Bolton Wanderers Fans Forum

You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Wandering Minds » Should we have bombed Syria?

Should we have bombed Syria?

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 3]

1 Should we have bombed Syria? on Sat Apr 14 2018, 12:23

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
Not sure I'm comfortable with setting ourselves up as the world's moral police acting as some sort of Judge Dread sort of way without a legitimate mandate from the rest of the world - such as United Nations resolutions.

Yes using chemical weapons is abhorrent but what exactly is sending four planes to drop a few bombs on a country thousands of miles away going to do much about it?

Yes it was sort of a token 'we are in it with the USA' alongside the French token effort - and sometimes you do have to stand up to bullies - but really is this going to make things any better - I doubt it.

Seems to me we are backing Russia into some sort of a corner - and maybe they might feel that if they are pushed too far, that they may have to come out of it one day and do something to show they aren't going to take it anymore.

I doubt that they will want to go to war or anything so old fashioned but to fuck the west up with taking the hacking and control of the internet to a whole new level - one that we can't imagine I guess until it happens.

These days we rely totally on computers for everything - business, defence, logistics, trade, Bolton Nuts, banking, shopping, social media, etc, etc, etc - how will we cope if it becomes no longer reliable and secure anymore?

God knows what information is out there about each and everyone of us.  I don't tend to use the internet so much for doing personal stuff on - I'm old fashioned and have always thought if one man can create a system that is secure, there must be another man at least who is clever enough to break it too! - but even I must have loads of personal stuff out there on the internet that people like the banks, utilities, phone and broadband suppliers, HMRC, etc, etc have on their systems that ultimately will effect me if it is lost or misused.

Maybe we were going down this path anyway without us dropping a few bombs last night but I'd be happier if we could point to us doing this because the world agreed and backed us to do it rather than making such a questionable gesture.

Isn't the middle east a can of worms enough already without us adding more to it?

What do others think about this?

2 Re: Should we have bombed Syria? on Sat Apr 14 2018, 13:40

wanderlust

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Looks like May and Macron are now fully on board with Trump's agenda and my concern is that we really don't want to go back to East/West brinksmanship if only because of Russia's ability to destroy the UK in seconds - we are after all a lot nearer to them than the US and would probably be considered a softer target.
That said, I assume that this public display of muscle was notified via the back door comms channels i.e. Russia and Syria (and possibly Iran) were told in advance what targets would be hit as that's the way they do it nowadays. Putin will still have to save face in Russia, but I'm hoping he has the common sense not to escalate further. 
As regards whether it was right or not, personally I'd have liked to have seen some proof of the chemical attacks before we waded in. It's a bit like the Skripal case - plenty of circumstantial evidence but then doubt is cast on the findings AFTER we'd repatriotised the diplomats and there is still no conclusive proof that it was the Russians - although we all suspect it was. 
Similarly the Russians claim the Syrian chemical attack was set up by an American agency e.g. the CIA and it is not beyond the realms of possibility, so it would be good to get some verification BEFORE taking huge decisions and risks such as this. Worrying times especially as Putin is such a folk hero in Russia and will be under pressure to retaliate.

3 Re: Should we have bombed Syria? on Sat Apr 14 2018, 14:05

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
wanderlust wrote:Looks like May and Macron are now fully on board with Trump's agenda and my concern is that we really don't want to go back to East/West brinksmanship if only because of Russia's ability to destroy the UK in seconds - we are after all a lot nearer to them than the US and would probably be considered a softer target.
That said, I assume that this public display of muscle was notified via the back door comms channels i.e. Russia and Syria (and possibly Iran) were told in advance what targets would be hit as that's the way they do it nowadays. Putin will still have to save face in Russia, but I'm hoping he has the common sense not to escalate further. 
As regards whether it was right or not, personally I'd have liked to have seen some proof of the chemical attacks before we waded in. It's a bit like the Skripal case - plenty of circumstantial evidence but then doubt is cast on the findings AFTER we'd repatriotised the diplomats and there is still no conclusive proof that it was the Russians - although we all suspect it was. 
Similarly the Russians claim the Syrian chemical attack was set up by an American agency e.g. the CIA and it is not beyond the realms of possibility, so it would be good to get some verification BEFORE taking huge decisions and risks such as this. Worrying times especially as Putin is such a folk hero in Russia and will be under pressure to retaliate.

Oh I've no doubt these things really did happen - and it has been proved beyond doubt to the likes of May and Macron - for them to join in with the American's.

I don't doubt the intelligence services of all three country's know exactly what happened - and by whom - but the likes of us will never know because the intelligence services don't want their cover 'blown' or compromised in any way.

And I suspect too that Russia for certain has been told to shift their people at the places where the bombs were going to fall.

As I said above I don't think they will bomb us back or anything but I wouldn't be surprised if say some major (and embarrassing) hacks takes place in the forthcoming months originating from Russian hands.

Hope we're well prepared for them though.

4 Re: Should we have bombed Syria? on Sat Apr 14 2018, 14:16

Natasha Whittam

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Sluffy wrote:As I said above I don't think they will bomb us back or anything but I wouldn't be surprised if say some major (and embarrassing) hacks takes place in the forthcoming months originating from Russian hands.

Hope we're well prepared for them though.


I've only got the free version of AVG, will I be safe?

5 Re: Should we have bombed Syria? on Sat Apr 14 2018, 14:29

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
Natasha Whittam wrote:
Sluffy wrote:As I said above I don't think they will bomb us back or anything but I wouldn't be surprised if say some major (and embarrassing) hacks takes place in the forthcoming months originating from Russian hands.

Hope we're well prepared for them though.


I've only got the free version of AVG, will I be safe?

I expect so.

Although they might try to hack Cedric's laptop to see if he's kept any juicy pictures of you!

Or are you not that sort of a girl?

6 Re: Should we have bombed Syria? on Sat Apr 14 2018, 14:30

boltonbonce

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Cecil.

7 Re: Should we have bombed Syria? on Sat Apr 14 2018, 14:34

Natasha Whittam

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Sluffy wrote:Although they might try to hack Cedric's laptop to see if he's kept any juicy pictures of you!


It's fucking CECIL. Show some respect.

8 Re: Should we have bombed Syria? on Sat Apr 14 2018, 14:39

karlypants

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Laughing

9 Re: Should we have bombed Syria? on Sat Apr 14 2018, 14:39

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
Natasha Whittam wrote:
Sluffy wrote:Although they might try to hack Cedric's laptop to see if he's kept any juicy pictures of you!


It's fucking CECIL. Show some respect.

Cecil, Cedric, Claude, Clive, Clifford - so easy to get mixed up.

Very Happy

10 Re: Should we have bombed Syria? on Sat Apr 14 2018, 15:26

xmiles

avatar
Ivan Campo
Ivan Campo
Off topic on fourth post. :facepalm:

But to answer your question, no. It will achieve nothing and possibly make things worse.

After all bombing worked so well in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya what could possibly go wrong?

11 Re: Should we have bombed Syria? on Sat Apr 14 2018, 15:56

Natasha Whittam

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
So you'd do nothing?

12 Re: Should we have bombed Syria? on Sat Apr 14 2018, 16:11

xmiles

avatar
Ivan Campo
Ivan Campo
In these circumstances yes.

13 Re: Should we have bombed Syria? on Sat Apr 14 2018, 16:58

Natasha Whittam

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
xmiles wrote:In these circumstances yes.

Very charitable to your fellow human beings who weren't lucky enough to be born in a relatively safe place.

14 Re: Should we have bombed Syria? on Sat Apr 14 2018, 17:02

xmiles

avatar
Ivan Campo
Ivan Campo
Natasha Whittam wrote:
xmiles wrote:In these circumstances yes.

Very charitable to your fellow human beings who weren't lucky enough to be born in a relatively safe place.

Do you really think this particular round of bombing is going to make any difference?

15 Re: Should we have bombed Syria? on Sat Apr 14 2018, 17:03

Natasha Whittam

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
xmiles wrote:Do you really think this particular round of bombing is going to make any difference?

I don't know, but to do nothing would probably open the door to even more of these attacks.

16 Re: Should we have bombed Syria? on Sun Apr 15 2018, 10:17

T.R.O.Y


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
If part of a wider strategy to actually end the war, I’d be in support. Looks like another token gesture from the government to me though.

