And it makes no sense due to the Nazis having nothing to do with it apart from maybe reaffirming my point with Hitlers large scale support from the republican party, being supplied with fuel by American big oil and being regarded as an idol by the likes of Henry Ford. Yeh, I love those sort of guys
But isn't Russia more to the west of America than it is to the east youve worked your way into a tight spot here
Because Putin is an arsehole, and it is nothing to do with proof of chemical weapons. Besides even if he had proof that Assad was responsible he would still side with the Syrian regime because he's an arsehole. He's also an arsehole for bringing in laws which violate human rights, in fact I could pretty much go on all night what a complete arsehole the man is. Nothing to do with Syria, he's an arsehole and always has been an arsehole.
The Irish will happily side with anyone anti-British though Dev. They guided the Luftwaffe in ffs. More power to you for educating them during the Troubles.
Hate to have to inform you but generally anyone who gets to that level in any political system hasn't got there through niceties. Obama is an arsehole, Hollande is an arsehole, Xi is probably an arsehole etc.. I could go on. My preference at that point depends on the issue at hand and generally comes down to whose policies are going to cause the least **** in the grand scheme of things. Putin depriving the LGBT rights is obviously a dickish thing to do but weigh it up to him being the only credible opposition to the deaths of another few hundred thousand people through America entering another war of convenience and he gets my vote at this point. In fact calling it a war of convenience probably doesn't even do justice to just how esoteric and Machavellian it all is.
u look at most politicians are currupt as feck except bribes i know of a few who have by the way and fiddle expences trustworthy my ass
It's not just lesbian and gay rights Jacky, I think you know that, Russia's human rights record under Putin is appaling, ghastly even. Obama is many things but I don't happen to think he's in any way comparable to Putin, he's certainly not an arsehole in my opinion and he certainly does not wrestle bears or fly jets and rassle with wolves stripped to the waist like some nutter. Russia's best customers for weapon sales include among them Syria and Iran so it's not a coincidence that Russia will veto any attempts to punish them for violating numerous human rights in those countries.. Russia lost one of their best consumers when Ghadaffi bought it and they are not about to watch another revenue stream vanish. Just my opinion.
The whole personalisation of leaders misses the point entirely.Yes Putin and Assad are arseholes but the wider point here is the creeping disintegration of Islamic countries.Iraq,Libya and now Syria (Not to mention Egypt,although I just did) have fallen apart.At this rate the only strategy will be a global apartheid for the Islamic and non Islamic worlds. Don't forget that many of the people in these rebel groups reject the education of women and shoot people who listen to music.Just imagine sitting down after a long,hard day to listen to your favourite Jimmy Young LP and some bastard in a nightie wants toblow you away.
I know what road you are going to take this down but I will reply anyway. Both are notable in their abuse of human rights over the years, both are firm allies of the US comprising some of its biggest arms export markets. Inherent double standards in America's attitude to the human rights abuses carried out by countries considered friend and those considered foe.
Oh and with places like Guantanamo and the treatment of people like Bradley Manning bot to mention extrajudicial killings of innocent civilians by drones America's HR record is nothing to shout home about.
Strange, I thought this was to do with Putin and how he's an arsehole in my opinion and what his motives are for not bringing the Syrians to heel and suddenly we've managed to turn this into a "whitaboot Israel, Whiaboot Saudi Arabia". Who have they "allegedly" used Chemical weapons against, and did the US or UK veto any UN votes that would have had them face sanctions?
Quite apart from the morals of it I fail to see that the proposed action will rectify the situation.I'm not alone in this either,there was some old cove on the telly box the other day from ,I think Institute of Strategic Studies who seemed to have a passing knowledge on the subject,and he reckoned that it could make it worse. And just think if it was the rebels wot dun it,what then? They will go straight and put another two bob's worth in the meter and gas a load more kids.No,the fella with the funny name makes good points.Is he some sort of Dutchman?
I tend to agree and that's why I'm happy to let the French and the Yanks do what they will and leave Britain out of it. But...is appeasement the answer? Should the UN do nothing (as usual) and hope it all blows over, let Assad (If he's the culprit) get away with it because it's nothing to do with us? If Assad did use Chemical weapons against his own people, should we just keep on ignoring it?
Remarks of President Barack Obama Weekly Address The White House September 7, 2013 Almost three weeks ago in Syria, more than 1,000 innocent people – including hundreds of children – were murdered in the worst chemical weapons attack of the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century. And the United States has presented a powerful case to the world that the Syrian government was responsible for this horrific attack on its own people. This was not only a direct attack on human dignity; it is a serious threat to our national security. There’s a reason governments representing 98 percent of the world’s people have agreed to ban the use of chemical weapons. Not only because they cause death and destruction in the most indiscriminate and inhumane way possible – but because they can also fall into the hands of terrorist groups who wish to do us harm. That’s why, last weekend, I announced that, as Commander in Chief, I decided that the United States should take military action against the Syrian regime. This is not a decision I made lightly. Deciding to use military force is the most solemn decision we can make as a nation. As the leader of the world’s oldest Constitutional democracy, I also know that our country will be stronger if we act together, and our actions will be more effective. That’s why I asked Members of Congress to debate this issue and vote on authorizing the use of force. What we’re talking about is not an open-ended intervention. This would not be another Iraq or Afghanistan. There would be no American boots on the ground. Any action we take would be limited, both in time and scope – designed to deter the Syrian government from gassing its own people again and degrade its ability to do so. I know that the American people are weary after a decade of war, even as the war in Iraq has ended, and the war in Afghanistan is winding down. That’s why we’re not putting our troops in the middle of somebody else’s war. But we are the United States of America. We cannot turn a blind eye to images like the ones we’ve seen out of Syria. Failing to respond to this outrageous attack would increase the risk that chemical weapons could be used again; that they would fall into the hands of terrorists who might use them against us, and it would send a horrible signal to other nations that there would be no consequences for their use of these weapons. All of which would pose a serious threat to our national security. That’s why we can’t ignore chemical weapons attacks like this one – even if they happen halfway around the world. And that’s why I call on Members of Congress, from both parties, to come together and stand up for the kind of world we want to live in; the kind of world we want to leave our children and future generations. Thank you.
