‘Perfectly executed’, restrained Syria missile strike applauded and slammed

After days of rhetoric and threats the US, UK and France launched a strike against Syrian government targets yesterday. The talking game has resumed.

BBC – Syria air strikes: Trump hails ‘perfect’ mission

The US, UK and France attacked three government sites, targeting what they said were chemical weapons facilities.

More than 100 missiles struck in response to a suspected deadly chemical attack on the town of Douma last week.

A Pentagon briefing on Saturday said the strikes had “set the Syrian chemical weapons programme back for years”.

Later there was a bitter exchange between the US and Russia at the United Nations.

The wave of strikes is the most significant attack against President Bashar al-Assad’s government by Western powers in seven years of Syria’s civil war.

Responding to the strikes, Mr Assad said in comments published by his office: “This aggression will only make Syria and its people more determined to keep fighting and crushing terrorism in every inch of the country.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin said he condemned the Western strikes “in the most serious way”.

Russia, whose forces are bolstering Syria’s government, had threatened military retaliation if any Russian personnel had been hit.

Reuters – Most rockets in Western attacks on Syria were intercepted: Russia

Russia’s defense ministry said on Saturday that the majority of missiles fired during the overnight attack on Syria by U.S., British and French forces were intercepted by Syrian government air defense systems, TASS news agency reported.

According to Interfax news agency, Russia’s defense ministry also said that Syria intercepted the U.S. and allied attacks using Soviet-produced hardware, including the Buk missile system.

Russia, an ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, has responded angrily to the strikes, while Syrian state media called them a “flagrant violation of international law.”

There was no agreement at the United Nations for the strike – because of course Russia vetoed, so it was unilateral military action.

We have hardly got the capability for being involved in a missile strike. Has new Zealand got any missiles?

Ghahraman has been attacked for ‘supporting a despot’ but she has a point. International law should be important, and while violence is sometimes necessary to  confront and end violent actions it is highly debatable whether the missile strike in Syria will do anything to end the seven year civil war there.

If history has taught us anything, it is that violence doesn’t and hasn’t ever stopped violence, in that region or elsewhere. So it matters, and is telling to me, that everyone involved is well aware that strike action is almost certainly not going to make victims safe, stop the use of chemical weapons, or end the war. The airstrikes must be seen for what they are: a continuation of a policy that protects American and western interests and a breach of international law.

While the question of lawfulness may seem pedantic in the face of chemical warfare, the opposite, an acceptance of a “might is right” ad hoc approach to something as grave as the integrity of international borders and the use of force, is worth guarding against with vigilance. Leaving the US to do what it wants creates a precedent that we have to live with in future, at the whim of the Trumps in this world, with little respect for the rules and airstrike capability to match. New Zealand, as a small country that relies on multilateralism and the rule of law, needs to stand up against ad hoc unlawful international violence.

It was very telling that in Trump’s statement on air strikes he did not claim the attack was consistent with the UN Charter or was a legal response to the use of chemical weapons. He simply said that the attacks were in the national security of the United States.

What he should have said was the attack served US economic interests.

I doubt that was behind Trump’s reasoning for the strike. He committed himself to a military strike via Twitter and would have risked looking week to Russia if he had not acted – not a good reason but likely to be why he acted.

The support of foreign wars by US arms manufacturers is a different (but important ) issue, but seems to think oil is the economic reason.

This war would not have been as bloody or long lived had it not been for the eager involvement of the US, Russia and their allies and for their unwillingness to pressure their regional allies, to divest from the cheap oil coming from either Iran or Saudi.

I think that the Greens would love for the price of oil to double to deter it’s use, but that would have a massive effect on the New Zealand economy.

Aotearoa is the land that gave my family and me safety and dignity when we arrived as refugees, because Kiwis stand for peace and for inclusion. What we should do is engage with the international community in ensuring the victims have access to aid, safe passage out of targeted areas, can settle as refugees without being accused of terrorism or banned from that safety by the likes of Trump. What New Zealand can do is never support any nation on the East/West divide who sponsors violence. We can, as we have always done, stand against violence, with ordinary people, sharing our values.

