Straw that broke the camel's back?


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Straw that broke the camel's back?

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 22 · Next
Author Message
Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11977
Credit: 1,797,081
RAC: 593
Bermuda
Message 1406891 - Posted: 23 Aug 2013, 13:39:55 UTC

We have much of Europe in a mess with many now realising that the open door policy is not working.

We have the US with internal dissension.

Spain using Gibraltar to hide it's internal woes with the same actions by Argentina.
Afghanistan
Iraq
Libya
Iran

It's a century next year with many nations that faught during WWI holding Remembrance celebrations. However, during that conflict chemical weapons were used frequently with the major one being Mustard Gas.

The Nazi's developed their own during WWII but the question is, Why didn't they use it on the battlefields? Answer because if they did, it would have given the allies a reason to blanket Germany. end of conflict.

So.....

Syria's darketest hour

Obama Syria's chemicals grave concern

Several statements proving worrisome to sensible people.....

"Mr Obama said the US was still seeking confirmation such weapons were used, but if proved true the situation would "require America's attention"."

"The British government believes the regime of President Bashar al-Assad is responsible for the attack, Foreign Secretary William Hague said on Friday."

"French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius has warned that France must react "with force" if the use of chemical weapons was confirmed."

From the 1st link:

"Diplomats, who did not want to be named, told the Associated Press that Russia and China blocked a stronger press statement supported by Britain, France, the United States and others." WHY?

24 hours later:

"Meanwhile Russia's foreign ministry said in a statement on Friday: "The Russian side called on the Syrian government to co-operate with the UN chemical experts."

Question now is:

Localised war a la Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan or a global conflict unlike anything experienced to date?
____________

Profile James Sotherden
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 9130
Credit: 37,690,245
RAC: 36,130
United States
Message 1407188 - Posted: 24 Aug 2013, 6:57:23 UTC

I think niether. Even localized war costs to damn much. And if Russia is saying Syria needs to start listening that tells me Russia is losing money selling them crap. And China is to busy with the terratorial claims in thier back yard.

With most countires economys either in the toilet or near getting flushed down one, Why would any nation take that step to fiscal doom.
____________

Old James

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32653
Credit: 14,552,668
RAC: 14,935
United Kingdom
Message 1407217 - Posted: 24 Aug 2013, 9:00:04 UTC

I tend to agree James. At one time it was thought that Russia might invade Europe by land forces which is why we kept the BAOR for so long. Then some thought WWIII would be between the Russians and Americans with generals in bunkers pressing ICBM buttons. When the USSR went in 1991 the Cold War was then over. I don't think on top of a world recession that anyone really wants another worldwide conflict. The Middle East continues to bubble though, and of course there is the ongoing Iraeli-Palestine conflict.

Most people think it's all about oil, I see it differently. Most Middle East countries are either dictatorships, military coups, or strictly controlled by religion, and uprisings of the people against those regimes are becoming more frequent. They see tyrants like Hussein and Gaddafi toppled, decide to have a go themselves. An invasion of Iran is still not entirely ruled out in the future, although N Korea is unlikely to happen.

The current civil war crisis in Syria is however very worrying.

Late 2011 marked growing influence of the Islamist group Jabhat al-Nusra within the opposition forces, and in 2013 Hezbollah entered the war in support of the Syrian army. The regime is further upheld by support from Russia and Iran, while Qatar and Saudi Arabia transfer weapons to the rebels. In June 2013, the death toll surpassed 100,000 according to the United Nations. The USA and France are hinting they might have to intervene.

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11977
Credit: 1,797,081
RAC: 593
Bermuda
Message 1407245 - Posted: 24 Aug 2013, 10:23:32 UTC - in response to Message 1407217.

I tend to agree James.

An invasion of Iran is still not entirely ruled out in the future

The USA and France are hinting they might have to intervene.


Mutually exclusive.

So not military conflicts then?
____________

Profile James Sotherden
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 9130
Credit: 37,690,245
RAC: 36,130
United States
Message 1407356 - Posted: 24 Aug 2013, 16:57:34 UTC

And I still think the U.S. should keep our nose out of another nations civil war. Let them kill each other off and the world will be a better place.

But no, we help them topple a government and they replace it with something just as bad and still hate our guts.

As for Iran. The UN should get some balls and tell them flat out that if you use a nuke on another your country will cease to exist.

Im not an isolationist but just because some country wants to wage a civil war That should be thier business not ours.
____________

Old James

NickProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 4038
Credit: 2,072,411
RAC: 769
United Kingdom
Message 1407359 - Posted: 24 Aug 2013, 17:00:35 UTC

On my mind I have one question, "Does the West need to get involved"?

____________
The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Profile j mercer
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 3 Jun 99
Posts: 1464
Credit: 11,696,849
RAC: 51
United States
Message 1407373 - Posted: 24 Aug 2013, 17:47:38 UTC - in response to Message 1407359.

