ThisisBigBrother.com - UK TV Forums

ThisisBigBrother.com - UK TV Forums (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/index.php)
-   Serious Debates & News (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=61)
-   -   UK, US and France launch joint attack on Syria (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=337415)

arista 14-04-2018 02:27 PM

[Syria airstrikes: Jeremy Corbyn hits out at 'legally questionable' military action
The Labour leader criticises Theresa May for not seeking parliamentary approval and says "bombs won't save lives or bring peace".]
https://news.sky.com/story/syria-air...ction-11330060



Correct JC
but it was a 4AM Saturday Syria Time Attack led by America

Not Tuesday
a day after Parliament opens up.

thesheriff443 14-04-2018 02:28 PM

Every effort has been made to sort this out with talks, it's Russia that's has blocked independent teams going into Syria to look for evidence into the use of nerve gas.

Nerve gas has been banned and it's use illegal for nearly s century.

arista 14-04-2018 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thesheriff443 (Post 9958781)
Every effort has been made to sort this out with talks, it's Russia that's has blocked independent teams going into Syria to look for evidence into the use of nerve gas.

Nerve gas has been banned and it's use illegal for nearly s century.


Infact not blocked by their own ideas,
that not many others in UN would agree.

arista 14-04-2018 02:33 PM

Meanwhile The Russian and the Syrian Planes
will continue Normal air bombs today killing
all ISIS but also all innocents , near them.
Including Children.


Best is to move out
let ISIS remain alone.

arista 14-04-2018 02:44 PM

https://e3.365dm.com/18/04/536x302/s...20180414135317

Tom4784 14-04-2018 02:57 PM

Such an attack shouldn't have happened without approval from Parliament and Congress, this is the kind of attack that could so easily incite World War 3.

Have we not learned from our previous wars in the Middle East that nothing good comes from meddling in that region?

Brillopad 14-04-2018 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oliver_W (Post 9958775)
As far as I know the aim was to destroy their chemical weapon factories, not to specifically kill anyone. There's still the danger it will lead to things we don't want, like further conflict and migrants heading westward.

We don’t want either!

arista 14-04-2018 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 9958825)
Such an attack shouldn't have happened without approval from Parliament and Congress, this is the kind of attack that could so easily incite World War 3.

Have we not learned from our previous wars in the Middle East that nothing good comes from meddling in that region?


Dezzy
No one died
it was attacking Empty Chemical Building Plants.
4AM Syria time

Russia was made aware of these attacks

France , UK and the Leader USA
have not started WW3.

WW3 will start with other nations ,
I SAY.

Maru 14-04-2018 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 9958825)
Such an attack shouldn't have happened without approval from Parliament and Congress, this is the kind of attack that could so easily incite World War 3.

Have we not learned from our previous wars in the Middle East that nothing good comes from meddling in that region?

That's a genuine concern I think. Under most any other president, I think the prior lessons from our failures in Iraq would almost certainly be adhered to. I do think that Trump times these military events with local scandals, as it always seems to come with incredibly negative news coverage and so I feel like that's a side interest that can become a costly distraction... and I actively worry he's not of the good mind to carry forward a mission in Syria that is actually meaningful and successful. Actually, with every conflict like this, it does affect the US political/cultural climate locally (particularly our national psyche)... and I worry that he's not considering the psychological impact of these military actions, in a time when people are more seriously concerned about the state of our own democracy. My concern is if we were to then encroach further into Syria (not really certain at this point) and do another Iraq, try to bring democracy/stability that region, it may actually further inflame those cultural divisions here and lead to more than a war of ideas, but perhaps violence on our own soil by some of our own...

I wish I could say I was exaggerating with the latter. There aren't signs yet that the cultural bonds there have been disintegrated that far... but long-term it is a concern, as the divide and fractures continue to accumulate, that we aren't then doing things to reverse this process... and I do feel that a war, especially a badly executed PR mission, could be a genuine block on those cultural tensions between Americans being able to release and recede...

I think we had entered into Syria too late. I think the timing is a bit poor, but it doesn't mean we don't have options... and if it is limited to strikes and diplomacy, it may very well do some good in the region.

