FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Syria
Syria
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
 | |||
| |||
"We have to stay out of this at all costs. No one in the west can do any good on this at all." down to the un but personally yer right we dont want another conflict but i think it will happen sooner rather than later | |||
| |||
"I think they should invade and remove that madman ....why do people always think the loss of innocent human life is acceptable ....men, women , children ....all being killed !! Who cares of the financial cost , political cost and the rest of garbage !! " all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing " ...one the best quotes in the history of mankind !!!!!" I think we should wait to see who did it first. Assad or the socalled rebels don't you? | |||
| |||
"I think they should invade and remove that madman ....why do people always think the loss of innocent human life is acceptable ....men, women , children ....all being killed !! Who cares of the financial cost , political cost and the rest of garbage !! " all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing " ...one the best quotes in the history of mankind !!!!! I think we should wait to see who did it first. Assad or the socalled rebels don't you?" Which madman? The dictator? The religious loons? The ones funding it (Iran)? The ones enjoying it (Israel)? As far as invading goes I'll watch you lead the charge from the deck of a ship 5 miles off shore. | |||
"I agree with thr poster we need to stay out. Syria does not affect us. And why should we lose our men and women in any campaign, and fuel hatred." In the name of humanity... | |||
But seriously, we don't need to get involved at all | |||
"I agree with thr poster we need to stay out. Syria does not affect us. And why should we lose our men and women in campaign, and fuel hatred. In the name of humanity..." Humanity? That will be the humanity that kills for fun. That inflicts untold pain on itself. That uses rape to wage war. Mankind is vile at best murderous at worst. I'm joining the other bloke off planet and helping to load the nukes. | |||
"I agree with thr poster we need to stay out. Syria does not affect us. And why should we lose our men and women in campaign, and fuel hatred. In the name of humanity... Humanity? That will be the humanity that kills for fun. That inflicts untold pain on itself. That uses rape to wage war. Mankind is vile at best murderous at worst. I'm joining the other bloke off planet and helping to load the nukes." A little hypocritical no?  | |||
"I agree with thr poster we need to stay out. Syria does not affect us. And why should we lose our men and women in campaign, and fuel hatred. In the name of humanity... Humanity? That will be the humanity that kills for fun. That inflicts untold pain on itself. That uses rape to wage war. Mankind is vile at best murderous at worst. I'm joining the other bloke off planet and helping to load the nukes. A little hypocritical no? "I would have said on sensible approach. | |||
| |||
"I agree with thr poster we need to stay out. Syria does not affect us. And why should we lose our men and women in campaign, and fuel hatred. In the name of humanity... Humanity? That will be the humanity that kills for fun. That inflicts untold pain on itself. That uses rape to wage war. Mankind is vile at best murderous at worst. I'm joining the other bloke off planet and helping to load the nukes." Yeah you load em, I'll stick the kettle on.  | |||
| |||
| |||
"I think they should invade and remove that madman ....why do people always think the loss of innocent human life is acceptable ....men, women , children ....all being killed !! Who cares of the financial cost , political cost and the rest of garbage !! " all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing " ...one the best quotes in the history of mankind !!!!!" I hope you are going to sign up to do your part. We care about the human cost of sending our troops, once more, into a war they can't win. | |||
| |||
"bearing in mind syria has just announced that they have the biggest oil and gas fields in the world america will be bursting to go in, and don't be surprised if other oil reliant western countries follow suit. Oil wars have been touted and prophesied for decades, they are here. Think mad max films. egypt is also in a state of turmoil, killing it's own populace, but it uses more oil than it produces so doesn't export and i have yet to hear about us going into egypt. Coincidence surely. " That'll be next. With all the unrest over there you know that we'll get involved. We shouldn't, but we will | |||
"bearing in mind syria has just announced that they have the biggest oil and gas fields in the world america will be bursting to go in, and don't be surprised if other oil reliant western countries follow suit. Oil wars have been touted and prophesied for decades, they are here. Think mad max films. egypt is also in a state of turmoil, killing it's own populace, but it uses more oil than it produces so doesn't export and i have yet to hear about us going into egypt. Coincidence surely. " Can I ask where you got your information about these oil and gas reserves....? I take your source is not the new propaganda video making the rounds of Internet conspiracy theorists claiming that Syria has discovered the largest oil and natural gas and reserves in the world in its territorial waters?  | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
"So are you saying we should send our troops to be attacked with chemical weapons ?" see that is where through this process there has been no talk of putting troops on the ground at all.... there are practical measures you can take... no fly zones.... attack landing strips.... strikes on munition dumps.... ect ect.... | |||
"chemical weapons... chemical "f'ing weapons"... I would have hoped there would have been a tinge of humanity... after all 4000 people killed in one go, and people are saying "well it doesn't affect us so why should we bother..... so much for the humanity of some of the people here... what would it take for some people to get off their arses and do something... 10000..... 100000...... 1 million 99% of those people being killed aren't the people doing the fighting... its the innocent... men, women, children, " But what can we (just regular people) do? Ask them politely to stop doing what they're doing? | |||
"So are you saying we should send our troops to be attacked with chemical weapons ?" As someone who has trained troops to recognise, and defend against, chemical weapons, I can say that the UK forces have the best kit in the world. However, it's very difficult to warn against a chemical weapons strike, as they can be loaded into conventional weapons for delivery... i.e. missiles, rockets and artillery shells. My own personal preference would be for cruise missile strikes on the larger "factory" and storage facilities, to wipe out the larger stockpiles, and the ready prepared munitions. Combine that with SAS strikes on the smaller facilities, backed by an Airborne Taskforce, and the threat will be minimised. Then bomb the shit out of Assad and his forces, and leave it to the rebels to clean up the rest. Let the Syrian people take the risks of a ground war, but lets make is easier for them.  | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I think they should invade and remove that madman ....why do people always think the loss of innocent human life is acceptable ....men, women , children ....all being killed !! Who cares of the financial cost , political cost and the rest of garbage !! " all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing " ...one the best quotes in the history of mankind !!!!!" So can we assume you will enlist if the UK marches into this country. After all you are a British citizen... | |||
| |||
"So are you saying we should send our troops to be attacked with chemical weapons ? see that is where through this process there has been no talk of putting troops on the ground at all.... there are practical measures you can take... no fly zones.... attack landing strips.... strikes on munition dumps.... ect ect.... " All of which requires a military presence in the general area.a the regime also use civilian shields and don't really operate from a traditional base often using buildings in urban areas. Add to that they have repeatedly stated that any military action from the west will be treated as an act of war and will retaliate. Best to stick with political measures | |||
| |||
| |||
"So are you saying we should send our troops to be attacked with chemical weapons ? As someone who has trained troops to recognise, and defend against, chemical weapons, I can say that the UK forces have the best kit in the world. However, it's very difficult to warn against a chemical weapons strike, as they can be loaded into conventional weapons for delivery... i.e. missiles, rockets and artillery shells. My own personal preference would be for cruise missile strikes on the larger "factory" and storage facilities, to wipe out the larger stockpiles, and the ready prepared munitions. Combine that with SAS strikes on the smaller facilities, backed by an Airborne Taskforce, and the threat will be minimised. Then bomb the shit out of Assad and his forces, and leave it to the rebels to clean up the rest. Let the Syrian people take the risks of a ground war, but lets make is easier for them. "didnt we try that in afgan and years and years on are we not still there loosing lives | |||
