US General Election 2016

Dictators under stress will do whatever they think they can get away with.- Halfy


{{But he isnt under stress- he is protected by Russia meaning the UN cant touch him, only the US could and only if they want to risk war with Russia so basically he is safe, and he was under no particular pressure when he made the supposed chemical attack than he has been under up till then, there was nothing changed.

The only possible changing factor I can think of is the week before Trumps Ambassador said removing Assad was not a priority. Its possible he took that to mean the US wasnt going to interfere- but jumping right to 'ok we can use chems now' seems an odd jump even so. }}}

'he may have thought that Trump would 'do an Obama' and not actually follow through on threats that a red line should not be crossed'- Figg

{{{ Thats a bit of a disservice to Obama and not what happened- after the red line was crossed Obama first tried to get a coalition of countries to help respond- but when the UK Parliament right before the US congress voted on it, voted against action the US lost the momentum and the allies to act collectively- andCongress would not then support Obama's attempt to get them to sign off on it.

So instead Obama went through the UN diplomatic channels and got the UN to oversee, under the auspices of Russia, France, the UK and Finland, the removal of all chemical weapons Assad had at the time }}}

He's in a civil war, which is stress. Also, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, he had been told that America had "no interest" in these Arab-state affairs. When a dictator is told that he will be left alone, there's often trouble.

{{He was in a civil war before- and has only used chems once before- and that got him a lot of shit, and got his closet ally Russia a lot of shit, they then had to go clear it out for the UN.
I dont see what benefit he would think using them again now would do- Russia and Iran are providing him all the weaponry he needs. And it hasn't benefited him- as before its got him a lot of shit and put his strongest ally in a difficult position- same result as last time but slightly worse.

I could maybe conceive of Assad going it alone doing it as Saddam did- but Saddam by the time of the war was his own madman- Assad isn't he is a Russian puppet client ruler. And I find it near impossible to believe Russia signed off on the use of chemical weapons. They just aren't that stupid. }}

I doubt he thinks of himself as a Russian puppet ruler.

This article from Bloomberg is so much fun I have to quote several sections.

The vacuum created by an uninformed president with a policy agenda that maxed out at 140 characters "was supposed to be a feature, not a bug," said Republican consultant Liam Donovan, via email. Donald Trump would get to tweet, and House Speaker Paul Ryan would get to determine the contours of the American future.

---

"In a normal White House, an inexperienced president would seek help from experts," emailed John Pitney, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College. "Reagan was light on foreign policy experience, but he surrounded himself with people who knew the field, starting with Vice President Bush. By delegating more power to Jared Kushner, Trump seems to be enlarging the vacuum."

Power doesn't so much concentrate in the White House as shrink there.

"The same problem extends to the broader administration where you can't fill out a government because many who are qualified aren't interested, most who are interested aren't qualified, and among the few who are both you're seeing people disqualified based on perceived loyalty issues," Donovan said.

The Trump team, continued Donovan, seems to believe "they can shrink government and/or limit internal sabotage by simply not filling many of these positions -- the problem with this approach is that you're just dividing the same amount of power fewer ways, ceding a ton of it to career bureaucrats by default, for better or worse."

---

Some vacuums won't fill. A 70-year-old man is unlikely to develop a moral sensibility, and his beleaguered and compromised staff appears unable to supply him with a facsimile.

Likewise, Trump's almost supernatural ignorance of American history leaves him unable to connect present to past, leaving a continent-size hole at the core of the White House narrative.

---

I doubt he thinks of himself as a Russian puppet ruler.- Halfy


{{I doubt Saddam thought of himself as a puppet of the West either.
But to quote one British Minister "He might have been a bastard, but he was our bastard." }}}

That's exactly the point: it doesn't matter what other people think, only what the dictator thinks. Hussein invaded Kuwait because he didn't think of himself as a Western bastard. The West punished him for thinking he could act independently.

Watch what Russia does. They may not actually care if he dropped chemical weapons, but if he did it and they care, he'll pay the price. I admit, he doesn't seem to have paid a price yet.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{ And I find it near impossible to believe Russia signed off on the use of chemical weapons. They just aren't that stupid. }}

It seems not everybody agrees with you.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNITED_STATES_SYRIA_MILITARY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-04-10-16-14-38

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The United States has concluded Russia knew in advance of Syria's chemical weapons attack last week, a senior U.S. official said Monday.

