Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 djones520 wrote:
Here's a crazy theory. Because Assad is a mad man, whose strings are being pulled by a despot who just wants to keep tweaking the noses of the international community?

That is, indeedt, a crazy theory. States don't "work" that way, as it were.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Its perfectly rational why Assad uses chemical weapons. He knows the international response will be mediocre at best and cracking the tougher parts of rebel resistance outweighs the cost of taking a few bombs. Yes Assad is winning, but he wants to have won. Every second the war drags on is taking on unneeded risk for him.

Chemical weapons are not necessary to win, and are complained about significantly more than conventional weapons. They're all-around riskier. The margin of victory is not so low that the Syrian government has to resort to desperate measures. Like, what, would they be testing how much they can get away with? The problem with that is that, well, once you've crossed the line you don't necessarily have control of the ensuing events. That seems like a highly useless risk to take.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Its perfectly rational why Assad uses chemical weapons. He knows the international response will be mediocre at best and cracking the tougher parts of rebel resistance outweighs the cost of taking a few bombs. Yes Assad is winning, but he wants to have won. Every second the war drags on is taking on unneeded risk for him.

Chemical weapons are not necessary to win, and are complained about significantly more than conventional weapons. They're all-around riskier. The margin of victory is not so low that the Syrian government has to resort to desperate measures. Like, what, would they be testing how much they can get away with? The problem with that is that, well, once you've crossed the line you don't necessarily have control of the ensuing events. That seems like a highly useless risk to take.

No they aren't necessary to win. But they sure are useful in cracking tough pockets of rebel resistance who have virtually no NBC protection equipment.

Also they aren't that much more risky for Assad, he has used them in some capacity at least 5+ times since 2011. It has become abundantly clear that there is no motivator not to use them, because no real retaliation is forthcoming.

The logic that using chemical weapons is "desperate" is just patently false. He has been carpet bombing civilians in droves, because he can, not because the margin of victory is so small. Assad doesn't use them because he is at risk of losing, he uses them because he's virtually guaranteed not to lose. Every step he has taken since shooting protesters has been a line crossed and a highly useless risk to take, yet he has done so because he knows the risk is tiny compared to the advantage.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Here's a crazy theory. Because Assad is a mad man, whose strings are being pulled by a despot who just wants to keep tweaking the noses of the international community?

That is, indeedt, a crazy theory. States don't "work" that way, as it were.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Its perfectly rational why Assad uses chemical weapons. He knows the international response will be mediocre at best and cracking the tougher parts of rebel resistance outweighs the cost of taking a few bombs. Yes Assad is winning, but he wants to have won. Every second the war drags on is taking on unneeded risk for him.

Chemical weapons are not necessary to win, and are complained about significantly more than conventional weapons. They're all-around riskier. The margin of victory is not so low that the Syrian government has to resort to desperate measures. Like, what, would they be testing how much they can get away with? The problem with that is that, well, once you've crossed the line you don't necessarily have control of the ensuing events. That seems like a highly useless risk to take.

So your suggestion otherwise? Whose responsible? I mean, if Assad using them is so crazy, there has to be a better idea out there right? So please enlighten us.

Evidences ? Where are they ?
Show them, please, do it. I'll wait.

Experts and doctors were on the areas, they found nothing.

You know, I am not paid by the Russians, I love the USA. I have nothing to gain by telling this. If I do it, it is because I am not convinced by my own country nor by my allies I just think rationally, and I don't understand why you strive to keep backing them. You don't have proofs, they even told us that it was "probably the Syrian governement" I mean WTF how can one say "probably" and bomb them the day after ?!
Do you think in 1 or 2 days, they made a good investigation ? This is all what the russians wanted, an investigation. And you know what ? If the investigation would have showed the President Assad did it, I would have acknoewledged it and backer strikes.

FYI, they striked some facilities that had been investigated last year, and were deemed "clear" without any gas or chemicals. That is what you support.

 godardc wrote:
Evidences ? Where are they ?
Show them, please, do it. I'll wait.

Experts and doctors were on the areas, they found nothing.

You know, I am not paid by the Russians, I love the USA. I have nothing to gain by telling this. If I do it, it is because I am not convinced by my own country nor by my allies I just think rationally, and I don't understand why you strive to keep backing them. You don't have proofs, they even told us that it was "probably the Syrian governement" I mean WTF how can one say "probably" and bomb them the day after ?!
Do you think in 1 or 2 days, they made a good investigation ? This is all what the russians wanted, an investigation. And you know what ? If the investigation would have showed the President Assad did it, I would have acknoewledged it and backer strikes.

