is that it now game over no chance of POTUS

 

Rayguns out

Which bit of it do you disagree with?

 

 

3 bits, really;

 

1. That 5 always seems to lay out his opinions as fact (in my view!)

2. That we don't know, can't know, that lives have saved or otherwise

3. That the majority of level headed people etc. How can anyone put forward that proposition?

Edited April 17, 20188 yr by boltondiver

3 bits, really;

 

1. That 5 always seems to lay out his opinions as fact (in my view!)

2. That we don't know, can't know, that lives have saved or otherwise

3. That the majority of level headed people etc. How an anyone put forward that proposition?

 

Bolty and I both believe Iraq was a mistake, Libya was a mistake and Syria shows theat lessons have not been learned.

 

And we constitute the majority of level headed people. QED

Which bit of it do you disagree with?

Kent; do you believe it might help save folk from future chemical attack?

I know you'll understand the concerns that doing nowt gives him and other carte blanche to carry on with this shit with impunity.

I understand the irony and the fact we're doing nothing else to stop assad from doing convenational warfare on his own people, but isn't that just the way of international politics, and diplomacy. Especially with different cultures.

At least the world did manage to come together on chemical weapons and upholding that agreement is vital.

 

In all honesty if we'd done fuck all it wouldn't have overly worried me for the short term, though long term it would.

But plenty of the same folk complaining now would then be up in arms at the lack of help.

What really pisses me off is the argument that Corbyn and Fan5 trip out so readily that we shouldn't do anything without UN approval. A convenient wall to hide behind so as to do nothing.

As useful as the UN is most of the time, all to often it appears unfit for purpose.

They should look more readily at Putin and his cronies.

I'll be honest with you. I can't understand for the life of me why Assad would launch chemical weapons at his own people when his war is almost won.

 

It doesn't make any sense. Why would he risk his position and invite an attack? I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that one of the rebel factions has some how come into contact with it and set it off knowing it would pull the West back in. That's at least (if not more plausible) in my opinion. And seen as there is a small (but very real chance) that we could end up at war with Russia I'd want us to be 100% fucking sure we're right.

 

Add to that the fact that pretty much every other foray into the middle east in recent decades has been disastrous and counter productive and I think there's some pretty compelling reasons not to steam in.

 

And I'm sure most opinion polls show that the majority of the (presumably level headed) British public aren't in favour of attack. So for most people Jeremy Corbyn is right on this one. He certainly is for me.

 

And even if you despise him - it doesn't mean you need to be diametrically opposed to every position he takes.

Sorry - just realised I've not answered your question.

 

It might help save folk from future chemical attack. It might also be the catalyst to a war that kills millions. Tread carefully would be my preferred course of action.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-chemical-attack-gas-douma-robert-fisk-ghouta-damascus-a8307726.html

 

Hypoxia is also plausible by the way!

Express readers; "level-headed" or not?

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/947500/syria-news-syria-war-air-strikes-latest-opinion-poll-theresa-may

Express readers; "level-headed" or not?

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/947500/syria-news-syria-war-air-strikes-latest-opinion-poll-theresa-may

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-chemical-attack-gas-douma-robert-fisk-ghouta-damascus-a8307726.html

 

Hypoxia is also plausible by the way!

 

 

I'd see the funny side if it were true

No - I'd say your average Express reader is pretty far from level headed.

 

Incidentally - two other reports from the Express today. One about a U-boat that Hitler 'escaped' to South America in and another about blood leaking from Jesus' tomb in Jerusalem. So I'll take the poll that they conducted with a pinch of salt and stick with the Yougov one.

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/history/947464/Hitler-submarine-Nazi-South-America-still-live-U-boat

 

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/947494/jesus-christ-tomb-blood-jerusalem-jesus-video

 

PS - there's nothing funny about hypoxia.

No - I'd say your average Express reader is pretty far from level headed.

 

Incidentally - two other reports from the Express today. One about a U-boat that Hitler 'escaped' to South America in and another about blood leaking from Jesus' tomb in Jerusalem. So I'll take the poll that they conducted with a pinch of salt and stick with the Yougov one.

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/history/947464/Hitler-submarine-Nazi-South-America-still-live-U-boat

 

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/947494/jesus-christ-tomb-blood-jerusalem-jesus-video

 

PS - there's nothing funny about hypoxia.

 

 

No, I wouldn't be laughing about folks with hypoxia, rather the wole international drama for a shortage of oxygen.

 

I thought you might say that about Express readers

 

And......I'm equally sure you'd be right on with the "Independent"

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/syria-latest-air-strikes-poll-theresa-may-chemical-weapons-trump-assad-a8304716.html

Edited April 17, 20188 yr by boltondiver

The Express one was an online poll on its own website!

I'm sure sky had it at 45/45 In their poll

I'd imagine the ones taken after the event are more favourable.....

Why's that?

I'm sure sky had it at 45/45 In their poll

I was surveyed for this

3 bits, really;

 

1. That 5 always seems to lay out his opinions as fact (in my view!)

2. That we don't know, can't know, that lives have saved or otherwise

3. That the majority of level headed people etc. How can anyone put forward that proposition?

 

4. That his admiration of Corbyn becomes clearer every day. Even uses affection terms like 'Jezza' when referring to the communist shithouse whilst the politician with a backbone he faces off against each day is referred to solely by her surname.

 

As red as they come.

Bolty and I both believe Iraq was a mistake, Libya was a mistake and Syria shows theat lessons have not been learned.

 

And we constitute the majority of level headed people. QED

 

 

Malcolm is correct although I don't know if we appraise these past (and current) deeds from the same angles.

 

My position is that, had we left the tyrants alone, thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of primitive savages who put little or no value on human life would have been kept under the jackboot making the world a safer place.

 

Not sure that Malcs reasons are the same.

I’ve no idea what’s going on in Yemen, but there’s always an excuse, a rationale for not backing anything that involves his own country.

 

Have chemical weapons been used in Yemen? If not, then he’s comparing apples and oranges.

Apparently so

Why's that?

I think a lot of people had anxiety that it might inadvertently spark a war with Russia. Now it's happened - and it didn't - I think more people are likely to say it was a good idea.

Unless Putin is as mad as Trump, I can see no way that Russia would want a war that they couldn’t win.

Edited April 18, 20188 yr by Boby Brno

Unless Putin is as mad as Trump, I can see no way that Russia would want a war that they couldn’t win.

I don't then no he does either - but it could happen inadvertently. And without two very cool heads on both sides. Which I doubt we've got.

 

I was reading a piece the other day which reckoned DT's preferred option was to hit Russian air defences. Mathis talked him out of it. Even John Bolton thought it was a bad idea.

Wonder what odds are for DT to win the Nobel Peace Prize.....

I'll be honest with you. I can't understand for the life of me why Assad would launch chemical weapons at his own people when his war is almost won.

 

It doesn't make any sense. Why would he risk his position and invite an attack? I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that one of the rebel factions has some how come into contact with it and set it off knowing it would pull the West back in. That's at least (if not more plausible) in my opinion. And seen as there is a small (but very real chance) that we could end up at war with Russia I'd want us to be 100% fucking sure we're right.

 

Add to that the fact that pretty much every other foray into the middle east in recent decades has been disastrous and counter productive and I think there's some pretty compelling reasons not to steam in.

 

And I'm sure most opinion polls show that the majority of the (presumably level headed) British public aren't in favour of attack. So for most people Jeremy Corbyn is right on this one. He certainly is for me.

 

And even if you despise him - it doesn't mean you need to be diametrically opposed to every position he takes.

Agree it's risky. But the attack wasn't at Russia nor any of its assists.

We're all wary of what is at risk; but some Russian bluster shouldn't detract from what is a necessary action.

As for Corbyn, strange as it may seem I'm not diametrically opposed to everything he says. Just the way he does it. Benn Jr spoke, as ever in considered tones and is a million miles from his leader.

 

For what it's worather renationalising the railways isn't something I'd necessarily be opposed to- as long as it was done correctly.

4. That his admiration of Corbyn becomes clearer every day. Even uses affection terms like 'Jezza' when referring to the communist shithouse whilst the politician with a backbone he faces off against each day is referred to solely by her surname.

 

As red as they come.

 

The difference between me and you is you're so dogged by party and personality politics you cannot think for yourself. You agreed with Corbyn's stance. Saying so doesn't mean you have to agree with everything he says. 

 

I would gladly have Corbyn removed for a centrist Labour leader if I had the choice. Same with May. A new centrist party if it ever happened would win my vote immediately. The nonsense back and forth in this country needs to end in my view.

 

But given most of the views on this forum tend to be right wing I find myself mainly arguing the other way. However if there were loads of mung bean eating vegans on here posting drivel they'd be telling me I admired May.

 

Just the way it is.