View Full Version : Syria
The latest news is that the rebels to the assad regime have taken over a strategic airbase. Is this a tipping point in the war? Is it time that Assad goes quietly or do you think he should start looking for country to take him or a nice little stormdrain to hide in?
billmoseley
11-Jan-13, 19:38
My feeling is that this still has a very long way to run. It takes me back to the cold war in many ways. Each side being funded by either Russia or the west. Which is a shame as so many people are dying. One worry is the chemical weapons and what will happen with those will Assad use them? Or will they fall in terrorist hands and be used god knows where?
I just hope we stay out of it even though people are being killed, we are not big enough, strong enough or rich enough to be the policeman of the world!
C3.
M Swanson
11-Jan-13, 20:03
The latest news is that the rebels to the assad regime have taken over a strategic airbase. Is this a tipping point in the war? Is it time that Assad goes quietly or do you think he should start looking for country to take him or a nice little stormdrain to hide in?
I don't know much about this conflict and was wondering what group the rebels belong to. What are their intentions after Assad is overthrown? :confused
The latest news is that the rebels to the assad regime have taken over a strategic airbase. Is this a tipping point in the war? Is it time that Assad goes quietly or do you think he should start looking for country to take him or a nice little stormdrain to hide in?
Unless the rebels have the expertise to use the assets they've captured all they've got is a another piece of real estate and a target for the Syrian military to aim at in retaliation. I would wait and see what develops in the surrounding area over the next 24 hrs.
Assad will hang on till the last possible moment before running to his hole or his storm drain.
I don't know much about this conflict and was wondering what group the rebels belong to. What are their intentions after Assad is overthrown? :confused
I'd imagine that the rebels consist of multiple factions who have their own ideas and aspirations for Syria, a proto-democratic Syria if you like.
M Swanson
11-Jan-13, 21:57
Thanks Rheg. I'm still uncertain as to the situation with the rebels. I've tried to Google, but without much success. I'll try again when I have more time.
Latest news is that Russia seem to be pulling their people from Syria, reminds me of the last days in Saigon for the USA.
I have a strong feeling that Syria if and when Assad goes will sink into yet another divided country with Shia and Sunni muslims at each other's throats and the smaller religeous groups caught in the crossfire, democracy is not a word that these countries understand.
I have a strong feeling that Syria if and when Assad goes will sink into yet another divided country with Shia and Sunni muslims at each other's throats and the smaller religeous groups caught in the crossfire, democracy is not a word that these countries understand.
To be fair, not many Western countries understand the concept of democracy either!
To be fair, not many Western countries understand the concept of democracy either!
now that must be the shortest and concise , and understandable reply you have ever made on 'e Org forums, well done
billmoseley
26-Aug-13, 19:57
Well 8 months has passed and still the fighting rages on. Looks like we are going to stick our noses in now. This chemical attack does seem right to me why would Assad use them when he knows it would draw the west in to a conflict which he is beginning to win. Also using them would also embarrass the Russians their only true Allie. I smell a rat.
Well 8 months has passed and still the fighting rages on. Looks like we are going to stick our noses in now. This chemical attack does seem right to me why would Assad use them when he knows it would draw the west in to a conflict which he is beginning to win. Also using them would also embarrass the Russians their only true Allie. I smell a rat.
He'll try to cling on to power no matter what. He has crossed the line so many times but this is the work of a desperate regime.
Tangerine-Dream
26-Aug-13, 21:41
Cutting back on everything in this country as we have no money / are in debt....... the last thing we want to do is waste money we don't have firing missiles on Syria...... forget them, let them do what they have to do...... spend the money over HERE where it is needed.
Sod them.
Cutting back on everything in this country as we have no money / are in debt....... the last thing we want to do is waste money we don't have firing missiles on Syria...... forget them, let them do what they have to do...... spend the money over HERE where it is needed.
Sod them.
Well I think human compassion goes beyond national boundaries and identities. I acknowledge intervention is a blunt instrument, the consequences can be exploited as propaganda by all parties but I believe that in the long run, political self determination works rather better for all involved than despotism. Not just for the local population but the wider international community.
..... but this is the work of a desperate regime.Aye, Russia. Assad is just a puppet.
This could get very, very messy.
