Syria Air Strikes

[motorbiking]

This is a good read on the subject:
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Syrian-Chemical-Weapons-Activity

 

[HawkEye244]

This is a good read on the subject:
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Syrian-Chemical-Weapons-Activity

As per 2014 that source confirms Assad destroyed 92% of chemical weapons, and was making significant attempts to comply with US security council requests. It states various ways the agents can be used , rockets/helicopters etc.

The US are clearly funding opposition to the Assad regime for the purposes of regime change. This may explain why the Russians are so interested in keeping Assad in power. Again I wonder what business the UK has in Syria. I notice a mention of a contract for clean up operations went to a UK based company (veiola), an environmental services company, as per that source.

 

[motorbiking]

Veolia Environnement S.A., branded as Veolia, is a French company

 

[HawkEye244]

Veolia Environnement S.A., branded as Veolia, is a French company

February 14 2014, pardon me Texas and Finland are listed. Even less reason to be there ..

 

[motorbiking]

I suspect there are few companies with the capability to do it. Its hardly going to be a side line for the avg. Asbestos removal firm. I get where you are coming from, but on this occasion, I don't think the OPCW could be blamed for creating business opportunities for rich western countries.

 

[SirGalahad]

February 14 2014, pardon me Texas and Finland are listed. Even less reason to be there ..

I think you need to consider the War return - when you have a pliant leader in charge you will get to dictate who gets the nice contracts before the inevitable fighting starts again.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/...s-see-libya-as-ripe-at-last-for-business.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance...race-for-post-Gaddafi-contracts-in-Libya.html

Make War. Then Profit.

 

[JohnD]

 

[Notch7]

Sources ?

Transom told me

 

[HawkEye244]

I think you need to consider the War return - when you have a pliant leader in charge you will get to dictate who gets the nice contracts before the inevitable fighting starts again.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/...s-see-libya-as-ripe-at-last-for-business.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance...race-for-post-Gaddafi-contracts-in-Libya.html

Make War. Then Profit.

The business of detoppling despots has been part of the US military industrial strategy for some decades. It's an imperalist, divide and conquer strategy. Destroy a country and reap the spoils. I think the vast majority of people acknowledge this and know that what has been going on in the middle East has NOTHING to do with freeing people from oppression. It's one of the primary reasons I don't vote.

 

[HawkEye244]

I suspect there are few companies with the capability to do it. Its hardly going to be a side line for the avg. Asbestos removal firm. I get where you are coming from, but on this occasion, I don't think the OPCW could be blamed for creating business opportunities for rich western countries.

The contracts that were being picked up post-iraq war were truly staggering. Hundreds of billions of dollars worth of construction/infrastructure projects, mainly US. I don't know about the OPCW but there appears to be a 'running theme' in the middle East. And it's not a theme that sits well with me personally.

 

[HawkEye244]

You posting a right wing MP, is as usual, not helpful john. This country went to war under Labour, as it's gone to war under the Conservatives. It's not a left/right issue.

 

[Notch7]

It's not a left/right issue.

Corbyn is doing his best to make it political, such is his desperation to score points.

He is receiving strong criticism from within his own party.
The cracks are growing daily.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Corbyn is doing his best to make it political,

Wow, amazingly I agree with hawk. What has become of him?

It's not a left/right issue.

It is not a left/Right issue to determine who decides when military force is used.
It is, or should be a parliamentary issue when force should be used, barring the obvious direct and immediate self-defence.

 

[transam]

may be there should be a referendum on a case by case basis for the use of military force

 

[ellal]

may be there should be a referendum on a case by case basis for the use of military force

Or maybe in a 'democratic' country (one we have apparently just 'got back'), our so called elected representatives should have a say?

After all we wouldn't want to be like N. Korea, China, Syria would we?