It is a fair point to a large extent. Getting involved in wars in the Middle East in particular seems like a fool’s errand (unless you make money off the supply of the means of destruction).

Zero war may sound like a great ideal it only works if all countries share the same commitment. If vile murderous crap happens in other countries should New Zealand tut tut and stay on the sidelines? This is a dilemma.

More specifically, if Syria kept deploying chemical weapons against their own people should New Zealand confine it’s reaction to talk at a largely impotent UN?

Politics is much more complex and difficult than some seem to think, especially international politics.

Washington Examiner – Analysis: Coalition strikes Syria, Russia blinks

Trump said last night that there will be more attacks if Assad continues to use banned weapons on the battlefield. “We are prepared to sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents.”

But at the Pentagon last night, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said there are no further strikes planned at this time.  “That will depend on Mr. Assad, should he decide to use more chemical weapons in the future,” Mattis said. “But right now this is a one-time shot, and I believe it has sent a very strong message to dissuade him, to deter him from doing this.”

Despite deploying its state-of-the-art S-400 air defense system to Syria, the U.S. did not detect any effort by Russia to shoot down allied planes or missiles.

Nevertheless, Russia claims to have shot down 71 of 103 Tomahawk missiles, but it also claims that airfields were bombed that the U.S. says were not targeted. It also vaguely warned of consequences.

“We warned that such actions will not be left without consequences,” said Anatoly Antonov, the Russian ambassador to the U.S. “All responsibility for them rests with Washington, London and Paris.”

That doesn’t sound like Russia blinking. Trump took a week of rhetoric before ordering the strikes. Russia may or may not act on their threats of retaliation.

It’s too soon to tell whether this will escalate or not. The stakes are very high.

Leave a comment

108 Comments

  1. Reply
  2. chrism56

     /  April 15, 2018

    I don’t think Mr Corbyn has any credibility as he constantly takes the Russian line of every issue. Here he is denying that Assad did a gas attack
    https://order-order.com/2018/04/09/corbyn-refuses-blame-assad-chemical-attack/

    Reply
  3. lurcher1948

     /  April 15, 2018

    Wow 105 missiles at say $1000000 each($105000000) to destroy 3 complexes/buldings, I could have got lurcher1948 demolition(NO LIABILITY)company to do the site removal FAR cheaper

    Reply
  4. Strong For Life

     /  April 15, 2018

    Miss Gharaham is selective in her outrage over breaches of international law. It seems she is anti-Trump and rails against anything he is involved in. I see no mention of the UK and France who also took part in the military action in her rant. Where is the outrage from Miss Gharaham when the likes of Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas breach international law with constant terrorist and military strikes against Israel?

    Reply
    • PartisanZ

       /  April 15, 2018

      And where’s the outrage about Israel?

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  April 15, 2018

        It’s ok to support the Israeli and Saudi regimes murdering thousands because Jared.

        Reply
  5. PartisanZ

     /  April 15, 2018

    “If vile murderous crap happens in other countries should New Zealand tut tut and stay on the sidelines? This is a dilemma.”

    Well, perhaps the dilemma is this: On top of all the murderous crap that’s gone before, is there really any such thing as “murderous crap” any more when it comes to ‘power, resource and markets’ wars? Hence the absolute need for diplomatic rather than military conflict resolution … (except that military conflict is itself a ‘market’, as Trump’s claims about America’s soon to be great again military following billions of dollars expenditure testifies)

    “Over a century has passed since the heroism on the heights of Chunuk Bair – and nearly a century since the end of World War One – but every 25 April thousands of young New Zealanders travel to the memorials erected along the Gallipoli Peninsula to recall the blood sacrifice … When questioned, they speak of high ideals and noble causes …

    They do not know, because they have not been told, that Britain’s decision to go to war with Germany was not taken in defence of ‘poor little Belgium’, but in the hope that, between them, France and Russia would destroy the British Empire’s principal economic rival.

    They do not know … that the Anzacs slaughtered tens of thousands of young Turks so that Britain and her French allies could carve up the territories of the Ottoman Empire between them – an act of diplomatic depravity which continues to generate death and despair in the Middle East to this very day.