17 Re: Should we have bombed Syria? on Sun Apr 15 2018, 10:54

Natasha Whittam

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Of course it was a token gesture. They gave everyone a week's notice, no doubt any chemical weapons that the Syrian government had were moved long before any bombs dropped.

It was more about sending a warning that we will bomb you, and next time we might not give you a week to think about it.

But once again the Labour twins want to make this about the government, and not about the poor people being targeted.

18 Re: Should we have bombed Syria? on Sun Apr 15 2018, 11:32

T.R.O.Y


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
You’ve just said yourself it won’t help the poor people being targeted? So how exactly is dropping more bombs on people going to help the poor people?

19 Re: Should we have bombed Syria? on Sun Apr 15 2018, 11:38

Natasha Whittam

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
T.R.O.Y wrote:You’ve just said yourself it won’t help the poor people being targeted? So how exactly is dropping more bombs on people going to help the poor people?

The bombs weren't dropped on civilians.

20 Re: Should we have bombed Syria? on Sun Apr 15 2018, 12:01

wanderlust

avatar
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Sluffy wrote:
wanderlust wrote:Looks like May and Macron are now fully on board with Trump's agenda and my concern is that we really don't want to go back to East/West brinksmanship if only because of Russia's ability to destroy the UK in seconds - we are after all a lot nearer to them than the US and would probably be considered a softer target.
That said, I assume that this public display of muscle was notified via the back door comms channels i.e. Russia and Syria (and possibly Iran) were told in advance what targets would be hit as that's the way they do it nowadays. Putin will still have to save face in Russia, but I'm hoping he has the common sense not to escalate further. 
As regards whether it was right or not, personally I'd have liked to have seen some proof of the chemical attacks before we waded in. It's a bit like the Skripal case - plenty of circumstantial evidence but then doubt is cast on the findings AFTER we'd repatriotised the diplomats and there is still no conclusive proof that it was the Russians - although we all suspect it was. 
Similarly the Russians claim the Syrian chemical attack was set up by an American agency e.g. the CIA and it is not beyond the realms of possibility, so it would be good to get some verification BEFORE taking huge decisions and risks such as this. Worrying times especially as Putin is such a folk hero in Russia and will be under pressure to retaliate.

Oh I've no doubt these things really did happen - and it has been proved beyond doubt to the likes of May and Macron - for them to join in with the American's.
A bit like the irrefutable evidence of WMDs that cost so many lives in Iraq then?

Or are you just making this up too?

21 Re: Should we have bombed Syria? on Sun Apr 15 2018, 12:02

T.R.O.Y


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
These are missiles, you can’t be 100% accurate. Even the official US statement was ‘we took every precaution we could’.

Look I don’t necessarily disagree with the bombing, it’s a very complicated issue. But at the end of the day what has this achieved in actually ending the war? Nothing. 

We’ve actually subverted the correct political process by not waiting for weapons inspectors to go in and on a domestic level not getting MP backing. So when Russia floughts UN regulation we don’t have leg to stand on. 

Chemical weapons are atrocious, but Syrians are being tortured, bombed and shot everyday, they want an end to the whole thing, not just chemical weapons.

22 Re: Should we have bombed Syria? on Sun Apr 15 2018, 12:53

Bollotom2014

avatar
Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
About as accurate as can be bearing in mind blast radius etc. This wasn't a bombing op to cause widespread damage, it was a clear message to Assad that if you use chemical weapons again we'll come and blow the crap out of you. They have form for using CW and have ignored previous warnings. Let's hope he listens this time and the bloody Russians stop pulling the strings. Russia also have form for applying their veto when every man and his dog know the Russians are just as guilty.
  On a footie stance, we'll see what happens during the World Cup. I can't help thinking Vlad will be lining up his Special Forces mob to cause a bit of bother.

