Search results

this is what im trying to point out, there is no real change of position. didnt get involved in the whole "arab spring" thing, relutantly got involved in Libya after France/Britain had made the early running and pushed for it, and it did tick a long term strategic goal. stayed out of Egypt...

as opposed to the pictures of injured children and women being gassed/shelled/shot at already? your's has to be the worst argument against any intervention, "because it will be made to look bad" is pathetic. the people of Syria are already suffering, and US strategic strikes will not be...

the scale is so important to this matter. 1400 dead. as far as i understand, that requires fully weaponised delivery systems, its ariel bombardment or shelling a wide area with a substantial concentration. so either the rebels have acquired artillery or aircraft, or you have to determine it...

and Lebenon, and Israel. the author doesnt really understand reality and the poster isnt really interested in "the truth".

wow. tops score for generalisation there. thats like saying all protestants are extremists because of the UDF.

you mustn't discount a) "it my country i'll do as i wish" attitude, b) containment of a local problem quickly to avoid losing a position or c) Assad forces going off-piste by themselves.

it gives him perceived limelight on the big stage, viewed from here. not necessarily from the bigger stage itself. he wanted to wait for evidence but didnt himself and has dismissed the option of military action. Labour had an amendment which was reject by a far larger majority too, so this...

Boris would have made it any different? too many MPs worrying about perceptions if they back an ill-fated war. which they werent even asked to back. he must have carried a large number of Liberals so that tells a tale too. i count a substanial 93 abstentions too.

oh well, its acedemic now, the no's have it. we'll sit aside now and let them get on with it, chemicals or not. (going to be a sticky wicket if firm evidence does come forward now, or if inaction leads to escalation.)

not an awful lot actually. its not saying what you claim, that naming names is off the menu. anyway, im not disagreeing with you, just saying i hope you are wrong. the UN is going to look fecking stupid on Saturday when the world waits for "evidence", if they report that, yes there were...

so events changed after they arrived, so should the mandate. lets hope that when they report they go out of scope of the original and report in a manner that clearly specifies the source of the attack. othewise there is no point in any UN inspection ever happening again.

one could question a Russian source,though i wont. instead i'll point out the article is dated the 20th and begins "Six months after the incident in Khan al-Asal, near the city of Aleppo,...". its about an earlier incident.

i hope you're wrong there. my understanding is that everyone, Russia and Iran included, acknowledges there was a chemical attack. The UN mission set out when that was still ambiguous, but now its a matter of confirming whats known and determining the source of attack (i avoid the term "side"...