+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: General (/forumdisplay.php?fid=19)
+--- Forum: All Other Subjects (/forumdisplay.php?fid=114)
+---- Forum: News Zone (/forumdisplay.php?fid=111)
+---- Thread: World War 3? (/showthread.php?tid=70512)
RE: World War 3? - lovebabes56 - 14-04-2018 11:55
I have the feeling that this had a two fold effect :
1) This was about stopping the use of Chemical weapons - I would not be surprised if it transpires little damage was achieved on any chemical targets.
2) Was never about toppling Assad. Really? - yet I get the feeling this was probably an underlying objective for a long time.
My gut instinct is that we are likely to see Russia claiming we have killed Russian military personnel, and there is no end game or exit strategy from this situation. Had she recalled Parliament I know she would have lost any vote on action taken.
RE: World War 3? - SecretAgent - 14-04-2018 12:17
(14-04-2018 11:55 )babelover48 Wrote: My gut instinct is that we are likely to see Russia claiming we have killed Russian military personnel, and there is no end game or exit strategy from this situation. Had she recalled Parliament I know she would have lost any vote on action taken.
Really? The Russians have not claimed any of their personnel died and indeed the reports have so far made clear that no Russians were anywhere near the targeted installations and that injuries were minimal (not seen any reported deaths at all to date including any claims by the Syrians)
As no vote has been taken in Parliament how can you know she would have lost? We may see a vote next week and it may be that Mrs May would lose but if so it will likely be because Comrade Corbyn will order his MP's to vote against the Government. I suspect some Labour MP's will rebel and more will be sacked from Shadow Minister roles
RE: World War 3? - Doddle - 14-04-2018 16:32
Since it has been presented as a one-off "shot across the bows" (Trump pretty much going "job done"), Thezza looks doubly useless because she might as well have called a Parliamentary recall/vote (assuming the US could have been bothered to wait for her). Even if she lost, Trump and Macron would have happily gone ahead. She had to back Trump because she knows Corbyn wouldn't support an undemocratic bombing attack in a million years.
Syria & Russia would be smart to do nothing (or keep doing nothing, right cynics?), and let the US feel it's got its rage out of its system.
RE: World War 3? - SecretAgent - 14-04-2018 17:58
^ Corbyn wont support any use of force anywhere at anytime and keeps saying we should use the UN yet he totally ignores that Russia vetoes motions put forward there. Dont forget that when Assad claimed they had destroyed all their Chemical weapons a few years ago it was Russia that verified it. Mmm bit suspicious that!
RE: World War 3? - HannahsPet - 14-04-2018 20:30
So much for the outrage at the UN only china and bolivia sided with Russia and Syria in condemming the Attacks
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/14/world/middleeast/un-security-council-syria-airstrikes.html
RE: World War 3? - Doddle - 14-04-2018 20:41
(14-04-2018 17:58 )SecretAgent Wrote: ^ Corbyn wont support any use of force anywhere at anytime and keeps saying we should use the UN yet he totally ignores that Russia vetoes motions put forward there. Dont forget that when Assad claimed they had destroyed all their Chemical weapons a few years ago it was Russia that verified it. Mmm bit suspicious that!You don't find it remarkably & idiotically convenient that as soon as Trump talks about US troops leaving Syria, Assad conducts an "alleged" chemical attack? What is he, a military moron all of a sudden?
I might also point out that Russia's suggested UN plan for inspections was also drubbed, so it was hardly all one-way blockage there.
RE: World War 3? - SecretAgent - 14-04-2018 21:04
^ Russia have blocked motions at the Security Council 12 times which would have led to action on Syria. Russia used their veto last week to block a motion that would have led to the identification of those responsible for the use of chemical weapons. The competing Russian motion was rejected by 3 Security Council members.
Russia are defending Assad and preventing the UN taking action.
Seems your support of Russia extends to their use of Chemical Weapons as well
RE: World War 3? - Doddle - 15-04-2018 07:13
The chemical attack which France claim was chlorine, and the US claim was sarin?
The chemical attack so terrible that ONE US retaliation is considered "mission accomplished"?!
The chemical attack which was "alleged" last week and is still "suspected" this week?!
The chemical attack which makes NO strategic sense whatsoever?
That chemical attack?
RE: World War 3? - SecretAgent - 15-04-2018 07:36
^ I’ve not seen any US claim it was Sarin - whats your source please?
RE: World War 3? - HannahsPet - 15-04-2018 08:40
Does Russia have a piss tape on Doddle
Corbyn on Marr what a fucking Joke !!!