Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ckn

Syria and Obama

352 posts in this topic

Obama (2012):  "Don't use chemical weapons or else, this is a red line for us"

 

Syria:  OK, just this once...

 

Obama (Early 2013):  "Don't use chemical weapons or else, this is a red line for us"

 

Syria:  Oh, you're such a tease, you don't really mean that.

 

Obama (June 2013):  "We know you used chemical weapons on your own people, don't do it again or else, this is a red line for us"

 

Syria:  Hmmm... does the "or else" include telling us to not do it again?  It's getting tiresome now and you're filling up our inbox with your spam.

 

Obama (22 August 2013):  *tumbleweed*

 

Syria:  *your email has been returned unread as it has been identified as harmless spam by the recipient*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am surprised the UN haven't gone into Syria with a task force. I am even more surprised that there hasn't been a joint military operation, along the lines of that utilised in Libya.

 

I do wonder what Assad has, that stops military intervention. The death toll far outweighs, Egypt, Libya, etc, yet still nothing happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These countries ask for help , then you send in a task force help em out , then when its all sorted they turn on you..................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do wonder what Assad has, that stops military intervention.

 

Possibly it's what he doesn't have that stops any intervention.......although to be fair I have no idea what Syria's oil reserves are like and if they are in need of liberation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly it's what he doesn't have that stops any intervention.......although to be fair I have no idea what Syria's oil reserves are like and if they are in need of liberation.

 

The oil thing did cross my min, but I didn't want to come across as too cynical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama (2012):  "Don't use chemical weapons or else, this is a red line for us"

 

Syria:  OK, just this once...

 

Obama (Early 2013):  "Don't use chemical weapons or else, this is a red line for us"

 

Syria:  Oh, you're such a tease, you don't really mean that.

 

Obama (June 2013):  "We know you used chemical weapons on your own people, don't do it again or else, this is a red line for us"

 

Syria:  Hmmm... does the "or else" include telling us to not do it again?  It's getting tiresome now and you're filling up our inbox with your spam.

 

Obama (22 August 2013):  *tumbleweed*

 

Syria:  *your email has been returned unread as it has been identified as harmless spam by the recipient*

Where is the evidence that Assad has used chemical weapons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am surprised the UN haven't gone into Syria with a task force. I am even more surprised that there hasn't been a joint military operation, along the lines of that utilised in Libya.

 

I do wonder what Assad has, that stops military intervention. The death toll far outweighs, Egypt, Libya, etc, yet still nothing happens.

Syria is a tougher nut to crack compared to Libya, the population of Libya is 6 million to Syria's 24 million. Also Assad has some very powerful regional and international allies, like Hezbollah and Iran that are supplying thousands of fighters and arms to Syria, as is Russia who are supplying Assad with arms and giving him political support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These countries ask for help , then you send in a task force help em out , then when its all sorted they turn on you..................

That's why we shouldn't get involved, the "rebels" just use the US and NATO as a vehicle in order to get rid of the governments in power in their countries, then when they get power they follow their own agenda which isn't to the "west's" liking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BBC News report on the US government saying they had used them

 

That enough for you?

I think it's only the most hard-line or irrational of doubters that think they haven't used them.

No it's not enough, we are talking about the same US intelligence agencies that told us that saddam had WMD's and links with al Qaeda ! Aren't we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Syria is a tougher nut to crack compared to Libya, the population of Libya is 6 million to Syria's 24 million. Also Assad has some very powerful regional and international allies, like Hezbollah and Iran that are supplying thousands of fighters and arms to Syria, as is Russia who are supplying Assad with arms and giving him political support.

The Syrian arms are not exactly what you'd call "threatening" to a US/UK air dominated assault.  We could stand off for years and blow their military back to bows and arrows if we so chose.

The only reason I can see for the US to not step in is that they REALLY don't want the rebels to win.  It's a battle between two bad guys in Syria, the government there is the least-worst option as far as we're concerned with the rebels being far too high a risk for any sort of stability in the region if they win.  If the rebels win then Syria becomes a nice haven for those wanting to further destabilise Turkey and Iraq and be an open sore for Israel and Jordan.

 

All of that said, allowing the Syrian government to get away with using chemical weapons is an abysmal precedent for world peace.  It deserves a punitive strike, even if it's just a surgical flattening of any military installations that are suspected of being chemical factories or stores.  There's a very good reason why chemical weapons are treated in much the same way as nuclear weapons by the civilised world, they're far too easy to manufacture, transport and use or even "accidentally' allow to be stolen by friendly terrorists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it's not enough, we are talking about the same US intelligence agencies that told us that saddam had WMD's and links with al Qaeda ! Aren't we?

