PDA

View Full Version : Syria, WMD



Rheghead
23-Jul-12, 16:59
The Syrians have finally admitted that they have chemical weapons, the Assad regime promises not to use them on their own people saying they are for external threats only. The Assad regime blames the uprising on terrorists that are being supplied by countries such as Turkey. So have they opened the door for using those weapons on the countries which supply the rebels?

Where is it all heading? :confused Can a totalitarian regime claim legitimacy if it has to kill to survive?

billmoseley
23-Jul-12, 17:53
this one is all very complicated too many fingers in this pie. there is stuff in syria the russians wouldn't like us to know about and as they are all buddy buddy with china now i say lets stay well out of it. i think he will use these weapons and then it will be interesting what is done. No the regime has no right to to kill to survive. But if we revolted here do you think the army would open fire on fellow brits?

Corrie 3
23-Jul-12, 19:09
WMD ?????


What we need is Tony Blair and George Dubya back again to send our army in there immediately !!!!.....Oh hang on, we cant, they are all guarding the Limpicks!!!!

Never mind, I am sure Assad will come to a bloody, sticky end very soon!!

C3...................:roll:

Rheghead
23-Jul-12, 19:28
WMD ?????


What we need is Tony Blair and George Dubya back again to send our army in there immediately !!!!.....Oh hang on, we cant, they are all guarding the Limpicks!!!!

Never mind, I am sure Assad will come to a bloody, sticky end very soon!!

C3...................:roll:
Well at least we have an admission so no need for a dodgy dossier.

Gronnuck
23-Jul-12, 20:53
Why would/should we be interested in what happens to Syria? It's a sovereign nation regardless of who or what governs it. It's the job of the UN to mediate and bring about an amicable solution; let it earn its keep. There has been wars of one sort or another in the Middle East for the last sixty years and there have been all manner of attempts to promote peace none of which have been successful. Britain doesn't have the clout, diplomatically or militarily to get involved. We could leave it to Tony Blair the UN Middle East envoy to sort out but I suspect he's too busy making a living advising foreign investment banks.

theone
23-Jul-12, 22:31
WMD? A weapon of mass destruction? Surely that's the whole idea.

There's not much point in having a weapon of minor destruction.

There's actually a lot to be said for chemical and biological weapons. Kill your enemies but leave the buildings, roads and bridges intact for the future winners to enjoy the spoils of war.

Tongue in cheek maybe, but the UK/France/UN has a lot to answer for in respect to the differences in the way they treated Syria and Libya.

ducati
24-Jul-12, 09:04
WMD? A weapon of mass destruction? Surely that's the whole idea.

There's not much point in having a weapon of minor destruction.

There's actually a lot to be said for chemical and biological weapons. Kill your enemies but leave the buildings, roads and bridges intact for the future winners to enjoy the spoils of war.

Tongue in cheek maybe, but the UK/France/UN has a lot to answer for in respect to the differences in the way they treated Syria and Libya.

There is a big difference, Libya was armed largly with WW11 surplus British weapons. Syria is armed to the teath with modern Russian and Chinese weapons.

Rheghead
24-Jul-12, 11:01
Some commentators have described Assad as a cornered injured wolf that will do anything to stay in power. That Anything could be to attack a neighbouring country in an attempt to unite factions within his own country. Would it be in our national interests to stand idly by and let Assad do that?

Gronnuck
24-Jul-12, 16:06
Some commentators have described Assad as a cornered injured wolf that will do anything to stay in power. That Anything could be to attack a neighbouring country in an attempt to unite factions within his own country. Would it be in our national interests to stand idly by and let Assad do that?

The only obligation we would have would be to Turkey which is a member of NATO as are we. Iraq to the East might become unstable and inflame its political, ethnic and sectarian problems. Jordon to the south already has political, ethnic and sectarian problems. IMO we have every excuse to stand back and let the other NATO members support Turkey. Our tired overstretched military has enough to keep it busy with securing the Olympics and negotiating Resettlement Courses etc. prior to discharge. We have to accept that our national interests are limited by what diplomatic 'clout' we can exert in the area and that isn't very much.

