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.

that's nonsense hays ..... al quaeda were already well embedded on the one side (so-called rebels) with, i am pretty certain, hezbollah on the other (assad)

The all Qaeda groups had not become so organised as they are now. They operate under a group called ISIS. As ISIS gains territory they are imposing sharia law and killing the original rebels. The lack of intervention by other countries has emboldened the jihadists. There was a critical turning point when the West failed to act.

who told you that? .... sorry old bean, but you really are talking rubbish

I've just been watching news coverage of people trying to get a close look at the waves crashing off sea fronts - are they completely bonkers? Other people in cars trying to drive down flooded roads with signs saying "ROAD CLOSED". Perhaps I've just lost my sense of adventure.:-)

I blame the Cameroon for the weather and mess.

I thought he could walk on water.

He can't even stop a drop of rain.

Useless.

I will never vote for him!

,

.

he's usually ok on water a few months after easter .... must be the wrong kind of water

.

What exactly is the problem with you right wing "Con" Party people on here?.. Almost to a man you do nothing but constantly moan, winge, accuse, insult and generally act like 3 year olds... It's a new year, so for christ sake promise us that you will try and buck up this year will you?

Your so funny Stan i can't stop crying

Hays,

If Cameron had won his vote, which he didn't by 285-272, I don't think Obama would have "gone in" to Syria.

I think he read the Syria problem as confused and the involvement would have been for another 5-10 years, "due rules of engagement". The last thing the USA wants.


He had seen the stupidity of Blair and Bush going into Iraq and Afghanistan and certainly the majority of Americans and British didn't want another LOVELY WAR.

Mind the "up and at them" brigade of Cons and UKIPs, who would be prepared to send others to their "patriotic" deaths may "feel" or responded differently.

I think Miliband was correct in his action and Cameron showed his own usual ineptitude.

PS.

Who didn't turn up for the vote?

If Cameron had won his vote, which he didn't by 285-272, I don't think Obama would have "gone in" to Syria.
does that make any sense?

out of curiosity, did labour (under party whip) abstain or oppose?
if labour opposed, why - try less than 20 words!?

It does to me.

Refer it back to Hazy's posting.

But I was relying on your shorthand method.

One of the repeated mantras of the Cons, which I am getting fed up with is;

"the hard working tax payers",

Many "tax payers" are lazy bathtubs, who have never done a days work in their lives and live on handed down "wealth", some of whom condemn the unemployed and unemployable for living on the "handouts" of the state.

=========

read that too, but why would obama NOT have intervened even if DC had won his vote?
too long ago really, but i thought the one was contingent upon the other
for that matter, i don't even recollect what the motion actually proposed .... i certainly did not think it was direct intervention

do you recollect whether labour actually opposed the motion, and if so why? ...... or was it just on an alleged and a bit flimsy "not proven" pretext?

now define "many" ....... thousands? ... tens of thousands?
don't talk such absolute piffle


condemn the unemployed and unemployable for living on the "handouts" of the state.
as do many - tens of thousands! - people from all walks of life


you really are so totally blinkered or even blinded by your left-socialist, unbending prejudices

The motion was to accept the possibility of intervention with the proviso that a further vote would be required to actually intervene.