Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack
- Thread starter Craig1981
- Start date
It's penciled in. They support 'repatriation of powers' and have already been told no. That's just fuel to the Tory euro-skeptics jumping about the backbenches like feral animals.
Claimed to have not happened if the BBC tweet is right, but then there are apparently previous statements so I guess we won't find out until later.
What is the difference between those two situations?
It's ok to sell these chemicals to nation in civil war as long as you aren't banned from doing it?
I see it now thanks.
No more or less hearsay than the reporter you chose because it fits?
I never said it was illegal, I don't think anyone has, so I'm unsure as to why you continue to focus on that.
It's a question of responsibility and morallity.
So lets just dismiss everything everyone else bar the ruling party might have to say?
There's a bit of a fallacy in there, somewhere, isn't there?
The fallacy being that I am not dismissing anything or anyone, simply pointing out that you were incorrect in your assumptions..and now appear to be trying to cover that fact up with ever broadening argument.
If it turns out the Government did something wrong then they should be called up on it, however so far it appears that not much has happened except a few MP's trying to make some political capital out of a few Precursor Licences given to exporters.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
giving the fsa weapons is what the us has been doing and wants to do more 9f. Of course they want regime change, that's why they want to strike at assad now to try and give the fsa as much chance as possible to reverse the tide of this conflict.
USA know with every passing day assad is weakening the rebels and need to strike now to give them any chance to win.
Castiel said:
Castiel said:
Castiel said:
Castiel said:
Not dismissive you say?
We must live on different planets. Or you're really a woman.
More of "Assad's little helpers"? (David Cameron, 2013).
Permabanned
- Joined
- 20 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 3,814
- Location
- Cambridge/Chicago
its other way in fact... Assad now has far modern military equipment that he ever had, things like S-300 and anti-ship missiles supplied by Russia... What most people dont realize is that there are Russian ships near coasts of Syria, they are most likely providing Radar information to Syrian army.... Since all the weapons supplied are made in Russia this is even easier.
Detecting and locking onto any aircraft or ship in the area is now a piece of cake for the army. The Russians can be within viewing distance of lets say US ships and relay information to assad, with coordinates for strike. I am pretty sure there will be jamming warfare going on between russians and US should the things heat up.
With presence of Russian navy, nothing will go un-detected and no more Israeli strikes will go without losses.
Assad is in best shape he ever was.
The argument you initially gave was based on a false premise..the argument given by several MP's is also based on a seemly if different false premise. This is not dismissive, it is an objective disagreement with their reasons and motivations for their relative positions.
As I said, if the Government (or rather the dept that issued the licences) is found to have done so illegally or with prior knowledge of their alleged use then they should be held accountable...but until there is actual evidence then it all boils down to hearsay.
I no more support military action based on what we currently know than you do, and I certainly do not support attacking the Assad Regime as that will only make a bad situation worse...if military action is necessary then it must be done in such a way that neither side is given a military advantage. Military Action should be a last resort to bring about a settlement, not to forcibly install another regime.
Last edited:
Not to mention he sits on a border with Israel. Who do you think would be the first target in any retaliation?
Well either them or Saudi, their government has been pretty vocal in their opposition
Uhhh...Syria? ;p
What is the false premise?
Castiel said:
What, granted the licenses?
Apparently it was admitted in June I'll have a look.
Indeed, plenty of Western Targets within easy reach of Assad's Forces in the region. Not to mention the problem that the Rebels are also made up of anti Western Islamists and various other factions who we should really not be supporting, even indirectly.
Assad is the head of the Syrian Government...Syria shares a border with Israel.
The point.
That the Licences were Military ones and all the assumptions you made on then nature of the exports based on that. With regards the MP's, the assumptions that the Chemicals were used by the Assad Regime, the assumption that the orders the licences referred to were fulfilled and if they were that they were knowingly approved under those assumptions.
If the licences were granted illegally or procedures to ascertain the legitimacy of the exporting and importing companies were not followed then those that granted the licences should be held accountable. So far there seems to be a dearth of evidence to support either case.
The point.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Irony.