Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Airstrikes against Syria

2456710

Comments

  • Ridiculous action - no long term strategy. The bombing is utterly pointless if there is no long term plan.

    Only a moron would think this was a good idea.

    So we just let people piss all over international law?

    @RodneyCharltonTrotta has is spot on here.
  • edited April 2018

    McBobbin said:

    I can't help feeling that getting involved is a mistake. I mean, the images of children being subject to chemical weapons attack is heart rendering, but when have we ever had a successful outcome from attacking? Serious question. What is considered a successful outcome?

    I thought of Kosovo, but we were acting with NATO.

    Libya and Iraq? Possibly, ISIS have been largely defeated.

    There can be no successful outcome.
    I’m with you . This is a massive mistake . We shouldn’t be getting involved.
    We live peacefully in our green and pleasant land because we go elsewhere to kill our enemies. If we waited til ISIS, the Russians, Iranians et al are stepping off the boat at Dover it could get messy.
  • What’s the difference between dropping bombs on the heads of innocents and dropping chemical; same outcome?
  • edited April 2018
    I find it baffling the difference between deaths of people that make headlines such as the attempted assignation of the Skripal family as opposed to the inevitable deaths connected with these raids. Somehow anyone working for the military wether it is cleaning staff or security staff are not treated a human deaths and likewise a few anonymous civilian deaths here and there don't cause the slightest concern.

    Syria as a whole has pretty much been bombed flat by Syrian, Russian and western bombs. Hospitals schools etc have been on the receiving end of american strikes with massive numbers of civilian deaths yet somehow this is easily forgotten and not newsworthy. The chemical weapon redline is understandable but a bit bizarre when so many have been killed by conventional weapons without criticism.
  • Solidgone said:

    What’s the difference between dropping bombs on the heads of innocents and dropping chemical; same outcome?

    No bombs have been dropped on 'innocents' only on chemical weapons facilities.
  • Ridiculous action - no long term strategy. The bombing is utterly pointless if there is no long term plan.

    Only a moron would think this was a good idea.

    So we just let people piss all over international law?

    We seem okay with it when it's our allies, e.g. illegal Saudi attack on Yemen, 2016.
  • Harry Kane was up early this morning
  • Sponsored links:


  • We have become so pampered and comfortable in our lives. None of us strive for the basics in life like the majority of the world outside the west do in terms of food, shelter etc.

    In turn we have become self- obsessed narcissistic and in our little bubbles consumed by our new opiate of celebrity, premier league football and mass consumerism.

    Ironically we have never been better connected to the world but never been so insulated and inward looking.

    We have developed a NIMBY approach to world affairs of shiteing ourselves of standing up and getting involved for fear of reprisals and any impact on our comfortable existence.

    It's understandable and human nature but at the same time we've lost our humanity and backbone to a degree that we have become so desensitised to images of gassed children coming in through our 50 inch HD tvs that we whimper that we shouldn't get involved and it's not our battle for the fear that it may escalate and affect our comparative utopias.

    We talk the talk in our daily lives and on social media about how we are good and great and stand up to it but when it comes down to it it's largely just talk.

    A few generations ago people were giving their lives for what was right in 2 world wars, to fight evil in the second, and thank goodness they did.

    I demonstrated sheer cowardice years back when Obama wished to go in and in an act of self preservation breathed a huge sigh of relief that our politicians voted to bow down to Putin's threats. I've felt deep shame about that ever since and every time images of Syrian suffering have been broadcast in the ensuing years.

    I am not a fan of May and take issue with 99% of what Trump does but on this issue they are right. For all the gargantuan faults of the UK and US and misguided campaigns and foreign policy they've done the right thing.

    The consequences of escalation are terrifying and as the father of 2 young children I'm not being flippant.

    But what sort of people would we be and what sort of country and world would we live in if we just continue to turn a blind eye to such atrocities and appease the likes of Putin and Assad at the detriment of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

    Not in my name.

    Agree about our namby Pamby existence.

    There's something very bizarre reading about developments going on in Syria and on the next page a discussion about a wannabe Towie factor made in Chelsea type getting a new tattoo on their arse.
    Strange strange times.
  • Solidgone said:

    What’s the difference between dropping bombs on the heads of innocents and dropping chemical; same outcome?

    No bombs have been dropped on 'innocents' only on chemical weapons facilities.
    You have fallen for the propaganda that modern warfare is precise and surgical.
  • Hospitals schools etc have been on the receiving end of American strikes with massive numbers of civilian deaths

    When was this?
  • Given that the Russians and Syrians have said the chemical weapons attack last week was somehow staged, any attack should have been held off until the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has carried out its inspection, which is due to start today. Once their use last week was confirmed, then it is legitimate to take action.

