I doubt much of value is lost half the time.
Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack
- Thread starter Craig1981
- Start date
I doubt much of value is lost half the time.
Top secret. Can't be shared.
I'm seeing a lot of liberal facebook posts condemning the decision not to support the US, like we could summon up Her Majesty's fleet and sail in to save the day. I don't see anyone getting emotional about the atrocities being committed in North Korea, but the reasons we aren't getting into this are similar. We can't.
At some point in the near future we'll be watching footage of civilians being used as human shields against this US strike, and the whole thing is going to go totally FUBAR, leaving the Syrians caught in the middle.
At some point in the near future we'll be watching footage of civilians being used as human shields against this US strike, and the whole thing is going to go totally FUBAR, leaving the Syrians caught in the middle.
I believe they can't release it in its entirety to lay people as it could compromise their intelligence network and sources. I would like to hope they would release all their findings to the UN security council so they could piece together all available evidence and make a valid report of what actually happened.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 4,698
- Location
- Wiltshire
Yup, just like in Afghanistan where the Taliban would hide in a house and push the kids outside to stop UK apaches opening up on them. No doubt Syrian forces have already moved military targets outside schools and mosques so they can cry "waaaah war crriminals" when they get blown up.
Like they couldn't with Iraq so we just have to take there word for it?
Except of course that would compromise their intelligence network and sources as Russia will just pass the information back to Syria.
yes, that figures. makes it really hard to garner support though especially as US have had previous form for not being entirely 'straight' with the facts they claimed to have.
I believe on the news this morning I saw Obama giving a press conference where he stated that they had observed the Syrian military ramping up for this in the days leading to the chemical attack. [paraphrased as the news was only on in the background while the missus was nagging me about cutting the lawn]
if that really is true I don't understand why the hell they didn't drop that piece of info off to the UN who had inspectors in situ.
The only particular issue I have is, if you have the ability and the resources to plant WMDs in a country and go after them for it...why did they not just plant them there?
This has always confused me about Iraq.
A side note, this is just one of a few other scenarios with a likelihood exceeding ******** level, I have a particular bias towards aggressive intelligence "gathering" when it comes to these wars.
This has always confused me about Iraq.
A side note, this is just one of a few other scenarios with a likelihood exceeding ******** level, I have a particular bias towards aggressive intelligence "gathering" when it comes to these wars.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 1,670
- Location
- edinburgh
I doubt it is anything that no one else has. I strongly suspect they have the same electronic intelligence that other countries have access to and most likely negligible stuff from human assets.
What I don't understand is why it is so imperative to act against one kind of weapon and not another when the number killed is significantly less. What is so different about this attack compared to all the other atrocities committed daily around the world with so called conventional weapons.
Probably not, but if they do, it would explain why they wouldn't be happy to share it with the UNSC.
Historical. After their use in WW1 there was a backlash against them as they were pretty indiscriminate, killed in pretty horrific ways and (probably the more important bit as far as the military was concerned) had a tendency to drift back on to your own guys. So they were banned relatively soon after WW1. Whilst dead is dead for some reasons chemical warfare is considered worse than normal warfare and so international law treats it very differently.
Yes, I know the history it was a rhetorical question really as that history is moot really in a modern context.
And if that mechanism of death is so abhorrent to the US regime then why simulate it with waterboarding? Something they seem rather happy to do.
Either it's the indiscriminate death - they seemed happy with what goes on elsewhere in far greater numbers. The method of death - something they happily simulate. Or the quantity - which is nothing compared to elsewhere. Or the blatant disregard for international convention - something they seem happy to do with so many unsigned treaties they are not party to.
And if that mechanism of death is so abhorrent to the US regime then why simulate it with waterboarding? Something they seem rather happy to do.
Either it's the indiscriminate death - they seemed happy with what goes on elsewhere in far greater numbers. The method of death - something they happily simulate. Or the quantity - which is nothing compared to elsewhere. Or the blatant disregard for international convention - something they seem happy to do with so many unsigned treaties they are not party to.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 20 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 3,814
- Location
- Cambridge/Chicago
tea has caffeine so cant go to sleep straight after one.
If anyone I loved was killed by another human, I would not care if it was a chemical weapon or a punch that caused it. It only matters to politicians.
Syria is a civil war and it is not pretty, none are.
There is no attainable objective that can be achieved by anyone from the outside using military assets, other than making things worse.
If Assad had invaded and occupied another country, we could have an objective that we could achieve.
With the Falklands we could see the problem, argies needed to be removed, so there was an objective we could identify and execute.
I think Dave was wanting to "do the right thing" but did not think it through, nothing new there though.
Syria is a civil war and it is not pretty, none are.
There is no attainable objective that can be achieved by anyone from the outside using military assets, other than making things worse.
If Assad had invaded and occupied another country, we could have an objective that we could achieve.
With the Falklands we could see the problem, argies needed to be removed, so there was an objective we could identify and execute.
I think Dave was wanting to "do the right thing" but did not think it through, nothing new there though.