UK ministers back action to deter Syrian chemical weapon use

[Morch]

17 minutes ago, IAMHERE said:

Any attack over there could be a 'False Flag' , instigated by a USA agency. Just can not trust the intelligence agency's since they duped us with that false/fake information they fed Americans and the world to get us into Iraq.  We should have suspected after the Gulf of Tonkin False Flag event.

 

Iraq. Vietnam. Vietnam. Iraq.

Wish some posters would fast forward to the present.

[Expatthailover]

The madwoman and the  misogynist in chief in harmony eh.

A heady combination

[nausea]

"The UK government is "waiting for instructions" from Donald Trump about whether to launch a missile strike on Syria, Jeremy Corbyn has said." (BBC)

 

Airstrip One ready and waiting Sir (tugs forelock).

[Morch]

15 minutes ago, nausea said:

"The UK government is "waiting for instructions" from Donald Trump about whether to launch a missile strike on Syria, Jeremy Corbyn has said." (BBC)

 

Airstrip One ready and waiting Sir (tugs forelock).

 

If Corbyn said so, it must be an accurate representation.

[bristolboy]

22 minutes ago, nausea said:

"The UK government is "waiting for instructions" from Donald Trump about whether to launch a missile strike on Syria, Jeremy Corbyn has said." (BBC)

 

Airstrip One ready and waiting Sir (tugs forelock).

 

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

If Corbyn said so, it must be an accurate representation.

Well, since this is an operation that neither France nor the UK have the capability to carry out on their own, I think Corbyn's observation is essentially correct. This is a US operation with British and French auxiliaries.

[Morch]

14 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

 

Well, since this is an operation that neither France nor the UK have the capability to carry out on their own, I think Corbyn's observation is essentially correct. This is a US operation with British and French auxiliaries.

 

Nah, Corbyn's description is calculated to score political points and little else. While the US may be in the lead position on this, it doesn't amount to dictating either the UK or France what's what. If anyone imagines that UK (or French) forces simply wait for their marching orders from Uncle Sam, well....it just doesn't work this way. There are a few things the UK brings to the table.

[evadgib]

 

[serialK]

3 hours ago, nausea said:

"The UK government is "waiting for instructions" from Donald Trump about whether to launch a missile strike on Syria, Jeremy Corbyn has said." (BBC)

 

Airstrip One ready and waiting Sir (tugs forelock).

 

chocks away then old boy

[Khun Han]

11 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I don't recall you having such qualms with regard to civilian casualties caused by Russia or Syria. The usual "we know" co-opting, and the "collateral damage" which wasn't mentioned, are flimsy cover for making partisan claims.

 

Had civilians been "targeted", or even not factored in the considerations leading to attacks by Western countries, you can be assured that the resulting death toll would have been way higher. For reference, consult Russia and Syria air operations.

 

 

 

Well, isn't that just splendid? The coalition will make sure that x amount of innocent civilians will die, as opposed to xx amount of innocent civilians. Isn't that so magnanimous of the coalition? I'm sure that the innocent civilians will be very comforted by that fact, as they are blown to smithereens/burned to death (yes 'Morch', that's what happens to innocent civilians when missiles are launched from afar). But I'm damned sure you'll retort with yet another prevarication and litany of excuses to justify such carnage .

[Khun Han]

7 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Iraq. Vietnam. Vietnam. Iraq.

Wish some posters would fast forward to the present.

 

Yes, let's fast forward to the present, where the Western allies have learned from their mistakes in Iraq and Lybia, and create much more complex scenarios to justify their campaigns.

 

[Khun Han]

11 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It seems the British have forgotten what happened the last time the UK went to war alongside the US over 'weapons of mass destruction'.

 

Or at least the PM and her cabinet choose to forget.

 

Leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, has reminded the PM of past mistakes and has challenged the PM that no decision for the UK to take military action in Syria should be made other than by vote of the UK Parliament. 

 

Regardless of your thoughts on Corbyn his advice here is sound.

 

I agree. Corbyn has gone up in my estimation with his stance (under immense pressure) over Salisbury and Syria.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Well, isn't that just splendid? The coalition will make sure that x amount of innocent civilians will die, as opposed to xx amount of innocent civilians. Isn't that so magnanimous of the coalition? I'm sure that the innocent civilians will be very comforted by that fact, as they are blown to smithereens/burned to death (yes 'Morch', that's what happens to innocent civilians when missiles are launched from afar). But I'm damned sure you'll retort with yet another prevarication and litany of excuses to justify such carnage .

