May 'REFUSES' to back new Syria strikes after late-night crisis call with Donald Trump. USA and France does not have any permanent naval bases in Middle East, but British does. They have 2 naval bases right by Syrian boarder. See, Britain has been losing ground for the past 200 years. I don't think they want to lose another ground. I don't think they want to gamble and support missile attack that can kill Russian soldiers who can then attack the British bases and take it over, or have the Turks take it over because the Turks want the Island to themselves.
No kidding, take over bases from the Brits? Wagner mercs were humiliated at Deir Ezzor by the US...killed by the hundreds it seems, you must be suckers for punishment and enjoy getting humiliated).
You know the is exactly what the germans and rest of the world tought after the ussr fiasco in finland, endresult was barbarosa and no more nazi germany
No kidding....well lucky for the Soviets that the US enabled the SU to defeat Germany....rather pathetic anyway, Finland stands free, Germany reunited and in Nato, no more SU, empire collapsed, and seems all that effort in vain? I'll wait for that russki attack on Brits/US bases...I won't hold my breath.
Where are you getting the idea May has refused to back the US? The reports here are that the UK Cabinet are discussing it today but most the commentators are predicting that they will back military action of some kind.
From here https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/790371/theresa-may-donald-trump-syria-us-missile-strikes-idlib Where are you getting your idea?
That was yesterday. Have you not heard that modern Western Politicians change their minds every few hours. Trump is now saying it may come soon but it may not come soon at all. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/984374422587965440
Ultimately Londonistan will become UKistan and there will be no more alliance between them and America
In this particular case all Sunni radical extremists and almost all so called moderates support the military action against the legitimate Syrian government. They hate secular governments as well as Atheists, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Shiites etc... Another golden opportunity for them to take over the country, just like in Libya.
This whole thing has become as muddled and staged as anything I've seen in a long time... and I've seen a lot. On one hand, Trump says he's going to fire missiles into Syria, 'telegraphing his punches'.... The U. S. 'circles the wagons' with the usual 'coalition partners' and prepares for war on Assad. Russia says it will shoot missiles down and loudly protests that it would have been stupid beyond belief for Assad to use chemical weapons on anybody, now that he's actually won about 98% of his own 'war on terror'.... Russia and Syria claim that the 'rebels' (whoever they actually are) were the ones who killed 50 people at Douma with chem weapons. Britain says it's in... then it hints it's out.... Now, British P. M., May calls an urgent, emergency cabinet meeting and deploys British submarines in obvious preparation for, uh, something. Link: https://www.timesofisrael.com/uks-may-says-syria-chemical-weapons-cant-go-unchallenged/ Hint: Obama made himself look like an inept fool with his own pathetic "Red Line" bluster over Syria. It is to be hoped by at least half the American public that Trump does not do the same. In any event, it would be a very dangerous thing for anyone to underestimate Vladimir Putin. He's the leader of a country that has a generally failing economy, with only two strong points -- the ability to wage tactical war in the Middle East, and, the ability (of course) to engulf the entire world in a thermonuclear catastrophe that would ultimately be suicide for us all.
This. But I would not be surprised if they did and cited Trump's stupid tweet as the reason. They can't trust the guy.
Check the dates. That’s a story relating to the US strike in Syria last year (though I admit the timing and sad repetition of events makes it an easy mistake to make). Incidentally, the Daily Express is a trashy tabloid and not worthy of consideration even on the right day.
Given that Turkey will not attack UK bases, and Russia will not attack UK bases can you come up with another explanation for why the UK will not join in airstrikes in Syria at this time?
Western politicians, except for Trump, are very predictable. . Those tasked with predicting what Trump will do are engaged in a risky business.
..... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ical-weapons-attack-macron-idUSKBN1HJ1M5?il=0 France has proof Syrian government conducted chemical weapons attack: Macron John Irish, Sophie Louet PARIS (Reuters) - France has proof the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack last week and will decide whether to strike back when all the necessary information has been gathered, President Emmanuel Macron said on Thursday. France is expected to join the United States and Britain in carrying out air strikes or some other form of attack in response to the use of the weapons but it remains unclear when that might happen or even if it definitely will. “We have proof that last week, now 10 days ago, that chemical weapons were used, at least with chlorine, and that they were used by the regime of (President) Bashar al-Assad,” Macron said, without giving details on the evidence or how it was acquired. The attack on the town of Douma on April 7 killed dozens of people, including children. “Our teams have been working on this all week and we will need to take decisions in due course, when we judge it most useful and effective,” Macron told broadcaster TF1 when asked whether a red line had been crossed. U.S. President Donald Trump tweeted on Thursday morning: “Never said when an attack on Syria would take place. Could be very soon or not so soon at all!” Macron said France wanted to remove the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons capabilities. When asked whether those would be the targets of strikes he said: “When we decide it, and once we have verified all the information.” The French army is preparing itself for a possible riposte as it waits for the political green light, military sources told Reuters, with several sources underscoring the difficulty of outlining the objectives of such an operation. The sources said if France were to attack, the strikes would most likely come from warplanes rather than its naval frigate off the Lebanese coast, and that they would likely to take off from France rather than its Middle East bases. ...
Yes, people were saying Trump would not want people snarking at him about any red lines and I agree that to underestimate Putin, to basically taunt him and expect no response is both childish and dangerous.
I see taking no chance. Either declare war on us directly or forget it. Having said that the BBC keeps talking about the build up of forces like they do for wars against countries. A guy was asked by the BBC how we could know that the Syrians really had done the chemical weapons attack. He said we can't - like you say they are just saying 'trust me' without providing proof. He said it is just up to people to choose who they want to believe.
On you... Russia? Sorry, it's never been clear to me where you're at/from. I don't know what is up with the evidence. I guess they like to keep it all classified, or else they really are full of crap. However, I would expect to see some whistle-blowing if that were the case. As for declaring war, I suppose it's complicated when they mean to go after Assad specifically and Russia is essentially thrusting itself in the way.
Germany won't take part in possible Syria military strike By geir moulson, associated press BERLIN — Apr 12, 2018, 9:32 AM ET Germany won't participate in possible military action in Syria, but supports sending a message that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable, Chancellor Angela Merkel said Thursday. Merkel stressed the importance of a united position in response to an alleged attack in Douma that the West is blaming on Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces. "Germany will not take part in possible military action — I want to make clear again that there are no decisions — but we see, and support this, that everything is being done to send a signal that this use of chemical weapons is not acceptable," Merkel told reporters in Berlin after meeting Denmark's prime minister. The German leader said she spoke Thursday with French President Emmanuel Macron, who has been talking regularly this week with U.S. President Donald Trump about the most effective response to the alleged chlorine gas attack. Post-World War II Germany typically has been reluctant to engage in military action, and parliamentary approval is required for any military missions abroad. The country often has restricted itself to supporting roles, such as the participation of a German refueling plane and Jordan-based reconnaissance jets in the current international campaign against the Islamic State group. "I think it is important to have a common line, without Germany participating militarily," Merkel said. "If the permanent representatives in the (U.N.) Security Council were to initiate steps ... going beyond the diplomatic dimension, then we will be supportive." She did not specify how Germany might be supportive. And Merkel avoided a question about whether she was concerned that a conflict between Russia and the United States could ignite following Trump's tweet Wednesday announcing upcoming strikes against Syria with the words "Get ready Russia." The crisis over Syria is being handled "with caution," Merkel said. But she added that the violation of international rules against chemical weapons is serious, and "the reactions will be appropriate." Source: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/germany-part-syria-military-strike-54417106
I am from Scotland and my position on things is based on my own deductions and values rather than following any line. I was referring to if Russia said what we heard yesterday, destroying where the weapons came from - so if France sent them from France that would need to be France. Frankly I would remain undecided until I saw what they got up to once they got there, what they are intending on getting into or someone provided some indisputable evidence. What is interesting to me though is that until Macron, May was quite clear that they could not be sure that what they were being told (re chemical attack) was true. Now he says it is and May either has to believe him or possibly be calling him a liar. and now of course you have Pompeo being sworn in making it clear what an enemy Russia is and how they are going to sort him out and saying Tehran had better watch out. There may or may not have been a chemical attack, the desire to get a posse together may or may not be related to the chemical attack which may or may not have happened. Putin has been told what is going on. They have apparently been talking. Things just do not look good and given their history it is very difficult to believe our governments and obviously they will try and choose what would be most likely to get other civilians on side - the harming of innocents especially children who are shown repetitively here. May has not yet made her decision. Corbyn wants it taken to Parliament and regardless of what people say on the board the news here are still concerned about possible escalation - possibly because Europe would be among the first harmed.