    They do not know … that in the very same year Colonel Malone’s men were dying on Chunuk Bair, their Prime Minister was concluding an agreement with the British government whereby it would ‘commandeer’ every ton of butter and cheese that New Zealand could produce.

    They do not know, because they have not been told, that Bill Massey’s government did not dispatch 19.4% of its male population to the killing fields of Gallipoli and Flanders to ‘make the world safe for democracy’, but to keep safe, and if possible expand, New Zealand’s ‘protein industry’.

    Thus did New Zealand’s political and economic elites elect to repay Britannia’s imperial mortgage: in the butter and cheese of its dairy factories, and the blood of its sons”

    – Chris Trotter – ‘No Left Turn’

    I guess we could do that sort of thing again?

    Reply
  6. Alan Wilkinson

     /  April 15, 2018

    Russia and Assad and Iran will not escalate militarily. The UN is already useless via Russian veto. The Assad-Russian excuses have run the gamut of “It didn’t happen”, “Someone faked it”, “Someone else did it” to “You’ve got chem weapons too”. Then they’ve tried “We shot down 73 missiles” and “Ok, we will give Syria our best defence missile system now.”

    Gezza thinks this is all Trump’s evil plot and the US is devil incarnate in the M.E. because AJ says so. Greens think they can virtue signal by being against war and pretending the UN is not a helpless and corrupt figurehead.

    Reply
    • PartisanZ

       /  April 15, 2018

      Yay Alan! Never ending war to look forward to … Yipeee!

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  April 15, 2018

        Probably. Until religions stop wanting to kill each other.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  April 15, 2018

          Gezza thinks this is all Trump’s evil plot and the US is devil incarnate in the M.E.

          False – I do not think that at all. Because it is not consistent with your preconceptons, you do not read and comprehend well enuf on this matter. This leads you to make false assumptions and a false accusation. As smears go it’s a bad one & I would expect something more sophisticated than that from someone with your education.

          because AJ says so
          False – they do not say anything of the sort – if anything they convey the impression they think Assad is the devil incarnate – but mostly they just report the news with information & video they obtain from whatever sources including the white helmets and Syrian state tv. You don’t even watch Aljazeera so you are blowing it out your arse. We don’t see a lot of this stuff in NZ because aunty mary’s dog and Jacinda.

          Once again I am forced to apologise to everyone for your errors.

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  April 15, 2018

            So Trump, May and Macron were right to act after all?

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  April 15, 2018

              What is wrong with this statement, Sir Alan?
              “This is not an intervention in a civil war”

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 15, 2018

              You can quibble about the word intervention but the intent is plain. The intervention was not to take sides but to prevent use of banned weapons. Not sure why that needed explaining.

            • Gezza

               /  April 15, 2018

              This is a completely pointless attack which will have no impact at all on the conventional arms offensives of the Assad regime as it retakes all of the area it previously held, except those areas now held by the Kurds in the North, and perhaps the area effectively taken by Turkey. Which is why it is being described as a political attack, not a military one.

              The Kurds have not stood up well to Turkey, and the US has not backed the Kurds in Afrin as it indicated it would.

              The fact that the UK and France involved themselves is not an indicator of anything but that once again, as with Iraq, the UK and other allies will do the US’s bidding based on intelligence as to who is to blame that no one has seen. This did not work out well and shouldn’t have been done, as amply illustrated in the Chilcott Report. Perhaps this will also prove to be true again. It certainly ended up with them becoming targets of Islamic extremist attacks in their home country.

              France I suspect is Macron showing it is a world power.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 15, 2018

              It’s not pointless if it destroyed Assad’s chemical weapons capabilities.

            • Gezza

               /  April 15, 2018

              Firstly we don’t actually know what his chemical weapons capabilities are – we only have the US’s say so. They invaded Iraq to destroy Saddam’s chemical weapons capabilities despite being told he now had none, He had none, This is reported to be chlorine gas. Do you think chlorine gas can’t be manufactured & released by anyone? Are you aware of how sophisticated these rebels operations actually were. Did you watch the 3 minute AJ Eastern Ghouta summary video I posted?

              AGW and Trump vs FBI best for you, I think.

            • Gezza

               /  April 15, 2018

              You can quibble about the word intervention but the intent is plain. The intervention was not to take sides but to prevent use of banned weapons. Not sure why that needed explaining.

              Because it’s an intervention in a civil war. I know why that needs explaining to you. We have already discussed this.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 15, 2018

              Assad will think twice before he uses chlorine again.

            • Perhaps. He can just go back to using barrel bombs, starvation and mass executions.

              https://yournz.org/2018/04/15/chemical-weapons-bad-barrel-bombs-mass-executions-starvation-ok/

            • Gezza

               /  April 15, 2018

              Obviously you won’t.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 15, 2018

              I don’t use chlorine. I use facts and logic. Surrender now.

            • Gezza

               /  April 15, 2018

              You are still using chlorine to support an argument for which you haven’t seen the evidence. You select your “facts” (which are still only based on hearsay & not necessarily credible witnesses) and apply logic only to those bits of information that support your own opinion. You know it. I win again.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 15, 2018

              M.E. chess. Use Assad and Putin to take out ISIS and Al Qaeda. Then constrain Assad. Play Saudi and Israel against Iran, Kurds against Turkey. Egypt and Libya implode. Gulf states hang on. Rest of ME and north Africa in ruins.

        • PartisanZ

           /  April 15, 2018

          @ Alan – “Probably. Until religions stop wanting to kill each other.”

          Almost certainly has bugger all to do with religion. Is Russia backing Assad because they share Islam as a common religion?

          The days of religious Crusades have long gone, except perhaps as a flimsy cover for ‘power, wealth, resources and markets’ …

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  April 15, 2018

            Religion is exploited for power. That has always been its purpose.

            Reply
    • Patzcuaro

       /  April 15, 2018

      Spinoff on the new in word in conservative circles “virtue signalling”

      https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/13-04-2018/all-the-things-national-mps-think-are-virtue-signalling/

      Here are some of the things that they’ve called virtue signalling …

      Men calling themselves feminists is virtue signalling – Bill English

      Calling for fewer old white men in boardrooms is virtue signalling. – Simon Bridges

      The Child Poverty Reduction Bill is full of virtue signalling – Paula Bennett

      The Labour Party’s rhetoric on parental leave is virtue signalling – Simon Bridges

      Banning letting fees is virtue signalling (“It’s the gospel of envy, it’s the virtue signalling of the sharing of misery”) – Scott Simpson / Simeon Brown

      Jacinda Ardern’s appeal to Australia on Manus Island is virtue signalling – Simon Bridges

      Signing the UN Clean Seas campaign is virtue signalling – Scott Simpson

      The introduction of the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill was virtue signalling – Michael Woodhouse

      Labour and the Greens’ environment pledges are virtue signalling – Scott Simpson

      Halting new offshore oil prospecting is virtue signalling – Steven Joyce / Judith Collins

      The government’s approach to law-making is virtue signalling – Simon O’Connor

      The thing that will ultimately bring down the government is virtue-signalling. – Chris Bishop

      Receiving a petition from Greenpeace is virtue signalling. – Judith Collins

      Jacinda Ardern’s trip to Europe is virtue signalling. – Judith Collins

      The government is just generally useless and virtue signalling – Judith Collins

      Judith Collins is not virtue signalling. – Judith Collins

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  April 15, 2018

        You know why Patz? Because these are all things that the Left think sound good and will cost them nothing at all personally. That is the essence of chardonnay socialism.

        Reply
        • Patzcuaro

           /  April 15, 2018

          National, by accusing Labour of virtue signalling, are in fact virtue signalling themselves. National is making a virtue out of not being virtue signallers. And boy are they signalling.

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  April 15, 2018

            I know. That’s the most silly thing about accusing people of virtue signalling. It’s supposed to signal you have too much virtue to virtual signal.

