Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56305
    14 Apr '18 06:06
    From the BBC:
    “UK Prime Minister Theresa May confirmed British involvement, saying there was "no practicable alternative to the use of force".”

    And that, kids, is how we achieve peace.

    You know the state of the world, when you have to rely on people like Putin to behave rationally...
    I’m sure it will work out fine.
    I mean, what the hell could go wrong?
  2. Behind the scenes
    Joined
    27 Jun '16
    Moves
    1407
    14 Apr '18 09:40
    Originally posted by @shavixmir
    From the BBC:
    “UK Prime Minister Theresa May confirmed British involvement, saying there was "no practicable alternative to the use of force".”

    And that, kids, is how we achieve peace.

    You know the state of the world, when you have to rely on people like Putin to behave rationally...
    I’m sure it will work out fine.
    I mean, what the hell could go wrong?
    Normally I would agree, but there is no good solution for this.
  3. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56305
    14 Apr '18 10:04
    Originally posted by @mchill
    Normally I would agree, but there is no good solution for this.
    No good solution for what?
  4. Joined
    15 Jun '10
    Moves
    31961
    14 Apr '18 11:00
    Originally posted by @shavixmir
    No good solution for what?
    This.

    This has always been a thorny question; that's even worse.
  5. Joined
    05 Nov '06
    Moves
    81346
    14 Apr '18 12:37
    Originally posted by @shavixmir
    From the BBC:
    “UK Prime Minister Theresa May confirmed British involvement, saying there was "no practicable alternative to the use of force".”

    And that, kids, is how we achieve peace.

    You know the state of the world, when you have to rely on people like Putin to behave rationally...
    I’m sure it will work out fine.
    I mean, what the hell could go wrong?
    What a stupid fool! just allow the killing of innocent children with chlorine gas...you heartless fool!
  6. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56305
    14 Apr '18 12:54
    Originally posted by @mott-the-hoople
    What a stupid fool! just allow the killing of innocent children with chlorine gas...you heartless fool!
    Yah... not exactly sure who’s doing what with whatever, over there... are you?

    And see, that’s a bit of a problem, isn’t it?

    Now, say it was Assad (and why not believe Trump and May... perfectly sane individuals, both of them) and he used chemicals... when he’s on the winning hand... what do you think happens next?

    Yah... methinks you havn’t thought this through yet.
  7. SubscriberGhost of a Duke
    A Spirited Misfit
    in London
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    11023
    14 Apr '18 13:03
    With the weapons inspectors going in today, why wasn't action at least deferred until after their findings? What if the inspectors determine there is no evidence of any chemical weapons being used?
  8. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    14 Apr '18 13:53
    Originally posted by @mchill
    Normally I would agree, but there is no good solution for this.
    Trump walked himself into it by criticizing Obama for not following through on the Red Line threat. When it happened on his watch he had to follow through or lose face. His face is very important to him.
  9. SubscriberWOLFE63
    Tra il dire e il far
    C'e di mezzo il mar!
    Joined
    06 Nov '15
    Moves
    22130
    14 Apr '18 13:56
    Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
    With the weapons inspectors going in today, why wasn't action at least deferred until after their findings? What if the inspectors determine there is no evidence of any chemical weapons being used?
    Macron wants to prove he's manly.
    Theresa wants revenge for the Salisbury attack.
    Trump wants to do anything but be quiet.
  10. Joined
    15 Oct '10
    Moves
    97415
    14 Apr '18 14:02
    Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
    With the weapons inspectors going in today, why wasn't action at least deferred until after their findings? What if the inspectors determine there is no evidence of any chemical weapons being used?
    The independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic has confirmed at least 34 chemical attacks since 2013, all but six of which were confirmed to have been conducted by the Syrian government. This commission is an independent body established by the United Nation Human Rights Council to investigate human rights violations in Syria..
    A council spokesman said the commission was unable to verify reports from 2015 due to lack of access .
    Human rights Watch has reported that there have been 85 chemical attacks since 2013, verified by various sources including Amnesty International and United Nations Investigations.

