is that it now game over no chance of POTUS

 

Rayguns out

Corbyn's point that we seem alright with 400k Syrians diying as long as it's done with good old fashioned bombs and bullets was also a good one.

Chemical weapons have been banned since the 1920's, that's the difference.

Suppose it depends on who your ally's are at the time.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-syria-war-uk-chemical-weapons-attack-iran-iraq-thatcher-russia-a8300881.html

Chandler flew to Yemen to get away from Janice.

 

Which is most people's only knowledge of Yemen.

Corbyn's point that we seem alright with 400k Syrians diying as long as it's done with good old fashioned bombs and bullets was also a good one.

Was Corbyn implying we intervene militarily to protect them or ship the refugees out and house them in the UK? No matter what the expectation either option would be unpalatable to many in the UK

Chemical weapons have been banned since the 1920's, that's the difference.

 

So we're going in because these kids weren't killed by approved methods?

 

We'll ban gassing you but we're totally fine with a shell taking your legs off and you bleeding to death in agony.

 

Fucked up world eh?

Corbyn's point that we seem alright with 400k Syrians diying as long as it's done with good old fashioned bombs and bullets was also a good one.

No, I disagree on this.

 

The intervention has been around the use of chemical weapons, no more than that.

No, I disagree on this.

 

The intervention has been around the use of chemical weapons, no more than that.

I know it has. That was his point. How fucked up is it that it's deemed acceptable to bomb neighbourhoods but not gas em?

I know it has. That was his point. How fucked up is it that it's deemed acceptable to bomb neighbourhoods but not gas em?

My understanding is;

 

International law demands a response on the use of chemical weapons, but not to interfere in civil war, unless it’s genocide.

never know what to believe anymore, but this doctor reckons there was no evidence or symptoms of a chemical attack, the film was of children gasping for oxygen in in dust filled tunnels, tunnels they were in sheltering from normal bombs that were raking up dust causing the lack of air flow.

 

its on aol home page and the story after it is a bear playing football so not sure how much credibility it has but he seems genuine

 

http://www.aol.co.uk/news/2018/04/17/no-evidence-of-chemical-attack-in-douma-doctor/

never know what to believe anymore, but this doctor reckons there was no evidence or symptoms of a chemical attack, the film was of children gasping for oxygen in in dust filled tunnels, tunnels they were in sheltering from normal bombs that were raking up dust causing the lack of air flow.

 

its on aol home page and the story after it is a bear playing football so not sure how much credibility it has but he seems genuine

 

http://www.aol.co.uk/news/2018/04/17/no-evidence-of-chemical-attack-in-douma-doctor/

Would that account for the many fatalities that apparently happened?

Apparently one of the sites bombed had recently been examined by the OPCW and had been given the all clear.

 

Something about these bombing runs stinks.

 

I can't work out what though. From the links back to the Saudis, the supply of the chemicals coming from UK companies, the lack of running it by parliament, the timing before the OPCW could carry out its investigation.

No, I disagree on this.

 

The intervention has been around the use of chemical weapons, no more than that.

 

If that is the case, why has May used very vivid descriptions of the victims to justify it?

 

Shouldn't it be "they used chemical weapons, naughty Assad must get a slapped wrist" rather than trying to post-rationalise your actions by talking about kids with foam coming out their mouths?

 

Ultimately you can't be ok with this action and also not ok with Blair and Iraq. They are essentially one and the same. There is as posted above no definitive evidence in the public domain and a decision has been taken, in this case, without even parliamentary consultation. 

Was Corbyn wrong? Forget whether you like him or not. Or agree with everything else he says or not...I think most people if they're honest agree with him on this. 

 

We're doing exactly the same as Blair did in Iraq. Following the USA, ignoring the UN, disregarding any legal warnings we choose to, and simply hoping what we do makes things better. 

 

We're happy to see Assad kill loads of innocent women and children on an ongoing basis....and are sitting back and doing nothing. Either in for a penny or in for a pound.

 

Second section contradicts the first.

