- Dec 29, 2009
- 5,536
- 22,536
- 3,498
- MBTI
- INFJ
I think it's probably never going to be definitively proven, that Assad used the chemical weapons, but all the most credible evidence I've seen, suggests it's highly likely. His regime has been investigated previously and found guilty of doing so. Reference here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26116868
I think in general terms the use of cruise missiles, to erode Assads capability to use chemical weapons from the same airfield, was a proportionate response. It was arranged and organised carefully, no Russian personnel or equipment were killed or damaged. It appears America forewarned Russia prior to the attack, and interestingly Russia did not deploy Surface to Air Missile defenses to interfere, to attempt to protect the airfield.
I think overall it was necessary to signal western determination to act, when illegal chemical weapons are utilised. Having said that we can't "bomb our way to peace". I hope President Trumps statement is true, about being affected by the plight of the refugees there. Much more can be done to assist the many who are suffering, with further humanitarian aid.
Two things strike me, first that hopefully this signals the "American Isolationism" that many around the world feared, may not now occur. Secondly (and I'm surprised this hasn't gotten more attention) that the alleged "kompromat" material either doesn't exist, or it was not a sufficient deterrent, to President Trump acting in a way that clearly Russia oppose.
I think Putin and Assad have just been given a much needed "reality check". Both of their behaviors has been contemptible, and led to the death and suffering of thousands of civilians. Whilst I am not naive about the murky nature of Western acts, in comparison to those two?
I hope that both now realise they cannot act with impunity, and return to negotiation with a clearer idea, that the West does have the means, and resolve to tackle them if necessary. I don't mean that to sound war like, but something that I know to be true, is that appeasement or weakness, in the face of an aggressor only encourages them.
Russia want to negotiate lifting western sanctions, Assad wants to remain as Syrian President. Both have interest in finding a settlement with the West. I know President Trump has now said he wants Assad gone. I'd like to see him and Putin on trial, but realistically that's never going to happen. More importantly I'd like to see stability restored in Syria, ISIS eliminated there, and action to alleviate the plight of the civilian population.
I hope this means that's more likely now, than it was beforehand.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26116868
I think in general terms the use of cruise missiles, to erode Assads capability to use chemical weapons from the same airfield, was a proportionate response. It was arranged and organised carefully, no Russian personnel or equipment were killed or damaged. It appears America forewarned Russia prior to the attack, and interestingly Russia did not deploy Surface to Air Missile defenses to interfere, to attempt to protect the airfield.
I think overall it was necessary to signal western determination to act, when illegal chemical weapons are utilised. Having said that we can't "bomb our way to peace". I hope President Trumps statement is true, about being affected by the plight of the refugees there. Much more can be done to assist the many who are suffering, with further humanitarian aid.
Two things strike me, first that hopefully this signals the "American Isolationism" that many around the world feared, may not now occur. Secondly (and I'm surprised this hasn't gotten more attention) that the alleged "kompromat" material either doesn't exist, or it was not a sufficient deterrent, to President Trump acting in a way that clearly Russia oppose.
I think Putin and Assad have just been given a much needed "reality check". Both of their behaviors has been contemptible, and led to the death and suffering of thousands of civilians. Whilst I am not naive about the murky nature of Western acts, in comparison to those two?
I hope that both now realise they cannot act with impunity, and return to negotiation with a clearer idea, that the West does have the means, and resolve to tackle them if necessary. I don't mean that to sound war like, but something that I know to be true, is that appeasement or weakness, in the face of an aggressor only encourages them.
Russia want to negotiate lifting western sanctions, Assad wants to remain as Syrian President. Both have interest in finding a settlement with the West. I know President Trump has now said he wants Assad gone. I'd like to see him and Putin on trial, but realistically that's never going to happen. More importantly I'd like to see stability restored in Syria, ISIS eliminated there, and action to alleviate the plight of the civilian population.
I hope this means that's more likely now, than it was beforehand.
Last edited:
