Syria
-
Al Nusra would be one. Not ‘rebels’, but fighting Assad
I’m not making definite claims about this. Others are claiming this is a simple black and white situation. It would have been great if the case was made to Congress rather than just go forward with an unconstitutional attack without the correct checks on the executive
-
@duluth said in Syria airstrikes:
Not exactly a benefit, but I think opinions on Iran play a role here. A large number of politicians and the majority of the military seem to want a more belligerent stance on Iran.
Some of the talk in the past week has been about having a larger presence in Syria to limit Iran’s influence over the regionMaybe some Trump advisors didn’t take much convincing? Or maybe they have water tight proof.. I’m just sceptical how fast this turned after Trump said he intended to pull the 2000 troops out of Syria just over a week ago
All of what you say is quite possible, I just feel it is the less likely position for reasons previously stated. Trump’s about turn is not much of a surprise as he does come across as a man ruled by his emotions
-
@rembrandt said in Syria airstrikes:
Anyone else get the feeling this actually has nothing really to do with the chemical attack and more about a show of strength from the US towards Russia.
Must suck to live in their playground.
There's definitely an element of the UK being eager to join in due to their recent dealings.
-
@rembrandt said in Syria airstrikes:
Anyone else get the feeling this actually has nothing really to do with the chemical attack and more about a show of strength from the US towards Russia.
Are there other chemical attacks that haven't been met with a show of force? I genuinely don't know - it seems a proportionate response
-
If — and I say a Big IF — it was about slaughters and human rights, they’d be bombing the crap out of Riyadh right now while “our” good Royal Saudi buddies are commiting untold atrocities right next door in Yemen — using weapons purchased from the West. But of course “we’re” not really concerned about human rights, it’s always a moral & ethical charade. (Kayfabe)
And by all means, if you haven’t read this, take a look. Not saying it’s 100% accurate, but some good food for thought:
-
What do you think the proportional response should be for the use of phosphoros, depleted uranium, napalm and Agent Orange used against civilians?
(Silly question, granted. Everybody knows it’s perfectly acceptable as long as the kids burned & killed with chemical weapons died for a pure & noble cause, and obviously the teams we support are ALWAYS good and pure and noble.)
-
@salacious-crumb said in Syria airstrikes:
What do you think the proportional response should be for the use of phosphoros, depleted uranium, napalm and Agent Orange used against civilians?
Your post raises a few issues:
- Agent Orange was designed to be a defoliant. Not that I agree with its use, particularly once the side effects became known. Most would accept its use under the Environmental Modification Convention is heavily restricted, if not banned.
- Depleted uranium is just heavy. The key lies in its name; depleted. It poses less risk than natural uranium.
- The use of napalm and phosphorous against civilians is a war crime as is targeting civilians, but you can use them to mark targets. As long as the chemical properties of phosphorous aren't the weapon themselves, it's perfectly fine.
-
@salacious-crumb said in Syria airstrikes:
What do you think the proportional response should be for the use of phosphoros, depleted uranium, napalm and Agent Orange used against civilians?
Not sure where that sits in teh Geneva Protocol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol), but they don't seem to be prohibited in the way that chemical weapons are.
War is shit, but it is important to have some lines that people don't cross. Nuclear, biological and chemical warfare to me is a far worse act than phosphorous, DU or napalm. Just being shot or blown up isn't flash either, but not 'illegal' in terms of international war
-
@salacious-crumb Any chance we could keep the conspiracy stuff to the conspiracy theories thread so I can ignore it? I started this thread specifically so it didn't go down the same path as the US Politics thread.
-
@salacious-crumb said in Syria airstrikes:
If — and I say a Big IF — it was about slaughters and human rights, they’d be bombing the crap out of Riyadh right now while “our” good Royal Saudi buddies are commiting untold atrocities right next door in Yemen — using weapons purchased from the West. But of course “we’re” not really concerned about human rights, it’s always a moral & ethical charade. (Kayfabe)
And by all means, if you haven’t read this, take a look. Not saying it’s 100% accurate, but some good food for thought:
All I got from that was pictorial evidence that Lewinsky had better taste in selecting her bit of squeeze than Daniels did. :smiling_face_with_open_mouth_cold_sweat: Sorry couldn't find a BJ emoji.
-
Gettin’ innerestin’...
The search for truth in the rubble of Douma – and one doctor’s doubts over the chemical attack
Exclusive: Robert Fisk visits the Syria clinic at the centre of a global crisis
[...]
War stories, however, have a habit of growing darker. For the same 58-year old senior Syrian doctor then adds something profoundly uncomfortable: the patients, he says, were overcome not by gas but by oxygen starvation in the rubbish-filled tunnels and basements in which they lived.
[...]
France, meanwhile, has said it has “proof” chemical weapons were used, and US media have quoted sources saying urine and blood tests showed this too. The WHO has said its partners on the ground treated 500 patients “exhibiting signs and symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic chemicals”.
At the same time, inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) are currently blocked from coming here to the site of the alleged gas attack themselves, ostensibly because they lacked the correct UN permits.
[...]