| |||
"So are you saying we should send our troops to be attacked with chemical weapons ? As someone who has trained troops to recognise, and defend against, chemical weapons, I can say that the UK forces have the best kit in the world. However, it's very difficult to warn against a chemical weapons strike, as they can be loaded into conventional weapons for delivery... i.e. missiles, rockets and artillery shells. My own personal preference would be for cruise missile strikes on the larger "factory" and storage facilities, to wipe out the larger stockpiles, and the ready prepared munitions. Combine that with SAS strikes on the smaller facilities, backed by an Airborne Taskforce, and the threat will be minimised. Then bomb the shit out of Assad and his forces, and leave it to the rebels to clean up the rest. Let the Syrian people take the risks of a ground war, but lets make is easier for them. didnt we try that in afgan and years and years on are we not still there loosing lives
"Yep and the afghans really didn't have much modern kit in comparison to the Syrians | |||
"Cameron needs a war. It worked for Thatcher and he's hoping it'll work for him." I don't think even Cameron would choose Syria as his election saving war, he'd be far happier with an Argentinian incursion into the Falklands. Far less risk | |||
"Cameron needs a war. It worked for Thatcher and he's hoping it'll work for him. I don't think even Cameron would choose Syria as his election saving war, he'd be far happier with an Argentinian incursion into the Falklands. Far less risk" Yeah, but Buenos Aires doesn't want to come out to play right now. Maybe he thought Spain might give him the chance to flex his muscle but that's looking increasingly unlikely so he'll just have to do what that nice Barack chap wants. | |||
"God, so many armchair generals out there today. Bomb this and that, never mind tge modern SAM systems so nicely delivered by the Russians recently. Then there's the 'arms dumps', buried deep aground, can't use cruise missiles so send in the boys/girls. Not my family so it doesn't matter! " Never heard of the "bunker buster" bombs They'd do the trick | |||
"God, so many armchair generals out there today. Bomb this and that, never mind tge modern SAM systems so nicely delivered by the Russians recently. Then there's the 'arms dumps', buried deep aground, can't use cruise missiles so send in the boys/girls. Not my family so it doesn't matter! Never heard of the "bunker buster" bombs They'd do the trick " And how are "bunker busting bombs" delivered? By aircraft which puts aircrew at risk. Hence the comment about cruise missiles being ineffective | |||
"its down to the united nations not uk or us if the UN says we go we go" If the UN says go in, then let the other nations take this tasking on, not the UK. | |||
"God, so many armchair generals out there today. Bomb this and that, never mind tge modern SAM systems so nicely delivered by the Russians recently. Then there's the 'arms dumps', buried deep aground, can't use cruise missiles so send in the boys/girls. Not my family so it doesn't matter! Never heard of the "bunker buster" bombs They'd do the trick And how are "bunker busting bombs" delivered? By aircraft which puts aircrew at risk. Hence the comment about cruise missiles being ineffective" Even if the US used a stealth aircraft? | |||
| |||
"God, so many armchair generals out there today. Bomb this and that, never mind tge modern SAM systems so nicely delivered by the Russians recently. Then there's the 'arms dumps', buried deep aground, can't use cruise missiles so send in the boys/girls. Not my family so it doesn't matter! Never heard of the "bunker buster" bombs They'd do the trick And how are "bunker busting bombs" delivered? By aircraft which puts aircrew at risk. Hence the comment about cruise missiles being ineffective Even if the US used a stealth aircraft?" Yes they can still be shot down | |||
"Cameron needs a war. It worked for Thatcher and he's hoping it'll work for him. I don't think even Cameron would choose Syria as his election saving war, he'd be far happier with an Argentinian incursion into the Falklands. Far less risk" Was you out there at the time ? If so how can you say it wasn't risky and if not what you talking about  | |||
"its down to the united nations not uk or us if the UN says we go we go If the UN says go in, then let the other nations take this tasking on, not the UK." Hague has stated we can go without UN agreement. | |||
"God, so many armchair generals out there today. Bomb this and that, never mind tge modern SAM systems so nicely delivered by the Russians recently. Then there's the 'arms dumps', buried deep aground, can't use cruise missiles so send in the boys/girls. Not my family so it doesn't matter! Never heard of the "bunker buster" bombs They'd do the trick And how are "bunker busting bombs" delivered? By aircraft which puts aircrew at risk. Hence the comment about cruise missiles being ineffective Even if the US used a stealth aircraft?" And did you miss the news, the modern SAM system recently delivered? Maybe you should also consider the big elephant in the room, Israel. They will get drawn into it and let us see how the develops. Are you volunteering? Fill your boots, the CIO is just down the road. | |||
"So are you saying we should send our troops to be attacked with chemical weapons ? As someone who has trained troops to recognise, and defend against, chemical weapons, I can say that the UK forces have the best kit in the world. However, it's very difficult to warn against a chemical weapons strike, as they can be loaded into conventional weapons for delivery... i.e. missiles, rockets and artillery shells. My own personal preference would be for cruise missile strikes on the larger "factory" and storage facilities, to wipe out the larger stockpiles, and the ready prepared munitions. Combine that with SAS strikes on the smaller facilities, backed by an Airborne Taskforce, and the threat will be minimised. Then bomb the shit out of Assad and his forces, and leave it to the rebels to clean up the rest. Let the Syrian people take the risks of a ground war, but lets make is easier for them. didnt we try that in afgan and years and years on are we not still there loosing lives
Yep and the afghans really didn't have much modern kit in comparison to the Syrians"No. Afghanistan is/was different. There is no large targets to hit, they dont have tanks, missile launchers, factories, massive bases, aircraft etc The taliban fought a mainly guerilla style war, "shoot n scoot", plus they used ambush tactics, fighting against an enemy like the Syrian forces would be a much more conventional type of conflict. | |||
"its down to the united nations not uk or us if the UN says we go we go If the UN says go in, then let the other nations take this tasking on, not the UK. Hague has stated we can go without UN agreement." yes uk can go with out UN backing but its not worth the risk | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"So are you saying we should send our troops to be attacked with chemical weapons ? see that is where through this process there has been no talk of putting troops on the ground at all.... there are practical measures you can take... no fly zones.... attack landing strips.... strikes on munition dumps.... ect ect.... " | |||
"I don't watch the bullshit news. So no, I haven't read/seen anything on it. Why would I sign up? I'd not waste the army' time and money attempting to train me for something I want no part in. " But happy for others to go out there? As for 'bullshit' news, maybe you need to start reading. Best from 2 or 3 sources so you get a better understanding of the situation. | |||
"So are you saying we should send our troops to be attacked with chemical weapons ? As someone who has trained troops to recognise, and defend against, chemical weapons, I can say that the UK forces have the best kit in the world. However, it's very difficult to warn against a chemical weapons strike, as they can be loaded into conventional weapons for delivery... i.e. missiles, rockets and artillery shells. My own personal preference would be for cruise missile strikes on the larger "factory" and storage facilities, to wipe out the larger stockpiles, and the ready prepared munitions. Combine that with SAS strikes on the smaller facilities, backed by an Airborne Taskforce, and the threat will be minimised. Then bomb the shit out of Assad and his forces, and leave it to the rebels to clean up the rest. Let the Syrian people take the risks of a ground war, but lets make is easier for them. didnt we try that in afgan and years and years on are we not still there loosing lives
Yep and the afghans really didn't have much modern kit in comparison to the Syrians
No.
