Off To War ?

So if india nuked pakistan the us couldn't comment or take action because it has wepaons of its own ? Come off it
 
No. Comment is free to anyone or any country.
It is America's bulling for war over C.W's that sticks in the craw. The same country that bathed S.E Asia in Agent Orange; the only country to have detonatwd the atomic bomb over cities crowded with innocent civilians.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2
 
icebreaker said:
No. Comment is free to anyone or any country.
It is America's bulling for war over C.W's that sticks in the craw. The same country that bathed S.E Asia in Agent Orange; the only country to have detonatwd the atomic bomb over cities crowded with innocent civilians.
Click to expand...

Surely pushing for war is the issue - whether or not they used Agent Orange 40 years ago, before the world moratorium on chemical weapons, or an atomic device in order to save hundreds of thousands of innocent lives some 68 years ago is fairly irrelevant?

That said, it is typical of your dislike of the US.

One could say that it is remarkable that Russia supports a country whom they supplied with chemical weapons, given their recent use of such weapons in Chechnya and the horrific massacres of millions of people during the 2nd world war (including permitting their troops to rape an estimated 2 million German women).

It makes just as much sense as the pish you are spouting once more.
 
I was out on the skite yesterday.....has some new, conclusive evidence come to light re Assad's use of CW?

Feel free to sort me out with a bacon-roll whilst answering.
 
they didnt need it. It is obvious they knew anyway.

Un announces it on Monday. Across the press yesterday

The Guardian will be closed for the day in mourning
 
We always need evidence, clivex - especially in the post-Iraq landscape.

This shouldn't even need stating.

Does anyone actually dispute that CW was used? I don't think they do, so this report seems destined to tell us not a lot beyond what we already know. It's who used them that's important, in my view. I hope that it's conclusively proven that the Assad regime did use them, because it would be even more worrying if such weapons were in the hands of the rebels.
 
Last edited:
The problem is if you always wait for hard "evidence" too much can happen between times. Look how long this report has taken? Sometimes you have to take a judgement call don't you?

The un was actually mandated to only report that chemical weapons were used but are expected to step beyond that. For what it's worth, human rights watch has stated clearly for over a week now that it was Assad too

It does get really boring listening to so many go on whatabouteries. Tonkin bay, fallujah, Iraq. Blah blah. Not suggesting you grass but as simmo says it has a stongly xenophobic edge to it. Ie they re Americans and all the same etc etc

That's no use to anyone
 
clivex said:
The problem is if you always wait for hard "evidence" too much can happen between times. Look how long this report has taken? Sometimes you have to take a judgement call don't you?
Click to expand...


Safe to say that there has been no further use of CW since the attacks were first reported and the inspectors went in though, no?

Sergei Lavrov and Putin too (for all that he is a closeted-up, hateful c*nt) have played the Russian cards very smartly on this matter, in my view.

It is an absolute imperative to keep the Yankee gun in its holster insofar as Syria is concerned, as the risk of this spreading into Israel and Iran (and beyond) is too great. This plan - assuming Assad abides by it - should help contain any fighting to within Syria's borders, and result in the destruction of her stock-pile of CW. I call that good work.
 
Last edited:
All credit is to the us and France here and zero to Putin

If Assad had not suddenly had a vision of being blown to bits by a cruise missile the gassing would have continued and what would Putin done? Fck all

I reckon Assad was a bit surprised by the us response.

Would the un gone in if the us France and the west sat in their hands? And say china and Russia been calling the shots?
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
All credit is to the us and France here and zero to Putin

If Assad had not suddenly had a vision of being blown to bits by a cruise missile the gassing would have continued and what would Putin done? Fck all

I reckon Assad was a bit surprised by the us response.

Would the un gone in if the us France and the west sat in their hands? And say china and Russia been calling the shots?
Click to expand...

Cobblers, of course.

Independent action by either France or the US would have seen the region disintegrate in a firestorm. The Russkis are to be congratulated for being less myopic, understanding the bigger picture, and developing a creative solution that appears able not only to arrest the threat of escalation, but will ultimately achieve the removal and destruction of all CW from the country.

Only a single-agenda muppet with an axe to grind, would fail to spot the positive contribution of Russia over the last few weeks. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. the proposed action was to target the chemical weapons sites and no more. The region is safer for that ffs

Creative solution. Give it a rest. Its ONLY because of the military threat that this option came about. Its hardly original and was never going to happen unless assad was backed into a corner. you think the yanks had never consdiered taht? unless assad was under threat you can be sure the
russians would have done absolutely nothing

And Why else should it affect the whole region ? Iran is making overtures to the west and will certainly not want a proxy war there either way. Israel can certainly look after itself and may even be more secure without assads backing of hezbollah. other states? Dont think so

And the killing is continuing isnt it? Hardly stopped because of cws are suddenly not being used? And it looks like its going to continue for along time yet

Russia is a big syria backer and the main influence. What have they done up to now to bring about peace in the state? **** all.
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
the proposed action was to target the chemical weapons sites and no more.
Click to expand...
Yeah, right. Like the proposed action in Libya was to protect the civilians, but very quickly evolved to be about regime change.

Russia is a big syria backer and the main influence. What have they done up to now to bring about peace in the state? **** all.
Click to expand...
What has America done to bring peace to Syria. Encouraging jihadist groups and supplying them with arms ?


It's ironic that an ex-colonel of the KGB is now considered to be a far greater initiator of peace in the region rather than a Nobel Peace Prize-winning U.S. president who wanted to unleash his missiles and bombs on a sovereign country.
 
Last edited:
yes. the nobel peace prize winning president should have shrugged his shoulders at the use of russian supplied chemical weapons continued use against civilians
 
Obama far too weak and inexperienced and lawyerly to take seriously throughout all of this.

:blink:

OK...a bit glib....just forgive me.

Surely though you see the positive contribution made by Russia here? Undoubtedly, they were prompted into more purposeful action due to the threat of US/French attacks on Damascus, but they have shown the leadership on an outcome which will prevent any further escalation, and removal of CW from inside Syria. Without the Russian plan, none of this would be happening - we'd just be waiting on the missiles raining-down on Damascus.....then Jerusalem.....then Tehran, Beirut, wherever.
 
Last edited:
The Russians have exploited the situation to give a veneer of leadership. That's about all its amounts too

There is absolutely no reason why this would result in attacks on those cities. Who's going to attack them and why and what for?
 
Assad said that the moment US missiles started hitting Damascus, he would retaliate by striking Israel, in an attempt to encourage them (and indirectly, Iran) into the conflict. This was widely-reported a couple of weeks back, and the potential for this kind of escalation is exactly why the Russkis and Yanks are sitting round a table in Geneva.

That you don't appear to know this was the case is surprising, but it does perhaps account for some of your recent posts on this topic.
 
There is no way he would strike israel. It is a stupid and somewhet desperate threat that no one could take sewriously. He would have had the option of having his chemical bases attacked or being compltely obliterated.
 
clivex said:
There is no way he would strike israel. It is a stupid and somewhet desperate threat that no one could take sewriously.
Click to expand...

You're probably right. It would take the kind of lunatic who'd be prepared to use chemical-weapons, to come-up with such a self-defeating move.

:whistle:
 
Nobody has 'played it smart'.

They'll all look clever if 'diplomacy' comes off, and we will rightfully hail the president for averting a SAS type mission to hurt the regime (that's all it would have been, of course).

However, if it fails or more chemical weapons are used, Obama will look very silly. More silly than Cameron does at present for wanting a military offensive last month.

I hope it comes off for Obama and Putin, and it certainly appears like a gesture of good will from the ex-KGB man, but from a Western point of view, its not a gamble I would have taken. I guess to see it from a Middle Eastern perspective would give you a different answer, but I'm not in the Middle East and don't pretend to be either.
 
Last edited:
And he really has been punished for using them (probably with Russia's approval) hasnt he?

Got to hand them over sometime next year. Wow...

But he fires a missile at Israel and he and his stupid bint will be blown to smithereens before i stopped laughing
 
Back
Top