Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I was going to start a thread but maybe someone in here can tell me. .didn't the Turks gas the Kurds a good few years back. .or was that saddam.. and the rest of the Kurds fled to Turkey?  My question is why didn't we go in and bomb whoever gassed them back then and why are we going to bomb Syria cos they gassed people. .and where in Syria are we going to bomb, tis not like there is a specific target. .or is there  

 

What about the UN inspectors. .if they are still there and we bomb Syria I don't hold out much hope for them getting out..

 

I think the Arab league should sort it not us, it'll get us into more trouble in the long run..

 

I feel really bad for the Syrian people but I don't know what the solution is really.. unless they rise up as one not pockets here and there and bring down their oppressors.. yes it will involve casualties but that is what happens when you rise up and try to make change for the better.. 

Mount Olympus *Olly*

phoney blair=warmongering fool

and william hague talks really strange

he said earlier

'we cannot stand by..'

 

which came out as

'weee caaanot staaan baaaaay'

it annoyed me

and if tories are hoping to gain votes by heading into war

then they wont as we'll all be nuked before the next election

 

now im off to pack my suitcase and move to north korea where its safer

pirate1111
Originally Posted by pirate1111:

phoney blair=warmongering fool

and william hague talks really strange

he said earlier

'we cannot stand by..'

 

which came out as

'weee caaanot staaan baaaaay'

it annoyed me

and if tories are hoping to gain votes by heading into war

then they wont as we'll all be nuked before the next election

 

now im off to pack my suitcase and move to north korea where its safer

That's funny but it's not at the same time  

FM

Direct British military involvement in Syria will not be authorised in Thursday's House of Commons vote, after Labour threatened to oppose the Government's motion.

Any direct action by UK forces will require a further vote in the Commons once the United Nations has considered a report from weapons inspectors investigating the alleged use of chemical weapons in Damascus.

But the motion will ask MPs to agree the principle that a "strong humanitarian response" is required from the international community and "this may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria's chemical weapons".

Chief Political Correspondent Jon Craig said: "This motion looks very bland, very uncontroversial.

"(Prime Minister David Cameron) has put off a decision really and that will be seen as a climbdown."

Labour had said it would oppose the Government's motion on Syria unless it insisted on waiting for UN inspectors' report.

Dame_Ann_Average
Originally Posted by MrMincePie:

13 votes was the difference... And 557 out of 650 turned up. When it comes to an issue as important as this, that is an absolute farce.

2 forgot, they were in a meeting,

 

Nevertheless, I am happy to see Cameron getting a bloody nose and America realising that we don't have the stomach for yet another pointless war.

cologne 1
Originally Posted by Garage Joe:
After the heavy heavy Whitby debate elsewhere, I've had a little bet that the baffled f***wits across the pond will bless us all with the soubriquet, "fish and chip eating surrender monkeys!"

Or...maybe the US Congress will also see sense and give Obama the bum's rush too. When your only ally is the French, you have to worry

Kaytee

Of course Blair wants war.  He's a warmongering ****.  He also knows he is held in contempt by the British people - and ironically, especially Labour voters. 

 

It will please Blair immensely if Cameron goes down in history as a bigger warmongering poodle of America arse-hole than him.  Luckily for Call me Dave, Ed's saved Cameron from himself!

Carnelian
Originally Posted by Garage Joe:
After the heavy heavy Whitby debate elsewhere, I've had a little bet that the baffled f***wits across the pond will bless us all with the soubriquet, "fish and chip eating surrender monkeys!"

 

Originally Posted by Carnelian:

Of course Blair wants war.  He's a warmongering ****.  He also knows he is held in contempt by the British people - and ironically, especially Labour voters. 

 

It will please Blair immensely if Cameron goes down in history as a bigger warmongering poodle of America arse-hole than him.  Luckily for Call me Dave, Ed's saved Cameron from himself!

Let them all congress between Sedgefield and Hartlepool then and warmongering  Hague can slip over the border, his attempts to keep his keg dry will be interesting 

FM

So many reports seem to be forgetting this:

 

The UN has said its inspectors had been able to carry out a "wide range of fact-finding activities". However, their mandate is limited to determining the use of chemical weapons and not who used them.

 

We still need a force in there to try and determine who used these (for now ALLEGED) weapons and from whence they came!

Extremely Fluffy Fluffy Thing

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×