Syria

[PaddockLad 14527]

by

Probably, but is this a relevant difference. Civilians are massacred with other weapons more.

 

Yeah but they come under the headings "conventional weapons" and "collateral damage". That can be bullshitted away by foreign governments by saying that these are the unfortunate consequences of any war. I understand a grieveing mother wouldnt give two hoots about how their child dies, but targetting civillians with poisonous gas is where the West seemingly draws the line. Its all a calculation.

[Park Life 70]

 

Yeah but they come under the headings "conventional weapons" and "collateral damage". That can be bullshitted away by foreign governments by saying that these are the unfortunate consequences of any war. I understand a grieveing mother wouldnt give two hoots about how their child dies, but targetting civillians with poisonous gas is where the West seemingly draws the line. Its all a calculation.

It's got to be faked hasn't it? Assad knew the west were just waiting for an excuse...

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3181]

This question was asked by Nicky Campbell today to two politicians, one being David blunkett. He at least admitted the reasons were largely psychological, emotional, and historical. The indiscriminate reason just doesn't make sense to me, as if you get discriminate bombs. So, as far as can tell, this impending war is based on an irrational premise.

What the fuck would politicians know about it. But the decision on action has nothing to do with the difference between chemical and conventional weapons. They can't prove 100% it def was chem weapons and if so who used them. Chem weapons same as biological are seem as an unacceptable escalation of force. Conventional - chem / bio - nukes.

[Renton 17619]

Personally I'd have thought the opinion of a senior politician and ex-home secretary are at least as relevant as yours. I've studied toxicology and don't accept chemical weapons are a WMD any more than a half ton bomb. So how is it an escalation of force, and why is it suddenly unacceptable? All very convenient and like Iraq this stinks.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3181]

Personally I'd have thought the opinion of a senior politician and ex-home secretary are at least as relevant as yours. I've studied toxicology and don't accept chemical weapons are a WMD any more than a half ton bomb. So how is it an escalation of force, and why is it suddenly unacceptable? All very convenient and like Iraq this stinks.

I was quite extensively trained in Nuclear Biological and Chemical warfare. He wasn't

[Park Life 70]

Looks like there is loads of resistence to war this time in Parliament.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3181]

Personally I'd have thought the opinion of a senior politician and ex-home secretary are at least as relevant as yours. I've studied toxicology and don't accept chemical weapons are a WMD any more than a half ton bomb. So how is it an escalation of force, and why is it suddenly unacceptable? All very convenient and like Iraq this stinks.

Don't get me wrong I don't think this should be used as an excuse to go to war especially seeing as there is no proof who did it the mass bombing of Homs was just as bad but 1 chemical attack > than one bomb going off and definitely much worse than a machete attack.

[Meenzer 13967]

Looks like there is loads of resistence to war this time in Parliament.

 

Hope so, since it was basically the Lib Dems last time and expecting them to have a spine nowadays is a bit much.

[PaddockLad 14527]

I was quite extensively trained in Nuclear Biological and Chemical warfare. He wasn't

 

So if you're ex services you obviously understand that you do the politicians bidding. Or were you only on latrine duty at Catterick?

 

Fwiw, you and the politicans seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet. Chemical weapons deliberately tagreting civillians appears to be where they draw the line.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3181]

 

So if you're ex services you obviously understand that you do the politicians bidding. Or were you only on latrine duty at Catterick?

 

Fwiw, you and the politicans seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet. Chemical weapons deliberately tagreting civillians appears to be where they draw the line.

Did you bother to read my post as to where I stand on the issue of intervention?

[Dr Gloom 19736]

 

Hope so, since it was basically the Lib Dems last time and expecting them to have a spine nowadays is a bit much.

 

i we're relying on the lib dems to take a principled stand against their coalition partners, we may as well accept that the strikes are inevitable.

 

and even if they were to defy the whip, woud it make any difference? seems like this has already been decided. iraq all over again

Edited August 29, 2013 by Dr Gloom

[PaddockLad 14527]

Did you bother to read my post as to where I stand on the issue of intervention?

