Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Does anyone really think if we went to war and the Russians had them, which more likely than not they do. Are they really not going to use them because it's against international law 
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 47
|
By:
I saw that pr1ck who does the syria coverage for the BBC a while back spitting out angrily that the syrians/russians weree using "illegal cluster bombs".
Well no actually, they weren't. SOME countries decided to stop using them a while back, for themselves, unilaterally, but Russia or Syria never agreed to that, there is in no way a worldwide ban on them or illegality on them. NATO had them as a major part of their arsenal for decades and during the cold war, they are useful things. |
|
By:
War is about winning at all costs.
|
|
By:
even if innocent children die. what a bunch of c*nts we all are.
|
|
By:
"We all" aren't.
But there's lots of money in arms and warfare. That and a need for the psychopaths who rise to the top to cling to power at all costs. Lives and people mean nothing to them. The people who try to stop it are all called "conchies" or "cowards" or on here, "lefties". There is much marketing and propaganda running alongside the war - it's different propaganda for each side or faction involved. Hard to stop a war. |
|
By:
To make myself clear I'm not in favour of chemical weapons although if you survive you might have a chance of living unlike an all out nuclear war. My point is if I had to fight a man to the death and knives were outlawed but I had one and there would be no recourse to the victor. Of course I'm going to use the knife !
|
|
By:
War crimes are for the losers only
 |
|
By:
Chit chatters can sit in on UN meeting - The situation in the Middle East - Security Council, as it happens now.. live
http://webtv.un.org/ |
|
By:
mustard gas was a real nasty- used1st world war
|
|
By:
You are a Chelsea fan ufcdan - your disregard for fair play, indeed all social norms, is something we just take for granted.
|
|
By:
that mp,mercer seems to be the war guru amongst the torys on the grounds he followed orders in the army, anyone spouting away about we cant stand back and watch blah,blah,should be asked if we,re going to sort Saudi arabia out or does been attacked by weapons you sold them last week look pretty stupid
|
|
By:
I'm certainly not a conspiracy nut but when you look at this:
Assad has pretty much won, I don't thats in doubt, he has no reason to use such weapons, the rebels are full of religious nutcases who glory in early deaths and see innocent people who die for their causes as honoured people who'll go to heaven, the rebels are known to have had access to and used chemical weapons in the past, and they know such an attack blamed on Assad is possibly their only possible final throw of the dice to get "the world" in to help them out. When you line it up like that .. I've large suspicions. |
|
By:
You don't consider Assad's family history of gassing the people of Syria to be of any relevance?
|
|
By:
Believing stuff??
WMD WMD WMD!!! 45 MINUTES -- FAMILIAR?? FK ME and blair - maybe call him BLARE - suddenly appears on televisual sky experience!!- totally unrelated - but there he is!!! ho ho |
|
By:
you get the likes of that mp mercer saying he cant understand why the public don't automatically believe what their told and play the assadd ,putin game
maybe the likes of Iraq,hilslbrough,saville,mp,s expenses,etc.etc,meanm the public don't believe a word him and his fellow mp,s say |
|
By:
You are a Chelsea fan ufcdan - your disregard for fair play, indeed all social norms, is something we just take for granted.
Cheers jed I'll take that as a compliment  |
|
By:
I'm certainly not a conspiracy nut but when you look at this:
Assad has pretty much won, I don't that's in doubt, he has no reason to use such weapons, the rebels are full of religious nutcases who glory in early deaths and see innocent people who die for their causes as honoured people who'll go to heaven, the rebels are known to have had access to and used chemical weapons in the past, and they know such an attack blamed on Assad is possibly their only possible final throw of the dice to get "the world" in to help them out. When you line it up like that .. I've large suspicions. Great post. It doesn't make sense for Assad at all. Exactly the same as last year. Conveniently this comes about as Trump starts touting troops coming out of Syria. |
|
By:
Hold the press governments lie. I guess it's a case who's lies you want to believe if it's the Americans and British lies or the Russian and Syrian lies. If it's the latter I suggest you go and live in one of those countries and of course if like here you don't agree with them feel free to criticise them. Let me know how you get on
 |
|
By:
Ahh ufc you miss out the third option, it may well be rebel lies/fakery or a "real" attack on their own, and gullible westerners, eager to repeat the successful regime change in Libya, Iraq etc. These new shining lights of peace and democracy !
|
|
By:
It's funny you mention so called democracy, since it looks as though the 'buzz word' of this generation; 'chemical', has been used twice in recent months to direct a collective agenda and shape foreign policy.
Why would those in seemingly 'non democratic' states give those who emulate a democracy like we do a reason to dismiss parliament and act with impunity? As mentioned; the Syrian/Russian alliance has a duck shooting exercise in Syria since them and their financed terrorists defeated the financed and supported terrorists of the 'West'. The whole notion that mass killing with conventional weapons that either kill maim or leave people desolate are fine (since they arn't enough to get the support to fight to stop it) but chemical killing is too much, itself seems absurd. Extermination is ok and all conventional kills are easy deaths? Also, I dont think its conspiracy to see the economical argument; that the west who have vested interests in the creation and selling of weapons and has major investments in the sector, that those technologies that need an argument to use them should in fact find one that doesnt need parliamentary decisions to stop them using up bombs that depreciate while not used. |
|
By:
why are we involved ? any oil? what is this chemical they are using? It is killing people??
have they got samples of it - that bomb/missile laid there like a beached porpoise INTACT was the killer then?(in the pic I saw) I thought bombs went BANG or do these chemical ones sort of spray like an aerosol as they fly along? There are 'smart' weapons of course. we do not have any journalists there do we?? Who is doing the reporting? usually it is someone from cairo, turkey, lebanon - and not on the ground I know nothing but am very suspicious of anyone put forward on tv without proper explanations seems to me like we are up for plenty of warlike activity - is Syria a part of london or is it in essex?? How is TELFORD going along at the moment and have they got those gang members in LANDAN yet? |
|
By:
I believe the only interest the West has in Syria is in the attempted annexing of the Russian influence.....much like the double crossing of Khrushchev by Nato who said they wouldnt encroach on Soviet countries.
There are an axis of the trigger happy nations that now are bent out of shape because Syria didnt go the way they wished. |
|
By:
apart from that dodgy bomb pic anyone know who sold stuff to saddam to help gas the kurds and Iranians in iran/iraq war.
where did that go to after then?? hmmmm? answers on a postcard. Not that I know fk all about it. Of course we in the west are appalled that this stuff should be manufactured and used. At least we have the moral high ground(as long as you don't look too close to our involvement) and we have an excuse to go on another bombing expedition in a country so very far away. Perhaps they are a threat to us - are they 45 minutes away!!?? |
|
By:
all through the hate of assad - the only nasty mad dictator left in the area
oh sorry forgot erd the goon expanding his ottoman empire and currently invading another country OOOPs - Syria!! shush!!! don't mention it!!! |
|
By:
I see the puppet Macron is lying
|
|
By:
they are completely bonkers
very few (again) do not want to go on this foreign adventure |
|
By:
They have "evidence" now. Don't worry its true. They always tell the truth right?
 |
|
By:
Maybe the powers that be thought having piece in the region and allowing the neutral refugees to go back was bad so want to stir it up again?
Maybe this time let the god botherers who are losing invade some Assad held areas and drive their civilians across the med for good measure. I'm totally fed up of our governments getting involved in fights in the middle east, invariably making things worse, and this time with the risk of escalating to a war with a nuclear armed angry nationalistic Russia. Just brilliant, bravo, golf clap all round. |
|
By:
This day and age with the amount of information there to be had. (If you look)
You would of though people would of woken up to this kind of cr@p. When the likes of Tony Blair are coming out in support of intervention. You should know by now to do the complete opposite. How this war criminal still reaches our TV screens I'll never know. The audacity of it astounds me. |
|
By:
UK General public don't want it. Macron and May do. Kaye Burley on sky does. Should have seen her body language when she spoke to a sensible guy from the parliamentary select defence committee. Legs crossed and arms folded - swiftly turned her back to him - quite rude I thought.
There are people who want war for some reason. The west want to back the crazies in Ghouta whilst deserting the kurds as turkey invades syria. |
|
By:
Burley on sky - 'the french are itching to get involved' - the war drum beats ffs
|
|
By:
wot is the difference between being gassed and -torn to bits by, uranium depleted munitions, machine guns, snipers, artillery, tanks, bombs, missiles, mines - do you get the drift?
|
|
By:
at least merkel knows which side her bread is buttered
especially with that gas pipeline to consider ho ho |
|
By:
Hopefully Macron will show the world his proof before he bombs a foreign country, if no then hopefully he will be arrested.
|
|
By:
"J'accuse!"
|
|
By:
theres so much hypocrisy here its astounding
mp,s whove spend a year trying to oust,ban trump from the uk now want to give the man carte blanche to use our army,navy, airforce as he likes that mp mercer and co saying we,ve got to send assadd a message without involving,hitting putin,on so far uncollabrated evidence,yet according to boris were certain putin ordered a chemical attack on the uk,has been stockpiling these weapons for 10 years and no,s where there been made,so why arnt we attacking these labs in Russia,at least go to war defending ourselves rather than a country that has nothing to do with us |
|
By:
Agree, 1st time. If the Govt is so anti-the use of chemical weapons (no bad thing in itself, obvs) why didn't it share its intelligence about the Russian stockpiling with OPCW, UN etc etc (or indeed go it alone)?
|
|
By:
The whole point of banning them is so you have them and the other side doesn't. If everyone has chemical weapons, then you lose the advantage.
Very basic game theory tells you that banning chemical weapons will never work. It's simply not possible. It's just a tool the west can use as an excuse in case someone doesn't fall in line. If anyone resists, like NK, Pak, Iran, there isn't much you can do. Middle eastern countries were stupid to not acquire nuclear technology when they were friends with the US. Now they're all dust. Korea and Japan should also have realized that the US nuclear umbrella isn't as great as it sounds. Both the countries will be the battleground for any NK/US conflict. Unless you have your own weapons, you are basically fkd. |
|
By:
I read it a bit differently, detraveller.
I think it's "fine" for Russia to have chemical stockpiles (if not, why didn't the UK act on the intel they have about Russian stockpiles?) - for the same reason it's "fine" that they have nuclear: balance of global power, checks and balances, mutual deterrent etc. But for a State to actually use its chemical weapons, a line gets crossed (just as an even more obvious one would be crossed if a State were to go nuclear). That's what has US/UK/France whipped up, imo... it's nothing to do with being shocked or aghast that Syria/Russia actually has stocks in the first place. |
|
By:
we are so holier than thou - where did these chemical weapons come from
who gave them to saddam then where did they go when he got rid of them so we are going to war over chemicals that the west FIRST provided they are fkn mad to fight over this piece of land and side with the islamist creed |