Afghanistan is/was different.
There is no large targets to hit, they dont have tanks, missile launchers, factories, massive bases, aircraft etc
The taliban fought a mainly guerilla style war, "shoot n scoot", plus they used ambush tactics, fighting against an enemy like the Syrian forces would be a much more conventional type of conflict. "That's very true although its not a conventional war as we would not be fighting a country just a regime. the Syrians aren't playing by the rules oh and take into account the backing of Russia Israel, latest gen military tech. Hiding weapons deep underground, using civilians as shields. Air strikes would be limited with little effect on the over all picture. Once we have gone down that road we will not be able to turn around. | |||
| |||
"I don't watch the bullshit news. So no, I haven't read/seen anything on it. Why would I sign up? I'd not waste the army' time and money attempting to train me for something I want no part in. But happy for others to go out there? As for 'bullshit' news, maybe you need to start reading. Best from 2 or 3 sources so you get a better understanding of the situation. " Now did I say that? Nope. I said in the other thread we should stay out of it. So let's not put words in my mouth yeah? Ok then, what sources are trustworthy for the news? | |||
"This whole thing smells of a set up. Who ever used the gas, if it were used should be punished no doubt. But an invasion is not the answer. Let's not forget that Iraq didn't have as much chemical weapons as originally thought, could some one else have access to them? ( or at least some of them.) Syria is the Iraq's neighbor after all and Iraq was thought to have transported a large supply to Syria." no 1 knows until one says who actually did it but thats is why the inspectors are in just now 2 find out | |||
"I don't watch the bullshit news. So no, I haven't read/seen anything on it. Why would I sign up? I'd not waste the army' time and money attempting to train me for something I want no part in. But happy for others to go out there? As for 'bullshit' news, maybe you need to start reading. Best from 2 or 3 sources so you get a better understanding of the situation. Now did I say that? Nope. I said in the other thread we should stay out of it. So let's not put words in my mouth yeah? Ok then, what sources are trustworthy for the news? " How old are you? Take your pick but include sources from around the world, it really isn't difficult | |||
| |||
"I don't watch the bullshit news. So no, I haven't read/seen anything on it. Why would I sign up? I'd not waste the army' time and money attempting to train me for something I want no part in. But happy for others to go out there? As for 'bullshit' news, maybe you need to start reading. Best from 2 or 3 sources so you get a better understanding of the situation. Now did I say that? Nope. I said in the other thread we should stay out of it. So let's not put words in my mouth yeah? Ok then, what sources are trustworthy for the news? How old are you? Take your pick but include sources from around the world, it really isn't difficult" What's that got to do with anything? Well I figured that since you seem to know what you're talking about you'd know. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I don't watch the bullshit news. So no, I haven't read/seen anything on it. Why would I sign up? I'd not waste the army' time and money attempting to train me for something I want no part in. " whats bullshit news to you then you sign up in the army 2 do a tour n if your battalion gets sent to war zone country you go 2 it | |||
| |||
"I don't watch the bullshit news. So no, I haven't read/seen anything on it. Why would I sign up? I'd not waste the army' time and money attempting to train me for something I want no part in. But happy for others to go out there? As for 'bullshit' news, maybe you need to start reading. Best from 2 or 3 sources so you get a better understanding of the situation. Now did I say that? Nope. I said in the other thread we should stay out of it. So let's not put words in my mouth yeah? Ok then, what sources are trustworthy for the news? How old are you? Take your pick but include sources from around the world, it really isn't difficult What's that got to do with anything? Well I figured that since you seem to know what you're talking about you'd know. " We meant that surely a man of your maturity would be able to work out how to access reliable news, that is all. As previously stated far to many arm chair generals putting in the 'expert' views on how to destroy Syria. | |||
| |||
"Al Jazeera, BBC,NBC,Reuters CNN all good sources " And a good mix of sources for a balanced view. | |||
"I don't watch the bullshit news. So no, I haven't read/seen anything on it. Why would I sign up? I'd not waste the army' time and money attempting to train me for something I want no part in. whats bullshit news to you then you sign up in the army 2 do a tour n if your battalion gets sent to war zone country you go 2 it " When you take the queens shilling you agree to fight where her representatives (the goverment) send you. You sign on under your own free will (not conscripted) if over 18 without perental consent if under 18 with perental consent. Then if the goverment say go you go. So what's the point of saying send members of parliament first then the army? They didn't join the forces did they? That's the choice we make in life join the armed services expect to fight | |||
"We have to stay out of this at all costs. No one in the west can do any good on this at all." Build a big fuck of concrete wall around it , place big fuck of machine guns around it Then nothing in and nothing out , cheaper in the long run for every one , they wont thanks for helping look at Iraq -afgan- Egypt - even northern Ireland. | |||
"I don't watch the bullshit news. So no, I haven't read/seen anything on it. Why would I sign up? I'd not waste the army' time and money attempting to train me for something I want no part in. whats bullshit news to you then you sign up in the army 2 do a tour n if your battalion gets sent to war zone country you go 2 it When you take the queens shilling you agree to fight where her representatives (the goverment) send you. You sign on under your own free will (not conscripted) if over 18 without perental consent if under 18 with perental consent. Then if the goverment say go you go. So what's the point of saying send members of parliament first then the army? They didn't join the forces did they? That's the choice we make in life join the armed services expect to fight " But are not brainless cannon fodder, you did not sign up to do whatever the government wants you to do. Members of the UK armed forces do have a voice and many if your senior officers will be voicing concerns to the politicians, probably as we speak. | |||
| |||
"I don't watch the bullshit news. So no, I haven't read/seen anything on it. Why would I sign up? I'd not waste the army' time and money attempting to train me for something I want no part in. whats bullshit news to you then you sign up in the army 2 do a tour n if your battalion gets sent to war zone country you go 2 it " Fox news for a start. Again, why would I sign up? I kinda enjoy my life as it is without getting shot at. | |||