Hmmm.  That one was a weak and quite transparent justification for invading Iraq.  The US now is actively looking for ways to NOT go into Syria so what's in it for them to say they have not only stepped over the line but treated it with contempt while publicly using the US government's threats of 2012 as toilet paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The news report last night was one of the most upsetting things I've seen in a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am surprised the UN haven't gone into Syria with a task force. I am even more surprised that there hasn't been a joint military operation, along the lines of that utilised in Libya.

 

I do wonder what Assad has, that stops military intervention. The death toll far outweighs, Egypt, Libya, etc, yet still nothing happens.

The UN has only ever once "gone into country X with a task force" and that was Korea in the 1950s. Why did you expect it to happen this time?

In Libya, the Arabs actually begged the West to get involved, this level of support lasted until the first day of action but even so there has been no support for intervention by other countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The oil thing did cross my min, but I didn't want to come across as too cynical.

 

The reason we haven't got involved has everything to do with oil/energy but not due to Syria not really having any. It is the energy sources originating in Russia. That is why they all hell bent on allowing Syria destroy itself. If Assad's regime was to fall, it would open up the opportunity for a pipeline(s) to be built from Iraq/Saudi Arabia directly through Syrian terrority to ports on the Mediterrenean coast and subsequentely onto Europe. The Russians, who currently have a monopoly of sorts on European energy, will do anything to stop this. It is also a key reason why the Russians would not support the war in Iraq plus also a key reason why they rule the Caucaus area with an iron fist i.e. Georgian War etc; a pipeline from the Caucaus areas through Turkey would again by-pass Russian territory. It has sod all to do with people or land.

 

The Iranians on the other hand are hell bent on being the key regional power in the Middle East/Persian Gulf. They are currently conducting proxy wars in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip against the Israelis whilst supporting the Assad regime in Syria in order to stop the growth of Saudi influence in the entire region. The Iranians, despite being a shia dominated nation, do not care who they support and are widely known to have supported both sunni/shia insurgents in Iraq against the Americans and even support the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is their aim to push all Western influence out of the region in order to crush Saudi influence (who are backed by the US military).  

 

To that end, the Europeans and Americans know this and presently are rightly concerned about the possible consequences of intervention on the ground in Syria, despite the horrific acts being conducted in the country at the moment. 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?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason we haven't got involved has everything to do with oil/energy but not due to Syria not really having any. It is the energy sources originating in Russia. That is why they all hell bent on allowing Syria destroy itself. If Assad's regime was to fall, it would open up the opportunity for a pipeline(s) to be built from Iraq/Saudi Arabia directly through Syrian terrority to ports on the Mediterrenean coast and subsequentely onto Europe. The Russians, who currently have a monopoly of sorts on European energy, will do anything to stop this. It is also a key reason why the Russians would not support the war in Iraq plus also a key reason why they rule the Caucaus area with an iron fist i.e. Georgian War etc; a pipeline from the Caucaus areas through Turkey would again by-pass Russian territory. It has sod all to do with people or land.

The Iranians on the other hand are hell bent on being the key regional power in the Middle East/Persian Gulf. They are currently conducting proxy wars in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip against the Israelis whilst supporting the Assad regime in Syria in order to stop the growth of Saudi influence in the entire region. The Iranians, despite being a shia dominated nation, do not care who they support and are widely known to have supported both sunni/shia insurgents in Iraq against the Americans and even support the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is their aim to push all Western influence out of the region in order to crush Saudi influence (who are backed by the US military).

To that end, the Europeans and Americans know this and presently are rightly concerned about the possible consequences of intervention on the ground in Syria, despite the horrific acts being conducted in the country at the moment. 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?!

A very good arguement for us to sod the rest of the world and become self sufficient in energy once again- either by Fracking and/or coal of which we have generations of supply sitting beneath our feet.

By unfortunately the tree huggers are inadvertently propping up a nasty agenda which relies on oppressive regimes to maintain control

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very good arguement for us to sod the rest of the world and become self sufficient in energy once again- either by Fracking and/or coal of which we have generations of supply sitting beneath our feet.

By unfortunately the tree huggers are inadvertently propping up a nasty agenda which relies on oppressive regimes to maintain control

I think this is a very valid point. What would the opponents of fracking have us do instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a very valid point. What would the opponents of fracking have us do instead?

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Not enough power to boil an egg. We need some serious answers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 10th April 2017

Rugby League World - April 2017