IMO we should not be getting involved. The West armed the Mujahedeen in an attempt to overthrow the soviet sponsored government of Afghanistan in the 70s and 80s. The whole strategy backfired on us after the Taliban filled the vacuum left by the Soviet Union. We’ve since been bogged down in an unwinnable war for ten years. Afghanistan is in a very fragile state and when the West withdraws there is every chance this desert wilderness will revert to inter-tribal/sectarian warfare.
Similarly the West intervened in Iraq, twice. The first time to free Kuwait left Iraq embroiled in a vicious sectarian war. The second time to depose Sadam Hussien which has left the country practically ungovernable due to continued sectarianism.
We haven’t even learned anything from Libya which thanks to Western intervention is now embroiled in tribal, sectarian and race wars rendering it ungovernable and much of its southern population starving.
Wherever the West has intervened we’ve managed to leave the country with a huge death toll, practically ungovernable and very much worse off.
Yes it’s all very well having compassion for those caught up in these wars but we don’t have the resources to fight everyone’s battles for them. We don’t have the leadership to see the consequences of our actions or the plan for the inevitable fallout. Yes let’s support the refugees and provide what aid we can but we must not get involved in another shooting war.
outsidethebox
27-Aug-13, 10:21
very worrying noises from Downing Street http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23845765 they don't usually "draw up contingency military plans" unless they plan to use them...
and Russia warns military intervention in Syria would be "catastrophic" for the region...
not good, not good at all
Before any of our governments start offering our hard pressed,understaffed and underfunded troops to another country after what they have gone through in the last few years here is an idea, how about all the MPs and MSPs putting on a uniform carrying out basic training getting a gun and serving in these highly dangerous places for a few months coming home for a few weeks and then going back and whilst they are serving they can then receive their redundancy notices to let them know just how much their efforts have been appreciated
mickeyebbels
27-Aug-13, 11:49
Before any of our governments start offering our hard pressed,understaffed and underfunded troops to another country after what they have gone through in the last few years here is an idea, how about all the MPs and MSPs putting on a uniform carrying out basic training getting a gun and serving in these highly dangerous places for a few months coming home for a few weeks and then going back and whilst they are serving they can then receive their redundancy notices to let them know just how much their efforts have been appreciated
Here speaks a man (?) who has been there and done it. 'They' won't listen to anyone though, 'They' will go on there own sweet way making a name for themselves as 'They' have done for millennia!
Well 8 months has passed and still the fighting rages on. Looks like we are going to stick our noses in now. This chemical attack does seem right to me why would Assad use them when he knows it would draw the west in to a conflict which he is beginning to win. Also using them would also embarrass the Russians their only true Allie. I smell a rat.
A rat the size of a Westie! I do hope, though I'm not holding my breath..that the UK Government will actually get real facts this time, before making a decision, and don't rely on uncorroborated evidence from Government paid and mandated employees who are earning their next month's pay and keeping their jobs, just as they did when they helped Bliar involve us in Iraq.
Do sometimes wonder, if the criteria for inserting UK forces into countries which do not threaten us, included an immutable obligation for our politicians to offer thir nearest old enough relation (son, nephew, grandson or female equivalents etc) to serve in the conflict....how many of them would still be voting for interfering anywhere the USA wants us to interfere?
This is worth a read:
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2013/08/27/syria-a-classic-false-flag-atrocity/
Raises some questions about the alleged Chemical attack.
What is morally less corrupt? Gassing your own citizens in the homes or gassing them inside specially built facilities?
There are no morals when it comes to war. Which is why the 'who' that is behind the gassing needs some real good scrutiny.
Actually, why be bothered about Chemical Weapons now after watching them blow-up, shoot, behead and eat each other for two years.
What is morally less corrupt? Gassing your own citizens in the homes or gassing them inside specially built facilities?
Gassing them in specially built facilities... Must be... The USA do it & they're the moral compass of the world are they not?
RagnarRocks
28-Aug-13, 22:42
I'd hope if there is going to be any military intervention it's a couple of well placed cruise missiles on his chemical weapons dumps as long as it didn't spread the stuff then leave them to it !
I'd hope if there is going to be any military intervention it's a couple of well placed cruise missiles on his chemical weapons dumps as long as it didn't spread the stuff then leave them to it !Two problems as I see it. Any attack on a chemical weapons facility may well spread military grade stuff far and wide. And we don't know who has done this.
Gassing them in specially built facilities... Must be... The USA do it & they're the moral compass of the world are they not?
I'm not aware of the USA dropping gas bombs on their own cities or gassing innocent civillians.
secrets in symmetry
28-Aug-13, 23:28
This is worth a read:
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2013/08/27/syria-a-classic-false-flag-atrocity/
Raises some questions about the alleged Chemical attack.Lol!
It's worth reading for a laugh...
A laugh at a group of extreme right wing, puritan, isolationist, socially conservative Americans who can string a pile of words together in such a way that they sound authoritative to the conspiracy theorist.
I wouldn't believe a word they say...
Of course, that doesn't mean we do know what happened. I wouldn't take much notice of their reasoning though....
I'd hope if there is going to be any military intervention it's a couple of well placed cruise missiles on his chemical weapons dumps as long as it didn't spread the stuff then leave them to it !
That'd be the limit of my UK intervention. Remove the means to exercise more chemical attacks and that's it.
Having said that, although I hate the idea of chemical weapons, who is to say what's "fair" and what's "right"? I don't imagine there's many weeping widows right now glad that their husband died because of a bullet, or a fire, or an explosion but not a gas. War causes deaths.
Where is the line between what is acceptable and what needs international (UK/USA) intervention?
It's a civil war, let them lash at it as far as I'm concerned, especially if the alternative is British lives.
Of course, that doesn't mean we do know what happened.'Xactly!
Plenty of David Icke type loons off on one, but there are some questions.
....gassing innocent civillians.
You only said "citizens" in your post, nothing about innocent civilians.
Question: Why would the Syrian government/Assad increase the likelihood of others getting involved by using chemical weapons in a war he was winning anyway... unless they/he did no such thing and it's a ploy by someone else, mostly likely the rebels.
The rebels by the way aren't a homogeneous group but are very factionalised with several of those factions having links to terrorist organisations.
I like how the media and politicians are taking this alleged use as fact now also.
outsidethebox
29-Aug-13, 11:08
The rebels by the way aren't a homogeneous group but are very factionalised with several of those factions having links to terrorist organisations.
Let's not forget that Hezbollah are fighting with Assad's forces, so don't get too worked up about the rebels links to terrorist organisations. Don't forget one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
I find the language and rhetoric being used is a very unsubtle brainwashing / propaganda campaign, and that alone makes me think it wasn't Assad's regime that released the chemicals.
On twitter someone posted that in Afghanistan we are fighting Al Qaeda, but in Syria we want to start supporting them. :confused
Tangerine-Dream
29-Aug-13, 11:11
If our democratic dictatorship (ie: you're free to vote in a dictator of your choice every few years) started spraying us with nasty chemicals do you think the likes of the Syrian regime would intervene by firing missiles at them?
Leave these people alone, it's not our business to police the world. We don't have the resources to police our own streets, let alone Syrian streets, it's quite amusing that we are apparantly trying to reduce budget deficits BUT have plenty of money to fire missiles at people / places.
That costs a lot of money mate, why not stay out of this one and build a few more Hospitals instead..... it costs about 1 million pounds to fire ONE Tomahawk missile and they are talking about closing the Dunbar Hospital?
Utter madness.
outsidethebox
29-Aug-13, 11:17
Interesting that as the MOD make plans for more war they also announce tranche 3 of armed forces redundancies (http://www.dasa.mod.uk/applications/newWeb/www/index.php?page=48&thiscontent=5100&date=2013-08-29&pubType=0&PublishTime=09:30:00&from=home&tabOption=1)
And just how handy would it be to have a carrier with a few harrier's on and a couple of Nimrods right now?
RagnarRocks
29-Aug-13, 13:28
And just how handy would it be to have a carrier with a few harrier's on and a couple of Nimrods right now?Syria has a fairly advanced air defence system courtesy of Russia who has a vested interest in keeping the regime in place due to them using the sea access it gives them. The Chinese are resolutely against any military intervention but you can ask what vested interest does china have in Syria aside from maybe arms supplies. The west dislike dictators but also are very concerned about the rebel fractions neither side is trustworthy and should al Qaeda get hold of chemical weapons then we have a real nightmare scenario with anywhere being a fairly easy target. I'd guess the wests main interest is ensuring those chemical weapons get decommissioned to all intents an purposes the rest makes it another middle eastern civil war with all the varying factions jostling for position and the fanatics just adding more fuel to a blazing fire.
zenmaster
29-Aug-13, 15:23
Continuation of the agenda started in 1997 under the Project for a New American Century. A policy coup by Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, et al for regime change in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, Lebanon & Jordan.
billmoseley
29-Aug-13, 19:28
heres my answer to the chemical weapons. sit round the table with the Russians and Chinese and the west. Get the Russians to make Assad hand over his chemical weapons in 2 weeks. A UN force goes in to collect them under an allied air cover which must use force to protect the force. the weapons can be destroyed here. we pull out the Un force and let them get on with killing each other fairly with bullets and bombs
You only said "citizens" in your post, nothing about innocent civilians.
10/10 for splitting hairs.
A fuel/airbomb on Assad's khazi would be beneficial in a quick end to the conflict. Although I guess a whole new lot of bunches will be fighting each other within a few days. Let's face it, anywhere in the middle east that has been 'helped' by the west has ended in disaster. We need to come to terms with the fact we do not understand the cultures or they are all as mad as a box of frogs and move on.
Phew.... No war just now then!
Phew.... No war just now then!
Not for us. I'm glad. But does it mean more? We ain't gonna to study war no more. If Parliament will not sanction the idea (not the reality, that would have required another debate and another vote) of action to prevent the further use of chemical weapons, something that is fundamental to our national sense of fairplay for the want of a better expression, do we need armed forces at all? Or at least the scale we have? Do we need to consider a much reduced capability possibly along the lines of the JDF? Afterall, the forces we have are very expensive, and the circumstances in which we can now conceive they would be used again (once we are out of Afganhistan anyway) would be limited to the defence of our own borders.
I dont know ducati. I dont know that it prevents military action for ever. But I am glad that we have to stop and think. Harrowing stuff on the news tonight but we have to be sure that we take action on the RIGHT information and that we have tried everything to avoid military action.
Damned if we do and damned if we don't intervene. I have a gut feeling that even if we were to enter the fray on whatever pretence we will be opening yet another can of worms in the Islamic states. For the fundamentalists any western country is akin to a state governed and ruled by demonic powers and therefore a legitimate target for the jehadists who neither comprehend or would ever support the kind of freedoms we enjoy. For those who would aspire to the kind of freedoms we enjoy, they must learn and understand that Mohamed preached just that and be prepared to stand up to the extremists. We are seeing here what happened in Europe several hundred years ago between the new thinking protestants and the established catholic church but for the moment The Sunni and Shia are as far apart as the west was 500 years ago.
David Banks
30-Aug-13, 02:00
We are seeing here what happened in Europe several hundred years ago between the new thinking protestants and the established catholic church but for the moment
The Sunni and Shia are as far apart as the west was 500 years ago.
And, where do the Alawites fit in this "Muslim family circle?"
Damned if we do and damned if we don't intervene. I have a gut feeling that even if we were to enter the fray on whatever pretence we will be opening yet another can of worms in the Islamic states. For the fundamentalists any western country is akin to a state governed and ruled by demonic powers and therefore a legitimate target for the jehadists who neither comprehend or would ever support the kind of freedoms we enjoy. For those who would aspire to the kind of freedoms we enjoy, they must learn and understand that Mohamed preached just that and be prepared to stand up to the extremists. We are seeing here what happened in Europe several hundred years ago between the new thinking protestants and the established catholic church but for the moment The Sunni and Shia are as far apart as the west was 500 years ago.
We are where we are because we have intervened all over the world for the last three centuries. We divided up countries with no consideration as to the wishes of the people in them......we amalgamated provinces with no consideration as to the wishes of the people in them. We ignored the fact, that just as our own religion produced a division of Religions under the over all banner of Christianity, other countries also had ethnicity/religious differences...and we threw them all together in a mix....and have continued interfering in them to this day..but this time to benefit big business, change regimes, produce trading partners, impose what we laughingly call democracy.....and to allow us to choose for them our preferred dictator/leader, who will favour us.
We have the freedom to trash the world..and up till now, we have used it (but only if there was some quid pro quo in it for us)...and I, for one, am glad that, at last, Parliament has begun to realise that it is past time we stopped pretending that it is just fine to kill civilians to "save" them...and that what the USA wants isn't necessarily what is best for the UK.