"I don't watch the bullshit news. So no, I haven't read/seen anything on it. Why would I sign up? I'd not waste the army' time and money attempting to train me for something I want no part in. whats bullshit news to you then you sign up in the army 2 do a tour n if your battalion gets sent to war zone country you go 2 it When you take the queens shilling you agree to fight where her representatives (the goverment) send you. You sign on under your own free will (not conscripted) if over 18 without perental consent if under 18 with perental consent. Then if the goverment say go you go. So what's the point of saying send members of parliament first then the army? They didn't join the forces did they? That's the choice we make in life join the armed services expect to fight But are not brainless cannon fodder, you did not sign up to do whatever the government wants you to do. Members of the UK armed forces do have a voice and many if your senior officers will be voicing concerns to the politicians, probably as we speak. " No I wasn't brainless cannon fodder and yes some/many senior officers are voicing concerns but as I said before no one makes you join it done out of many reasons a desire to serve,yearning for adventure, family tradition and just to get of the dole! But it's a choice made solely by the individual and if they go to fight then that's the path they chose and are proud to do | |||
"Cameron needs a war. It worked for Thatcher and he's hoping it'll work for him. I don't think even Cameron would choose Syria as his election saving war, he'd be far happier with an Argentinian incursion into the Falklands. Far less risk Was you out there at the time ? If so how can you say it wasn't risky and if not what you talking about "Oooooh angry face..... We are talking about an Argentinian invasion of the Falklands in the future, which would pose far less of a risk to the UK than a war with the Syrians.....and their close Iranian allies. | |||
" As previously stated far to many arm chair generals putting in the 'expert' views on how to destroy Syria. " I've only read opinions, There could also be said to be plenty of 'expert' anti-war protesters who are happy to see the mass murder of innocent civilians who have no defence from the type of weapon being used against them which, if our troops did get sent in they would have defences against. I think we need to know (and maybe the government does) more about the rebel groups that we would be supporting, not much point replacing a dictator with a dictator who just happens to persecute a different section of the populace. It seems that some of the rebel groups are being supported already by Al Queda. The UN is not going to intervene with Russia and possibly China using their veto to block any UN moves. Western intervention doesn't seem to solve the problems and maybe the country which has only been in existence since the French mandate post WW1 should be split so that the various factions all have a part they can call home without being a minority group that resents being ruled over by another faction. It seems to have worked for the country once known as Yugoslavia... Iraq is similar with the Kurds, Sunnis and Shias, they don't seem to want to live together. | |||
"So are you saying we should send our troops to be attacked with chemical weapons ? As someone who has trained troops to recognise, and defend against, chemical weapons, I can say that the UK forces have the best kit in the world. However, it's very difficult to warn against a chemical weapons strike, as they can be loaded into conventional weapons for delivery... i.e. missiles, rockets and artillery shells. My own personal preference would be for cruise missile strikes on the larger "factory" and storage facilities, to wipe out the larger stockpiles, and the ready prepared munitions. Combine that with SAS strikes on the smaller facilities, backed by an Airborne Taskforce, and the threat will be minimised. Then bomb the shit out of Assad and his forces, and leave it to the rebels to clean up the rest. Let the Syrian people take the risks of a ground war, but lets make is easier for them. didnt we try that in afgan and years and years on are we not still there loosing lives
Yep and the afghans really didn't have much modern kit in comparison to the Syrians
No.
Afghanistan is/was different.
There is no large targets to hit, they dont have tanks, missile launchers, factories, massive bases, aircraft etc
The taliban fought a mainly guerilla style war, "shoot n scoot", plus they used ambush tactics, fighting against an enemy like the Syrian forces would be a much more conventional type of conflict. "well thats ok then send em in  its none of our f...ing buisness why do we feel we have to police the world more of our soldiers to die then for what and who? | |||
"I don't watch the bullshit news. So no, I haven't read/seen anything on it. Why would I sign up? I'd not waste the army' time and money attempting to train me for something I want no part in. whats bullshit news to you then you sign up in the army 2 do a tour n if your battalion gets sent to war zone country you go 2 it Fox news for a start. Again, why would I sign up? I kinda enjoy my life as it is without getting shot at. " Then don't join I personally respect you for that it your choice as was mine to join | |||
"Cameron needs a war. It worked for Thatcher and he's hoping it'll work for him. I don't think even Cameron would choose Syria as his election saving war, he'd be far happier with an Argentinian incursion into the Falklands. Far less risk Was you out there at the time ? If so how can you say it wasn't risky and if not what you talking about
Oooooh angry face.....
We are talking about an Argentinian invasion of the Falklands in the future, which would pose far less of a risk to the UK than a war with the Syrians.....and their close Iranian allies."Oh angry face back you know what wepons the Argentinians have comperd to the Syrians and Iranians do you? Think you need to go to the MOD and let them know don't you ?? | |||
"So are you saying we should send our troops to be attacked with chemical weapons ? As someone who has trained troops to recognise, and defend against, chemical weapons, I can say that the UK forces have the best kit in the world. However, it's very difficult to warn against a chemical weapons strike, as they can be loaded into conventional weapons for delivery... i.e. missiles, rockets and artillery shells. My own personal preference would be for cruise missile strikes on the larger "factory" and storage facilities, to wipe out the larger stockpiles, and the ready prepared munitions. Combine that with SAS strikes on the smaller facilities, backed by an Airborne Taskforce, and the threat will be minimised. Then bomb the shit out of Assad and his forces, and leave it to the rebels to clean up the rest. Let the Syrian people take the risks of a ground war, but lets make is easier for them. didnt we try that in afgan and years and years on are we not still there loosing lives
Yep and the afghans really didn't have much modern kit in comparison to the Syrians
No.
Afghanistan is/was different.
There is no large targets to hit, they dont have tanks, missile launchers, factories, massive bases, aircraft etc
The taliban fought a mainly guerilla style war, "shoot n scoot", plus they used ambush tactics, fighting against an enemy like the Syrian forces would be a much more conventional type of conflict. well thats ok then send em in its none of our f...ing buisness why do we feel we have to police the world more of our soldiers to die then for what and who? "Because we'r part of the United Nations | |||
"Cameron needs a war. It worked for Thatcher and he's hoping it'll work for him. I don't think even Cameron would choose Syria as his election saving war, he'd be far happier with an Argentinian incursion into the Falklands. Far less risk Was you out there at the time ? If so how can you say it wasn't risky and if not what you talking about
Oooooh angry face.....
We are talking about an Argentinian invasion of the Falklands in the future, which would pose far less of a risk to the UK than a war with the Syrians.....and their close Iranian allies.
Oh angry face back you know what wepons the Argentinians have comperd to the Syrians and Iranians do you? Think you need to go to the MOD and let them know don't you ??"I think you need to calm down a little, it's a debate that doesn't need to have people getting angry over. I know you have served in the armed forces, but it's not a point scoring debate. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Cameron needs a war. It worked for Thatcher and he's hoping it'll work for him. I don't think even Cameron would choose Syria as his election saving war, he'd be far happier with an Argentinian incursion into the Falklands. Far less risk Was you out there at the time ? If so how can you say it wasn't risky and if not what you talking about
Oooooh angry face.....
We are talking about an Argentinian invasion of the Falklands in the future, which would pose far less of a risk to the UK than a war with the Syrians.....and their close Iranian allies.
Oh angry face back you know what wepons the Argentinians have comperd to the Syrians and Iranians do you? Think you need to go to the MOD and let them know don't you ??
I think you need to calm down a little, it's a debate that doesn't need to have people getting angry over.
I know you have served in the armed forces, but it's not a point scoring debate."I'm not trying to score points and I don't need to calm down. Your telling me that a conflict in the Falklands would be less serious than one in Syria and I'm asking you how and to explain your reasons? I'm not angry with you or anyone else's opinion in just asking you to explain how you come to that conclusion. At no point have I been abusive or rude so I ask you why I need to calm down ? | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Russia certainly backs Syria, but not Israel. However, I think after chemical weapon attacks, even Russia may now be thinking that its time to step aside. They will not take the side of the regime in this case. Its a bit late to take back their air defence kit though, and that stuff is top of the range, it will cause problems for any country trying to fly into Syrian airspace. "china also backs syria this is why we must be careful or it b world war 3 | |||
"Would like to apologies for being a dumb ass regarding my earlier comments in relation to Israel I should have said Iran don't know why i said Israel. As for a Falklands war Argentina don't have the money the kit or the political clout to even try any military action against us. " Can I ask you how sure you are about that? And would you have said 24 months ago Syria did ? | |||
"Russia certainly backs Syria, but not Israel. However, I think after chemical weapon attacks, even Russia may now be thinking that its time to step aside. They will not take the side of the regime in this case. Its a bit late to take back their air defence kit though, and that stuff is top of the range, it will cause problems for any country trying to fly into Syrian airspace. china also backs syria
this is why we must be careful
or it b world war 3"if there is overwhelming evidence china wont veto.... they would likely abstain, its russia that would veto.... if it isn't going to be under the auspice of the UN then I would guess that NATO would on this occasion its more likely to be no-fly... as that would be easiest option and dare the syrians to take them on..... | |||
| |||
"I'm pretty damn sure I've spent 2yrs in the Falklands and had gave briefs to the fact. " And I spent a total of 27 months of my life in the Falklands and in 82 no body thought they'd have a try to take it back and they did. Lets see what happens when we do stretch our selfs a bit to far. Do you really think they're just going to give up they're passionate about the place very few Brits are to m most it's just a long forgotten conflict. | |||
| |||
"So are you saying we should send our troops to be attacked with chemical weapons ? As someone who has trained troops to recognise, and defend against, chemical weapons, I can say that the UK forces have the best kit in the world. However, it's very difficult to warn against a chemical weapons strike, as they can be loaded into conventional weapons for delivery... i.e. missiles, rockets and artillery shells. My own personal preference would be for cruise missile strikes on the larger "factory" and storage facilities, to wipe out the larger stockpiles, and the ready prepared munitions. Combine that with SAS strikes on the smaller facilities, backed by an Airborne Taskforce, and the threat will be minimised. Then bomb the shit out of Assad and his forces, and leave it to the rebels to clean up the rest. Let the Syrian people take the risks of a ground war, but lets make is easier for them. "To your statement of best kit In the world no. Best trained yes I spent 4 years on a training school for this so would be intrested I'm how you come to that conclusion ? Please feel free to PM me as really imtrested | |||
"chemical weapons... chemical "f'ing weapons"... I would have hoped there would have been a tinge of humanity... after all 4000 people killed in one go, and people are saying "well it doesn't affect us so why should we bother..... so much for the humanity of some of the people here... what would it take for some people to get off their arses and do something... 10000..... 100000...... 1 million 99% of those people being killed aren't the people doing the fighting... its the innocent... men, women, children, " Well countries sat on their hands when various other war crimes have been committed - Rwanda and Zimbabwe anyone?. No doubt the US will go in there or put pressure on Russia do something because they no that area of the middle east is so important for the trade in oil. | |||
"So are you saying we should send our troops to be attacked with chemical weapons ? As someone who has trained troops to recognise, and defend against, chemical weapons, I can say that the UK forces have the best kit in the world. However, it's very difficult to warn against a chemical weapons strike, as they can be loaded into conventional weapons for delivery... i.e. missiles, rockets and artillery shells. My own personal preference would be for cruise missile strikes on the larger "factory" and storage facilities, to wipe out the larger stockpiles, and the ready prepared munitions. Combine that with SAS strikes on the smaller facilities, backed by an Airborne Taskforce, and the threat will be minimised. Then bomb the shit out of Assad and his forces, and leave it to the rebels to clean up the rest. Let the Syrian people take the risks of a ground war, but lets make is easier for them.
To your statement of best kit In the world no. Best trained yes I spent 4 years on a training school for this so would be intrested I'm how you come to that conclusion ? Please feel free to PM me as really imtrested "So who in your opinion has the best kit ? | |||
| |||
" Well countries sat on their hands when various other war crimes have been committed - Rwanda and Zimbabwe anyone?. " so is that something we should be proud off?? 
"well we turned our backs on them, so we should do it with others!!!" | |||
" Well countries sat on their hands when various other war crimes have been committed - Rwanda and Zimbabwe anyone?. so is that something we should be proud off??
"well we turned our backs on them, so we should do it with others!!!""No, but the US only seem interested if Oil is somehow involved. If loss of human life was their main concern then they would have got involved straight away in Bosnia, Rwanda and Zimbabwe. | |||
" Well countries sat on their hands when various other war crimes have been committed - Rwanda and Zimbabwe anyone?. so is that something we should be proud off??
"well we turned our backs on them, so we should do it with others!!!"
