President says that he has stated that “We have proof that last week chemical weapons, at least chlorine, were used by the regime of Bashar al-Assad.” This is a ‘red line’ for the President, “the use of chemical weapons in Syria was a “red line”” and “would result in reprisal and an immediate response”.
So, what do you all think? Has a line been crossed? Do you think there is actually proof? What do you think will happen now? What do you think should happen?
The first thing he should do is announce that bombs will fall and then taunt Russia about their ability to shoot them down. That would be the smart thing, anyway.
I don’t think Macron does that sort of stupid shit.
Maybe you should edit the headline to read “French President” otherwise people may think Trump.
Sure, I think the Assad regime should be bombed for doing this, but I disagree with chemical weapons being a “red line.” Killing civilians with AK-47s is just as bad as killing them with chlorine. I have never understood the “If you kill your civilians with bullets, it’s OK, but if you kill them with poison, that’s a red line!” international-community logic.
Re-assert the French-Syrian mandate and put an end to the nonsense, once and for all.
So, how many innocent people were killed by the reputed chemical attack?
I’m fairly certain that any action taken in response will be sure to kill a greater number of innocent people. So, that will show them!
IIRC the French were the only ones who went along with this “red line” idea back when it was Obama. Nothing came of that, and the French didn’t do anything on their own.
Perhaps this
should be amended to add “by the US”.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m not sure that a return to colonial powers carving up the Middle East in borders that cross traditional ethnic lines is really a solution to the problems created by colonial powers carving up the Middle East in borders that cross traditional ethnic lines but I’m willing to entertain more detailed proposals.
One issue that seems to be missing from the discussion about the current Assad regime is why they are willing to use chemical weapons despite near-universal international condemnation, e.g. the threat posed by multiple competing fundamentalist and ideologically extreme opponents (and not just ISIL/Daesh). This does not justify use of weapons of mass destruction against civilian populations, of course, nor the history of Syria in supporting the Ba’ath regime in Iraq or international terrorism by the PLO and other Islamic terrorist groups, but there is a general presentation of Assad as being evil (after the initial view that he would bring a more moderate governance with secular elements to Syria) rather than extremely desperate to maintain civil order in a country that is under constant threat of being torn apart by extremist groups. Bombing Assad and his government out of existance isn’t going to solve that problem and will open of a vacuum that may well result in even more death and destruction.
Stranger
Unless you think that France (and the US, UK and others) are going to carpet bomb Syria I don’t see why you think this. We’d be going after military targets, so the difference would be soldiers killed with perhaps some civilians as opposed to someone deliberately targeting civilians only with chemical weapons. Who is the ‘them’ that this will show, in your estimation?
Dump a truckload of chlorine on some of Assad’s soldiers. If it’s a particularly nasty way to die, they’ll think twice before loading up the next chemical attack.
I don’t see the real problem with chemical weapons though, same with the whole barrel bomb thing a while back, it’s war.
Another BBC article talks about this (i.e. the normalization of the use of chemical weapons):
Anything can become normal with repeated use. Why not nuclear weapons? After all, they are just bigger booms, in the end and people die horribly from regular explosives. Lines have to be drawn somewhere, and if they are drawn then they become meaningless if no one does anything when they are crossed.
I’m kinda surprised it isn’t already raining bombs in Syria. Trump desperately wants to “Wag the Dog” to get his attorney scandal off the headlines…
I suspect the explanation for your surprise is that you probably don’t have a very good understanding of what Trump “desperately wants”.
ETA: Do you think the leaders of France and the UK (who are also both contemplating participating in strikes) have an interest in helping Trump “get his attorney scandal off the headlines”? Or is it just possible that there’s a real issue at play here and Trump is not just doing this to “Wag the Dog”?
When POTUS fucking taunts Russia via twitter, I’m pretty confident with the dog wagging theory.
And May and Macron are in on it?
What is the history of Trump and foreign action?
Firing cruise missiles at an empty field in Syria, sailing his “armada” to Australia, talking shite on twitter - if he can’t send a lawyers letter then there’s nothing.
Even the expulsion of 60 russians was forced by Congress. The man is a coward.
If you are implying Trump has made all this up, then no. However, by waiting what this has done in practice is to allow the Syrian’s to redeploy their air force and most of their vulnerable equipment to within the Russian’s air bases, which I seriously doubt anyone is going to attack. Any attack we do, unless it’s sustained is going to be essentially symbolic at this point, just like last time. We hit some air fields, and the Syrian’s had them back in service in a few days.
As for Trump, his tweets were idiotic and probably were to try and get the public and everyone else talking about something else than his own issues. And I wouldn’t be surprised if he is deliberately waiting at this point to do something so that it increases the tension of the situation and gains him a few more days of relative peace from the distraction of what he probably sees as a perfect opportunity to take the heat off, instead of a critical international incident requiring him to do that presidential shit he’s supposed to be doing.
ETA: This was in response to the discussion between HD and Oak.
I thought he was colluding with Putin and being his helpless puppet. Now he’s bombing Russia’s allies. How quickly the narratives change.
Regards,
Shodan
Who’s narrative? Not mine. I don’t know of anyone saying Syria is ‘helpless’, though certainly they are a Russian puppet.
They likely have their own reasons, possibly even altruistic ones. That doesn’t change Trump’s motivations. He wants to bask in the rah-rah patriotic boost in popularity that usually follows military action…that kind of thing makes his dick harder than Stormy Daniels ever could.