FYI, they striked some facilities that had been investigated last year, and were deemed "clear" without any gas or chemicals. That is what you support.

The WHO released this statement: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2018/chemical-attacks-syria/en/

WHO is deeply alarmed by reports of the suspected use of toxic chemicals in Douma city, East Ghouta.

According to reports from Health Cluster partners, during the shelling of Douma on Saturday, an estimated 500 patients presented to health facilities exhibiting signs and symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic chemicals. In particular, there were signs of severe irritation of mucous membranes, respiratory failure and disruption to central nervous systems of those exposed.

More than 70 people sheltering in basements have reportedly died, with 43 of those deaths related to symptoms consistent with exposure to highly toxic chemicals. Two health facilities were also reportedly affected by these attacks.

Emphasis mine.

Again, both sides wanted an investigation. The Russian investigation was vetoed because it basically boiled down to Russia being able to get the outcome it desires through Security Council veto,

 djones520 wrote:
So your suggestion otherwise? Whose responsible? I mean, if Assad using them is so crazy, there has to be a better idea out there right? So please enlighten us.

The part I call crazy is not the claim that a state would use gas, it's the suggestion that the Syrian government is the incarnation of The Mad Beast Risen From the Depths, Assad and has no rational explanation for its actions. I haven't seen any actual investigation or evidence for the Syrian government being responsible for at least the latest gas attack. All I have seen is evidence that people have been poisoned.

So if not the Syrian military, then who? It could've been Jaysh al-Islam who gassed civilians in an attempt to get the US to intervene on their behalf or just on general principle as they retreated because they're a bunch of death cultists. It could've been a conventional shell that hit a stockpile of stolen gas. That's just two obvious alternatives.

I think you accidentally switched the word far-fetched with obvious.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 godardc wrote:
Evidences ? Where are they ?
Show them, please, do it. I'll wait.

Experts and doctors were on the areas, they found nothing.

You know, I am not paid by the Russians, I love the USA. I have nothing to gain by telling this. If I do it, it is because I am not convinced by my own country nor by my allies I just think rationally, and I don't understand why you strive to keep backing them. You don't have proofs, they even told us that it was "probably the Syrian governement" I mean WTF how can one say "probably" and bomb them the day after ?!
Do you think in 1 or 2 days, they made a good investigation ? This is all what the russians wanted, an investigation. And you know what ? If the investigation would have showed the President Assad did it, I would have acknoewledged it and backer strikes.

FYI, they striked some facilities that had been investigated last year, and were deemed "clear" without any gas or chemicals. That is what you support.

The WHO released this statement: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2018/chemical-attacks-syria/en/

WHO is deeply alarmed by reports of the suspected use of toxic chemicals in Douma city, East Ghouta.

According to reports from Health Cluster partners, during the shelling of Douma on Saturday, an estimated 500 patients presented to health facilities exhibiting signs and symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic chemicals. In particular, there were signs of severe irritation of mucous membranes, respiratory failure and disruption to central nervous systems of those exposed.

More than 70 people sheltering in basements have reportedly died, with 43 of those deaths related to symptoms consistent with exposure to highly toxic chemicals. Two health facilities were also reportedly affected by these attacks.

Emphasis mine.

Again, both sides wanted an investigation. The Russian investigation was vetoed because it basically boiled down to Russia being able to get the outcome it desires through Security Council veto,

So, you agree with me we do not know who did the attack ? The WHO didn't say it is the president Assad, they don't know .

 godardc wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 godardc wrote:
Evidences ? Where are they ?
Show them, please, do it. I'll wait.

Experts and doctors were on the areas, they found nothing.

You know, I am not paid by the Russians, I love the USA. I have nothing to gain by telling this. If I do it, it is because I am not convinced by my own country nor by my allies I just think rationally, and I don't understand why you strive to keep backing them. You don't have proofs, they even told us that it was "probably the Syrian governement" I mean WTF how can one say "probably" and bomb them the day after ?!
Do you think in 1 or 2 days, they made a good investigation ? This is all what the russians wanted, an investigation. And you know what ? If the investigation would have showed the President Assad did it, I would have acknoewledged it and backer strikes.

