The News, Trump vs Putin...

darthed1981

Any reservists on TFB?

rocktron

The PM has cabinet backing and isn't making a unilateral decision for action against the Assad regime, but she will be forever accused of backing Trump if she does not get Parliamentary approval.

I believe Parliament will not approve, even if it is for precision bombing against selected chemical depots and runways from which chemical attacks are launched, although many members may feel that Assad should not go unpunished.

At least, the USA is being careful to issue an early warning to enable the Russians to get out of the way so as not to escalate the situation into something much more serious.

I think the PM should recall Parliament for a debate. . . which she will surely lose.

darthed1981

rocktron said:

The PM has cabinet backing and isn't making a unilateral decision for action against the Assad regime, but she will be forever accused of backing Trump if she does not get Parliamentary approval.

I believe Parliament will not approve, even if it is for precision bombing against selected chemical depots and runways from which chemical attacks are launched, although many members may feel that Assad should not go unpunished.

At least, the USA is being careful to issue an early warning to enable the Russians to get out of the way so as not to escalate the situation into something much more serious.

I think the PM should recall Parliament for a debate. . . which she will surely lose.

Which is why she isn't doing it.

Looks like the British and French militaries are in, the US is putting it's plan together, so it will either result in a rushed diplomatic solution or...

the deep breath before the plunge...

Freebird

Heartfeltdawn said:

Freebird said:

Don't forget Trump is being goaded into taking action by many people in Washington and around the Western world, so he has to play against them as well as Russia, China, Iran, etc. A lot of folks would like nothing more than to see him fail, even if it took a disastrous war to achieve it.

I doubt it. The number of liberals who would be happy to accept a bloody war if it meant Trump failed is very very small. Their hopes all rest with Mueller. 

Senator Rand Paul is the only person I have heard calling to see evidence before any action is taken, all the rest seem to be on the Assad must be punished immediately train.

Fretwired

There's nothing to attack. Assad has moved his planes and valuable kit onto Russian airfields. Trump won't attack Russia. A few bombs on empty airfields ... this is being choreographed by both sides.

Freebird

General Jonathan Shaw gets cut off by Sky News News for asking the wrong question.

ICBM

Freebird said:

General Jonathan Shaw gets cut off by Sky News News for asking the wrong question.

Which is of course absolutely the right question...

Who stands to gain from Western military intervention, and how?

Fretwired

Freebird said:

General Jonathan Shaw gets cut off by Sky News News for asking the wrong question.

Don't think so ... the bulletin was overrunning and he was rambling. It's an interesting question but not one that could be answered on air so he was cut off. Nothing sinister IMHO.

Macron claims he was 100% cast iron proof there was a chlorine gas attack undertake by the Syrian regime. So to answer the General they're probably idiots. Perhaps they saw Trumps decision to pull out saying Assad had won as giving them carte blanche to finish the job. Who knows ...

ICBM

Well, the most complex possibility is that it was in fact carried out by Assad, intentionally to provoke a Western attack - either to drag the West into a war it cannot win, and probably encourage worldwide Jihadist attacks against it, or draw Russia further in which will also help Assad against his other enemies, or both.

The one thing that Assad is not is a fool. We would be wise to look at the history of his and his father’s relationship with the US in particular.

Fretwired

ICBM said:

Well, the most complex possibility is that it was in fact carried out by Assad, intentionally to provoke a Western attack - either to drag the West into a war it cannot win, and probably encourage worldwide Jihadist attacks against it, or draw Russia further in which will also help Assad against his other enemies, or both.

The one thing that Assad is not is a fool. We would be wise to look at the history of his and his father’s relationship with the US in particular.

A dangerous game. Assad's position is precarious - Russia wants influence in the Middle East to counter the US/UK relationship with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. The Russians are fearful of Iran but friendly with Israel - both countries would want stay neutral as far as possible. Syria is key for Russian influence in the region so it could decide to remove Assad and impose a Russian puppet in his place.

I suspect rouge elements in the Syrian military who have decided to speed things up. In the mess of Syria I wonder how much actual control Assad has over the troops on the ground.

darthed1981

Occams Razor seems to apply.

The simplest explanation seems to be: -

Assad attacked one of the few remaining pockets of resistance with chemical weapons he still has, as part of a concerted effort to make the rebels finally give up (which they should, the cost of further resistance is too high).

The US has previously said such usage is a "red line" that must not be crossed, so this gives Trump an excuse to start "his" war, and simultaneously detract attention from the investigation into his skullduggery, which involved Russia.

The UK gets involved because we are dealing with the Salisbury attack, probably perpetrated by Russia, and Brexit, probably influenced by Russia, and we want to look like we are at the top table.  France does as well, and Syria was a French colony in the past.

Russia, having basically won the proxy war in Syria is gambling that none of the western powers will risk WW3 over Syria.  Trump and his advisors are wondering if to call his bluff and risk a direct military engagement that has the potential to escalate rapidly, or to back down and look weak.

Two ego driven leaders, both faced with the prospect of looking weak....

That is, historically, how wars start.  As unlikely as it feels, we are basing a lot on the theory that Trump and Putin care more about the people of the world than their own egos.