No, but the US only seem interested if Oil is somehow involved. If loss of human life was their main concern then they would have got involved straight away in Bosnia, Rwanda and Zimbabwe. "And the involvement of the US saves lives how?. If loss of human life was of any concern to the US they wouldn't have used the dangerous chemicals Napalm and Agent Orange to indiscriminately bomb innocent Vietnamese women and children. They wouldn't have armed Saddam and Iraq to the hilt as a countermeasure against 1979's Iran. They wouldn't have trained and armed the Muhajadeen (sp?) to counter the Russians in the late 80's. Never forget, they joined WWII primarily for trade. Rather a large bill it was too. | |||
" Well countries sat on their hands when various other war crimes have been committed - Rwanda and Zimbabwe anyone?. so is that something we should be proud off??
"well we turned our backs on them, so we should do it with others!!!""No but it's like superman you cannot be everywhere all of the time. Sometimes you've just got to say its not our fight | |||
". Sometimes you've just got to say its not our fight " well lets hope that it is someone you are close to and others take that attitude...... lets walk across the other side of the street, its not our fight! | |||
| |||
". Sometimes you've just got to say its not our fight well lets hope that it is someone you are close to and others take that attitude...... lets walk across the other side of the street, its not our fight! " Ok _abio I normally agree with your forum post as they are generally balanced and full of good advice however on this issue I have to ask have you ever been in an armed conflict ? Having been there seen it done it and got several t-shirts it's all well good saying do this do that until you've lived it | |||
". Sometimes you've just got to say its not our fight well lets hope that it is someone you are close to and others take that attitude...... lets walk across the other side of the street, its not our fight! " Fine for you to say and more than a little hypocritical because you are not going to put your body in harms way but hey its fine to send someone else's son. Getting involved in someone else's war has consequences and I think we have done enough of that in the last 10 years or so. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Let us also not forget the cost, monetary, any involvement will bring to the UK tax payers" And the cost to those who are in our armed forces.... | |||
"Isn't it ironic that it's likely the West will come to the aid of Syria. Should not the neighbouring Islamic countries offer some assistance." Do you not see the irony in that? The problem in Syria, also Iraq and the Kurds is that the various factions of Islamists are fighting themselves. | |||
"Let us also not forget the cost, monetary, any involvement will bring to the UK tax payersAnd the cost to those who are in our armed forces.... "That is exactly the reason we should keep out. If we did get involved the repucussions could be disastrous with Syrian extremists carrying out terrorist bombings in the UK. The number killed by such terrorist bombs in the UK could well exceed the number killed in the chemical bombs in Syria. | |||
"Isn't it ironic that it's likely the West will come to the aid of Syria. Should not the neighbouring Islamic countries offer some assistance. Do you not see the irony in that? The problem in Syria, also Iraq and the Kurds is that the various factions of Islamists are fighting themselves. " Yes, and that's why it's so worrying with Islam gaining a foothold in the UK. | |||
" Never forget, they joined WWII primarily for trade. Rather a large bill it was too. " We didn't exactly join in for altruistic reasons ourselves. American policy may be frustrating at times, but the British Empire created most of the problems in the first place. I always raise an eyebrow when oil is disparaged as a reason for going to war. It's probably the only sensible reason to go to war in this day and age. Without oil, how do we imagine this country would operate? We need it, they've got it and know how important it is to us. Nothing to do with religion really | |||
"So are you saying we should send our troops to be attacked with chemical weapons ? As someone who has trained troops to recognise, and defend against, chemical weapons, I can say that the UK forces have the best kit in the world. However, it's very difficult to warn against a chemical weapons strike, as they can be loaded into conventional weapons for delivery... i.e. missiles, rockets and artillery shells. My own personal preference would be for cruise missile strikes on the larger "factory" and storage facilities, to wipe out the larger stockpiles, and the ready prepared munitions. Combine that with SAS strikes on the smaller facilities, backed by an Airborne Taskforce, and the threat will be minimised. Then bomb the shit out of Assad and his forces, and leave it to the rebels to clean up the rest. Let the Syrian people take the risks of a ground war, but lets make is easier for them.
To your statement of best kit In the world no. Best trained yes I spent 4 years on a training school for this so would be intrested I'm how you come to that conclusion ? Please feel free to PM me as really imtrested
So who in your opinion has the best kit ? "As In most things the Americans have best kit. Always have and always will As they as prepared to spend money. | |||
"Send jackie chan to sought em all out" Fucking Norris!!! Chan didn't have Delta Force!! | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Anyone who imagines the west only has an interest in the Syrian situation because we are wanting access to their oil and gas reserves needs to do some homework …… The reality of their proven reserves and production values are so irrelevant they don’t, and never have, effected the global trading price with any significant rise of fall ….. Their oil and gas export capacity compared to their home market requirements is at a scale that make’s anyone suggesting we are only after their oil and gas reserves sound rather naive.... … As for those people presntly being sucked in by the latest propaganda videos doing the rounds amongst the conspiracy theorist which suggest huge new offshore finds in Syrian territorial waters.... Well franky you lot shouldn't believe everything you see on the internet... "Well said! | |||
"So are you saying we should send our troops to be attacked with chemical weapons ? As someone who has trained troops to recognise, and defend against, chemical weapons, I can say that the UK forces have the best kit in the world. However, it's very difficult to warn against a chemical weapons strike, as they can be loaded into conventional weapons for delivery... i.e. missiles, rockets and artillery shells. My own personal preference would be for cruise missile strikes on the larger "factory" and storage facilities, to wipe out the larger stockpiles, and the ready prepared munitions. Combine that with SAS strikes on the smaller facilities, backed by an Airborne Taskforce, and the threat will be minimised. Then bomb the shit out of Assad and his forces, and leave it to the rebels to clean up the rest. Let the Syrian people take the risks of a ground war, but lets make is easier for them.
