Syria - what is to be done?

Well, it seems I'm a member of the "far right", whatever WW means by that, and of course ludicrously naive in believing what appears to a fascist like myself as very clear evidence of Assad's use of chemical weapons, but I think the most dangerous attitude is that of the unimaginably soft left in simply saying to Assad and Putin, "just get on with it. The West will never, in any circumstances, respond with military action to anything you do anywhere in the world. Except perhaps call for a UN resolution". Which of course Mr Putin's UN lapdog will veto.

Exactly Fitzy and since WW has also called me 'far right' ( ludicrous!) in the past,
I have come to the conclusion that on this forum the 'far left' insist on drowning out even moderate debate on subjects.

Whatever anyone thinks of Trump should not colour their judgement of his actions.
The US action was a right response to Assad on the use of chemical warfare.This may have been aided and abetted by the Russians, so will make them think twice as well.

fitz and rose I would be grateful if you would point out where on this thread or indeed any thread I have called you both far right.

With regard to your opinion that Trump was right to respond in the way he did. So when Assad aided by the Russians uses barrel bombs etc on his citizens, almost certainly killing far more than the sarin strike, what should Trumps reaction be?

You see the problem with this whole sorry episode is that Trump has reacted emotionally without a clue what will either be achieved or what he will do next. There is absolutely no discernible foreign policy, or at least as Trump screeches into the next U-turn it is almost impossible to know where he is going next.

Never make the assumption that this will stop Assad. All the time he is being supported by the Russians he feels pretty invincible.

Oh come on ww you have said it to me more than once....the last time you said that I had been on a journey to the right and was now on a par with Ghengis Khan ....but it made both DH and myself laugh that you were so far of the mark.
There are two schools of thought about the US bombing Assads airfield, one seems to be eek, we mustn't annoy Assad or the Russians or they may notice us which seems pretty cowardly to me, or it was the correct and right thing to do to show that we are not having any more use of chemical warfare, and indeed it is a red line.
If anybody waited for UN resolutions they would be waiting a long time indeed, whilst Assad got on with ever more evil doing.

I agree with you Ww. Trump might be lucky and end up being judged kindly by history, if there is ever some kind of solution in Syria. Mistakes and misjudgments have always been made in wars and diplomacy, which is why we should always ask about the context.

However, it concerns me that Trump doesn't appear to have any strategy. I just can't make any sense of his cosying up to Putin and isolationist foreign policy statements, then doing this. It seems he'll do and say anything on a whim.

I confess that if I'd been an MP and had to vote on intervening in Syria, I would probably have voted for intervention, although with a very heavy heart and many misgivings. I would have wanted to know that there was an exit strategy and plans for maintaining the victory. I don't think Trump has even thought about it. A number of American defence experts were interviewed just after the attack and they seemed stunned and horrified.

There's another school of thought that it won't stop the use of chemical weapons and could escalate the situation, no matter what the moral arguments are.

Boris has cancelled his trip to Russia.

Nope I disagree with your two schools of thought analysis rose

Let us assume the first school of thought (I use the term loosely ) is the Trump school of thought, which goes along the line that "America first, which means that I am broadly in line with the far right (not rose) and prefer Nationalism and isolationism over inclusivity" At the beginning of the week I was making supportive noises towards Assad and in the past have praised him for his efforts to get rid of terrorists"

During the last sarin attack in 2013 I was totally against Obama using any action.

Fast forward to two days ago. My daughter was terribly distraught at the pictures on CNN of the babies dead and dying. I agreed that it was a very bad thing to have done. I had a word with my security council (not Steve who hasn't really given me terribly good advice since taking office as so much has gone wrong which is clearly not my fault) we decided to send over a few missiles to warn Assad that he really must not gas women and children"

My far right supporters (not rose) are very critical over my actions as they are saying it is a betrayal of my election promises.

The second school of thought is that of those who consider military action without a political backup always ends in tears. Nothing to do with cowardness but everything to do with agreeing that Assad and Putin are taking things to the absolute limit and must be stopped, but to go in with an attack without an end plan will invariably end in failure. Not to have learned that lesson after Iraq and Libya is sheer lunacy. Putin will not be stopped and will certainly not want to lose face. The question is what next?

The world is going to see Trump as the good guy and Putin and Assad singled out as plain wrong. Regardless of whether he has a policy or not, he showed the world compassion and that's what we need right now. He acted because the pictures of dead children make all of us wonder about our own humanity.
His target wasn't human life, it was the chemical weapon plant.
He was also right about Sweden and he's probably more right than wrong on other things too because ultimately, his own paranoia make him super sensitive and emotional.
But this is better than being sat on the fence like the UN and even Obama.
He's caused a confrontation. But something had to happen.
Isis said in February 2016 they were going to flood Europe with the weapon of mass migration and although just over 1 million refugees isn't that many compared to 50 million during WW2, it's who they've planted amongst those refugees that's the problem.
The terrorist in Sweden was apparently known to police. How fed up are we all of hearing that these terrorists walking our streets are already known to the police yet they go on to kill and wreak havoc.
Good for Trump.

Where is Putin going to find the funds for a war?

What does that mean? Putin is rich and Russia is ranked 12th in GDP. It's 71st for GDP per capita, but that's because of the disparity between rich and poor, not because it doesn't have the money to fight wars. It's a bit like the UK and the US in that regard.

Russia has more nuclear warheads than the US, both active and in total.

theconversation.com/us-strike-on-syria-swiftly-ends-talk-of-warmer-relations-with-russia-75872

theconversation.com/trump-strikes-in-syria-illegal-ineffective-and-dangerous-75936

So Russia can afford to have multiple wars with Syria, Ukraine, the Eastern Bloc and the West.

www.forbes.com/sites/timdaiss/2016/08/19/prolonged-sanctions-rip-into-russia-causing-angst-for-putin/#5548924739e5

Really? In 2015 Russia almost doubled the amount of gas it exported to the UK. It also produced 35% of EU gas.
Someone forgot to tell British Gas that they were not supposed to import gas from Russia.

From where I am sitting typing this, I can see a house belonging to someone who goes to Russia and checks their pipelines for safety.

I still don't see how Putin can afford to have wars in so many places. But then I'm an optimist. And it's not like we haven't been here before.

www.gazpromexport.ru/en/presscenter/news/1918/

New record of exports to Europe.

Obviously Putin can afford to have wars in so many places.
How much of Gazprom does he personally own?

OK, if he bombs us all off the planet, who's going to buy his gas?

He's not going to do that, though, is he? I think you are being a bit melodramatic here.

You do actually make a point for disarmament, though.

I'm being melodramatic????

But anyway exactly. If WW3 breaks out, what happens to the gas?

Been out for a long time. So WW when you posted about listening to the far right supporting Trump, you absolutely were not including me or any of the other posters who said anything in support of Trumps action?