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.

aldo - it was not me who suggested there were goodies or baddies, but assuredly there are lots and lots of baddies on both sides ..... to my way of thinking, a baddy is part of a group whose interest has nothing whatsoever to do with true democratic gov't and stability in syria anbd the rest of m/e, so you have plenty to choose from

seating on the wall with hands up its not me

ahoj - post 28239 - this would have some credibility if you named the source and the specific cases you mention ..... unsubstantiated and wild accusations are exactly that unless they can be credibly supported

Revealing the names here is not appropriate.

Anyway, those cases are not illegal, they have followed the rules and used our free services. I am sure people in NHS know similar cases. Stroke is an unexpected event.. anyway

Cynic, I am just saying the rules should be like Germany, France, etc where the system charges individuals or the NHS in the UK. They do not pay for our treatment. Why should we pay for their people?

.

Why don't you tell us , if you know were to look for the answer ?

aldwickk

I would rather light the path. It is for you to navigate it for yourself.



Also see New Scientist 22 March 1984 issue 1402 PP 12 to 18 incl.

Alistair Hay wrote the article "At War with Chemistry".

See also 1925 Geneva Protocol and 1972 Biological Weapons Convention and subsequent revisions re international law.


"No Fire, No Thunder" Pluto Press Authors - Hay, Murphy and Rose



Mnam

.

In which category of goodies or baddies do Tony Blair & George Bush belong?! Apart from the poll in the Times, the poll in the Telegragh also shows that people in this country are opposed to any intervention in Syria.

ahoj - to give credence to your accusations you have to be able to substantiate .... by the looks of it, you cannot so the story is anecdotal at best

Since they got it wrong about WMD, the British & American governments are evidently not even going to bother asking for UN security council approval this time. So what is the point in having a UN security council?


"The British and American governments have until now dismissed suggestions that military action should be delayed until the UN weapons inspectors in Damascus have reported, arguing that it is already obvious that chemical weapons were used and that the inspectors' report will not say which side was responsible for their deployment. London and Washington have also shown little enthusiasm for taking the matter to the UN security council, where Russia and China have previously opposed anti-Syrian initiatives."

Cynic.

Read the message, rather than shooting from the hip.

The problem with dealing with Assad is that he may be prepared to go down taking all those around him with him. (He presents as Hitler "They have failed me")

From what has been witnessed by his use of force on his "own" people with destruction of towns and cities with apparent concurrence of henchmen, he may be prepared to take with him, many of those who surround him, as well as their surroundings.

If, as has been stated, Israel has been providing "information" and “intelligence” about Syria, to the USA about him and his comrades, he may respond with attacking his old friends.

The intent has been “promised”.

After all he is a dead man walking.

Not a simple problem.

My guess as a result of the present state in the ME that any intervention will fuel the “Arab Spring” with the emergence of more extreme leadership and increasing detestation of the “West”.

-----

if you read the message instead of shooting from the hip, you'ld have seen that i wrote very clearly that i did not know what action i would suggest

Manuel,

You are being obtuse as your norm.

Try re-reading your posting and then understanding the inference.

--------

Even for you the M.E. would seem complicated.

Hague said it was the first time that chemical warfare has been used anywhere in the world in the 21st century
absolute rubbish ... what about old pal saddam who gassed the kurds? .... i suppose hague is fudging a differentiation between warfare and straight attempted genocide

I thought he gassed them in 1988.

let iran Russia china sort it out . if the uk get involved we will end up with a knife in the back
it is not our problem keep out .or give the voters the choice

perhaps you're right hays, though i thought it much more recent, but still a fudge for sure

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

having checked, the act indeed took place in 1988 but was not recognised by the courts as an act of genocide until 2010

.