Join the Labour Party and save your country!

milton50

Rick Chasey wrote:

Because Syria has a lot of oil?

Iraqi pipes go through Jordan rather than Syria don't they?

And the US is self sufficient in oil, and although it imports a lot still (because its refineries are set up to refine Middle Eastern oil, not US fracked oil), the refineries are adjusting surprisingly quickly.

Does the UK really buy that much oil that comes through Syria?

And again, Sudan is both a former colony and an area which has some natural resources to exploit, so why isn't Britain going there?

Pretty clear why 'stabilising' the middle east, in particular Syria, would be a higher priority than Sudan, though right?

mamba80

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I can see the case for nukes, since i believe in deterrents, and Britain can afford them (despite all the hot air to say otherwise). It's Britain's role as world police (but only in the middle east and a few rocks scattered across the globe, but certainly not Africa, the far east or South America) that I don't get.

If you want to do it to project power then I can see that, but then I don't see the value in getting involved in Syria and Iraq.

If you want to do it for humanitarian reasons, I don't see why it's exclusive to Syria and Iraq.

See what I mean?

Sierra Leone? Libya? The French intervened in Mali. I haven't suggested that it should be a UK only thing.

Libya? not only has that destroyed the place, it has caused untold deaths as genuine and eco migrants are herded onto boats and then drown in the med, those that survive, then face pretty much being condemned to the slums of europe.
if the west had any power, we d be in Libya ending this obscene trade in people.

SL and Mali were v small uprisings were a display of force quelled the opposition.

we have a Gov DEC trying to raise money for the Yemen, yet the very same gov sells armaments to the Saudis to cause more suffering.....

Agreed, we are without doubt responsible for ISIS and the destruction and deaths in Iraq and is perhaps for all Assads brutality, Syria is better off with him in power than no one and even more civil war.

rick_chasey

Milton50 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Because Syria has a lot of oil?

Iraqi pipes go through Jordan rather than Syria don't they?

And the US is self sufficient in oil, and although it imports a lot still (because its refineries are set up to refine Middle Eastern oil, not US fracked oil), the refineries are adjusting surprisingly quickly.

Does the UK really buy that much oil that comes through Syria?

And again, Sudan is both a former colony and an area which has some natural resources to exploit, so why isn't Britain going there?

Pretty clear why 'stabilising' the middle east, in particular Syria, would be a higher priority than Sudan, though right?

Why's that Milton?

milton50

Rick Chasey wrote:

Milton50 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Because Syria has a lot of oil?

Iraqi pipes go through Jordan rather than Syria don't they?

And the US is self sufficient in oil, and although it imports a lot still (because its refineries are set up to refine Middle Eastern oil, not US fracked oil), the refineries are adjusting surprisingly quickly.

Does the UK really buy that much oil that comes through Syria?

And again, Sudan is both a former colony and an area which has some natural resources to exploit, so why isn't Britain going there?

Pretty clear why 'stabilising' the middle east, in particular Syria, would be a higher priority than Sudan, though right?

Why's that Milton?

Because Islamic terrorism is a far greater threat to Britain and British lives.

milton50

And Syria is essentially the headquarters for Islamic terrorism at the moment

rjsterry

mamba80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I can see the case for nukes, since i believe in deterrents, and Britain can afford them (despite all the hot air to say otherwise). It's Britain's role as world police (but only in the middle east and a few rocks scattered across the globe, but certainly not Africa, the far east or South America) that I don't get.

If you want to do it to project power then I can see that, but then I don't see the value in getting involved in Syria and Iraq.

If you want to do it for humanitarian reasons, I don't see why it's exclusive to Syria and Iraq.

See what I mean?

Sierra Leone? Libya? The French intervened in Mali. I haven't suggested that it should be a UK only thing.

Libya? not only has that destroyed the place, it has caused untold deaths as genuine and eco migrants are herded onto boats and then drown in the med, those that survive, then face pretty much being condemned to the slums of europe.
if the west had any power, we d be in Libya ending this obscene trade in people.

SL and Mali were v small uprisings were a display of force quelled the opposition.

we have a Gov DEC trying to raise money for the Yemen, yet the very same gov sells armaments to the Saudis to cause more suffering.....

Agreed, we are without doubt responsible for ISIS and the destruction and deaths in Iraq and is perhaps for all Assads brutality, Syria is better off with him in power than no one and even more civil war.

I was responding to RC's point about ignoring Africa, not holding Libya up as a success. That said, the problem was not the removal of Gaddafi, but the lack of a follow-up plan. It's hardly surprising that after decades of any kind of legitimate opposition being suppressed, when they suppression is removed, there isn't a ready-formed democracy that can just step into the gap. Our own European revolutions were equally bloody.

mamba80

..and thats the prob with ill thought out military attacks like the one we ve just witnessed, jeez this lunatic trump does the same with N Korea and we ll be looking at a nuclear attack on S Korea.

Getting rid of Assad, with no credible alternative, is just going to lead to another Libya/Iraq, this is why Russia is there, too close to home for them and they need those bases.

A former GF has back packed through libya and syria prior to these recent problems, generally speaking they were peaceful and enchanting places, its great pity we have to meddle in these places social development.

coopster_the_1st

With the upcoming local elections could voting for labour be a good tactical option?

We don't want labour to lose full confidence in JC just yet so there needs to be limited negativity to these results. I don't see any upside in voting for the alternatives unless anyone on this thread can provide a better reason than above:

- The Liberal (un)Democrats are no longer a democratic option
- Now is not the time for the Tories to be shown as too dominant as that could backfire on them in a GE result
- The Greens are an option but this vote does not give the upside a vote for labour does
- No other party is anywhere near credible

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

I can see the case for nukes, since i believe in deterrents, and Britain can afford them (despite all the hot air to say otherwise). It's Britain's role as world police (but only in the middle east and a few rocks scattered across the globe, but certainly not Africa, the far east or South America) that I don't get.

If you want to do it to project power then I can see that, but then I don't see the value in getting involved in Syria and Iraq.

If you want to do it for humanitarian reasons, I don't see why it's exclusive to Syria and Iraq.

See what I mean?

For defence land based cruise missiles would do the job at a fraction of the price.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why is there some responsibility even if nothing is done?

It's a question - not loaded.

There is an assumption that the Uk has global policeman responsibility, but a patchy one that only applies to the Middle East.

I wonder why it is.

It is a weird obsession with "punching above our weight" . Personally I think it is a refusal to accept our status in the world. Not sure it is Mid East related as we find the money to buy two aircraft carriers and sub launched nukes.

Why is it "above our weight"? We are one of 5 permanent members of the UN security council and one of the G7. Certainly we are not the biggest, but I don't think it's claiming too much to suggest that we play a significant part in world affairs.


I'm not sure that we are ignoring Sudan any more or less than Syria, although Syria has a rather more direct link to European terrorist activity, so there is some self interest there.

Strangely that is my point. We borrow hundreds of billions to retain an offensive nuclear capability and build two carriers. This is done to keep our precious seat on the security council where we play the loyal role of the school bully's best mate.

We have a population of 60 million and have 4% of global GDP yet we feel the need to punch above our weight and play a significant part in world affairs. Why not accept that the glory days of Nelson are over and spend our money defending the British Isles.

surrey_commuter

Coopster the 1st wrote:

With the upcoming local elections could voting for labour be a good tactical option?

We don't want labour to lose full confidence in JC just yet so there needs to be limited negativity to these results. I don't see any upside in voting for the alternatives unless anyone on this thread can provide a better reason than above:

- The Liberal (un)Democrats are no longer a democratic option
- Now is not the time for the Tories to be shown as too dominant as that could backfire on them in a GE result
- The Greens are an option but this vote does not give the upside a vote for labour does
- No other party is anywhere near credible

Steveo???

Wrong account?

Lookyhere

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

With the upcoming local elections could voting for labour be a good tactical option?

We don't want labour to lose full confidence in JC just yet so there needs to be limited negativity to these results. I don't see any upside in voting for the alternatives unless anyone on this thread can provide a better reason than above:

- The Liberal (un)Democrats are no longer a democratic option
- Now is not the time for the Tories to be shown as too dominant as that could backfire on them in a GE result
- The Greens are an option but this vote does not give the upside a vote for labour does
- No other party is anywhere near credible

Steveo???

Wrong account?

:oops:

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why is there some responsibility even if nothing is done?

It's a question - not loaded.

There is an assumption that the Uk has global policeman responsibility, but a patchy one that only applies to the Middle East.

I wonder why it is.

It is a weird obsession with "punching above our weight" . Personally I think it is a refusal to accept our status in the world. Not sure it is Mid East related as we find the money to buy two aircraft carriers and sub launched nukes.

Why is it "above our weight"? We are one of 5 permanent members of the UN security council and one of the G7. Certainly we are not the biggest, but I don't think it's claiming too much to suggest that we play a significant part in world affairs.


I'm not sure that we are ignoring Sudan any more or less than Syria, although Syria has a rather more direct link to European terrorist activity, so there is some self interest there.

Strangely that is my point. We borrow hundreds of billions to retain an offensive nuclear capability and build two carriers. This is done to keep our precious seat on the security council where we play the loyal role of the school bully's best mate.

We have a population of 60 million and have 4% of global GDP yet we feel the need to punch above our weight and play a significant part in world affairs. Why not accept that the glory days of Nelson are over and spend our money defending the British Isles.

Defending it from whom? With what? The British Isles are surrounded by water, so marine defence systems would seem to be a good place to start.
Do you seriously think that the sole argument for Trident and ordering two replacement carriers is so that we can keep our seat on the security council? Why are you so desperate for the UK to become some parochial backwater? What country would not try to influence world events to their advantage if they had the opportunity?

BTW, I 'd say 4% of global GDP from 0.87% of global population is a pretty good indicator that we are doing something right.

rjsterry

mamba80 wrote:

..and thats the prob with ill thought out military attacks like the one we ve just witnessed, jeez this lunatic trump does the same with N Korea and we ll be looking at a nuclear attack on S Korea.

Getting rid of Assad, with no credible alternative, is just going to lead to another Libya/Iraq, this is why Russia is there, too close to home for them and they need those bases.

A former GF has back packed through libya and syria prior to these recent problems, generally speaking they were peaceful and enchanting places, its great pity we have to meddle in these places social development.

Russia is there because they fancy access to the Med and they saw Assad as an easy opportunity. They know without them he would be swinging from a lamppost by now. Also having a dig at the decadent West plays well at home.

Lookyhere

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why is there some responsibility even if nothing is done?

It's a question - not loaded.

There is an assumption that the Uk has global policeman responsibility, but a patchy one that only applies to the Middle East.

I wonder why it is.

It is a weird obsession with "punching above our weight" . Personally I think it is a refusal to accept our status in the world. Not sure it is Mid East related as we find the money to buy two aircraft carriers and sub launched nukes.

Why is it "above our weight"? We are one of 5 permanent members of the UN security council and one of the G7. Certainly we are not the biggest, but I don't think it's claiming too much to suggest that we play a significant part in world affairs.


I'm not sure that we are ignoring Sudan any more or less than Syria, although Syria has a rather more direct link to European terrorist activity, so there is some self interest there.

Strangely that is my point. We borrow hundreds of billions to retain an offensive nuclear capability and build two carriers. This is done to keep our precious seat on the security council where we play the loyal role of the school bully's best mate.

We have a population of 60 million and have 4% of global GDP yet we feel the need to punch above our weight and play a significant part in world affairs. Why not accept that the glory days of Nelson are over and spend our money defending the British Isles.

Defending it from whom? With what? The British Isles are surrounded by water, so marine defence systems would seem to be a good place to start.
Do you seriously think that the sole argument for Trident and ordering two replacement carriers is so that we can keep our seat on the security council? Why are you so desperate for the UK to become some parochial backwater? What country would not try to influence world events to their advantage if they had the opportunity?

As events at todays G7 meeting show re sanctions against Russia, no one takes the UK seriously anymore.

AC s do not add to our Maritime defence, we ve not enough surface warships to protect them, crew/mtce or helicopters, we ve what? 13 frigates and 6 destroyers, many of which are in dock at any one time.
I dont know the total shoreline of the UK but i guess that is one boat every several 100 miles of coast.

trident is robbing us of decent conventional forces, for a weapons system we d never ever independently deploy and all our enemies know this.

mamba80

rjsterry wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

..and thats the prob with ill thought out military attacks like the one we ve just witnessed, jeez this lunatic trump does the same with N Korea and we ll be looking at a nuclear attack on S Korea.

Getting rid of Assad, with no credible alternative, is just going to lead to another Libya/Iraq, this is why Russia is there, too close to home for them and they need those bases.

A former GF has back packed through libya and syria prior to these recent problems, generally speaking they were peaceful and enchanting places, its great pity we have to meddle in these places social development.

Russia is there because they fancy access to the Med and they saw Assad as an easy opportunity. They know without them he would be swinging from a lamppost by now. Also having a dig at the decadent West plays well at home.

the Soviets had an active Med fleet during the cold war, black sea fleet, plenty of access to the Med, with no syrian involvement.
they ve had a naval base, albeit small in syria since the early 70s, Syria has a close military relationship with Russia.

i dont get the crit of the russians, the US has been playing this role with numerous allies for years, with disasterous consequences in many cases.

rick_chasey

mamba80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

..and thats the prob with ill thought out military attacks like the one we ve just witnessed, jeez this lunatic trump does the same with N Korea and we ll be looking at a nuclear attack on S Korea.

Getting rid of Assad, with no credible alternative, is just going to lead to another Libya/Iraq, this is why Russia is there, too close to home for them and they need those bases.

A former GF has back packed through libya and syria prior to these recent problems, generally speaking they were peaceful and enchanting places, its great pity we have to meddle in these places social development.

Russia is there because they fancy access to the Med and they saw Assad as an easy opportunity. They know without them he would be swinging from a lamppost by now. Also having a dig at the decadent West plays well at home.

the Soviets had an active Med fleet during the cold war, black sea fleet, plenty of access to the Med, with no syrian involvement.
they ve had a naval base, albeit small in syria since the early 70s, Syria has a close military relationship with Russia.

i dont get the crit of the russians, the US has been playing this role with numerous allies for years, with disasterous consequences in many cases.

Backing Assad is deserving of criticism. You must be able to see that.

rick_chasey

Lookyhere wrote:

As events at todays G7 meeting show re sanctions against Russia, no one takes the UK seriously anymore.

AC s do not add to our Maritime defence, we ve not enough surface warships to protect them, crew/mtce or helicopters, we ve what? 13 frigates and 6 destroyers, many of which are in dock at any one time.
I dont know the total shoreline of the UK but i guess that is one boat every several 100 miles of coast.

trident is robbing us of decent conventional forces, for a weapons system we d never ever independently deploy and all our enemies know this.

No ACs, no Fauklands, innit.

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I can see the case for nukes, since i believe in deterrents, and Britain can afford them (despite all the hot air to say otherwise). It's Britain's role as world police (but only in the middle east and a few rocks scattered across the globe, but certainly not Africa, the far east or South America) that I don't get.

If you want to do it to project power then I can see that, but then I don't see the value in getting involved in Syria and Iraq.

If you want to do it for humanitarian reasons, I don't see why it's exclusive to Syria and Iraq.

See what I mean?

For defence land based cruise missiles would do the job at a fraction of the price.

Disagree.

Entire point of Sub nukes is, even if the UK is wiped out, there is still a decent chance they will retaliate. It's an entirely more credible and powerful deterrent than land based nukes.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Did you listen to what Corbyn said? no i wasnt surprised - you hate almost anything Corbyn does or says! lol!

The west needs to work with Russia over this issue, as i understand, that is pretty much what JC was calling for - these missile attacks wont stop a single barrel bomb or targeted airstrikes on a hospital.

You reckon Russia will work with the West on this? Right...

So, you reckon the next time Assad is thinking of using chemical weapons he wont pay any regard to the 60 Tomahawks that got dropped on him the last time he did it? :roll: Ever heard of the word 'deterrent '?

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Did you listen to what Corbyn said? no i wasnt surprised - you hate almost anything Corbyn does or says! lol!

The west needs to work with Russia over this issue, as i understand, that is pretty much what JC was calling for - these missile attacks wont stop a single barrel bomb or targeted airstrikes on a hospital.

You reckon Russia will work with the West on this? Right...

So, you reckon the next time Assad is thinking of using chemical weapons he wont pay any regard to the 60 Tomahawks that got dropped on him the last time he did it? :roll: Ever heard of the word 'deterrent '?

Well in fairness, being effectively told the strikes are going to happen before they do is less of a deterrent.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Did you listen to what Corbyn said? no i wasnt surprised - you hate almost anything Corbyn does or says! lol!

The west needs to work with Russia over this issue, as i understand, that is pretty much what JC was calling for - these missile attacks wont stop a single barrel bomb or targeted airstrikes on a hospital.

You reckon Russia will work with the West on this? Right...

So, you reckon the next time Assad is thinking of using chemical weapons he wont pay any regard to the 60 Tomahawks that got dropped on him the last time he did it? :roll: Ever heard of the word 'deterrent '?

Well in fairness, being effectively told the strikes are going to happen before they do is less of a deterrent.

He got a slap. Next time he know its likely to be a kicking. Metaphorically speaking. It would put me off if I were him.

rick_chasey

Yeah but in fairness Stevo, as much as I'm not a fan of you, I don't think you'd have it in you to sport a Hitler moustache, gas thousands of people and generally plunder the wealth of millions whilst sanctioning and ordering massive war crimes.

mamba80

Rick Chasey wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

..and thats the prob with ill thought out military attacks like the one we ve just witnessed, jeez this lunatic trump does the same with N Korea and we ll be looking at a nuclear attack on S Korea.

Getting rid of Assad, with no credible alternative, is just going to lead to another Libya/Iraq, this is why Russia is there, too close to home for them and they need those bases.

A former GF has back packed through libya and syria prior to these recent problems, generally speaking they were peaceful and enchanting places, its great pity we have to meddle in these places social development.

Russia is there because they fancy access to the Med and they saw Assad as an easy opportunity. They know without them he would be swinging from a lamppost by now. Also having a dig at the decadent West plays well at home.

the Soviets had an active Med fleet during the cold war, black sea fleet, plenty of access to the Med, with no syrian involvement.
they ve had a naval base, albeit small in syria since the early 70s, Syria has a close military relationship with Russia.

i dont get the crit of the russians, the US has been playing this role with numerous allies for years, with disasterous consequences in many cases.

Backing Assad is deserving of criticism. You must be able to see that.

If you dont back Assad, who do you back? Isis ???

the war has been going on for 6 years, 10s of 1000s killed, millions displaced, Yazidies all but wiped out, their women sold into sexual slavery, their men and children killed, a peoples that can trace its roots back to biblical times and the US did fcuk all.

the ancient city of palmyra destroyed, their ruins the sight of mass executions and the US did nothing.

Syria used to be a secular state, relatively peaceful, with a health service, an education system, even many of those who oppose assad, would rather him in power and peace, than what they ve got now.
only the russians are providing the push to end the war, once it is ended, talks can begin to have a more unifying leader but the priority must be to end this slaughter.

you name me a moderate opposition figure who can unit the country by any means and yep, i ll oppose Assad.

rick_chasey

Few rebels are fairly OK AFAIK.

Russians were likely at the base and knew Assad was going to gas a load of people and they let it happen anyway.

That's pretty bad.

Being not-ISIS isn't good enough, to be honest. That's a pretty f*cking low bar.

mamba80

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Did you listen to what Corbyn said? no i wasnt surprised - you hate almost anything Corbyn does or says! lol!

The west needs to work with Russia over this issue, as i understand, that is pretty much what JC was calling for - these missile attacks wont stop a single barrel bomb or targeted airstrikes on a hospital.

You reckon Russia will work with the West on this? Right...

So, you reckon the next time Assad is thinking of using chemical weapons he wont pay any regard to the 60 Tomahawks that got dropped on him the last time he did it? :roll: Ever heard of the word 'deterrent '?

Well in fairness, being effectively told the strikes are going to happen before they do is less of a deterrent.

We dont know what went on in syria re the gas attack, which is why the G7 wont issue new sanctions against the Russians, US intel hasnt got a great rep for truthfulness in this area has it?

its seems v odd to me that on the day the US says it will work with Assad, he decides to launch an gas attack..... counter productive in the extreme.

a joint US/nato/ Russian offensive against Isis? why not? both countries are being attacked by islamists, gotta be worth an attempt, historically, we ve worked with russia against a common enemy before and Stalin was a whole level worse than Putin.

have you an alternative to Assad? or shall we put in President Chaos?

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I can see the case for nukes, since i believe in deterrents, and Britain can afford them (despite all the hot air to say otherwise). It's Britain's role as world police (but only in the middle east and a few rocks scattered across the globe, but certainly not Africa, the far east or South America) that I don't get.

If you want to do it to project power then I can see that, but then I don't see the value in getting involved in Syria and Iraq.

If you want to do it for humanitarian reasons, I don't see why it's exclusive to Syria and Iraq.

See what I mean?

For defence land based cruise missiles would do the job at a fraction of the price.

Disagree.

Entire point of Sub nukes is, even if the UK is wiped out, there is still a decent chance they will retaliate. It's an entirely more credible and powerful deterrent than land based nukes.

Who are we deterring from wiping us out? We can't use them without American authorisation so that would not help. Why would Russia wipe us out and in so doing kill tens of thousands American - surely that would deter them.

The whole point of cruise missiles is they are mobile so harder to hit.

pblakeney

mamba80 wrote:

have you an alternative to Assad? or shall we put in President Chaos?

You'd be better with this guy. And he is dead.

surrey_commuter

Lookyhere wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why is there some responsibility even if nothing is done?

It's a question - not loaded.

There is an assumption that the Uk has global policeman responsibility, but a patchy one that only applies to the Middle East.

I wonder why it is.

It is a weird obsession with "punching above our weight" . Personally I think it is a refusal to accept our status in the world. Not sure it is Mid East related as we find the money to buy two aircraft carriers and sub launched nukes.

Why is it "above our weight"? We are one of 5 permanent members of the UN security council and one of the G7. Certainly we are not the biggest, but I don't think it's claiming too much to suggest that we play a significant part in world affairs.


I'm not sure that we are ignoring Sudan any more or less than Syria, although Syria has a rather more direct link to European terrorist activity, so there is some self interest there.

Strangely that is my point. We borrow hundreds of billions to retain an offensive nuclear capability and build two carriers. This is done to keep our precious seat on the security council where we play the loyal role of the school bully's best mate.

We have a population of 60 million and have 4% of global GDP yet we feel the need to punch above our weight and play a significant part in world affairs. Why not accept that the glory days of Nelson are over and spend our money defending the British Isles.

Defending it from whom? With what? The British Isles are surrounded by water, so marine defence systems would seem to be a good place to start.
Do you seriously think that the sole argument for Trident and ordering two replacement carriers is so that we can keep our seat on the security council? Why are you so desperate for the UK to become some parochial backwater? What country would not try to influence world events to their advantage if they had the opportunity?

As events at todays G7 meeting show re sanctions against Russia, no one takes the UK seriously anymore.

AC s do not add to our Maritime defence, we ve not enough surface warships to protect them, crew/mtce or helicopters, we ve what? 13 frigates and 6 destroyers, many of which are in dock at any one time.
I dont know the total shoreline of the UK but i guess that is one boat every several 100 miles of coast.

trident is robbing us of decent conventional forces, for a weapons system we d never ever independently deploy and all our enemies know this.

Exactly - and spending hundreds of billions we don't have.

What other countries of a similar size spend so much to punch above their weight? Why can't we be like Canada and be happy?

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Did you listen to what Corbyn said? no i wasnt surprised - you hate almost anything Corbyn does or says! lol!

The west needs to work with Russia over this issue, as i understand, that is pretty much what JC was calling for - these missile attacks wont stop a single barrel bomb or targeted airstrikes on a hospital.

You reckon Russia will work with the West on this? Right...

So, you reckon the next time Assad is thinking of using chemical weapons he wont pay any regard to the 60 Tomahawks that got dropped on him the last time he did it? :roll: Ever heard of the word 'deterrent '?

Well in fairness, being effectively told the strikes are going to happen before they do is less of a deterrent.

He got a slap. Next time he know its likely to be a kicking. Metaphorically speaking. It would put me off if I were him.

Indeed. Not sure why this seems so difficult to understand. One of the few things Trump was actually correct about is that red lines are meaningless if not enforced.