Syria - The US Empire's Suez Crisis?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,084
Received 2,944 Likes
on
1,254 Posts
?
End result of attacking, people die at our hands.
End result of not attacking, people die at their own hands.
And at the end of the day attacking you may be killing the innocent and nothing has been proved irrefutably, go ask the UN, they wouldn't be still looking if they had all the facts and answers.
I would say a lot of consciences on here are fine. There are a lot of people in here will have been in that position...
..
End result of attacking, people die at our hands.
End result of not attacking, people die at their own hands.
And at the end of the day attacking you may be killing the innocent and nothing has been proved irrefutably, go ask the UN, they wouldn't be still looking if they had all the facts and answers.
I would say a lot of consciences on here are fine. There are a lot of people in here will have been in that position...
..
Last edited by NutLoose; 30th Aug 2013 at 22:07.
go ask the UN, they wouldn't be still looking if they had all the facts and answers.
You been hitting the Cooking Sherry again Nutty?
They only find answers if it involves the Israeli's or Americans.
At least the American's have the Veto Power on the Security Council!
You know how youngsters are....they get snippy when they don't get their way!
I don't suppose we have a monopoly on using a Veto though do we.
You reckon other members with the Veto power used it to harm their own interests?
I don't suppose we have a monopoly on using a Veto though do we.
You reckon other members with the Veto power used it to harm their own interests?
Quote:
Originally Posted by melmothtw
There was no vital US interest at stake in
Europe in the 1940s.
That's why they, quite sensibly, waited for Hitler to declare war on them
before they joined in.
Originally Posted by melmothtw
There was no vital US interest at stake in
Europe in the 1940s.
That's why they, quite sensibly, waited for Hitler to declare war on them
before they joined in.
I think you are really all
ashamed at heart and are searching for justification.
ashamed at heart and are searching for justification.
Or how about eating human organs, because "that's what they did in 600 AD, and I
had no choice"?
Abu Sakkar: Syrian Rebel Cuts Out and Eats
Soldier's Heart In Ghastly Propaganda Video
had no choice"?
Abu Sakkar: Syrian Rebel Cuts Out and Eats
Soldier's Heart In Ghastly Propaganda Video
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I trust him more than our leaders. Everything said by Kerry could just be wrong. There is no way to know. Considering all the past lies by our politicians and monumental disasters that the past military interventions have been its so much better to do nothing, not to mention the financial cost to ourselves if we did do something.
Last edited by Ronald Reagan; 31st Aug 2013 at 17:58.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,084
Received 2,944 Likes
on
1,254 Posts
Blimey... Looks like our example has effected the USA enough to do the same by taking it to congress to get permission to strike.
For every question Odumbo asked Congress and the People today....I have one for him in return.
He asked....if we can just ignore the use of Chemical Weapons....but gives us exactly one choice of action.....a limited strike against the Assad Government.
He does not let us consider (nor does he) diplomatic measures, sea blockade, economic sanctions, or any number of other measures....just fire off a bunch of Cruise Missiles and blow up stuff.
What is the goal for this Attack?
He has not told us at all what he hopes to accomplish....not a word.
He has told us he intends to leave Assad in Power....the very evil person who authorized the use of Chemical Weapons against innocent, defenseless Children.
So if Assad is so evil....why leave him alive....why not make him Target Number 1 of 1.....and play Whack a Mole until we get him!
Odumbo has diddled the pooch oh this....he shall lose in Congress....count on it!
He asked....if we can just ignore the use of Chemical Weapons....but gives us exactly one choice of action.....a limited strike against the Assad Government.
He does not let us consider (nor does he) diplomatic measures, sea blockade, economic sanctions, or any number of other measures....just fire off a bunch of Cruise Missiles and blow up stuff.
What is the goal for this Attack?
He has not told us at all what he hopes to accomplish....not a word.
He has told us he intends to leave Assad in Power....the very evil person who authorized the use of Chemical Weapons against innocent, defenseless Children.
So if Assad is so evil....why leave him alive....why not make him Target Number 1 of 1.....and play Whack a Mole until we get him!
Odumbo has diddled the pooch oh this....he shall lose in Congress....count on it!
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Luton
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
l`m not ex-mil and apologise for being here looking for conversation.
l will leave if asked.
Throw your minds back to when journalists reported news rather than
creating it themselves.. " now we are going over to Jeremy Arsewipe
for his views on what will be happening next "
The problem is that the people with a vote lose interest and those
who haven`t a vote are empowered by that absence.
lt could even lead to untrustworthy politicians being elected.
Sorry, l take that back, obviously that isn`t possible.
l will leave if asked.
Throw your minds back to when journalists reported news rather than
creating it themselves.. " now we are going over to Jeremy Arsewipe
for his views on what will be happening next "
The problem is that the people with a vote lose interest and those
who haven`t a vote are empowered by that absence.
lt could even lead to untrustworthy politicians being elected.
Sorry, l take that back, obviously that isn`t possible.
RR
Putin is a straight shooter then? He doesn't lie? I could understand if you said you don't know what the truth is, I have a hard time giving your boy Putin the edge as a font of truth and honesty. He's as entrenched as any in the argument.
Putin is a straight shooter then? He doesn't lie? I could understand if you said you don't know what the truth is, I have a hard time giving your boy Putin the edge as a font of truth and honesty. He's as entrenched as any in the argument.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Trim Stab
Originally Posted by NutLoose
Originally Posted by Two's in
Here's the one I struggle with. So they can be ripped apart by 7.62mm rounds, eviscerated by random 81mm mortar rounds or vaporized by air dropped munitions but somehow using CW crosses a line?
Though both in this case appear to be failing miserably.
Agreed - the argument that some forms of lethal weapon are less morally acceptable than others is difficult to understand when looked at dispassionately.
Some might argue that WMD do not discriminate between "civilian" and "military" targets - but that distinction has become blurred in recent asymmetric conflicts (and the other side are not always to blame) . Some might argue that WMD are strategic weapons in that they enable an attacker to inflict mass casualties with minimum risk to their own personnel - but we already do that by using drones and cruise missiles where the bearers of deadly power bear no personal risk.
I've never read a rational argument for the illegality of WMD compared to so-called "conventional" weapons which are just as indiscriminate and deadly, and which require no risk on behalf of the military personnel who deliver them.
It is not really even clear that CW should be classified as WMD. They are by no means as capable of "mass destruction" as nuclear or advanced biological weapons. At worst, in purely destructive terms, they are no more powerful than many legal so-called conventional tactical weapons.
Ironically, their only real strategic value is that they are "classified" as WMD. So as we saw in the 2003 in Iraq, their nebulous existence was "justification" to start a war that continues to cause horrific casualties to this day, and as we see today in Syria it is possible for elements of the international community to be duped into alarming attacks on entirely spurious evidence of their misuse.
There is, however, just such an international treaty banning the use of CW:
The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons. Its full name is the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction. The agreement is administered by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which is an independent organization based in the Hague, in the Netherlands.
Israel and Myanmar (Burma) have signed but not ratified, the Republic of China (Taiwan) (while not having ratified, acceded, or signed) has declared its obedience to the Convention, and Angola has declared its intention to ratify... leaving only Egypt, North Korea, South Sudan, and Syria as defiantly non-compliant nations.
So yes, there is a near-total international consensus that CW are banned as weapons, and that any nation, organization, or individual using them in a conflict (including a "civil" war) is committing a War Crime!
I know... "Its just a scrap of paper"... but so was the Treaty of London (1839).
Last edited by GreenKnight121; 1st Sep 2013 at 04:17.
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Luton
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So every one who plays cricket has established the rules of cricket
excepting the ones who didn`t want to play cricket and have no concept
of the game of cricket anyway.
Meanwhile, on the other bench, things are slightly different.
The UN doesn`t work.
Let`s fix that first.
excepting the ones who didn`t want to play cricket and have no concept
of the game of cricket anyway.
Meanwhile, on the other bench, things are slightly different.
The UN doesn`t work.
Let`s fix that first.
Let's do away with the UN.....that would be the better plan.
As the Syrian's did not sign onto the Treaty....why are giving them stick over using Chemical Weapons....they violated no Treaty Obligations did they?
We may not like it, we may not condone it, and it is surely evil....but what legal right do we have to attack them for something they did within the confines of their own country....to their own people?
As the Syrian's did not sign onto the Treaty....why are giving them stick over using Chemical Weapons....they violated no Treaty Obligations did they?
We may not like it, we may not condone it, and it is surely evil....but what legal right do we have to attack them for something they did within the confines of their own country....to their own people?
Last edited by SASless; 1st Sep 2013 at 12:46.
We may not like it, we may not condone it, and it is surely evil....but what legal right do we have to attack them for something they did within the confines of their own country....to their own people?
Because, no matter how you look at it, using chemical weapons against your own country is just wrong. Isn't it?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,084
Received 2,944 Likes
on
1,254 Posts
But shooting them, bombing them, using phosphorus on them is ok? Because we all ignored that little tit for tat, and indeed still are.
..
..
Last edited by NutLoose; 1st Sep 2013 at 15:01.