            Reply
      • robertguyton

         /  April 15, 2018

        National’s strategists have introduced the term “virtue signalling” and have required the MPs (and their echo chambers) to repeat, repeat, repeat to embed the idea into the public mind so that it can be employed as a political weapon. They did the same with “explaining is losing” and a host of other phrases that sound ridiculous at first hearing but seeming gain depth the more often they are used. Political trickery.

        Reply
      • lurcher1948

         /  April 15, 2018

        Virtue signalling,Nationals 2018 buzz word used extensively on rightwing blog sites too.

        Reply
      • phantom snowflake

         /  April 15, 2018

        I was very disappointed when Crosby/Textor or whoever advised National to start using this term; it originates with the Alt-Right (a smear against the mythical “SJWs”) so in my mind it connects National with the Alt-Right. It represents a kind of ‘next level’ cynicism; a cheap smear that, in my view has no place in an MMP environment.

        Reply
        • PartisanZ

           /  April 15, 2018

          Nicely phrased phantom snowflake …

          And the more they use it the worse it gets, like many of their questions in Parliament.

          ” … has no place in an MMP environment.”

          Regrettably, this implies some understanding of “an MMP environment” …

          And National’s response to that shall become next year’s buzzword …

          “Duh” …

          Reply
  7. They shot the cruise missiles down?
    Right.
    Any-one want to see the sat photos of those targeted areas?
    I’ll almost guarantee holes in the remains of buildings .
    And they try to hit back here’s a wee hint.
    They have to shoot out at diverse targets.
    We only have to shoot in.
    The whole country is the target if they want to play

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  April 15, 2018

      Why would they want to play? The last time they really all had a good play in the Middle East what was the result? Let’s see the evidence.

      Reply
    • seer

       /  April 15, 2018

      “…we only have to shoot in…” speak for your self. Those who rail against Al-Asad are either ignorant (probably because of the lying anglo media and totally compromised organisations like Amnesty International etc) or they have agendas that don’t stand up to open scrutiny.
      “…fools lean upon their misunderstandings…” – Bob Marley

      Reply
  8. Reply
  9. Reply
  10. David

     /  April 15, 2018

    I think they should have waited for proof or if they have it they share it soon as I have my doubts about who is responsible.
    Russia and Iran arnt going to do anything its just not that important to them to get a bloody nose over and fools expecting something from the UN are idiots. Ardern is right on this saying she “accepts” rather than supports at this stage.

    Reply
    • Conspiratoor

       /  April 15, 2018

      Agreed. Whoever did what to whom this strike has zero chance of escalating the conflict and drawing the US deeper in. To assad it is simply the cost of doing business…

      “I fear that when the dust settles, this strike will be seen as a weak military response and Assad will have paid a small price for using chemical weapons yet again,” Senator Lindsey Graham

      Reply
      • PartisanZ

         /  April 15, 2018

        Does this mean the U.S, U.K and France were “virtue signalling” …?

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  April 15, 2018

          Don’t know but I’m sure Lindsey Graham is expert at it.

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  April 15, 2018

            You do know, and they are.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 15, 2018

              Sure, just as those who condemned Auschwitz were virtue signaling. They didn’t care about kids being gassed to death at all.

              Honestly you are spouting crap today, Sir Gerald.

            • Gezza

               /  April 15, 2018

              They didn’t do anything when phosphorous was being dropped on Ghouta & the place was being levelled. They didn’t do anything in Myanmar. They didn’t do anything in Yemen while the Saudis were dropping British cluster bombs or the Israels were shelling & bombing and sniping shit out of Gaza. It’s called selective morality and you are virtue signalling. Trump said he’d attack so he had to because ego. End of story. Brits and France followed suit because lapdogs and NATO. Go back to sleep, Sir Alan.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 15, 2018

              Obama drew a line in the sand and ran away. Trump drew a line and stuck to it. Suck it up.

            • Gezza

               /  April 15, 2018

              Assad is an asshole. So are many of the islamic fundamentalist rebels. The Americans have no right to be there, nor to decide where to dispense their selective idea of justice or upon who and not upon who. All they have done in the Middle East is create disasters, more & wider conflicts, and terrorist attacks in Europe. The arabs should be left alone to sort their own shit out. It’s embarrassing reading your excuses justifying whatever Trump does. Please stop making them.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 15, 2018

              It’s really embarrassing seeing you defending the use of chemical weapons on civilians and opposing those who try to stop it.

            • Gezza

               /  April 15, 2018

              I am not. I am saying it is not the US’s job to be attacking other countries under whatever pretext. They are unreliable as to telling the truth. You yourself make these very complaints about other branches of their government. They have caused nothing but more destruction & misery in the Middle East than if they stayed out of it. You are saying it is ok for them to do this. You are wrong. It’s that simple.

            • Gezza

               /  April 15, 2018

              And your slur that I support the use of chemical weapons is disgusting.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 15, 2018

              Shifting the goal posts. Trump can’t walk back history.
              Has to deal with here and now. Obama ran away and let a catastrophe unfold.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 15, 2018

              If you don’t want to be accused of defending the use of chemical weapons perhaps you should stop doing it. Eg by saying opposing it is virtual signalling, you don’t believe it happened, it is no worse than other atrocities, etc.

            • Gezza

               /  April 15, 2018

              As I never said those things – apart from pointing out you are virtue signalling – and that is not the basis of my objection to this attack, perhaps you should simply concentrate on what I am saying & stop making baseless assumptions and allegations.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 15, 2018

              You said or implied all of them.

            • Gezza

               /  April 15, 2018

              I did not. I am tired of & staggered at the deviousness you use to claim I did. I am ending this disussion here.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 15, 2018

              Does this mean the U.S, U.K and France were “virtue signalling” …?

              … they are.

              They didn’t do anything in Myanmar. They didn’t do anything in Yemen while the Saudis were dropping British cluster bombs or the Israels were shelling & bombing and sniping shit out of Gaza. It’s called selective morality

              I don’t believe any of them Sir Alan. I want to see the evidence.

              You believe because its the US, the UK and France, who say so?
              When they are fighting Al Qaedan-types and allies, who are losing?

              I see nothing but disadvantage and threat for Assad to use chlorine gas on a civilian population in an area held by Islamic fundamentalists that his & his allies forces had already surrounded and were already reducing to rubble with conventional armaments,

  11. Reply
    • seer

       /  April 15, 2018

      That looks like a photo pindostan trolls would use.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  April 15, 2018

        Urban Dictionary: pindostan
        Feb 27, 2014 – Sarcastic Russian term for America, combining “Pindos” (roughly the Russian equivalent of Gringo) with “-stan” (the Central Asian term for country), meaning roughly “Gringo Country.” Also seen as “Pindustan” to rhyme with “Hindustan”

        Reply
        • seer

           /  April 15, 2018

          Not really. You can find other etymologies, meanings for the term. I once asked a Russian about it and in a mannerism that I take to be Russian (I’ve seen VV Putin do it), a little smile appeared on his face and he turned away for a moment, then turned back still with the smile (that had a hint of a smirk to it) he said, “a pindosi is like the ah, guy in a prison cell, who is like the, ah, entertainment for the other cellmates”.

          Reply
        • seer

           /  April 15, 2018

          So, is Trump in front of these guys, bent over or on his knees? Or perhaps bent over then on his knees?

          Reply
      • Gezza

         /  April 15, 2018

        Oops, forgot to check for the jpg

        Reply
      • Gezza

         /  April 15, 2018

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  April 15, 2018

          Trump. Demonstrating his capacity for awareness of what’s actually happening & knowing what he’s doing in the Midfle East,

          Reply
  12. Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  April 15, 2018

      Many people, I imagine, will be like me and opposed to both sides in this.

      I agree that the US has no business to bomb a country with which it is not at war.

      Chemical weapons are as abhorrent in their own way.

      Good luck finding a solution to this one, UN.

      Reply
  13. This is somewhat debatable.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  April 15, 2018

      He did make a name for himself as a man with an extraordinarily generous allocation of stupidity.

