Gutless. The stench of appeasement

[doodab]

Good, let's see all this evidence, instead of the photoshop exhibition that Colin Powell showed of a truck driver stopping outside a khazi in Iraq.

Yes, lets.

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

It's been considered and dismissed, because it's not a credible assertion. As far as anyone knows the rebels simply don't have access to the sort of firepower required to mount an attack on this scale, and all of the intelligence appears to point the other way i.e. the rumoured Israeli intelligence reports linking the regime to the attack, supposed intelligence on Syrian army troop movements in the buildup to the attack, intercepted communications from high level Syrian officials that the US apparently plan to release later today.

BULLS**T

The only credible evidence of anybody using chemical weapons to date is by the rebels, the UN have even come out and said it:

BBC News - UN's Del Ponte says evidence Syria rebels 'used sarin'

You are either believing the BS the media is feeding you with or just denying the facts on the ground:

- In a court of law you would have to establish motive. What would be the motive for Assad to use chemical weapons now when he is winning the battle against the "rebels" AKA terrorists
- The "Rebels" are funded and supported by Saudi/Qatar who are a lot more advanced than Assad himself
- The "Rebels" gain the most from a supposed chemical attack
- If there is anybody with less morals than Assad then it is Al Qaeda
- The UN have not at any point established the use of chemical weapons by Assad

You are talking BS

[Doggy Styles]

If that soundbite alleviates your own guilt then that is fine.

What is wrong with cojak's argument? Syrian chemical weapons could be hidden all over the country, possibly in civilian areas. What would we fire missiles at? And what else could the armed forces do?

You cannot just vote to 'go over there and sort it out'. That's the sort of open-ended commitment everyone wants to avoid.

[doodab]

But we had the same credible evidence with WMD in Iraq and we know how that turned out, why should we be convinced they are telling the truth now ?

If you tell a lie often enough it becomes a truth is a politicians first rule

Some people think there was a strong case for going to war regardless of the "sexed up" dossier. It's also worth remembering that for all the "lies" they were told, the house got to vote. People don't seem to understand this was utterly unprecedented and need not have happened at all.

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

If that soundbite alleviates your own guilt then that is fine.

WTF are you on about?

read the above post. What I would have guilt of is having a government which sides with Al Qaeda.

[Doggy Styles]

WTF are you on about?

read the above post. What I would have guilt of is having a government which sides with Al Qaeda.

Dodgy aimed that at another post, not yours.

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

Dodgy aimed that at another post, not yours.

Fine but my point still stands - I would have huge guilt if my government went out and supported Al Qaeda after all the loss of life in Afghanistan.

[Mich the Tester]

Some people think there was a strong case for going to war regardless of the "sexed up" dossier. It's also worth remembering that for all the "lies" they were told, the house got to vote. People don't seem to understand this was utterly unprecedented and need not have happened at all.

I think the case could have been made without the dossier, without the evidence of WMDs, but it was not. We were decieved into thinking there was real evidence of WMDs when there wasn't, but we were not given the moral arguments that might have been convincing. Thanks to Tony B Liar and his pet baboon called George I am unable to trust the UK or US government on these issues, even if I think Cameron and O'Bama are trying to do the right thing. I'd still like the full story of the government's dealings with David Kelly as well.

[Mich the Tester]

Syria: 'national soul-searching' needed after Commons defeat - Telegraph

After the Commons vote Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, said that the Prime Minister had lost the vote because of his “impulsive and recklessleadership”.

No, Mr Miliband, he lost the vote because after the record of your party in government, nobody will trust any PM for a very long time, you snivelling little tulip.

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

Syria: 'national soul-searching' needed after Commons defeat - Telegraph



No, Mr Miliband, he lost the vote because after the record of your party in government, nobody will trust any PM for a very long time, you snivelling little tulip.

To be fair he does have a point - DC played his cards at the wrong time and his tactics were doomed to failure. I can't remember such a big political blunder in recent history.....