The News, Trump vs Putin...

guitars4you

impmann said:

Fretwired said:

joeyowen said:

Surely they will wait until WHO have been in there and clarified everything?

We are talking about Trump. May has said she'll wait for proof so the US and France could go it alone.

Don't count on it...  I wouldn't put anything past her or that bumble-cunt Boris when it comes to diplomacy, sense, and waiting for evidence.

Why attack Syria for this? What will that do? There are plenty of other oppressive regimes using violence, weapons and death against their own subjects - some have been for far longer than Syria. It seems a little extreme to bring things close to a war footing... I'm not saying it wasn't repugnant what was done in Syria, its just I fail to see what good will come of launching missiles to ensure the violence doesn't escalate. After all, that *is* the reason for doing so... isn't it?  Stopping an escalation of violence and making sure such a thing never happens again shoud be the only reason to 'take action'. If the only reason is punishment, it won't help...

Many forget that the 'anti' Assad regime started when he refused the 'great western powers' access to a new gas pipeline, to run from the middle east to Europe, which had to run through Syria (From Qatar to Turkey) - A Russian backed Assad was encouraged and supported by Putin to block such a move - This leaves Europe more dependent on a Russian gas supply source, which suits Putin - Hence let's get a regime change and as usual the CIA implements policies, backed by the USA regime and military power, to undermine everything Syria and Assad represented

The pipeline is the original issue and it has escalated from there - And as in many instances from the past, the real truth never comes to the table

matone

Search`Peter Ford dropping truth bombs`on Youtube ! We`re being led astray again ......

ICBM

guitars4you said:

Many forget that the 'anti' Assad regime started when he refused the 'great western powers' access to a new gas pipeline, to run from the middle east to Europe, which had to run through Syria (From Qatar to Turkey) - A Russian backed Assad was encouraged and supported by Putin to block such a move - This leaves Europe more dependent on a Russian gas supply source, which suits Putin - Hence let's get a regime change and as usual the CIA implements policies, backed by the USA regime and military power, to undermine everything Syria and Assad represented

The pipeline is the original issue and it has escalated from there - And as in many instances from the past, the real truth never comes to the table

Don't forget the heinous international crime of selling Syrian oil in Euros and not dollars too... just like his neighbour Saddam.

Also makes you realise why the EU was so keen to discuss eventual membership with Turkey, despite their obvious complete economic and cultural incompatibility. Unsurprisingly that's got put on the back-burner now there's no pipeline and Turkey is leaning more towards Russia...

guitars4you

ICBM said:

guitars4you said:

Many forget that the 'anti' Assad regime started when he refused the 'great western powers' access to a new gas pipeline, to run from the middle east to Europe, which had to run through Syria (From Qatar to Turkey) - A Russian backed Assad was encouraged and supported by Putin to block such a move - This leaves Europe more dependent on a Russian gas supply source, which suits Putin - Hence let's get a regime change and as usual the CIA implements policies, backed by the USA regime and military power, to undermine everything Syria and Assad represented

The pipeline is the original issue and it has escalated from there - And as in many instances from the past, the real truth never comes to the table

Don't forget the heinous international crime of selling Syrian oil in Euros and not dollars too... just like his neighbour Saddam.

Also makes you realise why the EU was so keen to discuss eventual membership with Turkey, despite their obvious complete economic and cultural incompatibility. Unsurprisingly that's got put on the back-burner now there's no pipeline and Turkey is leaning more towards Russia...

Selling oil in any other currency other than Dollars is the big issue isn't it for the USA - Add Iraq, Iran, Venezuela etc to the bad boy list - it underminds the petro dollar agreement with OPEC and the bank/corporations plus fiat currency - That is why India and China, amongst others are prepared to buy oil in other currencies from Iraq, Iran etc - The days of the manufactured USA Dollar as the worlds major currency are seriously numbered - Not if - Just when

And it has gone forgotten - But who is buying all the 'stolen' oil from Syria, siezed by rebels to fund their campaign ? - It went almost unreported when Russia bombed a convoy of oil tankers leaving rebel backed areas a while ago, fully laden with stolen oil to be sold to the wet and probably via Turkey

guitars4you

matone said:

Search`Peter Ford dropping truth bombs`on Youtube ! We`re being led astray again ......

interesting and supports other sources - but not the main stream media - I wonder why ????????????????