As I understand it The Alawites are Shias that follow a different descent of the line of Mohammed and have incorporated a few quirks along the way , but this is diverting from the original thread and I will leave it at that.
I was listening to some US pundit talking about the USA response to Assad. He seemed to think, and voiced it with some authority, the US would still use a UK airbase on Cyprus (Where the USAF are already jointly based) to launch a possible attack. I don't think they fancy parking a carrier in the med as the Syrian's do have a capability to attack it. In fact they could just as easily strike at Cyprus or anywhere in Europe for that matter. They have very modern jets and weapons systems thanks to the good old Russians.
I was listening to some US pundit talking about the USA response to Assad. He seemed to think, and voiced it with some authority, the US would still use a UK airbase on Cyprus (Where the USAF are already jointly based) to launch a possible attack. I don't think they fancy parking a carrier in the med as the Syrian's do have a capability to attack it. In fact they could just as easily strike at Cyprus or anywhere in Europe for that matter. They have very modern jets and weapons systems thanks to the good old Russians.
The USAF have had small detachment flying U2 'spy' planes from RAF Akrotiri for many years. There really is no need for them to use Akrotiri to attack Syria since they already have a major presence at their bases at USAF Incirlik and at Izmir in Turkey.
I don't think there is many amongst us that could just sit there and listen to the screams as our neighbour kills their kids. In fact it is our duty to act.
I don't think there is many amongst us that could just sit there and listen to the screams as our neighbour kills their kids. In fact it is our duty to act.
Sure we would.and sure it is...but we'd intervene if any neighbour was killing their kids....we'd not decide that one is a friend of mine..so that is OK then...........and we don't like that one, so him doing the same is unacceptable....or even, I saw him do that, but he has something I want, and if I don't tell, I'll maybe manage to acquire it!
And, it seems to me that that is how Governments look at foreign relations nowadays.....sod all to do with ethics, morality......or even common decency.....just what's in it for us and them! Personally, I'd as soon not get economic benefit via taxes from the killing of another country's citizens, so the likes of BP can make more oil profit (to likely avoid paying taxes on).....or arms companies can sell more drones, tanks and guns......or the likes of Haliburton can make a fortune reinstating, at great taxpayer expense,the infrastructure which we have, at great taxpayer expense, bombed to crap......or Blackwater can make a small fortune protecting all those people making money out of disaster from the wrath of the populations we shaft with regular monotony........a different year........a different target.......same beneficiaries..and the same sick feeling.
On other forums my sig.....or a part of it is "Where am I going and what am I doing in this hand basket"...but I think the hand basket has already landed.and some of us are trying to stop it burning up in the flames..while others are fanning those same flames.
I don't think there is many amongst us that could just sit there and listen to the screams as our neighbour kills their kids. In fact it is our duty to act.
Aye, but having experienced the neighbour living on the other side and the neighbour across the street butcher some of their kids and the survivors spend the last ten years butchering each other and anyone who tried to help or interfere would make anyone with any sense think twice.
It would seem from the comments from America, reported in the news media, that the once Great Britain has been surplanted in the 'special relationship' by the "Garlic eating surrender monkeys". That makes me feel great. :roll:
orkneycadian
31-Aug-13, 23:56
I thought, according to the gospel of Groundskeeper Willie, it was cheese that they ate?
I thought, according to the gospel of Groundskeeper Willie, it was cheese that they ate?
I'll bet it is not proper Orkney Chedder. Another great example of the Scottish/English simbiotic relationship.:D
billmoseley
01-Sep-13, 09:59
I wonder what happens if it's proved the rebels are responsible for the attack will the USA attack them?
orkneycadian
01-Sep-13, 11:37
This would be a good opportunity for the secessionist campaigners on here to tell us what an independant Scotland would do. The overwhelming consensus amongst my fellow Orcadians and ferry-loupers is that we should not touch this, or any other country that is hell bent on self destruction, with a barge pole.
Now, whilst Westminster is itching for a fight, if the Scottish people want nothing to do with it, at all, then this would be a good chance for the secessionists to show that independence could offer something different, and not just more of the same as they have shown us to date.
Pirate Lassie? Maybe you could enlighten us as to what an Independant Scotland would do? Please however don't let answering this question sidetrack you from all the other questions we are still awaiting your answers on.
billmoseley
01-Sep-13, 12:01
Did we have to bring the independence issue into what up to now has been an interesting thread?
orkneycadian
01-Sep-13, 12:13
In this case, the independence issue is related to Syria, which I believe is relevant to the thread. Lets not forget that independence, if it ever occurs, is a significant event with wide reaching consequenses. We hear what the UK think / want to do over Syria, as well as what the US think, France, Italy, Russia, China et al. What seems to be missing from the discussion on Syria is what an Independant Scotland would do.
I would rather find things like that out now, rather than find out the hard way, when I no longer have a say in the matter in the future and get it foisted upon us by our elected "representatives"
secrets in symmetry
01-Sep-13, 12:34
This would be a good opportunity for the secessionist campaigners on here to tell us what an independent Scotland would do.They would do nothing of course. They are isolationists with their head in the sand.
I think we have to look at bit nearer home to cast a few stones
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/britain-sold-nerve-gas-chemicals-2242520#.UiMW7INd-4c.facebook
billmoseley
01-Sep-13, 16:46
just because we supply some of the ingredients doesn't mean they have to use them to make weapons
orkneycadian
01-Sep-13, 17:40
What surprises me, both in the second picture in the Daily Record link above, and all the other pictures that we are being fed by the media, is how natural Syrian corpses look in death. It must be something about their skin colour, but they seem to be completely unaffected by pallor mortis or livor mortis, where the blood drains from some areas of the body lightening the colour, and pools in the lower areas, darkening that colour. OK, in these cases, gravity would draw the dark blood to the backs of the legs and torso, if the bodies were laid on their backs, causing a lightening of the skin on the upper side, and a darkening on the lower side.
billmoseley
01-Sep-13, 18:29
What surprises me, both in the second picture in the Daily Record link above, and all the other pictures that we are being fed by the media, is how natural Syrian corpses look in death. It must be something about their skin colour, but they seem to be completely unaffected by pallor mortis or livor mortis, where the blood drains from some areas of the body lightening the colour, and pools in the lower areas, darkening that colour. OK, in these cases, gravity would draw the dark blood to the backs of the legs and torso, if the bodies were laid on their backs, causing a lightening of the skin on the upper side, and a darkening on the lower side. Hmm and what are you suggesting here Orkneycadian?
In this case, the independence issue is related to Syria, which I believe is relevant to the thread. Lets not forget that independence, if it ever occurs, is a significant event with wide reaching consequenses. We hear what the UK think / want to do over Syria, as well as what the US think, France, Italy, Russia, China et al. What seems to be missing from the discussion on Syria is what an Independant Scotland would do.
I would rather find things like that out now, rather than find out the hard way, when I no longer have a say in the matter in the future and get it foisted upon us by our elected "representatives"
That would be, funnily enough, because until we have an Independent Scottish Government in 2016.....nobody knows. Just how hard is that to understand? Until we become independent and WE, the whole population entitled to vote, elect our 2016 government on the manifesto the majority of us likes best.....we don't sodding well know! We are no more mind-readers and soothsayers than any Unionist or Unionist politician is....so all of you who will only vote for certainty....then I'd advise just stop voting altogether in any election or referendum, because one thing that politics never gives, whether that be in the UK or an independent Scotland, is certainty.
It may be something to think about.......making taking military action, unless we are directly attacked, subject to at least a free vote in Parliament..maybe even somehow have it as part of the new Scottish Constitution....the right not to have our children killed to further the imperial aims of the USA without a referendum, perhaps? All we currently know is what the SNP are looking to do to take us to Independence...which appears to be to negotiate to join NATO and the EU.....but what the SNP does will only pertain if the SNP is elected in 2016. Anyway, Alex Salmond and the rest of the SNP members voted against the Iraq War in Westminster...and supported the attempt to impeach Bliar....while the Scottish Parliament at the time "symbolically" voted, on an SNP motion opposing the conflict, and defeated it by 16 votes....a support Bliar welcomed.
On Syria....Salmond said “The Scottish Government condemns unreservedly the actions of the Assad regime over recent months and years. In particular, we condemn and deplore any use of chemical weapons by any party as a crime against humanity. If the findings of UN inspectors do point to this appalling attack having been perpetrated by the Syrian regime, Assad and those responsible should face the full accountability of the International Criminal Court.
“Any resort to military action should always be approached carefully, on an evidential base, and within a clear legal framework – and only after full consideration of the aims, objectives and consequences. At this stage, we consider that these criteria have not been met and therefore that the case for military action in Syria – or the UK’s participation in it - has not yet been made."
I'm not inclined to think that any Scottish Political Party of any colour,if they want to be elected, would be eager to jump into a fight on the instructions of the USA (or the rUK)....given that the majority of Scots tend to be against military aggression.
RagnarRocks
01-Sep-13, 21:52
Given that there are already international laws governing chemical weapons it is patently obvious that they've been used whether or not it was the Assad regime or the Rebels is a separate issue. The UN will no doubt report that chemical agents have been used. So it's then for the rest of the world to make up their minds who is to blame. So suggesting we take no action whatsoever is allowing another dictator or rebel faction to saunter around the world stage. So we have 2 choices action or no action !No one suggested boots on the ground or invasion forces and its a well established fact that Syria has fairly good air defences so air strikes are high risk. Welcome back cruise missile strikes highly accurate very dependable weapons which you can arm with all sorts of warhead. Now it's easy to say No No No and spout of a lot of historical stuff but this isn't history this is now and history will now just sit back and say the United Kingdom did nothing. All through the debate it was clear that a second vote would be required so a vote now wouldn't of thrown us into another invasion all that young Mr Miliband has succeeded in doing is humiliating this country on the international stage and making us look weak.Mr Miliband was raised in a highly politicised environment his parent hard left wingers and all he has ever done is politics no real job no career no knowledge of the real world and this man who happily stabbed his brother in the back at the behest of his union master has now humiliated his country. I'm wondering if Russia still actively recruits from university's and whether Mr Miliband has ever been paid by Mr Putins regime. Wouldn't be the first time a traitor has been high up in the political stratosphere
billmoseley
02-Sep-13, 11:03
Why does everyone portray Russia as the enemy? i think they and been reasonable over this matter all they are asking for is proof
rob murray
02-Sep-13, 12:22
Given that there are already international laws governing chemical weapons it is patently obvious that they've been used whether or not it was the Assad regime or the Rebels is a separate issue. The UN will no doubt report that chemical agents have been used. So it's then for the rest of the world to make up their minds who is to blame. So suggesting we take no action whatsoever is allowing another dictator or rebel faction to saunter around the world stage. So we have 2 choices action or no action !No one suggested boots on the ground or invasion forces and its a well established fact that Syria has fairly good air defences so air strikes are high risk. Welcome back cruise missile strikes highly accurate very dependable weapons which you can arm with all sorts of warhead. Now it's easy to say No No No and spout of a lot of historical stuff but this isn't history this is now and history will now just sit back and say the United Kingdom did nothing. All through the debate it was clear that a second vote would be required so a vote now wouldn't of thrown us into another invasion all that young Mr Miliband has succeeded in doing is humiliating this country on the international stage and making us look weak.Mr Miliband was raised in a highly politicised environment his parent hard left wingers and all he has ever done is politics no real job no career no knowledge of the real world and this man who happily stabbed his brother in the back at the behest of his union master has now humiliated his country. I'm wondering if Russia still actively recruits from university's and whether Mr Miliband has ever been paid by Mr Putins regime. Wouldn't be the first time a traitor has been high up in the political stratosphere
Traitors / Russia infiltration in universities come on this isnt Stalins Russian, but Russian state capitalism, recruit the best brains to make dosh for Russia, betray what exectly !!!!! Why dont you face reality...the UK has been a third rate so called super power hanging to US tails since 1945.....how come dosh would be found to fund any UK intervention ? Or is Syria going to be well skelped by UN and receive a bill for the privilege that we get part of, cos we are broke...so Ive been told many many times on this forum so cant afford any real particpation. This is a big boys game so leave it to the US / Russia / China if they need cheerleaders we would give them that !! Oh Camerons own party are shall we say not to keen on intervention.
rob murray
02-Sep-13, 12:28
Not for us. I'm glad. But does it mean more? We ain't gonna to study war no more. If Parliament will not sanction the idea (not the reality, that would have required another debate and another vote) of action to prevent the further use of chemical weapons, something that is fundamental to our national sense of fairplay for the want of a better expression, do we need armed forces at all? Or at least the scale we have? Do we need to consider a much reduced capability possibly along the lines of the JDF? Afterall, the forces we have are very expensive, and the circumstances in which we can now conceive they would be used again (once we are out of Afganhistan anyway) would be limited to the defence of our own borders.