    This inquiry is NOT breaking any new ground.
  11. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    14 Apr '18 14:46
    Originally posted by @shavixmir
    Yah... not exactly sure who’s doing what with whatever, over there... are you?

    And see, that’s a bit of a problem, isn’t it?

    Now, say it was Assad (and why not believe Trump and May... perfectly sane individuals, both of them) and he used chemicals... when he’s on the winning hand... what do you think happens next?

    Yah... methinks you havn’t thought this through yet.
    While the strikes were unfortunate, they were of such a limited nature as to make Russian military retaliation very unlikely. the US and its UK and French lapdogs avoided hitting anywhere near Russian forces and fired only about a 100 missiles, not significantly more than the 59 Trump used last year - which had no lasting effect. The Russians even claimed the Syrians successfully intercepted most of the missiles; regardless of the truth of that assertion, it surely minimizes any need for a further response.

    IF the Syrian government did use chemical weapons last week to secure the capture of Douma reasoning that, at most, there would be a "pin prick" attack by the West in response, they seem to be vindicated. IF the rebels staged such an attack hoping to draw a massive Western intervention to save them, they seem to have lost that gamble.

    Of course, the fact that Trump was praised, once again, even by some Democrats for bombing, surely means he will be more likely to do so again in the future since he craves approval.
  12. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    14 Apr '18 14:471 edit
    Originally posted by @stevemcc
    The independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic has confirmed at least 34 chemical attacks since 2013, all but six of which were confirmed to have been conducted by the Syrian government. This commission is an independent body established by the United Nation Human Rights Council to investigate human rights violations in Syr ...[text shortened]... International and United Nations Investigations.

    This inquiry is NOT breaking any new ground.
    Are you claiming that these strikes were in response to alleged chemical attacks in the past?

    The OHCHR press statement didn't jump to any conclusions:

    The Commission welcomes both the technical investigation about to be despatched by the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the commitment of the Syrian Arab Republic's representative at the United Nations Security Council that it will have full and unfettered access and freedom of movement in fulfilling its task.

    http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=22939&LangID=E
  13. Joined
    15 Oct '10
    Moves
    97415
    14 Apr '18 15:18
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    Are you claiming that these strikes were in response to alleged chemical attacks in the past?

    The OHCHR press statement didn't jump to any conclusions:

    The Commission welcomes both the technical investigation about to be despatched by the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the commitment of the Syrian Arab Republic's re ...[text shortened]... g its task.

    http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=22939&LangID=E
    No.
    I am saying that there is evidence already in hand that Assad uses chemical weapons and that the inquiry spawned by the most recent event is determinative of nothing other than that event.
    There is sufficient evidence already. To me this is clear. Is it not clear to you?
  14. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    14 Apr '18 15:291 edit
    Originally posted by @stevemcc
    No.
    I am saying that there is evidence already in hand that Assad uses chemical weapons and that the inquiry spawned by the most recent event is determinative of nothing other than that event.
    There is sufficient evidence already. To me this is clear. Is it not clear to you?
    Whether chemical weapons were used and by whom is something that must be determined by investigation regarding each event. The investigation into the latest allegation is in its infancy therefore military strikes based on claims that one side is guilty of using chemical weapons are premature in the extreme.
  15. SubscriberWOLFE63
    Tra il dire e il far
    C'e di mezzo il mar!
    Joined
    06 Nov '15
    Moves
    22130
    14 Apr '18 15:39
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    Whether chemical weapons were used and by whom is something that must be determined by investigation regarding each event. The investigation into the latest allegation is in its infancy therefore military strikes based on claims that one side is guilty of using chemical weapons are premature in the extreme.
    Assad has a severe shortage of manpower. He's facing an existential crisis.
    It would be naive to think that he's not used such weapons. He thinks he can continue to get away get away with it...because of his criminal pal's support in Moscow.
    However, Trump...ever the opportunist... telegraphed his intent to his buddy Putin, thus eliminating the potential long-term efficacy of last night's attack.
Back to Top