FYI, they striked some facilities that had been investigated last year, and were deemed "clear" without any gas or chemicals. That is what you support.

The WHO released this statement: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2018/chemical-attacks-syria/en/

WHO is deeply alarmed by reports of the suspected use of toxic chemicals in Douma city, East Ghouta.

According to reports from Health Cluster partners, during the shelling of Douma on Saturday, an estimated 500 patients presented to health facilities exhibiting signs and symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic chemicals. In particular, there were signs of severe irritation of mucous membranes, respiratory failure and disruption to central nervous systems of those exposed.

More than 70 people sheltering in basements have reportedly died, with 43 of those deaths related to symptoms consistent with exposure to highly toxic chemicals. Two health facilities were also reportedly affected by these attacks.

Emphasis mine.

Again, both sides wanted an investigation. The Russian investigation was vetoed because it basically boiled down to Russia being able to get the outcome it desires through Security Council veto,

So, you agree with me we do not know who did the attack ? The WHO didn't say it is the president Assad, they don't know .

You said doctors and experts found nothing, which is false. But yes, the WHO as a health organisation is not going to assign blame. Based on past events and capabilities of the parties involved, Assad is the obvious suspect beyond going into far-fetched explanations. Blame is never going to be assigned officially, because Russia would kill any chance to do so. Yet it is almost inevitable that the OPCW will point to Assad, as this is on a scale no rebel group is capable off.

It is not false, you have your sources, I have mine. Somebody is lying, I don't know who, I can't say who. It is not false. They were there, and they said there was nothing.
The WHO was there, apparently, and they said there was something. But you see, I am not "thickheaded', and so I give you that.
Rebels are totally able to do it. Chemicals attacks are easy to do, especially after having being at war for years. They may have facilities, experts, and money. ISIS had a whole state ! A whole country, with taxes, ministers, everything.
But for I don't know what reason, you want it to be the president, and you don't even try to discuss. Your only excuse is that Assad did it because he is mad ? Serously ? Is that all you could fin ? Do you really believe this ?

So the guy who's been using chemical weapons against his own people for seven years, suddenly didn't do it this time as now the West somehow has something to gain? Right, so we're ignoring that the West's had the same precedent for military intervention as they've had with all the previous attacks. It just so happens that the current political situation has led to some countries no longer caring what the Russians think.

The war started due to Assad attacking his own people. It escalated from his side liberally bombing civilian targets. The West then attempted to intervene over these chemical attacks through the UN, but the Russians vetoed that - before sending their own troops in to back Assad.

Assad has the Russians overtly backing him. With them on his side the intent is for the West to be afraid of making any moves against him (i.e. what they've been asking for for years). Given that Russians setting a precedent that you can get away with all sorts of illegal crap on the international stage, and that any intervention will now be met by the Russians, there's no reason for Assad not to continue using chemical weapons. His government has already dug themselves a hole, though nobody can do anything about that as it'd result in WWIII.

When its common knowledge that you're doing something illegal and getting away with it, as have you gotten away with it for seven years, UN oversight isn't going to make you stop. ...Or this can turn into yet another "Russia" thread where posters debate that the sky's blue today (odd that debating the truth's a thing in those threads; almost like spreading disinformation is one of the Russian government's intentions - which people just fall into).

(It'd be more productive not to address people arguing that the sky's not blue and detracting from the actual conversation, though, well, this is the internet)

So I have the WHO and you have whoever you say you have? Ok then.

Chemical attacks are not easy, especially for the side that is losing and being cornered. IS had the ability, but so far the chemical attacks made by potential rebel forces have almost always used Syrian regime captured stocks. If it was that easy half the terrorist organisations in the world would be using them.

Also I didn't call Assad mad. On the contrary, I think he has a very rational approach, incredibly murderous and bloody, but rational to him anyway. Painting him as a madman detracts from the calculated cruelty he employs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Or this can turn into yet another "Russia" thread where posters debate that the sky's blue today (odd that debating the truth's a thing in those threads; almost like spreading disinformation is one of the Russian government's intentions - which people just fall into).

(It'd be more productive not to address people arguing that the sky's not blue and detracting from the actual conversation, though, well, this is the internet)

Another? Please this thread was doing the "where is your proof, you can't proof rebels did not do it" long before any Russia thread was just a fragment being formed in the mind of the poster.

