Relax guys. It appears we're bottling it. Probably just as well, since no **** seems to know what the ****'s going on.
Also it's a brilliant way to bury the news developing from released documents detailing how the US granted permission for Saddam to launch a chemical strike on Iran and the CIA helped him. Saddam then threw in an attack on the Kurds for good measure
Cameron and Hague have been called out for the bull****ters they are Cameron : So we're all agreed then, we'll bomb Syria ? Milliband : Just remind me again, what is the actual reason we're bombing them ? Hague : Because they have used chemical weapons against their own people Milliband : How do we know that ? Cameron : We have proof Milliband : What is the proof ? Cameron : Samantha saw it on the telly. Hague : Look, we all know he did it. Milliband : How do we know that ? Hague : Samantha saw it on the telly Jaysis, i'm supporting labour
The Syrian government were the ones who decide not to get rid of theirs. How the **** can you try and spin that positively? Why do you think they were one of 5 countries who want to keep them if they have no intention of using them? You are living in fantasy world.
People like me? What gives you the impression I'm supporting anyone? Please feel free to point out where I have taken the rebels' side? In other words don't talk pish.
You are of a view of supporting military intervention which will undoubtedly mission creep into deposition of the legitimate head of state by foreign mercenaries resulting in the more powerful factions of the "rebels" coming to power. These just happen to be Al Qaeda affiliates. Like it or not, these strikes are aiding Al Qaeda and by supporting them it can only be assumed you are ok with militarily supporting Al Qaeda on the ground, as if supplying them with weapons wasn't bad enough
[video=youtube;01-2pNCZiNk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=01-2pNCZiNk[/video]
What makes you think that the rebels have got rid of the chemical weapons which they recently brought in to the country ? If the rebels have tried to fire their own chemical weapons at damascus, or if they have tried to fire weapons which they stole from the government, why is the solution to that for the west to bomb the government ? what does that achieve ? as it is a battle of 2 sides, then inervening against one side will effectively be strengthening the hand of, and acting in support of, the other side. why would it be more just to support the side which has fired the weapons (whether they had stolen them or not), than it would to support the side which were the intended victims ?
Jacky I have said I don't want UK forces deployed because it is not worth the risk to their lives, I personally don't care who used the Chemical weapons (If chemical weapons were in fact used) so why do you think I said there should be military intervention when I said no such thing?
You, unlike me, seem to have already decided who the guilty party is? What are you basing your opinion on exactly?
you've missed the point again. you suggested that whoever the guilty party is, we should blame the syrian government. im just pointing out that your suggestion is absurd.
1. i havent suggested and do not suggest that the only possibility is that the rebels are to blame. 2. your suggestion that we should blame the syrian government whichever side was actuallly the guilty party, was absurd. that's how
I'm blaming them because they are ****s and because they refused to get rid of Chemical weapons, that's how I roll
you arent very logical. supporting someone on moral grounds who has fired chemical weapons, and taking sides with them against their intended victims (on the basis that the intended victims have chemical weapons which they have not fired), would indicate an extreme level of stupidity.
