National’s response to the Syria attack

56 comments on “National’s response to the Syria attack ”

• Comments are now closed

1. red-blooded 1

   8 April 2017 at 8:16 am

   English is a muddler, but what is this panageric to Key, now that he’s gone? He would have been just as shifty and morally opaque, he just would have had some better one-liners.
   • Hanswurst 1.1

     8 April 2017 at 8:42 am

     […] he just would have had some better one-liners.

     Can somebody actually come up with some of these one-liners that Key (according, among others, himself) was apparently so good at?

     English may muddle, but he does so less than Key, and makes more sense. In terms of his popularity, he’s just unfortunate to lack Key’s klutzy charm. Unfortunate for Bill English, of course, is potentially fortunate for the country when the election rolls around later this year.
     • gsays 1.1.1

       8 April 2017 at 10:12 am

       “I think, at the end of the day, most new Zealanders, want…..”
     • SpaceMonkey 1.1.2

       8 April 2017 at 8:29 pm

       “Akshully, I’m comfortable with…”
2. Carolyn_nth 2

   8 April 2017 at 8:25 am

   Al Jazeera is reporting that Russia claims only 20-30 of the missiles hit the airbase, and that it’s not certain where the rest landed.

   Also being reported by NZ Herald that 23 of the missiles hit their target.
3. Psycho Milt 3

   8 April 2017 at 8:40 am

   …Killing people in a foreign nation because other people had also been killed in the same country while at the same time refusing to accept refugees from that country shows many levels of confusion…

   It would, yes, if that were what had happened. However, destroying an air force base in a foreign nation because it was being used to drop poison gas on the local population sounds like a useful contribution, albeit an illegal one.
   • mickysavage 3.1

     8 April 2017 at 9:36 am

     Apart from creating a few million refugees and destroying major city centres not to mention peoples lives the strategy of bombing things has not so far produced any results of note.
     • Psycho Milt 3.1.1

       8 April 2017 at 10:45 am

       True, but the title of the post is “National’s response to the Syria attack,” ie its response not to bombing in principle, but to the US military damaging one of the regime air force bases responsible.
       • Penny Bright 3.1.1.1

         8 April 2017 at 12:52 pm

         EVIDENCE that you are relying upon which confirms who exactly was responsible for this ‘chemical attack’?
         • Psycho Milt 3.1.1.1.1

           8 April 2017 at 1:13 pm

           Here. The implausible alternative explanation provided by the regime and its patron is debunked in the above link and also here.

           I notice you put chemical attack in scare quotes. I shall adopt a similar approach when replying to your ‘comments,’ ‘Penny Bright.’
           • adam 3.1.1.1.1.1

             8 April 2017 at 1:15 pm

             You keep repeating the same links ‘Psycho Milt’.
             • McFlock …

               8 April 2017 at 1:21 pm

               hey, if you’ve got good ones that seem reasonably sane and sensible, you don’t need many others
               • adam …

                 8 April 2017 at 1:26 pm

                 So it’s sane and sensible now to start a war, what a sad day this is McFlock. What a sad day indeed.
             • Psycho Milt …

               8 April 2017 at 1:31 pm

               You keep repeating the same links ‘Psycho Milt’.

               Well, she did ask. Also, people keep parroting the regime’s bullshit claim about bombing a rebel chemical weapons storage facility, which then stands unless someone troubles themselves to post links to info that debunks the claim. I’m happy to take the trouble.
   • Andre 3.2

     8 April 2017 at 9:54 am

     “…sounds like a useful contribution…”

     As you noted in your reply to Tony at 5.2, some craters in the runway is something quite predictable for a military airfield at war, and they are probably ready and able to fix those very quickly. So the strike seems more like just a symbolic gesture, even though it’s a fucking huge symbol.
     • Psycho Milt 3.2.1

       8 April 2017 at 10:46 am

       And a pretty useful symbol, if it were the result of a well-thought-out initiative with a strategic aim. That’s a bit much to hope for from the current US administration, though.
       • Andre 3.2.1.1

         8 April 2017 at 11:06 am

         But if it’s interpreted as a spur of the moment brainfart from an easily goaded clueless flailing president with no coherent team or vision, what comes next?

