RugbyRebels

jared_7 wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... e-to-assad

Conversely, RT are running a story saying that the rebels are the only side to benefit from the chemical attack. I know it's RT but we already know news agencies will push their own agendas. They even use a British security/intelligence/terrorism analyst to back up the claims.

In terms of news, is it an any less viable piece of opinion than the piece in the Grauniad?

It's a question I asked earlier and have seen many ask. The rebels have been on the back foot and Assad could have kept bombing to his hearts content with exact same outcome as a chemical attack which now carries international retaliation.

RT running with it will actually discredit the story because they are mouthpieces for the Russian government, which is a shame because anyone with two inches of brain would be asking themselves the same question.

I agree. It just doesn't make any sense.

I was loathe to post the details on the RT article, hence why I didn't include a link but they pose a valid statement.

So far, the only person set to gain from this is Trump. He has had a bipartisan pat on the back and the media are now using words like 'decisive', 'bold' and 'assured' to describe the man they have openly mocked for the past year or so. I imagine his approval ratings will start to improve as a result of his hero status.

He has quickly turned from being seen as a puppet of Putin to a man of integrity and action and a regular US hero.

The whole thing stinks of a PR exercise.

Sandydragon wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: So is using chemical weapons against the civilian population. In an ideal world, the US should have gone to the UN and got approval, but in reality the Russians would have blocked it. And the delay would have undermined the response.

Shoot first, ask question later. Got it.

At the moment, to me, it seems as though the crime hasn't been officially investigated and the response hasn't even attempted to get official sanction. Imagine if we ran our own justice system like that?

International relations isn't a court of law. A criminal investigation could take months or over a year. By then the war could be over and Assad once and secure, having carried out other chemical weapons attacks. The world aint perfect.

So the answer when faced with lawlessness is to abandon the rule of law? And the answer to unsubstantiated claims and rumour is to lash out? Are you absolutely sure about that?

WaspInWales wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:
Yep, it's not as if news agencies have agendas or political bias. The BBC being the bastion of truth and impartiality are a perfect example of this.

Not all news agencies are the same. Even if one assumed that they do have bias, you are simply incorrect in saying that the coverage of Trump even on your own description demonstrates the thing you claim.

Indeed, not all news agencies are the same. We're in agreement there. However, they most certainly do have bias which is evident by the fact that the same piece of news can be portrayed in a number of ways depending on where it is being reported.

For the majority of the time Trump was portrayed as an 'idiot' by many news agencies, including the BBC, some agencies were trying to spin his words and actions in a positive manner.

Now the fat orange buffoon has made a stance on Syria that adheres to the western line which questions Russia and opposes Assad, the BBC change their reporting style on the tiny handed tyrant.

Yeah. That's not even slightly logical.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
Not all news agencies are the same. Even if one assumed that they do have bias, you are simply incorrect in saying that the coverage of Trump even on your own description demonstrates the thing you claim.

Indeed, not all news agencies are the same. We're in agreement there. However, they most certainly do have bias which is evident by the fact that the same piece of news can be portrayed in a number of ways depending on where it is being reported.

For the majority of the time Trump was portrayed as an 'idiot' by many news agencies, including the BBC, some agencies were trying to spin his words and actions in a positive manner.

Now the fat orange buffoon has made a stance on Syria that adheres to the western line which questions Russia and opposes Assad, the BBC change their reporting style on the tiny handed tyrant.

Yeah. That's not even slightly logical.

Ok

We should not take the stories in the press at face value.

Remember the past

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation ... prov=sfla1
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operati ... prov=sfla1

The agencies have almost certainly recruited key journalists so they can release disinformation

It's nice to know people are interested in diplomacy in order to resolve the current situation.

Johnson, being the obedient puppy of his Washington master(s) has pulled out of a trip to Russia. Many would've thought direct, high level talks would be the way to go but obviously not.

This has been followed by news that the Defence Secretary has blamed Russia for every civilian death last week. Seems like a sensible approach when certain facts are sorely lacking.

It really puts the UK in a great position.

In other news, the US has deployed warships to the Korean peninsula.

Perhaps they could send a few towards China too?

Sandydragon wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
International relations isn't a court of law. A criminal investigation could take months or over a year. By then the war could be over and Assad once and secure, having carried out other chemical weapons attacks. The world aint perfect.

Who knows, but by then perhaps it might be discovered that Assad didn't do it???

Stranger things have happened, but the point is the US just jumps right in and starts firing missiles to stoke up an already tense situation.

What the US should have done is carry through on the threat made back in 2013 when this was a red line issue. Obama wavered and Assad got away with it. Assad will still probably get away with it, but if he stops using chemical weapons in the interim it will be a bonus.

There will never be enough evidence to convince everyone. But with evidence that Sarin was used provided by doctors and corroborating evidence from the ground, and potentially other sources, then there is little point in waiting for some courtroom proceedings to take place, which just won't happen. Not even the UN will provide anything close given the role of Russia.

