Syria - what is to be done?

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

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.

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

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.

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?

Boris has cancelled his trip to Russia.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

FitzyI wasn't posting about letting Asaad get away with unleashing chemical weapons, I was saying are we really sure it was him. The Americans got it wrong before and they should learn from their history. They are very gung-ho and don't think of the outcomes of their actions.

Luckygirl, I agree with your post entirely.

I am not sure what we should have done about Hitler. I think about the millions gassed and the effects of the bombs on Hiroshima etc. and wonder whether we achieved much by going for all-out war. That is apart from all the people, both German and on the allied side, who were bombed out of their homes and killed in their beds.

Might we not have better used our intelligence services to find a way of targeting Hitler himself? To have put all our eggs in that basket as the best way of destroying the threat? If all the massive effort that went into the war had been focused on this one aim I am sure it could have been successful. What would have happened next, who knows? Clearly it was not possible to negotiate with him; but I am willing to bet there were those in his entourage who would have been amenable to cooperating in wiping him out.

Equating this situation to WW2 does not really help us - the outcome of all-out war this time around would be very very different; and far far more dangerous.

As to Syria, unfortunately we will give hope to the rebels by actions such as Trump's. That is not the aim; but it is the result. If the rebels have got any sense they will now be trying to find ways to engineer further chemical attacks, however small, so that they can get Trump to do their dirty work for them.

It is very complex, there are wheels within wheels, and just dropping in from above is a huge sledgehammer reaction.

I in no way condone the chemical attacks - who in their right mind would? - but we really do have to tread carefully and I have no faith that Trump has the remotest idea about such a concept.

Always have done dj

It is fascinating to listen to the far right who supported Trump because of his Nationalist agenda. They are finally learning what we already knew that the man is utterly unpredictable and cannot be trusted day to day.

We are doing more than we think we are.

www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers_and_reports/remote_control_project_report_all_quiet_isis_front_british_

About the secretive use of drones in the middle east.

I had a similar conversation with my father in my teens when I was totally anti-war too, iam. I got a similar response. there are some things that, once we know about them, cannot be allowed to carry on without action. What's that quote about the best way for evil to thrive is by good people doing nothing about it?

Lucky girl this isn't about supporting Syrian rebels it's about trying to respond in some sort of measured way to the illegal and appalling use of chemical weapons. If Assad doesn't use them again I would think that will be the end of US involvement. Maybe Assad will carry in regardless, and maybe Putin will let him do so, but maybe he will think again. But to just do nothing would be to accept that the international ban on the use of these weapons is just so much waste paper. Maybe it is - we'll see.

Lucky girl, are you suggesting that Hitler should have been left to get on with his plans for world domination? I apologise if this sounds sarcastic, it isn't meant to be, it's a genuine question based on your comment about WW2 "what a debacle all that was. We don't want to do anything that heads us off in that direction once more".

One of the reasons I ask, is I remember in my mid teens challenging my father about war of any kind (I was protesting agains the war in Vietnam) I said everything can and should be resolved by negotiation. Dad acknowledged my feelings and responded calmly "there would have been no negotiating with Hitler".

"BAE does not believe it has a moral obligation to consider its customers' actions. When questioned at the company's 2016 AGM by activists concerned about the uses to which BAE's weaponry is put, Roger Carr, the company's chairman, said: "We are not here to judge the way that other governments work, we are here to do a job under the rules and regulations we are given." "

Maybe they should be given different rules and regulations.

Being a member of CAAT, I expect Jeremy to agree with me on this.

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/07/us-russia-relations-syria-military-strikes-putin-trump

Not much damage done, apparently, apart from to trump's reputation.
Not saying what his next step is, but he has bigger and stronger toys to play with than Hitler had.

Indeed - and what a debacle that all was. We certainly do not want to do anything that heads us off in that direction once more.

The complexity of the situation is what concerns me - by supporting the rebels in Syria with the US action against Assad, we are inadvertently supporting the very terrorists that we are fighting daily in the west and who want Egypt to be a fundamentalist Islamic state.

Hitler wasn't "one to be thwarted" either