Latest News reports on Syria

tiddlyoggy

War Hero
Book Reviewer
#4
Why should it be JW? The Russians have strategic interest in the Med too, and have been quick to back Syria verbally so far.
 
#5
Syria: Russia 'Sending Warships To The Med'
I take it this story is to be taken with a pinch of salt?

Posted from the Navy Net mobile app (Android / iOS)
Perhaps Russia is reluctant to lose its last naval toehold outside the former Soviet Union?

Wikipedia said:
The Russian naval facility in Tartus refers to a military installation of the Russian Navy located in the port of the city of Tartus, Syria. Russian official usage classifies the installation as a Material-Technical Support Point (Russian: Пункт материально-технического обеспечения, ПМТО) and not a "base". Tartus is the last Russian military facility outside the former Soviet Union, and its only Mediterranean repair and replenishment spot, sparing Russia’s warships the trip back to their Black Sea bases through the Turkish Straits...
 
#9
Allelujah.Staggeringly, Liabour have got it right for once and vetoed Cameron's dick-swinging decision to throw UK troops into the foray.Thank fcuk for that.
Cameron and Cronies will have to come up with some other way to make themselves look statesmenlike.

An article from Oct '12 in The Spectator I read today said that it was high time UK politicians brought their ambitions into line with what we can actually deliver ie:Save our military for defence of our shores and leave other countries to sort out their own bloody cock-ups.

Let the Arab League sort this one out. It's got nothing to do with us. Assad's treatment of his own people will reap it's own consequences without America and Britain making themselves into scapegoats for the region's ills.
 
Last edited:

Tomahawk

Lantern Swinger
#10
The reason why I believe we not only should but also have to act is to demonstrate that the use of chemical weapons, which are classified as Weapons of Mass Destruction, will not be stood for. If we do not act then it could lead to further use of chemical weapons in Syria and elsewhere. All we need is a limited strike against purely military targets to demonstrate that we will not stand for this.
 

Ninja_Stoker

War Hero
Moderator
#11
The reason why I believe we not only should but also have to act is to demonstrate that the use of chemical weapons, which are classified as Weapons of Mass Destruction, will not be stood for. If we do not act then it could lead to further use of chemical weapons in Syria and elsewhere. All we need is a limited strike against purely military targets to demonstrate that we will not stand for this.
What about the rebel forces that have already used chemical weapons earlier this year, according to the world media?
 

Tomahawk

Lantern Swinger
#12
Then they should be dealt with as well. We must set a precedent that the use of chemical weapons, no matter who has used them, is not justified. Unfortunately, there is various political dimensions to be considered in this and as such, it is not as black and white as I've suggested.
 
#13
Aye, let's mount our white charger don our uniform of the worlds policeman, even though we cannot police our own streets effectively and give somebody a good kicking, this is none of our business and has no effect on us here in blighty so snouts out.
 
Last edited:
#14
Allelujah.Staggeringly, Liabour have got it right for once and vetoed Cameron's dick-swinging decision to throw UK troops into the foray.Thank fcuk for that.
Cameron and Cronies will have to come up with some other way to make themselves look statesmenlike.

An article from Oct '12 in The Spectator I read today said that it was high time UK politicians brought their ambitions into line with what we can actually deliver ie:Save our military for defence of our shores and leave other countries to sort out their own bloody cock-ups.

Let the Arab League sort this one out. It's got nothing to do with us. Assad's treatment of his own people will reap it's own consequences without America and Britain making themselves into scapegoats for the region's ills.
Blimey!

Agreement. Must be the start of a beautiful relationship.
 
#15
The reason why I believe we not only should but also have to act is to demonstrate that the use of chemical weapons, which are classified as Weapons of Mass Destruction, will not be stood for. If we do not act then it could lead to further use of chemical weapons in Syria and elsewhere. All we need is a limited strike against purely military targets to demonstrate that we will not stand for this.
Why do 'we' have the right to use WMD then? 'We' have happily chucked around depleted uranium over recent years which I understand is not too healthy for the recipients. Mind you, they probably asked for it.

'We' also dropped the biggest two WMDs the world has seen so far. And incendiary bombs. And we used bullets, bombs and bayonettes like everyone else was told to do by their governments.

They all kill.

"All we need is a limited strike against purely military targets to demonstrate that we will not stand for this."

Please get a grip.

I didn't swear once.

That is a ****ing achievement.

Damn. Thought I might have sneaked that in. You and your techy knowledge.
 
Last edited:
#16
We also chose to ignore the use of them by Iraq during the Iraq Iran war, of course Saddam was a friend of the west at that time so that made the use nothing to get concerned about.


Posted from the Navy Net mobile app (Android / iOS)
 

janner

MIA
Book Reviewer
#17
Its not the UK bigging itself up, its the USA who want someone to join in with them because they somehow think that not acting alone makes them look better. Its time we said no and let others, particularly among the Arab Nations sort this mess out.

Taffd, if enough of an MP's constituents let them know that they won't be voting for them the next time around if they don't vote in a certain way they may just listen.
 

tiddlyoggy

War Hero
Book Reviewer
#18
So Tomahawk, basically you want us to kill EVERYONE in Syria. The good part of that plan is at least we know we'll get the bad guys this time.
 

Tomahawk

Lantern Swinger
#19
Why do 'we' have the right to use WMD then? 'We' have happily chucked around depleted uranium over recent years which I understand is not too healthy for the recipients. Mind you, they probably asked for it.

'We' also dropped the biggest two WMDs the world has seen so far. And incendiary bombs. And we used bullets, bombs and bayonettes like everyone else was told to do by their governments.

They all kill.

"All we need is a limited strike against purely military targets to demonstrate that we will not stand for this."

Please get a grip.

I didn't swear once.

That is a ****ing achievement.

Damn. Thought I might have sneaked that in. You and your techy knowledge.
I don't actually believe DU rounds are classed as WMD, their legal status is somewhat questionable however. I presume by your point about the use of nuclear weapons in 1945 by the US is to show that why should we police the use of WMD when we ourselves have used them?

And why do I need to get a grip? I believe it was a perfectly valid military option
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

New Posts