23 Re: Should we have bombed Syria? on Sun Apr 15 2018, 12:56

Sluffy

avatar
Admin
wanderlust wrote:
Sluffy wrote:
wanderlust wrote:Looks like May and Macron are now fully on board with Trump's agenda and my concern is that we really don't want to go back to East/West brinksmanship if only because of Russia's ability to destroy the UK in seconds - we are after all a lot nearer to them than the US and would probably be considered a softer target.
That said, I assume that this public display of muscle was notified via the back door comms channels i.e. Russia and Syria (and possibly Iran) were told in advance what targets would be hit as that's the way they do it nowadays. Putin will still have to save face in Russia, but I'm hoping he has the common sense not to escalate further. 
As regards whether it was right or not, personally I'd have liked to have seen some proof of the chemical attacks before we waded in. It's a bit like the Skripal case - plenty of circumstantial evidence but then doubt is cast on the findings AFTER we'd repatriotised the diplomats and there is still no conclusive proof that it was the Russians - although we all suspect it was. 
Similarly the Russians claim the Syrian chemical attack was set up by an American agency e.g. the CIA and it is not beyond the realms of possibility, so it would be good to get some verification BEFORE taking huge decisions and risks such as this. Worrying times especially as Putin is such a folk hero in Russia and will be under pressure to retaliate.

Oh I've no doubt these things really did happen - and it has been proved beyond doubt to the likes of May and Macron - for them to join in with the American's.
A bit like the irrefutable evidence of WMDs that cost so many lives in Iraq then?

Or are you just making this up too?

Well you're the undoubted master at making stuff up but I've never seen much point doing the same myself.

It's not really unreasonable to believe that there is loads of surveillance of what is going on over there by many countries and even if you believe May might have been hoodwinked somehow.

France has previously stated that they had 'intelligence' in the area two months ago - and would act if chemical weapons were used - read this -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43053617

and this -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43740626

Macron doesn't strike me as being America's puppet, so yes I'm certain it's been proved beyond doubt to Macron - and to May and Trump too.

24 Re: Should we have bombed Syria? on Sun Apr 15 2018, 12:59

T.R.O.Y


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
Bollotom2014 wrote:It was a clear message to Assad that if you use chemical weapons again we'll come and blow the crap out of you.

Will we though? As Rachel Sabi said this morning, there are two ways this war will end, either full scale military intervention (ground troops) or a political process. For me Trump's rogue missile attack (we've blindly followed him into) has setback the latter.

25 Re: Should we have bombed Syria? on Sun Apr 15 2018, 13:12

Bollotom2014

avatar
Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
But isn't that how all wars will end? Both World Wars started with full scale military intervention and ended with political process. And Trump's "Rogue missile attack" was an incisive surgical strike with great accuracy and a big hint to Assad not to be a twot in future. Unfortunately, the big issue we could face is Vlad turning off the gas, though that would also hurt him in the pocket as he gets a bob or to from Gazprom.  Rachel Shabi? I don't read the Grauniad. Too highbrow for me.

26 Re: Should we have bombed Syria? on Sun Apr 15 2018, 13:32

T.R.O.Y


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
Too high brow for you?! Don’t be silly, we’ve all seen your GCSE’s Tom.

Yes all wars will end by political or military means.. so why not push the political process? Would you support direct military action - seems extreme for me. Assad hasn’t backed down under pressure before, in fact he and his father have always promoted being anti-US and revelled in playing Syria as a Victim if US aggression. So what has Trumps attack actually achieved?

27 Re: Should we have bombed Syria? on Sun Apr 15 2018, 13:48

observer


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
Natasha Whittam wrote:Of course it was a token gesture. They gave everyone a week's notice, no doubt any chemical weapons that the Syrian government had were moved long before any bombs dropped.

It was more about sending a warning that we will bomb you, and next time we might not give you a week to think about it.

But once again the Labour twins want to make this about the government, and not about the poor people being targeted.
They also made sure not to kill any Russians this time... or their proxies.  Definitely a token gesture, but the point was made.  What a mad world we live in!

28 Re: Should we have bombed Syria? on Sun Apr 15 2018, 14:04

T.R.O.Y


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
One other question. If Teresa May is so desperate to help Syrians why vote against the Dubs amendment and prevent more child refugees being allowed into Britain?

29 Re: Should we have bombed Syria? on Sun Apr 15 2018, 16:10

Angry Dad

avatar
Ivan Campo
Ivan Campo
YES.

30 Re: Should we have bombed Syria? on Sun Apr 15 2018, 17:36

RustyNail


Nicky Hunt
Nicky Hunt
We are America's bitches so we have to do as we are told. If Russia fancy a world war we will be glad to be their bitches.

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 3]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum