Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Syria and Obama


  • Please log in to reply
351 replies to this topic

#201 walter sobchak

walter sobchak
  • Coach
  • 1,615 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 02:11 AM

Time to sex up Daves dodgy dossier or get al Qaeda to commit an even bigger false flag chemical attack.

#202 archibald

archibald
  • Coach
  • 646 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 05:41 AM

Is ed trying to take this as some sort of endorsement that he's remotely competent?

#203 walter sobchak

walter sobchak
  • Coach
  • 1,615 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 06:38 AM

Great news that the UK wont be part of the coalition of the KILLING! Let the yanks commit suicide in the middle east on there own.

#204 GeordieSaint

GeordieSaint
  • Coach
  • 4,687 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 06:38 AM

Nice to see Assad has decided to only use napalm or thermite in today's airstrikes on civilian areas.

 

No doubt with the delivery systems supplied by either the Russian or Iranians, but hey, it is the British and American Government that is lying; Al Qaeda did it really.


Kings Lynn Black Knights Rugby League Club - http://www.pitchero....nnblackknights/


#205 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,632 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 06:52 AM

Is ed trying to take this as some sort of endorsement that he's remotely competent?


No one seriously thinks any of this was Ed's idea. Some clever kid was scared of voter reaction.

#206 walter sobchak

walter sobchak
  • Coach
  • 1,615 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 06:55 AM

No doubt with the delivery systems supplied by either the Russian or Iranians, but hey, it is the British and American Government that is lying; Al Qaeda did it really.


It's not like the US and UK governments haven't lied before is it? Iraq, Vietnam, operation Ajax, first gulf war etc.

#207 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 28,862 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 08:24 AM

And about the best summary comes in 140 characters from this forum's favourite plastic northerner union jackal (etc):

 

Syria; received many soundbite tweets about appeasement, patriotism, good men doing nothing. None specifying exact aim, end & exit strategy.

(@brianmoore666)


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#208 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 9,570 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 08:31 AM

From Guido:

 

The Thirty Tory Rebels
 

David Amess
Steve Baker
Richard Bacon
John Baron
Andrew Bingham
Crispin Blunt
Fiona Bruce
Tracey Crouch
David TC Davies
Philip Davies
David Davis
Nick de Bois
Richard Drax
Gordon Henderson
Philip Hollobone
Adam Holloway
Dr Phillip Lee
Dr Julian Lewis
Tim Loughton
Jason McCartney
Nigel Mills
Anne Marie Morris
Andrew Percy
Sir Richard Shepherd
Sir Peter Tapsell
Andrew Turner
Martin Vickers
Charles Walker
Chris White
Dr Sarah Wollaston


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#209 walter sobchak

walter sobchak
  • Coach
  • 1,615 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 08:48 AM

From Guido:
 

The Thirty Tory Rebels
 


David Amess
Steve Baker
Richard Bacon
John Baron
Andrew Bingham
Crispin Blunt
Fiona Bruce
Tracey Crouch
David TC Davies
Philip Davies
David Davis
Nick de Bois
Richard Drax
Gordon Henderson
Philip Hollobone
Adam Holloway
Dr Phillip Lee
Dr Julian Lewis
Tim Loughton
Jason McCartney
Nigel Mills
Anne Marie Morris
Andrew Percy
Sir Richard Shepherd
Sir Peter Tapsell
Andrew Turner
Martin Vickers
Charles Walker
Chris White
Dr Sarah Wollaston

Well done to them, they stood up and put their country before their party.

#210 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 9,570 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 08:50 AM

In order to use them in the first place, someone has to have active possession of nerve gas and napalm weaponry.

 

Why hasn't any journalist asked Cameron, Hague or Hammond the questions:

 

 -   "Who made that nerve gas and napalm, and who supplied it to Assad?"

 - "Do we curently make and/or stock nerve gas and napalm?"

 - "Some people are claiming that the rebels used these materials, rather than Assad. Has Al Queda got access to nerve gas and napalm?"

 

Pardon the pun, but deciding to ask these questions is not rocket science. It strikes me that, as ever, the press and the government are colluding to avoid and obscure some crucial issues.


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#211 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 28,862 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 08:51 AM

Is ed trying to take this as some sort of endorsement that he's remotely competent?

 

He, and his party, have stopped the PM in his gung-ho, warmongering tracks.  A move that more than 70% of the UK population backs.

