Jump to content
observer

Who to believe?

Recommended Posts

So who do we believe committed the much publicised chemical attack in Syria? Bearing in mind, that if the West wish to commit militarily, it would help to be certain about the perpetrators, before getting bogged down in yet another war. And in getting the West involved - cui bono?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting update on tonight's news: given Haigh & Cameron seem determined to get the toy box out; the UN inspection team were fired on by snipers, in this rebel controlled area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why our government, and the French and US governments, are so hell bent on getting involved militarily. By all means give humanitarian aid, but taking sides in a civil war is bound to end in disaster whoever eventually wins. Let them fight it out as that's obviously what both sides want.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a Russo-Chinese perspective, I think they're getting rather tired of this arrogant bullying by the US and their running dogs (UK&France); and one wonders how long they'll tolerate it. From the US & UK public opinion perspective, I think they too are sick and tired of being used as the world's policeman, by politicians on ego trips. No absolute evidence of guilt has been presented; and any unilateral action by the West, would clearly be in breach of international law. Then, as General Lord Danet pointed out, there doesn't appear to be a clear mission with political objectives and desired outcomes. Outcomes in war can never be guaranteed in any case, and we have the absurd situation, where we would be aiding the extreme elements of the rebels (Al Quaeda). So once again, we have our young Lions being led by the Donkeys in Westminster.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the rebels have stumbled across a small stash of chemical weapons; what better way to get the superpowers involved by lobbing them into a suburb of Damascus causing a few hundred collateral damage casualties and unleashing the airstrikes of the West on the regime you are trying to beat (who has superior firepower to your own)....

 

The rebels will never win against Assad and his tanks and planes and bombs, but if you throw a few dozen foreign controlled cruise missiles into the mix the odds start to fall their way

 

that's what I would do and I reckon that's what the rebels have done and our politicians are now playing directly into the hands of multiple terrorist factions; all vying for a place at the power table

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand why our government, and the French and US governments, are so hell bent on getting involved militarily. By all means give humanitarian aid, but taking sides in a civil war is bound to end in disaster whoever eventually wins. Let them fight it out as that's obviously what both sides want.

Seconded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think we need to wonder why the chemical agent argument is being used in any case?  The result is the same as conventional weapons = death. The US maintains stock piles of chemical weapons, and has used them in Vietnam (eg: agent Orange).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obs, you are so naive, The chemical agent argument is being used to pull at our heart strings, if that does nor work prepare yourself for their killing fluffy kittens and puppies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand why our government, and the French and US governments, are so hell bent on getting involved militarily. By all means give humanitarian aid, but taking sides in a civil war is bound to end in disaster whoever eventually wins. Let them fight it out as that's obviously what both sides want.

There are still alot of old Cruise missiles and old ammo left over from the Iraq campaign that have to be replaced, because by now they must be past their sell by date, and Martin Marietta, and General Dynamics would just love to replace them, good for the economy, lower the unemployment rate.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are still alot of old Cruise missiles and old ammo left over from the Iraq campaign that have to be replaced, because by now they must be past their sell by date, and Martin Marietta, and General Dynamics would just love to replace them, good for the economy, lower the unemployment rate.

So why don't we sell them, to go along with the chemical weapons that we also sold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Errm Kije, I think I knew that; it's just an excuse; but an excuse they're getting away with, with the public, otherwise they wouldn't try it. There is an attempt by States, to plant the idea in the minds of folk, that there is such a thing as a sanitized war; so we get conventions against certain weapons and war crimes trials - when it's actually WAR itself that is the crime. I think it was Gen. Robert E Lee who said after a battle - "It's good that war is so terrible, otherwise we might grow to enjoy it".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Errm Kije, I think I knew that; it's just an excuse; but an excuse they're getting away with, with the public, otherwise they wouldn't try it. There is an attempt by States, to plant the idea in the minds of folk, that there is such a thing as a sanitized war; so we get conventions against certain weapons and war crimes trials - when it's actually WAR itself that is the crime. I think it was Gen. Robert E Lee who said after a battle - "It's good that war is so terrible, otherwise we might grow to enjoy it".

It's not war that speaks it's the almighty dollar pure and simple, and the other thing that happened in Iraq is, guess who is rebuilding it after destroying it,  it's Mr. Dick Cheney and his gang, who set that up mmmmmm. First George last name Bush

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there some reason why Arab nations can't form a coalition to sort out the Syrian problem. Why once again do the west want to get involved & risk a confrontation with neighbouring Iran. It is little wonder that the west breeds resentment among even moderate muslims ....let them sort their own mess out .

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, talking of "politicians"; it seems the House of Commons has actually applied common sense for once - by 13 votes! So, Bill and Dave can put the toys back in the box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pathetic level that the rhetoric of Obama has now reached - "I'm not prepared to countenance women and children being killed by chemical weapons". This from a man who will shortly be ordering the launching of a barrage of cruise missile and air strikes on targets that will have been dispersed to civilian (IE women and children) areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well chemical weapons are not so spectacular as conventional weapons when you think about it. Even less so when the stuff used is invisible to the naked eye.

 

Conventional weapons look good on TV, all those vapour trails and then the big bang and clouds of smoke and debris flying everywhere, piles of smoking rubble afterwards, especially if conventional weapons are deployed at night lighting up the sky.

 

Just not the same when all you get is people lying around moaning and generally looking as if they have had a few too many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putin has quite rightly stated that such a strike by the US, without UN agreement, would be illegal - an act of war. That leaves him the option of assisting his ally - Syria, to defend itself. So, if this insanity continues, it could get a whole lot worse.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it obviously wasn't done by the Democrats was it. You're becoming very adept at stating the obvious Lt Kije :roll: :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't very difficult. Obama isn't as popular as some people seem to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...