If we were to go in fully that would be more Blair like. Clearly there are differences.

As for following america; purely an opinion and based on no fact.

There will be people from plenty of western countries watching whats going on and supplying evidence.

Just like Corbyn you're happy to insinuate things against folk from this country - we're happy to let assad kill loads of citizens are we?

What a load of bollocks. Typical corbynesque slime.

You belong with those placard wavers outside parliament.

To put it in simple language there is no legal basis at all for regime change.

There is for the chemical weapons issue.

Corbyn was slagging the government for not moving quicker; if they had done he couldn't have used to USA pawn argument but no doubt would have claimed they should have waited for more info etc.

He'll criticise and squirm as necessary to avoid being honest about his own beliefs on such matters.

Would that account for the many fatalities that apparently happened?

no idea, but the doctor in that clip states the injuries & symptoms weren't  in keeping  with what you'd find in a chemical attack so God knows.

probably hundred videos saying they were too, just posted it for interest, i have no idea

no idea, but the doctor in that clip states the injuries & symptoms weren't  in keeping  with what you'd find in a chemical attack so God knows.

probably hundred videos saying they were too, just posted it for interest, i have no idea

This was/is indeed a big concern. So much stuff out there never sure what to believe. In the end I'm hapay enough to go with what our elected mps tell us- and hold them to account if they are later found to have lied or inadvertently put out false information

This was/is indeed a big concern. So much stuff out there never sure what to believe. In the end I'm hapay enough to go with what our elected mps tell us- and hold them to account if they are later found to have lied or inadvertently put out false information

The majority of MPs will support the action so not sure why Corbyn is getting so worked up. He is a pacifist at heart and that shapes his thinking re conflicts so if he was PM we would just be paralysed into no action on anything

Second section contradicts the first.

If we were to go in fully that would be more Blair like. Clearly there are differences.

As for following america; purely an opinion and based on no fact.

There will be people from plenty of western countries watching whats going on and supplying evidence.

Just like Corbyn you're happy to insinuate things against folk from this country - we're happy to let assad kill loads of citizens are we?

What a load of bollocks. Typical corbynesque slime.

You belong with those placard wavers outside parliament.

To put it in simple language there is no legal basis at all for regime change.

There is for the chemical weapons issue.

Corbyn was slagging the government for not moving quicker; if they had done he couldn't have used to USA pawn argument but no doubt would have claimed they should have waited for more info etc.

He'll criticise and squirm as necessary to avoid being honest about his own beliefs on such matters.

 

Assad murders people every day. He has been doing for a long time. We were against him, then on his side, now against him but only to a certain point.

 

The point I'm making is that YOU are in fact using two arguments. One is that we should stop him killing people. The other being that we only intervene if the technicality of a chemical weapons attack occurs. 

 

Either is fine, but May blurred the lines between the two to make her argument. Either we step in and do something to stop the slaughter....or we don't. If our response is "hey Mr Assad do what you like to those kids, amputate their limbs, but release air or water borne chemicals and we'll bomb you"...then fine. But it was in between. It was he crossed a line but hey look at those kids with foam in their mouths....

 

As leader of the opposition his job is to criticise. As for the rest, why did we sell Syria chemical weapons, or the means to produce them in the 1980s? Or are we not allowed to bring that up because we can't "insinuate anything about folk from this country"?

 

You've tied yourself in knots trying to argue against Jezza when in this instance you know, deep down, he's nailed it. 

Edited April 17, 20188 yr by bwfcfan5

Where does the footy playing bear stand?

Assad murders people every day. He has been doing for a long time. We were against him, then on his side, now against him but only to a certain point.

 

The point I'm making is that YOU are in fact using two arguments. One is that we should stop him killing people. The other being that we only intervene if the technicality of a chemical weapons attack occurs. 

 

Either is fine, but May blurred the lines between the two to make her argument. Either we step in and do something to stop the slaughter....or we don't. If our response is "hey Mr Assad do what you like to those kids, amputate their limbs, but release air or water borne chemicals and we'll bomb you"...then fine. But it was in between. It was he crossed a line but hey look at those kids with foam in their mouths....

 

As leader of the opposition his job is to criticise. As for the rest, why did we sell Syria chemical weapons, or the means to produce them in the 1980s? Or are we not allowed to bring that up because we can't "insinuate anything about folk from this country"?

 

You've tied yourself in knots trying to argue against Jezza when in this instance you know, deep down, he's nailed it.

 

Utter drivel.

This action is completely remote from Blair and his Iraq campaign. (Which at the time I fully supported ).

You can moralist all you want about whether we should do more or less.

We did what we are entitled to do. Perhaps it's about time the Arab world got its shit together and sorted themselves out; but no they'd rather just gas each other.

Perhaps you're right; we should indeed do absolutely fuck all, and then laugh as Jeremy gets all upset as yet more and more kids get chemically murdered.

Oh and by the way the job of the opposition leader is to challenge the government to ensure everything is done as well as possible and to present anot alternative for voters etc. Sometimes this may require criticism. Others it is to grow the fuck up and stop putting his nation down and actually back it at times such as this.

With him in charge we'd have every fuckin not right with a nation to conerol licking his lips at the prospect of being able to use whatever noxious substance he chooses to achieve that end.

 

You and your fellow placard wavers can protest and moan all day long.

But as was stated by one mps yesterday; perhaps you should do so outside the Russian embassy and not the houses of parliament

Definitely looks like a few of those kids have been on more pictures than John Terry.

Where does the footy playing bear stand?

 

Excellent question.

He has a free hand.

If there are Russian fatalities he can escalate this into true warfare, with his country's backing.

If there are no Russian fatalities he can suggest otherwise and provoke warfare.

Not that he would tell a lie, obv.

Utter drivel.

This action is completely remote from Blair and his Iraq campaign. (Which at the time I fully supported ).

You can moralist all you want about whether we should do more or less.

We did what we are entitled to do. Perhaps it's about time the Arab world got its shit together and sorted themselves out; but no they'd rather just gas each other.

Perhaps you're right; we should indeed do absolutely fuck all, and then laugh as Jeremy gets all upset as yet more and more kids get chemically murdered.

Oh and by the way the job of the opposition leader is to challenge the government to ensure everything is done as well as possible and to present anot alternative for voters etc. Sometimes this may require criticism. Others it is to grow the fuck up and stop putting his nation down and actually back it at times such as this.

With him in charge we'd have every fuckin not right with a nation to conerol licking his lips at the prospect of being able to use whatever noxious substance he chooses to achieve that end.

 

You and your fellow placard wavers can protest and moan all day long.

But as was stated by one mps yesterday; perhaps you should do so outside the Russian embassy and not the houses of parliament

You know that what we’ve done has saved nobody. And that there is an also lot between doing nothing and bombing the shit out of places? I realise I might be wasting my time.

 

But most people have learned from Iraq. We cannot solve every injustice with bombs and often we make it worse. This is now an accepted truth. Your thesis that this is different from Iraq is true. It’s an even more dangerous situation with the potential to blow up into a very significant conflict on a wider basis. Corbyn arguing that we shouldn’t be rushing into action that risks world war bloody 3 seems not only sensible but one shared by most of the level headed normal folk in Britain.

You know that what we’ve done has saved nobody. And that there is an also lot between doing nothing and bombing the shit out of places? I realise I might be wasting my time.

 

But most people have learned from Iraq. We cannot solve every injustice with bombs and often we make it worse. This is now an accepted truth. Your thesis that this is different from Iraq is true. It’s an even more dangerous situation with the potential to blow up into a very significant conflict on a wider basis. Corbyn arguing that we shouldn’t be rushing into action that risks world war bloody 3 seems not only sensible but one shared by most of the level headed normal folk in Britain.

 

 

You've outdone yourself here.

 

Some kind of accolade is due

You've outdone yourself here.

 

Some kind of accolade is due

Which bit of it do you disagree with?