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.

Who do you think you are Alf ..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bamber_Gascoigne.JPG

I think a few of you should form an advisory committee for Cameron.

God knows he needs someone to help him.

-===-==

I wonder how many of you thought the Iraq war was sensible.

Of course, you were led by the nose into it, by Bush, Blair and IDS.

(Can you remember Iain Duncan Smith doing a hop step and jump down Downing Street with the information clutched under his arm?)

Wasn't he a tory leader?


-=-=-=-=-=-=


Why has that turned into a fiasco?

What was the price?



What are the similarities to the present conflict?

How do you get a better result?


What are you preparing for?

Who will be in assault group?

What will be your reparation?

Which of the innocent bystanders which may be killed do you compensate in the area


How do repair that country when a large percentage of the population may hate you?

Think before you leap and look what the landing maybe like and prepare for it.

-=====-=

At the moment there is a lot of mouth and little thought by some of you.

========


Putin has said WE will find them in any corner of the earth.

Whose we and how many corners are there?

JB.

I do hope you are volunteering to wash the blood away after the bombing, or will you just spend tine washing your hands?

Afterwards, perhaps, you can adopt and orphan or two.

=-=-=-=

Ps.

If you don't understand the meaning of hysterical, look it up!

STAN - i know who i am and i know that, as requested by (your) guru fred i set out clearly what i thought would happen, and by intimation, was happy to support that

so, i equally know that the question i asked you was eminently fair ....... why would you think it not? .......; or is it that, like fred, you're afraid of committing to anything lest it comes back to bite you and meanwhile leaves you able to crtiticise everyone else, or so you think?

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

FRED - there's an awful lot of mouth from you too, but merely in hysterical criticism of others

nowhere that i have seen have you set out clearly what action you would propose or support to be taken NOW = as of this instant, and not in months or years down the line, nor some fantasy that UN will miraculously unite within a wekk or two and come charging to the rescue like the 7th cavalry

Fred I,m wondering if you and your mate can't read or you both have extremely short memories . but I really think people are wasting their time with you both .

Manuel,

You can't be as stupid as you sometimes appear.

Give me all the facts and it would be worth attempting to form a plan of action?

Unfortunately, decisions have to made without full knowledge of the possible consequences, but a "sane" government would considering the aftermath.

I know you are getting old, but ask your carer to give you another sedative.

You have my answer Alf it's just that you don't like it.. well that's just tough cheese you consistent Muppet -):

Victim,

There is a squelch button.

I won't feel a anything!

Who said that .

First person i have ever squelched ,thanks Fred ,it must mean that i won't have to scroll through those huge cartoons every day , but more important than that i don't have to read total ignorant shit any more .

Tut tut James.

STAN - i see no response from you whatsoever other than you don't support the bombing
my question is what would you support; or are you just going to continue being a weasel?

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

FRED - you of course are just as much of a weasel - or worse ...... you wanted me to say what i would support, and i answered that
you, on the other hand, want to sit and sit and sit and sit, pretending that you need to know "all the facts" before you can make any decision .......
oh hahahaha! ...... i doubt that even your bosom-buddy corbyn will be told all the facts as i'm sure he's rightly regarded as a security risk

we don't even have all the facts with regard to many actions in WW2 either!

I forgot Fred that the kids have been out of school for a few hours now.

Manuel.

Are you referring to the present tory party leadership with their increasing tendency to lie, when they give information out to others?

I suppose Cameron will put his hand on his heart and like the barrow boy he is, say "Honest Guv" to the Privy Council.

Double standards which one is now coming to expect by your icon!

I suggest you listen to Crispin Blunt statements chairman of Defence Committee.

He is not U-turning. He is thinking.

Follow him.


I think in views and his suggestions regarding any actions in Syria are sensible.
Mind he a member of a split party and government.

Or read this

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/11/17/uk-france-shooting-idUKKCN0T40DY20151117?feedType=nl&feedName=ukmorningdigest

Any solutions Fred?

