I'm just interested what people think of Corbyn's position. I've read somewhere recently that there is only a minority supporting the military action, and Corbyn is against. So I'm interested what people on here think. I genuinely don't have an inkling what the view might be. I'll not vote until near the end and then only if quite a few do answer. Only reply if you give a F. If people don't reply that's an answer too.
The man will never ever use HMForces, hes not fit to be in office, he mixes with every enemy we ever had. Hes an anti semite so really dont give a fk what he thinks
Your politics, not really my bailiwick, but no politician does anything for nothing. Your Mr Corbyn knows full well that waiting for a decision by the UN on this matter won't happen simply because Russia will veto it. Therefore, your Mr Corbyn is on safe ground to make such comments. Off Topic and just out of interest: A while back I warned you about a certain Yasmin Abdel-Magied, an Australian muslim trouble maker who, unable to cause enough strife here, left for England. She left for the USA to give a speech probably decrying the west (where she lives) to a rabble of like minded people. She didn't get far and has since been deported from the US and returned to the UK.. Lucky ol' you, eh?
What Corbin thinks says and does is irrelevant, because Corbin himself is irrelevant, he's just a political chancer. It's people like him who have brought us to this sad state of affairs. The Syria situation should have been sorted years ago, but oh no people like Corbin just wanted to talk all the time. Corbin should FO and he can take that fat bit-h Abbot with him.
Corbyn,Socialist workers party,Commies,never done a days work students,Remainers,you and Glory and other nutters,if that's a majority,then he has one.
Looks like i'm in the minority here It would be interesting to see how many people think Tony Blair is a war criminal e.t.c e.t.c, but yet this is fine
Tony Blair made up facts and lies,if it turns out there was no Chemicals used in Syria then we were wrong again,but I think there's better facts this time.Blair also knew he was telling porkys.
Did he really, or did he go on "intelligence" from the yanks? Bearing in mind that Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people, i struggle to see the difference. Especially as this attack is being disputed in many quarters. I aren't saying it didn't happen, but then if someone had told me that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before we went in, i reckon i would have believed them, wouldn't you?
You've not answered my question, but... Whats the rush to go to war? Especially piggybacking the yanks (again) being led by Donald fkin Trump.
We did believe at the time,but Blair knew in Iraq in was a college students story he was saying was proof.Saddam used chemical weapons years before the war on him.If the question was should we bomb Syria in 2-3 years time for what they have just done then no.
But why did he use them now? There are some opinions from people who would have a much better idea than you or I about whats going on that have said it doesn't make sense that he would use them at this point. Former head of the British special forces Major General Jonathan Shaw said: 'Why would Assad use chemical weapons at this time? He's won the war' 'That's not just my opinion, it is shared by senior commanders in the US military. There is no rationale behind Assad's involvement whatsoever. 'He's convinced the rebels to leave occupied areas in buses. He's gained their territory. So why would he be bothering gassing them? His views were echoed by Admiral Lord West, former head of the Royal Navy, who said: 'If I was advising President Assad, why would I say use chemical weapons at this point? It doesn't make any sense. But for the jihadist opposition groups I can see why they would. Now i don't know exactly whats going on over there, but when 2 blokes of their stature question it, then it makes me think lets just slow down a minute. I go back to my original point, about people that think Tony Blair should be in prison for war crimes, but this is different. Is it really, is the evidence more compelling?
So let’s get this straight we are bombing Syria to teach the Syrian people that it’s wrong to bomb Syria. How does that work then? Has this policy ever worked previously in similar circumstances? One example will do..
Will catch up with this Wednesday, as i've a sports massage to endure this afternoon and off work with lots to do tomorrow
Trump bombing Syria to deflect the American peoples attention from the whole host of illegal stuff that’s going to see the corrupt mad **** impeached.
1 The rebels only agreed to leave after they got gassed,they tried every other method to get rid of them and it looks like this was the last straw. 2 Now the Tony Blair bit,we attacked a whole country,with a loss of thousands of lives on his stories about the weapons being a threat to us not the locals. In Syria we have attacked airfields and research labs,killing very few,just a warning.The warning is as much to Putin as assad,as he is pushing boundaries to see what he can get away with.
