The K M Links Game - January 2025 Week 2
Quizzes & Puzzles28 mins ago
Theresa May Being Very Dangerous- War Is Looking Imminent
123 Answers
I'm sorry if this might sound uncaring Why on earth are Britain getting involved in a conflict thousands of miles away? So what if Assad uses chemical weapons, why do the UK have to get involved? It is going to put us at risk of terror attacks, and God forbid Nuclear War. It is not our problem? Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy are not getting involved
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by gordiescotland1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Wasn't he beaten back by Bush Snr, Danny? Then, only when little Bush wanted to emulate daddy Bush was Sadam ousted.
Innocents are being murdered by the Syrian regime but, surely, even so called smart bombs would kill even more innocents. I don't have the solution. Then again, i'm not paid to have the solution.
Innocents are being murdered by the Syrian regime but, surely, even so called smart bombs would kill even more innocents. I don't have the solution. Then again, i'm not paid to have the solution.
Like I say, there is no plan to remove Assad: that is what the rebels have been trying to do for 7 years. Initially we tried to rein in his early crimes against humanity, before all out civil war broke out, but were thwarted in that by Russia (and Chine) in the UNSC. Probably what we should have done, while we had more influence in the area, was make it plain to Russia that we had "no selfish or strategic interest" (to borrow a phrase) in Syria, or at least that we had no desire to break up Syria's alliance with Russia. That might have worked, it might not.
For a while we supported selected rebel groups, but with the rise of ISIS (aided and abetted by Assad ironically initially) a whole new front opened up. A key point was in 2013 when Obama and Cameron failed to act on the crossing of the "red line" in the use of chemical weapons. Russia stepped in as a bogus (as it turned out) intermediary, pretending to decommission all of his chemical weapons, and while we patted ourselves (and them) on the back, Assad stepped up his murder by more "conventional" means.
When Russia stepped into a military vacuum along with Iran, the course of the war changed. And the (welcome) defeat of ISIS has actually complicated the situation elsewhere further.
Getting rid of Assad now would not be very sensible, even if it were possible. I think the idea is to be seen to be taking a stand against his continued use of chemical weaponry, but I have no real idea how they intend to take deterrent action: plainly a lot more thought is going into it, this time, which is welcome.
For a while we supported selected rebel groups, but with the rise of ISIS (aided and abetted by Assad ironically initially) a whole new front opened up. A key point was in 2013 when Obama and Cameron failed to act on the crossing of the "red line" in the use of chemical weapons. Russia stepped in as a bogus (as it turned out) intermediary, pretending to decommission all of his chemical weapons, and while we patted ourselves (and them) on the back, Assad stepped up his murder by more "conventional" means.
When Russia stepped into a military vacuum along with Iran, the course of the war changed. And the (welcome) defeat of ISIS has actually complicated the situation elsewhere further.
Getting rid of Assad now would not be very sensible, even if it were possible. I think the idea is to be seen to be taking a stand against his continued use of chemical weaponry, but I have no real idea how they intend to take deterrent action: plainly a lot more thought is going into it, this time, which is welcome.
A year ago everybody 'knew' that Assad used Sarin gas against rebels at Khan Sheikhoun.
Remember Trump launching Tomahawk missiles against an Assad airfield.
In February of this year, Gen.Mattis (US Defence Secretary) admitted they had no proof.
Go back to 2013 when Cameron wanted to bomb Assad out of existence for gassing his own people.
Here is the head of the UN investigation team into that incident.
https:/
Remember Trump launching Tomahawk missiles against an Assad airfield.
In February of this year, Gen.Mattis (US Defence Secretary) admitted they had no proof.
Go back to 2013 when Cameron wanted to bomb Assad out of existence for gassing his own people.
Here is the head of the UN investigation team into that incident.
https:/
They did have proof.
And the organisation that investigated it (the JIM) was subsequently refused a licence to renew its remit due to a UNSC veto (no prizes for guessing by who)
As for proof this time, well it depends what you mean by "proof": the confirmed existence of gas canisters dropped through roofs by planes - only one side has planes etc etc.
President Macron also claims to have "proof" (probably collateral SIGINT), but what is holding up anyone taking action now is not lack of "proof", despite what anyone says: that will just be an excuse.
The Russians have inciminated themseves by their response: their UN ambassador, at the UNSC, claimed:
(a) there had been no attack
(b) there had been an attack but it was carried out by the "other side"
(c) no one knew what had happened and there should be an inquiry
All in the same statement
So, what we do about it, if anything, is one argument, but I'll not have my intellgence insulted by Russia or her apologists telling us it didn't happen :-)
And the organisation that investigated it (the JIM) was subsequently refused a licence to renew its remit due to a UNSC veto (no prizes for guessing by who)
As for proof this time, well it depends what you mean by "proof": the confirmed existence of gas canisters dropped through roofs by planes - only one side has planes etc etc.
President Macron also claims to have "proof" (probably collateral SIGINT), but what is holding up anyone taking action now is not lack of "proof", despite what anyone says: that will just be an excuse.
The Russians have inciminated themseves by their response: their UN ambassador, at the UNSC, claimed:
(a) there had been no attack
(b) there had been an attack but it was carried out by the "other side"
(c) no one knew what had happened and there should be an inquiry
All in the same statement
So, what we do about it, if anything, is one argument, but I'll not have my intellgence insulted by Russia or her apologists telling us it didn't happen :-)
Ken: “Danny, Saddam invaded Kuwait in '91.
Err try 1990
In response, operation Desert Shield was launched but he was not ousted then.
Err try desert Storm
Once his beaten army had skulked back home, the Americans called a halt to the fighting.
Correct 1 out of 3
Fast forward to 2003. Then, tiny Bush came along and got rid.
Correct 2 out of 4, 50% = C-
Err try 1990
In response, operation Desert Shield was launched but he was not ousted then.
Err try desert Storm
Once his beaten army had skulked back home, the Americans called a halt to the fighting.
Correct 1 out of 3
Fast forward to 2003. Then, tiny Bush came along and got rid.
Correct 2 out of 4, 50% = C-
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.