VimFuego

here's the thought that's bothering me, if all they do is a limited air strike that will, presumably, set back the Assad regime by a period of time, then all that does is prolong the war, which means more dead people. If we're gonna do some military shit, then do it properly, full on regime change, and then leave in its place a functioning state, not like Libya (not that Iraq is a poster boy for regime change, but it is at least a kinda functioning state, after a fashion, sort of).
But I suspect there is no appetite for boots on the ground, so all we'll do is some sort of limited action, that will not achieve anything positive. 

rocktron

I fail to see what bombing the Syrians by the West would achieve, as if the people haven't been bombed to destruction already.

Assad will hide in safety, and It is only the unfortunate civilians who would undergo more suffering. 

With the amount of firepower available on both sides, this will not end well.

Trump was talking of withdrawing US military personnel from Syria, and he should follow up on that plan and not get suckered into further conflict. 

Parliament should not give Theresa May its backing, even to bomb selective targets with pin-point accuracy. 

A period of calm is called for. The West has the dubious moral high ground for now. 

ICBM

VimFuego said:

here's the thought that's bothering me, if all they do is a limited air strike that will, presumably, set back the Assad regime by a period of time, then all that does is prolong the war, which means more dead people. If we're gonna do some military shit, then do it properly, full on regime change, and then leave in its place a functioning state, not like Libya (not that Iraq is a poster boy for regime change, but it is at least a kinda functioning state, after a fashion, sort of).
But I suspect there is no appetite for boots on the ground, so all we'll do is some sort of limited action, that will not achieve anything positive. 

Impossible anyway - the Russians would never tolerate it, so it would be a full-scale war with them. The reason the war started is as guitars4you posted above - a Western-sponsored attempt to get rid of Assad because he blocked the Qatar-Turkey pipeline on Putin's behalf, the West wanting it built to reduce the EU's dependency on Russian gas.

This is also one of the two major causes of the war in Ukraine - new gas reserves have been discovered there. Guess which part of Ukraine? (The other is the attempted expansion of the EU and NATO into a country still perceived as part of Russia's 'family' by the Russians.)

Fretwired

Sorry guys, nothing to do with an oil pipeline. Fake news .. Bush was funding rebels in Syria long before any pipeline was thought of and Syria didn't block it.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/37685-the-war-against-the-assad-regime-is-not-a-pipeline-war

Heartfeltdawn

darthed1981 said:

Someone slip Trump some sedatives until he calms down please?

Sod that. Someone fly him to Mar-a-Lago, lace him with Viagra, and tell Stormy Daniels to take one for the team for 48 hours. She's the only chance we've got to calm him down. 

ICBM

Fretwired said:

Sorry guys, nothing to do with an oil pipeline. Fake news .. Bush was funding rebels in Syria long before any pipeline was thought of and Syria didn't block it.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/37685-the-war-against-the-assad-regime-is-not-a-pipeline-war

Interesting.

Fretwired

May has been given proof. All the horses are under starters orders and we're off to war. Might have happened by breakfast tomorrow.

From the Times published a few minutes ago:

Theresa May has cleared the way for Britain to join a US-led military attack on Syria within days after national security advisers presented new evidence blaming President Assad for the “barbaric” gas attack in Douma.

The prime minister is recalling cabinet ministers from their Easter break to seek approval today. She is set to defy calls, including from Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, to follow recent convention and allow MPs a vote.

Polling for The Times indicates that only a fifth of voters believe that Britain should launch missiles on Syrian military targets. More than two fifths oppose action, with the remainder undecided.

Senior ministers summoned to this afternoon’s emergency cabinet will be asked to “consider the next steps”, according to a Downing Street source. Mrs May is likely to make the case for military action on the basis that it is necessary to deter future gas attacks.

guitarcookie1

Regardless of whatever evidence there is, sadly I think Trump just wants a war of some sort during his time in office  

ICBM

As usual, we will be joining the US in bombing whether there is any proof of who carried out the chemical attack, or whether it will achieve anything even if it is proved to be the Assad government, because our government is afraid of ‘losing influence’ with the US or some such nonsense.

At least Cameron had the sense to put it to Parliament, and when he lost the vote had to stand up to Obama and say no. If anything that really *did* show influence - Obama changed his mind. Trump is a different proposition admittedly...

guitars4you

ICBM said:

As usual, we will be joining the US in bombing whether there is any proof of who carried out the chemical attack, or whether it will achieve anything even if it is proved to be the Assad government, because our government is afraid of ‘losing influence’ with the US or some such nonsense.

