We’re bombing Syria

[2sheikhs]

What's the salary like? I'll do it for 500k a year.

Pfft , that’s nothing. You’d need at least 500k a WEEK to put up with being surrounded by a shower of twats week in week out.......wouldn’t you Alexis?

 

[SWP's back]

The Americans probably would have withdrawn to their countless other bases in the region.

Oh ffs. It was American diplomacy that stopped the threat in the first place. The Saudis would have done fuck all with the US base in Qatar and it wasn’t moving any fucking where.

 

[SWP's back]

I don’t know exactly why it didn’t happen

I do.

 

[aguero93:20]

Pfft , that’s nothing. You’d need at least 500k a WEEK to put up with being surrounded by a shower of twats week in week out.......wouldn’t you Alexis?

Hmmmm... What are the bonuses like and what's my signing on fee?

 

[Homar]

So it's not about an alleged chemical attack and us stepping in on grounds of human rights?

Is this the point in all weak arguments where you start to change the narrative?

You can’t possibly believe that the US/UK care one bit about the morality of chemical weapons or human rights in general, except where they can be used as diplomatic tools or to establish a casus belli. How then can you explain their indifference (at best) to Saddam’s use of chemical weapons against Iranian civilians? Or how about Saudi Arabia’s use of internationally banned weapons against Yemen, where the conflict there can only be described as a genocide? Or how about Israel’s use of internationally banned weapons against densely populated Gaza, along with its innumerable war crimes and indiscriminate use of force? Or how about America’s own use of chemical weapons in Vietnam? Or America’s use of nuclear weapons against civilians in Japan (which remains to date the only act of nuclear terrorism)? Or the use of depleated Uranium shells in Iraq that caused countless birth deformities? Or the mere fact that well over one million people died as a result of the Iraq invasion.

 

[2sheikhs]

Hmmmm... What are the bonuses like and what's my signing on fee?

We can discuss the finer details with a nice pot of tea on a park bench.

 

[Homar]

The 10,000 United States troops and their airbase also helped along with Rex Tillerson slapping Prince Cuntflap back into place.

Qatar also went on Naval Excercises with France and Britain the following week.

My point being that whatever KSA wanted to do, the West were very much against it whereas Ricster thought it was all part of a US led plot. (No doubt led by Jews). As everything is a conspiracy in his eyes.

You may very well be right. Like I said, I don’t know why it didn’t happen. Unless somebody can present some proof, it’s all speculation.

 

[SWP's back]

Fucking lol. You just know they are grasping at straws when they bring up nuclear weapon use 73 years ago during a time of war.

 

[SWP's back]

You may very well be right. Like I said, I don’t know why it didn’t happen. Unless somebody can present some proof, it’s all speculation.

Well my side is direct from my former golfing partner, Nicolas Hopton.

Being a resident in Qatar, it obviously was a good idea to know exactly what was happening at the time.

 

[Homar]

Fucking lol. You just know they are grasping at straws when they bring up nuclear weapon use 73 years ago during a time of war.

The use of nuclear weapons twice against densely populated cities. And 7 decades is not so long ago for it to be dismissed as the barbarity of a past era.

 

[SWP's back]

The use of nuclear weapons twice against densely populated cities. And 7 decades is not so long ago for it to be dismissed as the barbarity of a past era.

It’s also not remotely related to modern regulations on the use of weapons or this thread or a very small scale attack on chemical weapons facilities last week.

By the way, since you’re upset about nuclear weapons, the U.K. killed 25,000 in Dresden one night as well.

It was a war with over 60 million casualties and hopefully nothing will be seen on that scale ever again.

 

[Machiavelli]

The potential pipeline partially explains Russian support for Assad. If the pipeline was there Qatar would be able to undercut Russia in providing gas supplies to Europe, hence Assad’s refusal to allow the pipeline and Russia’s consequent support.
By the way, now you’ve opened this can of worms again, Ricster will be along to prattle on about Genie Energy, its role in the war and its connections to Murdoch, the Rothschilds and Israel, most of which is conspiracy bollocks.

It definitely explains Russia’s interests, especially when you consider any gas pipeline heading towards Turkey and then on to the lucrative European market would seriously threaten Russia’s current export of gas into Europe (70% of their production ends up in Europe). I obviously can’t agree with @Ricster but we can’t fail to see things objectively, if we are open to an ulterior motive (to what’s largely reported) for Russia and it’s allies actions in the region we can’t rule out a possible one for our-and our allies actions in the region as well.

Our diplomacy with the middle east is usually on the instruction of our American, Israeli or Saudi friends and it goes a bit like 'give us what we want or we will sanction you then attack you'.