Fretwired

darthed1981 said:

Occams Razor seems to apply.

The simplest explanation seems to be: -

Assad attacked one of the few remaining pockets of resistance with chemical weapons he still has, as part of a concerted effort to make the rebels finally give up (which they should, the cost of further resistance is too high).

The US has previously said such usage is a "red line" that must not be crossed, so this gives Trump an excuse to start "his" war, and simultaneously detract attention from the investigation into his skullduggery, which involved Russia.

The UK gets involved because we are dealing with the Salisbury attack, probably perpetrated by Russia, and Brexit, probably influenced by Russia, and we want to look like we are at the top table.  France does as well, and Syria was a French colony in the past.

Russia, having basically won the proxy war in Syria is gambling that none of the western powers will risk WW3 over Syria.  Trump and his advisors are wondering if to call his bluff and risk a direct military engagement that has the potential to escalate rapidly, or to back down and look weak.

Two ego driven leaders, both faced with the prospect of looking weak....

That is, historically, how wars start.  As unlikely as it feels, we are basing a lot on the theory that Trump and Putin care more about the people of the world than their own egos.

I mostly agree with your analysis except Trump doesn't want war. He's not interested in war. Bush yes, Trump no. Trump speaks bluntly and doesn't play by the old rules. He's a business man. He does deals.

darthed1981

Fretwired said:

darthed1981 said:

Occams Razor seems to apply.

The simplest explanation seems to be: -

Assad attacked one of the few remaining pockets of resistance with chemical weapons he still has, as part of a concerted effort to make the rebels finally give up (which they should, the cost of further resistance is too high).

The US has previously said such usage is a "red line" that must not be crossed, so this gives Trump an excuse to start "his" war, and simultaneously detract attention from the investigation into his skullduggery, which involved Russia.

The UK gets involved because we are dealing with the Salisbury attack, probably perpetrated by Russia, and Brexit, probably influenced by Russia, and we want to look like we are at the top table.  France does as well, and Syria was a French colony in the past.

Russia, having basically won the proxy war in Syria is gambling that none of the western powers will risk WW3 over Syria.  Trump and his advisors are wondering if to call his bluff and risk a direct military engagement that has the potential to escalate rapidly, or to back down and look weak.

Two ego driven leaders, both faced with the prospect of looking weak....

That is, historically, how wars start.  As unlikely as it feels, we are basing a lot on the theory that Trump and Putin care more about the people of the world than their own egos.

I mostly agree with your analysis except Trump doesn't want war. He's not interested in war. Bush yes, Trump no. Trump speaks bluntly and doesn't play by the old rules. He's a business man. He does deals.

I hope you are right about that.  I don't really disagree but I really feel he needs a distraction from his domestic troubles.

Traditionally, US presidents look for a foreign policy victory when the domestic agenda isn't looking good.

Trump being unconventional may prove a benefit, maybe he will prove the right man at the right time, that would be a turn up eh?

ICBM

darthed1981 said:

Trump being unconventional may prove a benefit, maybe he will prove the right man at the right time, that would be a turn up eh?

I honestly think that President Hillary would be no less dangerous now, and quite possibly more so.

darthed1981

ICBM said:

darthed1981 said:

Trump being unconventional may prove a benefit, maybe he will prove the right man at the right time, that would be a turn up eh?

I honestly think that President Hillary would be no less dangerous now, and quite possibly more so.

Possibly, she would certainly have been a hawk.

I think this confrontation was coming whoever was in the Oval.

Dontgiveupyourdayjob

I think the political arguments over whether there's enough proof to warrant military action are not the most important arguments in this whole clusterfuck of a situation. The biggest question for me would be "what is the plan in Syria for the next 6-12 months?" 

The Obama administration bombed Syria years ago as one off 'punishment' for Assad's misdemeanors. They didn't follow that up with anything militarily, diplomatically or in terms of political rhetoric.

The Trump administration bombed Syria last year for the same reason. Again, no follow-up plan. No further consequences for Assad. No change to the regime's behaviour.

Will there be anything different this time? I highly doubt it. If it's another small scale strike Assad will likely shrug his shoulders, wait a few months, then resume business 

If there's a major escalation of the military action this time (without any cohesive, multinationally agreed medium-long term plan), it'll be like lighting a tinder box with no water on hand to put out the inevitable 'inferno' it would cause. Both in terms of destruction and death,and in terms of the global political shitstorm it would create.

Fretwired

ICBM said:

darthed1981 said:

Trump being unconventional may prove a benefit, maybe he will prove the right man at the right time, that would be a turn up eh?

I honestly think that President Hillary would be no less dangerous now, and quite possibly more so.

Clinton would have hit Syria and Russia. History may view Trump as an asset.

Just watched the news. The Russians have said that if any of their forces are attacked they will retaliate.  Trump will no doubt bomb a few Syrian airbases that by now will be empty as he's given notice he'll attack. He won't attack the Russians. WWIII won't start and no doubt the US and Russia will agree a way forward.

shaunyshaun1234

Air strikes have started!!! 

joeyowen

Start collecting the bottle caps haha