      Reply
  14. Fair points.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  April 15, 2018

      So it’s yes from the Greens to ignoring use of chemical weapons?

      Reply
      • She didn’t say anything like that.

        Is it ok for selective ignoring of international law but doing nothing when a lot of vile crap happens.?

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  April 15, 2018

          She ignored the reality of the options. Wilfully.

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  April 15, 2018

            I see most of the Twitter comments come to the same conclusion.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  April 15, 2018

              Ah yes. The appeal to popularity. Always a good arbiter of right and wrong.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 15, 2018

              It’s not an arbiter of right or wrong but it is confirmation of what she is implying.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  April 15, 2018

          Not being able to stop everything bad is not an excuse for not acting when you can.

          Reply
        • Gezza

           /  April 15, 2018

          It’s very simple for Alan.

          If Trump says it it must be true.
          If Trump does it it must be right
          If America says it is justified it must be justified.

          All other matters or considerations are irrelevant & entirely subordinate to those three things.

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  April 15, 2018

            Still licking your wounds, Sir Gerald? Even Jacinda accepted reality.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  April 15, 2018

              She accepted once again a low grade chemical appears to have been used to kill people by someone and that America has once again unilaterally decided who used it and egged on others to join it in attacking another country. She accepted there is nothing we can do about it.

            • Gezza

               /  April 15, 2018

              You realise that using the logic you have demonstrated elsewhere to day you are saying it is ok for America for attack whoever they want to.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 15, 2018

              New Zealand absolutely supports a diplomatic use of a multi- lateral environment to solve these issues, in this case it wasn’t possible.
              We accept why the US and others have taken military actions.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 15, 2018

              Your logic is still woeful, Sir Gerald.

            • Gezza

               /  April 15, 2018

              She is very careful with her words Sir Alan. More careful than you. Nowhere in there does she say we support what they have done. Only that we accept it.

              Clearly you have actually seen the evidence that it was definitely the Assad regime that used these weapons although the OPCW representatives have only just arrived in Douma to investigate whether chemical weapons were used and if so what chemicals.

              Can you please advise us what the evidence is? I hesitate to simply accept the US Pentagon’s & Mattis’s claim that the US military had sufficient evidence to satisfy itself that it was justified in attacking another country. You may be unaware of this but they have a proven track record of attacking other countries on the basis of false intelligence claims.

              Given that the Assad regime was already on notice of another attack if it used chemical weapons again it seems incredible it would take the risk of provoking another attack by doing so when it had no need to.

              The details of the evidence you have seen & any links to it would be very good.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 15, 2018

              I already posted links in Media Watch

            • Gezza

               /  April 15, 2018

              Links to the evidence, Sir Alan. Please.
              Not to the Pentagon’s press releases or conferences or us msm reports. These tend not to be very good at examining the evidence
              Aljaz’s Alan Fisher I noticed was just reporting there are hard questions arising in the US Senate now about what the authority the President had to launch this attack without Congressional approval, whether Secretary Mattis’s assestion that Article 2 authorised it because America’s interests were threatened is sufficient or even true, and how can the President claim to be justified in attacking another country for a breach of international law by breaching international law.

              Is there anything going on that Trump wants to distract anyone from, or would he like to boost his ratings? Do you know?

              Meantime, links to the actual evidence please, Sir Alan.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 15, 2018

              The Telegraph is not US media. WaPo is not sympathetic to Trump. Trump did not attack another country. He attacked illegal weapons in another country and avoided killing anyone in the process as far as possible. I don’t care that you don’t believe the US, UK, France, Germany and Canada. You are entirely entitled to be stupid.

            • Gezza

               /  April 15, 2018

              I am, but I am not. And while I appreciate learning new things I do not require to demonstrate how to be, as you are at present, Sir Alan.

              May I remind you
              1. these countries all may have some intensely trade-related interest in staying on side with Trump,
              2. they have been involved with the US’s misadventures in the Middle East for some time and are a bit lapdoggy tbh (see Chilcott Report for details)
              3. Assad’s only a fucking Arab who’s not buying any arms off them. The Saudis are.
              4. https://yournz.org/2018/04/15/perfectly-executed-restrained-syria-missile-strike-applauded-and-slammed/#comment-268214

              5. And once again, request your links to the actual evidence? Or suggest that if you can’tyou grab a cup of cocoa and then go to bed?

            • Gezza

               /  April 15, 2018

              PS: Some other light reading for you on the US’s precision weapon success claims. When you have the links to the actual evidence ready.
              https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 15, 2018

              Were you incapable of reading the Telegraph report then?

            • Gezza

               /  April 15, 2018

              The evidence has still not been made publicly available Sir Alan. As I understand it from Mr Fisher. Possibly you have links showing the actual evidence?

            • Gezza

               /  April 15, 2018

              Aljazeera does not like Mr Assad, Sir Alan. Neither do I – but this is still hearsay and there are many allegations the white helmets are not all what they claim to be. We don’t know for certain that Assad’s forces dropped these weapons. I watched video on Aljaz once of a “barrel bomb” being dropped, we were told. Unfortunately the video showed to anyone with a few clues about matters and materiel military, a clearly streamlined, finned, conventional ordinance bomb being dropped.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 15, 2018

              If you are demanding evidence from someone who likes Mr Assad I suspect you will be waiting a long time. I’ll leave you to it.

          • Gezza

             /  April 15, 2018

            And none of this removes the difficult problem of by what right does the US to attack another country.
            At the moment I believe the only 3 countries that are attacking other countries on a regular basis are:

            1. the United States, and assorted allies in it up to their ears unfortunately
            2. Israel
            3. Saudi Arabia

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 15, 2018

              Russia. Iran. North Korea. Palestein. Pakistan. China.

            • Gezza

               /  April 15, 2018

              Which country is Russia currently attacking?
              Which country is Iran currently attacking (they were invited to defend the awful but legitimate government of Syria)?
              Which country is North Korea currently attacking?
              Palestein does not exist and Palestine is under occupation and regular attack by Israel.
              Which country is Pakistan currently attacking?
              Which country is China currently attacking?

            • seer

               /  April 15, 2018

              “Palestein” – now that’s a real Freudian slip!

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 15, 2018

              Russia, China, North Korea and probably Iran are all heavily involved in cyber attacks. Pakestan is engaged with Afghanistan and periodically India. Russia is involved in Ukraine, Syria, Iraq,
              threatening the Baltics, Chechnya and probably some other ex-Soviet states. China is threatening the South China Sea territories as well as Taiwan,Tibet and Nepal. Palestine is firing rockets into Israel. Iran is engaged in Yemen, Palestine, Syria and Iraq directly or by proxy. North Korea periodically attacks South Korea and threatens Japan.

            • Gezza

               /  April 15, 2018

              Exactly. None of them are currently officially attacking other sovereign countries. Russia is arming and assisting separatists in the Ukraine (that’s ok the US is arming and assisting separatists in the middle east)
              Russia was invited to help defend the awful but legitimate government of Syria.
              Russia is not attacking Chechnya – there is a very Russian friendly government in Chechnya now – just ask them.
              I’m not sure what you think Russia is doing in Iraq but I don’t think they’ve attacked them. The US did that a while ago and the whole region has been a shit shambles ever since.
              Pakistan is not attacking Afghanistan as far as I’m aware.
              Nor is it attacking India – they occasionally squabble over borders.
              Iran has forces engaged in Yemen but so have the Saudis & the US attacks people in Yemen too so that’s kind of a neutral situation.

              Hamas may be firing rockets into Israel but possibly you are unaware Palestine is under occupation and the Israelis are regularly firing better, more destructive rockets into occupied Palestine. Also they sometimes shoot Paelstinians with snipers and attack Gaza with ships planes and missiles and destroy great chunks of it, killing a couple of thousand people – so you can see how sometimes they might want to fire rockets into Israel? It’s a helluva mess that one.

              When we get into who’s fighting who by proxy the americans seem to be having proxy wars too so why shouldn’t everyone else?

              And when it comes to threatening other countries well, they’re all threatening each other but America threatens AND attacks countries.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s