HomeLog inRegisterRecent Posts

Share | 
 

 SHOULD WE OR SHOULDN'T WE ?

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
AuthorMessage
niagarafalls
Website Admin
Website Admin
avatar

Posts : 2697
Join date : 2012-11-23

PostSubject: SHOULD WE OR SHOULDN'T WE ?   Tue Aug 27, 2013 6:19 pm

First topic message reminder :

:btshp: :sub: :fheli2: 
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

:ram:


Last edited by niagarafalls on Wed Sep 11, 2013 6:12 pm; edited 5 times in total
Back to top Go down

AuthorMessage
niagarafalls
Website Admin
Website Admin
avatar

Posts : 2697
Join date : 2012-11-23

PostSubject: Re: SHOULD WE OR SHOULDN'T WE ?   Wed Sep 04, 2013 3:50 am

The heat on all burners has been turned up on high. All pots are on the way to the boiling point.  Yea and nay sayers are speaking out publically. The stage is set to theater grandeur and the intensity at the boiling point will captivate the audience. Powder keg.

If it's a go .it's a go all the way.
Again ,what is a limited strike and is there such a thing ?
That is the question.

The other question is, is there time enough to wait it out for some kind of political solution designed to stop the killing ?
What are the odds over the loss's and is it that worth the wait ,if it were possible to wait out a political solution is it possible to arrive at that and put into practical application.?
Areas of debate.

As the saying goes-it can't rain on forever.
But the effects of fooding can be far worse than would be imagined. Two million and counting -two million displaced peoples -a refugee nightmare in real time. 

Everything must be looked at. And what a mess.

Assad calls that a powder keg.
Back to top Go down
niagarafalls
Website Admin
Website Admin
avatar

Posts : 2697
Join date : 2012-11-23

PostSubject: Re: SHOULD WE OR SHOULDN'T WE ?   Thu Sep 05, 2013 3:07 am

The rec. song of the day is On The road Again by Willy Nelson.
The push is on for international backing on the pressing issues.
Reaching the peek of the summit.

And the debates continue in the congress the question at hand-,should there more or less of a strike ? Or should there be no strike at all. 

Too little is not enough for some ,how much is too much is the question for others and enough is enough for some others. 

Whats that song on the Beatles white album where the number nine is repeated ? Back In The USSR.
Back to top Go down
stumpy



Posts : 976
Join date : 2013-02-03

PostSubject: Re: SHOULD WE OR SHOULDN'T WE ?   Thu Sep 05, 2013 11:01 am

I think Russia has én heavily involved they have supplied a lot of arms as well, it would not be a surprise if Russia knew about the gas, At this moment in time Obama is in Sweden talking to the Scandinavien countries, Norway is backing Obama so is the Danish goverment. Not sure about Sweden though at the moment. When Obama arrived in Sweden this morning, then it came on the new about Russia changing her mind i Wonder why
Back to top Go down
niagarafalls
Website Admin
Website Admin
avatar

Posts : 2697
Join date : 2012-11-23

PostSubject: Re: SHOULD WE OR SHOULDN'T WE ?   Thu Sep 05, 2013 12:32 pm

Well, it's like a bouncing ball that keeps coming back to ya.Call it a basketball what ever. but if you invision a basketball as it's passed around the court and it just keeps coming back at ya,it is never the exact same situation you are confronted with in the heat of the game ,if you haven't a shot at the net ,what do you do? You pass the ball .The ball stays in motion once it is set into play. 

Putin and all those they's over there in Russia are not stupid. Today Putin spoke about logic- he said it made no logical sense for Assad to fire off chemical wepons when he was winning .He said it makes no sense at all that the regime would do that. 

And at the same time he said he would not rule out going into it with force if they did. There 
Putin is almost controdicting his-self and I say so because he knows there really isn't any logic at all about any of it or anything they do over there in Syrea politically or otherwise.Not inso far as keeping pace with and in Putin's own words- (the modern world].


So than if you understand something about the way the Russian government operates in this word, than you know that what Putin is was saying was filled with mixed messages.

Since they know-they in this case being the Russian theys-, they know that there is no logic about any of all of what goes on in Syrea where it's all about keeping pace with the modern world ,again a phrase Putin used, than you really must assume that Russia is going to play politics and business for as long as it can on this one. 

They also want to know exactly what is and was known in the form of undeniable proffs. Of course,everybody would like to see a complete show of the cards face up on the table.

Putin also sited international law .
But again since chemical weapons have been outlawed by the international community than it must be taken into full account that international laws have been broken in Syrea and further the Syrean regime is not the least bit concerned with the law or the mordern world law. 

This all boils down to consequences which happens to the knock down bottom line. Consequences brought down as a matter of law.

Putin did mention the rebels could have done it. He presented a question-what will the United States do if the rebels done it-what will they do to punish the rebels ?

But that is just half the issue- or rather slanted ,I say so because if Assad's regime gave a whoot about the laws of the modern world ,he will have ordered his regime to be fully cooperative and allowed the U.N investigators to get in there and find out exactly what went down. And if they were winning that war as Putin said, it really shouldn't have been a problem at all to become fourth coming about their doings and more over what they say they didn't do. 


So they stand with Iran. 

The Iranian thing almost seems to keep coming back to haunt us but the fact is it never goes away. 

As it stands the question remains ,is there such a thing as a limited strike ?
Back to top Go down
beaver12
October 2013 top poster
October 2013 top poster
avatar

Posts : 3845
Join date : 2013-04-01
Age : 66
Location : nottingham

PostSubject: Re: SHOULD WE OR SHOULDN'T WE ?   Fri Sep 06, 2013 5:06 am

is there such a thing as a limited strike Shocked  thats open to debate i think,me personaly i think the term limited strike to mean nothing,you might as well say we are going to make you a pressent of A.amount tons of High Explosives delivered curtessy of afew cruise Missles,make a change from tank and artillary shells and rocket propelled grenades dont you think Shocked will it make a difference,well yes it would remodle the citys and other areas were they land,take out some other tools of death and those manning those weapons with bigger bangs etc Shocked make a difference,NO..only boots on the ground would make a difference in the long real time make up of things,and seeings as how the U.S.A say no boots on the ground,what then cool2 those boots must then be provided by the rebel forces,so when all those big bangs have faded out after the so called limited strike,its just busness as usual between Assad and the rebels,as befor,as for International law cool2 thats a joke if ever there was one,chemical weapons are suppose to have been band,outlawed by the world,funny how every one seems to have them,no doubt we to and the U.S and Russia,China have stock piles of them still,i know from my stint in the military when the cold war was still on,we had as part of our kit Nuke and Bio chemical war fare suits that we were expected to done in A.amount minutes when and if a strike was launched, cool1 now then why issue such kit if those weapons that are suppose to be band world wide are not still freely available by all that say they did away with them and yet still kept them,and that means us as well.cool2
Back to top Go down
niagarafalls
Website Admin
Website Admin
avatar

Posts : 2697
Join date : 2012-11-23

PostSubject: Re: SHOULD WE OR SHOULDN'T WE ?   Fri Sep 06, 2013 2:21 pm

In deed and there are also chemical corp.s. that have the ability to mass produce but that doesn't mean the stuff will be ordered up. There are other problems associated with the stuff -you mentioned stock piles- that is where such stuff is stored-but have you thought about getting rid of it ? That there presents a whole bunch more questions and problems that never get addressed.

What they do is dig big holes and dump the stuff in than forget about it. Than homes and building even whole communities spring up over the top of that stuff what was secretly put there out of sight out of mind -gone -no longer a problem. 

That is untill the whole community gets sick and die off. Than the corps. lie about what the stuff is and how it got there in the first place. 