The official said a drone operated by Russians was flying over a hospital as victims of the attack were rushing to get treatment. Hours after the drone left, a Russian-made fighter jet bombed the hospital in what American officials believe was an attempt to cover up the usage of chemical weapons.

The official said the presence of the surveillance drone over the hospital couldn't have been a coincidence, and that Russia must have known the chemical weapons attack was coming and that victims were seeking treatment.

I find it hard to believe that even Trump would bomb without pretty good evidence. Tweet, hell yeah...but bombing has to sift through a number of hands far more competent than his own.

That being said, the drone thing above doesn't feel at all convincing to me.

From where I'm sitting (safely on the opposite side of the globe) I find it hard to believe that the Syrian air force could successfully plan and launch a chemical warfare attack without Russian Intelligence being at least aware of it. Putin is old school KGB and his spycraft is first class. I can't believe he'd ever get involved in any conflict without first having this kind of basic intelligence in place.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/10/us/politics/trump-golf-course-getaways.html?

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Dictators under stress will do whatever they think they can get away with.- Halfy


{{But he isnt under stress- he is protected by Russia meaning the UN cant touch him, only the US could and only if they want to risk war with Russia so basically he is safe, and he was under no particular pressure when he made the supposed chemical attack than he has been under up till then, there was nothing changed.

The only possible changing factor I can think of is the week before Trumps Ambassador said removing Assad was not a priority. Its possible he took that to mean the US wasnt going to interfere- but jumping right to 'ok we can use chems now' seems an odd jump even so. }}}

'he may have thought that Trump would 'do an Obama' and not actually follow through on threats that a red line should not be crossed'- Figg

{{{ Thats a bit of a disservice to Obama and not what happened- after the red line was crossed Obama first tried to get a coalition of countries to help respond- but when the UK Parliament right before the US congress voted on it, voted against action the US lost the momentum and the allies to act collectively- andCongress would not then support Obama's attempt to get them to sign off on it.

So instead Obama went through the UN diplomatic channels and got the UN to oversee, under the auspices of Russia, France, the UK and Finland, the removal of all chemical weapons Assad had at the time }}}

Trump just bombed.

halfwise wrote:He's in a civil war, which is stress.  Also, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, he had been told that America had "no interest" in these Arab-state affairs.  When a dictator is told that he will be left alone, there's often trouble.

yeah and living in a bunker must be a bit whiffy after 6 years.

David H wrote:From where I'm sitting (safely on the opposite side of the globe) I find it hard to believe that the Syrian air force could successfully plan and launch a chemical warfare attack without Russian Intelligence being at least aware of it.  Putin is old school KGB and his spycraft is first class. I can't believe he'd ever get involved in any conflict without first having this kind of basic intelligence in place.

What I'm not convinced of is the idea that Russia would have bombed the hospital as a cover up. I don't doubt that Putin knew what was going on. I just don't understand why he would protect Assad to that extent.

{{Ok my political bullshit meter is off the scale now on this one.

So America says it knows Russia colluded on the chems use because a Russian drone was spotted near the hospital where victims were taken, then shortly later the hospital was bombed- according to the US to cover up the evidence.

I am rather reminded of the response of the Bulgarian representative at the UN the other day when the current US Ambassador presented the intelligence evidence demonstrating the flight paths of the Syrian planes, the timing of the chemical attack, and the planes position at the time, thus proving with facts that Syria did it- the Bulgarian merely responded with a photograph, of Colin Powell at the UN standing before a huge satellite image highlighting Sadam's mobile WMD platforms, that never existed.

US credibility on intelligence is pretty low at the UN and rightly so- the US has blatantly lied, produced falsified evidence and made up justifications for war at the UN based purely on its own self interests.

But if I were to begin to wonder conspiracy of some type in this current scenario (on the basis that the official version sounds dodgier than a 3am kebab) Id start where its always best to- whose doing what and who stands to gain?

Syria, as well as providing Russia with a strategic military port is its only foothold in the middle east. They dont want to lose it or risk it- hence the support for Assad. Hard to see what they gain out of this. Easy to see what they gain by supporting Assad.
Assad of course would be either killed or tried for war crimes if he stands down. Hard to see what he gains either. Particularly in a war he was already winning.