And let's not forget that this isn't the first instance of Assad using chemical weapons. This shouldn't be a surprise for anyone.

Strongly worded letters saying how naughty it is is the way forward.

OptimisticJock wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:
Who knows, but by then perhaps it might be discovered that Assad didn't do it???

Stranger things have happened, but the point is the US just jumps right in and starts firing missiles to stoke up an already tense situation.

What the US should have done is carry through on the threat made back in 2013 when this was a red line issue. Obama wavered and Assad got away with it. Assad will still probably get away with it, but if he stops using chemical weapons in the interim it will be a bonus.

There will never be enough evidence to convince everyone. But with evidence that Sarin was used provided by doctors and corroborating evidence from the ground, and potentially other sources, then there is little point in waiting for some courtroom proceedings to take place, which just won't happen. Not even the UN will provide anything close given the role of Russia.

And let's not forget that this isn't the first instance of Assad using chemical weapons. This shouldn't be a surprise for anyone.

Strongly worded letters saying how naughty it is is the way forward.

Perhaps find out exactly what happened and who was responsible first, and then seek international support and/or UN sanctions before potentially illegal military action would've been a better course of action?

OptimisticJock wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:
Who knows, but by then perhaps it might be discovered that Assad didn't do it???

Stranger things have happened, but the point is the US just jumps right in and starts firing missiles to stoke up an already tense situation.

What the US should have done is carry through on the threat made back in 2013 when this was a red line issue. Obama wavered and Assad got away with it. Assad will still probably get away with it, but if he stops using chemical weapons in the interim it will be a bonus.

There will never be enough evidence to convince everyone. But with evidence that Sarin was used provided by doctors and corroborating evidence from the ground, and potentially other sources, then there is little point in waiting for some courtroom proceedings to take place, which just won't happen. Not even the UN will provide anything close given the role of Russia.

And let's not forget that this isn't the first instance of Assad using chemical weapons. This shouldn't be a surprise for anyone.

Strongly worded letters saying how naughty it is is the way forward.

What would you suggest as an alternative to multilateral consensus? If we take an historical perspective, no one has the moral high ground here. Whatever precedent is being set, don't be surprised if the "baddies" adopt it as justification.

WaspInWales wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
What the US should have done is carry through on the threat made back in 2013 when this was a red line issue. Obama wavered and Assad got away with it. Assad will still probably get away with it, but if he stops using chemical weapons in the interim it will be a bonus.

There will never be enough evidence to convince everyone. But with evidence that Sarin was used provided by doctors and corroborating evidence from the ground, and potentially other sources, then there is little point in waiting for some courtroom proceedings to take place, which just won't happen. Not even the UN will provide anything close given the role of Russia.

And let's not forget that this isn't the first instance of Assad using chemical weapons. This shouldn't be a surprise for anyone.

Strongly worded letters saying how naughty it is is the way forward.

Perhaps find out exactly what happened and who was responsible first, and then seek international support and/or UN sanctions before potentially illegal military action would've been a better course of action?

Send him tae his bed withoot tea and stiff words.

morepork wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
What the US should have done is carry through on the threat made back in 2013 when this was a red line issue. Obama wavered and Assad got away with it. Assad will still probably get away with it, but if he stops using chemical weapons in the interim it will be a bonus.

There will never be enough evidence to convince everyone. But with evidence that Sarin was used provided by doctors and corroborating evidence from the ground, and potentially other sources, then there is little point in waiting for some courtroom proceedings to take place, which just won't happen. Not even the UN will provide anything close given the role of Russia.

And let's not forget that this isn't the first instance of Assad using chemical weapons. This shouldn't be a surprise for anyone.

Strongly worded letters saying how naughty it is is the way forward.

What would you suggest as an alternative to multilateral consensus? If we take an historical perspective, no one has the moral high ground here. Whatever precedent is being set, don't be surprised if the "baddies" adopt it as justification.

Perhaps we could take a few months to make a response. Work with the UN and watch the Russians water down any response until it becomes meaningless. Or use a one off message that gets their attention. Do you honestly think that a regime that is using chemical weapons on its own people and has the backing of a major power cares that much about potential sanctions from the UN, or more resolutions?

If you regard state rights as being absolute, even to the degree that they can massacre their own population, then the US action is indefensible. If however you believe that the state has a duty to its citizens, and that the use of chemical weapons breaks a number of long established international laws, then the use of force becomes more justifiable.

From a realpolitik perspective, Putin has been playing games with the west for years, knowing damn well that the West would rather talk and then talk some more than actually do something. If the grown ups in Washington have managed to convince Trump that Putin needs to be sent a message he will understand, then its about time.

Whilst there are concerns over America's long term strategy, for once I think they have done the right thing.

As for precedent, that's well and truly been set. By us repeatedly and by Russia in the Ukraine and Georgia when on both occasions they deployed military force in 'protection of minorities'.

and you are 100% confident that old chinless bully boy launched a chemical attack against civilians? Just like last time he was supposed to have, just like Iraq had WMD etc, etc, etc. Best fall back on the old "UN is useless because Russia". Fantastic.

morepork wrote:and you are 100% confident that old chinless bully boy launched a chemical attack against civilians? Just like last time he was supposed to have, just like Iraq had WMD etc, etc, etc. Best fall back on the old "UN is useless because Russia". Fantastic.

