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.

,

.

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.

BBC
"The UK government's motion was in support of military action in Syria if it was backed up by evidence from United Nations weapons inspectors, who are investigating the attack."

Manuel.

Pour another drink for yourself.

I assure you that I still see and it seems clearer than you do.

With your obvious lack of recall and failing memory, due to your advancing years I suggest you read the motion of the "Syrian" debate and the conclusions of others and stop being a dilapidating decrepit short sighted reactionary camp follower.

i'll just stick with the drink when i get home shortly (a gentle 10 minute stroll......

anyway i'ld have thought you could answer easily enough the question i raised re the labour party vote on this issue .... or no doubt hays can

What happened was that Miliband gave a promise to support his motion. The Labour party tabled their own amendment to the motion which was defeated in a vote. labour then voted down the Conservative motion withe the help of a few Lib and Conservative rebels and a handful that did not attend. It seems that Lab took umbrage to their amendment being voted down and took revenge by going back on their pledge to support the government. Miliband was a coward as he did not want to be labeled a war monger like Blair. He chickened out despite the damage it might do to the US/UK relationship.

Hays.

You seem to be suffering from the same memory distortion as your "friend" Manuel has.

the Conservative motion withe the help of a few Lib and Conservative rebels and a handful that did not attend.


Doesn't say much for the cons faith, or belief in their own leadership.

Says little for Cameron judgement and as many say that probably was one of his luckiest failures for the UK during his of premiership.

Probably, the UK would be now embroiled in a protracted intervention, if he had had his way.

Even Enoch recognised that the UK was no longer an international force with any substance.

Cameron appeared to be looking for a "war" to grandstand as international figure to bolster his own party political position and like Blair before him a place in history.

He was copying Maggie for the looney right of his party.

fossy - since you claim to know the answer to my straightforward question, perhaps with your superior intellect, you'ld care to enlighten us all instead of rambling off on one of your customary tangents

or have you forgotten the question?