Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Utter, utter madness if our government goes ahead with these proposed missile strikes. Here we go again, USA trying to impose its will on another country by force and our stupid politicians getting led into the mess like a bunch of silly sheep.

If the US, GB and who ever get the backing and go ahead from the UN and its legal, then so be it.

like i said db, "none of our biz" was the argument that the appeasers used too .... nothing changed until it was way way too late

however, as i wrote earlier, i don't know what i would recommend, but like dc, i'll keep my fingers x-ed that those in power both here and elsewhere and who will have far more info than we shall ever have, will make a sensible decision .... whether that decision will prove to be right in the long run, will not be apparent for some time

Hitler wasn't threatening to invade England. He invaded Poland and we had a treaty with them. We had to go to war. Hitler didn't want to invade us. He hoped we would stay out of it.

dreamcatcher, I agree it is very sad, but it is their country and hard as it is I think we need to stand back and let them sort it out. We don't actually see a lot of atrocities committed in other countries, i.e. Zimbabwe, simply because news channels are banned from filming.

These nutters/dictators as to say, have got to be shown the world will not stand for criminal activity.

Again thank god for America and the UK.

No I'M not religious.

In their country until nuclear, perhaps chemical war heads start being launched in the future. You are entitled to your views d4.

Haystack, where the h--- do you think Hitler was going to go next after invading Poland and France? I don't think Churchill agreed with your views - "we will fight them on the beaches ------" etc.!

Interesting read - Assad's arsenal: 100,000 missiles and rockets
Assad has moved his chemical weapons stockpiles form the desert in eastern Syria to more protected areas on Syria's coast that are ruled by his Alawite sect. These stockpiles, among the largest in the world (some 1,000 tons of chemical warfare agents) are under the complete control of Assad's regime.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4421668,00.html

d4
What you have said makes no sense. We were already at war with Germany for 9 months when that speech was made. Churchill had only taken over the previous month and was trying to rally the nation after the escape from Dunkirk a few days earlier. Hitler had shown no signs of wanting to invade England.

Sky news - The Prime Minister has said any action in Syria would be to deter the future use of chemical weapons as he blamed a suspected poison gas attack on the Assad regime.

David Cameron said the scenes of death and suffering in Damascus were "appalling" and "we cannot let that stand".

Britain's Armed Forces are drawing up plans for a potential military intervention in response to the alleged chemical attack in the Syrian capital, which is believed to have killed hundreds of civilians.

Mr Cameron said any intervention had to be legal and proportionate and would not be about the Syrian conflict itself but preventing the use of chemical weapons by any regime.

And he stressed no decisions about UK involvement have been made.

He said: "Let me stress to people, this is not about getting involved in a Middle Eastern war or changing our stance in Syria, or going further into that conflict. It's about chemical weapons. Their use is wrong and the world should not stand idly by."

I think anything that Blair and his look at like Cameron state should be taken with a good dose of salt.

If they were put in the same bag, it would be difficult to guess which rat would get out first.

Tirade over.


-----------

Interesting threat from Assad henchmen that, if America and its poodle Britain attack Syria then Syria's first response would be to launch a missile attack on Israel.

Perhaps, that is the thorn in side for USA.

Another point, and in spite of what Cameron and Obama are spouting, if a country attacks another it has a legal responsibility to "reparation" and "care" for the people of that country.

IE. USA, UK and France will have to put their troops into Syria, unless they can do a deal in the UN.

There is hypocrisy surrounding the grand standing which Cameron is pushing and more responsibility than he is admitting.

let Syria kill each other it is fcuk all to do with us
let them sort it out not us we are broke that is what the gov have told us so were the fcuk are billions going to come from closing our hospitals cutting services
fcuk the Syrians it is their problems not ours CAMERON you are A LIAR and a very dishonest BASTARD

the

day

end

thanks hays (28220) .... i couldn't be bothered to post that "schoolboy" fact last night

fred - you write as if you have inside knowledge, which of course is total nonsense .... you also write as if usa and uk were the only countries who believe that (unspecified) action should be taken against syria, whereas it is virtually just russia and china who (allegedly) are against same; so more poppycock from you i'm afraid old fruit


assuming it is known where these chemical weapons are stored, i wonder if it is possible to have them destroyed without spreading poison clouds far and wide

=================

there's a very good and concise article in today's FT giving the arguments for both action and otherwise

Strange (or maybe not) that all middle eastern conflicts are portrayed by western politicians as "goodies against baddies"

As far as Syria is concerned I agree with those that think we should intervene but I differ from them as to what that intervention should be. I think that our government should be pursuing a policy of covert and subtle provocation towards both sides in order to try and escalate the conflict as much as possible.

The reason? this conflict is one lot of baddies slaughtering another lot of baddies, what's not to like about that?

because the wrong baddies survive :-)

cynic

Tell us who the good baddies are , and why ?