 

I'd say, politically speaking, that counts as at least a B+.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#212 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 9,570 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 09:05 AM

He, and his party, have stopped the PM in his gung-ho, warmongering tracks.  A move that more than 70% of the UK population backs.

 

I'd say, politically speaking, that counts as at least a B+.

 

Apparently about thirty labour MPs didn't turn up for the vote. That's hardly B+ leadership. I think the Tory rebellion stunned him but he's trying to grab some reflected glory.

 

To me:

 -  Miliband came across on post-vote tv looking like the same old ineffectual  tw@.

 

 - Now David's gone to the States, Miliband has acquired another brother, this time a twin one ... Clegg.


Edited by Wolford6, 30 August 2013 - 09:56 AM.

Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#213 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,632 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 09:32 AM

Rest assured. Its not over yet. It all now hangs on proof positiveve - beyond all reasonable doubt- as to what was done by whom to who. Cameron etc are not going to give up that easily.

#214 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,564 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 10:03 AM

In order to use them in the first place, someone has to have active possession of nerve gas and napalm weaponry.

 

Why hasn't any journalist asked Cameron, Hague or Hammond the questions:

 

 -   "Who made that nerve gas and napalm, and who supplied it to Assad?"

 - "Do we curently make and/or stock nerve gas and napalm?"

 - "Some people are claiming that the rebels used these materials, rather than Assad. Has Al Queda got access to nerve gas and napalm?"

 

Pardon the pun, but deciding to ask these questions is not rocket science. It strikes me that, as ever, the press and the government are colluding to avoid and obscure some crucial issues.

Maybe because the answer is quite easy and they already know it.

 

 

1.  I could make napalm with quite basic ingredients at home.  Thanks to my high school chemistry teacher for teaching us that one (along with how to make a vodka still).  Making sarin isn't complex chemistry, I'd expect almost any government or terrorist organisation could make it if they saw fit.

 

2.  Yes.  We make all of these nasty things for defence research (defence as in defending ourselves rather than defence as in catch-all military term).

 

3.  I'd be shocked if Al Qaeda didn't have access to them both.

 

Having these weapons is essentially pointless if you have no dispersal system.  The proper question is where did they get them, the answer is Russia.  Syria is outfitted with almost every bit of obsolete cold war Soviet military equipment, enough to massively outclass any of their neighbours but would be as effectual as the Iraqi army was at stopping a 21st century army.  Included in this would be the chemical weapon dispersal rockets and shells that they'd only give to their very best buddies.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#215 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 9,570 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 10:14 AM


2.  Yes.  We make all of these nasty things for defence research (defence as in defending ourselves rather than defence as in catch-all military term).

 

So we haven't sold any to anyone else?

 

Just like we never sold landmines?

 

<_< <_<


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#216 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,564 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 10:25 AM

Great news that the UK wont be part of the coalition of the KILLING! Let the yanks commit suicide in the middle east on there own.

Seriously?  Coalition of the killing?  Are we the evil ones?  I think you've been reading too much propaganda.  We've just let a criminal nation of genocidal nutters get away with breaking one of the world's biggest modern taboos.  Yay.  Well done UK.  What an achievement.  Put it on the nation's CV.

 

I'll ask yet again, as I have many times already and gone unanswered:  For those of you gloating that we're now doing nothing, where's the line that someone must cross before we, Britain, intervene? 

 

More chemical strikes?  Unlikely as we've just proven we're pathetically weak when it comes to enforcing one of the last great taboos.

 

Biological weapons?  These are truly scary things but if we can't get off our lazy first world flabby bums to stop chemical weapons then we're not going to do it for them.

 

Nukes?  Nope.  Not going near those.  Scary people with nukes should be appeased at all costs.

 

What if someone attacks one of our NATO allies and they invoke the treaty?  What about an example of Syria bombing Turkey with chemical weapons because they allowed the US to overfly their territory.  Do we sit back and say yet again "not our problem"?

 

This defeat in Parliament and the gloating that's going on around it is a shameful indictment about modern Britain and how we can't see beyond the idiocy of Iraq to a truly horrific incident of global importance that we, as one of the few countries in the world with capacity and capability to deal with it, should be stepping up to the plate.