    Except they aren't allowed to investgate whether Syria was responsible. Russia has vetoed six motions.
  • I guess all the anti Trump/May brigade would rather do it diplomatically via the UN ?
    Oh, we tried that but the Russians veto everything.
    Or draw a red line which must not be crossed.
    Oh, Obama already did that but didn’t act when it was crossed, then let the Russians “dispose” of Assad’s chemical weapons.

    It is possible to agree with the action whilst still acknowledging that they are both cunts.
  • Syria,wont really exist as it was again and faces decades of death and conflict.ISIS ,Turkey,The Kurds,Iran,Russia,Assad----- its the big call do something or leave it/them to a long and painful death--- May should have recalled Parliament
  • DRAddick said:

    I guess all the anti Trump/May brigade would rather do it diplomatically via the UN ?
    Oh, we tried that but the Russians veto everything.
    Or draw a red line which must not be crossed.
    Oh, Obama already did that but didn’t act when it was crossed, then let the Russians “dispose” of Assad’s chemical weapons.

    It is possible to agree with the action whilst still acknowledging that they are both cunts.
    Maybe so. Unfortunately, many people will jump all over them whatever they do.
  • Hospitals schools etc have been on the receiving end of American strikes with massive numbers of civilian deaths

    When was this?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/29/calls-for-us-to-stop-bombing-syria-as-us-airstrike-kills-dozens/

    this was after googling the question for about one minute
  • Sponsored links:


  • Shrew said:

    Hospitals schools etc have been on the receiving end of American strikes with massive numbers of civilian deaths

    When was this?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/29/calls-for-us-to-stop-bombing-syria-as-us-airstrike-kills-dozens/

    this was after googling the question for about one minute
    Thanks.
  • Jints said:

    Given that the Russians and Syrians have said the chemical weapons attack last week was somehow staged, any attack should have been held off until the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has carried out its inspection, which is due to start today. Once their use last week was confirmed, then it is legitimate to take action.

    Except they aren't allowed to investgate whether Syria was responsible. Russia has vetoed six motions.
    They are arriving today.
  • Solidgone said:

    What’s the difference between dropping bombs on the heads of innocents and dropping chemical; same outcome?

    Perhaps I should expand - why is there more of a hoo haw when chemicals are used to kill than the use of bombs/bullets? How many innocent people have been killed by indiscriminate/targeted bombing since this started - thousands and thousands. Surely it’s the continued killing thats the issue here? Have our morals changed to such a degree that it’s not the killing that matters,but it’s how? Similar to the Queensbury rules?
  • Solidgone said:

    Solidgone said:

    What’s the difference between dropping bombs on the heads of innocents and dropping chemical; same outcome?

    Perhaps I should expand - why is there more of a hoo haw when chemicals are used to kill than the use of bombs/bullets? How many innocent people have been killed by indiscriminate/targeted bombing since this started - thousands and thousands. Surely it’s the continued killing thats the issue here? Have our morals changed to such a degree that it’s not the killing that matters,but it’s how? Similar to the Queensbury rules?
    I think the argument would be that chemical weapons cause a slow painful death as opposed to being blown to bits.
  • DRAddick said:

    I guess all the anti Trump/May brigade would rather do it diplomatically via the UN ?
    Oh, we tried that but the Russians veto everything.
    Or draw a red line which must not be crossed.
    Oh, Obama already did that but didn’t act when it was crossed, then let the Russians “dispose” of Assad’s chemical weapons.

    It is possible to agree with the action whilst still acknowledging that they are both cunts.
    It's also possible to disagree with their actions for reasons other than the fact that you can't stand them.
  • Solidgone said:

    Solidgone said:

    What’s the difference between dropping bombs on the heads of innocents and dropping chemical; same outcome?

    Perhaps I should expand - why is there more of a hoo haw when chemicals are used to kill than the use of bombs/bullets? How many innocent people have been killed by indiscriminate/targeted bombing since this started - thousands and thousands. Surely it’s the continued killing thats the issue here? Have our morals changed to such a degree that it’s not the killing that matters,but it’s how? Similar to the Queensbury rules?
    I think the argument would be that chemical weapons cause a slow painful death as opposed to being blown to bits.
    I wonder if that is so when your body has been ripped to pieces by shrapnel or or other debris and bleeding to death? All for the sake of politicians perception of their righteous path and God.
  • Why aren't NATO getting involved? Turkey?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!