         Chaos and division inside the US suits Putin and Assad just fine. I fear an attempt to draw the US into boots on the ground on the front lines, maybe with Iran joining in.
         • Psycho Milt 3.2.1.1.1

           8 April 2017 at 1:26 pm

           To some extent, the prospect of Assad and Putin shitting themselves wondering what the petulant child in the White House might come up with next is an appealing one. The prospect of US ground troops fighting Russians, Syrians and Iranians, on the other hand, isn’t realistic – can’t see anyone wanting to follow Trump down that rabbit hole.
   • mauī 3.3

     8 April 2017 at 12:05 pm

     I’m sure there’s a place on the Trump team for you, you’re certain of who and where the chemical attack came from after watching some engaging youtube video and the end result is dangerously escalating this war. The russians on the other hand have been calling for an independent investigation into this which seems an entirely level headed approach.
     • Psycho Milt 3.3.1

       8 April 2017 at 1:20 pm

       Escalating the war my arse. The tonnage of ordinance used in Syria the last six years makes this attack look like a pimple on a whale.

       The Russians are calling for an independent investigation provided agreement can be reached on an investigating body that won’t be biased against the Syrian regime, ie they’re calling for nothing to happen until the investigation’s been argued about for so long nobody gives a shit any more and all the evidence is long since cleaned up. Sending a bunch of cruise missiles over is a good response.
       • Johan 3.3.1.1

         8 April 2017 at 4:07 pm

         To Psycho Milt,
         I fully agree that the measured response by the USA would inform the Russians , Syrians, Iranians and north Koreans that there is a line drawn that should not be crossed. Trump is certainly, no Neville Chamberlain, thank goodness.
4. Draco T Bastard 4

   8 April 2017 at 8:57 am

   “We’ve seen horrific attacks using chemical weapons which is against all international law.

   So is unilaterally attacking a sovereign nation.

   New Zealand must continue to support international efforts to find a lasting peace.

   That would be nice but I haven’t seen the US looking for lasting peace anywhere unless all nations kowtow to them.
   • Carolyn_nth 4.1

     8 April 2017 at 9:10 am

     Just read a report by some US newspaper that explains why chemical attacks get such an emotional response. Because attacks with conventional weapons that result in dismembered bodies, don’t result in images of the bodies in the news. They are regarded as too horrific to show.

     However, chemical weapons leave bodies in tact, and thus the writhing bodies get shown on main news platforms. To the viewers this looks more horrific than attacks by conventional weapons – but, that’s because we generally don’t see the horrific sight of mutilated and dismembered bodies.
   • Rightly or Wrongly 4.2

     8 April 2017 at 9:35 am

     I would have thought that the ‘illegality’ of using chemical weapons against a defenseless civilian population is somewhat a little more serious than a specific military response aimed at preventing any further such attacks.

     Kind of like the differing levels of illegality between littering and murder.

     I suspect though that if Clinton had won the election and it was her that had pushed the button then everything would be fine and wonderful – a great response from a President with admirable leadership qualities.
     • Draco T Bastard 4.2.1

       8 April 2017 at 10:10 am

       I would have thought that the ‘illegality’ of using chemical weapons against a defenseless civilian population is somewhat a little more serious than a specific military response aimed at preventing any further such attacks.

       WTF has that got to do with anything? Both are war crimes.

       I suspect though that if Clinton had won the election and it was her that had pushed the button then everything would be fine and wonderful – a great response from a President with admirable leadership qualities.

       I suspect that you’re talking out your arse.

       It doesn’t matter who committed the war crime – it only matters that they get hanged after a fair trial.
     • SpaceMonkey 4.2.2

       8 April 2017 at 8:36 pm

       If that was really the aim… it was a very poor response. I mean… do you really think a missile attack that had no impact on the operability of the airbase is going to prevent this from happening again?
5. Tony Veitch (not the partner-bashing 3rd rate broadcaster 5

   8 April 2017 at 9:05 am

   RNZ have just reported that war planes have taken off from the airbase ‘destroyed’ by the US yesterday! An effective strike?