On my mind I have one question, "Does the West need to get involved"?

no
____________
...

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32653
Credit: 14,552,668
RAC: 14,935
United Kingdom
Message 1407384 - Posted: 24 Aug 2013, 18:38:48 UTC

And I still think the U.S. should keep our nose out of another nations civil war

I agree in terms of politics.

Let them kill each other off and the world will be a better place.

If many thousands of innocent men women and children are being slaughtered by various illegal means, allegedly including chemical warfare, is it right that the rest of the world turns a blind eye? Shouldn't we intervene on humanitarian grounds?

As for Iran. The UN should get some balls and tell them flat out that if you use a nuke on another your country will cease to exist.

The UN is a talking shop, it does not have it's own military forces. The blue hats are Internationally accepted peacekeepers, who are armed simply for their own personal protection. Very much like the Army Medical Corps and Red Cross are. There is no World army, only a collection of individual nations that will, when necessary form a coalition to fight a common enemy. The UN has no powers to order one country to attack another one, but what it can do is to issue Security Council Resolutions that call upon a country or countries to cease hostilities as in the Syria case 2108. But it has no powers to enforce that resolution, although most Member States heed them.

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 13200
Credit: 7,974,789
RAC: 15,876
United States
Message 1407441 - Posted: 24 Aug 2013, 20:49:16 UTC - in response to Message 1407384.

If many thousands of innocent men women and children are being slaughtered by various illegal means, allegedly including chemical warfare, is it right that the rest of the world turns a blind eye? Shouldn't we intervene on humanitarian grounds?

If they are willing to use chemical weapons, what makes you think that they are willing to listen to humanitarian arguments?

The other method is violence, essentially pick out a side to be slaughtered and do it yourself. Can't stop until they are so completely defeated that they give up their belief. Otherwise you end up with another Arab / Israel conflict that never has an end.

____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32653
Credit: 14,552,668
RAC: 14,935
United Kingdom
Message 1407445 - Posted: 24 Aug 2013, 21:06:52 UTC

Medecins Sans Frontieres says hospitals it supports in Syria treated about 3,600 patients with "neurotoxic symptoms", of whom 355 have died. It said the patients had arrived in three hospitals in the Damascus governorate on 21 August - when opposition activists say chemical attacks were launched against rebels. "MSF can neither scientifically confirm the cause of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack," said MSF Director of Operations Bart Janssens.

"However, the reported symptoms of the patients, in addition to the epidemiological pattern of the events, characterised by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers, strongly indicate mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent.

"This would constitute a violation of international humanitarian law, which absolutely prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons."


Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11977
Credit: 1,797,081
RAC: 593
Bermuda
Message 1407458 - Posted: 24 Aug 2013, 21:41:42 UTC - in response to Message 1407445.

Oh dearie me. What political B/S. International law has no teeth as we have all seen over the past several years. Has it stopped the conflicts or the use of chemical weapons?

Dear old Willie Vague had better learn to keep his trap shut as well as that French muppet.

I'm not being nasty as any decent human being seeing those distressing pictures of those dead children will feel pain. The fact remains - on this the West should remain clear of. Otherwise the "current" war on terror will seem but a picnic compared to what will occur.
____________

NickProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 4038
Credit: 2,072,411
RAC: 769
United Kingdom
Message 1407467 - Posted: 24 Aug 2013, 22:27:57 UTC
Last modified: 24 Aug 2013, 22:42:57 UTC

I'm not being nasty as any decent human being seeing those distressing pictures of those dead children will feel pain. The fact remains - on this the West should remain clear of. Otherwise the "current" war on terror will seem but a picnic compared to what will occur.

Me too, I have reservations about getting too involved in that dam business
going over there. I'd say it's best to stick with the enemies we know we've got
rather than getting involved there with the risk to gaining even more of them.
____________
The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Profile James Sotherden
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 9130
Credit: 37,690,245
RAC: 36,130
United States
Message 1407511 - Posted: 25 Aug 2013, 4:46:02 UTC

Iraq and Iran are said to have used chemical weapons on each other in the war they had. Iraq used chemical weapons on thier own people. ( the Kurds I think ) Where was the worlds outrage at that?

I got tired of my own government supporting no good rotten dictators because we paid them a lot of cash so they would not go communist. Which in turn led a lot of innocent people being treated worse than crap.

As far as Im concerned if a nation wants to self distruct and kill each other let them.

As far as the UN goes they are usless. All it takes is one veto in the security council and its a no go.So why even bother to have a UN


____________

Old James

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32653
Credit: 14,552,668
RAC: 14,935
United Kingdom
Message 1407538 - Posted: 25 Aug 2013, 7:37:53 UTC

The UK and the US have threatened a "serious response" if it emerges Syria used chemical weapons last week. Prime Minister David Cameron and President Barack Obama spoke on the telephone for 40 minutes on Saturday. Both were "gravely concerned" by the "increasing signs that this was a significant chemical weapons attack carried out by the Syrian regime", Mr Cameron's office said in a statement.

At present both sides are blaming each other for the chemical attacks, as you would expect, but no-one seems to be denying that they did in fact take place, which is yet to be confirmed by UN inspectors.

And yes in the case of Iraq it was said at the time that the invasion was also partly in response to the Kurds massacre, as well as possible WMD. The aim was to remove Hussein from power to prevent any more Kurd attacks and to neutralise any WMD. In the event the WMD issue was a damp squib, but there was one less brutal dictator.

What worries me is Russia's apparent support for the Syrian regime, with the West on the side of the rebels, but apparently talks are about to begin which is welcome. I'm hoping it is a signal that neither Russia nor the USA want this to escalate into a war against each other. It would suit both sides in many ways to find a peaceful solution to the civil war out there.

In terms of the UN, the Security Council has 15 members, but the Power of Veto only applies to the "P5" permanent members, China, France, Russia, UK, and USA. Thus enabling them to prevent the adoption of any "substantive" draft Council resolution, regardless of the level of international support for the draft. Abstention or absence from the vote by a permanent member does not prevent a draft resolution from being adopted.

Russia/USA talks

Russian support

BBC News

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32653
Credit: 14,552,668
RAC: 14,935
United Kingdom
Message 1407569 - Posted: 25 Aug 2013, 9:32:55 UTC

From the front page of todays Sunday Times

Allies move towards air war on Syria
Cruise missile targets selected

BRITISH and US military planners are drawing up potential targets for missile strikes on Syria amid growing certainty that the Assad regime was behind chemical weapons attacks which killed hundreds of civilians last week. David Cameron and Barack Obama discussed “a serious response” including military action in a 40-minute phone call last night, according to Downing Street. While there has been no decision on whether to go ahead with a strike, staff in London and Washington are compiling a list of targets, among a range of options.

Cameron is going to have to put the option of military action to Parliament first which isn't due to return until 2nd September. Next Wednesdays meeting with the US and Russia will be a bit fraught I would guess. I also note that Canada was party to the discussions.

UK/USA/Canada

Sunday Times

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11977
Credit: 1,797,081
RAC: 593
Bermuda
Message 1407599 - Posted: 25 Aug 2013, 13:57:15 UTC - in response to Message 1407569.

Talk, talk, talk. Just who talks for the dead?

At least one nation urges caution, and a surprisingly one at that.....

Germany urge caution
____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32653
Credit: 14,552,668
RAC: 14,935
United Kingdom
Message 1407602 - Posted: 25 Aug 2013, 14:18:07 UTC

The longer talking goes on, the less people get killed in the meantime.

The Merkel government has not shrunk from all relevant military roles. It sent personnel to help in Iraq and Mali, and AWACs to Libya (and to Afghanistan to free up allies' own planes for use in Libya). German Patriot batteries installed under NATO in Turkey have already detected hundreds of missiles fired in Syria this year.


Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11977
Credit: 1,797,081
RAC: 593
Bermuda
Message 1407604 - Posted: 25 Aug 2013, 14:24:56 UTC - in response to Message 1407602.

The longer talking goes on, the less people get killed in the meantime.

The Merkel government has not shrunk from all relevant military roles. It sent personnel to help in Iraq and Mali, and AWACs to Libya (and to Afghanistan to free up allies' own planes for use in Libya). German Patriot batteries installed under NATO in Turkey have already detected hundreds of missiles fired in Syria this year.




1: Why are the Patriots there?
2: Nothing done to knock those missles out of the sky especially as some of those missles hit Turkey?
3: So those killed don't get a voice?
____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32653
Credit: 14,552,668
RAC: 14,935
United Kingdom
Message 1407613 - Posted: 25 Aug 2013, 14:43:27 UTC
Last modified: 25 Aug 2013, 14:44:03 UTC

1: Why are the Patriots there?

"German Patriot batteries installed under NATO". Have a word with NATO.

The current Secretary General is Anders Fogh Rasmussen, former Prime Minister of Denmark.

2: Nothing done to knock those missles out of the sky especially as some of those missles hit Turkey?

Ditto

3: So those killed don't get a voice?

Those left behind to speak upon their behalf do. If you are in a combative mood this afternoon, then directing it at posts at Seti is not helpful. Write to Downing Street, contact your MP, write to London Embassies etc.

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11977
Credit: 1,797,081
RAC: 593
Bermuda
Message 1407616 - Posted: 25 Aug 2013, 14:53:15 UTC - in response to Message 1407613.

Repost that after we've gone into Syria or in your glass walled ivory tower, do you think it's not going to happen?

However, if it does, who's going to pay for it? Our military manpower is drastically being reduced and we are in austere times.

It seems the muppets in power want their bread buttered on both sides.
____________

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 22 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Straw that broke the camel's back?

Copyright © 2014 University of California