Can we finally stop pretending we're a democracy as the government drags us into yet another war the public wants nothing to do with?
They cant even stop sectarian violence on uk streets let alone abroad and since we are all suffering austerity where is the money coming for more wars?
They're probably hoping another war will distract us from all the domestic f*ckups. Also, I guess their friends in the armaments industry will make some money out of it.
Clearly these 'strikes' are designed merely to pay lipservice to the idea of 'doing something' and to show that (allegedly) Assad can't get away with using chemical weapons. What real purpose they serve remains to be seen. I doubt they will have any affect on the civil/religious war whatsoever.
Clearly these 'strikes' are designed merely to pay lipservice to the idea of 'doing something' and to show that (allegedly) Assad can't get away with using chemical weapons. What real purpose they serve remains to be seen. I doubt they will have any affect on the civil/religious war whatsoever.
Apart from the civilian casualties that will no doubt occur but never mind them eh? :rolleyes:
*We*, well, any possible war in Syria isn't in my name or anybody I know of. If those MPs are pushing for another war then they should have the courage of their convictions and go to the front line.
Blair writing in the `Guardian` has again the misconceived opinion that once again we should get involved, which would probably alienate both Russia & China, leaving us with a bloody nose long term..:eek:
Funny you should mention napalm requires a endothermic reaction. I guess this is why they stick napalm in bombs. Now Phylo do you think the bomb generates enough heat (or fire as you quaintly put it) on impact to begin the chemical reaction?
You know what Phylo, I can see you're struggling. The answer is yes. Yes it does
ONLY because napalm "bombs" are equiped with a burster/trigger charge, a "pyrotechnic initiator", that ignites the reaction!
Without it, napalm is actually quite hard to ignite! :eek: Intentionally - "old" napalm" was riskier to store in prepared form due to people smoking around it but modern "Napalm B"...benzene, petrol and polystyrene....is much harder to trigger, and thus easier to store longterm in pre-filled bombs and canisters.
I would imagine that the Syrian government is bussing in scores of children and old women to camp out at it's military installations already, so that we can be told the Americans have targetted the innocent when they strike.
I would imagine that the Syrian government is bussing in scores of children and old women to camp out at it's military installations already, so that we can be told the Americans have targetted the innocent when they strike.
Do you really think that the missiles will only hit military installations. We're going to war over 1000 people killed at most, the missiles we send will kill tens of thousands and the greater proportion will also be innocents. ( there are innocents on both sides of this debacle I'd just like to remind people)
It hasnt been proven yet who caused this chemical strike! Assad seems favourite but would the rebels have the capability? Lots of vocal opinions saying we should keep out of it,but should the world ignore a country gassing it's people?
It hasnt been proven yet who caused this chemical strike! Assad seems favourite but would the rebels have the capability? Lots of vocal opinions saying we should keep out of it,but should the world ignore a country gassing it's people?
So we should go in all Gung Ho and kill a few thousand more?
It hasnt been proven yet who caused this chemical strike! Assad seems favourite but would the rebels have the capability? Lots of vocal opinions saying we should keep out of it,but should the world ignore a country gassing it's people?
Doesn't seem to bother the Russians or Chinese, or most other places in the world for that matter e.g. I don't hear South American countries getting agitated about it.
Why does Britain or even America have to get involved in conflicts that have nowt to do with them. You dont hear France, Germany clamouring to send troops in or send in missles. Maybe if America and Britain concentrated on the problems in their countries things would be a lot better
I see that muppet Blair is saying send in the troops. Why what would it possibly achieve. What has invading Afghanistan achieved, what was the objective when Britain first invaded. Apart from creating more fear and alarm in Britain about terrorist and having terrorist try to destroy Glasgow airport and numerous other bomb attacks in London Birmingham etc
I was reading on France24 earlier that the US claims to have "evidence" that the chemical attacks were perpetrated by the Syrian government. Of course, they are not free to divulge this information or sources. Where have we heard this before?