   God, we need someone in government with the guts to distance ourselves from the warmongers running the industrial-military complex in the US!
   • AmaKiwi 5.1

     8 April 2017 at 9:22 am

     +1
   • Psycho Milt 5.2

     8 April 2017 at 9:24 am

     Why is the news that planes are taking off from the base again 24 hours later a surprise? Were you under the impression the world’s air forces don’t take into account the possibility that someone might attack their air fields and don’t make any preparations to recover as quickly as possible from an attack? This was a retaliatory strike, not a concerted effort to eradicate the Syrian air force.
     • AmaKiwi 5.2.1

       8 April 2017 at 10:20 am

       +1

       It was all for show. If you want to “take out the Syrian air force” you destroy their communications and command and control.

       This was pure macho b.s. . . . . at very high stakes
6. jcuknz 6

   8 April 2017 at 9:30 am

   For sane results the Security Council needs to remove the ‘Veto option’ which Russia in particular uses so often. NZ did its best awhile back but sadly the veto remains.
   The result is we have to rely of the ineffectual response of the USA trying to be ‘the world’s policeman’ on its own.
   • Tinfoihat 6.1

     8 April 2017 at 9:39 am

     Agreed
   • Draco T Bastard 6.2

     8 April 2017 at 10:20 am

     For sane results the Security Council needs to remove the ‘Veto option’ which Russia in particular uses so often.

     Although true it’s the US has often used the veto:

     The United States has used the veto on 79 occasions between 1946 and 2016; and since 1972, it has used its veto power more than any other permanent member.

     My bold.

     The result is we have to rely of the ineffectual response of the USA trying to be ‘the world’s policeman’ on its own.

     Incorrect. The result is that the international community is prevented from acting by the powerful nations and usually for their own self-interests.
     • dukeofurl 6.2.1

       8 April 2017 at 11:39 am

       The veto is used, in my guess, to protect Israel
7. Anne 7

   8 April 2017 at 9:38 am

   After contemplating a series of conspiracy theories of mind blowing proportions, Scott Yorke of Imperator Fish sums it it up succinctly:

   … a combination of grotesque evil, bumbling incompetence and foreign policy incoherence.

   https://imperatorfish.com/2017/04/07/join-the-dots-and-follow-the-money/
   A little cynical humour can go a long way.

   Here we go again? We’ve seen it all before.
8. marty mars 8

   8 April 2017 at 11:04 am

   “Those left wingers thinking that Donald Trump would be more peaceful than Hillary Clinton must be disappointed.”

   yep those of us who knew this was coming just shake our heads at so called left wingers so sucked in by the lofty rhetoric and out and out lies.

   To me the whole retaliation from trump is really just a signal to his old buddy putin – namely fuck you vlad. Putin is stuck now – his weakness exposed – because to up the ante from him against an idiot like trump is too dangerous especially as he is not an idiot like trump and to roll over via big words, sabre rattling and zero action will show the paper thin to be as paper thin as some suspect.

   meanwhile the tick from dipton sits by the phone wondering why it isn’t ringing – it is tolling though bill, it is tolling…
   • Psych nurse 8.1

     8 April 2017 at 11:22 am

     Smoke and mirrors, the Russian stooge is now the enemy ?.How convenient just as investigations into the Russian election interference get underway, Noam Chomsky predicted he would engineer a terrorist attack resulting in retaliation earlier this week to take the heat off him domestically.
     • dukeofurl 8.1.1

       8 April 2017 at 11:43 am

       If you were on the Sunni side , after Trump moved US policy to letting Assad stay, you would want some game changer real quick ?

       Chemical weapons seem to have once again been the rabbit out of the hat to justify military action.
     • marty mars 8.1.2

       8 April 2017 at 11:48 am

       “the Russian stooge is now the enemy ?”

       there has to be an enemy for these types and who better than the old foe – the russian bear, the commies, the inscrutable others – much better than those other others who are just too other for comfort.
   • mikesh 8.2

     8 April 2017 at 2:00 pm

     “Those left wingers thinking that Donald Trump would be more peaceful than Hillary Clinton must be disappointed.”

     Last night’s TV1 news featured a clip of Hilary saying that she supported Trump’s action. She went on to say that it was about time they established a “no-fly zone” in Syria. But, yes, we are disappointed.

     Putin is not showing any weakness by not retaliating; it’s just that he has no obvious targets other than ISIS, and they are under attack already.

     Unless, of course, you are suggesting he should have bombed US cities by way of retaliation.
     • marty mars 8.2.1

       8 April 2017 at 3:40 pm

       many times we heard that trump was the big peacemaker – nah – he is as bad if not worse than any of his predecessors – this will become obvious if it isn’t already.

       yep putin’s got nowhere to go – it must be galling to him that a dumbarse like trump (and his wee advisors of course) can skewer him so successfully. It ain’t checkmate but it is definitely a check.
9. silvertuatara 9

   8 April 2017 at 11:42 am

   With Bill English having just taken it upon himself to dismiss an independent inquiry into the fatalities, casualties, and loss of family and friends in two small Afgan villiages in a raid organised by the NZDF/SAS and signed off by John Key that completely failed to meet it’s pre-mission objectives……..New Zealander’s are probably becoming more concerned and critical about the New Zealand Defense Force’s, financial, intelligence, military, and troop resources being committed to supporting and fighting other countries wars, in particular the US’s.

   It has been reported that the US has in the past been happy to use depleted uranium in the gulf and Iraq wars, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-considine/us-depleted-uranium-as-ma_b_3812888.htm. I quote directly from this article by Craig Considine;

   “For example, an important report on Harvard University’s website discusses the fallout of depleted uranium contamination in Iraq. Dr. Souad N. Al-Azzawi, who authored the report after the Gulf War, wrote that:

   “Depleted Uranium (DU) weaponry has been used against Iraq for the first time in the history of recent wars. The magnitude of the complications and damage related to the use of such radioactive and toxic weapons on the environment and the human population mostly results from the intended concealment, denial and misleading information released by the Pentagon about the quantities, characteristics and the area’s in Iraq, in which these weapons have been used.””

   I ask what country/s stood up and even questioned the US over their reported use of depeleted Uranium in their munitions, with longer lasting consequences than nerve agents in the chemical weapons. Certainly no country launched 50 tomahawk missiles to destroy either the US’s production facilities where the depleted uranium munitions were manufactured, nor any strikes at the locations where the depleted uranium munitions took off from.

   The release of chemical weapons within the Syrian civil war, is such a heinous crime and blame has been cast in more than one direction, aside from the US’s obvious attributing of guilt to the Syrian Bashar al-Assad led government. It has been reported that US Foriegn policy has been set on assisting a “regime Change” within Syria, dihttps://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/20/the-us-hand-in-the-syrian-mess/. Combined with the CIA’s activities on behalf of US’s self interests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Syria, it is hard to say exactly who was responsible for the chemical attacks in Syria, with the use of chemical weapons having been the convenient reason that Trump has wheeled out in an attempt to validate his actions in overseeing the use of 50 odd tomahawk missiles.

   Aside from humanitarian efforts, New Zealander’s quite possibly do not want, and as a country can ill afford another military intervention in a distant land so that the US can effectively control the natural resources that flow from Syria’s neighboring regions to their unequal advantage.

   It is my belief that NZ should be increasing our refugee quota for those fleeing from the horrors of what has transpired in Iraq, Afganistan, and Syria, while at the same time taking a stand internationally in denouncing support for what has the potential to develop into another 10-15 year US led occupation of another foreign country.

   No amount of bombing by either Russia and or the US, outside of a complete genocide of one of the competing religious/political populations, will lead to better, or more effective lasting change than through the political process that the Syrian people as a whole should be entrusted with, so that the Syrian population decide their own fate and direction going forward, not countries such as either Russia, or the US, trying to effect change that best serves Russia and or the US’s purposes, over the rights of the Syrian people.

   And while it is being touted that the chemical weapon attack in Syria has been lead by the
   • silvertuatara 9.1

     8 April 2017 at 11:58 am

     Last sentence….forgot to edit out…
10. Fisiani 10

    8 April 2017 at 12:04 pm

    The Greens response is clear. The National response is clear. The Labour response is another Yeah. Nah. What does it mean?
11. Penny Bright 11

    8 April 2017 at 12:57 pm

    How many New Zealanders understand and believe in the International ‘Rule of Law’?

    Here’s what the New York Times has to say:

    https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/us/politics/military-force-presidential-power.html

    “Did Trump have clear authority under international law to attack Syria?

    No. The United Nations Charter, a treaty the United States has ratified, recognizes two justifications for using force on another country’s soil without its consent: the permission of the Security Council or a self-defense claim.

    In the case of Syria, the United Nations did not approve the strike, and the Defense Department justified it as “intended to deter the regime from using chemical weapons again,” which is not self-defence.
    …”

    Penny Bright
    • Rightly or wrongly 11.1

      8 April 2017 at 1:28 pm

      Self defence of Syrian civilans – or don’t they matter coz it was ‘da devil Don’ who pushed the button?
      • Foreign waka 11.1.1

        8 April 2017 at 3:52 pm

        Rightly or Wrongly, may I ask what your education level is?
12. Brigid 12

    8 April 2017 at 1:13 pm

    I don’t believe there has been credible evidence provided that a chemical attack on Syrian civilians has occurred.

    Even according to the UN, there is no evidence that Syria has used toxic chemicals against its people.
    • Fisiani 12.1

      8 April 2017 at 1:39 pm

      Are you blind or do you think babies frothing their lungs out is normal
      • Drowsy M. Kram 12.1.1

        8 April 2017 at 2:46 pm

        You have a conveniently selective world view. There are none so blind…

        “Bill English has reviewed the evidence and can SEE no evidence of a war crime. He cannot order an inquiry every time someone simply makes an allegation. He trusts our Defence Force chief. I wish others would show these informed people some respect.” – Fisiani (4 April)
      • Brigid 12.1.2

        8 April 2017 at 4:36 pm

        Which babies?
    • mary_a 12.2

      8 April 2017 at 8:13 pm

      @ Brigid (12) … also it’s a well known fact sarin is so deadly, it is able to cause secondary death in those in immediate contact with the victims of the chemical.

      If this is the case, why were the rescuers as seen in news media reports not wearing protective clothing while handling the victims and why were they not showing any symptoms of being affected by sarin?
      • One Anonymous Bloke 12.2.1

        8 April 2017 at 8:21 pm

        They showed symptoms:

        “Abdel Hameed is in very bad shape,” said his cousin, Alaa Alyousef. He’s being treated for exposure to the toxin, “but he’s especially broken down over his massive loss.”
13. Karen 13

    8 April 2017 at 1:45 pm

    I have no idea why some people here are so deluded about Assad. You know it is possible to be strongly critical of US foreign policy AND also recognise that Assad is a despot who has done terrible things in order to stay in power.

    http://sn4hr.org/blog/2016/10/09/27886/

    As for the US attacks on the airfield – this is just theatre for a domestic audience. The Syrian govt and the Russians were obviously forewarned so no damage was done to them and Trump can pretend he is tough and not under Putin’s thumb. Also helps with the Chinese Premier – this is what I will do if you aren’t careful..
    • Carolyn_nth 13.1

      8 April 2017 at 2:58 pm

      And then there’s the hypocrisy of Trump. The Daily Kos reports that civilian deaths by US forces have increased under Trump’s leadership.
14. ianmac 14

    8 April 2017 at 1:56 pm

    Bill on Open Mike has a really good Jeremy response:
    “Jeremy Corbyn on Syria

    “Unilateral military action without legal authorisation or independent verification risks intensifying a multi-sided conflict that has already killed hundreds of thousands of people.

    “What is needed instead is to urgently reconvene the Geneva peace talks and unrelenting international pressure for a negotiated settlement of the conflict.”

    And, of course, the hawks within UK Labour are baying for his blood.”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/syria-attack-jeremy-corbyn-labour-party-divide-tom-watson-backlash-a7672141.html

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS