So gas attack was from Syrians/ Russia ? Evidence please . Another right afforded to a free state is innocent until proven guilty , you seem to have gone straight into war mode .
No I haven't - read my post again. I said military action must remain an option if there is evidence to prove who carried out the attack.
Yes you were always going to post on this thread, but you were waiting for the right post to attack. You speak like a true ex-squaddie ! Especially the bit about how people that don't want to attack everyone are not true patriots etc ! Cobblers !
There are many people born and bred in this country, and in particularly locally, that have bore the brunt of this state’s machinery being turned against them. You bet there is much distrust. It’s a sad reflection of this country of how it is ‘our’country in troubled times but ‘the enemy within’ when political ideology suits it to be.
Who mentioned dropping bombs? We know only too well that this route only fuels deadly resentment. Intervention takes many forms. Amnesty with evacuation? Syrian refugees don't go down too well round these parts though do they...?
The only way of letting those kids be safer is getting them out of a war zone. That is politically unacceptable, so we may as well drop a few more bombs on them. That is the truth.
No one person on this earth is safe while ever there is people like Trump, May, Putin and Boris the Baffon in politics. And what the f**** is Syria to do with us. Can anyone please tell me.
I'm with you on that point JP, it's heartbreaking seeing the children caught up in this war but I'm not sure I agree that it would be politically unacceptable to get them out. As for the international response to these abhorrent crimes then surely if it is proven that Assad has used these nerve agents against his own people then a red line has been crossed. There would have to be evidence that proved beyond reasonable doubt who carried out the attack but when there is evidence there has to be a response one way or another. I don't mean just blindly following the US into military action but a multilateral response agreed by the wider international community. I don't think a military response should be ruled out but it shouldn't be the only option considered either.
long story.. Still,What ever the Americans say the rest jump.. if it was 60s we'd have ended up in Vietnam. And today Russia and China are saying they'll confront any attack on Syria .. by USA or the isrealis .. it's one big smokescreen ..
But that’s a measured response Mario, which we won’t get from Trump and likely not to get from May You’ve got papers screaming for bombing and you’ve got that shithouse Blair asking for another bombing run. He won’t be nominating Euan for it though will he now? The situation in Syria is extremely complex and has been for a while. We’ve learnt nothing from previously laying with dogs and getting fleas (Bin Laden).
There is little chance of any peaceful solution with Trump & Putin in power. Assad is only there because of Iran & Russia. The rebels have been funded by the US & indirectly by us & other countries that have sold weapons to the Saudis. The best thing we could do is freeze all Russian assets linked to the Putin regime & ban arms sales to the Saudis. That would be a lot more productive in the long run than becoming Trump's wing-man.
Tories leading Labour and May leading Corbyn in latest YouGov polls Redstar - agree though that a war would increase the Tory/May lead https://yougov.co.uk/news/2018/04/09/public-sees-theresa-may-more-favourably-jeremy-cor/
This is not about introverted political point scoring: it's a humanitarian issue. The last 'war' that held any political kudos and a general consensus in this country was the Falklands, almost 40 years ago.
Looking at the latest polls from the top 5 market research firms in March - Survation is the only one that puts Labour ahead http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/
Where exactly did I change what I said? All my posts were consistent - I said that military action should not be ruled out as an option.