Still Waters Posted December 8, 2012 #1 Share Posted December 8, 2012 British Foreign Secretary William Hague says the UK and the US have seen evidence that Syria is preparing to use chemical weapons. Mr Hague told the BBC there was "enough evidence to know that they need a warning". The foreign secretary did not give details, as he said the evidence had come from "intelligence sources". http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-20650582 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilly Posted December 8, 2012 #2 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Oh, this is just great news (<sarcasm). Just what this region needs, chemical warfare. Talk about going from bad to worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted December 8, 2012 #3 Share Posted December 8, 2012 I wonder if this is new? It's posted today's date but such warnings have been going on for several days now. Hmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted December 8, 2012 #4 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Oh, this is just great news (<sarcasm). Just what this region needs, chemical warfare. Talk about going from bad to worse. Can you imagine cleaning up the mess that would be left after the dying is done? Not sure how persistent in the environment this stuff is but I read that one consideration for any intervening force (US or Britain) is that when we break it we "buy" it. IOW the removal and destruction of the substances would be on our tab. Hundreds of millions of $ according to the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted December 8, 2012 #5 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Different officials are saying different things. I wouldn't trust any of the media just now. Or moronic MP's that I wouldn't trust with my bicycle. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted December 8, 2012 #6 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Different officials are saying different things. I wouldn't trust any of the media just now. Or moronic MP's that I wouldn't trust with my bicycle. Actually the news has been pretty consistent though with slight variations. The only person I have seen who says NO evidence is available that the agent has been weaponized for use is Ban ki Moon at the UN. US, Britain have both said they have intel that shows them preparing weapons for use. From a tactical standpoint it makes sense. This kind of weaponry takes time to prepare and would be of no use as a unit was being over run. Wind conditions have to be factored and keeping your own troops ready to fight after the chemicals have been used on the battlefield is critical. But having them ready still does not mean they will be used for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docyabut2 Posted December 8, 2012 #7 Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) You know the US has so many problems of debt, some don`nt want to commit to another war.We have always help when needed. but some how I don`t think the Obama adminstration will to do anything but send a few troops to be slaughter. I was watching a show the other day on how these weapons can be loaded ,they put half the mixture in one end of the bomb and another mixture at the other end ,when the bomb hits and the mixtures mixs together they exploed the gases,now they do say Assad may have order to load these gases. Edited December 8, 2012 by docyabut2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted December 8, 2012 #8 Share Posted December 8, 2012 You know the US has so many problems of debt, some don`nt want to commit to another war.We have always help when needed. but some how I don`t think the Obama adminstration will to do anything but send a few troops to be slaughter. I really hope you are correct. But this is a problem (potentially) that will have to be solved by someone. What a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docyabut2 Posted December 8, 2012 #9 Share Posted December 8, 2012 http://video.foxnews.com/v/2016052183001/source-syria-mixing-chemical-weapons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.United_Nations Posted December 8, 2012 #10 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Syria now says they have chemical weapons.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted December 9, 2012 #11 Share Posted December 9, 2012 I think that if he uses them and the US or Russia do not very quickly intercede, Israel is going to be striking all those sites by air. The environmental devastation would be awful. Most of it would burn, I guess, but it only takes a small amount to kill many people. Not to mention that if Israel is drawn in they might all stop fighting each other and turn on a common foe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldorado Posted December 9, 2012 #12 Share Posted December 9, 2012 (edited) Aye... well I hope they never got their intel from the same guys who were positive Iraq had WMDs armed and aimed at "the West". Edited December 9, 2012 by Eldorado 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewinn Posted December 9, 2012 #13 Share Posted December 9, 2012 we should stay out of Syria. let the Arab league deal with the problem. its about time they took responsibility in their own backyard, with America and the UK concentrating more and more in the far east. its about time they - the Arab league stood up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExpandMyMind Posted December 9, 2012 #14 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Aye... well I hope they never got their intel from the same guys who were positive Iraq had WMDs armed and aimed at "the West". Aye, that ended up being as dangerous a threat as me aiming my pee at the West. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted December 9, 2012 #15 Share Posted December 9, 2012 We have always help when needed. That is so wrong it's laughable. Africa has needed help for over 20 years and nothing. The US and Europe only help when they can gain from it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted December 9, 2012 #16 Share Posted December 9, 2012 That is so wrong it's laughable. Africa has needed help for over 20 years and nothing. The US and Europe only help when they can gain from it. Coffey if it weren't for aid from the US and Europe, Africa would be in much worse shape than they currently are. Starvation will never end there due to their refusal to limit their birth rates. Corruption is rife and human life has almost no value to their leaders. The whole continent seems to be culturally cursed and has been for as long as I can remember. Clinton and Bush both spent billions on AIDS medicines and relief. We actually had soldiers ( one of whom I went to school with) die in Somalia while we were attempting to feed the starving. Africa is a blood and resource sponge and will never be sorted until the leaders and people have a real desire to make it work. That is not a lack of empathy it's just the reality of the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted December 9, 2012 #17 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Coffey if it weren't for aid from the US and Europe, Africa would be in much worse shape than they currently are. Starvation will never end there due to their refusal to limit their birth rates. Corruption is rife and human life has almost no value to their leaders. The whole continent seems to be culturally cursed and has been for as long as I can remember. Clinton and Bush both spent billions on AIDS medicines and relief. We actually had soldiers ( one of whom I went to school with) die in Somalia while we were attempting to feed the starving. Africa is a blood and resource sponge and will never be sorted until the leaders and people have a real desire to make it work. That is not a lack of empathy it's just the reality of the situation. They don't take military action, yet do in other countries. Also I explained the Aids medication etc before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted December 9, 2012 #18 Share Posted December 9, 2012 They don't take military action, yet do in other countries. Also I explained the Aids medication etc before. So let me understand... you think it would be a good idea for the US/Britain to use military force in Africa to change things there to help the people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted December 10, 2012 #19 Share Posted December 10, 2012 So let me understand... you think it would be a good idea for the US/Britain to use military force in Africa to change things there to help the people? No I do not, but I also did not think it was right for them to use military force in Iraq or Afghanistan either. But we are talking about "IF" they where doing this to help. I also don't think it's right for military force any any circumstances unless it's in defense or aid of defense. Being the attacking force is wrong in every situation. (including Israel's constant bs) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now