Search results

I don't agree. The international community, of which the UK is a part, must do something. Cameron will be pressing for that something, in whatever form it takes. Parliament, for instance, will have its collective head turned if the UN Inspectors file a report unequivocally blaming Assad. There...

It's just a bunch of words loosely strung together for you, isn't it? Let's get this straight - I disagree with the concept of missile strikes that has no guarantee of a positive outcome and many chances of making things worse, and you go into meltdown over what you've convinced yourself...

I have a very broad view, which is why bombing Syria without a clear strategy, mandate, agreement and exit procedure adds more problems than it resolves; as opposed to 'no pain, no gain', which in this instance, has no value.

On that we're agreed. The government giving their party a whip line to vote in something like this is appalling. Thankfully, 40 rebelled.

Wow. I knew you were a bit loose in the head, but I didn't think you were that criminally insane. Straight from the mindset of George W Bush - "Let's bomb Syria by way of punishment (illegal under international law, BTW) and see how the consequences pan out..." :facepalm:

Let's reverse that... "How would you suggest bringing that government into line with international law - a cruise missile attack with only negative consequences?

Not everyone is the unthinking world-in-black-and-white warmonger you are.

You can convince yourself of that if you want - not that 'right-on' as a phrase has any meaning, apart from maybe in a debating forum started by Year 9 pupils.

Listening to the debates, plenty of Tories wanting to vote against it. They are, however, having the whip applied. (Leave it.)