Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack

Would you support a military strike on Syria without a UN Security Council resolution?

  • Total voters
    828
  • Poll closed .
All this talk of WW3. This could well be the beginnings of a new Cold War. But its highly unlikely we're facing the apocalypse.

Situations like this naturally encourage rhetoric and some willy waving.

I'm really disappointed in Obama. Seems anyone placed into power is unable to resist the temptation of aggression. I thought/hoped he'd be different. DC is just an utter muppet along with the rest of government.
 
ennogs said:
? If British companies sold the chemicals to Syria why is it incorrect to say Britain sold the chemicals to Syria?
Click to expand...

Because saying that "Britain did it" implies that it was done by the government or the country as an entity, it's like saying that America have just bought Nokia (when Microsoft have). And saying they were sold "nerve gas chemicals" is also incorrect, as they were sold chemicals (in separate orders to different customers) that when combined could be used to make nerve gas (just like my example on previous page of it being possible to combine a couple of products Tesco sell to make a deadly toxic gas).

You see how the media exaggerates/twists things in order to make headlines? :(
 
wildman said:
no, they sold industrial chemicals that have a mountain of industrial uses:

Sodium Fluoride Uses:
As insecticide particularly for roaches and ants
In pesticide formulations
Constituent in vitreous enamel and glass mixes
As steel degassing agent
In electroplating
In foundry fluxes
In heat-treating salt compositions
In fluoridation of drinking water
For disinfecting fermentation apparatus in breweries and distilleries
Preserving wood
Manufacture of coated paper
Frosting glass

Potassium Fluoride uses:
As insecticide particularly for roaches and ants
In pesticide formulations
Constituent in vitreous enamel and glass mixes
As steel degassing agent
In electroplating
In foundry fluxes
In heat-treating salt compositions
In fluoridation of drinking water
For disinfecting fermentation apparatus
In breweries and distilleries
Preserving wood

But I guess a headline saying Britain sell wood preservative to Syria doesn;t shift newspapers right......................
Click to expand...

You missed an industrial use out of your list.

Sarin gas.
 
ubersonic said:
Because saying that "Britain did it" implies that it was done by the government or the country as an entity, it's like saying that America have just bought Nokia (when Microsoft have). And saying they were sold "nerve gas chemicals" is also incorrect, as they were sold chemicals (in separate orders to different customers) that when combined could be used to make nerve gas (just like my example on previous page of it being possible to combine a couple of products Tesco sell to make a deadly toxic gas).

You see how the media exaggerates/twists things in order to make headlines? :(
Click to expand...

It was authorised by the British Government.
 
Biohazard said:
It was authorised by the British Government.
Click to expand...

Technically it was authorised by a government department, as are all exports to countries which have sanctions against them (meaning they have to be authorised, not that they are), again its not exactly the same as saying that Britain/British government did it.

For record the export licenses were revoked almost two years ago after additional sanctions were added.
 
ennogs said:
That's is still not proof Assad used chemical weapons. Also why is it ridiculous to suggest the rebels used chemical weapons?

As has been said who gains out of the chemical weapons have been used stories? The rebels as they now have the USA going to help them. Que Bono.
Click to expand...

I said there was no conclusive proof that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons, there probably never will be. We're even further away from conclusive proof that the rebels used chemical weapons, yet because Putin and an infamously anti-western UN officer says it, the fanbois take it as 100% gospel.

I'd say the Syrian regime gained the most from using chemical weapons, they killed 1500 "rebels" with them.
 
What a mess, the US will plow ahead and strike now for no other reason than they don't want to look weak on the international stage. Tony Abbott, who is likely to become Australia's next PM described the situation in Syria as "Baddie vs Baddie" and whilst that is a simplistic description of the situation it's absolutely spot on.

Meanwhile Putin is asking for infallible evidence that is impossible to produce and likely never possible unless Assad goes on TV and say's "you got me, it was us!"
 
Last edited:
ubersonic said:
Technically it was authorised by a government department, as are all exports to countries which have sanctions against them (meaning they have to be authorised, not that they are), again its not exactly the same as saying that Britain/British government did it.

For record the export licenses were revoked almost two years ago after additional sanctions were added.
Click to expand...

That's a bizarre position to take. If govt department does something, they are part of the government, so it's perfectly fine to say the govt did it.

Your analogy is poor btw. MS isn't a department of the US.

What your saying is that 'technically MS didn't buy Nokia. The acquisitions dept of MS bought Nokia, and the acquisitions dept isn't MS as a whole, therefore MS didn't buy Nokia.'

It's a really, really bizarre argument.
 
Libya once again. The aim was always regime change. Like Libya, the Govt. side was winning and the US puppet the UK pushes for no fly action. So called mission creep but probably the aim from the beginning targeted all sorts of Govt. assets allowing the 'rebels' to win. Now we have Syria in which initially the rebels were winning and our Govt. just called for weapons to be given to the 'rebels'. Other parties get involved and turn the tables and the Govt. side is winning and the UK leads the call for intervention.
President Obama said
a "limited" strike was needed to degrade Syrian government's capabilities
Click to expand...
which will intensify through 'mission creep' allowing all types of targets to be attacked. As in Libya this will allow the 'rebels' to regain the upperhand and achieve regime change.
 
America keep spouting about the evidence they have but refuse to share it with the UN, How on earth are we supposed to trust their word after such lies in the past. It may be that there is clear evidence Assad used such weapons but it must be shared.

President Putin has said Russia did not rule out supporting a UN Security Council resolution authorising force, if it was proved "beyond doubt" that the Syrian government used chemical weapons, which is fair enough.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23955655
 
Last edited:
Leave it well alone. The west should just leave them to it. Until it reaches us what is the point.

They reckon it won't lead up to being more involved than a few missiles... seems like its inevitable to become fully immersed in a conflict which could get incredibly dangerous.

Countries like that need an iron fist to rule the savages, so let Assad stay, I know the atrocities that have gone on are hideous but where are the "good" guys that are suddenly going to turn up and start eating dominos pizza in damascus whilst watching syrian x factor?

Obviously up in the higher levels of authority there is a bigger plan involved in all this otherwise we would barely be interested, a lot of issues and humanitarian problems elsewhere.

This appears to be a serious flashpoint which a few missile strikes won't solve anything.

Who cares if the west loses face, i don't, I'm in the line of work that could potentially have to be involved if it all goes pear shaped
 
scorza said:
I said there was no conclusive proof that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons, there probably never will be. We're even further away from conclusive proof that the rebels used chemical weapons, yet because Putin and an infamously anti-western UN officer says it, the fanbois take it as 100% gospel.

I'd say the Syrian regime gained the most from using chemical weapons, they killed 1500 "rebels" with them.
Click to expand...

Given how many times the us has vetoed UN action against israel as a solitary lone voice and has taken action on like iraq etc you could equally argue that the us are anti un or at least only abuse them to thei us's own end.
 
Congressman earlier on R4 stated that the confidential briefing he attended didn't have much extra in it other than the stuff the media were spouting anyway so he wasn't sure there is any evidence at all.

Quite surprised by that but the guy did sound a bit disillusioned by it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom