Jump to content

And the Bombs are falling


idun
 Share

Recommended Posts

Saving face?

Yes, I guess is MUCH easier to send bombs to other people's country than to try and solve intractable problems in their own home countries for Trump, Macron and May.

At the very least, the bombs have taken all domestic issues off the headlines, haven't they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what would you think is the right response then Mint.

A, Do nothing, let the Syrian government use chemical weapons on the people of that country and get the war over and done with.

B, Let everyone from Syria into Europe as 'refugees'

C, Do what Obama did, say you are going to do something, like in 2013, and then look the other way and back track

D, Post on forums how everyone else in government is wrong, and your view is correct?

Who do you think has the bigger picture, someone in government or someone in front of a PC screen?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do the Americans have any? I thought they signed the treaty which got rid of them.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unfortunately necessary

The Syrians and any others who make them realise there will be consequences and that the West will respond if they do use them. Failure to do so would lead to increased use.

The Russians are the problem here.

Yes, Richard, Chamberlain tried diplomacy and look where that got him and the world.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nuclear bombing of Japan was not necessary. The myth is that it reduced the length of the war. I'm afraid that arguement could be made by Assad - the rebel terrorists soon departed.

The Japan bombing did wonders for the science of radiobiology - studying the terrible effects on those that survived for years after. Only good thing is that I got a couple of papers out of the data that came from those that survived but suffered.

Do you really think that the UK has any sway in the world nowadays?

Trumps gung-ho approach is a recipe for apocaliptic disaster - just what the idiot evangelical christians (in US) want!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UK has little sway but that does not mean it has to crawl away and hide in a hole forever.

Trump could be bung do, of course, but there was no other option with the Russians up to their old tricks.

Of course the bomb was a means of stopping the war, of stopping the horrible loss of life of our young men and of their men and civilians in the firebomb raids. A hideous evil but necessary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, i was talking about using the bomb on Japan.

As regards Assad, no, he is a.......... well, words do not describe him or others like him. Perhaps he too will end up like Gaddaphi or Mussolini of Hitler. But somehow I doubt it with the Russians backing and protecting him.

But then the wonders of Europe allow political prisoners in Spain nowadays. Democracy is a fragile flower to be cherished.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="ebaynut"]So what would you think is the right response then Mint.

A, Do nothing, let the Syrian government use chemical weapons on the people of that country and get the war over and done with.

B, Let everyone from Syria into Europe as 'refugees'

C, Do what Obama did, say you are going to do something, like in 2013, and then look the other way and back track

D, Post on forums how everyone else in government is wrong, and your view is correct?

Who do you think has the bigger picture, someone in government or someone in front of a PC screen?[/quote]

Where did I say I favour one response over another?  Fortunately for me, I am far enough away from any position of authority and government that I do not need to understand the problem or make critical decisions.

As it is, I cannot say whether the attack was appropriate, not knowing enough of what's been going on and not having made any in-depth study of it.

All I said, and it maybe cynical, was that Trump has his hands full with Stormy Daniels, Comey's new book and trade tariffs, Macron has his strikes and May has Brexit and public services (NHS, schools, housing, etc) so that it was convenient for them to adopt distracting measures.

You can't argue that this Syria attack is dominating all headlines today so aren't I right in saying that for those three, this is easier to do and make better headlines than sorting out domestic problems?

As an after thought, wouldn't bombing chemical plants actually spread those chemicals if they are present?  Any chemists out there who can explain this to me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Retiring and being made a grandmother is exhausting 😉

From reports I saw medics were initially treating victims as sadly 'normal' casualties when non medics started shouting chemical attack and throwing water around ....

In any case my feeling is Mrs May would have been as well to recall Parliament and go through the process, I suspect there isn't much appetite for 'war' among the general public.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mint wrote,

Where did I say I favour one response over another? Fortunately for me, I am far enough away from any position of authority and government that I do not need to understand the problem or make critical decisions.

You did not say, which is why I asked the question, 'what would you do?'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

EB, instinctively, I am against the idea of war and people being killed.

I'd wait for actual proof, allow the international chemical body do its investigations first and, as RH has said, I'd have the parliamentary debate before taking action.  I'd try all political means, sanctions, negotiations but I take the point that there are times when none of that would work.

I do question what constitutes "chemical".....I thought all bombs, bullets, whatever, have "chemicals" in them?  As for chlorine, it's such a common chemical with legitimate use (ask some swimming pool owners) that anybody can get hold of it. 

Too complicated a situation and too many parties involved, it would be a very brave person who would point the finger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mint wrote:

I do question what constitutes "chemical".....I thought all bombs, bullets, whatever, have "chemicals" in them? As for chlorine, it's such a common chemical with legitimate use (ask some swimming pool owners) that anybody can get hold of it.

Yes all bombs do have chemicals in them and every physical thing is made up of chemicals.

From a purely non-expert view, I would say that a chemical weapon is one where the payload is designed to induce chemical reactions within its victims. This is different to normal bombs where the payload is designed to explode and create damage to things or people by virtue of the shock wave and or the shrapnel from the explosion. Or incendiary devices which are designed to create an intense fire.

Chlorine storage is not banned under the chemical warfare rules because it has many legitimate uses, but its use in a bomb or in deliberate release during conflict is prohibited. This is different from nerve agents where use and storage are both banned.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the explanation, Andy.

So, back to my earlier question:  won't bombing chemical plants cause the toxic chemicals to be leaked everywhere[:-))]?

Would the chemicals be stored in liquid or gas form and would they be "stable" until activated?

I still think that it's odd to class some weapons chemical and ignore others.  So, we stop the guy from using chemical agents but we don't mind if he uses other weapons, ESPECIALLY weapons that we have sold him in the past?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Careful mint, you know who on here will be accusing you of being a Communist, or at the very least a leftie. Just accept it is fine for any country to bomb another without parliamentary consent, because they are soooooo concerned about the people of Syria. I look forward to Ms May welcoming all the new refugees that will now surely arrive into Britain with open arms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mint is quite right to have reservations. We all do to a certain extent. It has nothing to do with political persuasion.

But, a government has to have reserve executive powers which can be exercised as needed.

Removing chemical weapons manufacturing facilities seems a good use of these powers, especially as noone was killed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...