None of it is good, there is no good outcome either from action or inaction.
Quite. Which is why I’m not rabidly celebrating the impotent launch of these strikes.
again who is that leading statement aimed at ?
Is it some sort of ex pat virus you pick up in Australia?
Those who blindly back air strikes regardless of the outcome or intent. Not you junky your fine there unless your one of them? Quick test who got the most from the strieks Trump diverting attention from ****ing porn stars, May from Brexit, Assad from killing his own people or Whoever sells these?
Probably safest to trust those with democratic checks and balances and an independent media.
So not answering the question there Mefty, promotion straight to the cabinet there
It only requires a simple inference which is no doubt beyond some.
It only requires a simple inference which is no doubt beyond some.
It’s certainly bypassed you
Pray tell how so
I’ll let you figure it out. You seem to consider yourself a bright enough chap.
The russians MO is to ninfan any issue. The truth is an irrelevance to them everything is said to create the effect they want [ discord between allies. disagreement, muddy the waters, etc- ninfan wants someone to be upset/angry /annoyed with him for reasons I doubt even he understands] and what is true or false is not even considered by them.Like ninfan some of the statements they make are absurd. Its pointless to engage with them or what they say as you cannot win ; what they want is you to engage , what happens after that is irrelevant, on their terms - ludicrous, stupid, and dishonest ones they dont even believe.
what do Russia want in Syria and how is it different to what we want?
what do Russia want in Syria
To keep the Tartus naval base.
What i think is that russia ,in general, has made it obvious what its MO is in terms of international relations. Unfortunately that means we have to act in ways that are far less than desirable.
We have to act yes. But firing missiles into a foreign country with no plan and no consensus or approval from the legislature is the least useful act we could do. A far better plan would be to tighten economic sanctions and combine these with a diplomatic offensive with both Russia and it's allies in order to first isolate Russia and then give them the opportunity to rethink their strategy without losing too much face. But no, dropping bombs from afar is far easier and looks good on the telly.
Dazh +1
And to counter the argument that sanctions and diplomacy won’t work, please how me examples of how cruise missiles do.
lock 'em up lock 'em up lock 'em up lock 'em up
professor of public international law at Oxford University....
In the opinion I reach the following conclusions:
1. Contrary to the position of the government, neither the UN Charter nor customary international law permits military action on the basis of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention. There is very little support by states for such an exception to the prohibition of the use of force. The UK is one of very few states that advocates for such a legal principle but the vast majority of states have explicitly rejected it.
2. The legal position advanced by the government ignores the structure of the international law rules relating to the use of force, in particular, because a customary international law rule does not prevail over the rule in the United Nations charter prohibiting the use of force. To accept the position advocated by the government would be to undermine the supremacy of the UN charter.
3. Even if there was a doctrine of humanitarian intervention in international law, the strikes against Syria would not appear to meet the tests set out by the government. The action taken by the government was not directed at bringing “immediate and urgent relief” with regard to the specific evil it sought to prevent, and was taken before the inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons were able to reach the affected area.
4. If the position taken by the government were to be accepted by states globally, it would allow for individual assessments of when force was necessary to achieve humanitarian ends, with the risk of abuse. It is because of the humanitarian suffering that will ensue from such abusive uses of force, that other states and many scholars have been reluctant to endorse the doctrine of humanitarian action.
Random vids again TG? Care to give a synopsis of what you are watching? Are they from reputable sources? Not heard of Vesti news
Ah state sponsored Russian TV
comments on the videos are good though :
What about the chemical attack being carried out as we speak on everyone? CHEMTRAILS are killing all life on earth.
