Tank Slap - Motorcycle Forum

Saudi aircraft have arrived in Cyprus.

The Greeks have just lost an aircraft following a dog fight over Greek airspace.

Jack wrote:I'm a bit confused about the current situation in Syria , I am told that Assad has used chemical weapons against the population killing and injuring many including women and children , so in order to help the population of Syria we are going to bomb them , am I missing something as I fail to see how bombing them can do anything but kill more of them .

I'm confused too Jack.

The only evidence the media is showing of chemical weapons use is a bloke getting hosed down for 30 seconds and a baby getting a quick wash. Hardly convincing evidence.

If they were victims of chemical weapon use their contaminated clothes would be removed before washing down which would be for much longer than 30 seconds and the doctors treating any victims would be wearing some form of chemical protection ppe. It wouldn't be a quick wash and off you go. They would need treating for blisters and burns etc.. ..you would also think there would be bodies.

I'm not saying chemical weapons have or haven't been used as I genuinely don't know. But if they have, then the presented evidence at least to the general public is weak at best imo.

Even if chemical weapons have been used, why should the politicians consider that to be more worthy of intervention than when innocent women & children were being butchered in their thousands by Machetes.?

Fully agree.

Sad reality is the Wests intervention is rarely about saving lives and often more about personal gain.

Chemical wespons are universally banned by the Geneva Protocol...they float over borders and cause damage other than what was intended. They 'up the ante' in political terms past levels that have been mutually agreed upon.
Realistically....only governments can issue them - governments NEVER issue machetes.

D41 wrote:Chemical weapons are universally banned by the Geneva Protocol.

Yet are used routinely around the world on civilians by police , pepper spray , tear gas etc I appreciate that generally these are non lethal but they are chemical weapons .
A couple of thousand tonnes of highly toxic and radioactive depleted uranium munitions are fine though .

D41 wrote:governments NEVER issue machetes.

I think you'll find that they do indeed issue machetes when the terrain requires it like in jungles .
A bayonet is pretty useless for hacking your way through the undergrowth .

Jack wrote:

D41 wrote:Chemical weapons are universally banned by the Geneva Protocol.

Yet are used routinely around the world on civilians by police , pepper spray , tear gas etc I appreciate that generally these are non lethal but they are chemical weapons .
A couple of thousand tonnes of highly toxic and radioactive depleted uranium munitions are fine though .

Like you say, they're non-lethal, they don't fall into the categories addressed by the GP.....they're simply for crowd control/dispersal.

Blade wrote:Fully agree.

Sad reality is the West's intervention is rarely about saving lives and often more about personal gain.

IMO it's actually always about gain, anything else is window dressing to appease the plebs.

Well it's started.

Let's see what Russia's next move is????

Potentially scary times is this a modern day Cuban Missile Crisis type of situation with nuclear super powers squaring off against each other?

Watch the price of oil and energy go through the roof which suits both Russia and USA.

The parallels are definitely there...but no, I don't think it's anything like that bad. The missile crisis was about the USSR parking missiles with nuclear warheads 100 miles off the US mainland, with the clear intention being for them to be used against the US....a direct challenge to national security. There's no danger of the US going at Russia, they just don't like us in their front yard.

duke63 wrote:Watch the price of oil and energy go through the roof which suits both Russia and USA.

This.^

D41 wrote:The parallels are definitely there...but no.....

Not quite the same.: Last time the US had a president reputed to have integrity and an open mind to his learned advisors. This time..:
Also, last time the USSR was controlled by committee who's designated role was the management of the Soviet populous, with their premier as little more than a figurehead.

This time autonomous control is entirely under the trigger finger of a KGB trained sociopath, who's primary motivator is maintaining the income of his billionaire cronies.

So, not quite the same...?

Russia's response wasn't immediate, which I'm hoping is a good sign. No planes and as far as I'm aware no missiles were shot down.

You can understand Russia's postion. If you look at the world map, there's a US ring around them and China. If is was the other way around, the media would be calling it aggressive.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... e-strings/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Russia seems kinda by itself on this one. The US has the UK as an ally to bolster their ranks....and even the French have shown up sans their white flags (so far, so good..).

May has probably just risen to the ranks of one of the most inept PM ever in the last few months. She seems incapable of doing anything other than what she is told.

Looking at the above map you can see how critical it is for Syria to be "friendly" to both US and Russian interests , we seem to be trying to make sure that Syria is friendly to the US backed option by changing the regime to one that is amenable to the west , whereas Russia seems to have cultivated a relationship with the current regime , which would seem to be the more civilised thing to do .

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... WdhHcTa5as[/video]