Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Collymore

US, France and UK fire missiles at Syria

Recommended Posts

Guest MattP
22 minutes ago, Beechey said:

The overreaction has been amazing to see. When people read "bomb Syria" do they imagine carpet bombing of cities? 

Already "stop the war on Syria" protestors in Parliament square, apparantly upholding international law is now is now a declaration of war in the feeble minds of these people.

 

Trump, Macron and May have all stressed it's a "one time" strike in response to chemical weapons being used but no one seems to want to listen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

Already "stop the war on Syria" protestors in Parliament square, apparantly upholding international law is now is now a declaration of war in the feeble minds of these people.

 

Trump, Macron and May have all stressed it's a "one time" strike in response to chemical weapons being used but no one seems to want to listen.

Peeps should be allowed to protest what they want, the media obviously lap up this kind of stuff though because its a story they can build up and run with.

I doubt the war there will escalate into something more global since neither the west nor Putin can gain anything much from it, this is more a case of looking strong by either side to the rest of the international community but then again there is always random chance since you have Turkey, Israel and Iran all pretty much neighbouring the conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, MattP said:

Already "stop the war on Syria" protestors in Parliament square, apparantly upholding international law is now is now a declaration of war in the feeble minds of these people.

 

Trump, Macron and May have all stressed it's a "one time" strike in response to chemical weapons being used but no one seems to want to listen.

It's not Stop the War Coalition is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ithuriel said:

Peeps should be allowed to protest what they want, the media obviously lap up this kind of stuff though because its a story they can build up and run with.

I doubt the war there will escalate into something more global since neither the west nor Putin can gain anything much from it, this is more a case of looking strong by either side to the rest of the international community but then again there is always random chance since you have Turkey, Israel and Iran all pretty much neighbouring the conflict.

 

I think war between Israel and Iran is pretty much nailed on - it's just a question of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MattP
7 minutes ago, Buce said:

I think war between Israel and Iran is pretty much nailed on - it's just a question of time.

I think Iran firstly wants to establish itself as the dominate Islamic nation but conflict between the two does look unavoidable at some point, I think it's only the access to nuclear weapons and the relationship with the US that has stopped this occurring already.

 

Shia Islam is a strange branch of the religion, it's quite tolerant in a lot of ways but then absolutely brutal in others, I'm sure I remember reading once that Persia had a thriving Jewish community. Iranian millenials seem so different from their elders as well, they are out in the nightclubs or Tehran and the women are throwing off the headscarves in protest. Even since I got chatting to an Iranian girl in Dubai I've wanted to go, it sounds like an absolutely fascinating country. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, MattP said:

I think Iran firstly wants to establish itself as the dominate Islamic nation but conflict between the two does look unavoidable at some point, I think it's only the access to nuclear weapons and the relationship with the US that has stopped this occurring already.

 

Shia Islam is a strange branch of the religion, it's quite tolerant in a lot of ways but then absolutely brutal in others, I'm sure I remember reading once that Persia had a thriving Jewish community. Iranian millenials seem so different from their elders as well, they are out in the nightclubs or Tehran and the women are throwing off the headscarves in protest. Even since I got chatting to an Iranian girl in Dubai I've wanted to go, it sounds like an absolutely fascinating country. 

 

It is one of the few disappointments in my life that I missed travelling through Persia - the revolution began the very year I had planned to go overland to India.

 

My late brother had taken the overland route as part of the hippy trail back in 1969 and he said it was the highlight of his trip. In fact, although he travelled extensively in later life, it remained his favourite experience.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MattP
4 minutes ago, Buce said:

It is one of the few disappointments in my life that I missed travelling through Persia - the revolution began the very year I had planned to go overland to India.

 

My late brother had taken the overland route as part of the hippy trail back in 1969 and he said it was the highlight of his trip. In fact, although he travelled extensively in later life, it remained his favourite experience.

I can imagine, that would have been the perfect time to have ventured there as well, right at the height of the nation at its most open.

 

Some interesting pictures of 1960's Iran here - https://www.theguardian.com/world/iran-blog/gallery/2014/sep/10/iran-swinging-sixties-in-pictures

 

I don't think a country in the last century has ever undergone such a cultural shift in such a short space of time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, breadandcheese said:

Wow there's a lot of hyperbole. 

 

ON the face of it, it looks like a very limited airstrike that allows all parties to save face.