On the other side we have the US- they want Russia and Assad out, again, this chem attack is a gain for them as it gives them the political and moral will to act. And it benefits Trump of course as he needs to put distance between himself and any notion of collusion with Russia on the election and because he has the lowest popularity ratings of any President in a long time and historical a short sharp victorious war does wonders for your poll ratings. Its easy to see what the US gains are here.
And now they have been joined by, surprise surprise, the voices of the US strongest allies- the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Australia and of course, not least Israel, basically the collective 'West'.
All of whom stand to benefit from driving Russia out of Syria as allies of the US. Thus denying Russia the military port, the strategic location and direct influence in the area- important if the next stage is to isolate Iran from military aid by cutting off its allies in the region.

Which leaves two possibilities of course- either Assad was stupid enough to make more chemical weapons after he got rid of the last lot and then to use them again, with full Russian knowledge and with Russian assistance in covering up the evidence by bombing a hospital.

Or someone else used chemicals to stitch up Russia as a means of depriving them of a foothold in the Middle-east and as a means to remove Assad militarily and no doubt replace him with a Western facing regime.

Mmmmmm one of those strikes me as sounding more plausible than the other. }}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{ Which leaves two possibilities of course- either Assad was stupid enough to make more chemical weapons after he got rid of the last lot and then to use them again, with full Russian knowledge and with Russian assistance in covering up the evidence by bombing a hospital.

Or someone else used chemicals to stitch up Russia as a means of depriving them of a foothold in the Middle-east and as a means to remove Assad militarily and no doubt replace him with a Western facing regime.

Mmmmmm one of those strikes me as sounding more plausible than the other. }}}

Wait, I'm confused. You're saying the only two choices are Assad being stupid or Trump being brilliant???

There MUST be a third choice.......

I don't claim to know for sure who was behind the attack but I'm not sure why you don't bring up the possibility that Assad figured using chemical weapons was a low-risk move since he suffered essentially no consequences after the previous attack. I know there was uncertainty at the time as to who was responsible for that attack and honestly I didn't follow the aftermath closely enough to know what evidence might have been uncovered, but most of the international community blamed Assad without actually doing anything in response.

There MUST be a third choice.......- Dave


{{There is- Trump aint running this show- I think recent changes behind the scenes at Defence dept. point to the minds at work here }}

'I'm not sure why you don't bring up the possibility that Assad figured using chemical weapons was a low-risk move since he suffered essentially no consequences after the previous attack'- Eldo

{{There were some consequences, further sanctions ect and of course including the removal of his chemical weapons under the UN resolution Obama got hen Congress would not vote for a military response (or the UK parliament) overseen by Russia.
But whilst Assad is unpleasant and a dictator he is not so far shown himself to be a completely mad one- he still has control of his fores, he is engaged in a very nasty civil war but one his side are winning- I dont see at this point the strategic need for such a move. And when you add in Russian collusion in covering it up- its all rather neat- I'm suspicious of things that are too neat. Only narratives are neat, real life isn't.
I find it unlikely Assad would put Russia in the position it has for no strategic or military gain on the ground, and it seems even more implausible to me that Russia would have signed off on it as a knowing partner. They would have absolutely nothing to gain by doing so and a lot to risk. And Putin as a strategist has not so far proven himself to be a complete idiot, which he'd need to be to have signed off on this.}}}

I'm with Eldo - it makes more sense that Assad both used the chem weapons AND bombed the hospital. As to why he'd use CW : they are cheaper than conventional. This is actually the likely reason they are banned. With conventional weapons we have some control over who gets them.

I'll admit there's a possibility a stockpile got left behind in the fog of war. Convincing evidence of them being dropped instead would be if there was no bombing in the area when the CW event happened, but I don't know if such was the case.

{{It doesn't seem to make sense to me- zero strategic advantage to be gained lots to lose.
As to cost- Assad isn't paying for it- Russia and Iran are the main suppliers of his armaments and munitions.
Plus the narrative is subtly different from reality- for example in the narrative the Russians bombed the hospital to cover up the evidence.
In reality the hospital was badly damaged in the bombing, but its still there, and it seems not more or less worse off than it was any of the previous three times it was closed down due to damage after bombing raids in the area.
If it was a cover up the hospital would have been obliterated, wiped off the face of the planet.
In reality it looks like it took the same sort of collateral damage it has had before when no one was suggesting it was a direct target to cover something up. And thats suspicious- its too convenient a use of circumstances.}}}

I agree the pinning of the narrative to the hospital bombing makes no sense.

I agree with Eldo too.