At least Cameron had the sense to put it to Parliament, and when he lost the vote had to stand up to Obama and say no. If anything that really *did* show influence - Obama changed his mind. Trump is a different proposition admittedly...

I'm sure the reliable source of proof of the chemical attack is the same as the WMD ref Iraq

when we were on about selling oil in anything but dollars, forgot to add Libya to that list - there are others and all run foul of the 'manufactured dollar empire machine'

Fretwired

Heartfeltdawn said:

darthed1981 said:

Someone slip Trump some sedatives until he calms down please?

Sod that. Someone fly him to Mar-a-Lago, lace him with Viagra, and tell Stormy Daniels to take one for the team for 48 hours. She's the only chance we've got to calm him down. 

I'd prefer a trip to Dallas, an open top car and a grassy knoll ...

impmann

ICBM said:

As usual, we will be joining the US in bombing whether there is any proof of who carried out the chemical attack, or whether it will achieve anything even if it is proved to be the Assad government, because our government is afraid of ‘losing influence’ with the US or some such nonsense.

At least Cameron had the sense to put it to Parliament, and when he lost the vote had to stand up to Obama and say no. If anything that really *did* show influence - Obama changed his mind. Trump is a different proposition admittedly...

The reason she won't go Parliament with this is that she needs a good war to up her ratings with the knuckle-draggers. And she knows she'd be on a sticky wicket.

Thing is, this *could* be a fork in the road moment concerning world peace... with someone as barking mad as Trump facing off with someone else as barking mad as Putin, with nobody acting as a voice of reason (or too scared to say no to 'The Donald' in case he retaliates) this is a bit scary.

Frankly, 'punishing' Syria isn't going to acheive anything other than starting more military action where nobody is going to win. Most thinking people would question such a decision, including those in Parliament - even her own party aren't 100% behind such an action. Frankly, if Trump wants to drop missiles on Syria why not let him... its not like he's going to need our help at this stage...

impmann

Fretwired said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

darthed1981 said:

Someone slip Trump some sedatives until he calms down please?

Sod that. Someone fly him to Mar-a-Lago, lace him with Viagra, and tell Stormy Daniels to take one for the team for 48 hours. She's the only chance we've got to calm him down. 

I'd prefer a trip to Dallas, an open top car and a grassy knoll ...

Whilst I admire the idea and may even fund such a trip... the issue is he then becomes a martyr. And that's a terrible thought - I want to see him in jail, picking up the soap for Bubba.

VimFuego

impmann said:

Fretwired said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

darthed1981 said:

Someone slip Trump some sedatives until he calms down please?

Sod that. Someone fly him to Mar-a-Lago, lace him with Viagra, and tell Stormy Daniels to take one for the team for 48 hours. She's the only chance we've got to calm him down. 

I'd prefer a trip to Dallas, an open top car and a grassy knoll ...

Whilst I admire the idea and may even fund such a trip... the issue is he then becomes a martyr. And that's a terrible thought - I want to see him in jail, picking up the soap for Bubba.

now that's a genre even I'm not wanting to see!!!

Fretwired

impmann said:

ICBM said:

As usual, we will be joining the US in bombing whether there is any proof of who carried out the chemical attack, or whether it will achieve anything even if it is proved to be the Assad government, because our government is afraid of ‘losing influence’ with the US or some such nonsense.

At least Cameron had the sense to put it to Parliament, and when he lost the vote had to stand up to Obama and say no. If anything that really *did* show influence - Obama changed his mind. Trump is a different proposition admittedly...

The reason she won't go Parliament with this is that she needs a good war to up her ratings with the knuckle-draggers. And she knows she'd be on a sticky wicket.

Thing is, this *could* be a fork in the road moment concerning world peace... with someone as barking mad as Trump facing off with someone else as barking mad as Putin, with nobody acting as a voice of reason (or too scared to say no to 'The Donald' in case he retaliates) this is a bit scary.

Frankly, 'punishing' Syria isn't going to acheive anything other than starting more military action where nobody is going to win. Most thinking people would question such a decision, including those in Parliament - even her own party aren't 100% behind such an action. Frankly, if Trump wants to drop missiles on Syria why not let him... its not like he's going to need our help at this stage...

A Times survey has found that less that 25% of people support action and that within Tory voters that is much lower. Bombing people is a vote loser. This will boost Corbyn.