***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 3 *****
Click HERE for volume 1
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 7 Sep 13 at 16:41
|
|
The House of Commons didn't agree with UKIP. It agreed with people here, as here uncertainly, by a narrow majority.
|
|
There has always being a distrust in the system which we are all a slave to.Nothing new what Bill Hicks was saying I do respect him for saying it.
|
|
How is it going Dog the hound still ok? And the mrs keeping a check on you.>:)
|
>>How is it going Dog the hound still ok? And the mrs keeping a check on you.>:)
We're fine thanks Dutchie, been out walking over them thar hills every day this week, nice summer in Cornwall this year, apart from the rain ;)
My missus tries very hard to keep me in-check, but I can create Mary Hell, stamp my feet, and generally throw my toys out of the pram, when it suits, so, keeping someone like me in check is a never ending uphill battle I'm afraid.
Say hello to Diane for me, when you are you going to swop that blimmin old Citroen for a nice Kia??
|
>> Interesting?
>>
>> www.whale.to/c/syria77c6c.html
"According to InfoWars.com" :)
So, in other words, Alex Jones, who claims that pretty much everything is a false flag operation...including the Boston Marathon bombing (within minutes of the news breaking)
He also has David Icke as a regular guest...
|
|
Alex Jones, David Icke, Nigel Farage all pretty much the same I guess.
|
|
...and of course the paper you love to hate - The Daily Mail. a capture of whose page is at the base of the article.
|
>> ...and of course the paper you love to hate - The Daily Mail. a capture
>> of whose page is at the base of the article.
You'd think that even they would know not to run a story based purely on an InfoWars source. At least they eventually took the story down, which is why it is only available as a capture.
It seems that every other news outlet decided to pass on such a juicy story...even the Fars News Agency, which has even used The Onion as a source.
tinyurl.com/pbuh687
|
|
I wonder how many members of Congress tucked into a Full Freedom Breakfast this morning, or maybe just went with the lighter option of a Freedom Muffin.
|
order-order.com/2013/08/30/ukip-mep-candidate-says-support-assad/
I bet he is nervously waiting for his mobile to ring, if it hasnt already. Members are starting to pick up on the story, P45 time unless Nigel wants a lynching.
|
Scary article in Newsthump too.
tinyurl.com/pqqk7yv
|
There's sufficient military power in the Middle East (excluding Israel) for them to sort this out themselves. Hard though it may be, we need to stand well back and let this play its cause, not least because our plan to intervene seemed little more than Cameron posturing on the world stage.
It's tragic that thousands are dying through chemical weapon attacks, but I find it sadder that we (loose term) found it completely acceptable when Assad was murdering his citizens with rockets and machine guns. I also note that we're suspiciously quiet on North Korea despite the brutality (millions of people murdered by the state). Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that they have China's backing? In some ways the hypocrisy of Western government is harder to stomach.
Ultimately it's tribal warfare in a country that has nothing to do with us. For once.
Last edited by: Fursty Ferret on Fri 30 Aug 13 at 19:41
|
|
100% correct. F.F.
Last edited by: Roger on Fri 30 Aug 13 at 20:51
|
Last nights vote had nothing to do with UKIP, or David Cameron, or even one of the Milbands.
Last nights vote was a resounding "you lied to us about WOMD in Iraq, we no longer trust you" If this was a valid cause today, it was scuppered by Blair many many years ago.
What disgusts me is the political capital trying to be made in the wake of the "no" vote.
It was a no vote, fair enough, lets all be adult about it. For once it was democracy at work.
|
>> Last nights vote was a resounding "you lied to us about WOMD in Iraq, we
>> no longer trust you" If this was a valid cause today, it was scuppered by
>> Blair many many years ago.
>>
>>
Spot on.
The public were overwhelmingly against any involvement in Syria. Yeah, we sympathise with the people of the country and if we could wave a magic wand and get them all to live happily ever after we'd do just that, but in every other way we're sick to death of the middle east and their internal squabbles. We know full well that what replaces one mad dictator is another of the same ilk, it's happened time and time again on a never ending cycle and any involvement of ourselves does neither us nor them any good and only prolongs the problem.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 12 Sep 13 at 01:12
|
I too am relieved at the vote, amazed too that after so many empty threats to vote against over other issues they finally found their missing plums.
However no doubt Dave and his poodle Hague and assorted legal chums are busy working out how to do the business without the parliament rubber stamp they wanted, i fear we haven't heard the last yet.
