Why should the US (and others, e.g. France) punish Syria?

[Jayhawker Soule]

But it only just occurred, and I'm not a huge fan of throwing around accusations without proof, so am erring on the side of caution in this respect, for now at least.

As you wish ...

 

[Stanyon]

What about France?

For your consideration:
from Nov. 2015
Why France is so deeply entangled in Syria - The Washington Post

 

[Nakosis]

After the chemical attack recently carried out in Syria, allegedly by government forces, President Trump has promised 'forceful' action and in the past, France's President Macron has threatened to strike Syria if the Syrian government were found to use chemical weapons against civilians.

Should the US, France, and any others who want to enter the fray punish Syria in this way? Why or why not? What would be gained? Or lost if the West stood by?

PS

Serious, experienced chemical weapons experts and investigators such as Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, Gareth Porter and Theodore Postol have all cast doubt on “official” American narratives regarding President Assad employing Sarin.

These analysts have all focused on the technical aspects of the two attacks and found them not to be consistent with the use of nation-state quality Sarin munitions.

Now Mattis admits there was no evidence Assad used poison gas on his people

Should the US attack another country without absolute proof of that countries use of chemical weapons?

Probably not. Would the US want another country to attack it based on unproven claims?

I don't know how we could go about getting proof since the whole idea of Sarin gas is that it's use is undetectable. So folks are left to rely on their feelings of who's telling the truth.

 

[Curious George]

After the chemical attack recently carried out in Syria, allegedly by government forces, President Trump has promised 'forceful' action and in the past, France's President Macron has threatened to strike Syria if the Syrian government were found to use chemical weapons against civilians.

Should the US, France, and any others who want to enter the fray punish Syria in this way? Why or why not? What would be gained? Or lost if the West stood by?

PS

If you see man beating his child bloody, should you intervene?

 

[Poseidon Soter]

For your consideration:
from Nov. 2015
Why France is so deeply entangled in Syria - The Washington Post

But does any of this legitimate France's desire to punish the Syrian government for their latest (alleged) atrocity?

 

[Poseidon Soter]

Serious, experienced chemical weapons experts and investigators such as Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, Gareth Porter and Theodore Postol have all cast doubt on “official” American narratives regarding President Assad employing Sarin.

These analysts have all focused on the technical aspects of the two attacks and found them not to be consistent with the use of nation-state quality Sarin munitions.

Now Mattis admits there was no evidence Assad used poison gas on his people

Should the US attack another country without absolute proof of that countries use of chemical weapons?

Probably not. Would the US want another country to attack it based on unproven claims?

I don't know how we could go about getting proof since the whole idea of Sarin gas is that it's use is undetectable. So folks are left to rely on their feelings of who's telling the truth.

Let's say there is absolute proof (or proof beyond reasonable doubt) that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against civilians - does that give the West the right to somehow punish the Syrian government for this action? If so, why?

 

[Poseidon Soter]

If you see man beating his child bloody, should you intervene?

I'm not convinced the analogy applies here, though it's an interesting one, to be sure. It's a little more complicated, for a start, not least given previous US/Western engagement in the region.

 

[Nakosis]

Let's say there is absolute proof (or proof beyond reasonable doubt) that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against civilians - does that give the West the right to somehow punish the Syrian government for this action? If so, why?

Good question. It would allow us, I think to feel justified in acting against Syria.

Right? If you can do something you have the right to do it.

Is it the morally right thing to do? Who knows? Personally I don't believe in punishment. You take steps to prevent something bad from reoccurring without prejudice.

IMO folks act according to their feelings. If they feel it is ok to prevent Syria from using chemical weapons, that's probably what they do.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

You take steps to prevent something bad from reoccurring without prejudice.

What would you have had the West do in this scenario?

 

[Nakosis]

What would you have had the West do in this scenario?

Remove Assad from power.

If Trump was using chemical weapons I'd hope someone would remove him from power as well. If we couldn't do it ourselves I'd hope some country would come along and do it for us.

 

[Curious George]

I'm not convinced the analogy applies here, though it's an interesting one, to be sure. It's a little more complicated, for a start, not least given previous US/Western engagement in the region.

Precisely what do you mean?

 

[Woberts]

fake news

Stop! You have violated the law!

Spoiler

tbh this is going to be the only thing Trump is remembered for

 

[Milton Platt]

Polls here show that my country is sick and tired of being part of the NATO...especially because we are aware that Assad has never done anything wrong and being against him defies any logic.

