Trump vows to make a firm response very soon. The Truman CGS is about to head for the area. I wonder if this is a routine exercise or is it an indication that the USN does not have enough assets already in the region?
I would really love to have a full investigation into this. This IMO is fabricated from the rebels.
If Trump really 'has had enough of this BS' he should come up with a long term, realistic strategy on how to deal with Syria and ask himself what exactly does the U.S. hope to achieve in Syria. If Trump was really fed up with the region he should pull out not just from Syria but from all the other places in the region the U.S. has a military presence.
Why should NATO jump in and do as the U.S. is doing? As for Middle East allies; the U.S. shares a large part of the blame. Saudi and others are more concerned with Yemen rather than with Syria and who encouraged or condone them going into Yemen in the first place? Rather than try to impose some kind of long term peace/confidence building settlement between the Gulf Arabs and Iran; that would benefit everyone; who took sides in the Suuni/Shia Cold War currently being waged?
That point is all the more reason to find out what happened. If Assad did use chemical weapons then as you have said it was completely unnecessary as they where winning and I hope the international community make his regime pay.
A possibility is that chemicals were used to strike fear. To persuade the remaining rebels to surrender.
Indeed. Whoever used the chemicals should be held accountable. However, the U.S. should not be selective when applying justice. The countries responsible for civilian deaths in Yemen should also be held accountable; never mind that they're U.S. allies. And who's accountable for unarmed Palestinians being shot and killed whilst protesting on their land?
Yes I would just add that this comes at a time when Russia sees itself (at least from it's PR pretence, not necessarily genuinely so) to be a victim of Russophobia after the 29 nations expelled diplomats, and the recent US sanctions that have damaged stocks in Russian companies.
Do these allies really have the moral ground here? Especially his Gulf Arab allies who've been waging war on Yemen and who have been supporting various actors in the Syrian conflict for their own interests. I'm totally against the death of civilians [whether Assad supporters or otherwise] but some of the countries crying foul now also have the blood of civilians on their hands and why are there only protests when civilians in rebel held areas are killed? Do we see the same protests when civilians in areas held by Assad are killed? If chemicals were used on civilians in Assad held areas would these same countries be calling for military action or would they first call for an independent investigation? Perhaps some would even claim that Assad and Russia used chemicals on 'friendly' civilians to gain sympathy.
After so many years of war it would be safe to assume that Assad has a firm grip on his army. I'm not into conspiracy theories but there's also the possibility that a 3rd party [I don't mean an outside country] could have been involved. Do we even know if the chemicals were released from the air or by shells?
Isolating them for what purpose and gain? Who benefits? The fact remains that outsiders have long been trying to 'change the course of the conflict' - not for humanitarian concerns but for other reasons.
The big question is about chemical attacks is will they happen again? Taking back the Damascus suburbs does not mean that the war is over. Those rebels have moved further north to fight another day. The war is not over and by reason, neither are chemical attacks. These are crimes against humanity and I for one do not want to be part of a western nation that lets this happen.
No but it will be a further blow for the rebels and another victory for Assad.
Well I'm not part of any Western nation but I certainly wouldn't want anyone to be hit by another chemical attack. The problem here is that missile or air strikes will not necessarily mean that such attacks will not reoccur. An attack will make the U.S. look good but not only will it not prevent another attack; it will not punish those who are responsible for the attack. Ironically, IS and groups like it, will welcome a strike on Assad. If things get worst and the U.S. and Russia engage in hostilities over Syria; IS and groups like it will be overjoyed.
This is what many, including the people of Syria [irrespective of who they back] are up against; not just the West.
I think that the US has lost the right to speak for the West as a whole, because of it's now insular approach. It's new trade policies will hurt more in the west than anything Russia, Iran or Assad can do. How to win friends an alienate allies.
I do not wish to get into politics, but the US leadership will change and with it, the direction of US policies. Such a change might happen before the next presidential election, depending on how things go.