Must have spoiled breakfast in the white house a little, oh dear how sad never mind..;)
|
>>Last nights vote was a resounding "you lied to us about WOMD in Iraq, we no longer trust you" If this was a valid cause today, it was scuppered by Blair many many years ago <<
Spot on.
>>What disgusts me is the political capital trying to be made in the wake of the "no" vote. <<
Indeed, Paddy Ashdown in a rare moment of poor form thought blaming Nigel Farage was the smart thing to do, a man who wasnt even there. He failed to mention that 24 Lib Dems voted against the government though.
I see Dan Hodges has thrown his toys out of the Labour pram too.
Im sure you didnt really expect politcians on all sides to make capital out of this though, nature of the beast on all sides.
|
|
Glad to see "Perfide Marianne", No. 1 hater of the Anglo-Saxons' leading nation, is now its oldest ally. But wasn't it General Patton who said he would rather have the French in front of him than behind him?
|
>> Glad to see "Perfide Marianne", No. 1 hater of the Anglo-Saxons' leading nation, is now
>> its oldest ally.
For the Yanks, its called "grasping at straws"
No good every came of having France as your only Ally. Its like walking around with a poisonous snake in your pocket.
|
|
The French have never forgiven us for liberating them in 1945.
|
>> The French have never forgiven us for liberating them in 1945.
>>
Zut alors et sacré bleu!
|
>> The French have never forgiven us for liberating them in 1945.
>>
Rubbish!:-)
They have never forgiven us for Agincourt, Crecy, Poitiers, the Hugenots, the French Revolution and Marmite...
|
And what do they get for supporting Les Americans?
McDonalds.
|
Say what you like about Les Grenouilles - and I do - they, or their politicians, usually ignore what is best for the rest of the world and focus on what is best for France.
So - what are they getting out of this?
|
Reported in the paper today that Smamfa Cameron's sister was ashamed by the result of the vote.
That should give a boost to the Great Satan.........the deputy editor of Vogue on their side !
Ted
|
>> >> The French have never forgiven us for liberating them in 1945.
>> >>
>> Rubbish!:-)
>>
>> They have never forgiven us for Agincourt, Crecy, Poitiers, the Hugenots, the French Revolution and Marmite...>>
...........Waterloo, Trafalgar , the English language becoming the "Lingua Franca"....the list goes on!
Last edited by: Roger on Sat 31 Aug 13 at 18:12
|
|
I think it was 'Allo 'Allo that finally did it.
|
|
I've been using my best "Good moaning" to French ATC for a couple of years now...
|
and when they sign you over to another ATC is it
"now go away before I taunt you a second time"
|
|
Surely the sign off is ''i shall say this only once''.
|
|
Whatever happened to the fallen Madonna with the big boobies?
|
>> Whatever happened to the fallen Madonna with the big boobies?
>>
I married her...
|
Strangely, madf, we found the locals very welcoming at Agincourt. The information centre actually had Olivier's "Henry V" film running, in English. The receptionist said she liked the British.
Interesting that Obama is having second thoughts now that we are out of the game. If he withdraws completely from his red line, Hollande will be like to frog in Aesop (?) that puffed itself up so much that it burst.
|
>> Strangely, madf, we found the locals very welcoming at Agincourt. The information centre actually had
>> Olivier's "Henry V" film running, in English. The receptionist said she liked the British.
Probably a combination of the fact that it was 600 years ago, and is likely now a good source of tourist revenue.
Some other parts of the world could do better at letting go of things that happened centuries ago.
It must require really significant commitment to hold a grudge for 20-odd generations.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Sun 1 Sep 13 at 14:21
|
"It must require really significant commitment to hold a grudge for 20-odd generations."
The conflict between the Sunni and Shia sects of Islam dates back to the 7th century..
etc
and is the basis for the Syrian conflict... www.earthlysojourner.com/id37.html
and makes teh N Ireland feuds about events of 400 years ago look amateurish..
|
>> and is the basis for the Syrian conflict
No, it isn't. But the schism in Islam does complicate the Syrian civil war and influences the attitudes of some other Muslim countries to the civil war.
The 'basis' for the Syrian conflict is much more personal than that. But the splits that result from it in Syrian society inevitably tend to fall along the lines of the schism. Most Westerners aren't very interested in the distinction.
|
>> >> Whatever happened to the fallen Madonna with the big boobies?
>> >>
>>
>> I married her...
>>
A curious co-incidence there, Madf. I married the big Madonna with the fallen boobies !
Ted
|
|
those boobies have fallen a long way to end up with you two.
|
Having read the article above, it's written in the "we must do something" vein.
No thought for what is important - which is what happens afterwards,
|
Having read the article above, it's written in the "we must do something" vein.
Is it? The author's view is surely summed up in the first line:
"My position on whether we, or anyone else, should intervene in Syria couldn’t be clearer. I absolutely, utterly and definitively don’t know"
Pretty much my position too.
|
I agree with Madf, the article might well have started out like that, but by the time it concluded doing nothing wasn't an option to the author.
''' now our Parliament has decided against intervention, I can’t help thinking it’s made the wrong choice. Gas, for God’s sake! No but yes but'''
Last edited by: gordonbennet on Mon 2 Sep 13 at 09:05
|
There is no firm conclusion. It concludes with uncertainty and confusion in the same way that it starts.
|
Its not really that difficult. Every sensible person must abhor the use of nerve gas being lobbed around and killing people, and most sensible people wouldn't mind the person(s) responsible being turned into a smear of raspberry jam.
The salient points are, we need to be sure who they are, and retribution does not need to be now - it can wait to a more suitable time.
|
I don't understand.
What's the difference between killing, say, 100 people with gas, and killing 100 people with more conventional weapons. The results are the same.
The people injured by conventional weapons are also likely to be just as seriously injured as anyone not killed outright by chemical weapons.
In a purely practical way, chemical weapons are much kinder for those who survive, because they don't then have to rebuild their buildings and water/energy/sanitation infrastructure, and therefore, are more likely to survive.
It seems to me that our problem with chemical weapons is emotional rather than rational, and really, we should be much more outraged when people use "conventional" weapons.
|
Correct!
There is plenty of nasty ordure going on in the rest of the world about which not too many nations wax indignant. So why, after two years of civil war in Syria, do politicians in the West feel impelled to meddle?
Both sides are equally nasty: neither side loves the West: what's in it for us?
Political displacement activity, or politician's self aggrandisement?
Last edited by: Roger on Mon 2 Sep 13 at 10:07
|
"It seems to me that our problem with chemical weapons is emotional rather than rational, and really, we should be much more outraged when people use "conventional" weapons."
Logically you are of course right but the use of gas and chemical weapons is abhorrent to most people and effectively a line in the sand was drawn in the sand over 100 years ago when a convention banning their use was signed.
Over the past hundred years we have come to accept the mass killing of civilian populations by aerial bombing and shelling; an act which was viewed with similar abhorrence until the second world war. Do we really want to 'normalise' the mass gassing of civilians in the same way?
|
>> "It seems to me that our problem with chemical weapons is emotional rather than rational,
>> and really, we should be much more outraged when people use "conventional" weapons."
>>
>> Logically you are of course right but the use of gas and chemical weapons is
>> abhorrent to most people and effectively a line in the sand was drawn in the
>> sand over 100 years ago when a convention banning their use was signed.
There is a rational reason to fear chemical weapons more than conventional armaments. Chemical threats are much easier to smuggle in, and deploy, in major conurbations. The fatal outcomes could be far higher and widespread for minimum effort. The fear is getting away with its use in Syria, could lead to its use elsewhere, in far different circumstances.
Put it like this, London has coped with barely a twitch to conventional explosive threats and events, you think that would be the case with a chemical threat?
|
>>London has coped with barely a twitch to...
a terrorist threat - small groups of individuals. It hasn't coped or had to cope with a threat from another well matched state for a long time now.
In the case when you are dealing with another state, a better comparison would be between a canister of gas and a daisy cutter.
|
>> >>London has coped with barely a twitch to...
>>
>> a terrorist threat - small groups of individuals. It hasn't coped or had to cope
>> with a threat from another well matched state for a long time now.
>>
>> In the case when you are dealing with another state, a better comparison would be
>> between a canister of gas and a daisy cutter.
Not at all. A small group of individuals from with chemical weapons from an un-matched state could quite easily cause the same devastation of a large equally matched state using conventional weapons. You get far more "bang for your buck"
|
>>You get far more "bang for your buck"
So, you're saying it's a question of efficiency.
If a method of killing is inefficient, it's OK?
|
>> >>You get far more "bang for your buck"
>>
>> So, you're saying it's a question of efficiency.
no I am saying it makes its use more tempting.
|
>>Do we really want to 'normalise' the mass gassing of civilians in the same way?
Actually, I was thinking the other way.
By giving us so-called WMD to be upset by the thought of, we have become inured to the use of "conventional" weapons.
|
|
Yes we have become inured to the use of conventional weapons and the mass killing of the innocent. Do we want to throw away the last shreds of humanity and say that gassing or using nerve agents on civilians is OK as well?
|
'The salient points are, we need to be sure who they are, and retribution does not need to be now - it can wait to a more suitable time."