What can't continue is allowing Russia to push our leadership around and to have their way throughout across the world. NK and Iran are also an issue that will need to be dealt with over time, and if this strike creates further incentive to work with us rather than against us... then I think that some military action may not only be in order, but necessary to keep all parties invested in peace...

bots 14-04-2018 03:33 PM

let's take a little look back to the last few years.

Syria used chemical weapons, we tried countless times to get UN inspectors in, but this was vetoed by the russians SIX TIMES. When we did put sufficient pressure on to get things done, it was Russia that brokered the deal "removing" the chemical weapons.

Here we are now in the present day, and chemical weapons have been used again.Death from chemical weapons is horrific. It is unnecessarily cruel. To sit back and do nothing just because Russia says piss off, is to capitulate globally because having done it once and not faced consequences, they will just do it again, and again and again.


We can't just sit there and take this type of thing and surrender to what is a bully

reece(: 14-04-2018 03:40 PM

It should’ve gone to parliament, Miss May is getting trigger happy

arista 14-04-2018 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reece(: (Post 9958887)
It should’ve gone to parliament, Miss May is getting trigger happy


Its a one off.
The PM appears to get away with it,
maybe due to France and
the Leader USA.

Monday Afternoon
she will be ready for Parliament.

2022 The General Election
she even wants to hang on for that?

Crimson Dynamo 14-04-2018 05:55 PM

Nicola said that parliament should decide things like this not the American President

arista 14-04-2018 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet (Post 9958995)
Nicola said that parliament should decide things like this not the American President


Yes fair point

Scarlett. 14-04-2018 11:58 PM

BBC/Sky/Fox/CNN right now


Kizzy 15-04-2018 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 9958557)
There's nothing like dying children to make me want to send the bombers in.

Since when has may cared about those?..

https://www.indy100.com/article/peop...n-2016-8304756

Brillopad 15-04-2018 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reece(: (Post 9958887)
It should’ve gone to parliament, Miss May is getting trigger happy

Since when have many of the young ones on here given two hoots about the opinions of the ‘old farts’ in parliament. What do you suggest - allowing countries to use chemical weapons on innocent civilians until that is they try doing so to us. :rolleyes:

Kizzy 15-04-2018 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9959613)
Since when have many of the young ones on here given two hoots about the opinions of the ‘old farts’ in parliament. What do you suggest - allowing countries to use chemical weapons on innocent civilians until that is they try doing so to us. :rolleyes:

Weren't you just discussing ageism?... Reeces post was entirely reasonable and valid and you denigrate him for his view because he is young with your unfounded presumptions? :/

Brillopad 15-04-2018 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 9959624)
Weren't you just discussing ageism?... Reeces post was entirely reasonable and valid and you denigrate him for his view because he is young with your unfounded presumptions? :/

I commented in regard to what I have seen as the common young perspective on here from many of their ageist comments/posts before. Suddenly the old farts’ (a term, and equivalent I have heard myself on many occasions) opinions count. Very convenient.

user104658 15-04-2018 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9959631)
I commented in regard to what I have seen as the common young perspective on here from many of their ageist comments/posts before. Suddenly the old farts’ (a term, and equivalent I have heard myself on many occasions) opinions count. Very convenient.

This is a bit out there Brillo... It's directed at nothing, for one... And even if it was the case, it seems to be based on the idea that MPs are all old, which isn't even true.

Kazanne 15-04-2018 08:58 AM

Corbyn will be rubbing his hands with glee,any opportunity to have a go at May and he is there like a ferret up a trouser leg, he just wants to come across as caring and peaceful,yeah right.

Brillopad 15-04-2018 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kazanne (Post 9959645)
Corbyn will be rubbing his hands with glee,any opportunity to have a go at May and he is there like a ferret up a trouser leg, he just wants to come across as caring and peaceful,yeah right.

Unfortunately, some are easily fooled when they hear what they want to hear. Idealism is often not rational.

Vicky. 15-04-2018 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack_ (Post 9958770)


:joker:

How true..

Maru 15-04-2018 11:14 AM

France issues report detailing evidence of Assad role in chemical attacks
http://thehill.com/policy/internatio...le-in-chemical

Quote:

France issues report detailing evidence of Assad role in chemical attacks

France declassified a report on Saturday laying out evidence that officials said proves that a chemical attack in Syria last week was carried out by the government of President Bashar Assad.

The report claims that several chemical strikes were carried out in the Damascus suburb of Douma on April 7, and that symptoms experienced by the victims — skin burns, suffocation and other breathing difficulties, among other markers — were consistent with the effects of chlorine gas.

"Reliable intelligence indicates that Syrian military officials have coordinated what appears to be the use of chemical weapons containing chlorine on Douma, on April 7," the report, released by the French Foreign Ministry, reads.

The report also states that the Syrian government has carried out a number of chemical weapons strikes since April 4, 2017 — the same day a chemical attack in Syria's northern Idlib province left more than 80 civilians dead.

The U.S. issued an assessment on Friday night pointing to the Syrian government's role in the alleged chemical attacks in Douma.

That report cites "multiple media sources, the reported symptoms experienced by victims, videos and images showing two assessed barrel bombs from the attack, and reliable information indicating coordination between Syrian military officials before the attack."

The assessment also suggests that the Syrian government not only used chlorine in the attack on Douma, but that reported symptoms were also consistent with exposure to sarin, a deadly nerve agent.
The French and U.S. assessments came hours after leaders in Washington, Paris and London authorized "precision strikes" on targets in Syria believed to be associated with the country's chemical weapons arsenal.

Syria and its allies, Russia and Iran, have denied that Assad's government used chemical weapons, and have sought to blame both foreign actors and militant groups for staging the attacks in Douma.
Russia has accused the U.S. and its allies of failing to produce adequate evidence of the Syrian government's role in the chemical attack.

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the international chemical weapons watchdog, launched an investigation into the alleged chemical strikes on Douma on Saturday.

The allied strikes on Friday were cast by U.S. officials, not as a punishment for Assad's government, but as a means to eradicate Syria's chemical stockpile and production capabilities.

Lt. Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, the director of the Joint Staff, said Saturday that while the allied attacks dealt a blow to Syria's chemical weapons program, Damascus likely retained "residual" elements of its chemical arsenal.

President Trump and other U.S. officials have said that they are prepared to take further action in Syria, unless Assad's government ceases its alleged use of chemical weapons.

Brillopad 15-04-2018 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9959671)
How true..

I don’t think there is any nastiness intended in that - people just want to protect their own and their own way of life. People would prefer to help in other ways. We are a small Island and given time, probably not very long, the country will change too much and lose its identity - I don’t think that’s what many want - and they have every right to feel that way - most countries do if honest.

Brother Leon 15-04-2018 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kazanne (Post 9959645)
Corbyn will be rubbing his hands with glee,any opportunity to have a go at May and he is there like a ferret up a trouser leg, he just wants to come across as caring and peaceful,yeah right.

Yeah. The guy who has been against meddling in affairs in the Middle East his entire political career is only speaking out because it will make Theresa May look bad...

Solid logic there.

Twosugars 15-04-2018 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kazanne (Post 9959645)
Corbyn will be rubbing his hands with glee,any opportunity to have a go at May and he is there like a ferret up a trouser leg, he just wants to come across as caring and peaceful,yeah right.

It's odd how antiwar noises in this country are usually made by the left wing.
Whereas in US, at least this time round, it's the right wing, Trump supporters who are unhappy with the Syria strikes. Fox News, Braitbart etc take a very critical view of Trump getting involved there.

Brillopad 15-04-2018 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twosugars (Post 9959924)
It's odd how antiwar noises in this country are usually made by the left wing.
Whereas in US, at least this time round, it's the right wing, Trump supporters who are unhappy with the Syria strikes. Fox News, Braitbart etc take a very critical view of Trump getting involved there.

I have to ask myself why some people, as you say usually on the left, are against military retaliation in this kind of situation. Is it because they are more concerned about the potential effects on themselves, especially with Russia involved, than the people in Syria?

Talking to the likes of Assad or Putin won’t work, it hasn’t so far as they simply shows defiance in response. Attacking people with chemical weapons is inexcusable and something the West has to be involved in for everyone’s sake. If some dictators are seen to be getting away with it some other dictator will try it on too.

