Sharesmagazine
 Home   Log In   Register   Our Services   My Account   Contact   Help 
 Stockwatch   Level 2   Portfolio   Charts   Share Price   Awards   Market Scan   Videos   Broker Notes   Director Deals   Traders' Room 
 Funds   Trades   Terminal   Alerts   Heatmaps   News   Indices   Forward Diary   Forex Prices   Shares Magazine   Investors' Room 
 CFDs   Shares   SIPPs   ISAs   Forex   ETFs   Comparison Tables   Spread Betting 
You are NOT currently logged in
 
Register now or login to post to this thread.

THE TALK TO YOURSELF THREAD. (NOWT)     

goldfinger - 09 Jun 2005 12:25

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.

Fred1new - 30 Aug 2013 11:57 - 28439 of 81564

Skinny,

Thanks.

"Believes that the United Nations Security Council must have the opportunity immediately to consider that briefing and that every effort SHOULD be made to secure a Security Council Resolution backing military action before any such action is taken. Before any direct British involvement in such action a further vote of the House of Commons will take place."



That would be giving "authority to Cameron" without asking for further appraisal, and approval of parliament.

It is a deceitful and abuse of parliament.

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

I think the stated quote of "Miliband was already angry after a government source used expletives overnight to criticise Miliband. A government source told the Times on Wednesday night: "No 10 and the Foreign Office think Miliband is a fucking cunt and a copper-bottomed shit."

A Labour spokesman said of the attack on Miliband. "It seems to us that it is uncalled for. It is demeaning to the debate. "


If this true then this demeans the office PM and other members of this institutional cabinet".

? True products of and Etonian and elitist culture????????

Fred1new - 30 Aug 2013 11:58 - 28440 of 81564

The real end point of intervening in Syria is REMOVAL OF ASSAD family and henchmen.

skinny - 30 Aug 2013 12:00 - 28441 of 81564

Fred - for what?

doodlebug4 - 30 Aug 2013 12:01 - 28442 of 81564

It's not about a humanitarian issue as far as the USA is concerned, it's what is in "the best interests of the United States". This piece published in USA Today;


"The president of the United States is elected with the duty to protect the national security interests in the United States of America," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.

Caitlin Hayden, National Security Council spokeswoman, said the United States would continue to consult with Britain but Obama would make decisions based on "the best interests of the United States."

"As we've said, President Obama's decision making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States," Hayden said. "He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States. He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable."

Haystack - 30 Aug 2013 12:03 - 28443 of 81564

Fred

Only after another vote!

Fred1new - 30 Aug 2013 12:05 - 28444 of 81564

Skinny,

I know what I would wish for, but not what the outcome will be of such intervention.

It maybe the middle game which may lead to a "successful" end game.

But I would like to see the action sanctioned by a large number of nations, preferably in the Un, but if necessary organised outside its remit.

Haystack - 30 Aug 2013 12:08 - 28445 of 81564

If you wait for consensus, it is always too late.

Fred1new - 30 Aug 2013 12:09 - 28446 of 81564

The best long term interests of the USA is probably best served by having states with recognisable humanitarian standards and probably recognisable forms of democracies.

Fred1new - 30 Aug 2013 12:09 - 28447 of 81564

Hays,

What.

The clown's glory.

Haystack - 30 Aug 2013 12:14 - 28448 of 81564

The UN is toothless, slow and not much better than the League of Nations.

mnamreh - 30 Aug 2013 12:27 - 28449 of 81564

.



Haystack - 30 Aug 2013 12:43 - 28450 of 81564

No one knows the exact amount. It is probably about $1b or more. The US pays substantial amounts for peacekeeping and duties and resents its high amount of dues. There are more than two dozen countries who pay $1,000 or less. The US is supposed to pay around 22% of the UN costs, which seem too high these days with China and Russia becoming more wealthy. I doubt that the US will ever pay the money owed and probably ought not to either.

mnamreh - 30 Aug 2013 12:52 - 28451 of 81564

.

TANKER - 30 Aug 2013 12:56 - 28452 of 81564

why is it that it is always the west to want to help .
why is it that NO MUSLIM COUNTRY speaks out
if the muslim world does not give a shite then forget action

TANKER - 30 Aug 2013 13:02 - 28453 of 81564

the USA under BARMY is a third rate country run by a third rate person

mnamreh - 30 Aug 2013 13:04 - 28454 of 81564

.

skinny - 30 Aug 2013 13:08 - 28455 of 81564

Pubs not open yet?

TANKER - 30 Aug 2013 13:09 - 28456 of 81564

mna answer the question WHY IS IT NOT ONE MUSLIM LED COUNTRY AS SPOKEN OUT these religious muslim nutters love wars it makes them strong
if muslim countries do hate the west and only speak out to kill us fact not fiction

TANKER - 30 Aug 2013 13:09 - 28457 of 81564

off to the club soon its Friday bridge day

TANKER - 30 Aug 2013 13:10 - 28458 of 81564

mna will not answer the question he can not
Register now or login to post to this thread.