 

Not until I'd posted a response to what your thoughts were re politicans, no. Looks like we were typing at the same time. And you appear to be agreeing with our leaders that chemical weapons are a different case to convential. You may differ with the politicians on what to do about it, but I ddint mention that in my post either.

[Renton 17619]

Up to a million people were massacred in Rwanda, many bludgeoned to death with machetes. The West did fuck all. Where's the moral distinction?

[Park Life 70]

Agree with Renton. This is another asset grabbing war where working class boys and indigenous civilians are going to die to put more money in the hands of international companies. One cursory look at the oil fields in iraq now tell you all you need to know.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Park Life

[Gemmill 34166]

KCG can eat things that would make a Billy goat puke.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3181]

Ok here's the difference between normal weapons and chemical ones.

 

Conventional weapon scenario 1:

 

You are in the house when shelling starts and shit starts to blow up. You either get hit or you get a chance to take cover dig in go to a basement / subway station half a chance to save yours or your families lives.

 

Scenario 2:

A mob of screaming tribesmen start slaughtering their way through your village. You stand and fight while you send your kids to run and hide with a faint hope they will make it.

 

Chemical weapon scenario:

You are in the house with the kids when you smell new mown hay and wonder why. Suddenly your youngest starts frothing at the mouth convulsing and bleeding from their eyes. You are now all dead you cannot run away there was no warning there may be some on the edges of the chemical spread who are just suffering lung burn or are blind now with an incredibly shortened lifespan but that's it.

 

There is no excuse for just standing by and letting the first two happen but there is a big difference in the use and effects of chemical agents.

 

I do not think we should get involved now because the fannies fucked about so long they allowed extremist groups become the main opposition to Assad.

[Park Life 70]

The CIA fly the nutters in. Chechens and so on...

[trophyshy 6432]

I can't believe we are going to do this again, the risks of escalation much worse than previous, what precisely are we kicking off in the ME this time? WW3?

 

Tweet your MP FFS. #NoMoreWar. http://tweetminster.co.uk/mps

[Renton 17619]

Ok here's the difference between normal weapons and chemical ones.

 

Conventional weapon scenario 1:

 

You are in the house when shelling starts and shit starts to blow up. You either get hit or you get a chance to take cover dig in go to a basement / subway station half a chance to save yours or your families lives.

 

Scenario 2:

A mob of screaming tribesmen start slaughtering their way through your village. You stand and fight while you send your kids to run and hide with a faint hope they will make it.

 

Chemical weapon scenario:

You are in the house with the kids when you smell new mown hay and wonder why. Suddenly your youngest starts frothing at the mouth convulsing and bleeding from their eyes. You are now all dead you cannot run away there was no warning there may be some on the edges of the chemical spread who are just suffering lung burn or are blind now with an incredibly shortened lifespan but that's it.

 

There is no excuse for just standing by and letting the first two happen but there is a big difference in the use and effects of chemical agents.

 

I do not think we should get involved now because the fannies fucked about so long they allowed extremist groups become the main opposition to Assad.

I honestly can't see the distinction, but your emotive scenarios hint at what you and other people see as a distinction. It's not rational though imo.

[Park Life 70]

For instance cluster bombs should be banned as should DU rounds...Think iirc the EU has directives against EU armies using DU....Known to cause intra generational birth defects, cancer and gulf war syndrome...

[trophyshy 6432]

Russia sending anti submarine ships and anti-missile arrays now.

[Howmanheyman 26606]

How did the Americans feel about using napalm or dropping atomic bombs on two cities?

 

Whoever is responsible for the chemical attacks in Syria are cold blooded, evil bastards in my opinion but you have to question America sharpening their swords once again. Uncle Sam needs his fingers in all the pies if you ask me.

[Dr Gloom 19736]

where's the money coming from to finance these strikes? that i don't get.

[Park Life 70]

where's the money coming from to finance these strikes? that i don't get.

They borrow it. Banks love a war...etc...

[Park Life 70]

Russia sending anti submarine ships and anti-missile arrays now.

Putin has drawn a line on Syria and Iran by the looks of things...