Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Usa Have Fired Missiles At Syria
Bluddy hell, that was quick.
Answers
Assad the Butcher has been committing war crimes on an unprecedente
04:14 Fri 07th Apr 2017
I'll just repeat what I've said elsewhere that the weapons used to date in both Syria and Iraq have been 'binary' ones, where it is the action of firing them that causes two less toxic and more durable materials to fuse into the deadly final article. This would make the explanation that it was a leak from a bombed munitions store even more unlikely
Sqad -- I don't think policies should be set in stone, so in that sense that Trump responded to what was actually happening is perfectly sensible. It does raise the question as to why, when the same thing was happening in 2012/2013 he didn't seem to care about the children being gassed, although the easy and perhaps accurate answer to that is that now he isn't free to bluster about what should and shouldn't be done now that he's the one who has responsibility.
The problem comes because of the speed of the change, the fact that it's so far the US acting alone on this, and questions I'd have about the motivation. If it's a direct and unqualified response to the chemical attack borne of human decency then it's well-motivated but still very rushed. It's the speed of the change, and lack of coordination with other nations, that makes me a little uneasy about it. I think it's right to act in a way other than meaningless protest in response to the War in Syria, but I'd still have hoped for a coherent and measured national response. This on its own achieves little, and doesn't seem to have been thought through completely.
Still, if it at least gives Assad pause for thought before launching another such attack, it will have been worth it. Anything more than last night's strikes needs far more time and care behind it.
The problem comes because of the speed of the change, the fact that it's so far the US acting alone on this, and questions I'd have about the motivation. If it's a direct and unqualified response to the chemical attack borne of human decency then it's well-motivated but still very rushed. It's the speed of the change, and lack of coordination with other nations, that makes me a little uneasy about it. I think it's right to act in a way other than meaningless protest in response to the War in Syria, but I'd still have hoped for a coherent and measured national response. This on its own achieves little, and doesn't seem to have been thought through completely.
Still, if it at least gives Assad pause for thought before launching another such attack, it will have been worth it. Anything more than last night's strikes needs far more time and care behind it.
Jim
" It does raise the question as to why, when the same thing was happening in 2012/2013 he didn't seem to care about the children being gassed"
Didn't he care OR at that time was his opinion not regarded as newsworthy? I don't know and that was Obama's ball game then.
Things change so quickly in Politics......remember the old saying "A week is a long time in Politics"....probably the same in the U.S
" It does raise the question as to why, when the same thing was happening in 2012/2013 he didn't seem to care about the children being gassed"
Didn't he care OR at that time was his opinion not regarded as newsworthy? I don't know and that was Obama's ball game then.
Things change so quickly in Politics......remember the old saying "A week is a long time in Politics"....probably the same in the U.S
This surely is a classic example of all the things that are bad about Donald Trump also having a positive side. I don't think he would have done this without consulting allies. It seems unlikely that they'd have said 'don't do it' and he doesn't need their actual military help.
Maybe this is where we find out if Putin really does have some dirt on him waiting to be 'dropped' :-)
Maybe this is where we find out if Putin really does have some dirt on him waiting to be 'dropped' :-)
You really haven't been paying attention to Trump, Sqad, if you think that he was only newsworthy in the last two years. Was often around at the fringes of opinion pieces in the US news long before then -- and one need only consult his hyperactive twitterhoea feed before then to find out what he thought about virtually everything. Including, among others, his opinion on Obama's inaction over Syria (at the time, he supported it).
Obama shouldn't have drawn a red line and then ignored that line, although one could argue that his hands were tied by so few others seeming to agree that military action was a good idea, leaving him unable to press on except alone. Trump's blamed Obama indirectly for the recent chemical attacks, and with some good reason, but plenty of others washed their hands of the affair too at the time, Trump included.
Obama shouldn't have drawn a red line and then ignored that line, although one could argue that his hands were tied by so few others seeming to agree that military action was a good idea, leaving him unable to press on except alone. Trump's blamed Obama indirectly for the recent chemical attacks, and with some good reason, but plenty of others washed their hands of the affair too at the time, Trump included.
You are reading me incorrectly. What I am saying is that Trump should look at his own attitude four years ago before condemning the inaction of Obama, as well as the attitude of the entire international community. Actually, Trump should look at his attitudes and policy positions one week ago, less than.