But of course if we could be sure that action now would stop further use of gas we would surely be in favour of such action - but of course we can't be certain that such action would have the desired effect .
Knowing what to do for the best is not a simple question to answer.
|
>>effectively a line in the sand was drawn in the sand over 100 years ago when a convention banning their use was signed. <<
And at the height of the V1 and V2 attacks towards the end of WW2 this country was within hours of using chemical weapons on Germany.
Agent Orange was also a chemical weapon used in Vietnam by the world leaders in democracy. It was an indirect attack, but the outcome was meant to be the same.
Any country or state, pushed hard enough, will use whatever weapons it has.
I remain to be convinced that this country, or any other western one is totally free of stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.
|
>> >>effectively a line in the sand was drawn in the sand over 100 years ago
>> when a convention banning their use was signed. <<
>>
>> And at the height of the V1 and V2 attacks towards the end of WW2
>> this country was within hours of using chemical weapons on Germany.
A completely unproven allegation, Ask yourself "Why didnt the Nazis use it"
>> Agent Orange was also a chemical weapon used in Vietnam by the world leaders in
>> democracy. It was an indirect attack, but the outcome was meant to be the same.
The outcome was not meant to be the same as nerve gas. Agent orange was used as a defoliant, with the aim of denying the enemy cover, and to force rural populations into easily controlled areas. You cant compare its use to Sarin type agents.
|
>>A completely unproven allegation, Ask yourself "Why didnt the Nazis use it"<<
www.amazon.co.uk/Target-London-attack-V-weapons-during/dp/034912356X/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_4
I don’t know why the nazi’s didn’t use it (nerve gas.) They did enough damage with normal gas so in that sense they were not averse to gassing civilians. Or doesn’t that gas count as a chemical attack?
>>Agent orange was used as a defoliant, with the aim of denying the enemy cover, and to force rural populations into easily controlled areas.<<
Wiki opening sentence.
Agent Orange is the combination of the code names for Herbicide Orange (HO) and Agent LNX, one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military as part of its chemical warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971. Vietnam estimates 400,000 people were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of its use.
|
>> www.amazon.co.uk/Target-London-attack-V-weapons-during/dp/034912356X/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_4
As I said, an unproven allegation.
>>
>> I don’t know why the nazi’s didn’t use it (nerve gas.) They did enough damage
>> with normal gas so in that sense they were not averse to gassing civilians. Or
>> doesn’t that gas count as a chemical attack?
You know perfectly well I meant an attack against the allies.
>>
>> >>Agent orange was used as a defoliant, with the aim of denying the enemy cover,
>> and to force rural populations into easily controlled areas.<<
>>
>> Wiki opening sentence.
>>
>> Agent Orange is the combination of the code names for Herbicide Orange (HO) and Agent
>> LNX, one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military as part of
>> its chemical warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971.
>> Vietnam estimates 400,000 people were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects
>> as a result of its use.
Now reread my reply about inanition, and read the rest of the wiki article, before you make unfounded allegations that the *intent* was to poison the population.
|
You are reading too much into my replies, Zero.
The book raises some evidence that the UK had chemical weapons at its disposal and Churchill was prepared to use them if necessary. Neither of us was alive at that time and privy to the inner sanctum of the government. Nearly 50 years after the event I doubt if the truth will ever be known.
Gas attacks were used by both sides in WW1
>>You know perfectly well I meant an attack against the allies. <<
My point is not so much about who received the attack as that the nazis (Germans) were prepared to use chemical “weapons”.
The same with Vietnam. Chemical weapons were used by the Americans, as was napalm, a slightly different but still chemical weapon.
Western governments, to use a general term, are all too ready to mount their high horses over uses of weapons by others that they have either used in the not too distant past or were prepared to use if really pushed into it.
I suspect, but cannot prove, that most western nations have both chemical and biological weapons in their arsenal. If so, then hypocrisy reigns.
The UK parliament has voted to stay clear of direct involvement in the Syrian conflict. The Americans may well do the same. I hope that they do.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 12 Sep 13 at 01:10
|
I don't see what all the ooh ahh is about over the use of chemical weapons, the Yankees used depleted uranium in Fallujah during the Iraq invasion. The Zionists used white phosphorus in a residential area during Gaza conflicts.
I mean, chemical weapons cause death and horrific injuries - just like conventional weapons do.
|
Yawn.
I refer you to my post in volume 1, 23 August I think, the salient passage reading:
'The vile Assad junior will stop at nothing it seems, but he is losing anyway and has now earned opprobrium by plunging his country into civil war to preserve his weak tyranny. The US is faffing about the use of sarin as a 'red line'. But that's just another thousand Syrians dying in agony to join the tens of thousands who have already perished or been maimed for life. Red line be damned, that was passed ages ago.'
I would like to say it's encouraging that some of you are catching up at last. But it's taken you a damn long time.
|
'Depleted uranium' is something else that sets the henhouse clucking. The very word uranium makes some people imagine that some sort of nuclear weapon is being used, or at least vile radioactive bullets to kill people twice.
The military here (or those who study military matters in obsessive detail) may have to correct me, but my impression is that depleted uranium is used in ordinary projectiles or bullets, and some anti-tank rounds, simply because it is plentiful, otherwise useless and quite a lot denser than lead (so a bullet of the same calibre at the same velocity will have greater hitting or penetrative power). The stuff isn't very radioactive, but it is brittle and makes a lot of dust when fired. Heavy metal dust even when not radioactive at all is very bad for you if you breathe it.
The brittleness of DU probably means that the rounds have to be jacketed in lead or copper so that they don't break up when forced into the rifling.
|
>> it's taken you a damn long time.
With a couple of honourable exceptions. They know who they are obviously.
|
I wonder if its the unpalatable truth that galls is that the chemical weapon is ideal for those who wish to kill opposition without destroying the very country/city/infrastructure/wealth one would wish to capture/steal/claim/sell.
As such i would have thought it the weapon of choice for the present world where human life seems as cheap as its ever been, and honour an extinct concept, where land/minerals/oil etc and the power they bestow on those holding them are the true goal.
|
>>What's the difference between killing, say, 100 people with gas, and killing 100 people with more conventional weapons. The results are the same.
Not, I suggest, from the victim's point of view.
Gas is in the same dirty league as flamethrowers.
|
>> >>What's the difference between killing, say, 100 people with gas, and killing 100 people with
>> more conventional weapons. The results are the same.
>>
>> Not, I suggest, from the victim's point of view.
It's debatable. Certainly they are capable of providing a terrible death.
However, perhaps more importantly, is the psychological impact on those that fear facing such brutality, and the consequences of that.
The Japanese used savage brutality in WW2, perhaps to out-psych the enemy, but the Americans knew that they would face that barbarism during an invasion, so they turned the dial up to 11.
The fate of anybody that used chemical weapons against Israel, might well find they meet a similar fate.
Red lines, and boundaries, can be useful. If you decide to ignore them and take your gloves off, be prepared for your opponent to do the same thing.
This is, of course, why the Germans never used chemical or biological weapons on our cities, and why we never used ours on theirs.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Mon 2 Sep 13 at 14:19
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23931479
AS an aside, I have lived in the states for the best part of 20 years, on and off and I have *never*, not even once, heard any reference to "the special relationship".
|
|
That's because it's only special to us. We're the ones with the special needs.
|
|
It's UK politicians and political journalists stuff. The same ones who keep wanting wars.
|
|
That special relationship is between the politicians what ever it means.I do think President Obama did a good job trying to change the health system in the States which needed changing.
|
>> I do think President Obama did a good job trying to change the health system in the States which needed changing.
Quite right Dutchman, he's head and shoulders above everyone since LBJ in that job. But I've seen people here mimicking the right-wing media by calling him hesitant, disappointing etc.
Who'd be in his shoes eh? You have to be mad to don that footwear.
|
I have seen this video on Youtube but i will not offer a link for obvious reasons.
It shows (well funded, hardly undernourished starving) scum executing some lorry drivers who whilst having done nothing wrong...apart from the only people doing any work in the video and belonging to the wrong sect...are executed but cruelly.
If you use this search title it will bring up several versions...
''Al Qaeda Linked Al Nusra Front Rebels Kill Alawite Truck Drivers''
Warning it is very graphic, watch at your own risk.
|
Me if i was a trucker, I would just blast on through. Some poxy rag-head with a toyota aint gonna stop me. Specially in the middle of the desert.
It could just be the local version of VOSA of course.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 5 Sep 13 at 20:02
|
Awful :(
Geezer on the wireless this morning (radio 4) asked would NATO would get involved if the Ruskies bombed the rebels (insurgents) after a Yankee-led strike against Assad.
(*_*)
|
Serious looking Russian destroyer now parked in the Med and several more ships apparently en route.
The whole thing is a hornets nest, where the hell do you start deciding whose guilty of what and who you should back if anyone.