The implication some try to make that the left care more than the right is ridiculous as self-preservation could be the motive either way - it is definitely not an indication they are morally superior. Pretty sick of the impression some try to give - tantamount to patting each other on the back and saying what a good boy/girl am I.

Maru 15-04-2018 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twosugars (Post 9959924)
It's odd how antiwar noises in this country are usually made by the left wing.
Whereas in US, at least this time round, it's the right wing, Trump supporters who are unhappy with the Syria strikes. Fox News, Braitbart etc take a very critical view of Trump getting involved there.

Are they? I follow a fair few outlets (and other notable folk) on the right and most seem to be on board with the strikes and can appreciate us finally having responded to Syria/Russia beyond just candor.

I think the media platforms themselves are playing their cards closer to their chest (for now), as they were somewhat subdued during live coverage when they were discussing the strikes. (CNN though wouldn't shut up about Trump's tweets :laugh:)

Fox News seemed to be level-headed/supportive of those strikes that night. However, I think no one wants to be seen as warmongering, and who can really blame them after the public's sharp reversal during the Iraq War. That was partially how we ended up with Obama in office, because he ran completely counter to Bush's foreign policy... it's what propelled him to top of the Democrat ticket and his anti-war policies were a big deal for his base.

Now Trump staunchest supporters, yes, they're irritated because he's backed away from a lot of his campaign promises. One of those included us being pulled out of major military operations abroad and focusing on domestic. His reversal on gun control and his waffling on immigration is still stinging for other folk as well... I think Breitbart may have fit those shoes, given they were the unofficial Trump news platform before the election and were on board with his then policies... and perhaps they still feel they are the "direct line" to his base.

Kazanne 15-04-2018 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Leon (Post 9959735)
Yeah. The guy who has been against meddling in affairs in the Middle East his entire political career is only speaking out because it will make Theresa May look bad...

Solid logic there.

No BL something I have noticed,even when there are political appeals by the parties on TV ,the labour ones always has to have a swipe at the Tories ,as for the topic in question,the job is done ,sometimes waiting isn't an option.I think she did the right thing.

bots 15-04-2018 06:06 PM

People seem to be concerned about this as it may escalate things into a bigger issue. That's simply not the case. If Putin wants to escalate things, he will do so (and has been doing so in the recent past). He doesn't need a reason. Putin is someone who has killed more of his own people than any foreign country, so a couple of missiles fired that had no impact on his country is meaningless. How people can forget so quickly incidents like the dutch civilian jet that was shot down by Russian forces killing hundreds is scary. We should never back down to Putin.

MTVN 15-04-2018 06:15 PM

There has always been a strand of the right in both countries which doesn't like foreign intervention, mainly those on the libertarian wing. The hard left have a world view which is generally anti-Western which they phrase as 'anti-colional' or 'anti-Imperialist' which leads them to oppose pretty much every military action no matter the circumstances. The centre-left are a bit more favourable to it as we had with Blair and as they have in France with Macron and Hollande before him.

I don't really want us to get involved because this is how major conflicts start - one incident in a far off country which we have no direct involvement with but affects the global balance of power. I do accept that in the case of chemical weapons we do have a bit of responsibility though

Brother Leon 15-04-2018 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kazanne (Post 9960153)
No BL something I have noticed,even when there are political appeals by the parties on TV ,the labour ones always has to have a swipe at the Tories ,as for the topic in question,the job is done ,sometimes waiting isn't an option.I think she did the right thing.

Errm. Did you have a look at any of Theresa May’s campaign last election?

Her whole campaign was basically just Corbyn slander to the extent that people didn’t even know her policies.

Headie 15-04-2018 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg! (Post 9958442)
WWIII here we come ladies
http://i.imgur.com/Qrgwvdr.gif

Quote:

Originally Posted by reece(: (Post 9958444)
Not prepared to perch a bomb shelter

https://i.imgur.com/wKAX1NS.gif

:joker:

Twosugars 15-04-2018 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9960140)
I have to ask myself why some people, as you say usually on the left, are against military retaliation in this kind of situation. Is it because they are more concerned about the potential effects on themselves, especially with Russia involved, than the people in Syria?

Talking to the likes of Assad or Putin won’t work, it hasn’t so far as they simply shows defiance in response. Attacking people with chemical weapons is inexcusable and something the West has to be involved in for everyone’s sake. If some dictators are seen to be getting away with it some other dictator will try it on too.

