IT'S A GAS, GAS, GAS!!
MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVES/WEEKLY ROCK POLL POST
Return to Gasx3/Poll Post Board Homepage
Name: pluto
E-Mail:
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Trump's 100 days
Date: Friday, April 28, 2017
Time: 2:17:45 PM
Remote Address: 92.0.147.104
Message ID: 308078
Parent ID: 308063
Thread ID: 308000
As far as the missile attack on Syria goes Ijasa, I personally would be a bit more circumspect when it comes to cheering on firing missiles at the bases of a sovereign country.
You may not be, I may not be, big fans of Assad, or how he runs Syria, but regardless, he is the legitimate ruler of Syria. The 'Islamists' whom the U.S. and others have been aiding, are not.I believe the firing of cruise missiles at a Syrian base was an illegal act.
I tend to agree with Peter Ford the ex U.K. Ambassador to Syria when he says there is another side to the story of the use of chemical weapons that prompted the attack by the U.S., and that a proper investigation is what was/is needed. I also agree when he says that Assad may be a lot of things but he's not mad. Assad had absolutely nothing to gain by using chemical weapons, his opponents did i.e. a strike by the U.S.. Again I agree with Ford when he says that the likely result of the U.S.'s attack will be to encourage insurgent false flag repeats. Just on that last point it's maybe worth noting that Assad with the help of his allies, mainly Russia, is now back in control of most of Syria i.e. winning the war against the insurgents. The U.S. does not want Assad in Damascus, and it goes without saying neither do the insurgents. Could all of these facts and events be connected? I don't know.
What I don't know either is if you guys in the U.S. hear much of an alternative take on events. I know that here in the U.K. there's not too much of it, what we hear in the main is the official view, what they, Governments, want us to hear. So as far as Syria goes, before going all gung ho on the firing of cruise missiles I would suggest you/anyone has a listen to what Ford has to say, you'll find him on you tube, just type in ex U.K. Ambassador to Syria, and I'm sure you'll find stuff. Maybe you have already.
As far as the build up of tension in South East Asia goes, there are some similarities. You will know that North Korea is part of the 'Axis of Evil', a long time target of the U.S., and of course has a 'crazy' leader. They are always deranged, tyrants who do this that and the next thing to their own populations, are a danger to us or to the region or whatever. Again, Kim Jong-un and the society he runs might not be our cup of tea, but he is the leader of a sovereign country. Now unpleasant he might be, but like Assad I don't think he's mad. The evidence would suggest quite the opposite.
If you were Kim Jong-un, and you know that as part of the U.S.'s 'Axis of Evil' then you are a target. You might take a wee look at what's happened and is happening to the other members of the club you are a member of. Iraq......country destroyed, and in chaos, hundreds of thousands dead, the pretext for this based on a pack of lies. Lybia..... destroyed, country in chaos, thousands dead, thousands dead floating in the Mediterranean trying to get to Europe, so on and so forth. Why? To support a so called popular uprising that turns out to be Islamists? Has Hillary ever given you a plausible explanation for her actions? Nobody here has ever given one for the U.K's actions. Syria......thousands and thousands dead, millions made refugees, country in turmoil, and ruin...why? To replace Assad with Islamist insurgents? Iran....on hold, watch this space.
Considering the above I would consider Kim Jong-un eminently sensible, and far from mad. It would seem to me that developing a nuclear capability in the circumstances, is hardly likely to be to make a first strike, but an attempt to deter a strike by the U.S. Like Assad, Kim-Jong-un is not mad, a first strike against the massive military and nuclear might of the U.S.....really, is this what we're being asked to swallow? It is perhaps worth noting that the only time weapons of mass destruction have ever been used for real, is in Kim Jong-un's neck of the woods. They were dropped by the U.S. on the civilian populations of two defenceless cities, and the effects of which are still felt today. Kim Jong-un will no doubt be aware of that, and the effects of the U.S. and it's agents' interventions all over the World (far too many to mention here) following the dropping of those bombs, atomic and hydrogen.
The current build up of American naval force in the 'Pacific Rim' didn't start under Trump, it started when Clinton was Secretary of State, it's the biggest U.S. build up in the area since World War Two. Why? You will have your view, mine is that it's not specifically to do with the 'threat' North Korea poses, but more to do with the economic threat China poses. The U.S. does not wield the economic muscle it used to have, and China is the main economic threat and rival. However, the United States still has unrivalled Military might. It's a show of force!
This is a really dangerous situation developing in the Far East, and personally I do not think the Chinese would remain on the sidelines if an attack on North Korea took place. They are well aware of the danger to them if North Korea is destabilised. They will be aware that any future reunification of Korea on U.S. terms will mean more U.S. missile bases right smack on their border, just as is the situation in Europe with U.S. missile bases on Russia's border in both Poland, and Romania.
The U.S. has anything up to 900 military bases large and small around the World, mostly they circle Russia and China. The U.S.'s main military rival Russia with a military budget dwarfed by the U.S.'s has a handful all based in former Soviet States where there is an 'Islamist' threat. I don't know about you Ijasa, but statistics like that have me wondering who is the aggressor here, who poses a danger to peace?
I'm not saying I'm necessarily right in anything I say, just trying to point out that other views are available, and hope that people before they start flag waving or going all patriotic, just try to get as much information from as many sources as possible rather that rely on the official propaganda. I certainly don't rely on the British Broadcasting Corporation to tell me anything other than Government shite.
Of course should a conflagration break out, who will suffer? As usual ordinary Joes (and Joettes) like me and you, in their thousands, maybe millions. That'll be good eh?
Note: Do not hit the "Post Message" button more than once, even if it is taking a long time to post your message. Doing so may cause a double post to appear and could slow down your posting time even more.
Download your free, customizable Burton Networks Message Board now!
© 1998 - 2022 by Keno Internet Services, except where otherwise noted. All rights reserved.