 

Three main targets linked to chemical weapons appear to be struck, all of which will have been evacuated beforehand. No Russians harmed, presumably as they had advance notice. No coalition casualties. No strikes on Russian hardware. 

 

It's a limited strike that appears to be a one time hit that has allowed the West to state that Chemical weapon use is beyond the pale. So we in the West save face by upholding the red lines of chemical weapons use.

 

It's allowed Russia to issue a strongly worded condemnation, whilst still controlling Syria, so they can look strong. 

 

As long as Assad doesn't use chemical weapons again (which would be a direct challenge to the West) then this recent flare up is over. Presumably Putin will be telling his ally that it is not worth using these weapons as the cost to his regime is too high.

:schmike:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MattP
7 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Why would they protest against our parliament for the actions of Russia?

Fcuk knows Moose, same reason they protest our parliament for the actions of the USA and Israel I imagine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Certainly is. Stop the West I think is more apt.

 

You don't see any of them protesting when Russia are dropping bombs.

What a ridiculous argument.

 

Time and time again we enter conflicts that are nothing to do with us. Yes the use of chemical weapons is wrong but why do we believe ourselves, the U.S. and France should be judge and jury?

 

The strikes did nothing at all. They were pure theatre for the audience at home. We can't get involved to the extent that would have any real impact so instead play dangerous games.

 

Let's not forget that the flames of this conflict were fanned by the West when we attempted to arm a bunch of misfits not much better than those we usually regard as terrorists in order to try and being about regime change. Yet again. 

 

There's no prospect of Assad not winning. There's no prospect of Assad not being in power at the end. 

We'd be better off steering clear and dealing with the myriad problems we face at home. 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent article from Jonathan Freedland: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/13/syria-assad-trump-military-action-britain-killing

 

Excerpt:

"Are there no good options then? I can’t see any. But perhaps the least bad comes from a voice we hear rarely, that of the democratic Syrian opposition and the groups which represent Syrian civil society, now scattered and in exile. The Syrian Negotiation Commission has called for action to deter Assad from killing civilians. What they envisage is that each time Assad launches a deadly attack on noncombatants, allied forces reply by taking out one of the strategic assets he uses to kill civilians. It could be an airfield, it could be a command centre. If the target were aircraft, that would simultaneously inflict a cost on the regime and deprive it of the means of dropping its barrel bombs and toxic, yellow cylinders. The objective would be to make Assad pay a price for killing his own people, a price he has not paid until now. Eventually, or so runs the hope, he would be deterred.In other words, not an all-out bombardment, not an invasion, not regime change, not a re-run of Iraq or Libya. A methodical, tightly focused attempt to deter the Assad regime from killing civilians and robbing it of the ability to do so. Given Russia’s presence, it would not be easy. But this is what Theresa May should be proposing to Trump and to Macron. Indeed, she should make UK support for any military action conditional on it being the right kind of action. In a parliamentary debate – which Labour MPs have every right to demand on a question of this gravity – MPs should impose the same conditions on May".

 

I'm relieved at what I'm hearing so far. It sounds like a restrained, targeted attack by the West. I hope Assad, Russia & Iran are similarly restrained in response - after all, they're still set to win the war.

 

I haven't followed the war in detail, but assume that Ghouta will now be taken by Assad, hopefully with the evacuation of non-combatants. It then sounds as if the big issue will be what happens in Idlib, NW Syria, where hundreds of thousands of Assad's opponents are now congregated. Some sort of negotiated peaceful solution to that is required to avoid a last stand / bloodbath scenario.

 

I find myself questioning my own attitudes. Although it all went wrong in Libya due to the lack of a long-term plan (Cameron learning nothing from Bush & Blair's catastrophe in Iraq), I supported the initial intervention to prevent a massacre in Benghazi, whereas I'd opposed the Iraq invasion. Yet I supported Parliament's 2013 decision not to intervene Syria. Was that correct? I still tend to think that it was. Syria is so complex, with many of Assad's opponents linked to groups like ISIS or Al-Qaeda, and Russia, Iran and others involved. While it'd be nice to think that more could have been done, either politically or militarily, to prevent this 7-year massacre, maybe that was never possible and would have involved unacceptable risks of escalation? Do we want to be helping people linked to ISIS/Al-Qaeda gain power bases, anyway?! Maybe the Russians have a point in keeping Assad in power, as a brutal dictator who's little threat to Europe - and maybe the West can then seek to influence his regime to be less brutal?

 

I do query my own attitudes, though. When Gadaffi was set to massacre thousands of opponents in Benghazi, Western intervention seemed right to me (as this restricted intervention in Syria does now). Yet I didn't pay much attention as much larger numbers were massacred or turned into refugees in Syria. I suppose Libya just seems closer (just across the Med) and the Middle East always seems to be in flames, so you get desensitized....doesn't make the attitude right, though.

 

I agree with Freedland about the stance taken by Corbyn, Stop the War etc. They're quite justified in calling for an investigation of Assad's alleged chemical attack (though he seems clearly guilty) and for a parliamentary debate. But what then? What when/if you find that Assad has indeed committed a chemical attack. What does parliament vote to do? While excessive, dangerous intervention seems wrong, so does sitting back saying "we want peace and a political solution" if nobody on the ground is up for that?That's a vote for complete inaction in the face of continued slaughter, in practice. Maybe peaceniks would then feel good about being peaceful people, but that represents short-sighted egotism to me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

What a ridiculous argument.

 

Time and time again we enter conflicts that are nothing to do with us. Yes the use of chemical weapons is wrong but why do we believe ourselves, the U.S. and France should be judge and jury?

 

The strikes did nothing at all. They were pure theatre for the audience at home. We can't get involved to the extent that would have any real impact so instead play dangerous games.

 

Let's not forget that the flames of this conflict were famed by the West when we attempted to arm a bunch of misfits not much better than those we usually regard as terrorists in order to try and being about regime change. Yet again. 

 

There's no prospect of Assad not running. There's no prospect of Assad not being in power at the end. 

We'd be better off steering clear and dealing with the myriad problems we face at home. 

If you draw the line at our borders you would have let Hitler take all of Europe then what? Hoped he was scared of water?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, boots60 said:

Does anybody know how long to world war 3

I got to know I want to book me holidee.

 

 

On a lighter note....

 

"Tom Hark" by the Piranhas - I claim my prize! :thumbup:

 

Here's the B-side, which is even better......sheer lyrical brilliance:

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

If you draw the line at our borders you would have let Hitler take all of Europe then what? Hoped he was scared of water?

Again, a ridiculous comparison. Every time the establishment wants war they raise hitler as if outta applicable to every situation.

 

Assad isn't taking over any other countries. He hadn't even got control of his own. If action needs to be taken then it should be UN led. 

 

You're ignored all my points and invented me saying we should never act abroad.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, toddybad said:

What a ridiculous argument.

 

Time and time again we enter conflicts that are nothing to do with us. Yes the use of chemical weapons is wrong but why do we believe ourselves, the U.S. and France should be judge and jury?

 

The strikes did nothing at all. They were pure theatre for the audience at home. We can't get involved to the extent that would have any real impact so instead play dangerous games.

 

Let's not forget that the flames of this conflict were fanned by the West when we attempted to arm a bunch of misfits not much better than those we usually regard as terrorists in order to try and being about regime change. Yet again. 

 

There's no prospect of Assad not winning. There's no prospect of Assad not being in power at the end. 

We'd be better off steering clear and dealing with the myriad problems we face at home. 

The OPCW are "judge and jury", and have ruled on four separate occasions that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons, after they supposedly removed that capability from their military, under the supervision of Russia. Why is it always the UK, US and France? To be frank, we're the only countries from "the West" with the capability to hit targets globally.

 

Why pretend this is about regime change? It's patently not. And why pretend that the government cannot do both ensure that war crimes are not being committed abroad and sort out issues at home? Why is it always binary?

Edited by Beechey
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Beechey said:

The OPCW are "judge and jury", and have ruled on four separate occasions that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons, after they supposedly removed that capability from their military, under the supervision of Russia. Why is it always the UK, US and France? To be frank, we're the only countries from "the West" with the capability to hit targets globally.

 

Why pretend this is about regime change? It's patently not.

The OPCW haven't even started their investigation into the latest chemical attack.

 

It's no.longer about regime change but it patently was previously. Until Russia got involved that was very clearly what we wanted. Now we're left on the sidelines knowing Assad will win so play to our home audiences with nonsense like last night's strikes which achieved absolutely nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...