The crew doing the stopping and operating the kangaroo court looked well supplied, their transport and enough of it wasn't cobbled together from a few goat herders bicycles and tractors, they had new pick ups by the fleet and armed to the teeth and thats just what we saw, someone is chucking big money into this cauldron.
|
>> Serious looking Russian destroyer now parked in the Med and several more ships apparently en
>> route.
SO whats it going to do? Launch missiles at the American Carrier battle group? Of course its not.
|
>> Awful :(
>>
>> Geezer on the wireless this morning (radio 4) asked would NATO would get involved if
>> the Ruskies bombed the rebels (insurgents) after a Yankee-led strike against Assad.
>>
>> (*_*)
No of course not, its not a NATO issue by any stretch of the imagination, any more than IRAQ was. The MP phrasing it like that should have known that, and was just being an ignorant prat.
|
|
We are well out of the cess-pit which is Syria.
|
|
Intervening in the internal affairs of another country is like trying to break up a fight between husband and wife. They are both likely to turn on you.
|
>>No of course not, its not a NATO issue by any stretch of the imagination, any more than IRAQ was. The MP phrasing it like that should have known that, and was just being an ignorant prat
It's looking ugly though, with Saudi + Qatar supplying arms to the insurgents AND offering to pay for Hussein Obama's excursion against the Syrian army.
What if Russia then decided to do the same to the FSA and crack a few heads, it could all too easily escalate, and involve NATO further on down the road.
|
Maybe Obama should have kept his mouth shut a year ago, and maybe he should have also kept it shut a couple of weeks ago.
It seems likely that Assad's forces did carry out the smaller attacks over the last few months and the big attack a couple of weeks back.
If they did, why?
Maybe the latest attack was a miscalculation, or maybe he was just trying to see how far he could push it (given that he had not triggered a response with the smaller attacks).
It might be interesting to see how far he, and others, might push it, if he is not confronted.
|
|
"Interesting" is perhaps not the way I would describe the possibility of seeing thousands more dead civilians including children on our TV screens.
|
Private Eye is using the scattergun approach it sometimes uses when even it is fazed by a situation. One of the lines is that the narrow commons defeat the other day, and the PM's apparent democratic acceptance of it, has made the US hesitate too leaving the French out on a limb... but it has other lines.
What the grat and good seem to be thinking is that symbolic action won't do it, only something really severe will; but who wants (for example) to take out the entire Syrian air force, which would cost much money and entail losses, when no one knows how other nutters in the Middle East would react, necessitating still more force, and so on. They need to get the Russians and Chinese on board or acquiescent.
Michel Aflaq, founder of the Baath Party which took root in Syria and Iraq, was a Hitler admirer, and the Baath is fascist to the core. The Assads are disgusting, whatever the Grauniad may tell you. The Arab League, and certain members of the UN security council, really need to shape up. But we won't be holding our breath will we.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Fri 6 Sep 13 at 02:07
|
Take out the Syrian airforce and leave Israel free to bomb Iran.
Simples.
|
>> Take out the Syrian airforce
To all intents and purposes there isn't a Syrian Airforce
>>and leave Israel free to bomb Iran.
Actually, there is more chance of lasting peace in the Middle East if Iran nukes Israel.
|
Actually, there is more chance of lasting peace in the Middle East if Iran nukes Israel.
You mean because the result will be nuked Iran # and Israel and no-one left to fight?
I find that - how shall I say it - just a tad naive.
# US retaliation would be inevitable. Even Russia might join in.
|
You both talk about war like it is a game,maybe it is.Why can't we leave Persia alone who are we the west to judge what these people can or can't do regarding nuclear power.
If hell brakes loose in the Middle East we are all going down the pan.
|
>> If hell brakes loose in the Middle East we are all going down the pan.
>>
Not all of us Dutchie, those responsible for it will be nice and safe in their bunkers sipping iced tea.
|
>> who are we the west to judge what these people can or can't do regarding nuclear power.
>>
>> If hell brakes loose in the Middle East we are all going down the pan.
You may have answered your own question there, unless you think that a nuclear armed Iran might make the region a safer place.
|
>> You may have answered your own question there, unless you think that a nuclear armed
>> Iran might make the region a safer place.
>
It might well. After all, MAD kept the peace between US/USSR for 40 years.
Didn't it???
|
>> It might well. After all, MAD kept the peace between US/USSR for 40 years.
>>
>> Didn't it???
Just about, although there might have been some issue in the Caribbean a few years back.
Of course, there is true MAD between the US and Russia, no chance of a successful sneak attack wiping out the chance to respond.
Why are you so confident that a nuclear armed Iran and a nuclear armed Israel, would be so successful? Is it because Iran has stated that the destruction of Israel is one of its goals? Or maybe because they have suggested that a first strike could prevent Israeli retaliation? Or maybe because the missile flight time between the countries is about 6 minutes?
|
>>Iran has stated that the destruction of Israel is one of its goals?
Eh, I believe it was ex Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who was said to have made that statement.
|
>> >>Iran has stated that the destruction of Israel is one of its goals?
>>
>> Eh, I believe it was ex Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who was said to have
>> made that statement.
I have no doubt that he has also made that statement.
But it has also been made repeatedly, by various people in the Iranian government and military, and representatives of the Supreme Leader.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Fri 6 Sep 13 at 13:39
|
>>But it has also been made repeatedly, by various people in the Iranian government and military, and representatives of the Supreme Leader.
The destruction of Israel, or the destruction of the Zionist regime - there is a difference.
|
>> >>But it has also been made repeatedly, by various people in the Iranian government and
>> military, and representatives of the Supreme Leader.
>>
>> The destruction of Israel, or the destruction of the Zionist regime - there is a
>> difference.
You'll be able to find plenty yourself if you dig a bit Dog, but here is one to start you off.
From Major General Seyed Hassan Firuzabadi, the current Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces:
"The Iranian nation is standing for its cause that is the full annihilation of Israel."
Silly rhetoric, maybe, but perhaps not so funny if Iran ever has nuclear weapons, with a flight time of 6 minute to any part of Israel, and Israel believe that (correctly or not) they have detected a missile launch.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Fri 6 Sep 13 at 14:01
|
>>You'll be able to find plenty yourself if you dig a bit Dog
I'll have a dig later SS, as I'm just orf out for a walk but, lets presume that Iran acquires the equivalent of just 1/3rd of Israel's nuclear warheads, and launches them at Israel, they would be killing many Israeli Arabs too plus affecting Gaza/West Bank, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, etc. with the fallout so, perhaps that's right - it is just silly rhetoric.
:}
|
>> with the fallout so, perhaps that's right - it is just silly rhetoric.
Silly, yes, dangerous, certainly.
MAD destruction works, if you can be sure that you can get your retaliation in afterwards. If not, there is a temptation to get your retaliation in first.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Fri 6 Sep 13 at 14:32
|
>>
>> Actually, there is more chance of lasting peace in the Middle East if Iran nukes
>> Israel.
>>
>> You mean because the result will be nuked Iran # and Israel and no-one left
>> to fight?
>>
>> I find that - how shall I say it - just a tad naive.
>>
>> # US retaliation would be inevitable. Even Russia might join in.
Its no less naive than the MADF plan to bomb Iran.
|
>> Its no less naive than the MADF plan to bomb Iran.
>>
Not my plan: It's someone else's - the זרוע האוויר והחלל, Zroa HaAvir VeHahalal 's for a start followed closely by the USAF..
|
>>
>> >> Its no less naive than the MADF plan to bomb Iran.
>> >>
>>
>> Not my plan: It's someone else's - the זרוע האוויר והחלל, Zroa HaAvir VeHahalal 's
>> for a start followed closely by the USAF..
>>
Dunno what all that's about but it's prompted Chrome to keep asking me do I want to translate the page from Indonesian....
|
>>
>> >> Its no less naive than the MADF plan to bomb Iran.
>> >>
>>
>> Not my plan: It's someone else's - the זרוע האוויר והחלל, Zroa HaAvir VeHahalal 's
>> for a start followed closely by the USAF..
As an airstrike would be carrier based, or submarine or ship basedcruise that'll be the USN then.
|
>> >>
>> >> >> Its no less naive than the MADF plan to bomb Iran.
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >> Not my plan: It's someone else's - the זרוע האוויר והחלל, Zroa HaAvir VeHahalal
>> 's
>> >> for a start followed closely by the USAF..
>> As an airstrike would be carrier based, or submarine or ship basedcruise that'll be the
>> USN then.
>>
Don't be too sure about that, USAF will be well involved should that little tea party start.
|
From where, with what, overflying where?
Nope, it'll be the navy then.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 6 Sep 13 at 13:55
|
|
Well without boring everyone on here, the USN won't be able to do it on there own. Iran has planned for such a strike on their own soil, it'll involve USAF. IMHO it won't happen anyway, but I've no idea why you think they can't or have some sort of issue with accuracy.
|
>> From where, with what, overflying where?
