Here it comes: Syria
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TomJoad, what makes it even better is he is speaking on behalf of the majority British opinion. He would be an amazing Prime Minister. Compared to the other party leaders Nigel is gifted. He says things as they are.
He and UKIP want peace while the other parties want war, more and more war. At the same time they hugely cut the military. UKIP would keep a well maintained and larger military but not use it in pointless conflicts which are none of our concern.
He and UKIP want peace while the other parties want war, more and more war. At the same time they hugely cut the military. UKIP would keep a well maintained and larger military but not use it in pointless conflicts which are none of our concern.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TomJoad, what makes it even better is he is speaking on behalf of the majority British opinion. He would be an amazing Prime Minister. Compared to the other party leaders Nigel is gifted. He says things as they are.
He and UKIP want peace while the other parties want war, more and more war. At the same time they hugely cut the military. UKIP would keep a well maintained and larger military but not use it in pointless conflicts which are none of our concern.
He and UKIP want peace while the other parties want war, more and more war. At the same time they hugely cut the military. UKIP would keep a well maintained and larger military but not use it in pointless conflicts which are none of our concern.
I get it, it's you isn't it - you're Nigel - busted.
Oh my, this is PPrune at it's best
Last edited by TomJoad; 11th Sep 2013 at 22:16.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
God, two Right wingers with the same name
but on either side of the world
We are not surrounded, we have you right where we want you
but on either side of the world
We are not surrounded, we have you right where we want you
Mr Farage has the enviable position of being able to promise the world while never having to deliver. I suspect that, while you think he is speaking on behalf of the majority of the country, this majority will never vote him into office. What would we do with this exensive, well maintained and larger military that hardly ever goes anywhere or does anything?
Last edited by Toadstool; 11th Sep 2013 at 22:59.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Toadstool:
Use them to push the lazy, useless, dole stealing wankers into the line at the job centre perchance?
What would we do with this exensive, well maintained and larger military that hardly ever goes anywhere or does anything?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"What would we do with this exensive, well maintained and larger military that hardly ever goes anywhere or does anything?"
Train for when they are needed which is what they are for.
And plenty of "other" things they can be used for such as Drug interdiction,
pirates, Anti Terrorist roles which need constant training to maintain skills,
earn income by training troops from foreign countries, help with foreign
policy, the list is endless.
Train for when they are needed which is what they are for.
And plenty of "other" things they can be used for such as Drug interdiction,
pirates, Anti Terrorist roles which need constant training to maintain skills,
earn income by training troops from foreign countries, help with foreign
policy, the list is endless.
Agree.
At least four leased Virginia Class boats would be a good start for Australia.
Plus a local nuclear industry to support em.
And maybe a Seawolf aka the Jimmy Carter to eavesdrop on all those pesky Asian nations.
Oops - it is an aviation forum - some Ospreys would do the trick as well...
Think of the jobs and downstream economic multiplier effects.
Ah but no, of course, they're just big expensive killing machines aren't they....
At least four leased Virginia Class boats would be a good start for Australia.
Plus a local nuclear industry to support em.
And maybe a Seawolf aka the Jimmy Carter to eavesdrop on all those pesky Asian nations.
Oops - it is an aviation forum - some Ospreys would do the trick as well...
Think of the jobs and downstream economic multiplier effects.
Ah but no, of course, they're just big expensive killing machines aren't they....
Last edited by tartare; 12th Sep 2013 at 05:33.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
And the Bull**** Begins.....
Syrian Officials Pushing Back Against Giving Up Chemical Weapons
The lawyerly wrangling over how to compose documents that would spell out what the international community is to do with Syria’s chemical weapons has begun now that negotiations have kicked off in earnest.
With American and French warships prowling the waters of the eastern Mediterranean in the event that diplomacy fails, things continued to move quickly on Wednesday morning with the Russian state-run news agency Interfax reporting that Moscow has “handed over” to the United States its plan for “introducing international control over Syrian war chemicals.”..........
The AP quoted an anonymous Syrian senior government official who called the Russian initiative a “broad headline” that is merely the starting point for discussion. Real disconnects are already beginning to emerge in the expectations that the United States is carrying into the negotiation process, and those that Syria and its benefactor Russia may hold.
Syrian Cabinet Minister Ali Haidar told AP reporters that Syria’s chemical weapons exist in order to create a strategic buffer against Israel, “an enemy that we’ve been fighting for more than 60 years.” But he also added that in the initial Russian proposal to bring the international community in to secure Syrian chemical weapons stocks, “there was no talk about moving and transferring control. There was talk about putting these weapons under international supervision.”
Whether or not that means Syria will refuse to give up control of the weapons, or destroy them, is unclear.
In an interview with France’s Inter radio, Russia’s Ambassador the France Alexandre Orlov also reiterated Moscow’s claim that the rebel forces fighting the Assad regime also possess chemical weapons. “It’s sure there are chemical weapons on both sides,” he said. “The important thing is to forbid them, put them under international control. Then we will see who uses them.”
The lawyerly wrangling over how to compose documents that would spell out what the international community is to do with Syria’s chemical weapons has begun now that negotiations have kicked off in earnest.
With American and French warships prowling the waters of the eastern Mediterranean in the event that diplomacy fails, things continued to move quickly on Wednesday morning with the Russian state-run news agency Interfax reporting that Moscow has “handed over” to the United States its plan for “introducing international control over Syrian war chemicals.”..........
The AP quoted an anonymous Syrian senior government official who called the Russian initiative a “broad headline” that is merely the starting point for discussion. Real disconnects are already beginning to emerge in the expectations that the United States is carrying into the negotiation process, and those that Syria and its benefactor Russia may hold.