We have great diplomatic relations with all nations if they are giving us what we want (which is usually access to their resources) but the moment one of them say hands off it's time for a bit of good old regime change.

Many of the top Syrian Army commanders were trained at our very own Sandhurst, Assad's wife herself is British. At the time Blair invited Assad to the UK they were considering giving him a knighthood, in return all he had to do was agree to do as instructed by the west which he refused.

For this refusal he has been castigated by the west and our biased media have been happy to oblige in his demonisation just as they did with Saddam Hussein and look what a mess Iraq is today.

This is the diplomacy you speak of and it's wrong on every level.

He (Assad) also completed his post graduate studies in London. He was still undertaking his studies when he was recalled to Syria to get ready to take over power because his brother (who was always going to take over before his death) had died.

That doesn’t make any sense.

Why would Saudi want to oust Assad and help install a government made up of a group it considers terrorists (although the US, U.K, Qatar and the U.N. et al don’t)?

That’s just those do-gooding Saudi’s trying to be top of the terrorist league? ;)

 

[Machiavelli]

Fucking lol. You just know they are grasping at straws when they bring up nuclear weapon use 73 years ago during a time of war.

Yet will still remember all the other elements of said war to this day.

 

[Homar]

It’s also not remotely related to modern regulations on the use of weapons or this thread or a very small scale attack on chemical weapons facilities last week.

By the way, since you’re upset about nuclear weapons, the U.K. killed 25,000 in Dresden one night as well.

It was a war with over 60 million casualties and hopefully nothing will be seen on that scale ever again.

I didn’t say that it has any relevance to the current prohibition of the use of chemical weapons. But the US foreign policy modus operandi has changed little since that time. It highlights the sheer hypocrisy of the US in condemning Syria on the grounds of human rights violations. And, more importantly to my argument, it provides yet more evidence that the US cares not about human rights.

And I thank you for pointing out the horrific crimes of the UK in Dresden. I never said that the UK was any better than the US. We know that Churchill wanted to use chemical weapons against civilians in Germany. This from a man that is commonly held as a hero of Britain.

The list I provided is by no means extensive. Just off the top of my head I can recall the UK orchestrated coup in Iran, the joint CIA/MI6 Beirut car bomb that murdered scores of civilians, the destruction of the state of Libya, etc.

 

[SWP's back]

Yet will still remember all the other elements of said war to this day.

Yes but you can hardly fucking refer to the nuclear bomb being dropped as a sound reason for not kicking off when another country uses chemical weapons in 2018!

If one fails to take into account historical context then one may as well not fucking bother.

 

[SWP's back]

I didn’t say that it has any relevance to the current prohibition of the use of chemical weapons. But the US foreign policy modus operandi has changed little since that time. It highlights the sheer hypocrisy of the US in condemning Syria on the grounds of human rights violations. And, more importantly to my argument, it provides yet more evidence that the US cares not about human rights.

Check the dates

https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/

The treaty entered into force in 1997. The Chemical Weapons Convention prohibits the large-scale use, development, production, stockpiling and transfer of chemical weapons.

 

[kiam06]

Ah so you’re forgetting him sending in tanks to put down peaceful protests during the Arab Spring and thus lighting the tinder box for their civil war?

Also, re: Saddam, you think he was a sound guy in reality and the Western media just portrayed him in a bad light?

Saddam was far from being a 'sound guy' but he kept his country and the region in order far better than we have managed.

Over 1 million deaths since Saddam left power is that an achievement in your eyes?

 

[kiam06]

You can’t possibly believe that the US/UK care one bit about the morality of chemical weapons or human rights in general, except where they can be used as diplomatic tools or to establish a casus belli. How then can you explain their indifference (at best) to Saddam’s use of chemical weapons against Iranian civilians? Or how about Saudi Arabia’s use of internationally banned weapons against Yemen, where the conflict there can only be described as a genocide? Or how about Israel’s use of internationally banned weapons against densely populated Gaza, along with its innumerable war crimes and indiscriminate use of force? Or how about America’s own use of chemical weapons in Vietnam? Or America’s use of nuclear weapons against civilians in Japan (which remains to date the only act of nuclear terrorism)? Or the use of depleated Uranium shells in Iraq that caused countless birth deformities? Or the mere fact that well over one million people died as a result of the Iraq invasion.

I'm with you.

 

[SWP's back]

Saddam was far from being a 'sound guy' but he kept his country and the region in order far better than we have managed.

Over 1 million deaths since Saddam left power is that an achievement in your eyes?

No it’s not.

It’s possible to believe he was tyrannical despot and to think he shouldn’t have been in power and also criticise the lack of forethought in bringing him down.

 

[Homar]

Check the dates

https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/

So your point is that uses of chemical weapons prior to this date is ok?