Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

Featured Posts

Here we go again...
 
We have short memories. Directly or indirectly we killed an estimated 600,000 people in our invasion of Iraq using bombs, missiles and other conventional weapons. Syria are accused of killing 75 people this time and perhaps a several hundred people in total with chemical weapons and the west wants a war about it? I don't understand what makes our weapons more moral? Dead and maimed is dead and maimed isn't it? 

It's not our civil war and we don't even know categorically who carried out the chemical  attack in Douma. Wouldn't it suit jihadi rebels to stage a chlorine attack in order to draw the west into this conflict? Don't tell me they can't get hold of chlorine and method to deliver it.
 
And we decide to blow up the evidence on the eve before the OPCW inspectors were due to go into Syria to investigate? Why not wait for their assessment!? I smell a rat. We've done this before with Hans Blix and the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq. No wonder Theresa May didn't want to wait for a vote in Parliament. 
 
Anyway, why don't we attack Israel when they use white phosphorus on unarmed civilians including children? So it's nothing to do with chemical weapons, it's all about a greater geopolitical conflict and I hope it doesn't escalate. 
  • Greenie 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm only going to comment this one time on this as there is another thread, all be it that subject matter is trump. having gone down the road of military action, and believe me I would have preferred it if we hadn't gone down this route, it wasn't anywhere near enough.

The only reason these people are in power is power and money. If we blow the world to smithereens we will be back to the stone age. With all the posturing and bluffery about what various countries can do and what defences any country has, if a nuclear war does start then nobody will be in a position of power and there will be no money. After a while there would be no people just empty rotting canal boats drifting aimlessly down the cuts. What would be the point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go again,

Always seems to come down to a bunch of narcissistic ego maniacs driven by heaven only knows what. Its not even countries defending themselves against invading countries. Its like watching the Jeremy Kyle show on the telly but the idiots have the ability to destroy everything just to save face.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One good thing to come out of this is we at least have like her predeccesor the fantastic Maggie Thatcher a prime minister who understands the meaning of Prime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

One good thing to come out of this is we at least have like her predeccesor the fantastic Maggie Thatcher a prime minister who understands the meaning of Prime.

Good to see your sense of humour is holding up.

  • Greenie 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ianali said:

Good to see your sense of humour is holding up.

The  captain of a ship has other officers who gives him advice etc etc but in the end it his his decision and his alone as to what happens to the ship. The Prime minister also has her cabinet and advisors etc etc but in the end she is PRIME and it is her decision which she has exercised rightly or wrongly. We need decision makers good or bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

The  captain of a ship has other officers who gives him advice etc etc but in the end it his his decision and his alone as to what happens to the ship. The Prime minister also has her cabinet and advisors etc etc but in the end she is PRIME and it is her decision which she has exercised rightly or wrongly. We need decision makers good or bad.

That is exactly why we are in this mess.  The people on the street have sqabbles and fights but it is leaders who get us into wars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The next challenge: predict the Russian response. Comparing Trump and Putin, I would expect it to be better thought out and more sophisticated than this missile strike, but I could easily be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps one of these 'leaders' who have decided that we should send our servicemen to their possible deaths would care to enlighten us as to EXACTLY what a successful mission is going to look like, because at the moment I really don't know what they are hoping to achieve. Punish Assad? well worth our servicemen dying for then for a small piece of political Kudos.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A simple military retaliation by the Russians would be a mistake, Trump & his military would be delighted and the US population would increase their support for Trump.

What would be a good response for Putin would be a humiliation for Trump rather than military hit.  If in his trawlings of the net he has found something bad on Trump, that would serve, but it is difficult to surpass the outpourings of the man himself.  

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mrsmelly said:

The  captain of a ship has other officers who gives him advice etc etc but in the end it his his decision and his alone as to what happens to the ship. The Prime minister also has her cabinet and advisors etc etc but in the end she is PRIME and it is her decision which she has exercised rightly or wrongly. We need decision makers good or bad.

This is what scares me our leaders are supported and advised by their foreign secretaries May by the buffoon Johnson and Corbyn by the hapless Abbott. 

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Tuscan said:

This is what scares me our leaders are supported and advised by their foreign secretaries May by the buffoon Johnson and Corbyn by the hapless Abbott. 

Yes  not good innitt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hague Convention (IV) 1907

LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND

ARTICLE 23
In addition to the prohibitions provided by special· Conventions, it is especially forbidden:
(a) To employ poison or poisoned weapons;

(b) To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

(c) To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

(d) To declare that no quarter will be given;

(e) To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;

(f) To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag, or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;

(g) To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

(h) To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a Court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party.


A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, system 4-50 said:

The next challenge: predict the Russian response. Comparing Trump and Putin, I would expect it to be better thought out and more sophisticated than this missile strike, but I could easily be wrong.

I don't think the Russian have a recourse to respond. (spell check). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tuscan said:

This is what scares me our leaders are supported and advised by their foreign secretaries May by the buffoon Johnson and Corbyn by the hapless Abbott. 

ell I have to say this Boris was right about the nerve agent used wasnt he? even though plenty on here thought he was wrong. Corbyn and Abbot I woulnt trust those two to walk down the street safely.......................Abbot would call a taxi :giggles:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, peterboat said:

Well I have to say this Boris was right about the nerve agent used wasnt he? 

He received the correct information which he then changed to suit his own political purpose.

Politicians are not right or wrong they are just well or badly informed.

In this case he appears to have been well informed but then chose to embellish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

The  captain of a ship has other officers who gives him advice etc etc but in the end it his his decision and his alone as to what happens to the ship. The Prime minister also has her cabinet and advisors etc etc but in the end she is PRIME and it is her decision which she has exercised rightly or wrongly. We need decision makers good or bad.

Couldn't disagree more.  We don't need bad decision makers, we need people who can listen to sane considered advice from those familiar with the consequences of any action.  You sound like you want a dictatorship, good or bad.  My country Prime Minister right or wrong, eh?

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This appears to me to be a case of a lack of good quality high pressure diplomacy in the first place. The fear of making a mistake early in this conflict in my opinion allowed the Russians to enter a void with two gains. First destabilize the Middle East and a presence close to the Suez Canal. Did early discussions in this conflict at the top take place between Russia and other leading players if it did then the analysis of those discussions must surely have been way out of line.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mac of Cygnet said:

Couldn't disagree more.  We don't need bad decision makers, we need people who can listen to sane considered advice from those familiar with the consequences of any action.  You sound like you want a dictatorship, good or bad.  My country Prime Minister right or wrong, eh?

The analogy between a ships captain and the prime minister is not exactly a valid one. In the case of a ships captain he (or she) is overwhelmingly the most experienced officer on board so  they are more likely to make their own decisions without necessarily seeking advice from those around them, whereas this doesn't necessarily apply to a prime minister who may be very inexperienced and needy for any advice going. 

Howard

 

Edited by howardang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mac of Cygnet said:

Couldn't disagree more.  We don't need bad decision makers, we need people who can listen to sane considered advice from those familiar with the consequences of any action.  You sound like you want a dictatorship, good or bad.  My country Prime Minister right or wrong, eh?

I think you need to research what a Dictatorship is, you will find it far removed from our system where the pm is voted in or out at the whim of the people and then makes decisions. Much like club memberships.

20 minutes ago, howardang said:

The analogy between a ships captain and the prime minister is not exactly a valid one. In the case of a ships captain he (or she) is overwhelmingly the most experienced officer on board so  they are more likely to make their own decisions without seeking necessarily seeking advice from those around them, whereas this doesn't necessarily apply to a prime minister who may be very inexperienced and needy for any advice going. 

Howard

 

Wrong  I believe. The ships captain for instance will have an engineering officer in many cases his senior in years and always more knowledgable re the engines for instance and the Captain will take his advice but on ocasion will certainly not act on it  as he like the PM is where the buck stops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is that never in the history of the Middle East has it ever been so unstable. We need Jean Luc Picard and counsellor Troi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bee said:

Problem is that never in the history of the Middle East has it ever been so unstable. We need Jean Luc Picard and counsellor Troi.

You are right but the real problem to top that is add in Trump and there are real problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm off to France tomorrow for a week or so to reclaim the boat from the spiders, can't help thinking I might be better off staying here and digging a nuclear fallout shelter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×