I'm pretty much 100% confident it was Syria. Though there are problems with both unilateral actions such as the USA has taken, and too with diving into the UN in an attempt to find a compromise and actually get anything done - and really there often aren't any good decisions in such area. And there's only so many times we can refer to Iraq and the trumped up claims, yes they were wrong, arguably on purpose, but too there's no point wholly ignoring all the research/analysis since then, I can't think of a single field one would try to negate all subsequent work because of something one didn't like more than a decade back - though be all means keep in mind such groups can be deceitful

It does though feel a bit like tinkering at the edges, we'll go in for chemical weapons but not other means of killing civilians even if it's such as barrel bombs, and we'll not put any troops on the ground, and we will not confirm we're willing to work with Assad despite him being the only game in town absent of massive troop deployment, and even if we forced a regime change we've no idea if what came next would be worse still. So we've done it, i.e. bombed an air site, but what's the point, and what comes next?

morepork wrote:and you are 100% confident that old chinless bully boy launched a chemical attack against civilians? Just like last time he was supposed to have, just like Iraq had WMD etc, etc, etc. Best fall back on the old "UN is useless because Russia". Fantastic.

Will have to wait to see how this develops, but you are comparing a full scale invasion with an attack on a military airbase (which followed a phone call).

Adder wrote:

morepork wrote:and you are 100% confident that old chinless bully boy launched a chemical attack against civilians? Just like last time he was supposed to have, just like Iraq had WMD etc, etc, etc. Best fall back on the old "UN is useless because Russia". Fantastic.

Will have to wait to see how this develops, but you are comparing a full scale invasion with an attack on a military airbase (which followed a phone call).

I'm really trying to illustrate the flimsy rationale with which the west appears to justify military action.

Geopolitics is complicated and the US hasn't just unilaterally decided to attack Syria, they have unilaterally escalated the conflict with Russia and Iran, possibly China, and the countries in those regions who will have to face the full brunt of any consequences didn't get a damn say. Meanwhile the US sits nicely isolated on the other side of the world, not facing the consequences of any actions - and to a large extent its the same with Britain. I'm glad Sandy thinks the US has done the right thing, I wonder whether his view would be the same if the bombing was next door and the US and Russian Warships were moving into position just off the coast of Suffolk?

What do you think China, Japan and Seoul are thinking about the US warship being sent to the coast of NK? After what Trump has just done, and the support he has received for doing so. Who's to say a couple of sad dead baby shots coming out of Pyongyang aren't going to jumpstart him into taking the same action?

Suffolk's actually rather nice, whereas if people wanted to bomb Norfolk or Essex that'd seem reasonable.

And say what you will of the UK government they're not going in for bombing and mass torture of their own civilians so it's a different picture

morepork wrote:

Adder wrote:

morepork wrote:and you are 100% confident that old chinless bully boy launched a chemical attack against civilians? Just like last time he was supposed to have, just like Iraq had WMD etc, etc, etc. Best fall back on the old "UN is useless because Russia". Fantastic.

Will have to wait to see how this develops, but you are comparing a full scale invasion with an attack on a military airbase (which followed a phone call).

I'm really trying to illustrate the flimsy rationale with which the west appears to justify military action.

I understand what you mean, but there are an accumulation of reasons which have led to this situation.
- An accumulation of non-reactions from western Governments (Including US) to atrocities on a number of theatres.
- The fact that Putin as masterfully controlled diplomacy in the middle east.
- US coming to terms with the fact that Assad will be in charge at the end of this.

This was done to send a strong (or weak) message that the US were still the main actor on the World Stage. Personally, I believe that it looks more like a
Statement of weakness.

Digby wrote:Suffolk's actually rather nice, whereas if people wanted to bomb Norfolk or Essex that'd seem reasonable.

And say what you will of the UK government they're not going in for bombing and mass torture of their own civilians so it's a different picture

Go say that in Northern Ireland...

Get a grip.

OptimisticJock wrote:Get a grip.

Maybe not mass but fairly frequent

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

Adder wrote:

Digby wrote:Suffolk's actually rather nice, whereas if people wanted to bomb Norfolk or Essex that'd seem reasonable.

And say what you will of the UK government they're not going in for bombing and mass torture of their own civilians so it's a different picture

Go say that in Northern Ireland...

Well certainly there are historic issues on both sides, I even know some people who've left the country and have no intention of ever coming back for any sort of hearing, but I can't say I knew it was currently an ongoing problem.

Oh Trump, you plonker.

One could see why the greatest deal maker ever who was going to put America first would rather chat about almost anything but his failure to get China to move even really an inch on balance of payments. His talks with China were pretty much less effective than the talks with Mexico that the Mexicans declined to attend