Political discussion. Keep it friendly!
User avatar
By Wooster

No doubts about the strikes we carried out?

It's a democracy, you're allowed to speak your mind. ;)
User avatar
By Wooster
Never was so much owed by so many to so few.

80 years later it's far fewer, and they're mostly old bangers.
We're almost embarrasingly impotent?
User avatar
By Wooster

I regularly drive past an aircraft carrier that's a clone of one we already can't use.
User avatar
By Glamdring
Wooster wrote:
Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:26 pm
Two with two each. (ptobably the only two in with a chance)
They're not reliable either.

I used to attend the Leuchars airshow and saw one catch fire on take off, about 15 years ago...when we could still afford the MOT on them.

We might have a dozen planes
Four jets with eight missiles fired, some of the most sophisticated on the planet. The jets are upgraded and can carry 8000lbs of munitions at 1300mph.
User avatar
By Wooster
I stand corrected. :)
I'm pretty sure Russia could have downed them if they'd chosen to do so, I hear their ground to air missile system is quite impressive. :?
User avatar
By Glamdring
It was all arranged before the attack. The Russians stay out of the way, the US get to make lots of noise, no civilians were killed and that's it done.

I see Corbyn wants proof. That git is a total div. I wouldn't trust him to buy the right brand of beans at Tescos.
User avatar
By richietog
A lot of people are saying they don’t believe Assad used chemical weapons. Even they say the children didn’t look that unwell when they were showing them on tv
User avatar
By loughor
There is no reason the Syrian Government would use chemical weapons when they are (more or less) winning the 'unpleasantness'. More likely that the opposition would use them against their civilians to generate an international response and aid their cause. Any casualties of mild chemical doses could be treated quickly in front of cameras and the biological and residual evidence could still be found. That may not be correct, but I find it a more likely scenario in the absence of proper verified evidence.
User avatar
By Wooster
I don't doubt that chemical weapons have been used more than once in Syria, by Assad and ISIS (probably using illegal stockpiles captured from the Assad government), but the evidence in this case seems a bit weak in comparison to other attacks.

Chemical weapons inspectors were due on site to investigate this week, but this strike preempted their visit...why not wait?
If it transpires that there is no evidence, or that it was perpetrated by someone else (a false flag) it's not going to do our international standing in the region any good.
User avatar
By Glamdring
That's just what the Labour lass, Chakrathinigie said on Radio 4 yet her arguments were weak and amounted to let's get a consensus from the Security Council that Russia always veto, es, so there never will be any action.
User avatar
By Wooster
The UN SC is a bit toothless, but there's been over 50 chemical attacks recorded in Syria so far, why have only two been worthy of strikes?
User avatar
By Wooster

I don't think that compensation is the correct term for those affected, it should be recompense.
There's a big difference.
User avatar
By Wooster
..and on the subject of the use of language.
BoJo commented on the consummate trashing of the proposed NI border controls by the EU as constituting a 'Great Surrender'

Inflammatory words in that neck of the woods.
User avatar
By richietog
Some woman has given birth to a boy
  • 1
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 29

I hate Chrome 69, both for pc and iOS. And presuma[…]

Cars in General

I have one (no GPS, fits around the rearview on th[…]

what are you playing?

Software wise i can get most things so if you ge[…]

PS3 eject button

I do have a 4, but want to sell the 3.