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.

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 ?

Send medicine to Syria, not guns or soldiers Reports of a deadly gas attack in Damascus this week have triggered some of the strongest indications yet that Western powers may take direct military action in the two and a half year-old Syrian conflict. P.M. David Cameron and U.S. President Barack Obama have threatened a “serious response” if allegations are proven true that the Syrian government, led by President Bashar Al-Assad, carried out the attacks, and already U.K. and U.S. military planners are reportedly looking at potential targets for missile strikes. However, new YouGov research for the Sunday Times conducted after the latest chemical weapons incident shows that the public remains largely opposed to British military involvement of any kind. 77% of the British public support sending “food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies” to Syria. However, only 9% support sending British troops, while 74% oppose the action. Support is equally minor (10%) for sending full-scale military supplies or even small arms (16%) to the Anti-Assad troops. Thinking about the conflict in Syria, here are some things Britain could do.

Would you support or oppose each of the following?	Support	Oppose
Humanitarian supplies to civilians	77	12
Protective clothing to Anti-Assad troops	41	33
Defensive military supplies to anti-Assad troops	19	53
Small arms to anti-Assad troops	16	58
Full-scale military supplies to Anti-Assad troops	10	66
British troops to fight	9	74

Moreover, support for various possible actions in Syria has hardly changed over the past few months – and in some cases appears to have even deteriorated – amid mounting evidence that chemical weapons have been used repeatedly by the Syrian government and even possibly by rebel fighters. In May, 50% of Britons supported sending protective clothing, such as flak jackets and helmets, to the rebels and 28% opposed doing so; now support is at 41% and opposition at 33%. The most recent survey supports findings in a YouGov survey from April, which suggested the use of chemical weapons in Syria would make little if any difference at all to the British public’s disinclination towards greater involvement. Poll Results

keep out of Syria let them sort it out .
liar Cameron keeps telling the voters of the uk it as no money and must
make cuts . yet the liar once to spend millions on another conflict .
we are a tiny island we are not the rulers of the earth .
let Russia iran Saudi turkey and a couple more sort it out
or just let them wipe each other out .
its not our problem Cameron like the yanks lead blair into killing millions in IRAQ
and no weapons found it was all lies by the yanks.

Plateman is right, imo. Why should we worry if they all blow themselves up?

Be interesting to know how British Muslim's voted in that poll , after all there is a lot them.

people in the UK are losing their lives because of cuts to the NHS.
if we can not find money to save our own people then how can we find money to kill people in another country .

aid . their lies the answer to Syria put on free flights to all muslim's to go and fight for their freedom .solved but I doubt we would get many to go

france . retirement age to stop at 62 paid for by the uk tax payers
but the uk will push up retirement age to 67 after next election

TANKER

Have we got the money for the free flight's

The government and most people do not understand the main reason for huge cost.

Foreigners come to this country for FREE treatment and we talk about cutting million pound from one hospital or another and charging these guys £200 a year!!!! RUBBISH

I know an American guy had stroke here, he is still in coma, no insurance. He was in ICU for 40 days (40x£10000/night=£400,000) and in hospital for two months (30x£4000=£120000) SO FAR. Total cost for a single incident has been £520,000 so far and he may stay in coma for a couple of years..

An student came here to "study", his wife had cancer (before even applying to study). treatment cost over £45000. He did not continue studying and left the UK without paying the tuition fees!!!

I heard many with Aids coming here to get free treatment. EVen for delivering babies, Heathrow has special arrangement to get pregnant mums from airplane to hospital (stupid isn't it!!). IT IS FREE for everyone in the world.

Why should we pay for them. Anyone coming to this country should have medical insurance, like every country in the world, and if such problem happens, insurance company should pay. Those who are not insured should buy insurance in one month.


Am I against human right (which is just misused by criminals) saying these!!! Off course criminals hate me.

we will have a collection we will pass the hat round

ahoj well said our gov have no balls .vote UKIP