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

Airstrikes against Syria

1235710

Comments

  • Yeah I think Iron Man is a good film.
  • edited April 2018

    Can we not just talk about it?

    image

    :-)
  • Little over 2 years ago we launched airstrikes to support the Assad regime. Now we launch them against him. What is our aim? To overthrow him or a slap on the wrist? Are we going to bomb Turkey who are targeting our Kurdish allies and killing innocent civilians and children? Let's publically form a policy on Syria as a whole and have parliament support it. Not one-off interference in a country we have no ties to, and no business getting involved.

    Which time warp are you living in?
    What? And by only changing one letter I can spell twat.
    i can change another and spell twit - arent I clever. The simple fact is that we have not sent air strikes in support of the Assad regime, You are wrong, We have sent air strikes into Iran and Syria to attack ISIL but never in support of Assad.
    www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/dec/02/syria-airstrikes-mps-debate-v
  • Fuck those people thousands of miles away, after all, it is a Conservative politician ordering the missiles to be fired. If only you lot were so fucking vocal when Holy Tony put boots on the ground, with zero exit strategy. Rather than a (quite probably staged) attack that at least wiped out the facilities they have, and will most likely end any more chemical attacks on civilians. Short, sharp shock, with no British lives being lost in a long and pointless war.

    The red line has now been drawn, rather than a limp wristed claim that leads to no action and legitimises barbaric acts.

    Talking does nothing with these people when they know there are no red lines. Putin now wants a meeting of the UN security council. He wants to talk now he knows that we won't just stand by and watch, which we have been after a decade long hangover from Iraq. Trump is a hypocritical idiot and a scumbag, but even they sometimes do the right thing... Like I said, if only the people authorising these attacks wore a different rosette.

    Some of you are the "useful idiots" that the idiot Boris Johnson was going on about.

    You can't argue with stupid (or partisan).
  • Good. It's about time we stood up to Assad and Putin. How much longer do you turn a blind eye to innocent people being slaughtered and gassed with Putin spinning his bollocks.

    If it escalates so be it, but you can't let the threat of escalation deter you from appeasing evil and it sets a precedent and free pass for future tyrants to commit attrocities. No other methods or solutions have worked and I'm pleased Britain has stood up to the bastards.


    @RodneyCharltonTrotta I guess you mean opposing?
  • So to put this all into perspective, a sovereign nation has been attacked.

    The PM has launched weapons without putting it past parliament but in order to make Brexit happen after a referendum it has to be voted on in parliament....

    Destabilising a region by regime change will create a power vacuum and breed more extremism. Afghanistan and Iraq for reference.

    Everyone has spoken of "proof" yet no one has shown any, so should we bomb other countries based on heresay?

    As I started with, this is a sovereign nation who did not attack another country. No one on the ground has yet been able to provide any proof it was Assad that used chemical weapons. The US has to stop being the world police, but the military industrial complex runs it.

    Hopefully this doesn't escalate.

    Who exactly do YOU think used those chemical weapons?

    To be honest, im not quite sure.

    The use of chemical weapons hasnt been determined by an independent body on the ground. There are 3rd party reports of it but not verified independently.

    Also, the last time the US and UK went looking for weapons of mass destruction or chemical weapons it turned out there were none. How great was that intelligence? This from the onset appears to be exactly the same.

    Mrs May said: "Open source accounts allege that a barrel bomb was used to deliver the chemicals. Multiple open source reports claim that a Regime helicopter was observed above the city of Douma on the evening of 7th April.

    "The Opposition does not operate helicopters or use barrel bombs. And reliable intelligence indicates that Syrian military officials co-ordinated what appears to be the use of chlorine in Douma on 7th April."

    The Prime Minister also indicated there was other intelligence based evidence which she was unable to share with the public, saying: "I cannot tell you everything.”

    Again, this is a sovereign nation, i dont support chemical weapons use period, but there is a bigger picture here that people are not looking at. Why doesnt the US get involved in Yemen, Darfur, Cambodia... Those are all genocides? Why not promote regime change there, boots on the ground there?

    You have seen the footage from last Saturday in Douma where women and children were being doused in water to help alleviate the effects of “something “ that they had been exposed to ?

    Now you either look at the facts as we have them and say whom is most likely to have and used chemical weapons against these innocents given that access to chemical weapons is fairly limited to one of the main players. Either Assad, the Russians or the West. Unlikely that Isis have them otherwise they would have undoubtedly used them before.

    I’m ruling out the use by the West. It’s insane to think otherwise. That leaves Assad or Putin.

    In either scenario it’s unacceptable and something for us to be worried about. I am also confident that as much as I am not at all sure that these strikes are of real value there is not any suggestion of a regime change. The strikes were to minimise the possibility of Assad using chemical weapons against his own people again.

    As for the other regions you mention. That is a completely different situation. No reports of chemical weapons being used there and this is what this particular mess is all about.

    Ahh alright, so genocide is fine we don't want to get involved in that! Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.

    As I said before, removing a leader will destabilize the region.

    This is all like the US going into Iraq having "proof" from the ground of WMDs, shoot first as questions later.

    https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/u-s-looking-for-the-actual-evidence-of-syria-chemical-attack-mattis-says/

    Also, by the UN Charter this was illegal as it wasn't an act of self defence.

    Aren't you tired of the warmongering?
  • So to put this all into perspective, a sovereign nation has been attacked.

    The PM has launched weapons without putting it past parliament but in order to make Brexit happen after a referendum it has to be voted on in parliament....

    Destabilising a region by regime change will create a power vacuum and breed more extremism. Afghanistan and Iraq for reference.

    Everyone has spoken of "proof" yet no one has shown any, so should we bomb other countries based on heresay?

    As I started with, this is a sovereign nation who did not attack another country. No one on the ground has yet been able to provide any proof it was Assad that used chemical weapons. The US has to stop being the world police, but the military industrial complex runs it.

    Hopefully this doesn't escalate.

    Not sure if this will help you but it should. https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-mideast-crisis-syria-france-intellige/full-text-french-declassified-intelligence-report-on-syria-gas-attacks-idUKKBN1HL0NP I

    It's a synopsis of the French analysis of the position which, I believe was the main tipping point for initiating action. For me, the involvement of the French military forces speaks volumes.
  • Sponsored links:


  • It is almost certainly the case that the three actors in this strike, UK, US and France ALL have stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that there is ongoing research and devopment into new even more deadly variants. Would we ever use them? Almost certainly yes if circumstances were such that there was little choice. Churchill had to be talked out of using them in WW2 but reserved the right to use them if required.

    I don’t necessarily oppose the action in Syria but wanted to point out the crass hypocrisy and moral high ground taken by the righteous west.

  • shine166 said:

    shine166 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.

    Really stupid comment - this isn't about being anti Trump or May it's about having a coherent foreign policy. Only a total f***ing buffoon would say this has been thought through - it's a knee jerk publicity seeking stunt with nothing to follow through.

    Western foreign policy has been a total disaster in the Middle East - we've helped create half the problems and we've learnt nothing.

    Air strikes in themselves are not a strategy - any brief study of history will demonstrate that. You can't carve up a region with ridiculous boundaries, supply it with arms, randomly support brutal dictators and then feign surprise when it goes belly up.

    How many failures do we need in the Middle East before we take stock of history?

    It ain’t stupid and I’m not a buffoon. There are those on here and other social media forums that do condemn and oppose everything Trump and May do.
    Only a total f***ing buffoon would disagree with that.

    Ah that moron that does his politics by tweet and the twot that is so shit at having an opinion shes barely allowed to talk publically ?

    only a buffoon would blindly follow there outlook on the world
    And just to confirm, I don’t blindly follow any politician. My initial comments were aimed at those that blindly oppose certain politicians whilst blindly following others.

    Just to confirm, I dont really give 2 shits so stop being so precious
    Nice piece of work aren’t you.

    oh a flag, well done *slow clap
  • edited April 2018
    double post
  • bobmunro said:

    It is almost certainly the case that the three actors in this strike, UK, US and France ALL have stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that there is ongoing research and devopment into new even more deadly variants. Would we ever use them? Almost certainly yes if circumstances were such that there was little choice. Churchill had to be talked out of using them in WW2 but reserved the right to use them if required.

    I don’t necessarily oppose the action in Syria but wanted to point out the crass hypocrisy and moral high ground taken by the righteous west.

    Its a very strong argument and one that none of us are able to give a satisfactory response.

    I hate analogies but here goes anyway. In these situations nothing seems as succinct.

    As a citizen I’m not happy that criminals and scumbags have guns but I am prepared that Policeman have guns because although it’s far from an ideal situation I fundamentally trust the forces for law and order.

    Nieve or not I think it’s a long way from western democracies like the USA, France and The UK having such capabilities and comparing that capability in the hands of Tyrants and despots.



  • Johnson almost made sense on Marr this morning. If the strikes were a carefully orchestrated slap on the wrist for using the chemical weapons and that alone (in full consultation with the Russians, and probably also the Syrians by proxy if nothing else) then ok, it wasn't a bad move. The question is, did that work? I hope so. No more chemical weapons would be great.
  • "Chemical weapon" if we are talking about chlorine has then it's crude and easy to make.Ask anyone who looks after a large swimming pool and they will tell you how easy it can be to feck up and have a "gas" leak.it can be produced anywhere and easily delivered .It's miles away from the biological agent used in Salisbury.

    Was it right to bomb? Maybe if it draws a line in the stand but what if the opposition to Assad realising the West will take up arms against Assad use a chemical weapon in the own "people" to bring us into the conflict ? Let's not say they won't we are talking about ISIS/Hammas and Iran
  • Sponsored links:


  • bobmunro said:

    It is almost certainly the case that the three actors in this strike, UK, US and France ALL have stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that there is ongoing research and devopment into new even more deadly variants. Would we ever use them? Almost certainly yes if circumstances were such that there was little choice. Churchill had to be talked out of using them in WW2 but reserved the right to use them if required.

    I don’t necessarily oppose the action in Syria but wanted to point out the crass hypocrisy and moral high ground taken by the righteous west.

    Its a very strong argument and one that none of us are able to give a satisfactory response.

    I hate analogies but here goes anyway. In these situations nothing seems as succinct.

    As a citizen I’m not happy that criminals and scumbags have guns but I am prepared that Policeman have guns because although it’s far from an ideal situation I fundamentally trust the forces for law and order.

    Nieve or not I think it’s a long way from western democracies like the USA, France and The UK having such capabilities and comparing that capability in the hands of Tyrants and despots.



    No, not naive - I too feel less concerned about western democracies having chemical and biological weapons although still very concerned. But the point is that developing them and stockpiling them means inevitably that there would be a scenario where even the most stable of western democracies would use them. I believe the difference is about when they would be used - perhaps the west as a last resort and tyrants as something other than a last resort.

    The horror of chemical attack is obvious as it kills innocent civilians indiscriminately. But is that any different to the use of barrel bombing, carpet bombing or napalm - all of which has been used by western democracies in my lifetime without international military action against the perpetrators.

    The world is in a complete mess.
  • Can't say I'm dead chuffed about the use of white phosphorus or depleted uranium, if we are talking chemical weapons
  • Hesitant to weigh in here, so some random thoughts.
    Trump won the election as an isolationist. However, it's been clear for some time that as he is extremely inexperienced as a politician the military have effectively taken over in terms of those bits of foreign policy that involve them. Hence heat and light (and airstrikes) against Syria (presumably in collusion with Russia so that it doesn't escalate) but continual vetos in support of Israel, nothing happening on Yemen (as bad if not worse than Syria, but it's US ally Saudi Arabia in the wrong). And it's easy to find tweets by Trump arguing the complete opposite of Obama's policy from a few years ago. It's almost as if for things like these it doesn't matter who's US President, as if that was a distraction.

    Assad is terrible. So was Qadafi. The refugee crisis in Europe is the direct result of the removal of Qadafi and the Syrian civil war. Even some of the Syrian refugees come via Libya. I dislike Assad, but the alternative could be worse.

    A lot of people here are idealists, not meant in a bad sense ( and I think this is true on both sides of the argument) - people are committed to the way the world should be, and have an ideal of that (international law, the UN, treaties, stopping the use of chemical weapons, standing up to those who break the rules). All these are noble ideals, but EVERY government (and non state actors) are acting in what they think is their own interest. Not taking this into account leads to quick knee jerk solutions that often don't turn out to be solutions; such as post-invasion Iraq, the US-UK coalition thought it important to remove all Baathists (members of Saddam Hussein's party) from any position of power. This basically crippled the state and militias moved in to protect their communities or build a power basis. If you destroy the state, something else will take its place - and it is rarely pretty, particularly if there are few other structures (e.g. independent religious groups, unions) in society because it has been a dictatorship and there's no plan for a transition to a new form of state ( as there was post WW2 in Germany and Japan).
  • All good points @Leuth and my post wasn't intentioned as an attack onot individuals here or elsewhere but western (us and UK) society as a whole.

    There is so much hypocrisy in politics and I agree particularly with our track record and relationship with Saudi etc.

    Wasn't digging anyone out and certainly not posters on here. It's a very difficult situation and I agree with many of the pro and anti arguments and counter arguments on this thread.
  • shine166 said:

    shine166 said:

    shine166 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.

    Really stupid comment - this isn't about being anti Trump or May it's about having a coherent foreign policy. Only a total f***ing buffoon would say this has been thought through - it's a knee jerk publicity seeking stunt with nothing to follow through.

    Western foreign policy has been a total disaster in the Middle East - we've helped create half the problems and we've learnt nothing.

    Air strikes in themselves are not a strategy - any brief study of history will demonstrate that. You can't carve up a region with ridiculous boundaries, supply it with arms, randomly support brutal dictators and then feign surprise when it goes belly up.

    How many failures do we need in the Middle East before we take stock of history?

    It ain’t stupid and I’m not a buffoon. There are those on here and other social media forums that do condemn and oppose everything Trump and May do.
    Only a total f***ing buffoon would disagree with that.

    Ah that moron that does his politics by tweet and the twot that is so shit at having an opinion shes barely allowed to talk publically ?

    only a buffoon would blindly follow there outlook on the world
    And just to confirm, I don’t blindly follow any politician. My initial comments were aimed at those that blindly oppose certain politicians whilst blindly following others.

    Just to confirm, I dont really give 2 shits so stop being so precious
    Nice piece of work aren’t you.

    oh a flag, well done *slow clap
    Get yourself down clinic with that
  • "With the Syrian army having the upper hand on the ground against the armed terrorists, it would not be rational for it to use chemical weapons..." I also can't see the logic behind the chemical attacks. Would the west or revolutionaries pull a fast one? Unlikely but certainly not impossible. I think Corbyn is playing it right. Get the proof rather than make these knee jerk actions but a bit late now.
    Of course if there was no oil on offer none of the major powers would be involved in the region in the first place.
  • 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.

    Really stupid comment - this isn't about being anti Trump or May it's about having a coherent foreign policy. Only a total f***ing buffoon would say this has been thought through - it's a knee jerk publicity seeking stunt with nothing to follow through.

    Western foreign policy has been a total disaster in the Middle East - we've helped create half the problems and we've learnt nothing.

    Air strikes in themselves are not a strategy - any brief study of history will demonstrate that. You can't carve up a region with ridiculous boundaries, supply it with arms, randomly support brutal dictators and then feign surprise when it goes belly up.

    How many failures do we need in the Middle East before we take stock of history?

    It ain’t stupid and I’m not a buffoon. There are those on here and other social media forums that do condemn and oppose everything Trump and May do.
    Only a total f***ing buffoon would disagree with that.
    Thank god they have you to stand up for them as per.

    This is your only opinion, "well some people disagree with everything Trump and May do." You have no solutions. You have no nuance. You have no ideas of your own.

    Contrast that with very detailed opinions, both for and against. You provide nothing other than a desire to call people biased.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!