The new Weapons Of Mass destruction? Or fact? Who to believe? The West better get this one right or we are heading down the road to oblivion.
Well,they are at least.The erstwhile lemonade peddlar Hague will stir it up a bit more and leave 'em to it.
Whether or not Syria has chemical weapons is not the issue. Everyone knows that there are chemical weapons in syria, and the government in syria does not deny it. There are also vast quantities of other lethal weapons, many of which have been provided to the rebels by the allies of US, UK, France. People compare the situation to Iraq, but in fact there is no comparison. Saddam Hussein was a genuine physchopath who had committed a number of major attrocities over decades, many of which involved using chemical and biological weapons. Crucially, it was also thought that he represented an immediate danger to western countries, and that he had the capacity and the will to use weapons of mass destruction against the west. That was the pretence under which the war against Iraq was started. If the accusation against saddam hussain had been merely that he had chemical weapons which he might use domestically, then there wouldn't have even been a question of a war against him. This idea that western countries somehow have the right to bomb the **** out of a sovereign state because they dont approve of the way that it defends itself against an armed insurrection, is a pretty new concept.
The WMD excuse worked a treat before so they roll it out again .. Bullshit of the highest order and Jackal agents stirring up the gullible .
They certainly didn't go round bombing neutral sovereign states on the pretence of not liking the way they defended themselves from attack.
Indeed - we just went round "democratising" everyone and kicking **** out of anyone who diodnlt like it, pulled out when things got a bit edgy and took every bit of booty we could find and put it all in museums.
Those were the days. Taking on the Chinese in their own backyard and beating them comfortably. Same against the Russians. Imagine if we tried that now
That's your view on the British Empire is it ? You think it was a quest to forcibly convert countries into a democracy ? Can you name any examples of this ? When you say that Britain "pulled out when things got a bit edgy" what countries are you thinking of, and what strategy would you have implemented in those instances, other than awarding independence ?
Whether that's the case or not (and I would probably argue that it isn't), it doesnt answer either of the questions that I put to Dan in response to his statement.
We cut it into 2 countries India & Pakistan divided by Cashmere , either side has nukes pointed at each other now.
We created it from a large number of largely independent regional entities. Splitting it in two (three because of east pakistan) was unavoidable.