The implication some try to make that the left care more than the right is ridiculous as self-preservation could be the motive either way - it is definitely not an indication they are morally superior. Pretty sick of the impression some try to give - tantamount to patting each other on the back and saying what a good boy/girl am I.

I think there's a fair amount of feeling superior on both sides. The right wing tend to feel superior because they claim they stand for tradition, common sense and against what they call dangers posed by unrealistic and idealistic left.
Why the left is antiwar? I think what MTVN says about being anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist is important. The left also draws on socialist ideals which tend to be very internationalist, i.e. looking for common ground with others first, and claiming that wars are usually lose-lose situations.
Downside to these admirable principles is that the left may (and often is) seen as weak on defence and security.

Twosugars 15-04-2018 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maru (Post 9960151)
Are they? I follow a fair few outlets (and other notable folk) on the right and most seem to be on board with the strikes and can appreciate us finally having responded to Syria/Russia beyond just candor.

I think the media platforms themselves are playing their cards closer to their chest (for now), as they were somewhat subdued during live coverage when they were discussing the strikes. (CNN though wouldn't shut up about Trump's tweets :laugh:)

Fox News seemed to be level-headed/supportive of those strikes that night. However, I think no one wants to be seen as warmongering, and who can really blame them after the public's sharp reversal during the Iraq War. That was partially how we ended up with Obama in office, because he ran completely counter to Bush's foreign policy... it's what propelled him to top of the Democrat ticket and his anti-war policies were a big deal for his base.

Now Trump staunchest supporters, yes, they're irritated because he's backed away from a lot of his campaign promises. One of those included us being pulled out of major military operations abroad and focusing on domestic. His reversal on gun control and his waffling on immigration is still stinging for other folk as well... I think Breitbart may have fit those shoes, given they were the unofficial Trump news platform before the election and were on board with his then policies... and perhaps they still feel they are the "direct line" to his base.

Have a look at this assessment, Maru. How does it agree with your view from America?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...position-trump
Quote:

And in general, Fox News hosts pushed back on the president’s bellicose remarks, largely evincing an anti-war sentiment. New recruit Tomi Lahren counseled Trump in her final thoughts segment to “remember that it’s America first”, and demanded that the US pull out of Syria entirely.

Maru 16-04-2018 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twosugars (Post 9960632)
Have a look at this assessment, Maru. How does it agree with your view from America?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...position-trump

I guess I need to watch more Fox News. :laugh: I think there are some are quite valid arguments for a full pull out. Though I wouldn't exactly go to Alex Jones/Richard Spencer/Ann Coulter for my news :laugh:...

This tweet made me feel quite a bit emotional...


Sarah Huckabee Sanders Clarifies Syria ‘Situation Room’ Photo
http://www.newsweek.com/sarah-huckab...d-trump-886464


I don't know, just seemed kind of Kim Jong Un-ish. "Lookz at our mad war skillz y'all"...

My concern though is if we do a full pull out, it may inevitably hand Syria to Russia to take control/wreak havoc in that region. Assad be damned.

Also very interesting bit from your article...

Quote:

As for Fox News, according to the political scientist and conservative media expert Dan Cassino, anti-globalism is also the flavor of the month there.

He thinks they have been chasing the audience discovered and nurtured by outlets like Breitbart and Infowars. Indeed, Breitbart’s audience has drifted back to Fox as presenters like Carlson have found ways to make alt-right-adjacent ideology “palatable to advertisers”.

Twosugars 16-04-2018 11:14 AM

The thing is, Maru, Syria has always been in the Russian sphere of influence. Putin is trying to hold on to it, like in old good communist empire times. He won't be chased off. He seems to be determined to reclaim as much former "glory" as possible, e.g. spoiling the west influence in Ukraine, war with Georgia, grabbing back Crimea, destabilizing the west by covert means so that he can divide and rule. He discovered Russia doesn't have to compete economically. It can make mischief.

Kizzy 16-04-2018 12:36 PM


chuff me dizzy 16-04-2018 05:02 PM

Ideas on this folks ...............

https://www.rt.com/news/424047-russi...ria-statement/


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:39 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.