From Saudi, with planes from a Saudi US air base, overflying Eilat and the rest of Israel?
|
|
Think the other side of the gulf. Al Udied, Al Dhafra, Minhad etc. Infact there's a COAC there to run large air ops, funny old thing, run by people from a service that won't be involved (apparantly).
|
>> >> From where, with what, overflying where?
>>
>> From Saudi, with planes from a Saudi US air base, overflying Eilat and the rest
>> of Israel?
So you think you get to Iran from Saudi by overflying israel?
|
|
Sorry, thought we were talking about Syria still.
|
|
But hang on. What's the difficulty in flying from Saudi bases across the gulf to Iran?
|
Saudi Arabia is the problem. They may not allow it.
Anyway, an attack on Iran by the US is not going to happen, and any attack on Syria is going to be by the USN using cruise, and the Russian navy or the Syrians wont even see it on their radars.
|
If the window ever became available for a strike (highly unlikely) The saudi's would most likely be involved in operation not just allowing bases. There is a lot of bad blood between them, they both want to be top dog in the region. The saudi's hate that the fact the Iranians are able to weld some influence across the region. The saudi's want to be a (and the only) regional power in their neck of the woods.
They would be picked up on radar, especially the Russians if they so choose. How much the Syrians can counter a TLAM strike is another matter.
|
USAF needed to drop the huge deep penetration bombs targeting buried nuclear installations. Plus they will fly in from anywhere with inflight refulling... B52s bombed Afghanistan and Iraq.
read here .
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1632521.stm
Gulf War
B-52s were also put into use against Iraq in 1991 as part of Operation Desert Storm.
They were used to conduct carpet bombing raids - covering an entire area with a "carpet" of bombs - against Iraqi defence sites and concentrations of troops.
The Gulf War raids led to the longest strike mission in the history of aerial warfare. B-52s left Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, launching their explosive cargo on Iraq.
They touched down in Barksdale at the end of the 16,000-mile trip 35 hours later. Eighteen hours later, the bombers were re-armed and ready for another run.
Kosovo
Before their deployment over Afghanistan, B-52s were most recently used in Nato operations against Yugoslavia during the Kosovo conflict.
Eleven bombers carried out 270 sorties from the UK, dropping more than 11,000 bombs on Serbian positions and Yugoslav strategic sites.
Last edited by: madf on Fri 6 Sep 13 at 14:36
|
|
Add in GW2 for all the huffing and puffing the US flew out of Fairford for a weeks, no overfligh dramas there. They did Iraq and back plenty of times.
|
>> Add in GW2 for all the huffing and puffing the US flew out of Fairford
>> for a weeks, no overfligh dramas there. They did Iraq and back plenty of times.
They wont be flying out of fair ford this time, and there would be overflight issues across most of europe, because there is no global mandate.
|
>> >> Add in GW2 for all the huffing and puffing the US flew out of
>> Fairford
>> >> for a weeks, no overfligh dramas there. They did Iraq and back plenty of
>> times.
>>
>> They wont be flying out of fair ford this time, and there would be overflight
>> issues across most of europe, because there is no global mandate.
>>
I didn't say they would, my post was to add to the examples above. Anyway they won't be flying from anywhere, aren't the USN supposed to do it all on their own ? ;-)
|
you really think the Yanks are going to send b52s to bomb Iran?
You really are Mad.
|
>> you really think the Yanks are going to send b52s to bomb Iran?
>>
>> You really are Mad.
>>
If they wanted to, the air base they lease from us at Diego Garcia in the British Indian Ocean Territory could be used. No over flight required. However as said above the B52s and B2s have worldwide range from the USA.
|
|
The Saudis pretend to be pro-west (or they have done) but I believe it has been said that their multi millions of petro-dollars are behind a lot of the militant Islamists currently screwing up the world.
|
I think Middle East oil money is funding many of the assorted militias around the world.
Which would mean that we are all supporting them when we fill the car or heating tank.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 6 Sep 13 at 16:52
|
100, 50, perhaps 20 years from now there will be no Middle East Oil Money.
At that point I predict two things will happen;
1) There'll be much less conflict in the Middle East
2) The major powers will pay little or no attention to any conflict that does occur.
|
|
3) They will all come over here! - whereby they will be welcomed and fully supported by the Government of the day.
|
|
And, at a slightly later stage, there will be only two effective parties, Sunni and Shi'ite.
|
>> And, at a slightly later stage, there will be only two effective parties, Sunni and
>> Shi'ite.
>>
Little change then, two sides of the same coin, as we have now.
|
Syrian crisis Volume 2. - Armel Coussine
