Off Topic Is the UK right to get

War (which is often the wrong term) is usually about money. Especially now.

 

Aye, but nations tend to be skint afterwards, others don't, no matter who 'wins'.

 

Don't stop the yanks, despite their debt.

 

'Yanks' covers a big number of different groups, and they're not always working to the same ends.

 

North America. i.e Mr Trump. Why try to be a smartarse on a thread that is running freely?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43762251

 

https://news.sky.com/story/us-uk-launch-military-strikes-on-syria-11329796

And so it begins.

 

I wasn't being smart arse, but I'll leave it at that.

 

Spot on there!....

 

Did we win?

 

The Clintons.

 

Let's see how Russia responds, they've been touted as the 'One you do not **** with' for years by every self appointed war expert.

 

This is why I don't really agree with the view that Russia and US may be about to go to war with each other. I just don't either of them would actually want it. I just hope I am right!

 

You haven't got a clue whether she has or not, have you?

Could she? How much would it cost and for how long? Would she be expected to do it when more people turned up, too?
What a ****ing stupid argument. Pay to solve every problem yourself or you don't care about it. So dumb.

 

They'll probably make a show of having a stand off and some mercenaries will get killed, while they divide the country up with the US.
It's a nice distraction for Trump from the investigation into him colluding with Putin.
They had a nice warm-up recently:
http://time.com/5237922/mike-pompeo-russia-confirmation/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-300-killed-and-wounded-sources-idUSKCN1FZ2DZ

 

I do not agree with this attack on Syria by the British. May has even quoted the use of chemical weapons on the streets of Britain, i assume meaning Salisbury. So why not attack Russia, as May and her advisors clearly pointing fingers in their direction, the reason why is we are cowards, we know if we attack Russia we will be attacked back, by that i mean London. So to get at Russia we attack Syria under the guise of 75 innocent supposedly Syrians attacked a week ago. May was challenged that this attack was against the wishes of the British people, she has claimed in response, this is not about regime change, she has claimed it's not about getting involved in Syria and is purely about the use of chemical weapons, therefore then why did she not attack Russia so swiftly, with what was supposed overwhelming evidence that they were responsible for Salisbury...I'm calling bullshhite!

 

He’s only wheeled that out as the far right media that she dared to challenge, seemingly forgot she’s one of the most philanthropic celebrities around when they lazily accused her of ‘virtue signalling’ as their stock get out for shooting the messenger.

It’s a ridiculous premise

 

Just to support what I was saying earlier:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-m...acuated-on-russian-warning-idUKKBN1HL081?il=0

The Russians warned the Syrians days ago about where the US was going to strike. And they knew this because...?

 

I was just saying the same thing to Theresa in the Security Council meeting yesterday.

 

Corban saying that the trampy pigeon May should have asked parliament .

She thought **** that, I'm head honcho.

What's your view.