Off Topic Is the UK right to get

The Syrian people don't want to live under Sharia law a majority of the so called freedom fighters are paid for mercenaries armed and trained by the West and Saudi Arabia to topple another bogeyman .

See Iraq Afghanistan Lybia

 

Do we really want to find out ?

How many foreign military bases does America have ?
Hundreds all over the World
How many foreign military bases does Russia have ?
1 in Syria

The Russians were invited to help defend Syria the Americans are invading yet again , to help Jihadists over throw a country and turn it into an Islamic caliphate .

 

Your last sentence highlights why this action will differ....

Do you think it might currently suit Trump to be seen domestically to be poking a stick at Putin? Would anyone of sound mind actually believe this was anything more than a pantomime in that regard?

 

do you think there won't be any civilian casualties then? There will be, there always is (if some missiles are sent)

 

The Russian interest in Syria is primarily in retaining Tartus, their one remaining naval base on the Med. Anyone who thinks that Putin gives a flying **** about the Syrian people is dreaming.

Syria let’s them use it, their warships only set sail from there very recently in anticipation. The quid pro quo is implied protection from Russia.

 

When there is risk of conflict from outside forces the media companies that criticise Trump on a daily basis are forced to support him so as not to be seen as traitors that plays nicely into his hands as his popularity has declined.
Americans will always back their president against the Russians so I wouldn't be surprised if the bombing of the Syrian air field with barely any reported casualties was a media stunt the same with this latest circus .

 

Funny that it is mostly people of the "right" persuasion who are speaking out against this.
Where as a lot of "lefties" as Jabba calls them, are advocating war.

Weird little reverse.

 

Tobes wants to fire humanitarian peace missiles with rainbows painted on the side, keep up .

 

I think their targets will be military installations that will have already have been cleared mate.

I think genuine civilian casualties will be minimal, lots of bangs and flashes and videos of missiles impacting bunkers for the benefit of the press, followed by lots of faux indignation from the Russians and then back to as you were.

 

Who’s advocating war?

 

You’ve just agreed with me in your previous post though......

 

The people like yourself saying that to not intervene is callous.

 

Some people on the left.
Due to humanitarian reasons.

 

Only I didn’t say that at all in this context, I said the proposed action was tokenism and bollocks.

You’re therefore talking ****e again

 

In the way that the media and president use these scenarios for their own means but I personally don't want the UK or USA to fire any missiles at Syria you appear to be all for it .

 

I just don't get the logic of "saving" a bunch of Syrians because of some unproven gas attack, because "Chemicals are bad, yo!"
when we I see homeless people starving and freezing to death all over our major cities every day.
Why are the lives of these Syrians more important to our government? It makes no sense.

In times of austerity, the first thing cut, ALWAYS, should be foreign aid.

 

You’re deliberately confusing those who think that chemical weapons use is abhorrent with that automatically equating to advocating launching missiles as being a supposed ‘solution’. Simplistic nonsense from the ‘right’ again.

 

Carefully stage managed photos like this trigger idiots.

 

You patently have a problem with actually reading and deciphering what people actually post on here, as I’ve advocated **** all with respect to firing missiles at Syria, in fact quite the reverse.

 

So why lambast Bodinky for proposing to do the same then ?
ie **** all and use the money to help people closer to home .