 

I'll expand on that point.  US, Russia, France, China, UK.  Those are the 5 nations that have the capacity and capability to launch reprisals against another criminal nation without aid from another source and expect to succeed.  There are a few other countries who could do so if they banded together but they'd be doing so from a position of weakness.  Admittedly, Syria is a big nut and it'd cost us severely in terms of money and available military capacity to do so but we'd still be able to flatten many of their serious military bases away from civilian areas without too much trouble and with only a low chance of loss of British military lives.  Now, we should consider dropping ourselves out of that top 5, forget those two aircraft carriers we're building that are purely for projecting power.  Just think of the money we could save, we could drop our military to about 50,000 soldiers and still have more than enough for our isolationist defence!

 

This Parliament would quite probably have voted to stay neutral in 1939.  After all, that nice Mr Hitler kept telling us that he wanted to be our friend and he genuinely tried to keep us out of it.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#217 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,564 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 10:35 AM

And about the best summary comes in 140 characters from this forum's favourite plastic northerner union jackal (etc):

 

Syria; received many soundbite tweets about appeasement, patriotism, good men doing nothing. None specifying exact aim, end & exit strategy.

(@brianmoore666)

I can do that for you.  I've seen this answered more than a few times but people don't believe politicians so treat it as if it were unanswered.

 

Step 1:  A punitive strike on Syria's strategic assets to prove to the world that we're serious about this.  Isolated military compounds, chemical factories and supply depots.  A few surgical hits against their most modern defensive sites, such as their SA19 SAM sites.  Make them less of a threat to their neighbours.

 

Step 2:  Retreat from the area, leaving only clearly defensive ships in place.  Make a joint statement of those involved that we commit to the UN that we will not strike again if Syria does not use chemical weapons again.

 

There will be inevitable fallout.  Paddy Ashdown made a good speech that every military intervention ever in history has had fallout, both expected and unexpected.  That's the price of taking action.  What it will do though is make a bloody big statement, as with the first gulf war, that we're through with dicking around with countries that treat the most sacred bits of international law as toilet paper.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#218 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,564 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 10:40 AM

So we haven't sold any to anyone else?

 

Just like we never sold landmines?

 

<_< <_<

Yes, we have sold nasty stuff over the years but I'd be surprised if we've sold any since the fall of the Soviet Union.  As I posted more than a few pages ago, chemical weapons have a limited shelf-life.  We're talking months for the very best quality stuff reducing to weeks or even days when quality reduces.

 

Britain's no saint when it comes to giving weaponry to the least-bad people in a conflict then regretting it when they become the most-bad after taking out their enemies.  We've made some seriously iffy decisions in the last century.  Refusing to punitively strike Syria is another one to add to the list.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#219 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 28,862 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 10:46 AM

I can do that for you.  I've seen this answered more than a few times but people don't believe politicians so treat it as if it were unanswered.

 

Step 1:  A punitive strike on Syria's strategic assets to prove to the world that we're serious about this.  Isolated military compounds, chemical factories and supply depots.  A few surgical hits against their most modern defensive sites, such as their SA19 SAM sites.  Make them less of a threat to their neighbours.

 

Step 2:  Retreat from the area, leaving only clearly defensive ships in place.  Make a joint statement of those involved that we commit to the UN that we will not strike again if Syria does not use chemical weapons again.

 

There will be inevitable fallout.  Paddy Ashdown made a good speech that every military intervention ever in history has had fallout, both expected and unexpected.  That's the price of taking action.  What it will do though is make a bloody big statement, as with the first gulf war, that we're through with dicking around with countries that treat the most sacred bits of international law as toilet paper.

 

Are Syria's strategic assets easily identified and can be hit without causing any loss of civilian life?

What do we do if, having struck, the Assad regime decides to wipe out a town or two 'old school style'?

What do we do when the rebels slaughter a few hundred Assad-loyal types and anyone who happens to be standing next to them?

What do we do when Russia and Iran move to support Assad?


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#220 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,564 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 10:50 AM

Are Syria's strategic assets easily identified and can be hit without causing any loss of civilian life?

What do we do if, having struck, the Assad regime decides to wipe out a town or two 'old school style'?

What do we do when the rebels slaughter a few hundred Assad-loyal types and anyone who happens to be standing next to them?

What do we do when Russia and Iran move to support Assad?

1. Yes.  Most of his big sites aren't in civilian areas. It'd be only if he brought in hostages or deliberately moves civilians to an area that we'd hit them.  We have far better technology these days and can clearly identify where a missile hits.  There would still be the inevitable propaganda of an Assad bombed area being painted as it being us.

2. Nothing.

3. Nothing.

4. Nothing.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users