Let them sort out their own issues. It's a PR loss to America no matter what, because extremists proselytise based on foreign action. America is the reason this is happening in the first place.

If America were to take action anywhere in the Middle East, it should be Saudi Arabia, to stop the spread of extremism at its roots.

PR loss? Wow. That just about says all that needs to be said. People are being slaughtered by their government and all Americans can think of "Do these pants make me look fat?"

The US has no more PR to lose. I can't think of anyone other than kleptocratic dictators who have a good opinion of the US anymore

What caused the gas attacks to happen NOW? Does it have anything to do with impending fall of Raqqa/Mosul and ISIS need to move it or lose it?

Of course America and the West should do something about Syria - they should back Assad. It became clear a long time ago that Assad wasn't losing, and the war of attrition will be a victory for him anyway. There are no "moderates" left - it's a choice between Assad, ISIS, and the formerly-Al Qaeda affiliated Jabhat Al-Nusra. There are no "good" options there. So we should swallow our pride and support Assad to end the war sooner. Yes, there will inevitably be reprisals by him afterward - but pre-2011, Syria wasn't a hellhole. He was quite a strict dictator, yes, but nothing like the worst of the worst. And it's very hard to argue those reprisals would be worse than the constant ceaseless war going on now, or the failed state situation that Libya has become after we used the most hilariously blatant showing of Imperialism since Suez to get rid of Gaddafi. Somalia and Libya are already failed states - we don't need another one in Syria. The Russians and Assad have already won - the sooner we admit this, the better it is for everyone who actually lives there.

@HR, makes sense in a vacuum, but the implications for Crimea, the Baltics (whenever Russia invades), etc are not good as they invite fait accomplis.

Crimea is a lost cause and anyone who thinks Russia will give it up is delusional. There's a major difference between NATO countries and the ROTW.

The "etc" in my post implied that there are other spots around the world (even some that are outside of NATO) where we might want to react when atrocities are committed. Or is genocide intolerable only when fighting it serves an existential national interest?

btw, Ukraine is not in NATO

toppling a regime with no real play to establish another, due to chemical attacks on its citizenry, in a region of the world with many terrorist elements.

holy shit, it's deja vu all over again. We even had a delusional Republican in charge.





which means he's gonna get 2 terms, doesn't it?

Obviously Ukraine isn't in NATO. The Baltics are.

And the only party committing genocide in Syria is ISIS. War Crimes =/= Genocide.

Yanik - up at 10 for 11 o'clock class,
10:02am - scrapes last night's Fritos off cheek
10:07am - hits the keyboard

@Hauta

1. i was up at 7:30 to go on a run then go to German class
2. fritos are inferior to a multitude of other brands of chips

and yet Trump has quietly put in about 1,000 troops on the ground in Syria so we must have some sort of interest in Syria.

@Yanik, I noticed no denial of the claim that you fell asleep in chips in general. Just sayin...

not last night, although historically, Pringles or Popcorn. Also a nice cup of tea. Perhaps a cookie or two. If they're girl scout cookies then make that 5. or 20.

For all Trumpov's blaming Obama about an unenforced "red line", during Obama's administration (after 2013), I don't remember gas attacks being a thing. Also, Trumpov had weeks to establish a real red line if that's what he wanted. Maybe Kushnev could figure out what to do.

Gas attacks have been a semi-regular thing for quite a while, Hauta. This is not the first time the regime has been "suspected" of using it since the red line, at all.

What HR said.

And I mean primarily the great analysis of 4:40pm. There's nothing to add. The thread might as well get locked now.

Yup, I see that now (checked it out on wikipedia). Semi-regular use. ok, intellectual big shots, why the latest chemical attack? Why now and why in that particular place?

It is odd, isn't it? Chemical weapons don't make people any more dead than conventional alternatives, so considering the international condemnation you get when you use them, why on earth would you?

A couple of possibilities spring instantly to mind. Perhaps the Syrian government had nothing to do with it, and it genuinely was a strike on a rebel chemical weapons stockpile. Maybe it was a Russian attack as part of a power play to demonstrate Trump is just as weak on the international arena as Obama was. Maybe it was a Syrian government plot to kill off the last shreds of moderate opposition, turning the war ever more into a battle between Assad and the Islamists so foreigners like HR will reluctantly support them.

Nothing sounds particularly convincing...

The regime has been using chemical weapons for months now

Actually for years

Khan Sheikhoun, where the attack took place, seems to be on the M5, a highway that connects the regime-controlled portion of Aleppo with the rest of territory controlled by Assad.

Octavious, don't be obtuse. This flaw flag nonsense is just Russian propaganda. Only the regime has these weapons and aircraft. They've been using chemical weapons against the "moderates" for years now very much to eliminate all opposition except ISIS to turn this into an Assad v ISIS conflict. Russia has been working hard at that and Trump is now joining this approach.

HR, the notion that ISIS is the only group committing genocide may be technically true, but the Assad regime has always been a brutal regime with a history of massacring whole villages and torturing and murdering tens of thousands of political opponents. Yes, Assad isn't Pol Pot or Hitler, but no way should anyone embrace Assad.

That's not what he is asking, Ogion. He is asking why *chemical* weapons are being used instead of something conventional that, while it causes the same number of deaths, doesn't draw the international condemnation for whatever reason.

There seems to be something about conventional weapons that is comforting. When they are deployed, usually you are either a casualty or you are not. There are few delayed effects. Chemical (and nuclear) weapons leave a lingering menace. You're never really sure that your safe. Just spitballing here...