Kasper King
24-Jul-12, 17:06
There is a big difference, Libya was armed largly with WW11 surplus British weapons.
No Russia, France and China supplied Lybia, this country has never made AK47's, Mig's, Silk Worm missles, etc.

billmoseley
24-Jul-12, 19:18
it seems that in these wars that terrorists seem to get a foot hold in these countries so maybe it's not the syrian government we need to worry about using them but the terrorists getting them and shipping them who knows where. maybe the russians americans and chinese would do better working together to neutralise this threat instead of bickering

ducati
24-Jul-12, 20:00
There is a big difference, Libya was armed largly with WW11 surplus British weapons.
No Russia, France and China supplied Lybia, this country has never made AK47's, Mig's, Silk Worm missles, etc.

You will find, if you google, plenty of evidence.

whitechina
26-Jul-12, 19:00
You might be interested to know who it is that's stirring up this rebellion...........

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/19/157030690/the-nation-behind-the-syrian-bombing

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/21/administration-mum-on-claims-cia-helping-steer-arms-to-syrian-opposition/


Good old Uncle Sam is at the root of all this.Who's next on their hit list I ask????

ducati
26-Jul-12, 20:59
You might be interested to know who it is that's stirring up this rebellion...........

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/19/157030690/the-nation-behind-the-syrian-bombing

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/21/administration-mum-on-claims-cia-helping-steer-arms-to-syrian-opposition/


Good old Uncle Sam is at the root of all this.Who's next on their hit list I ask????

I think you will find it is the people being oppressed by a oppressive regime that are rebelling. I don't actually think they needed any stirring up.

What next? Mitt Romney covertly backing the SNP? :eek:

Phill
26-Jul-12, 23:55
Good old Uncle Sam is at the root of all this.Who's next on their hit list I ask????Were they behind it or seized an opportunity! And there are brits on the ground there too helping making things happen.

oldmarine
27-Jul-12, 15:48
I hope my country can stay out of it. I already been in too many wars and lucky to get out alive.

whitechina
27-Jul-12, 18:07
I think you will find it is the people being oppressed by a oppressive regime that are rebelling. I don't actually think they needed any stirring up.

What next? Mitt Romney covertly backing the SNP? :eek:

If what you say is the case then this "uprising" would have happened a long time ago.And the same could be said of Tunisia and Egypt,and now Bahrain.If you watch some of the more indepth reporting from the likes of Russia Today,Al-Jazeerah,and France 24 then you'll notice an awful lot of American weapons (M4 assault rifles) and also SLRs,such as those the British army used to use.That alone is an indication as to who is stirring things up.
What would you rather have?A stable Syria under Assad,or a failed state riven by religious tensions which in the long run will become a hardline Islamic state hostile to the west and helping to train and supply terrorist groups over here?
Did you even bother to read the articles I provided links for?

billmoseley
27-Jul-12, 18:43
i do watch all the other worlds news channels. i think that russia and america have an under hand role in what is going on. my blood boils when you think that if the big 2 Russia and America got together they could put a stop to it in no time. But hey who cares about a few thousand dead people.

ducati
27-Jul-12, 22:44
If what you say is the case then this "uprising" would have happened a long time ago.And the same could be said of Tunisia and Egypt,and now Bahrain.If you watch some of the more indepth reporting from the likes of Russia Today,Al-Jazeerah,and France 24 then you'll notice an awful lot of American weapons (M4 assault rifles) and also SLRs,such as those the British army used to use.That alone is an indication as to who is stirring things up.
What would you rather have?A stable Syria under Assad,or a failed state riven by religious tensions which in the long run will become a hardline Islamic state hostile to the west and helping to train and supply terrorist groups over here?
Did you even bother to read the articles I provided links for?

No! I didn't. I form my own unshakeable opinions. I do not accept oppressive regimes just because they may be more convenient.

oldmarine
28-Jul-12, 17:45
No! I didn't. I form my own unshakeable opinions. I do not accept oppressive regimes just because they may be more convenient.