To your statement of best kit In the world no. Best trained yes I spent 4 years on a training school for this so would be intrested I'm how you come to that conclusion ? Please feel free to PM me as really imtrested "So, who has better CBRN kit then, detectors, suits, ressies, decon kit? And bare in mind a lot of the kit is or has been updated in the last 10 years, although we still wave sticks around with bits of paper on lol | |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
"What would be the goal or aims of any overt public Western military involvement? If it is simply to replace the Assad regime with the 'rebels', who is remotely convinced that a new rebel dictatorship would be any more palatable. If it is to impose democracy under western lines then maybe we should take heed of the recent Egypt experience with democracy, and that wasn't imposed on them from external pressures. Imagine if it had been! If it is for some kind of revenge for the anti American/British/French stance of the Assad regime over the past few years then it will come back to bite us, guaranteed. If it is to create some kind of 'stability' in Syria then why did we assist in it's destabilisation in the first place? If it is to punish for the despicable use of chemical weapons then surely we need to be certain it was Assad. If it was Assad, then a measured multi lateral response instigated and fronted by Syria's Arab neighbours is in my opinion the most desireable approach. A US/UK policing action as retribution for the chemical attack would very quickly become something completely different. "
Very well put | |||
" If it is to create some kind of 'stability' in Syria then why did we assist in it's destabilisation in the first place?" Who has benefited from Iraq, Egypt, Libya and Syria all being destabilised and/or neutered? Start looking for an enemy these all have in common and you will be looking in the right direction. Why the international powers that be are co-operating is beyond me however. " If it is to punish for the despicable use of chemical weapons then surely we need to be certain it was Assad. " Remember how certain Bush was that Saddam had gassed his own people in 1988? Turns out that a lot of people (including high ranking CIA) think it was Iran that did it (google "Gassing of Kurds") but it was more convenient to go with the anti Saddam rhetoric needed at the time. I doubt this will be any different. | |||
"Anyone who imagines the west only has an interest in the Syrian situation because we are wanting access to their oil and gas reserves needs to do some homework …… The reality of their proven reserves and production values are so irrelevant they don’t, and never have, effected the global trading price with any significant rise of fall ….. Their oil and gas export capacity compared to their home market requirements is at a scale that make’s anyone suggesting we are only after their oil and gas reserves sound rather naive.... … As for those people presntly being sucked in by the latest propaganda videos doing the rounds amongst the conspiracy theorist which suggest huge new offshore finds in Syrian territorial waters.... Well franky you lot shouldn't believe everything you see on the internet... "It's not their oil they are after, it is the break down of stability in the middle east they are worried and the trade routes around there for oil. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Ok... lets just spit-ball for a moment. Assad uses a tactical nuke, whats your thoughts on that? Rightly so, you would condemn it, and want his head on a platter. Chemical weapons (in my opinion, having done training about them etc) are worse than nukes. Why? Have you seen the results? I'm guessing (and again, its an educated guess) that those we see on the news clips have actually not had a massive dose, and are therefore either going to survive, or die slowly, but with a minimum of fuss. A larger "battlefield" dose kills quickly, (if anything between 30 seconds and 30 minutes can be called quick when your body is tearing itself apart) and by all accounts very painfully. If Assad had nothing to fear, he would have let the UN inspectors in immediately, my guess is he's hoping that any evidence will have "weathered" off by the time anyone finally gets in there. If they have enough evidence to prove Assads regime did this, its a war crime, they should be prevented from doing it again, and then arrested and put on trial. Lets face it, if this had happened in the UK, the authorities would leave no stone unturned in their pursuit of justice, why shoiuld it be any diferent for someone who, directly or indirectly, kills hundreds just because its in another country. These were not all combatants, they were women and children too. Bottom line, if it was up to you, would you just leave him alone.... and how would you feel if he did it again, having got away with it once? "All well and good. You seem convinced the Assad regime have done this. The US have been straining for ages to steam in there, it isn't beyond them to create a reason to do so. Elsewehere on these forums , a Norfolk woman has siad how there has been a lot of recent activity at a nearby airbase. American warships set sail for the region, funny how the "chemical attack" happens just before they get there and are ready to attack. And if the west, mainly US and UK were so bothered about the dangerous chemicals, why did they use so much depleted uranium in Iraq? | |||
| |||
"Ok... lets just spit-ball for a moment. Assad uses a tactical nuke, whats your thoughts on that? Rightly so, you would condemn it, and want his head on a platter. Chemical weapons (in my opinion, having done training about them etc) are worse than nukes. Why? Have you seen the results? I'm guessing (and again, its an educated guess) that those we see on the news clips have actually not had a massive dose, and are therefore either going to survive, or die slowly, but with a minimum of fuss. A larger "battlefield" dose kills quickly, (if anything between 30 seconds and 30 minutes can be called quick when your body is tearing itself apart) and by all accounts very painfully. If Assad had nothing to fear, he would have let the UN inspectors in immediately, my guess is he's hoping that any evidence will have "weathered" off by the time anyone finally gets in there. If they have enough evidence to prove Assads regime did this, its a war crime, they should be prevented from doing it again, and then arrested and put on trial. Lets face it, if this had happened in the UK, the authorities would leave no stone unturned in their pursuit of justice, why shoiuld it be any diferent for someone who, directly or indirectly, kills hundreds just because its in another country. These were not all combatants, they were women and children too. Bottom line, if it was up to you, would you just leave him alone.... and how would you feel if he did it again, having got away with it once? "Intrested in your opinion that chemical is worse than nuclear. You can protect your self against chemical but not against nuclear | |||
| |||
"Ok... lets just spit-ball for a moment. Assad uses a tactical nuke, whats your thoughts on that? Rightly so, you would condemn it, and want his head on a platter. Chemical weapons (in my opinion, having done training about them etc) are worse than nukes. Why? Have you seen the results? I'm guessing (and again, its an educated guess) that those we see on the news clips have actually not had a massive dose, and are therefore either going to survive, or die slowly, but with a minimum of fuss. A larger "battlefield" dose kills quickly, (if anything between 30 seconds and 30 minutes can be called quick when your body is tearing itself apart) and by all accounts very painfully. If Assad had nothing to fear, he would have let the UN inspectors in immediately, my guess is he's hoping that any evidence will have "weathered" off by the time anyone finally gets in there. If they have enough evidence to prove Assads regime did this, its a war crime, they should be prevented from doing it again, and then arrested and put on trial. Lets face it, if this had happened in the UK, the authorities would leave no stone unturned in their pursuit of justice, why shoiuld it be any diferent for someone who, directly or indirectly, kills hundreds just because its in another country. These were not all combatants, they were women and children too. Bottom line, if it was up to you, would you just leave him alone.... and how would you feel if he did it again, having got away with it once?
Intrested in your opinion that chemical is worse than nuclear. You can protect your self against chemical but not against nuclear "Sure, as a soldier, with intel that says your enemy may use them, with detectors to indicate a threat, and with equipment to protect yourself. These civvies had none of this, many were not even involved in the fighting. I say chems are worse than nukes because, with a nuke, if you are under it, you are toast before you can blink, and the chances of anyone using them are remote, chemical weapons can be used on a much smaller scale, right down to an individual house or street, can be hand delivered, and the effects cant be accurately controlled or pre-measured, massive doses will kill everyone, but diluted by wind the effects can vary from each individual, with the young, old, and infirm suffering the most... In other words, the non-fighters. | |||
"Ok... lets just spit-ball for a moment. Assad uses a tactical nuke, whats your thoughts on that? Rightly so, you would condemn it, and want his head on a platter. Chemical weapons (in my opinion, having done training about them etc) are worse than nukes. Why? Have you seen the results? I'm guessing (and again, its an educated guess) that those we see on the news clips have actually not had a massive dose, and are therefore either going to survive, or die slowly, but with a minimum of fuss. A larger "battlefield" dose kills quickly, (if anything between 30 seconds and 30 minutes can be called quick when your body is tearing itself apart) and by all accounts very painfully. If Assad had nothing to fear, he would have let the UN inspectors in immediately, my guess is he's hoping that any evidence will have "weathered" off by the time anyone finally gets in there. If they have enough evidence to prove Assads regime did this, its a war crime, they should be prevented from doing it again, and then arrested and put on trial. Lets face it, if this had happened in the UK, the authorities would leave no stone unturned in their pursuit of justice, why shoiuld it be any diferent for someone who, directly or indirectly, kills hundreds just because its in another country. These were not all combatants, they were women and children too. Bottom line, if it was up to you, would you just leave him alone.... and how would you feel if he did it again, having got away with it once?
Intrested in your opinion that chemical is worse than nuclear. You can protect your self against chemical but not against nuclear
Sure, as a soldier, with intel that says your enemy may use them, with detectors to indicate a threat, and with equipment to protect yourself.
These civvies had none of this, many were not even involved in the fighting.
I say chems are worse than nukes because, with a nuke, if you are under it, you are toast before you can blink, and the chances of anyone using them are remote, chemical weapons can be used on a much smaller scale, right down to an individual house or street, can be hand delivered, and the effects cant be accurately controlled or pre-measured, massive doses will kill everyone, but diluted by wind the effects can vary from each individual, with the young, old, and infirm suffering the most... In other words, the non-fighters. "You say that with nuclear your toast if under them but what about the radius, ground or air burst etc etc. don't have to be a soldier to defend against chemical depending on what it is just sealing your windows and doors will protect. Think this is more about Syria using has than what is worse. But am really intrested in where you learned that chemical is worse etc etc | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Apparently the BBC used a picture from Iraq in '03 to 'illustrate massacre in Syria' on their site. " Its a long long time since I took anything The BBC reported seriously | |||
"We have to stay out of this at all costs. No one in the west can do any good on this at all. Build a big fuck of concrete wall around it , place big fuck of machine guns around it Then nothing in and nothing out , cheaper in the long run for every one , they wont thanks for helping look at Iraq -afgan- Egypt - even northern Ireland. " Emmmm many do thank the rest of the uk for help in northern Ireland. It is true to say many would like Britain out. It is a bit different though as northern Ireland is part of the uk as is Gloucester! Also many in northern Ireland are on the frontlines when bBritain goes to war. I'm not expressing any opinion on war or syria but I am annoyef at your ref to northern Ireland. | |||
"Apparently the BBC used a picture from Iraq in '03 to 'illustrate massacre in Syria' on their site. Its a long long time since I took anything The BBC reported seriously "in a way I dont think the BBC have shown the pictures in the right way... we know that in the uk, they wont show pictures that are too graphic... on this occasion I wish they would show the pictures and the tv pictures, of the dead women and children... of the innocent | |||
| |||
"Ok... lets just spit-ball for a moment. Assad uses a tactical nuke, whats your thoughts on that? Rightly so, you would condemn it, and want his head on a platter. Chemical weapons (in my opinion, having done training about them etc) are worse than nukes. Why? Have you seen the results? I'm guessing (and again, its an educated guess) that those we see on the news clips have actually not had a massive dose, and are therefore either going to survive, or die slowly, but with a minimum of fuss. A larger "battlefield" dose kills quickly, (if anything between 30 seconds and 30 minutes can be called quick when your body is tearing itself apart) and by all accounts very painfully. If Assad had nothing to fear, he would have let the UN inspectors in immediately, my guess is he's hoping that any evidence will have "weathered" off by the time anyone finally gets in there. If they have enough evidence to prove Assads regime did this, its a war crime, they should be prevented from doing it again, and then arrested and put on trial. Lets face it, if this had happened in the UK, the authorities would leave no stone unturned in their pursuit of justice, why shoiuld it be any diferent for someone who, directly or indirectly, kills hundreds just because its in another country. These were not all combatants, they were women and children too. Bottom line, if it was up to you, would you just leave him alone.... and how would you feel if he did it again, having got away with it once?
Intrested in your opinion that chemical is worse than nuclear. You can protect your self against chemical but not against nuclear
Sure, as a soldier, with intel that says your enemy may use them, with detectors to indicate a threat, and with equipment to protect yourself.
These civvies had none of this, many were not even involved in the fighting.
I say chems are worse than nukes because, with a nuke, if you are under it, you are toast before you can blink, and the chances of anyone using them are remote, chemical weapons can be used on a much smaller scale, right down to an individual house or street, can be hand delivered, and the effects cant be accurately controlled or pre-measured, massive doses will kill everyone, but diluted by wind the effects can vary from each individual, with the young, old, and infirm suffering the most... In other words, the non-fighters.
You say that with nuclear your toast if under them but what about the radius, ground or air burst etc etc. don't have to be a soldier to defend against chemical depending on what it is just sealing your windows and doors will protect. Think this is more about Syria using has than what is worse.
But am really intrested in where you learned that chemical is worse etc etc "I didn't "learn" that chemical is worse, its my own opinion, yes the devastation from even a small tactical nuke is vast, and the residual effects last a long time, but what I am trying ro get across is that, if he used a nuke, he would no longer be in power, yet he may have ordered the killing of 1300 people by a truly shocking means and yet, as yet, no-one has done a great deal about it. On my last course, little was taught about the nuke threat etc, most of the time was taken up with cw training, bio and radiological was a side note too, the biggest threat is the use of CW. Once this line is crossed, especially by a regime that doesn't seem to care about civvy casualties, it is believed that they are much more likely to use them again and again... Unless someone with a big stick teaches them a lesson. I agree that nukes are a much more powerful weapon in terms of destruction etc, but, if he had them and used them, he would in all likelyhood be dead or under arrest by now, as it is now, the world wrings its hands, but does nothing, after all, what's 1300 more on top of the estimated 100,000, right? If I was on any frontline, I would be much more afraid of CW than nukes, both will kill you, but a nuke will do it a damn sight faster. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Cameron sounds to be getting a bit rattled." Look on the bright side. If Bliar had still been in charge the first wave would have already gone in by now "Team Nu-Labour World Police" | |||
| |||
| |||
"Lets face it our track record of intervention in the Middle East is appalling, Western intervention put the Ayatollah in charge of Iran, put Saddam Hussain in charge of Iraq, Drew the borders that are the cause of so much tribal killing and unrest, avidly supported Mubarak for decades in Egypt, and the latest human rights watch report on the last intervention in Libya, is depressing reading. Once the facts are in on IF and WHO is responsible for the chemical attacks something should be done, but the western track record does not bode well for intervention. "Oi !!! What about those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Had we not moved in there,someone could have lost an eye. | |||
 | |||
"but not for 45 minutes.. plenty of time to don PPE.. " 
That's what all the one eyed people say.  | |||
