US's missile attacks on Syria

[Massimo Giovanni]

These circumstances are very different from the fantasy WMD topic.
This type of bombing/gassing leave a trail to follow back, there will be huge electronic surveillance in use, in live time and recorded .
Very likely also human sources on site, both Syrian and USA.
The airspace over Syria is likely the most monitored on the planet.

 

[mrsblue]

These circumstances are very different from the fantasy WMD topic.
This type of bombing/gassing leave a trail to follow back, there will be huge electronic surveillance in use, in live time and recorded .
Very likely also human sources on site, both Syrian and USA.
The airspace over Syria is likely the most monitored on the planet.

Its deemed ok to bomb civilians BUT you mustn't gas them...isn't that the West's demands?

The West took Assad's stockpile of chemical weapons.

Would Putin allow Assad to use these chemical bombs?

What have you exactly seen?...I'm guessing it's the same as me which is...4/5 children with oxygen mask,few adults wearing white suits and some guy claiming his family of 17 were all killed....if I posted on YouTube the same scenes in say Brentwood and claimed they were gassed...would you believe it.

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

So looking back do you think military action in Iraq second time was a success?
What did we achieve ?
Was the cost worth it?
Are the people better off now?

Its obvious that it was a war for profit not the people and further destabilized the ME, which has lead to the situation in Syria. And so the same mistakes will be repeated.....Deliberately.

War the one industry where the more you fail the more money you make.

Very true Rigsby.
Iraq was/is a World Diasater, and Libya is a Mediterranean nightmare.

Regime change for Syria, (off topic as this is US reaction bombing?) but I don't think that would be a good thing if it happened, suddenly and not through evolution/internal revolution without an effective/acceptable alternative - which there isn't.
I hope that Donald keeps away from further actions.

 

[rigsby]

These circumstances are very different from the fantasy WMD topic.
This type of bombing/gassing leave a trail to follow back, there will be huge electronic surveillance in use, in live time and recorded .
Very likely also human sources on site, both Syrian and USA.
The airspace over Syria is likely the most monitored on the planet.

We had all of those over and inside Iraq. I also had people insisting to me that Saddam could attack Europe in 45 minutes.

If the well informed free press western society can be totally fooled by propaganda about Iraq. Then it could be anyone of the 6 or 7 different groups who are fighting in Syria. It could have been a shell hitting a stockpile of chemical weapons, ISIS have them. It could be the Israelis, or the CIA who are always totally under the control of the military machine anyway.

Strange that the last 4 US presidents have had to deal with a war in their first year of office. These world baddies should really start it 18 months earlier when the run for president is the only thing on US minds.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

So looking back do you think military action in Iraq second time was a success?
What did we achieve ?
Was the cost worth it?
Are the people better off now?

Its obvious that it was a war for profit not the people and further destabilized the ME, which has lead to the situation in Syria. And so the same mistakes will be repeated.....Deliberately.

War the one industry where the more you fail the more money you make.

Never suggested I though it was.

You forgot to answer the first part of my question.

My personal opinion is really not the issue here.

 

[rigsby]

Never suggested I though it was.


My personal opinion is really not the issue here.

So to sum up, bombing Iraq was a mistake

You agree with bombing Syria but we don't know why because your personal opinion is not an issue. I'll call that a 'Ken' answer.

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

We had all of those over and inside Iraq. I also had people insisting to me that Saddam could attack Europe in 45 minutes.

If the well informed free press western society can be totally fooled by propaganda about Iraq. Then it could be anyone of the 6 or 7 different groups who are fighting in Syria. It could have been a shell hitting a stockpile of chemical weapons, ISIS have them. It could be the Israelis, or the CIA who are always totally under the control of the military machine anyway.

Strange that the last 4 US presidents have had to deal with a war in their first year of office. These world baddies should really start it 18 months earlier when the run for president is the only thing on US minds.

With Iraq there were two leaders, BUSH and BLAIR who wanted and bent the circumstances to suit their aims.
Trump's declared aim was no involvement in Syria BUT circumstances changed that out of his control; very different.

Iraq HAD WMO years before the "dodgy dossier" BUT following UN Inspections (after gassing the Kurds/Iranians/marsh arabs etc) Saddam got rid of them; Iraq was a war fought on an illegal premise AND BLAIR should b seen as either a despot/idiot/lapdog BUT he still gets "air time" from press and Labour Party, other world "leaders".

Intel, surveillance and degree of intrusion over Syria is 20 + years improved and intensiveness maintained than over Iraq.

 

[mrsblue]

With Iraq there were two leaders, BUSH and BLAIR who wanted and bent the circumstances to suit their aims.
Trump's declared aim was no involvement in Syria BUT circumstances changed that out of his control; very different.

Iraq HAD WMO years before the "dodgy dossier" BUT following UN Inspections (after gassing the Kurds/Iranians/marsh arabs etc) Saddam got rid of them; Iraq was a war fought on an illegal premise AND BLAIR should b seen as either a despot/idiot/lapdog BUT he still gets "air time" from press and Labour Party, other world "leaders".

Intel, surveillance and degree of intrusion over Syria is 20 + years improved and intensiveness maintained than over Iraq.

Did you actually witness Saddam gassing his people...Did you actually see Saddam's WMD?....Did you witness UN inspections?

I suspect your answer has been derived from the media.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Did you actually witness Saddam gassing his people...Did you actually see Saddam's WMD?....Did you witness UN inspections?

I suspect your answer has been derived from the media.

And yours from some dubious Facebook group where everything is a conspiracy and David Icke is seen like some kind of demi god.

 

[mrsblue]

And yours from some dubious Facebook group where everything is a conspiracy and David Icke is seen like some kind of demi god.

Jeez the other week you were in a lather over the prospect of WW3....I personally don't need government controlled media to inform myself....you and others clearly do which is OK by me.

Icke was a semi decent keeper if that helps.

 

[Bielzibubz]

And yours from some dubious Facebook group where everything is a conspiracy and David Icke is seen like some kind of demi god.

Ridicule is the weakest for of argument.

 

[Benfleet A1]

Ridicule is the weakest for of argument.

But in this case, fully justfied.

 

[mrsblue]

But in this case, fully justfied.

Dont be nasty Benfleet:winking:

 

[onceknownasrab]

History is always written by the victors. Who gassed these people is anyones guess. An incident occurred and the US reacted. Maybe they felt justified and maybe Trump was underlining his resolve. The only thing we know for sure is that we know nothing for sure. Who do you believe? It seems some have a great deal of conviction over the matter but are basing it on assumption. To believe anything on this matter with absolutely no evidence is akin to those that 'believe' in God. Blind faith and not a shred of evidence. We can all choose to believe whatever want and generally we choose to believe something that suits us best. The bottom line is the world is in constant turmoil and none of the issues involved will be solved with a gun. The problem is too few people are prepared to listen.

 

[mrsblue]

History is always written by the victors. Who gassed these people is anyones guess. An incident occurred and the US reacted. Maybe they felt justified and maybe Trump was underlining his resolve. The only thing we know for sure is that we know nothing for sure. Who do you believe? It seems some have a great deal of conviction over the matter but are basing it on assumption. To believe anything on this matter with absolutely no evidence is akin to those that 'believe' in God. Blind faith and not a shred of evidence. We can all choose to believe whatever want and generally we choose to believe something that suits us best. The bottom line is the world is in constant turmoil and none of the issues involved will be solved with a gun. The problem is too few people are prepared to listen.

Sadly the root of all evil is greed for money....the ME has an abundance of oil and opium...the West want their share with any means possible.

 

[mrsblue]

Assad denies using Chemical weapons,he blames the US for backing terrorists!

You know what...the guy is bang on the money IMO ....no proof who dropped what plus video's shown prove nothing,yet with flimsy evidence the West act.

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

The above mrsblue post was a full year ago!
Today USA, UK and France air attack chemical facilities in Syria.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

The above mrsblue post was a full year ago!
Today USA, UK and France air attack chemical facilities in Syria.

I think this is problematic for May on various levels:

There is some doubt about what chemical weapons were used and by whom. Conflicting reports on the ground.

No Parliamentary vote. Cameron, who led a majority government asked Parliament for backing on airstrikes and Parliament said no. May leads a minority government and aware of the above and aware of the calls for a vote she decided to consult only the Cabinet.

Public support for air strikes was 22% in a recent poll. I've just read a tweet from Tory MP Nadine Dorries giving details of the air strikes in a calm and measured way and of the 70+ replies 4 of them backed the action.

Trump. Very few people in the UK trust him. His public announcements over the last few days have been contradictory and provocative. The headline from Corbyn's interviews was that May was ignoring Parliament and waiting on Trump's call - that looks like an accurate assessment right now. Cameron wanted to back Obama air strikes and his request was rejected. Having Trump as the man to follow will have much less public backing.

Russia. How are they going to respond.....

May has kept this decision to herself, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Jeremy Hunt and the rest of the inner circle and there are many reasons why that may backfire.

 

[Gt Yarmouth Shrimper]

I think this is problematic for May on various levels:

There is some doubt about what chemical weapons were used and by whom. Conflicting reports on the ground.

No Parliamentary vote. Cameron, who led a majority government asked Parliament for backing on airstrikes and Parliament said no. May leads a minority government and aware of the above and aware of the calls for a vote she decided to consult only the Cabinet.

Public support for air strikes was 22% in a recent poll. I've just read a tweet from Tory MP Nadine Dorries giving details of the air strikes in a calm and measured way and of the 70+ replies 4 of them backed the action.

Trump. Very few people in the UK trust him. His public announcements over the last few days have been contradictory and provocative. The headline from Corbyn's interviews was that May was ignoring Parliament and waiting on Trump's call - that looks like an accurate assessment right now. Cameron wanted to back Obama air strikes and his request was rejected. Having Trump as the man to follow will have much less public backing.

Russia. How are they going to respond.....

May has kept this decision to herself, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Jeremy Hunt and the rest of the inner circle and there are many reasons why that may backfire.

You have missed the point of MG's post, what has become of mrsblue?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

You have missed the point of MG's post, what has become of mrsblue?

The point now is surely what wil become of Mrs May? :winking: