Britain may join U.S. strikes against Syria if chemical weapon use proven

[webfact]

Britain may join U.S. strikes against Syria if chemical weapon use proven

 

Britain's Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson delivers a speech on Brexit at the Polixy Exchange in central London, Britain, February 14, 2018. REUTERS/Peter Nicholls

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain would consider joining U.S. military strikes against the Syrian government if there is evidence chemical weapons are being used against civilians, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said on Tuesday.

 

Johnson said he hoped Britain and other Western nations would not stand by in the event of a chemical attack, voicing support for limited strikes if there is "incontrovertible evidence" of the Syrian's government involvement.

 

"If we know that it has happened, and we can demonstrate it, and if there is a proposal for action where the UK could be useful then I think we should seriously consider it," Johnson told BBC radio.

 

Over the past week, Syria's army and its allies have subjected the rebel-held enclave of Ghouta near Damascus to one of the heaviest bombardments of the seven-year war, killing hundreds.

 

Britain is part of the U.S.-led coalition involved in air attacks on Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, but the government lost a parliamentary vote on the use of force against Syrian government in 2013.

 

Johnson said he supported the U.S. decision to fire cruise missile at Syrian government targets last year after almost 100 people, including children, were killed in a gas attack on the opposition-held town of Khan Sheikhoun.

 

The United Nations accused the Syrian government of being responsible for an attack that used sarin gas.

 

"What we need to ask ourselves as a country and what we in the the West need to ask ourselves, is can we allow the use of chemical weapons, the use of these illegal weapons to go unreproved, unchecked, unpunished," Johnson said.

 

However, he warned there was little international appetite for sustained military action against the Syrian regime.

 

"The people listening to us and this program in eastern Ghouta cannot get the idea the West is going to intervene to change the odds dramatically in their favour," he said.

 

The Syrian government has repeatedly denied using chemical weapons and said it targets only armed rebels and militants.

 

(Reporting By Andrew MacAskill and Michael Holden, editing by Guy Faulconbridge)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-02-28

[Nasrullah]

Just like sadams weapons of mass destruction Colin Powell perpetuated on us......Oh dear!!

[colinneil]

Boris you silly bugger, stop being a plonker, learn from history, you know ......Weapons of mass destruction that never existed.

The US military will say anything just to get other countries to support their lies.

[Lungstib]

Am I understanding this? If it can be proved chemical weapons were used more bombs and missiles can be dropped into this devastated country. And that will fix something?

[NanLaew]

Aint gonna happen. Boris is going off-script again.

 

Obama drew a couple of lines in the sand regarding chemical weapons and a US-led intervention. Not really sure if Trump's red-capped, ra-ra boys will see this armed intervention in a Muslim country as somehow contributing to MAGA although his military brass, just like their forebears, will be itching to test some 'new technologies' over there.

[soalbundy]

Go for it poodle, America hasn't enough planes or bombs we need the gallant few again, Jesus you couldn't make this up.

[Baerboxer]

Great thinking Boris. We could sent our new aircraft carrier if the leaks have been repaired. Or perhaps fly from Cyprus with one or both our aircraft 

 

That'll make a big big difference. Bet Assad and Putin will be worried sick once they can stop laughing.

[than]

I'm not sure that British pilots want to test the Russian S-400 system...

[Krataiboy]

Americans are such lousy losers - and hypocrites. Their widespread use of weapons enhanced with depleted uranium in the Gulf and Iraq war - over 180,000 shells unleashed in Iraq alone - has caused untold ongoing damage to life and land.

 

Strictly speaking, of course,these are not chemical weapons.  Try telling that to an Iraqi woman who has just given birth to a stillborn or deformed child or a farmer whose land is contaminated with deadly radiation.

[Basil B]

13 hours ago, webfact said:

Britain may join U.S. strikes against Syria if chemical weapon use proven

This would be a strike against Russia...

[Grouse]

Here we go, here we go, here we go.....,

 

Hang on, everybody's gone

 

 

( Maybe we can have a trade deal Mr Tango? Sir?)

[Benmart]

On 2/28/2018 at 7:20 PM, Krataiboy said:

Americans are such lousy losers - and hypocrites. Their widespread use of weapons enhanced with depleted uranium in the Gulf and Iraq war - over 180,000 shells unleashed in Iraq alone - has caused untold ongoing damage to life and land.

 

Strictly speaking, of course,these are not chemical weapons.  Try telling that to an Iraqi woman who has just given birth to a stillborn or deformed child or a farmer whose land is contaminated with deadly radiation.

Who is this Iraqi woman and farmer by name and location?  

 

Your broard brush claim that "Americans are such lousy losers - and hypocrites", paints your own portrait with the same dull colors.

 

Emotion to support a position is on weak ground.

[Guest]

On 28/02/2018 at 7:20 PM, Krataiboy said:

Strictly speaking, of course,these are not chemical weapons.  Try telling that to an Iraqi woman who has just given birth to a stillborn or deformed child or a farmer whose land is contaminated with deadly radiation.

Depleted uranium contains 0.3% U-235, which is half what natural uranium contains (0.7%). Both major isotopes U-235 and U-238 have half-life of millions/billions of years. The radiation is not a problem. 

[Odysseus123]

"We'll hang out our washing on the Siegfried Line.."

 

Britain hangs on down to the last Spitfire...HMS Victory reactivated...Battle of the Somme reenactments postponed to next week..when it will be raining...as usual.

[Krataiboy]

On 3/2/2018 at 7:55 AM, Benmart said:

Who is this Iraqi woman and farmer by name and location?  

 

Your broard brush claim that "Americans are such lousy losers - and hypocrites", paints your own portrait with the same dull colors.

 

Emotion to support a position is on weak ground.

Oh, dear. Another head to be jerked out of the sand. Maybe you, too, will get a little emotional when you are better informed. Try these links for starters:

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig.../us-depleted-uranium-as-ma_b_3812888.html

 

https://www.globalresearch.ca/depleted-uranium-and-radioactive-contamination-in-iraq-an-overview/5605215

[Krataiboy]

On 3/2/2018 at 8:10 AM, oilinki said:

Depleted uranium contains 0.3% U-235, which is half what natural uranium contains (0.7%). Both major isotopes U-235 and U-238 have half-life of millions/billions of years. The radiation is not a problem. 

Several studies . . . suggest the possibility of leukemogenic, genetic, reproductive, and neurological effects from chronic exposure. A 2005 epidemiology review concluded: "In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU." - Wikipedia.

 

We've had a lot more evidence, much of it literally in the field, to confirm this reality and other horrors relating to the use of DU-enhanced weaponry, as indicated by the links I have given my reply to Benmart on the same subject.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Krataiboy

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Several studies . . . suggest the possibility of leukemogenic, genetic, reproductive, and neurological effects from chronic exposure. A 2005 epidemiology review concluded: "In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU." - Wikipedia.

 

We've had a lot more evidence, much of it literally in the field, to confirm this reality and other horrors relating to the use of DU-enhanced weaponry, as indicated by the links I have given my reply to Benmart on the same subject.

Yes? And has that anything to do with the radiation?

 

There is a reason we don't like to use heavy metals, like led as our drinking glasses or we don't submerge ourselves to mercury bahts, no matter how fun it would feel like. Heavy metals are often toxic to humans, which has nothing to do with radioactivity. 

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎2‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 7:20 PM, Krataiboy said:

Americans are such lousy losers - and hypocrites. Their widespread use of weapons enhanced with depleted uranium in the Gulf and Iraq war - over 180,000 shells unleashed in Iraq alone - has caused untold ongoing damage to life and land.

 

Strictly speaking, of course,these are not chemical weapons.  Try telling that to an Iraqi woman who has just given birth to a stillborn or deformed child or a farmer whose land is contaminated with deadly radiation.

I don't know how many depleted uranium munitions are lying around in Iraq, but if they haven't been removed, that would be down to the Iraq government. They've had more than a few years to do so.

 

However, re the OP, if the British government think being the US poodle again in a middle east country where the US government has no business interfering anyway is a good idea, they are even worse than I thought they were. They can't fund the NHS and they think spending loadsacash on a pointless conflict is a good idea.

I guess they didn't learn the lesson in Iraq.

I'm hoping that Boris is just saying what he's been ordered to say, and doesn't actually believe it. If he does believe it, I just lost my only good guy in the British government.

[ilostmypassword]

11 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I don't know how many depleted uranium munitions are lying around in Iraq, but if they haven't been removed, that would be down to the Iraq government. They've had more than a few years to do so.

 

However, re the OP, if the British government think being the US poodle again in a middle east country where the US government has no business interfering anyway is a good idea, they are even worse than I thought they were. They can't fund the NHS and they think spending loadsacash on a pointless conflict is a good idea.

I guess they didn't learn the lesson in Iraq.

I'm hoping that Boris is just saying what he's been ordered to say, and doesn't actually believe it. If he does believe it, I just lost my only good guy in the British government.

Like the mines that the US laid down in Laos are the responsibility of the Laotian government? Really?

I agree with the rest of your post, though.

[Odysseus123]

44 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I don't know how many depleted uranium munitions are lying around in Iraq, but if they haven't been removed, that would be down to the Iraq government. They've had more than a few years to do so.

 

However, re the OP, if the British government think being the US poodle again in a middle east country where the US government has no business interfering anyway is a good idea, they are even worse than I thought they were. They can't fund the NHS and they think spending loadsacash on a pointless conflict is a good idea.

I guess they didn't learn the lesson in Iraq.

I'm hoping that Boris is just saying what he's been ordered to say, and doesn't actually believe it. If he does believe it, I just lost my only good guy in the British government.

And the Australian gov't too...

 

Poodles are as poodles do.

 

Just last  week I had a conversation with a soldier back from Iraq-the main problem appeared to be that the infantry were becoming obese-living in a vast air conditioned camp-doing sweet FA.

 

A great munitions testing ground tho'.

 

Even the Romans knew that you had to clean up the crap left on the battlefield.

 

Have you read John Brunner's novel "Stand on Zanzibar"?A vision of perpetual war fueled by Multi-Nationals..

Edited March 3, 2018 by Odysseus123

[thaibeachlovers]

51 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Like the mines that the US laid down in Laos are the responsibility of the Laotian government? Really?

I agree with the rest of your post, though.

Actually, the fact the US hasn't got rid of it's unexploded ordnance in Laos is a scandal, and shame on the US for not doing so. No surprise though.

 

Completely different in Iraq though, as the Iraq government told the US to leave, which means they assumed the responsibility. They are also an oil rich country and can afford to do so.

 

Laos is an impoverished country that can't do it themselves.

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Actually, the fact the US hasn't got rid of it's unexploded ordnance in Laos is a scandal, and shame on the US for not doing so. No surprise though.

 

Completely different in Iraq though, as the Iraq government told the US to leave, which means they assumed the responsibility. They are also an oil rich country and can afford to do so.

 

Laos is an impoverished country that can't do it themselves.

First off, the US gave Laos money to do the demining. The US isn't doing it.

Second, the USA engaged in an unjustified invasion of Iraq. It is morally responsible for cleaning up the damage no matter how wealthy the Iraqi government may be. And with the decline in oil prices, Iraq has plenty of other things to spend money on. It is a nation of roughly 25 million. And since it gives money to Laos, there is no good reason why it shouldn't do the same for Laos. 

The only way your argument about Iraq being responsible because it asked the USA to leave, would be if you believe that the US invasion and continued presence in Iraw was justified. Do you believe that?

[Odysseus123]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Actually, the fact the US hasn't got rid of it's unexploded ordnance in Laos is a scandal, and shame on the US for not doing so. No surprise though.

 

Completely different in Iraq though, as the Iraq government told the US to leave, which means they assumed the responsibility. They are also an oil rich country and can afford to do so.

 

Laos is an impoverished country that can't do it themselves.

Agreed..

 

But it was a fit of pique...how dare these countries not appreciate "Truth,justice and the American way?..and so they have lost SE Asia.

 

Of all the conquerors they are the dumbest.

 

They have been lying since 1775-and they are still going strong.

 

Number one in obesity tho'-that must count for something.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

First off, the US gave Laos money to do the demining. The US isn't doing it.

Second, the USA engaged in an unjustified invasion of Iraq. It is morally responsible for cleaning up the damage no matter how wealthy the Iraqi government may be. And with the decline in oil prices, Iraq has plenty of other things to spend money on. It is a nation of roughly 25 million. And since it gives money to Laos, there is no good reason why it shouldn't do the same for Laos. 

The only way your argument about Iraq being responsible because it asked the USA to leave, would be if you believe that the US invasion and continued presence in Iraw was justified. Do you believe that?

I was going to reply, but too far off topic, so won't.

Edited March 3, 2018 by thaibeachlovers

[Odysseus123]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Give money to the Laotian government to do something and expect it will actually get spent doing that job. Are they demented?

No--he Laotian gov't tried to do the job..

 

The problem is that the huge amount of cluster bomblets rained down on Laos sank into rice paddies..where they gradually float to the surface and then..boom!

 

This is the same phenomenon that is observed in Flanders from the Great War.

 

The US also evades responsibility for "Agent Orange" in Vietnam and the indiscriminate use of munitions throughout SE Asia..

 

Not only are they poor losers (Puritans) but they couldn't hit a bull in the bum with a handful of rice.

 

Immune to criticism, they are totally incompetent.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Odysseus123

[thaibeachlovers]

8 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

No--he Laotian gov't tried to do the job..

 

The problem is that the huge amount of cluster bomblets rained down on Laos sank into rice paddies..where they gradually float to the surface and then..boom!

 

This is the same phenomenon that is observed in Flanders from the Great War.

 

The US also evades responsibility for "Agent Orange" in Vietnam and the indiscriminate use of munitions throughout SE Asia..

 

Not only are they poor losers (Puritans) but they couldn't hit a bull in the bum with a handful of rice.

 

Immune to criticism, they are totally incompetent.

Please note that I deleted that reply as too far off topic.

[simple1]

You would assume white phosphorus and cluster bombs are killing and injuring far more civilians in densely populated areas than chemical weapons in Syria. Why no objection to their use? However, IMO, it begs the bigger question, if HMG attacks Syrian regime targets what is HMG's strategic goal.

[Odysseus123]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Please note that I deleted that reply as too far off topic.

 

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Please note that I deleted that reply as too far off topic.

Okay..but curiously enough, it isn't

 

If you are going to fight a war please take your junk home with  you.

 

Strangely enough this is the advice given to king Mithradates by the Roman consul Gaius Marius-clean the shit up-and take some responsibility for it.

[soalbundy]

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

You would assume white phosphorus and cluster bombs are killing and injuring far more civilians in densely populated areas than chemical weapons in Syria. Why no objection to their use? However, IMO, it begs the bigger question, if HMG attacks Syrian regime targets what is HMG's strategic goal.

Trade with the 'special relation'

[thaibeachlovers]

12 minutes ago, simple1 said:

However, IMO, it begs the bigger question, if HMG attacks Syrian regime targets what is HMG's strategic goal.

A poodle needs no strategic goal. They do whatever their master wishes of them.