Well said ! USe of chemical weapons / policing / sanctions is the business of the UN, as UN members we can contribute to sanctions / policing etc but within our means and if cant do a lot, because of the democratic will (or lack of dosh and resources ) then thats the reality of the situation.
Got a PM ( from someone whose PM Box is now full!) telling me to google "Rebels admit chemical"...so I did..and came up with a lot of entries.though none from the MSM, unsurprisingly. It reminded me of the run-up to the Iraq war..when the MSM were ramping up reasons (later found to be untrue) to justify attack by the USA and their lapdogs....while much of the internet was pooh-poohing the slowly leaking assertions..and which of the two sets of opinions were correct?
So I don't know how true any of the following selection of links are...but then I don't know how true anything maintained by the USA, UK et al in order to promote military action is....but I do know that I'm more inclined to believe anything which doesn't emanate from the mouths of Western politicians via their Media mouthpieces, particularly since we started the "War On Everything/Everybody We Don't Like Or Has Something We Want" era.
http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/
http://www.panorama.am/en/society/2013/08/31/rebels-chemical-attack/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/israeli-intelligence-news-acknowledges-that-syria-rebels-possess-chemical-weapons-us-nato-delivering-heavy-weapons-to-the-terrorists/5340033
and connected link http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-the-saudi-connection-the-prince-with-close-ties-to-washington-at-the-heart-of-the-push-for-war-8785049.html
billmoseley
10-Sep-13, 20:08
heres my answer to the chemical weapons. sit round the table with the Russians and Chinese and the west. Get the Russians to make Assad hand over his chemical weapons in 2 weeks. A UN force goes in to collect them under an allied air cover which must use force to protect the force. the weapons can be destroyed here. we pull out the Un force and let them get on with killing each other fairly with bullets and bombs Now i don't want to blow my own trumpet but i think the Russians must have been reading the Org. This seems to be exactly what they are suggesting
celtchicky
15-Sep-13, 15:42
why doesn't the government go out there way to protect animals around the world that are being hunted for their skins and all the endangered animals. Dont know why humans always come first on the agenda really annoys me.
why doesn't the government go out there way to protect animals around the world that are being hunted for their skins and all the endangered animals. Dont know why humans always come first on the agenda really annoys me.Erm... Maybe because we're humans ourselves has something to do with it.
secrets in symmetry
15-Sep-13, 23:25
Now i don't want to blow my own trumpet but i think the Russians must have been reading the Org. This seems to be exactly what they are suggestingThe Nobel prize for peace may be coming your way soon Bill. :cool:
celtchicky
16-Sep-13, 11:43
dont speak to me like that just making a point most humans are selfish never care about anything else but themselves.
dont speak to me like that just making a point most humans are selfish never care about anything else but themselves.
Touchy.....
So... Because I put my fellow humans before other species that makes me selfish?
celtchicky
17-Sep-13, 12:00
yeah i think most people are. humans aren't endangered its about time we put animals first for a change.
yeah i think most people are. humans aren't endangered its about time we put animals first for a change.
Well... If that is your definition of selfish then by your definition I guess your right, we are....
dont speak to me like that just making a point most humans are selfish never care about anything else but themselves.
So the 2 million already dead in Syria, are selfish?
yeah i think most people are. humans aren't endangered its about time we put animals first for a change.
You obviously don't live in a country inhabited by the kind of people the USA/UK doesn't much like, ruled by a regime which doesn't think the sun, moon and stars shine out the US/UK bahookey......else you'd not be saying humans aren't endangered.
Maybe you want to be telling those who run animal charities to cut their salaries..and then there would be more money available to help animals..as far as I can see only two UK animal charity heid bummers earn less than an MP....and that only by a shade.
I'd see the point of interjecting on this thread if we were blowing up animals at the same rates as we are blowing up humans.......but we aren't.......so wouldn't it be better if you started your own thread to berate us for our uncaring attitude to our non-human friends?
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.