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

[Poseidon Soter]

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

 

[Estro Felino]

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

I'm not sure about President Assad being a great statesman - to an extent this depends on what you mean by this - or of the wisdom of the US leaving NATO, but I'm equally unconvinced of the idea that it is the West's place to intervene on this score (as on many other scores). That said, what about the civilians?

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.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

Polls here show that my country is sick and tired of being part of the NATO...especially because we are aware that Assad is a great statesman, a good and educated person 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

I'm not sure about President Assad being a great statesman - to an extent this depends on what you mean by this - or of the wisdom of the US leaving NATO, but I'm equally unconvinced of the idea that it is the West's place to intervene on this score (as on many other scores). That said, what about the civilians?

 

[Lyndon]

someone needs to punish the USA for all the cluster bombs they're manufacturing that are being used in Yemen, etc

 

[Poseidon Soter]

someone needs to punish the USA for all the cluster bombs they're manufacturing that are being used in Yemen, etc

To an extent, my questions also apply to this perhaps more hypothetical scenario - whose place would it be?

 

[Stanyon]

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

I have said more than a few times on this board that much of the anti-Russian narrative that has been going on in the U.S. has a lot more to do with justifying increasing and keeping U.S. presence in Syria than anything else and that stoking anti- Russia sentiment will make it easier to sell a war to the American people that they most likely don't overall care that much about so it is no surprise to me that just days after Trump was mentioning a U.S. pull out of Syria all of a sudden we have some attack that will somehow demand our increased involvement. Of course many news outlets shows the dead and dying women and children, the foaming mouths etc. ( CNN at least acknowledged that the footage they had was unconfirmed so I will give them that) all a contrived effort at manipulating the public through outrage and sympathy *we must do something!*. I see France's pro-EU bankster clown President Macron as nothing more than a bad actor on the global stage in a morality play in which he disingenuously plays a champion but seems more like a grandstanding opportunist fool.
Should the U.S. Punish Syria and Russia?
IMO we should never have been involved in the first place but since the U.S. has been involved in the business of regime removal and replacement for years I guess this is just another toilet we stuck our dumb foot into, it's time to remove it as we have nothing to gain.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Should the US, France, and any others who want to enter the fray punish Syria in this way?

Punish 'Syria'? Just who (or what) do you consider to be 'Syria'?

 

[Poseidon Soter]

Punish 'Syria'? Just who (or what) do you consider to be 'Syria'?

In this instance, the Syrian government for their alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians (assume, for the moment, that the Syrian government were responsible).

 

[BSM1]

Polls here show that my country is sick and tired of being part of the NATO...especially because we are aware that Assad is a great statesman, a good and educated person 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.

What country do you represent?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In this instance, the Syrian government for their alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians (assume, for the moment, that the Syrian government were responsible).

"alleged"? Do you doubt it?

 

[sayak83]

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

Trump needs a war to create national fervor before the elections.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

"alleged"? Do you doubt it?

I don't doubt that a chemical attack occurred. And it is most likely the Syrian government. 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.

 

[Stanyon]

 

[Poseidon Soter]

Trump needs a war to create national fervor before the elections.

That may well be. What about France?

 

[Stanyon]

Trump needs a war to create national fervor before the elections.

Trump was trying to get the U.S. out of Syria

 

[Lyndon]

I wouldn't put it past the CIA to be behind the chemical attack, its happened before. Logically, how would a chemical attack possibly help Syria's position, which up and till this attack was getting stronger, it doesn't make any sense, it can only hurt the Syrian government to use chemical weapons, how could they be stupid enough to use them, Assad is no idiot, he's actually quite intelligent if you ever hear him speak.

 

[sayak83]

Trump was trying to get the U.S. out of Syria

Yes. There was little excuse for being there. Also his Russian overlords were unhappy. Chemical attack changed that.

 

[Stevicus]

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

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.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

I wouldn't put it past the CIA to be behind the chemical attack, its happened before. Logically, how would a chemical attack possibly help Syria's position, which up and till this attack was getting stronger, it doesn't make any sense, it can only hurt the Syrian government to use chemical weapons, how could they be stupid enough to use them, Assad is no idiot, he's actually quite intelligent if you ever hear him speak.

Possible, of course. But methinks President Assad works to a different system of logic. And with Russia behind him, presumably he thinks he can act with impunity.

 

[Lyndon]

As US response looms, Russia and Syria urge inspection of attack site