If Assad had no chemical weapon storage sites or manufactories loaded with chemical weaponry, then I'm mildly curious what we just went to considerable expense to bomb. I'm reasonably certain they weren't candy floss stalls and marine life parks.

 Ketara wrote:
If Assad had no chemical weapon storage sites or manufactories loaded with chemical weaponry, then I'm mildly curious what we just went to considerable expense to bomb. I'm reasonably certain they weren't candy floss stalls and marine life parks.

It was a medicine factory, didn't you hear? Next time I bet its going to be an orphaned puppy shelter.

Riddle me this then. How is it that a chemical attack takes place and within days we strike three sites that cover the main Syrian production facilities?

We didn’t just spot stuff moving around the day after the attack. Our governments clearly know what’s being made and where but didn’t have a good reason to simply lob missiles into Syria until this week. As soon as an attack occurred we had the justification and knew exactly where to target them.

I watched some of the UN conference today and Russia makes me want to puke. They sit there and have the audacity to talk about how they support legitimate governments against terror, and how this chemical attack has no evidence and taking a ‘won’t anyone think of the civilians’ attitude. Russia veto investigation into chemical weapons and prevent action against Syria, the war continues as long as it does because they’ve propped up Assad for so long. The blood is all on their hands. It’s just more blatant lies and propaganda behind a barely concealed smirk as with the Salisbury poisoning which again involves mysteriously covert chemical weapons.

Honestly I think the Russian tactic is just to lie and lie and make the most outrageous counter accusations until you can’t take it any more and just want put your fingers in your ears and scream until you can’t hear the endless obnoxious blather. Russians must choose to believe all this crap on TV just to have a quiet life.

It'll be interesting to see what eventually becomes of the "Russia problem". If they keep acting like they do for another twenty years, or something happens to finally put an end to their ridiculousness. Given the state of affairs in the rest of the world right now with similar regimes, its difficult to see a way out other than pushing a reset switch on their governments. It'd be a sad state of affairs if in twenty years they're still at it, though just how that would effect a society is a bit chilling. The world is hardly the brighter place that we thought it'd be like at the end of the Cold War. Victim blaming seems to be the political language of the time.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
It'll be interesting to see what eventually becomes of the "Russia problem". If they keep acting like they do for another twenty years, or something happens to finally put an end to their ridiculousness. Given the state of affairs in the rest of the world right now with similar regimes, its difficult to see a way out other than pushing a reset switch on their governments. It'd be a sad state of affairs if in twenty years they're still at it, though just how that would effect a society is a bit chilling. The world is hardly the brighter place that we thought it'd be like at the end of the Cold War. Victim blaming seems to be the political language of the time.

Is there a Putin #2 in the ranks to replace him when he finally croaks?

Realistically Putin will appoint a successor that will likely carry on in the same vein. The Russians don't seem to see the need for large scale shake ups. The behaviour is likely to continue, as with the increasing power of China, Russia will become ever more impotent in its Central Asian backyard. Supporting places like Syria is the only way Russia can feel its still the big dog.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
Is there a Putin #2 in the ranks to replace him when he finally croaks?

Not really. Its the conundrum of Putin's power. He needs a successor. But having one too early might mean he loses power and eventually gets replaced before he wants to by that successor. When he decides its time for his last term a successor will likely come out of the woodwork.

 godardc wrote:
It is not false, you have your sources, I have mine. Somebody is lying, I don't know who, I can't say who. It is not false. They were there, and they said there was nothing.
The WHO was there, apparently, and they said there was something. But you see, I am not "thickheaded', and so I give you that.
Rebels are totally able to do it. Chemicals attacks are easy to do, especially after having being at war for years. They may have facilities, experts, and money. ISIS had a whole state ! A whole country, with taxes, ministers, everything.
But for I don't know what reason, you want it to be the president, and you don't even try to discuss. Your only excuse is that Assad did it because he is mad ? Serously ? Is that all you could fin ? Do you really believe this ?

I can give you a very good reason: FIBUA is a BITCH. We're talking about a bombed out city. Rather than lose men and material that he'd need to stay in power and not have his government collapse again instantly he needs as many soldiers alive at the end of this as possible. Chemical weapons provide him with a way to eliminate dug in defenders without having to go house to house, room to room

Nerve agents are not 'easy to do'. Sarin, in particular, is hard. Iraq, with the complete resources of an entire country at the time, produced very low grade sarin, which decayed VERY rapidly due to the level of impurities present. So the idea of a bunch of rebels producing it is a bit on the laughable side. Chlorine, sure. Phosgene, maybe. but both of these have easily acquired precursors and require very little work to weaponize. Aum Shinrikyo tried and produced a VERY small amount of highly impure sarin, killing 12 people total in an enclosed area in the Tokyo subway attacks.