Let's not forget that there are still huge stockpiles of chemical weapons around the world, and if you're engaged in a war anyway, there's going to be a temptation to use them if you think you can get away with it.
From Wikipedia:

Chemical weapons

Russia signed the Chemical Weapons Convention on January 13, 1993, and ratified it on November 5, 1997. Russia declared an arsenal of 39,967 tons of chemical weapons in 1997 consisting of:

blister agents: Lewisite, mustard, Lewisite-mustard-mix (HL)
nerve agents: Sarin, Soman, VX

Ratification was followed by three years of inaction on chemical weapons destruction because of the August 1998 Russian financial crisis.

Russia met its treaty obligations by destroying 1% of its chemical agents by the Chemical Weapons Convention's 2002 deadline, but requested technical and financial assistance and extensions on the deadlines of 2004 and 2007 due to the environmental challenges of chemical disposal. This extension procedure spelled out in the treaty has been utilized by other countries, including the United States. The extended deadline for complete destruction (April 2012) was not met.[6] As of October 2011, Russia has destroyed 57% of its stockpile. Russia also destroyed all of its declared Category 2 (10,616 MTs) and Category 3 chemicals.
Russia has stored its chemical weapons (or the required chemicals) which it declared within the CWC at 8 locations: in Gorny (Saratov Oblast) (2.9% of the declared stockpile by mass) and Kambarka (Udmurt Republic) (15.9%) stockpiles already have been destroyed. In Shchuchye (Kurgan Oblast) (13.6%), Maradykovsky (Kirov Oblast) (17.4%) and Leonidovka (Penza Oblast) (17.2%) destruction takes place, while installations are under construction in Pochep (Bryansk Oblast) (18.8%) and Kizner (Udmurt Republic) (14.2%).

In 1993, the U.S. signed the CWC, which required the destruction of all chemical weapon agents, dispersal systems, chemical weapons production facilities by 2012. Both Russia and U.S. missed the CWC's extended deadline of April 2012 to destroy all of their chemical weapons. The United States destroyed 89.75% of the original stockpile of nearly 31,100 metric tons (30,609 long tons) of nerve and mustard agents under the terms of the treaty. Chemical weapons destruction resumed in 2015 with expected completion by 2023.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:It doesn't seem to make sense to me- zero strategic advantage to be gained lots to lose.

You could just as easily say this about barrel bombs. Why would Assad still risk the wrath of the international community by indiscriminately killing civilians with conventional weapons when his position these days is relatively secure? Or, since you don't seem to dispute that Assad was behind the 2013 chemical weapons attack, why would he have ever used them in the first place given the strong international stigma against them? The unpleasant truth of the matter is that, as with barrel bombs, chemical weapons are an effective means of killing people and spreading terror, which is a common counterinsurgency tactic. Whether it's ultimately effective at reducing civilian support for insurgents is questionable at best, but that's rarely a consideration that makes government forces in this type of conflict hesitate.

Again, I have no way of knowing who was actually behind the attack or whether it was connected to the hospital bombing. The second part seems like a tenuous claim to me since it's not like Assad and/or the Russians have been hesitant to attack hospitals in general, but I'm obviously not privy to military intelligence and don't know if there are any solid reasons to think it was intended to destroy evidence. But I don't think the use of chemical weapons would be out of character for Assad, and while he destroyed his stockpile after the 2013 attack, the international response was not exactly overwhelming (sanctions are simply not the damaging, especially when they're not unanimously enforced) and there's been continual evidence that Assad did not actually cease the use of chemical weapons. Numerous chlorine attacks have continued in recent years and international inspectors found evidence of undeclared stocks of sarin and VX in 2015.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-chemicals-exclus-idUSKBN0NT1YR20150508

Eldorion wrote:there's been continual evidence that Assad did not actually cease the use of chemical weapons. Numerous chlorine attacks have continued in recent years and international inspectors found evidence of undeclared stocks of sarin and VX in 2015.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-chemicals-exclus-idUSKBN0NT1YR20150508

Good article! Thanks for digging that back up! Taken all together, I'm thinking that Assad probably feels the same entitlement to his chemical weapons that some of my neighbors do to their assault rifles. The more the authorities threaten to take them away from you, the more justified you feel in secretly stockpiling them for the eventual "final conflict". If so, I wonder how much he really has stockpiled? Things could get ugly before he's removed militarily, and maybe that's his message....