Bombing Syria is stupid, this is just gonna be like Iraq war

[Amarok]

OP: What type of reaction/retaliation against a nation that uses chemical weapons would you propose?

Or does the world just let them use chemical weapons until someone outside the nation is effected?

Let's go over options of retaliation shall we 

1. Invade - It will be Iraq all over again only with an openly hostile Russia and Iran involved .

2. Sanctions - Russia will keep the supply lines open . 

3. Airstrikes - Russian jets are there 

4. Assassination - It would make us hypocrites as were chewing out Russia for that . 

Any way you slice it this will not end well

[CapnAwesome]

What is the proof that this is Assad's doing anyway? There a videos of people being gassed, but we can't tell anything from that about who launched gas. In the chaos of Syria, I doubt he's the only one with access to that. Also he has no motive to gas anyone, since he knows it will provoke the world.

[The Grand Nudger]

Assad has every reason to gas dissidents, especially since it didn't provoke anyone.  It's russia that would push back and explain it's uneccessary and draws attention to the conflict in a way that isn't in russias interests.  The worst outcome of syria, for russia, is the uk, france, and us getting our heads out of our asses, working together, and spiking a despot who gasses his own people.  

Which is why russia has been launching a disinformation campaign, preemptively and post action, claiming that the gas attacks are false flags. Hoping upon hope that we do nothing of consequence, and they don;t lose either their toehold in Syria or the benefits of the chaos and mistrust they've sown globally.

[brewer]

What is the proof that this is Assad's doing anyway? There a  videos of people being gassed, but we can't tell anything from that about who launched gas. In the chaos of Syria,  I doubt he's the only one with access to that. Also he has no motive to gas anyone, since he knows it will provoke the world.

Kills perceived enemies, leaves infrastructure, inflicts terror.

[The Grand Nudger]

More than anything..it makes people give up, by disproportionately hitting children - this eradicates local support for insurgents and rebels more than it causes insurgent or rebel casualties. As evidenced by the busloads of hostages being traded to his regime in a bid to stop the gassings that they're totally not doing™. Conventional bombing campaigns, otoh.....do the opposite. They calcify the locals and produce even more rebels and insurgents. In general, people are wlling to go to war, but being exterminated like rodents has a distinct effect (and that answers mins earlier comment about the dead not giving a shit..it;s not about the dead..it;s the effect on the living).

That's what assad needs.  This whole thing is on a timer.  He has to be able to assert control before it;s no longer in russias interest to support him, before iran gives isreal all the reason they require to step up their airstrikes, and before the apathetic west feels the regime change bug.

[The Industrial Atheist]

I'm not saying I know what's going on. I'm not there. But we have evidence that Syrian rebels have used mustard gas against other rebels in the past.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-midea...PZ20151105
The idea of saving a country by bombing the hell out of it doesn't make sense to me. If we topple Assad, there are mainly Jihadists there to fill the power vacuum.
Realistically the odds are slim that we would have a thriving democracy in Syria 50, or even 100 years later.

[The Grand Nudger]

We don;t -have- to save a country by bombing the shit out of it.  We used to be pretty good at this little thing called peacekeeping.  I understand people's aversion to lazy airstrikes and drone hits..but that can be decoupled from defending people against gas attacks (regardless of who's doing it) and an aversion to the one isn;t exactly a credible objection to the other.

More a sign of societal exhaustion, well warranted....feeding inhumane apathy. As someone mentioned earlier..who'se stupid enough to want this job, other than us? No one, but the world is better for having a well meaning idiot in the guise of the US of A. That;s how we built and maintained our prestige...stabilizing the globe for better and for worse (but mostly better). If we can;t continue in that role we won;t be able to sustain our own state in the manner that we've long grown accustomed (and in the manner that the world has come to rely on).

It was a century ago that we decided chemical weapons had no place in this world. Maintaining, at least...the pretense that we still think so and that were still willing (if not quite as capable) at upholding that norm isn't just important for the future of syria..it's important for our own. Particularly when the only thing holding us back is the spectre of a nation that no longer exists, and..more accurately..today, is no better than a middle sized us state. If an actor like that can dictate geo-political policy then the world as we know it has already ground to a halt. There will be another tinpot dictator with the backing a two bit state ready to gas the next group of dissidents, and the next..so on and so forth until some other nation (china) raises to the occasion and assumes our previous role (china).

Personally, I find it abhorrent that the west is now parroting the propaganda and disinformation that these fucked up states are selling for no reason other than their own vested interest in seeing us and our allies do nothing. We're doing their work for them..and they're getting a hell of a return on a very small investment. The point of preventing further gas attacks is not to instill democracy..it's to prevent gas attacks. Sure, we may ultimately end up supporting one of two terrible regimes..but supporting the non-gassing regime is objectively better that supporting the gassing regime through inactivity and social malaise. Yes, it could be expensive to us..but is the wealthiest country in the world bitching about the cost of preventing children from being gassed?

Fuck....me..........

---

TLDR version-  There's a reason that hostile states have targetted our influence rather than our assets or economy..and the reason is simple.  Our influence long ago outgrew the ability of our assets or gdp, and that influence has been the thing that's supported us while barring other states from fully pursuing their own interests.  It;s alot easier to destroy influence, and alot more difficult to repair it once it's been diminished.  

That's syria in a nutshell.

[GUBU]

There were two options for Syria when the civil war broke out, boots on the ground in numbers comparable to Iraq (but with a plan for peace this time around), or a bockade of the Syrian government.

Instead the west went with option 3 "lets arm ISIS and the tribal warlords who'll be at each other's throats before we can say 'attack Assad'".

[The Industrial Atheist]

For sure we should be trying to prevent gas attacks. I don't know how we do that without some form of war though. I don't generally believe in acting unilaterally unless there's a direct threat to the US. So definitely I would be for getting the UN involved.

[The Grand Nudger]

In November of 2017 Russia vetoed the renewal of chemical weapons investigations in syria.
In Februrary of that year Russia and China had already vetoed UN Sanctions over chemical weapons use.

Meanwhile, other member states didn;t have the will to be aggressive because they were dealing with their own existential angst about the browns invading and stealing all the white women jobs and money.  Turns out a certain permanent member was all about stoking that.

---

Did I mention that bit where one of our longtime allies in the region..literally choking on subsidized american weaponry (up to and including nukes) pulled a 180 Erdogan Islamist Backflip after being denied a UN council seat and kept out of the EU?  

Syria provided a great opportunity to kill off the kurds.