The guy knows what he is talking about in relation to foreign policy - because basically he has seen wars at first hand I am also ashamed that Britain has stood by and watched people being gassed..........this is not the way of Britain..........Britain did not become Great by sitting on the fence We know that there isn't one side in this conflict that is right..........they seem to be both as bad as each other. A strike against Syria dosent mean that more people will be killed - for example they could take out all the military aircraft while they are sat on the ground. If we waited for the UN to act then nothing will be done........i.e. like Kosovo, when the blue helmets stood there and watched ethnic cleansing taking place in front of their eyes Thank goodness for the United States of America
And yet the same folk pillocking Parliament for voting no are the same people who've lambasted Blair for going in to Iraq. Once bitten, twice shy. Funny that.
So ask him what his opinion on the Iraq war was? You want British involvement. As good a reason as any not to get involved...
Its finally happened, Knew it would only be a matter of time mind but Nudgers finally lost it completely. Been close to being diagnosed before but gave benefit of doubt but he's laid it bare for all to see on this thread.
Actually he could have a point, 426 children were killed in this chemical attack, if this keeps going on and more people and children are killed Miliband is not going to look too good.
I agree with you Nudger. Despite no side in the conflict being right we should just pick a side anyway, despite knowing they are in the wrong, and help them bomb the **** out of the other side.
Been a lot of civilians killed in horrendous circumstances by both sides inluding children and Lots posted on internet. Tbf don't think anyone is saying we shouldn't act if the attack is verified but that's the key we need to know what is wrong with waiting for the inpespectors which if true will embarrass Russia and china and popular action can be taken with the blessing of the international community. I'm suspicious of camereons urgency tbh it smacks of him trying to be a world leader and statesman.probably in the same vane as Blair.if these attacks are verified justice will be there for Assad just as it still is for the Nazis and the Serbs and the African warlords etc .IMO Cameron as seen the riches that befell Blair after such a crisis and is wanting same instead of an has been which he s new destined to be and deservedly imo
Been a lot of civilians killed in horrendous circumstances by both sides inluding children and Lots posted on internet. Tbf don't think anyone is saying we shouldn't act if the attack is verified but that's the key we need to know, what is wrong with waiting for the inpespectors which if true will embarrass Russia and china and popular action can be taken with the blessing of the international community. I'm suspicious of camereons urgency tbh it smacks of him trying to be a world leader and statesman.probably in the same vane as Blair.if these attacks are verified justice will be there for Assad just as it still is for the Nazis and the Serbs and the African warlords etc .IMO Cameron as seen the riches that befell Blair after such a crisis and is wanting same instead of an has been which he s new destined to be and deservedly imo Also I might add that as our troops were coming back from syria, killed or maimed that Cameron and his mate Osbourne would be shouting for their benefits stopping whilst their mates on the back benches cheered and waved their expenses claims
The urgency was because the Americans had a timetable and were ready to go, they did do the same with Iraq though. Since the lost Commons vote they seemed to have backed off though and it looks they will wait for the inspection results.
That's what should have been done in first place tbf .although Blair did hold dubya off for a while whilst seeking international support, not condoning this by the way just a fact. Cameron wanted to go straight in with the hotly debated existing evidence which is about right for him and his cronies. Its interesting to note that Tories voted against the action which in the Iraq debacle they voted in favour to a man whist the governing party which brought the action labour, almost tore itself apart with the divsion it caused.
As the Tories have said.............Miliband is playing politics by trying to distance himself from the past actions of Tony Blair...................in the mean time the green light has been given for more horrendous actions by the Syrian Government on the poor people of Syria..............and this is happening basically because the character of the British people has no stomach for conflict. Miliband has lost my support
What the middle East needs now is a country bordering Israel run by hezbollah, because that is going to end really well.
More horrendous than US drone strikes in the middle east? Or the Iraq war? http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Yes..............as for Iraq; we gave them freedom and democracy and what have they done with it..........killed each other Its not the British or Americans that are killing Iraqis..........they kill each other by the use of terrorist attacks
So using gas on your own citizens is a step too far, a red line not to be crossed and a trigger to spark military intervention.? On the face of it, sounds pretty reasonable, but please Nudger or Gloria Stitts or dare I say it Super Tyke answer me these points: If the Assad regime had not used chemical weapons I'm assuming that it would still be ok to turn a blind eye to the countless thousands dying from bullets, bombs, shells, knives, clubs, rape and torture. That's the trouble with lines in the sand and illegal weapons, they make everything else acceptable and legal. Clearly the Assad regime is already guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes and has been for over two years. Where was the West's indignation then? Where was the resolve to protect the innocent then? The time to act was Two years back before this whole thing became impossibly messy and complicated. This Chemical weapons strike is being used by America as an excuse to expunge it's own guilt over the previous two years of inaction, it's a red herring and a fig leaf to cover up their political failings. Second, what does America, and those who advocate a missile strike actually hope to achieve? Are they going to take out Assad? no. Stop them from using gas again, maybe, but that just means more work for the artillery shelling people instead or dropping napalm on them. By definition this alternative 'conventional' way of murdering your own citizens is acceptable, just don't gas them, ok? What it will do when hundreds of tomahawks are sent in is kill people, a lot of people. The vast majority of which will be conscripted soldiers or civilian staff probably working in a C&C centre somewhere who were called up and are just doing their job, and had nothing at all to do with chemical weapons. So more widows then, more dead sons. How exactly is adding to the death toll going to help? It won't punish the guilty.
Its been a difficult one for the western countries..........we have two armies fighting each other and neither of them are in the right. Which ever group takes control in Syria its going to be bad news for the west.......so the west has had to sit there and watch the suffering of all the innocent people in Syria Remember - 1429 have been killed with just a few bombs..........if Assad was drowning he might decide to launch the lot......these weapons are far more devastating than conventional explosives What happens if he decides to bomb Turkey, which he has done in the past, but this time drop a few chemical weapons in there as well. Turkey is part of NATO and there would be an immediate response by Turkey and other NATO countries I think America could really hurt the government of Syria without killing many if any Syrians - level their military airfields would be a start
No it hasn't, it chose to. It could have done lots more earlier. It thought the rebels would win early, they didn't. Oops! ..and 100,000 + have been killed by other means. Many of these have died in agony and pain from their injuries or been blown to pieces. Dead is dead, agony is agony. How can one agonising death be better than another? Maybe he will retaliate and launch the lot, BECAUSE the Americans attacked him. As for the Airfields. This isn't Iraq, he doesn't have a few cessnas and some old jets left over from the Korean war like Saddam did. They have Mig 21 Mig 23 Mig 29 Su22 Su24 to name but a few. They keep them in bunkers not some lockup in downtown Damascus. If I was serving on the Nimitz right now I'd be worried, they are capable.
If I was on the Nimitz I wouldn't be worried. They might have Mig29s but the majority of the Syrian air power is built up of Mig21s which are hopelessly out of date. I would also say the Iraq had a massively superior Air Force to Syria at the start of the 1st gulf war but were still no match for the coalition.
Why is milliband getting all the blame when 41 mp's from both sides of the coalition also voted against