Making the news today....

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

24 minutes ago, eggsarascal said:

There is a book in you Mr Johnson, and I'm not pulling your chain this time.

No time for that Mr E! Too busy with trivia and nonsense!

[WesD]

1 hour ago, matelot said:

How about our best pal in the Middle East? Saudi? You not think they are doing their best to destabilise the world? They are destroying Yemen (which the media doesn't seem to report) and they export their extreme version of Islam throughout the world.

 

In a war between Saudi and Iran/ Russia I would be supporting Iran/ Russia...

 

What we should be doing is investing in renewables so we don't have to cosy up to Saudi for their oil.... If we all had electic cars we could leave the Middle East to their civil wars....

What about Russia for gas? 

 

Can we get enough gas to do without Russia?

 

Genuine Qs by the way as I have no idea. 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

4 hours ago, WesD said:

What about Russia for gas? 

 

Can we get enough gas to do without Russia?

 

Genuine Qs by the way as I have no idea. 

Just picked this from British Gas page.  Never mind BitCoin, buy stock in Norwegian Gas!!! 

Edited April 12, 2018 by kevinjohnsonmbe

[Mark J]

Do people here reckon that we should be engaging in war in Syria?
Daesh (ISIL, ISIS, Islamic State) were the enemy.  Assad and his supporters (Russia, Iran, Kurdistan) kicked Daesh's ass.  Why should we get involved?  I know there's the 'supposed' pipeline that's to be built across Syria. The claims regarding Assad's use of chemical weapons, which, incidently, we sold to them, are spurious at best.

If you agree that we should take 'action', do you think that it should be only be undertaken with the approval of parliament? Given that we live in a democracy.

Finally, if further war based atrocities are to occur in Syria, should we house the refugees whose homes and families have been obliterated, untill it's safe for them to return.

Edited April 12, 2018 by Mark J

[forestboy1978]

Yep it's utter BS in my opinion. 

[WesD]

11 minutes ago, Mark J said:

Do people here reckon that we should be engaging in war in Syria?
Daesh (ISIL, ISIS, Islamic State) were the enemy.  Assad and his supporters kicked Daesh's ass.  Why should we get involved?  I know there's the 'supposed' pipeline that's to be built across Syria. The claims regarding Assad's use of chemical weapons, which, incidently, we sold to them, are spurious at best.

If you agree that we should take 'action', do you think that it should be only be undertaken with the approval of parliament? Given that we live in a democracy.

Finally, if further war based atrocities are to occur in Syria, should we house the refugees whose homes and families have been obliterated, untill it's safe for them to return.

 Not sure, it’s a tricky one. 

 

Id like to see May make her own decision without the need for parliament approval to show some spine as I think she needs a spine to get us through brexit. 

 

We have a lot on our political landscape at the moment with Russia/Skripal, Brexit, Russia/Syria. It had been a nice silence when Jong Un decided to wind his neck in, it didn’t last long. 

 

Syria has been in a civil war for a few years now and the make up is of horrible evils, Assad is an evil tw@ the rebellions will be of a similar nature and then there’s a sprinkling of IS. Maybe it needs a UN peace keeping presence to leave em too it but step in if chemicals are used?! Who knows. 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

32 minutes ago, Mark J said:

Do people here reckon that we should be engaging in war in Syria?
Daesh (ISIL, ISIS, Islamic State) were the enemy.  Assad and his supporters (Russia, Iran, Kurdistan) kicked Daesh's ass.  Why should we get involved?  I know there's the 'supposed' pipeline that's to be built across Syria. The claims regarding Assad's use of chemical weapons, which, incidently, we sold to them, are spurious at best.

If you agree that we should take 'action', do you think that it should be only be undertaken with the approval of parliament? Given that we live in a democracy.

Finally, if further war based atrocities are to occur in Syria, should we house the refugees whose homes and families have been obliterated, untill it's safe for them to return.

Starting from the bottom and working up Mark...

 

Displaced people should be provided temporary safe haven as close as is reasonably practical to the origin of the displacement so as to facilitate a speedy and efficient reabsorption to place of displacement on completion of hostilities.

 

Military action NOW, makes a mockery of the absence of it for the preceding years - which I happen to agree with.

 

Serious Economic and diplomatic action would be, IMHO, a better option all round.

[Mark J]

11 minutes ago, WesD said:

 Not sure, it’s a tricky one. 

 

Id like to see May make her own decision without the need for parliament approval to show some spine as I think she needs a spine to get us through brexit. 

 

We have a lot on our political landscape at the moment with Russia/Skripal, Brexit, Russia/Syria. It had been a nice silence when Jong Un decided to wind his neck in, it didn’t last long. 

 

Syria has been in a civil war for a few years now and the make up is of horrible evils, Assad is an evil tw@ the rebellions will be of a similar nature and then there’s a sprinkling of IS. Maybe it needs a UN peace keeping presence to leave em too it but step in if chemicals are used?! Who knows. 

I think that a Prime Minister making their own decisions is a slippery slope to be on.  Tony Blair didn't really help when he went down that route.
I reckon that May has (and knows she has) the spine of a sea cucumber and the diplomatic skills of chest of drawers.

 

[Mark J]

20 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Starting from the bottom and working up Mark...

 

Displaced people should be provided temporary safe haven as close as is reasonably practical to the origin of the displacement so as to facilitate a speedy and efficient reabsorption to place of displacement on completion of hostilities.

 

Military action NOW, makes a mockery of the absence of it for the preceding years - which I happen to agree with.

 

Serious Economic and diplomatic action would be, IMHO, a better option all round.

Starting at the top and working down Kevin:

 

While I agree that ideally people should be temporarily rehoused in a safer neighbouring country, would we not be somewhat hypocritical by not offering them sanctuary if we were responsible for their displacement?  (I'm not suggesting that we scoop up the displaced in a C-10 and drop them off at Skegness)

Do you then agree that there should be no military action without Parliamentary approval?

 

Economic and diplomatic action aimed Who and Why?

 

You probably know about this than most on this forum, certainly more than I do.

 

Edited April 12, 2018 by Mark J

[matelot]

33 minutes ago, Mark J said:

Do people here reckon that we should be engaging in war in Syria?
Daesh (ISIL, ISIS, Islamic State) were the enemy.  Assad and his supporters (Russia, Iran, Kurdistan) kicked Daesh's ass.  Why should we get involved?  

Wow! Another of your posts that talks sense! Are you getting more right wing in your old age?

 

Three years ago the media reported Yazidi women getting sold in slave markets and people getting burned alive in cages. Now the "side" that were behind these human rights abuses are getting taken apart by Russia and we're meant to feel sorry for them....

 

Tbh, the West should just accept that secular dictators are the best option in the Middle East. Secular democracies don't work when a large part of your society want to drag a country back to the dark ages...

 

In Vietnam the yanks used some fairly vicious weapons against Vietnamese civilians. It's a bit rich of Trump to criticise Syria...