Indeed. It's ok to murder millions of innocent people with bombs and bullets but, if you kill just a few (relatively speaking) with chemical weapons then "the west" will react. Mrs May has never looked comfortable in front of the TV cameras but now that Trump has his hand firmly up her backside and once again, the UK has become the puppets of the US, she looks even more uncomfortable. Just how much of this is outrage, for Syria using chemical weapons and how much is this to do with domestic politics. Americans love a good skirmish (as long as there arent too many body bags coming back their way and May is desperate for something, anything, to give her a chance to remain at the helm. Nobody and condone the use of chemical weapons but, what is the difference if people are being killed, needlessly ??
Over to you Mr Putin, it's your move next
Chemical weapons are illegal. Bombs and bullets aren't. The use of chemical weapons violates international treaties and international criminal law.
I will go so far as to invoke Godwin's: even Hitler refrained from using chemical weapons on the battlefield.
Actually, I agree with you in principle. Assad is an animal and has been slaughtering his people for years. Stepping in just because the weapon has changed seems hypocritical. But at the same time ignoring a violation of international law sets a dangerous precedent.
The last thing the region actually needs is Assad removed from power. As has been proven elsewhere, a power vacuum in the Middle East is a great opportunity for the extremists. Even Saddam Hussein, as bad as he was, kept the radicals in check.
I expect Putin's response will be to target Western allies fighting Assad.
Reputation Points: 204 Rep Position: 133rd / 77,905 Quiz Score: 0 Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 9:32 pm Posts: 1946
Cronus wrote:
Chemical weapons are illegal. Bombs and bullets aren't. The use of chemical weapons violates international treaties and international criminal law.
I will go so far as to invoke Godwin's: even Hitler refrained from using chemical weapons on the battlefield.
Actually, I agree with you in principle. Assad is an animal and has been slaughtering his people for years. Stepping in just because the weapon has changed seems hypocritical. But at the same time ignoring a violation of international law sets a dangerous precedent.
The last thing the region actually needs is Assad removed from power. As has been proven elsewhere, a power vacuum in the Middle East is a great opportunity for the extremists. Even Saddam Hussein, as bad as he was, kept the radicals in check.
I expect Putin's response will be to target Western allies fighting Assad.
I’m glad you cleared it up that its only illegal to kill innocent people by Chemical weapons only
Reputation Points: 204 Rep Position: 133rd / 77,905 Quiz Score: 0 Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 9:32 pm Posts: 1946
Cronus wrote:
Chemical weapons are illegal. Bombs and bullets aren't. The use of chemical weapons violates international treaties and international criminal law.
I will go so far as to invoke Godwin's: even Hitler refrained from using chemical weapons on the battlefield.
Actually, I agree with you in principle. Assad is an animal and has been slaughtering his people for years. Stepping in just because the weapon has changed seems hypocritical. But at the same time ignoring a violation of international law sets a dangerous precedent.
The last thing the region actually needs is Assad removed from power. As has been proven elsewhere, a power vacuum in the Middle East is a great opportunity for the extremists. Even Saddam Hussein, as bad as he was, kept the radicals in check.
I expect Putin's response will be to target Western allies fighting Assad.
Assad never used them on the battlefield either. He just used them on innocent children just like hittler did
Reputation Points: 204 Rep Position: 133rd / 77,905 Quiz Score: 0 Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 9:32 pm Posts: 1946
Why is it May can’t find money for the NHS, or pensioners or school meals but can always find a hundred million to launch a load of missiles when trump asks her? Or a billion to save her party of course
Reputation Points: 204 Rep Position: 133rd / 77,905 Quiz Score: 0 Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 9:32 pm Posts: 1946
This made me laugh and it’s Cronus to a Tee but the only evidence so far to prove it was Assad that used chemical weapons is from France, who have claimed that after reviewing photos they have concluded it was Syria. Utterly laughable
Reputation Points: 594 Rep Position: 20th / 77,905 Quiz Score: 308 Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2001 12:04 pm Posts: 16970 Location: Olicana - Home of 'Vark Slayer
It seems the chemicals used were not nerve agents but chlorine. Bombing factories might be symbolic, but Assad can just nip to Boyes & buy some more. I am touched that Trump & Co are so appalled by the use of chemicals. Presumably he was equally upset when the US coalition used white phosphorus in civilian neighbourhoods in Raqqa last year?
The best things in life are not things. A member of the victorious liberal metropolitan elite.
Login
Register
