idun Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 So Trump has decided and the UK and France have joined in. Syria is being bombed.We certainly live in interesting times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzer Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 Yes, just what the Syrians want-more bombs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolybanana Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 My guess is that this is an “agreed” response after giving the Russians time to get out of the way and avoiding Syrian and other military bases, saving face all round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mint Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 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 More sharing options...
ebaynut Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 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 trackD, 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 More sharing options...
woolybanana Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 Thus cometh 1984!??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard51 Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 diplomacy is the answer.Perhaps a good start would be for the US to remove their chemical weapons.NB didn't the US actually dare to justify the dropping of 2 nuclear bombs on Japan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolybanana Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 Do the Americans have any? I thought they signed the treaty which got rid of them.Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unfortunately necessaryThe 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 More sharing options...
richard51 Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 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 More sharing options...
woolybanana Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 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 More sharing options...
richard51 Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 So was Assad right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolybanana Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 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 More sharing options...
mint Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 [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 trackD, 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 More sharing options...
DerekJ Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 Interesting to note that Merkel has specifically said that Germany will not be involved in any military action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 May be they should have waited for definitive proof they were chemical weapons, which seems far from clear from some witness reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolybanana Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 The proof is most probably there but the details are not for our eyes as the security issues might be too sensitive. Quite right.RH, where you been hiding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolybanana Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 NB, unlike the Russian supported attack on the Syrian freedom fighters which used poison gas, the Allies attack seems to have killed NOONE. Give credit guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 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 More sharing options...
ebaynut Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 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 More sharing options...
mint Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 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 More sharing options...
andyh4 Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 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 More sharing options...
mint Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 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 More sharing options...
Grecian Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 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 More sharing options...
woolybanana Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 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 More sharing options...
richard51 Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 But who can you trust?? Some years ago but do leopards change their spots?https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/us-government-pentagon-fake-al-qaeda-propganda-videos-a7348371.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.