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

[Twilight Hue]

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

Syria dosent have a sense of nationality similar to Iraq. Just who exactly is being punished is up for grabs. I also would prefer actual confirmation rather than alledged speculations before we go in with weapons blazing.

 

[Milton Platt]

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...



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


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

Politics can be messy, I know. But at the end of the day, Italy could stop paying their dues, not send delegates to Nato, and never vote on any Nato resolutions. Effectively, they would not be a member and would no longer have any input into what Nato does.
I don't see how Nato could force them to send a delegate, or force them to vote, or force them to pay any dues. I think it would be detrimental to Italy to align itself with the communist bloc, however, that is their decision to make. I do not know the ramifications of such an action regarding their place in the EU........in any case, Communism does not have a stellar record regarding human rights and personal freedoms

 

[Lyndon]

there is no communist bloc in Europe!! are you living in the 60s??

 

[Milton Platt]

there is no communist bloc in Europe!! are you living in the 60s??

I am aware of the collapse of the Warsaw pact, thank you. I was using the term loosely to describe the remaining collection of countries governed under the communist ideology, which have treaties and trade agreements among themselves. It was just easier than naming each one. I assumed the person I was having the conversation with had sense enough to figure that out. Some people, however, are unable to.

 

[outlawState]

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?

The direct reply to your question must be that first it's a question of evidence to which ordinary mortals like me and you are not privy to. Even if there was certainty, there is another course, which is to bring to trial those culpable. I feel at present there is not enough investigation. Any investigation must be a full one. Trigger happy nations are not desirable. I deplore the "shoot first ask questions later technique."

 

[Lyndon]

I am aware of the collapse of the Warsaw pact, thank you. I was using the term loosely to describe the remaining collection of countries governed under the communist ideology, which have treaties and trade agreements among themselves. It was just easier than naming each one. I assumed the person I was having the conversation with had sense enough to figure that out. Some people, however, are unable to.

Excuse me, there are no countries in Europe governed by a communist ideology. No countries where the communist party is in control of the government, for your information.

 

[Milton Platt]

Excuse me, there are no countries in Europe governed by a communist ideology. No countries where the communist party is in control of the government, for your information.

d
didn't say there were, but Russia is partly in both Eastern and Western Europe.
I also didn't say the countries were governed by a bloc.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

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 want to get involved in Syria, fine. But do it properly. Acknowledge the complexity of the situation, have a clear set of goals, including desired end point, and then have experts draw up evidence based strategy. If you have the will to do everything said strategy requires, great. Do it. But if you're NOT prepared to do that, don't think lobbing a couple of missiles at some arbitrary target in a country and region that's been a war blackened ruin for 20 odd years is going to achieve anything meaningful.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Interventionism is a tough call either way. We're already involved in their civil war, as are the Russians. Unless we want to get into a shooting war with the Russians, we may be hobbled in terms of how we can respond to this. We might have to negotiate with the Russians and give them something in return for withdrawing their support of Assad. Absent Russian support of Assad, the US would then be free to use the entire might of our war machine to topple Assad's regime and bring him to justice.

Remember we tried that once before? So what's the plan? Big "mission accomplished" banner, then home for tea and medals? It was that kind of thinking that destabilised the region and allowed the current situation in Syria to develop in the first place.

Full disclosure, I was there with the Army in '05 just as warry as the rest. Turns out we made a mistake. The least we could do is learn from it.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

d
didn't say there were, but Russia is partly in both Eastern and Western Europe.
I also didn't say the countries were governed by a bloc.

You said "countries governed under a communist ideology", and I don't know who you think you mean.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Syria dosent have a sense of nationality similar to Iraq. Just who exactly is being punished is up for grabs. I also would prefer actual confirmation rather than alledged speculations before we go in with weapons blazing.

But we've got to DO SOMETHING! An immediate strong response that doesn't do anything constructive and may actually make a bad situation worse is better than doing nothing because we lack the information or the ability to do anything to actually improve the situation.

It's called foreign policy. Look it up.

 

[Milton Platt]

You said "countries governed under a communist ideology", and I don't know who you think you mean.

Well, in actuality, the countries we label as communist are generally more socialist in nature, I guess.
But they tend to be dictatorial in nature, although Russia has moved away from that model a great deal (the elections seem to be a sham, though), and China has allowed private ownership as well.
I was thinking of countries such as Russia, China, Vietnam, etc.
The lines aren't as sharply drawn as they once seemed to be.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Well, in actuality, the countries we label as communist are generally more socialist in nature, I guess.
But they tend to be dictatorial in nature, although Russia has moved away from that model a great deal (the elections seem to be a sham, though), and China has allowed private ownership as well.
I was thinking of countries such as Russia, China, Vietnam, etc.
The lines aren't as sharply drawn as they once seemed to be.

China and Vietnam aren't in Europe.

 

[Milton Platt]

Well, in actuality, the countries we label as communist are generally more socialist in nature, I guess.
But they tend to be dictatorial in nature, although Russia has moved away from that model a great deal (the elections seem to be a sham, though), and China has allowed private ownership as well.
I was thinking of countries such as Russia, China, Vietnam, etc.
The lines aren't as sharply drawn as they once seemed to be.

i don't remember ever saying they were.

 

[roger1440]

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

(Martin Niemöller)
First they came ... - Wikipedia...

 

[Lyndon]

d
didn't say there were, but Russia is partly in both Eastern and Western Europe.
I also didn't say the countries were governed by a bloc.

So you actually think Russia is a communist country???? Wake up and read the papers, Russia stopped being communist in the 80s.

 

[Estro Felino]

Politics can be messy, I know. But at the end of the day, Italy could stop paying their dues, not send delegates to Nato, and never vote on any Nato resolutions. Effectively, they would not be a member and would no longer have any input into what Nato does.
I don't see how Nato could force them to send a delegate, or force them to vote, or force them to pay any dues. I think it would be detrimental to Italy to align itself with the communist bloc, however, that is their decision to make. I do not know the ramifications of such an action regarding their place in the EU........in any case, Communism does not have a stellar record regarding human rights and personal freedoms

My country has a different kind of logic; being an exporting country, its only goal is world peace to preserve its economy, and all the Arab Mediterranean countries are seen as future allies and trade partners. So we cannot have enemies of any kind...we hope that Russia and US finally get along.

Whoever decided to eliminate Gaddafi, has definitely damaged us enormously, because he was Italy's greatest ally, economically and diplomatically.

The US has its own military bases here...it doesn't need our approval.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

d
didn't say there were, but Russia is partly in both Eastern and Western Europe.

I should have paid more attention in class. My whole life is a lie!

Where is the part of Russia that is in western Europe? Show me in map or be specific cause it'll make me feel foolish and you'll like it.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

So you actually think Russia is a communist country???? Wake up and read the papers, Russia stopped being communist in the 80s.

No. It stopped saying that it's a communist country but very little has changed.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

i don't remember ever saying they were.

Do you remember what you did say? Cuz it isn't very coherent. To me. But then I was probably not attentive for the last decade because what you say makes no sense. Has no connection to reality.