Page 1 of 1

War with Russia then?

Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2018 8:38 am
by mrblackbat
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43762251

Surprised it's taken this long, to be honest.

Re: War with Russia then?

Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2018 12:03 pm
by Jim
Without the backing of the UN or parliament and before any findings from the chemical weapon inspectors to verify events in Douma.

If the US, Britain and France knew about these chemical weapons plants in advance, especially after Syria and Russia apparently decommissioned them last year, why not get the independent weapon inspectors in to collect evidence first and get the backing of the wider international community BEFORE military action.

... and then on a different level, there’s apparently no money left here in the UK for police, youth centres, the NHS, schools, those needing care, the elderly or disabled but there is plenty enough cash to send four £22m strike jets, each with millions of pounds of high-tech weaponry to bomb the shit out of a sovereign country.

Then there’s the extremely high chance of provoking an armed confrontation with Russia, who I’m sure is looking for the slightest transgression from the West to justify rolling over what’s left of Ukraine and the Baltic states. God forbid a plane gets shot down or a missile takes out Russian troops/staff.

To say I’m furious is an understatement.

Re: War with Russia then?

Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2018 1:45 pm
by mrblackbat
You think the backing of the UN is worth anything considering Russia will just veto it? Seriously? The UN is as much a joke as the League Of Nations prior to WW2. Russia has so far vetoed every serious UN measure to investigate the usage of chemical weapons in Syria, because they know it's happening, they're Syria's ally and exposing the humanitarian abuses by the Assad regime undermines their support. Much in the same way that any serious investigation into the Yemen crisis is yet to happen: because we supply our ally Saudi Arabia with weapons.

As for the backing of parliament, that's a tricky one for many reasons. Briefing 650 MPs on the matter in order to allow them to have an informed opinion simply isn't practical for a whole swathe of reasons. Firstly, there is the security and safety of the sources of intelligence to be considered. Secondly, by the time any such briefing has taken place, a vote been taken and if action decided: it's then all too late. The weapons facilities will have been dismantled and moved elsewhere.

Parliament wasn't consulted in 1939 when the Polish guarantee was made. Perhaps we should be outraged for going to war then, too? ;)

Instead, I believe there should be a cross representative committee selected for security clearance in order to make these decisions. Only needs a small number of people, so long as the balance of views is sensible.

The funds issue is also a massive misnomer. Yes we have 22 million pound planes, but yes we profit ourselves from producing those planes; people have jobs in the arms industry in this country. A LOT of people.

And there's a big difference with bombing the shit out of a country and targeting four specific military targets suspected of chemical weapons production and utilisation. The people bombing the shit out of a sovereign nation here are the Syrians themselves, with help from the Russians.....

Re: War with Russia then?

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 8:51 am
by Rover the Top
I doubt it'll escalate to a war with Russia. Putin may like to antagonise, but I don't think he's suicidal. He'd be risking too much over too little in this case. The way they'll fight is to sow doubts and destabilise western governments rather than push for mutual destruction.

Britain needs to get over itself. Using our military to help oppressed civilians in other countries is not harking back to our colonial days. Blair has a lot to answer for with lying over the Iraq War, but ultimately overthrowing Hussein was still a good thing. You can have as much blood on your hands for choosing to do nothing. If you really believe trying to prevent foreign citizens from being slaughtered is a waste of money, you have no moral compass.

As for the parliament vote, it would have helped May from a political point of view, but it's clearly impractical to insist it was necessary. It's disappointing that leaders of other parties chose to see it as an opportunity to score points when they would be caught in the same situation if they were PM.

Re: War with Russia then?

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:31 am
by Gibbon
Putin strikes me as power hungry. There’s no gain to be had from a world war for anybody - so I agree, very unlikely. I think the only chance of one happening is if Trump’s ego leads him into an incredibly stupid boardroom bluff and pushes Putin into a corner.

Re: War with Russia then?

Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:32 pm
by mrblackbat
Which seems a reasonable possibility given Trump's dealings generally.

I don't think there will be a hot war. But escalation, conflicts and the accompanying cold war seem more and more likely.

Re: War with Russia then?

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:45 am
by mrblackbat
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43792120

More reasons why waiting for the chemical weapons inspectors is a bad idea. Anyone remember Kim Jong Il in Team America?

Re: War with Russia then?

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:27 am
by Gibbon
The US says 105 missiles were launched and it believes none were intercepted by Syrian defences. It says Syria's chemical weapons programme has been set back years.

The Russians, however, say 71 missiles were shot down by Syrian systems - many of them older Soviet-era defences.
:yeahright:

Re: War with Russia then?

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:26 am
by mrblackbat
And the reality will be somewhere else entirely.

Re: War with Russia then?

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:54 am
by Rover the Top
Yeah, Syria doesn't even exist! :paranoid:

Re: War with Russia then?

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:10 am
by Rover the Top
Hilarious listening to Chris Williamson MP on the radio this morning, he seems to want to be the poster boy for gross stupidity.

We should have inspected the site first - the Russians won't allow it.
We should have waited for UN backing - the Russians will veto it.
We should have talked first - Syria and Russia don't want to talk.
We're just adding to the killing of civilians - the strikes were precision aimed to avoid casualties.
Well, surely bombing these weapon sites will just release the chemical weapons? - no, that's not how they work.

Re: War with Russia then?

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:34 am
by Dan
It's ok, the inspectors are allowed to look at an attack site now to see what happened.
America seem to think Russia may have tampered with the site during the last 10 days while it's been closed. Russia says they haven't. :D

Edit: didn't realise that was the same link

Re: War with Russia then?

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:57 am
by Rover the Top
Dan wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:34 am
Russia says they haven't. :D
And just need another 24 hours to be sure they haven't... :yeahright:

Re: War with Russia then?

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:28 pm
by mrblackbat
:D

Shouldn't laugh really.