Syrian Cabinet Minister Ali Haidar told AP reporters that Syria’s chemical weapons exist in order to create a strategic buffer against Israel, “an enemy that we’ve been fighting for more than 60 years.” But he also added that in the initial Russian proposal to bring the international community in to secure Syrian chemical weapons stocks, “there was no talk about moving and transferring control. There was talk about putting these weapons under international supervision.”
Whether or not that means Syria will refuse to give up control of the weapons, or destroy them, is unclear.
In an interview with France’s Inter radio, Russia’s Ambassador the France Alexandre Orlov also reiterated Moscow’s claim that the rebel forces fighting the Assad regime also possess chemical weapons. “It’s sure there are chemical weapons on both sides,” he said. “The important thing is to forbid them, put them under international control. Then we will see who uses them.”
Yep - here we go.
"Yes we said handover, but what we really meant was..."
What complete and utter bullsh1t.
Broad headline, my arse.
Delay, obstruct...
"Fire controlman - ready to launch?"
"Aye sir."
"Yes we said handover, but what we really meant was..."
What complete and utter bullsh1t.
Broad headline, my arse.
Delay, obstruct...
"Fire controlman - ready to launch?"
"Aye sir."
Last edited by tartare; 12th Sep 2013 at 09:17.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,073
Received 2,942 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
.” But he also added that in the initial Russian proposal to bring the international community in to secure Syrian chemical weapons stocks, “there was no talk about moving and transferring control. There was talk about putting these weapons under international supervision.”
So is the best place to hold them possibly is at their main storage facility under say the UN until it is safe enough to remove?.
Their storage facilities are many and substantial (easy to find on Google Earth). Given the right level of effort it wouldn't be too hard for one of them to fall into the wrong hands. There are certainly too many facilities for the UN to go in and guard and the process of moving them (even to consolidate them all in one location) would made them very vulnerable to attack, theft or damage (not knowing the condition of the munitions.
It may be (I would expect) that some agents are stored as separate components, especially given the short shelf life of Sarin, for example. While that might make transporting them somewhat safer, it could be a massive undertaking.
What are the alternatives? Take them to another country? What the hell would you do with them there? Empty then all out into the desert and hope it causes no damage? Burn it all?
It's a difficult undertaking and not without its risks.
It may be (I would expect) that some agents are stored as separate components, especially given the short shelf life of Sarin, for example. While that might make transporting them somewhat safer, it could be a massive undertaking.
What are the alternatives? Take them to another country? What the hell would you do with them there? Empty then all out into the desert and hope it causes no damage? Burn it all?
It's a difficult undertaking and not without its risks.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Farage has the enviable position of being able to promise the world while never having to deliver. I suspect that, while you think he is speaking on behalf of the majority of the country, this majority will never vote him into office.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do we really expect the Syrians to say 'Yes Sir, No Sir, Three bags full Sir' when it comes to handing over their chemicals?
I can't believe how gullible some folk are.
Here's the truth:
1. Our side have tired of war.
2. We've been utterly out-manoevered diplomatically (again).
3. It's none of our damn business anyway.
If Assad has anything to say it will be along the lines of:
'Fcuk off and don't annoy me. We have powerful friends too. And as for handing over anything to the US goes- stick it up your arse'.
Of course, that will be translated into diplomatic language before transmission.
Bottom line?
No strike. No weapon surrender. Assad will eventually defeat his opponents and it will be back to business as usual.
The so-called insurgents are no friends of ours either. The whole plot stinks to high heaven.
I can't believe how gullible some folk are.
Here's the truth:
1. Our side have tired of war.
2. We've been utterly out-manoevered diplomatically (again).
3. It's none of our damn business anyway.
If Assad has anything to say it will be along the lines of:
'Fcuk off and don't annoy me. We have powerful friends too. And as for handing over anything to the US goes- stick it up your arse'.
Of course, that will be translated into diplomatic language before transmission.
Bottom line?
No strike. No weapon surrender. Assad will eventually defeat his opponents and it will be back to business as usual.
The so-called insurgents are no friends of ours either. The whole plot stinks to high heaven.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by Ronald Reagan; 12th Sep 2013 at 10:49.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: South East England
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is for sure is that Assad is off the hook for using WMD over 14 times against civilian populations. He is also off the hook for what the UN describe as:
"....widespread attacks on the civilian population, committing murder, torture, rape and enforced disappearance as crimes against humanity. They have laid siege to neighbourhoods and subjected them to indiscriminate shelling. Government forces have committed gross violations of human rights and the war crimes of torture, hostage-taking, murder, execution without due process, rape, attacking protected objects and pillage."
Putin must be proud of himself.
There is also the not so small matter of Assad's biological weapon stockpile. Anthrax anyone?
"....widespread attacks on the civilian population, committing murder, torture, rape and enforced disappearance as crimes against humanity. They have laid siege to neighbourhoods and subjected them to indiscriminate shelling. Government forces have committed gross violations of human rights and the war crimes of torture, hostage-taking, murder, execution without due process, rape, attacking protected objects and pillage."
Putin must be proud of himself.
There is also the not so small matter of Assad's biological weapon stockpile. Anthrax anyone?
A forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.
Putin is acting in a far calmer and altogether more statesman-like manner than any of the US speakers one has seen on TV of late. Kerry and McCain seem to want any excuse to lay waste to other peoples' nations, whilst Obama appears to be a complete dunce due to his ineptitude over the Syria Crisis.
Last edited by BEagle; 12th Sep 2013 at 13:11.