• Biggest task force since 2003 Iraq war, on course for Syria
    79 replies, posted
Biggest task force since Iraq on course for Syria | The Times www.bbc.com/news/blogs-the-papers-43747832 https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/syria-news-latest-largest-us-strike-force-since-iraq-war-deployed-as-cabinet-backs-may-to-join-a3812931.html The largest US air and naval strike force since the 2003 Iraq war was heading towards Syria last night as Theresa May won the backing of the cabinet to join in military action. US-led strikes after the suspected chemical weapon attack in Douma, which left as many as 40 people dead, are expected within the next three days. The prime minister continued yesterday to face down demands for a Commons vote on whether Britain should join the US in any punitive action against President Assad. The US is amassing ten warships and two submarines in the Mediterranean and Gulf region. The mobilisation will give Mr Trump the option for a significant military campaign against Assad. The USS Donald Cook, a guided-missile destroyer with up to 60 Tomahawk missiles, is already within range. Three other destroyers are also close by. In addition, the USS Harry S Truman, a nuclear-powered carrier with 90 aircraft and five escort ships, which set sail from Norfolk, Virginia, on Wednesday, could be included in any action by the end of next week.
History repeat itself. Even this time is sound and look contrast, but still similar anyway. And my gut will said predominately of mainstream media still be sided to be pro-war as usual.
The media has been beating the war drums all week. At least Britain is having a vote before they bomb a sovereign state. Sad.
Nearly all the media I've been watching, which is quite a breadth of media sources, have been beating the 'no war' drums.
Consider which media the current US President watches.
how many times are the baby boomers going to repeat Vietnam
There weren't a serious number of Soviet military installations in Vietnam. This business is really messy - any invasion or large strike risks killing Russians. It's not worth the fucking risk.
Actually, there were, and it led to pilots having to go through a bunch of legal red tape bullshit to get anything done, and ultimately prevented the US from invading North Vietnam in fear of a repeat of the Korean war. The unwillingness of the US to start a war with the Russians and Chinese made the Vietnam war completely ineffective, and it's going to do the exact same thing here.
This is probably going to kill more Syrians in collateral damage terms than the amount killed in Douma that sparked this reaction.
When you agree to the terms of an international treaty, and then continue to violate the terms of that treaty (multiple times), you should expect to get fucked the international community, particularly if you're a small country with no real power or friends aside from Russia, who is busy pissing off the entirety of the west.
Plus it's plausible that Russia would let Assad fall as a sunk cost. Better to lose a relatively small friend then to make further large foes.
Fuck off May. Less than 22% of people here support military action in Syria.
Has Parliament demanded a vote? Because they bloody well need to. The PM is playing 'follow me' with a deranged, probably criminal madman who just happens to wield the world's biggest stick.
May is determined to look strong on "something". By following Trump she gets a nice war to get nationalists riled up with. I don't think the old bag's image is worth the lives of members of our military tbh.
Can we... not? I hope I don't get to a point where I cease being surprised by the capacity for rational individuals to make the same catastrophic mistake over and over again.
Ah, just continuing the trend of the middle east being our personal playground for... whatever reason.
Corbyn's put forward the demand to make it a vote in parliament, no clue if it'll succeed.
They reportedly deployed chemical weapons, which is hardly a stretch to believe given they've done it in the past, an act in violation of international treaties they agreed to. What do you suggest is done to enforce those treaties? Sanctions? Does the UK not have cruise missiles and armed drone platforms?
https://twitter.com/ICSNet/status/984954921433862144 Pfft. Wouldn't be surprising at all. The moment Bolton got in there, he's been drumming Trump up for war.
Oh Jesus there is a live chat.
This is probably a really simplistic view on things, but...what's the appropriate response, if not this? Whenever there's an ongoing tragedy somewhere, the popular sentiments are always about how the non-violent response of so-and-so org is "toothless" and the constant questioning of if things like sanctions actually do anything; or how it's terrible that no one's stopping them, and how can they be allowed to commit such atrocities in this day and age? ...but I had a quick look through the comments of the /r/uk "can we please not go to war" thread and it's filled with comments questioning if a chemical attack even took place? I mean, if you handwave that as rusbots the sentiment I'm seeing on the internet in general is still massively against it, but what is the correct response? That's my main question really, what should a country do in this situation? Should they even be doing anything?
Nobody has brought forward evidence being the main thing, even Theresa May said we need to hold out for evidence before strikes a few days ago. The most we have is Macron saying "We know they did it but we ain't telling you why or how" This whole thing fucking stinks from the western side.
Mattis also said categorically that he got evidence the day before the strike, after he made his statement about waiting for more evidence.
Here's to another decade long war.
While there was a lot of problems regarding invading the north, the pentagon ignored the reports from every independant source for over a decade regarding our position in South Vietnam, had they actually won the hearts and minds of the southerners, instead of doing their damndest to be worse than the French colonial government, then we might have been able to establish a south/north boarder.
Even if it wasn't Assad who used the gas in the attack, I think it's better overall to eliminate the chemicals and their production from Syria in any event. If it means having to pin this attack on Assad in order to do so, I don't see the harm in blaming a bloodthirsty dictator for being a bloodthirsty dictator.
Why are you spreading disinformation? More than just France have declared evidence now, and theres only really Russia with "evidence" against. Which is worthless. Gee why dont you just cite us some RT articles and prove us the cheeky western countries staged it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.