I agree with ducati. I am concerned about my own country (USA) getting too envolved with other country's problems.

whitechina
30-Jul-12, 17:40
And so it begins............

http://youtu.be/s24dJozjU94


(I would add that the idea that Russia would destabilise one of it's own allies in the region is ridiculous.)

whitechina
02-Aug-12, 18:41
I agree with ducati. I am concerned about my own country (USA) getting too envolved with other country's problems.

Ducati,you seem annoyed,Why?It's impossible to form an opinion,unshakeable or otherwise,without doing all the necessary research.So really you should look at those links.Anyway,here's an interesting report;

http://youtu.be/BBczHTf18fc

Oldmarine,I've been studying American foreign policy of the post war period and it's quite clear that your government excells at this.If anything it has now become a superpower tyranny intent on imposing it's will on the world.It almost makes me wish for the Soviet Union to come back into existence just to act as a counter to this.
My prediction for the future of Syria is this.
We are already aware that Al Queda have links with the Syrian Free Army and are working together on a common goal of removing Assad from power.Should they achieve this what do you think will happen then?Well,by my reckoning that alliance will quickly crumble as they will now be aware of US support for the S.F.A.Fighting will erupt between Al Queda and the S.F.A.Added to that will be the remnants of the Assad regime who will still hold some territory and will continue to fight both the S.F.A and Al Queda.And what a fine mess that will be.Innocent people will continue to suffer for their political allegiances or religious beliefs.
Contrast that with the previously stable secular Assad regime (and yes I do know there have been human rights violations by that regime) and the only conclusion that can be reached is that Assad's regime was far preferable to what we have now and what is yet to come.

whitechina
02-Aug-12, 18:45
Here's more;

http://youtu.be/l5H8HrlyMpw

ducati
02-Aug-12, 18:49
What is your solution? BTW I don't put any store by what people post on you t, or the internet in general. But I particularly don't look at You t links.

oldmarine
03-Aug-12, 17:59
Ducati,you seem annoyed,Why?It's impossible to form an opinion,unshakeable or otherwise,without doing all the necessary research.So really you should look at those links.Anyway,here's an interesting report;

http://youtu.be/BBczHTf18fc

Oldmarine,I've been studying American foreign policy of the post war period and it's quite clear that your government excells at this.If anything it has now become a superpower tyranny intent on imposing it's will on the world.It almost makes me wish for the Soviet Union to come back into existence just to act as a counter to this.
My prediction for the future of Syria is this.
We are already aware that Al Queda have links with the Syrian Free Army and are working together on a common goal of removing Assad from power.Should they achieve this what do you think will happen then?Well,by my reckoning that alliance will quickly crumble as they will now be aware of US support for the S.F.A.Fighting will erupt between Al Queda and the S.F.A.Added to that will be the remnants of the Assad regime who will still hold some territory and will continue to fight both the S.F.A and Al Queda.And what a fine mess that will be.Innocent people will continue to suffer for their political allegiances or religious beliefs.
Contrast that with the previously stable secular Assad regime (and yes I do know there have been human rights violations by that regime) and the only conclusion that can be reached is that Assad's regime was far preferable to what we have now and what is yet to come.

white china: Trying to figure where you are coming with your comment. Great Britain was likewise a super power prior to WW2. USA did not become a super power until WW2. Both countries have/had great responsibilities with this status. Russia & China continuously flexed their mussels at both countries. If you are supporting both Communist Russia and Communist China, I believe you are making a big mistake.

whitechina
06-Aug-12, 16:52
white china: Trying to figure where you are coming with your comment. Great Britain was likewise a super power prior to WW2. USA did not become a super power until WW2. Both countries have/had great responsibilities with this status. Russia & China continuously flexed their mussels at both countries. If you are supporting both Communist Russia and Communist China, I believe you are making a big mistake.

It's quite simple.The US is at the root of a great deal of trouble in the world.I don't support Russia or China either.Why is it when someone voices their oppostion to US foreign policy americans automatically assume you must be a communist sympathiser?