And you still have no explained away the old soviet era chemical weapon bomb fragments they keep finding. Or are you ignoring that hard and hope it goes away? KhAB-250 do not just 'appear' at the site of chemical weapon attacks, and the way they work precludes the Syrians just laying it on the ground and detonating it.

As you seem to be lacking even the most basic memory, let's remind you some events:
1995, sarin attack, Japan, anyone ?
A bunch of terrorists made sarin, in a industrialized country (laws, police, etc...) and managed to use it, wounding more than five thousands.
But somehow, thousands of terrorists in a ruined country with noone to stop them, and easier access to it (defector, old gov. stocks, money, internet..) couldn't ?
And our governments, one day after, knew who dit it, and where, without any investigation ?
And they knew all that without trying to prevent it ?
Sure thing, guys, sure thing.
The weak mind enjoys the easy lie, the strong one looks for the hard truth. One day, you will wake up, and I'll be there, still searching for the truth


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
If Assad had no chemical weapon storage sites or manufactories loaded with chemical weaponry, then I'm mildly curious what we just went to considerable expense to bomb. I'm reasonably certain they weren't candy floss stalls and marine life parks.

Because you don't have all the answers doesn't mean you have to invent a lie or to believe one. I don't know why, maybe to cover up, to destroy the proofs that it wasn't the president Assad, maybe to lure the media and avoiding the people to get angry to them ( I know TRUMP and macron are in a bad position right now, May I don't know).
Maybe to test the Russians.
See, tens of potential explanations !

Yes. Aliens is also a potential explanation. As are operatives of the lost city of Atlantis. Both are about as likely as the British, American, and French governments conspiring to destroy a bunch of warehouses that apparently hold mysterious proof that the murderous dictator well known for slaughtering his own people with inhumane weapons did not slaughter his own people inhumanely in one specific instance. Not to mention that it still wouldn't explain where these chemical weapons which hit the civilians actually came from. A conspiracy theory does not. valid theory make.

 godardc wrote:
As you seem to be lacking even the most basic memory, let's remind you some events:
1995, sarin attack, Japan, anyone ?
A bunch of terrorists made sarin, in a industrialized country (laws, police, etc...) and managed to use it, wounding more than five thousands.
But somehow, thousands of terrorists in a ruined country with noone to stop them, and easier access to it (defector, old gov. stocks, money, internet..) couldn't ?
And our governments, one day after, knew who dit it, and where, without any investigation ?
And they knew all that without trying to prevent it ?
Sure thing, guys, sure thing.
The weak mind enjoys the easy lie, the strong one looks for the hard truth. One day, you will wake up, and I'll be there, still searching for the truth
!

Observes godardc's utter and total failure to read my post. I did mention Aum Shinrikyo and while 12-13 people were killed, and 54 people were injured,980 have come forward after exposure, the total number of people actually exposed is unknown, and may be as high as 6000. That's total possible exposure, though..

The incredibly low level of deaths in the Aum Shinrikyo incident compared to the very, very high level of lethality that sarin has shows how small the amount they successfully produced was, and how debased it was. With access to modern medical and chemical equipment, and not working in a blown out shell of a country that barely qualified as 'modern' before it got the gak blown out of it.

It's the old 'lone madman in his shack producing enriched weapons-grade uranium' again.

godardc I'm not even sure where to begin, your level of ignorance on this subject appears to be so massive.

That the same opposing arguments from the Failed Assassination of a Former Russian Spy thread are making their over here is perhaps an indication of just how played out they are. I'd imagine by this point someone's made some sort of quick reference sheet on how to retort them given how often they come up and people go to the effort of tearing them apart (though the contents of any responses seem to go over the heads of those making them. Perhaps due to another far fetched argument being just as quickly brought out as one is responded to, or even beforehand when speaking to someone else).

It is obvious that the alleged chemical attack not a real reason for missile strike (just an excuse) and in general the "tyranny of the Assad" is not the reason for the aggressive acts against Syria. This is part of the bigger picture. A big picture shows that US for some reason leaves the Middle East, but at the same time it leaves chaos behind, so that other powers do not get influence there.

 godardc wrote:
It is not false, you have your sources, I have mine. Somebody is lying, I don't know who, I can't say who. It is not false. They were there, and they said there was nothing.

Provide them then. Link to them. My guess is that either they don’t exist or they are RT/Sputnik/some other Russian owned “news” organisation with all the reputability of a 5 year old with a face covered in chocolate.

 godardc wrote:
As you seem to be lacking even the most basic memory, let's remind you some events:
1995, sarin attack, Japan, anyone ?
A bunch of terrorists made sarin, in a industrialized country (laws, police, etc...) and managed to use it, wounding more than five thousands.
But somehow, thousands of terrorists in a ruined country with noone to stop them, and easier access to it (defector, old gov. stocks, money, internet..) couldn't ?

Ah yes Japan, where a frankly massive and well funded doomsday cult managed to make some gas in peacetime in an industrialized nation.

Meanwhile a few hundred terrorists in a surrounded, besieged and bombed residential area have the ability to produce higher quality stuff, because the internet exist? I guess they must have used Amazon's next day delivery to have an industrial lab parachuted into their territory complete with experts and materials. Shame they only managed to hit themselves after going through all that trouble right?

I like how your version has them competent enough to do all that, but then not know how to aim it at someone that's not themselves.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
That the same opposing arguments from the Failed Assassination of a Former Russian Spy thread are making their over here is perhaps an indication of just how played out they are. I'd imagine by this point someone's made some sort of quick reference sheet on how to retort them given how often they come up and people go to the effort of tearing them apart (though the contents of any responses seem to go over the heads of those making them. Perhaps due to another far fetched argument being just as quickly brought out as one is responded to, or even beforehand when speaking to someone else).

About a year ago I made the mistake of debating someone on Syria. Then I found out how much effort is actually put into shifting the blame onto the rebels and the US and the vast amount of fake data produced to back that up. It literally is a copy paste job to some people, because there are sites that do counter every argument with wild explanations. Not just a few, but dozens that twist the truth just a little to seem genuine or sow doubt, down to just the crazy ones. They all do use sources we would use to seem credible, but looking deeper its always taken out of context.

This is obviously my own humble opinion from the footage I've seen, but it looks like the airstrikes blew up up stuff that had already been blown up

I hope no civilians got killed, but the whole thing seems to add up to the square root of feth all.

The war still rages, Assad, short of intervention by 100,000 US Marines, is still going to win.

A diplomatic solution is still the only solution. Sadly, there is a proxy war going on there, and I can't see the Turks or the Saudis backing down...

It would take somebody with political skill and nuance to sort this out, which immediately rules out Trump, Macron and May.

What a shambles.

Well the Syrian government shows us what they want us to see, no surprise there. There is no diplomatic solution available, because as you say, short of a major intervention Assad holds all the cards. Why would he go for the diplomacy option when he can just destroy his enemies?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Well the Syrian government shows us what they want us to see, no surprise there. There is no diplomatic solution available, because as you say, short of a major intervention Assad holds all the cards. Why would he go for the diplomacy option when he can just destroy his enemies?

We still need to sort out the Kurdish problem, reassure Israel, and fix the refugee problem. Heads need to be bashed together around the conference table and a deal thrashed out.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Well the Syrian government shows us what they want us to see, no surprise there. There is no diplomatic solution available, because as you say, short of a major intervention Assad holds all the cards. Why would he go for the diplomacy option when he can just destroy his enemies?

We still need to sort out the Kurdish problem, reassure Israel, and fix the refugee problem. Heads need to be bashed together around the conference table and a deal thrashed out.

At this rate the Kurdish problem is going to sort itself out because Erdogan is going to drive them straight into the arms of Assad. Its not a process we as the West are likely going to get involved in, because we won't be given the option by Putin and Assad.

Israel is pretty much reassured once Assad win's though. Assad and Syria will have been incredibly weakened. Syria today is much less of a threat now then 10 years ago. Hell Israel might even be happy to let it drag out a few more years to suck in Iranian and Hezbollah lives.

As for the refugees. Some will go back, but a good half will never want to go back for good reason. Sending them back is going to be a death sentence for a good deal of them. That can't be solved by a few bureaucrats talking numbers at a conference between the West and Assad/Putin.