I'm not convinced for a moment it wasn't the rebels who chemical bombed their own people. They have so much to gain by this and the government would have everything to lose.
It looks like Cameron is going to jump in whether we like it or not.
Protests were ignored last time this happened. They know we are ultimately stupid enough to continue to vote the "big 2" in anyway, so they are untouchable.
My opinion is let them sort it out themselves.
If they want to kill each other let them, neither side seem to be bothered about killing
innocent people.
We should 100% keep out of it.
Why does Britain or even America have to get involved in conflicts that have nowt to do with them. You dont hear France, Germany clamouring to send troops in or send in missles. Maybe if America and Britain concentrated on the problems in their countries things would be a lot better
I see that muppet Blair is saying send in the troops. Why what would it possibly achieve. What has invading Afghanistan achieved, what was the objective when Britain first invaded. Apart from creating more fear and alarm in Britain about terrorist and having terrorist try to destroy Glasgow airport and numerous other bomb attacks in London Birmingham etc
lets stay well clear
I wondered when his loathsome face would make an appearance. How he's got the nerve to spout off with his track record is beyond belief.
I was reading on France24 earlier that the US claims to have "evidence" that the chemical attacks were perpetrated by the Syrian government. Of course, they are not free to divulge this information or sources. Where have we heard this before?
I'm not convinced for a moment it wasn't the rebels who chemical bombed their own people. They have so much to gain by this and the government would have everything to lose.
I agree I think it's quite possible the rebels did it, and I think US/UK/France also thinks they may have done, but the thing is I don't think they care now, because if it was the rebels, that means potential extremists have got their hands on very nasty weapons, so whichever way round it was US/UK/France (partly on behalf of Israel) want to go in now to try and get some control over events, and secure & possibly remove chemical weapons stores.
Comments
Not necessarily
the regime must be really panicking now
They bloody well should be, the f***ing idiots.
They cant even stop sectarian violence on uk streets let alone abroad and since we are all suffering austerity where is the money coming for more wars?
Sort out the the uk it would be cheaper.
ONLY because napalm "bombs" are equiped with a burster/trigger charge, a "pyrotechnic initiator", that ignites the reaction!
Without it, napalm is actually quite hard to ignite! :eek: Intentionally - "old" napalm" was riskier to store in prepared form due to people smoking around it but modern "Napalm B"...benzene, petrol and polystyrene....is much harder to trigger, and thus easier to store longterm in pre-filled bombs and canisters.
I'm afraid I'M not the one "reaching" here...
What will this new war achieve
and
Who is going to pay for it
Some good points.
I suspect the answer to the second question would be, us
Do you really think that the missiles will only hit military installations. We're going to war over 1000 people killed at most, the missiles we send will kill tens of thousands and the greater proportion will also be innocents. ( there are innocents on both sides of this debacle I'd just like to remind people)
So we should go in all Gung Ho and kill a few thousand more?
Doesn't seem to bother the Russians or Chinese, or most other places in the world for that matter e.g. I don't hear South American countries getting agitated about it.
I see that muppet Blair is saying send in the troops. Why what would it possibly achieve. What has invading Afghanistan achieved, what was the objective when Britain first invaded. Apart from creating more fear and alarm in Britain about terrorist and having terrorist try to destroy Glasgow airport and numerous other bomb attacks in London Birmingham etc
lets stay well clear
I'm not convinced for a moment it wasn't the rebels who chemical bombed their own people. They have so much to gain by this and the government would have everything to lose.
It looks like Cameron is going to jump in whether we like it or not.
Protests were ignored last time this happened. They know we are ultimately stupid enough to continue to vote the "big 2" in anyway, so they are untouchable.
If they want to kill each other let them, neither side seem to be bothered about killing
innocent people.
We should 100% keep out of it.
I wondered when his loathsome face would make an appearance. How he's got the nerve to spout off with his track record is beyond belief.