I can assure you that if Russia or China were behind the Syrian situation I'd be providing information to support that.And here's a link to another news report you may find interesting,as indeed will others;

http://youtu.be/0GhF9ib8bIY

whitechina
06-Aug-12, 16:58
What is your solution? BTW I don't put any store by what people post on you t, or the internet in general. But I particularly don't look at You t links.

Perhaps the only solution is for the US to end their support for these "rebels".This would allow the Assad regime to put and end to the insurrection.Syria could then return to stability and the Al Queda groups who are there could be dealt with appropriately.
The links I provided were for reports on news channels.Therefore entirely relevant.There's a great deal happening that our press don't report.Perhaps you would look at this news report?It's very interesting.

http://youtu.be/0GhF9ib8bIY

whitechina
06-Aug-12, 22:22
I think there is hope for America and it's people in this man.He talks sense and is running for President.If only he would win.........

http://youtu.be/l8EWN3fKilw

oldmarine
07-Aug-12, 00:09
I think there is hope for America and it's people in this man.He talks sense and is running for President.If only he would win.........

http://youtu.be/l8EWN3fKilw

Ron Paul is out of it. He lost out to Romney. The polls, at this time, show Obama in the lead. As for the USA, I remember prior to WW2 the people wanted no part of that war. It was a big dilemna for FDR who wanted to support Churchill and GB. On Dec 7th, 1941 the Japaneae Empire changed all of that when they attcked Pearl Harbor. I saw too many of my comrades wasted by that war and I nearly became one of them. Since then I have been concerned about the nervousness of the USA when they react to every problem all over the world. It has cost us too much money (we are billions of dollars in debt) and we have lost too many men and women. It has become too costly. Many people believe we can no longer be protected by our two vast oceans. Perhaps they are correct, but too many countries no longer believe in us as a result. Looks like no easy way out of this mess.

billmoseley
07-Aug-12, 20:04
America has had too much power for much to long now with mr Putin in charge again they will find that he will not let America get away with so much. however i think they are both to blame over Syria both have vested interests on opposite sides. Alas now Iran are getting involved which could lead to a much bigger conflict. It seems we have learnt nothing in the last 20 years of conflict. War has changed unless the population really want an invading army in their country then within a few months they will rise up and defeat even a super power ask Russia and America

Rheghead
07-Aug-12, 20:26
A big defection yesterday and he said that the Syrians are just fighting for freedom exactly the opposite from the Baath party line.. A good sign that the regime could crumble soon.

whitechina
12-Aug-12, 20:32
Seems there's plenty of support for Assad,just look at these news reports;

http://youtu.be/h13p-z-eAOw

http://youtu.be/HafsWaL-E2Q

I wonder why our media doesn't report these and other events.Ah,but of course,it doesn't concur with what our media is telling us.(Which is basically what the government tells them).

John Little
12-Aug-12, 22:07
I would not expect an end to this war soon. The Syrian rebels have plenty of courage, but they have not learned how to fight. They keep exposing themselves to the onslaught of a heavily armed government army; in Homs, Damascus and now in Aleppo.

Each time they do it they get a pasting and lose valuable lives and resources.

They cannot sustain this without committed and plentiful foreign aid. Or a no-fly zone.

So until they learn guerrilla tactics and stop trying to oppose a conventional force by conventional means, they will not win.

ducati
13-Aug-12, 21:47
I would not expect an end to this war soon. The Syrian rebels have plenty of courage, but they have not learned how to fight. They keep exposing themselves to the onslaught of a heavily armed government army; in Homs, Damascus and now in Aleppo.

Each time they do it they get a pasting and lose valuable lives and resources.

They cannot sustain this without committed and plentiful foreign aid. Or a no-fly zone.

So until they learn guerrilla tactics and stop trying to oppose a conventional force by conventional means, they will not win.

I dunno John, infiltrating a military conference with a suicide bomber seems a pretty committed guerrilla tactic. It may be they have shot down a fighter too. I thought I had seen some anti-aircraft weapons on some internet footage but I would guess if they did bring down a plane it would more likely be some sophisticated missile system, so someone is supplying weapons. (And possibly operating them).