From the Economist

THE political implications of the attacks in Paris are only just starting to unfurl. But there are early indications that one might be the accelerated growth of (ultimately inevitable) splits in the Labour Party. Jeremy Corbyn’s response to the ensuing debates has cemented the impression—as if any cement were needed—that Labour’s newish leader is out of his depth, ambivalent about things that should be clear and craven to the ugly blend of sanctimony and moral relativism whose sudden metastasis through his party propelled him to its leadership in September. Mr Corbyn’s insistence that his MPs will not get a free vote on British intervention in Syria, his initial opposition (since reversed) to the use of lethal force in situations like that in Paris and his proximity to the anti-West Stop the War group have fired up MPs who were previously tolerating him, or at least biding their time before he fell.

Last night’s meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party was, by all accounts, a rebarbative affair in which Mr Corbyn gave vague and unsatisfactory answers and was at times shouted down by his MPs. As if they needed any confirmation of the gormless narcissism now at the helm of their party, some were infuriated when Diane Abbott, the shadow development secretary and one of the few MPs who really supports her leader, started working through a pile of correspondence as debate about Syria raged around her.

Today brought another show of defiance by the sensibles. During a sombre Commons session on the Paris attacks they rose, one-by-one, and gave voice to universalist, liberal, inquisitorial instincts too often absent on the part of Labour’s leadership. Emma Reynolds asserted that the guilt for the attacks lay solely with the attackers (that this even needs saying in today’s Labour is an indication of the moral depths in which the party now lurks). Pat McFadden noted that claiming anything else means “infantilising terrorists and treating them as children”. Mike Gapes urged the prime minister to offer immediate air support for the Kurds. Chuka Umunna echoed Mr Cameron’s commitment to national security and urged him to set out the framework by which British police may use lethal force.

Mr Corbyn is unlikely to go any time soon. He won a huge mandate in September. Moreover, the overwhelming consensus on the moderate wing of the Labour Party is that he should fall, rather then be toppled. Only then, the thinking goes, will a reasonable number of his supporters think again about the nutty politics for which they voted (perhaps, in many cases, as a protest rather than a positive endorsement) and support a more modern, grounded alternative.

Still, the last few days matter for Labour because they have moved the party a little closer to the recognition that its leader is hopeless. This may be accentuated early next month, at the Oldham West and Royton by-election. One of the starkest claims made by Mr Corbyn’s supporters in the leadership campaign was that his straight-talking style would help the party win back Old Labour voters in seats where the populist UK Independence Party is now a serious presence. The by-election will put this to the test and—if my visit to the seat last week is anything to go by—find it wanting.

Arriving home, a resident in a high-vis jacket confesses that he is Labour by habit and UKIP by preference. “He’s an idiot,” he adds matter-of-factly of Mr Corbyn: “his foreign policy is totally out of date.” A couple of houses down an old man in a vest declares himself a convinced socialist, a scion of a “strong army family” and utterly alienated by the unwillingness (as he sees it) of Mr Corbyn, a unilateral nuclear disarmer, to defend Britain.

If Labour’s win in the seat is anything but resounding—as seems entirely possible—MPs across the party should worry about their prospects. But will they act? In my view, having followed the Paris attacks and the party’s response, it is no longer a question of whether it will breach 30% in the next election but whether it will cut 20%. Voters pay very, very little attention to the daily political churn. But a few things go noticed. Labour’s uncertainty about the extent to which it should stand up for British citizens is one, as my afternoon on the Oldham doorsteps (even before the Paris attacks) revealed. The longer this goes on, the greater the damage to the party's image. Its moderates are adopting a (rightly) different emphasis from that of their leader and waiting for him to slip away eventually. But the last days have shown that this is not enough. They must start thinking about actively unseating him and building a grass-roots base to rival the one that put him in a post he did not deserve to win.

After a day of to-ing and fro-ing, Jeremy Corbyn has surrendered to pressure and changed his line. He spent much of the day resisting calls to go to the England France football match but is now on his way.

One long marcher who has been with Jeremy Corbyn throughout the leadership campaign sighed at the time it had taken to get him to go to the match and referred to him as “our politically adolescent leader”.

max - fred doesn't even dare voice a view even as to what sort of action he would support NOW

i suppose i could squelch him, but then i probably wouldn't stamp on a cockroach either