Meanwhile, In Syria
Discussion
MikeT66 said:
funkyrobot said:
Do these f
king moron politicians never learn? Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and they have learned nothing. That's before you even think about the teachings that historical conflict should have shown.
It's dreadful to think that a small bunch of power hungry wkers should be able to decide whether or not masses of people live or die.
I hung my head in shame last night when I learned of what the powers that be want to do, again.
Of all the odious little turds to appear again though, Blair really takes the pee
Leave the country alone you fking morons. As harsh as it is, its their fight. They don't think like we do in the west and you won't change the way they are wired. Getting involved will just mean more bloodshed.
I believe we should make a rule that any politician who wants a war is personally made to join the poor buggers on the front line.
This sums it up, really. 100%. king moron politicians never learn? Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and they have learned nothing. That's before you even think about the teachings that historical conflict should have shown.It's dreadful to think that a small bunch of power hungry w
kers should be able to decide whether or not masses of people live or die.I hung my head in shame last night when I learned of what the powers that be want to do, again.
Of all the odious little turds to appear again though, Blair really takes the pee
Leave the country alone you f
king morons. As harsh as it is, its their fight. They don't think like we do in the west and you won't change the way they are wired. Getting involved will just mean more bloodshed.I believe we should make a rule that any politician who wants a war is personally made to join the poor buggers on the front line.
MrBarry123 said:
aeropilot said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Good man.As you say, sadly he'll likely be blacklisted by the BBC now, as he knows what he's talking about, and the BBC don't like that.
ETA: having looked, he's the current director of the BSS so his opinion will be slanted towards Assad and against anything which risks dethroning him. Let's not let that get in the way of bashing the BBC though.
All we do is make an already f
ked up situation even worse.carinatauk said:
BlackLabel said:
Diplomacy in 2018.
Yep, lets start a world war on ttter that's really adult of us. FFS Bizarre really. Let's allow our citizens to keep killing each other. But if someone (and we still don't know who) opens a few chlorine gas cannisters in another country where it's not really any of our business, we'll smash you to pieces with missiles.
AreOut said:
I doubt Russians would target US assets unless one of their bases in Syria gets hit. If coalition attacks syrian army somewhere they might take down saudi qatari or jordanian plane but they will be careful not to shoot US or NATO one.
That has already happened this year. Russian "mercenaries" attacked a US supported base in eastern Syria in February. The US retaliated with airstrikes and helicopter gunships and massacred the Russians - 100 killed and as many as another 200 wounded.What I don't understand is this.
Of all the combatants in the Syrian conflict, only IS have exploded bombs in Britain, and killed British citizens. So why are we talking about striking at their enemies, and not them?
I feel for Syrian children being gassed by Assad (if indeed he did it). When we've dealt with the scum that blew British children to bits in Manchester, their plight will certainly move up the agenda.
Of all the combatants in the Syrian conflict, only IS have exploded bombs in Britain, and killed British citizens. So why are we talking about striking at their enemies, and not them?
I feel for Syrian children being gassed by Assad (if indeed he did it). When we've dealt with the scum that blew British children to bits in Manchester, their plight will certainly move up the agenda.
I know 'we' don't know who carried out the attack but our government have access to information at the very highest level. I'd like to think any decisions from France and UK are based on facts that are not in the public domain.
It's easy to be skeptical but we as the voting public to have to trust the government to make the right choices - I accept that is fraught with uncertainty though.
The US of A though - Trump is a hot head with zero diplomatic skill. I just hope again, that any coalition strikes are based on agreed reason and not an opportunity to enforce a regime change all costs.
For me president asshat can't be allowed to continue with chemical weapons and also we cannot approve it by not acting.
It's easy to be skeptical but we as the voting public to have to trust the government to make the right choices - I accept that is fraught with uncertainty though.
The US of A though - Trump is a hot head with zero diplomatic skill. I just hope again, that any coalition strikes are based on agreed reason and not an opportunity to enforce a regime change all costs.
For me president asshat can't be allowed to continue with chemical weapons and also we cannot approve it by not acting.
MikeT66 said:
funkyrobot said:
Do these fking moron politicians never learn? Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and they have learned nothing. That's before you even think about the teachings that historical conflict should have shown.
It's dreadful to think that a small bunch of power hungry wkers should be able to decide whether or not masses of people live or die.
I hung my head in shame last night when I learned of what the powers that be want to do, again.
Of all the odious little turds to appear again though, Blair really takes the pee
Leave the country alone you fking morons. As harsh as it is, its their fight. They don't think like we do in the west and you won't change the way they are wired. Getting involved will just mean more bloodshed.
I believe we should make a rule that any politician who wants a war is personally made to join the poor buggers on the front line.
This sums it up, really. 100%. king moron politicians never learn? Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and they have learned nothing. That's before you even think about the teachings that historical conflict should have shown.It's dreadful to think that a small bunch of power hungry w
kers should be able to decide whether or not masses of people live or die.I hung my head in shame last night when I learned of what the powers that be want to do, again.
Of all the odious little turds to appear again though, Blair really takes the pee
Leave the country alone you f
king morons. As harsh as it is, its their fight. They don't think like we do in the west and you won't change the way they are wired. Getting involved will just mean more bloodshed.I believe we should make a rule that any politician who wants a war is personally made to join the poor buggers on the front line.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
What I don't understand is this.
Of all the combatants in the Syrian conflict, only IS have exploded bombs in Britain, and killed British citizens. So why are we talking about striking at their enemies, and not them?
Because people only believe in 'goodies' and baddies', the govt. of the day decides who is what depending on what they want to do. Any scenario more complicated than goodies vs baddies is either simplified or lied about. Of all the combatants in the Syrian conflict, only IS have exploded bombs in Britain, and killed British citizens. So why are we talking about striking at their enemies, and not them?
When these narratives collide, as in Syria, things get tricky as now there are good baddies and bad goodies and people don't know what to think and it also makes doing things on behalf of people difficult as now opinions may start to vary which may undermine the govt.s efforts to, you know, show themselves taking 'decisive action', or any action, against the baddie de jour.
Best way out of that is avoid difficult questions like this, concentrate rage at the biggest baddie everyone understands (even if he was courted by the west, western educated, pals with Blair, Bush and Sarkozy oh but a few short years ago - Assad this is, not Qaddafi...) and try to do something without ever doing too much...
lord trumpton said:
I know 'we' don't know who carried out the attack but our government have access to information at the very highest level. I'd like to think any decisions from France and UK are based on facts that are not in the public domain.
You mean like the infamous Iraq WMD dossier that Blair told everyone was "the whole truth and nothing but the truth"........Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff