US hit back at Syrian airbase
#31
Re: US hit back at Syrian airbase
The Iraq debacle illustrates the menace of unreliable intelligence.
#32
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.
#34
Re: US hit back at Syrian airbase
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.
#35
Re: US hit back at Syrian airbase
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?
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?
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.
#36
Re: US hit back at Syrian airbase
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.
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.
#37
Re: US hit back at Syrian airbase
is there going to be another overnight missile attack - hopefully so
#38
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 2,900
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.
Most of the time there really isn't a difference between Coke and Pepsi despite the slick marketing or how nauseating the bottle looks.
#39
Re: US hit back at Syrian airbase
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.
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 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.
#40
BE user by choice
Joined: Oct 2010
Location: A Briton, married to a Canadian, now in Fredericton.
Posts: 4,854
Re: US hit back at Syrian airbase
If ever a point was better put, I certainly haven't seen it
#42
Re: US hit back at Syrian airbase
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.
#44
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 9,990
Re: US hit back at Syrian airbase
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.
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 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.
#45
limey party pooper
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 9,979
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?