Sooner or later we will ask for quitting the NATO...enough with war games played by the USA



Well...I know his story, and how fake news were meant to discredit him. I was speaking about my country , Italy which is supposed to be a neutral country de jure, but , because of NATO was turned into a military colony of the US, de facto.
I don't care what Assad does, or what other countries do or don't. My country wishes not to participate to any war.

Here is a list of neutral countries:
≡ List of Neutral Countries Today + Independant States in World & Europe

I don't see Italy listed. Is it declared in your constitution? Do you have a standing army?

 

[Estro Felino]

Here is a list of neutral countries:
≡ List of Neutral Countries Today + Independant States in World & Europe

I don't see Italy listed. Is it declared in your constitution? Do you have a standing army?

By constitution, art. 11, Italy must only use its army to defend itself, if attacked, and most jurists agree on the fact that Italy was meant to be neutral.
But in 1949 it was forced to join the NATO, so it is not a country which can have autonomous decisions, but it has duties and obligations towards the other NATO members, and has 59 American military installations in its territory.

As Trump expects us to spend the 2% of our GDP on the military, both the right-wing and other parties are considering the idea of asking to leave the NATO, as we are already perceiving a growing anti-Russian sentiment and we want to stay out of it.

Also because the recent elections here were won by a party that supports and befriends Russia

Btw if that happens, US will keep all its military bases in Italy

Remove Assad from power.

Yes...remove him...you will do him a favor...because his dream to modernize and secularize Syria is something Utopian....
I think Syria has a huge anthropological problem.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

especially because we are aware that Assad has never done anything wrong and being against him defies any logic.

to any war.

 

[columbus]

"alleged"? Do you doubt it?

I have doubts. There are too many players with competing interests to be sure who did what.

If the USA wants to save a middle east country from an autocratic monarchy, why don't we start with Saudi Arabia? We have a lot more leverage. And the Saudis organized, funded, and carried out 9/11.

Personally, I would prefer that we just get out (militarily) of the middle east entirely. That includes Israel. If the USA stopped instigating and funding wars there would be A Lot less of them.
Tom

 

[Milton Platt]

By constitution, art. 11, Italy must only use its army to defend itself, if attacked, and most jurists agree on the fact that Italy was meant to be neutral.
But in 1949 it was forced to join the NATO, so it is not a country which can have autonomous decisions, but it has duties and obligations towards the other NATO members, and has 59 American military installations in its territory.

As Trump expects us to spend the 2% of our GDP on the military, both the right-wing and other parties are considering the idea of asking to leave the NATO, as we are already perceiving a growing anti-Russian sentiment and we want to stay out of it.

Also because the recent elections here were won by a party that supports and befriends Russia

Btw if that happens, US will keep all its military bases in Italy




Yes...remove him...you will do him a favor...because his dream to modernize and secularize Syria is something Utopian....
I think Syria has a huge anthropological problem.

That's very informative. thanks for sharing. Please explain how exactly a country can be forced to join NATO. I don't understand how that can be done. And once in, what prohibits a country from simply leaving the alliance if it wishes to do so? Pardon all the questions. I don't know much about Italy or NATO. I share your concern over our current administration. That will eventually change again. It always does.

Do you feel Italy is capable of defending itself against aggression from another country without help from anyone?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Do you feel Italy is capable of defending itself against aggression from another country without help from anyone?

I'm pretty sure it's gonna depend on the nation.
I give them a solid hitter's chance against Vanuatu, but they'll struggle against the USA.

 

[Estro Felino]

That's very informative. thanks for sharing. Please explain how exactly a country can be forced to join NATO. I don't understand how that can be done. And once in, what prohibits a country from simply leaving the alliance if it wishes to do so? Pardon all the questions. I don't know much about Italy or NATO. I share your concern over our current administration. That will eventually change again. It always does.

It's not that easy to explain the complexity of NATO relations...just let me tell you that the next Government here will probably refuse to cooperate with the US to attack Syria...
this doesn't imply that Italy will leave the NATO...

Do you feel Italy is capable of defending itself against aggression from another country without help from anyone?

Of course not...it certainly needs allies...

I'm pretty sure it's gonna depend on the nation.
I give them a solid hitter's chance against Vanuatu, but they'll struggle against the USA.

Ha ha...even Fiji could defeat Italy, theoretically

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Ha ha...even Fiji could defeat Italy, theoretically

Whilst I'll admit, they keep their soldiers active (by occasionally throwing out the democratically elected government) they only have about 3500 soldiers. They'd need to supplement them with these guys I guess...