 

Your faux moralizing would be a tad more credible had you taken a similar stand with regard to Russia's and Syria's conduct on these matters. Instead, you bring up complaints against parties, who while no angels, have a better record when it comes to the Syrian Civil War.

 

Instances of warfare often involve civilian casualties. Short of adopting an extreme pacifist stand, there is no way to completely avoid such. So yes, it is a matter of degrees, rather than the black and white version implied in your posts.

 

[Morch]

6 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Yes, let's fast forward to the present, where the Western allies have learned from their mistakes in Iraq and Lybia, and create much more complex scenarios to justify their campaigns.

 

 

You claim that it's a made up "complex scenario". That does not make it so.

[malagateddy]

Why would Assad who was winning the battle suddenly resort to the " chemical bit " ??
The yanks were going to " retire " from Syria.
The whole thing stinks imo

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, malagateddy said:

Why would Assad who was winning the battle suddenly resort to the " chemical bit " ??
The yanks were going to " retire " from Syria.
The whole thing stinks imo

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

 

Several possible explanation provided on previous posts and parallel topics. Ignoring such, and repeating the question doesn't project a whole lot of interest in discussion.

 

Ultimately, the rebels in question surrendered the day after the attack. Quick victory over a prolonged siege got to be of some value.

 

Then, there's the possibility of Assad's take on things being different to the one prescribed by pundits. Emboldened by military success, supported by Russia, and with Trump's announcement of an upcoming withdrawal, he may have reached a different set of conclusions as to what was on, and what he could get away with.

 

Also, there was a recent tripartite summit of major outside parties involved in the conflict (Russia, Iran, Turkey). Syria's future was discussed, and yet Assad was left out of it. Broadcasting a measure of independence and volatility may serve as a signal for friends and foes alike.

 

Expecting leaders to take only well thought out, rational decisions is unrealistic. Assuming that the factors playing in their decision making process fully correspond to what is seen as logical or rational by outsiders is a fallacy.

[Chomper Higgot]

British PM Theresa May has given orders for the UK military join these attacks.

 

The question she now has to ask is do the British people support her decision. 

 

Even hardline Tories I have spoken with are very anti joining this action. 

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

British PM Theresa May has given orders for the UK military join these attacks.

 

The question she now has to ask is do the British people support her decision. 

 

Even hardline Tories I have spoken with are very anti joining this action. 

 

Given your expressed views on this, doubt you'd advertise comments opposed to the last line of the above. Unless mistaken, the results of a recent poll (linked on one of these topics) showed  the public in the UK was split on the issue of the strikes against Syria, with a stronger opposition when the issue of a possible confrontation with Russia was introduced.

 

Seeing as this was probably a one-off thing, rather than a sustained operation, and that no clash with Russia ensued - guess public resistance would be somewhat less than expected.

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, Morch said:

 

Given your expressed views on this, doubt you'd advertise comments opposed to the last line of the above. Unless mistaken, the results of a recent poll (linked on one of these topics) showed  the public in the UK was split on the issue of the strikes against Syria, with a stronger opposition when the issue of a possible confrontation with Russia was introduced.

 

Seeing as this was probably a one-off thing, rather than a sustained operation, and that no clash with Russia ensued - guess public resistance would be somewhat less than expected.

Did you really intend to provide such an startling example of your failure to understand how easily war gets out hand.

[Ron19]

Troll post removed.

[Khun Han]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Your faux moralizing would be a tad more credible had you taken a similar stand with regard to Russia's and Syria's conduct on these matters. Instead, you bring up complaints against parties, who while no angels, have a better record when it comes to the Syrian Civil War.

 

Instances of warfare often involve civilian casualties. Short of adopting an extreme pacifist stand, there is no way to completely avoid such. So yes, it is a matter of degrees, rather than the black and white version implied in your posts.

 

 

blah, blah.....two wrongs make a right.....blah.....

 

[Morch]

8 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Did you really intend to provide such an startling example of your failure to understand how easily war gets out hand.

 

Going by the above logic, any military action, whatsoever, is a prelude to full scale war. Hence, presumably, no military action should ever be taken? Or something like that. Last time the US carried out a similar attack was months ago. The same nonsense was aired. In effect, the US was not dragged further into the conflict, and its involvement did not increase.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

blah, blah.....two wrongs make a right.....blah.....

 

 

Deflect all you like with the two-bit moralizing comments. They'd be halfway meaningful is you'd air similar views regarding the many civilian casualties directly caused by many Russian and Syrian attacks, rather than whinge about the supposed civilian casualties of single airstrike by the US. And no, there was nothing said about two wrongs make a right, other than in your deflection post.