Jump to content


TotalRL.com Shop Alert: Last Ordering Date for Free Pre-Xmas Delivery within UK: 2pm Thursday 18th December!!
Rugby League Yearbook 2014/15 The Forbidden Game League Express League Express Gift Card Rugby League World Rugby League World Gift Card
Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards



Photo
- - - - -

Syria and Obama


  • Please log in to reply
351 replies to this topic

#21 GeordieSaint

GeordieSaint
  • Coach
  • 5,050 posts

Posted 22 August 2013 - 10:09 PM

<Snip>

 

For what it is worth, I complete agree. Having a degree in BSc Geography, I am a strong advocate in using renewable sources to develop energy but this must be backed up with a widespread nuclear programme as presently, there is no way renewable energy sources could sustain the country's needs, at least not without massive financial reprecussions elsewhere.


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


#22 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,307 posts

Posted 22 August 2013 - 10:14 PM

The tree huggers? Wind energy etc... they certainly wouldn't advocate nuclear energy.

Wind energy isn't a solution though. Sometimes there is no wind.



#23 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 17,148 posts

Posted 22 August 2013 - 10:52 PM

For what it is worth, I complete agree. Having a degree in BSc Geography, I am a strong advocate in using renewable sources to develop energy but this must be backed up with a widespread nuclear programme as presently, there is no way renewable energy sources could sustain the country's needs, at least not without massive financial reprecussions elsewhere.

It's political cowardice really.  None of them want to take on the scary nuclear argument, even though the latest generations are the safest, most reliable and least damaging mass energy generating technology available to humanity at present.  Far easier to just allow fracking to go ahead because 95% of the public don't know more about it than what they've read in a tabloid headline.


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


#24 Bostik Bailey

Bostik Bailey
  • Coach
  • 1,692 posts

Posted 23 August 2013 - 06:33 AM

I'm quite strongly against fracking as it stands just now. A good number of clever people are looking at this from the middle ground of looking at the impacts of fracking already being done around the world and its side effects before sanctioning new sites in more densely populated areas, such as the UK's major potential drilling sites.

For example, in Alberta, Canada in 2009 there was one well controlled fracking site where there was an 8 hour undetected leak of hydrogen sulphide. It was simple human error rather than a process error but it only caused no fatalities because it was a good distance from any human settlement. How many potential sites in the UK are more than 50 miles from the nearest village or town? 20 miles? 10? 5? 2? 1?

The latest generation of nuclear power plants are safe, secure and far, far more reliable and trustworthy than a technology that has to have federal protection in Canada and the US so that it doesn't have to disclose what it's actually injecting into the ground. It's been a disgrace of the last 30 years of UK government that none have invested in nuclear power plants because they cost so much up front but don't pay back for 20+ years. The UK could quite easily be self-sufficient for power if the government bothered investing. Here's an idea, why not cancel the HS2 rail line and spend the money on nuclear power stations or modern incinerator generators. Let's assume the conservative (small c) government figure of £40bn for HS2, that's the cost of 20 new nuclear power stations (the latest nuclear power plant in Europe was built in Finland and cost £2bn), even then if we commissioned, say, 5 then you get some quite serious economies of scale if built as a parallel effort with skills and equipment transfers. If we built 5, that's £30bn left from HS2 scrapping, that's enough for a power generating waste incinerator in each county in England PLUS enough to fund a few truly massive offshore wind farms in the nearly perfect areas far off the visible coast of Britain among other environmental generation technologies.

Even then, the best and most efficient fracking drill sites cost 1 unit of energy for every 2 generated with 1 for every 1.5 being more typical. Not very good generating at 50% efficiency at best... Even further, I read an article estimating that for the UK to "break even" against the costs of importing gas would mean drilling 10,000 wells. (Note: in the interests of fairness, that's not as many or as devastating as you think but it's still not cheap in the slightest.)

I'm not saying fracking is a definite no for the future, just let's get some fully open, evidence based, peer-reviewed scientific studies of the consequences of long-term fracking on localised or densely populated areas with access to the full end-to-end process including all chemicals. It's all well and good saying fracking is fine if you're looking at a very secured area of the Canadian outback miles from nowhere but that's not Britain.

Surely that's a better compromise than the evidence-less black and white "the other side is WRONG" arguments that are being put forward by the pro- and anti-fracking communities.


Well thought out and reasoned thinking.

I agree with your point on fracking,initially the companies were not prepared to say exactly what chemicals they use claiming it was sensitive commercial info.

I do think that energy supply should be taken outside of the political agenda because there are a lot of politically dangerous, but scientifically sound solutions.

#25 Bostik Bailey

Bostik Bailey
  • Coach
  • 1,692 posts

Posted 23 August 2013 - 06:38 AM

For what it is worth, I complete agree. Having a degree in BSc Geography, I am a strong advocate in using renewable sources to develop energy but this must be backed up with a widespread nuclear programme as presently, there is no way renewable energy sources could sustain the country's needs, at least not without massive financial reprecussions elsewhere.


There is no way renewable sources can sustain the country's needs. Full stop.

#26 GeordieSaint

GeordieSaint
  • Coach
  • 5,050 posts

Posted 23 August 2013 - 06:53 AM

It's political cowardice really.  None of them want to take on the scary nuclear argument, even though the latest generations are the safest, most reliable and least damaging mass energy generating technology available to humanity at present.  Far easier to just allow fracking to go ahead because 95% of the public don't know more about it than what they've read in a tabloid headline.

 

When do politicians ever show a backbone? The only two I can think who have shown an real fibre in my lifetime are Thatcher and Blair who are probably two of the most devisive politicians in recent times.

 

There is no way renewable sources can sustain the country's needs. Full stop.

 

That is why it needs to be used in conjunction with a widescale nuclear programme. If they really wanted to use renewable sources, there would be barrages across places like the Severn Estuary which would generate a lot of energy and massive investment in the use of wave energy. However, the costs both economically and environmentally are somewhere no government are likely to go in this day and age.


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


#27 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 3,793 posts

Posted 23 August 2013 - 07:25 AM

However, the cynic in me feels that Syria is going to become Iran's Afghanistan/Iraq and the Russians are going to be shown for the inhumane criminals that they are. Where that leaves us, I don't know?!


Can't Canetman use his inflence and sort this out?
The Unicorn is not a Goose,

#28 Bedford Roughyed

Bedford Roughyed
  • Moderator
  • 5,665 posts

Posted 23 August 2013 - 10:17 AM

Nuclear is a hard sell with Fukushima still not under full control.

 

(Yes I would rather have nuc's and wind/solar rather than coal and foreign gas)


With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

#29 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 17,148 posts

Posted 23 August 2013 - 12:12 PM

A quite good editorial on the original subject from the Guardian.

 

It's a difficult subject but one we just cannot ignore.  Ignore one bully who thinks he's immune from breaking one of the world's big taboos and you encourage the other tin-pot dictators out there to do the same.  All they have to do is promise to buy a few Russian MiGs and they'll be buying a veto in the UN security council.


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


#30 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,745 posts

Posted 23 August 2013 - 09:26 PM

I neither trust or believe any party in this terrible situation...and that is an appalling state of affairs. All I know is that our record of intervention on whatever grounds isn't a good one. I reckon that whatever we do, its going to turn out badly.



#31 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,307 posts

Posted 24 August 2013 - 09:42 AM

A quite good editorial on the original subject from the Guardian.

 

It's a difficult subject but one we just cannot ignore.  Ignore one bully who thinks he's immune from breaking one of the world's big taboos and you encourage the other tin-pot dictators out there to do the same.  All they have to do is promise to buy a few Russian MiGs and they'll be buying a veto in the UN security council.

There are reports that the rebels also used chemical weapons. Should we bomb them as well?



#32 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 17,148 posts

Posted 24 August 2013 - 09:04 PM

There are reports that the rebels also used chemical weapons. Should we bomb them as well?

If they did then yes.  Without question.

 

The problem is that it's quite improbable that they had either the knowledge or resources to do so.  Making sarin is quite simple really, any high-school chemistry teacher should know how*, the difficulty is storage and dispersal in credible amounts.  You can't stick it in normal artillery shells as it'd incinerate on explosion, same with mortar shells.  You can't just empty a barrel of the stuff in it's constituted form as it'd need quite a strong wind to disperse beyond a small area, certainly not the extent that it has been seen.  You can't use it in an aerosol format easily.  The simplest way is a specially made artillery shell but then that's not something you can knock up in a garage somewhere.  There's no evidence that the rebels have this sort of technology or we'd no doubt have seen it used in terrorism elsewhere.  In short, there's no credible scenario I can think of where you'd get this scale of dispersal and casualties without it coming from an artillery site (standard or rocket) with specific chemical warfare rounds and chemical components that have just recently been manufactured.

 

* Breaking Bad reference


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


#33 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,745 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 08:38 AM

So..... Syria, Iran, etc on one side.

 

Us etc on the other?

 

Not that simple , though.   Any "action" by the US may well be just the excuse Iran needs.   

 

In any case, I suspect that there are more sides to this than two and that defeat of the current regime might provide the opportunity that militant islamists are looking  for. 

 

And I STILL don't believe we know the truth over any of this. 

 

I think I might bury my head in the sand over this,.....



#34 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,307 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 08:39 AM

http://www.telegraph...eapons-use.html

 

So we bring peace to Syria by bombing everybody!



#35 walter sobchak

walter sobchak
  • Coach
  • 1,974 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 09:05 AM

If they did then yes. Without question.

The problem is that it's quite improbable that they had either the knowledge or resources to do so. Making sarin is quite simple really, any high-school chemistry teacher should know how*, the difficulty is storage and dispersal in credible amounts. You can't stick it in normal artillery shells as it'd incinerate on explosion, same with mortar shells. You can't just empty a barrel of the stuff in it's constituted form as it'd need quite a strong wind to disperse beyond a small area, certainly not the extent that it has been seen. You can't use it in an aerosol format easily. The simplest way is a specially made artillery shell but then that's not something you can knock up in a garage somewhere. There's no evidence that the rebels have this sort of technology or we'd no doubt have seen it used in terrorism elsewhere. In short, there's no credible scenario I can think of where you'd get this scale of dispersal and casualties without it coming from an artillery site (standard or rocket) with specific chemical warfare rounds and chemical components that have just recently been manufactured.


So we should bomb the very same "rebels" that we(US&nato) support, both politically and militarily? What a mess and even more evidence that we should have stayed out of this civil war from the beginning.

* Breaking Bad reference


Edited by walter sobchak, 25 August 2013 - 09:06 AM.


#36 John Drake

John Drake
  • Admin
  • 7,765 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 12:17 PM

I neither trust or believe any party in this terrible situation...and that is an appalling state of affairs. All I know is that our record of intervention on whatever grounds isn't a good one. I reckon that whatever we do, its going to turn out badly.

 

I agree.

 

The road to World War 3 will be paved with good intentions and this particular powder keg has all the necessary ingredients.

 

The UK should do absolutely nothing militarily in Syria because there is absolutely nothing positive it can achieve in this situation.

 

We can't be the men in white hats riding to the rescue and should be using whatever influence we may have left on the international stage to advocate jaw jaw over war war.


John Drake
Site Admin: TotalRL.com
TotalRL.com
Email: john.drake@totalrl.com


#37 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 17,148 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 01:01 PM

I agree.

 

The road to World War 3 will be paved with good intentions and this particular powder keg has all the necessary ingredients.

 

The UK should do absolutely nothing militarily in Syria because there is absolutely nothing positive it can achieve in this situation.

 

We can't be the men in white hats riding to the rescue and should be using whatever influence we may have left on the international stage to advocate jaw jaw over war war.

I disagree.  I'm a huge fan of dialogue before war every time but there are some times that the world just needs to put aside petty differences and send an unequivocable message.

 

The only reason the major crackpots in the world haven't used chemical weapons against their enemies since the Iraq/Iran war forced changes to UN treaties is the threat of an excessively punitive smacking down by the world's powers.  It's one of the big taboos out there in terms of state warfare.

 

If Syria gets away with it then where next?  There's no government in the world that can't get the resources to make and use chemical weapons.

 

So, if the nutjobs near the Israeli border decide to stop Israeli settlers by using chemical weapons then should we just shrug and look away because it's not in our back-yard?  What about the next African genocide?  Far easier to chemically destroy millions of civilian enemies than have to chase them with your soldiers, just sit back and lob chemical weapons at them.  What about if India or Pakistan decide that instead of firing occasional conventional artillery shells at each other that they should chemically get rid of the human difficulties on the other side of the border?  What if Argentina decides the best way to stop the Falkland Islanders from protesting about an invasion is to wipe out Port Stanley with chemicals?

 

Then, what if someone decides that chemicals aren't enough, bring in biological weapons or even a nuke?  The only thing stopping a nuke is that it's hard to make without tipping off half the world but biological weapons can be quite easily made with a few nutjob scientists and a few vats of a biological accelerant.  Unlike chemical weapons, most biological ones are highly persistent, just look at our very own anthrax island of Gruinard.  The scary thing is that they're even easier to use than chemical weapons.

 

Where do you draw the line on where the world should intervene and say "that's enough?"  For me, it's the first toe over the line of using a weapon classified as a Weapon of Mass Destruction by the UN under one of the many treaties.   There's no part of that wedge that's thin enough to be allowed in the door.

 

We've already shamefully turned our eyes to the millions of people killed in genocides in Africa over the last couple of decades because it's too difficult, is this the next one that we don't bother dealing with because it's too difficult?  Should we just retreat behind our borders and hope the rest of the world will leave us alone?


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


#38 walter sobchak

walter sobchak
  • Coach
  • 1,974 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 01:53 PM

I disagree.  I'm a huge fan of dialogue before war every time but there are some times that the world just needs to put aside petty differences and send an unequivocable message.
 
The only reason the major crackpots in the world haven't used chemical weapons against their enemies since the Iraq/Iran war forced changes to UN treaties is the threat of an excessively punitive smacking down by the world's powers.  It's one of the big taboos out there in terms of state warfare.
 
If Syria gets away with it then where next?  There's no government in the world that can't get the resources to make and use chemical weapons.
 
So, if the nutjobs near the Israeli border decide to stop Israeli settlers by using chemical weapons then should we just shrug and look away because it's not in our back-yard?  What about the next African genocide?  Far easier to chemically destroy millions of civilian enemies than have to chase them with your soldiers, just sit back and lob chemical weapons at them.  What about if India or Pakistan decide that instead of firing occasional conventional artillery shells at each other that they should chemically get rid of the human difficulties on the other side of the border?  What if Argentina decides the best way to stop the Falkland Islanders from protesting about an invasion is to wipe out Port Stanley with chemicals?
 
Then, what if someone decides that chemicals aren't enough, bring in biological weapons or even a nuke?  The only thing stopping a nuke is that it's hard to make without tipping off half the world but biological weapons can be quite easily made with a few nutjob scientists and a few vats of a biological accelerant.  Unlike chemical weapons, most biological ones are highly persistent, just look at our very own anthrax island of Gruinard.  The scary thing is that they're even easier to use than chemical weapons.
 
Where do you draw the line on where the world should intervene and say "that's enough?"  For me, it's the first toe over the line of using a weapon classified as a Weapon of Mass Destruction by the UN under one of the many treaties.   There's no part of that wedge that's thin enough to be allowed in the door.
 
We've already shamefully turned our eyes to the millions of people killed in genocides in Africa over the last couple of decades because it's too difficult, is this the next one that we don't bother dealing with because it's too difficult?  Should we just retreat behind our borders and hope the rest of the world will leave us alone?

Lots of what if's in that post, also has it ever crossed your mind that the "rebels" were responsible for the chemical attack in Damascus? As its the "rebels" who have the most to gain and assad who has the most to lose from a US&nato military intervention.

#39 John Drake

John Drake
  • Admin
  • 7,765 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 01:55 PM

I disagree.  I'm a huge fan of dialogue before war every time but there are some times that the world just needs to put aside petty differences and send an unequivocable message.

 

The only reason the major crackpots in the world haven't used chemical weapons against their enemies since the Iraq/Iran war forced changes to UN treaties is the threat of an excessively punitive smacking down by the world's powers.  It's one of the big taboos out there in terms of state warfare.

 

If Syria gets away with it then where next?  There's no government in the world that can't get the resources to make and use chemical weapons.

 

So, if the nutjobs near the Israeli border decide to stop Israeli settlers by using chemical weapons then should we just shrug and look away because it's not in our back-yard?  What about the next African genocide?  Far easier to chemically destroy millions of civilian enemies than have to chase them with your soldiers, just sit back and lob chemical weapons at them.  What about if India or Pakistan decide that instead of firing occasional conventional artillery shells at each other that they should chemically get rid of the human difficulties on the other side of the border?  What if Argentina decides the best way to stop the Falkland Islanders from protesting about an invasion is to wipe out Port Stanley with chemicals?

 

Then, what if someone decides that chemicals aren't enough, bring in biological weapons or even a nuke?  The only thing stopping a nuke is that it's hard to make without tipping off half the world but biological weapons can be quite easily made with a few nutjob scientists and a few vats of a biological accelerant.  Unlike chemical weapons, most biological ones are highly persistent, just look at our very own anthrax island of Gruinard.  The scary thing is that they're even easier to use than chemical weapons.

 

Where do you draw the line on where the world should intervene and say "that's enough?"  For me, it's the first toe over the line of using a weapon classified as a Weapon of Mass Destruction by the UN under one of the many treaties.   There's no part of that wedge that's thin enough to be allowed in the door.

 

We've already shamefully turned our eyes to the millions of people killed in genocides in Africa over the last couple of decades because it's too difficult, is this the next one that we don't bother dealing with because it's too difficult?  Should we just retreat behind our borders and hope the rest of the world will leave us alone?

 

I used to feel the same.

 

Not any more.

 

Too many lies have been told to justify doomed military interventions in the recent past for me to be conned into supporting any more now, unless the UK itself is directly attacked and is required to act in self defence.

 

We don't even yet know for certain who fired these chemical weapons or why.

 

If the whole world was united against what's happening in Syria, it might be different. But it isn't. Russia and Iran to name but two key players are not onside at all. Any US/UK/French strike will escalate the entire conflict in ways that could have dire and uncontrollable consequences way beyond Syria's borders.

 

I agree with this by Owen Jones in today's Independent.

http://www.independe...ne-8784220.html

 

I know he rubs a lot of people up the wrong way, but he is spot on when he says wading into Syria on the pretext of 'doing something' about the use of chemical weapons against civilians would be like throwing water onto a chip pan fire.


John Drake
Site Admin: TotalRL.com
TotalRL.com
Email: john.drake@totalrl.com


#40 GeordieSaint

GeordieSaint
  • Coach
  • 5,050 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 02:44 PM

I neither trust or believe any party in this terrible situation...and that is an appalling state of affairs. All I know is that our record of intervention on whatever grounds isn't a good one. I reckon that whatever we do, its going to turn out badly.

 

Post-Rwanda, our interventions have been relatively successful until the Bush declared combat missions were over in Iraq. The troubles in Bosnia were largely stopped on the surface level, which was the aim, and also in Kosovo and Macedonia, plus the British were incredibly successful in stopping violence and stabilising Sierra Leone under the leadership of General Richards (just left his post of Chief of the Defence Staff) and Blair.


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





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users