putin's ambassador to the UN is going to just roll over when facts indicate their boy Assad up to his usual no good ?

It may not have been a good decision to attack and attack on such a limited basis to have much effect on Assad, but if the only alternative is to do nothing but rely on the UN, that doesn't seem much of a choice to stop Assad using chemical warfare. Maybe if the anti-Trump forces could give their ant-Trump feelings a rest and suggest preferably alternatives that are realistic perhaps a better solution could emerge.
morpeth is offline  
Old Apr 8th 2017, 11:13 pm
  #45  
limey party pooper
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 9,979
bats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: US hit back at Syrian airbase

When did it get to be ok to use chemical weapons on military targets, ie soldiers? Quite rightly there's revulsion at the sight on children and civilians as targets but shouldn't we be equally disgusted at the use of gas in general?
bats is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.