It may just be a coincidence that Assad's chemical strike came a week after President Trump announced that he was, effectively, going to forget about Assad and concentrate on IS. Or it may not. As I said elsewhere, the Syrian leader has suffered some setbacks in the war recently and he has a track record of revenge attacks on civilians.
As jim says, Trump actually supported Obama's line at the time. Obama tried to do things the "right" way and looked weak. So like I say, maybe there are occasions where the Trump way is best. I respect him for openly coming out and effectively saying he was wrong. That IS refreshing.
As jim says, Trump actually supported Obama's line at the time. Obama tried to do things the "right" way and looked weak. So like I say, maybe there are occasions where the Trump way is best. I respect him for openly coming out and effectively saying he was wrong. That IS refreshing.
A lot has been put forward about the safety of the children, both here, on our radios and also our TV screens, yes this is obviously to touch our emotional sensitivities, but the sad fact is, in a war situation all are in danger of death and destruction, whether or not it is by bullet or high explosives even if they get rid of chemical weapons.
True AOG.
However when talking of civilian casualties one might think broadly of three sorts of scenario.
Collateral casualties in general where civilians have got caught up in specifically targeted military action for wherever reason.
Indiscriminate targeting where the aggressor hopes to strike his enemy but isn't all that bothered who he hits.
Deliberate targeting of civilians.
We've seen a lot of the latter two sorts in Syria - and don't forget that after the chemical weapons attack there was a follow up attack by 'conventional' methods on a hospital treating the injured. Such things are known in the business as war crimes and yes I know that there are other war crimes that go unpunished in the world, especially if committed by the winning side, but that seems a poor excuse never to at least contemplate a response. Chemical weapons are banned under international treaty, so there ought to be a process of deterrence to their use or at least the prospect of prosecution.
However when talking of civilian casualties one might think broadly of three sorts of scenario.
Collateral casualties in general where civilians have got caught up in specifically targeted military action for wherever reason.
Indiscriminate targeting where the aggressor hopes to strike his enemy but isn't all that bothered who he hits.
Deliberate targeting of civilians.
We've seen a lot of the latter two sorts in Syria - and don't forget that after the chemical weapons attack there was a follow up attack by 'conventional' methods on a hospital treating the injured. Such things are known in the business as war crimes and yes I know that there are other war crimes that go unpunished in the world, especially if committed by the winning side, but that seems a poor excuse never to at least contemplate a response. Chemical weapons are banned under international treaty, so there ought to be a process of deterrence to their use or at least the prospect of prosecution.
Assad may be an evil piece of s*** but is there realy evidence he did it.
The same old rubbish is being trotted out that sarin cannot be made by terrorists 9even though I providrd the Janpaese link the other day) and all i have seen are claims it must have been Assad. This all seems to me to be reminiscent of Bliar an his excuse to invade Iraq (which I supported at the time), it worries me that we seem to be going the same route.
Still no one seems to get that democracy cannot be imposed on the Middle East; it simply doesnt work as it is dominated by a religion based on the middle ages and even within that rreligion there are different factions reckoning theirs is the right one. Removing Assad will create a vaccum with a distinct possibility that Daesh will take control as they did in Iraq particularly now they are being evicted from Iraq.
Someone earlier reckoned anything would be better than living under Assad, I would like to ask those that think that whether they think living under Daesh rule would be better? Personally I really dont think so.
I dont think the West should get involved unless someone can show categorical proof Assad is using genocide as a tactic.
The same old rubbish is being trotted out that sarin cannot be made by terrorists 9even though I providrd the Janpaese link the other day) and all i have seen are claims it must have been Assad. This all seems to me to be reminiscent of Bliar an his excuse to invade Iraq (which I supported at the time), it worries me that we seem to be going the same route.
Still no one seems to get that democracy cannot be imposed on the Middle East; it simply doesnt work as it is dominated by a religion based on the middle ages and even within that rreligion there are different factions reckoning theirs is the right one. Removing Assad will create a vaccum with a distinct possibility that Daesh will take control as they did in Iraq particularly now they are being evicted from Iraq.
Someone earlier reckoned anything would be better than living under Assad, I would like to ask those that think that whether they think living under Daesh rule would be better? Personally I really dont think so.
I dont think the West should get involved unless someone can show categorical proof Assad is using genocide as a tactic.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.