Anywhoo,the debate and the question still remains. Congress has lots of full plates and long days to look forword to. Whats that Beatles song the long and winding road .
Back to top Go down
beaver12
October 2013 top poster
October 2013 top poster
avatar

Posts : 3845
Join date : 2013-04-01
Age : 66
Location : nottingham

PostSubject: Re: SHOULD WE OR SHOULDN'T WE ?   Fri Sep 06, 2013 11:26 pm

Rolling Eyes  Quite right Niagra,the long and winding road cool2 im just thinking of all those Millions of pounds,Dollars etc that were poured into the manufactureing of those Chemicals that are used to make that cowards weapon,maybe a few million more could be set aside to manufacture an antidote to nutralize that which man has made,if man can make it they can also unmake it,then dispossile of those so called unwanted weapons can them be put into action,is it a case of writting off A.amount pounds/Dollars,as against spending an aditional amount Pounds / Dollars cool2 How much is a Human life worth cool1 that is the Question that needs answering Shocked or are all Countrys so misstrusting of each other that they just hide what they have ready to be used if they them selfs are attacked with the stuff,yet tell their individual populace that they have dissposed of their stock cool1 i do believe i saw a rainbow coloured pig fly by singing Hallaluya,love me,love you whistle One thing tho i must say,Putins remark about Senetor,john Kerry being a lier when he says that there are no members of Al Queda fighting with the Syrian Rebels,cool2 Sorry to say this but Putins remarks were quite correct,those Rebels do contain ellimeants of Al Queda,they may not call them selfs Al Queda,but they are all former members of Al Queda,with the same objectives,be very wary just who would benifit if those Criuse Missels start a flying,and who after the carnage would then become a real threat to the west with a stronger base to opperate from cool1
Back to top Go down
pandora007
Moderator
Moderator
avatar

Posts : 980
Join date : 2013-01-10
Age : 62
Location : South of The Equator

PostSubject: Re: SHOULD WE OR SHOULDN'T WE ?   Sat Sep 07, 2013 1:51 am

Messrs Cameron and Co have voted for millions of £££££££ in aid for Syrian refugees -  I thought we had no money - we operate food banks in England.......



Evil or Very Mad
Back to top Go down
http://pandora333@hotmail.co.uk
Ladygenie

avatar

Posts : 3342
Join date : 2012-11-16
Age : 57
Location : Yorkshire

PostSubject: Re: SHOULD WE OR SHOULDN'T WE ?   Sat Sep 07, 2013 2:17 am

I'm going to have to smack that niagara's bottom....I viewed the page with I.E....completely stretched with all the emotes whistle
Back to top Go down
niagarafalls
Website Admin
Website Admin
avatar

Posts : 2697
Join date : 2012-11-23

PostSubject: Re: SHOULD WE OR SHOULDN'T WE ?   Sat Sep 07, 2013 4:09 am

Yes in deed lady G. ! The concept is the big picture in full scope.

The topic itself can not be miniturized and it will without a doubt be put to music but not in a way one Russian thought to imagine. 

Key words -strike a note that becomes a cord leading to the finnal act in this theater grandeur which takes place on the world stage. That number plays out to the number nine. That seems to be becoming more-so apparent.

There are surprises yet to enter into the big picture -thats about what did happen happened and it's because. That is what isn't on the table. 

There is a why did it happen question that has not been officially addressed because as of yet -it is believed no one knows for sure or if they do there is no concrete proofs. 

The question- what started the chemical attacks ? Why do the rebels want to manufacture that stuff and at what point in time did the THREAT take it holds . 

Logic seems to indicate that Assad's regime started the onset.
Did it begin with threats of dyer consequences ? Could it have been escalated by movement within the those stock piles -perhaps testing of the rockets ? Did the rebels decided that fighting fire with fire is the way to go ? 

You see it becomes clear both sides in the conflict has aims at chemical weapons.

Where does it begin and where does it end ?
That is the question.
The problem is ,finding the solution.

We must ask, do we really want to have chemical residue floating through the air eventually coming up on us like radiation does in our air and in our waters ? Can the world afford this ?

Just look at all lies surrounding Fukishuima and Chernopel and all other nuclear inncidents and accidents.

Lifes and half lives all of which really remains to the unknown and eludes undeniable facts.That leaves us to ponder nothing more than a string of unfathomable therioes few of which hold water if any. 

Chernopel blew up befer it melted down ,that is fact now.But it a took an accident/inncident to strike down the theory.

And people are still facing death as a result of it.
And that too is in the lyrics of the song as well as the instrumental.Pardon me fer saying so but some Russian's are incredibly stupid.

Of if that was a shot at Russian humor it was a total flop-one Russian really needs to be usshered off the stage and with a quickness.Thrown off quite literally.

Basketball
Back to top Go down
beaver12
October 2013 top poster
October 2013 top poster
avatar

Posts : 3845
Join date : 2013-04-01
Age : 66
Location : nottingham

PostSubject: Re: SHOULD WE OR SHOULDN'T WE ?   Sat Sep 07, 2013 10:20 am

Rolling Eyes Well it would seem that those elimeants of Al Queda that senitor John Kerry say do not exist within the Syrian rebel force have waved a majic wand accrocadabra and have if by at the hand of a member of the majic circle and in a puff of smoke appeared and have set to attacking a village slaughtering its inhabitants,murdering them infact,and guess what that village is a christain peaceful village,once again that loveing hand thats held out to Christains holds a gun,and Christain lifes are forfet yet again,does that not say some thing as to these groups aims for the future of that land,Arab land,those same sentimeants are expressed to in places like Pakistan,and other far flung places were these murderers opperate,life to them is cheap,we can all see this by the way they often use a living Human beings body as a means to take other inocent lifes in their name with a promice to the stupid bomber of a life in the here after,a life in paradice Shocked a life in Hell more like Twisted Evil another soldier rallys to Satens ranks,so i would not put it past them to have released this chemical gass them selfs on inocent people in the dead of night hopeing that us in the West,or should i say our stupid so called leaders,would rally round and do their fighting for them,and take down Assads force,thus leaving the place wide open for them to take control,laughing all the way as they ride through the streets of Damascus fireing off the AK.47s and whooping their Heads of while at the same time lopping off a good few of Assads mens Heads off in celabration,will they succead,well looks like Obama is not getting much support on the G.20 from other Nations except France who is sucking up some thing cronick,and supprise,supprise Saudie,and the Emerates both suspect Millitant supporters and pay masters on the Q.T. will Oil deals clinch millitary involvemeant,will money talk more than any thing else,lovely World we live in dont you think,thank God most are in favour of backing off,will Obama,and will john Kerry shut his Gob for once,time will tell.Shocked
Back to top Go down
beaver12
October 2013 top poster
October 2013 top poster
avatar

Posts : 3845
Join date : 2013-04-01
Age : 66
Location : nottingham

PostSubject: Re: SHOULD WE OR SHOULDN'T WE ?   Sat Sep 07, 2013 10:32 am

Rolling Eyes  Oh and just for the record im not in support of Assad and his military,he and his Generals are evil murders just the same as those he apposess,they are all just as bad as each other,so better off letting them fight it out them selfs and we can save the lifes of our own men and women by not sending them in to yet another pointless war which only breeds more hate.cool2
Back to top Go down
niagarafalls
Website Admin
Website Admin
avatar

Posts : 2697
Join date : 2012-11-23

PostSubject: Re: SHOULD WE OR SHOULDN'T WE ?   Sat Sep 07, 2013 2:44 pm

Well now Beaver yer position is noted and no doubt you can see how difficult it is to try to make some kind of sense out of senselessness.At every turn in it you find nothing more than a nonsesical paradox that you yerself ferever keep walking into. That is all the you's that try to take it apart in order to try to find out what it all means. 

Fact is we don't know very much about their civil unrest -their war. We don't know all that much about their customs and since really it isn't all that much of a concern ,we rely on the NEWS  which is lies much of time. So we read through the news and try to cipher it or make sense of it. 

We were not invited to that long lengthy dinner the g20 put on so we haven't a clue what really was discussed.We look at the news .

There is an old saying in baseball what says-it ain't over till it's over. On Tuesday president Obama will make a televised address to the people and of course the world is invited to watch-attend and the case will be presented to the people.

The president's words will be placed under the micro scope and word for word will be analyzed in parts through to the context.

But between now and than there is another saying that's been around a while, and that is -,anything can happen. 

Convincing the people to support this strike will be as difficult or more difficult that the g20 was.

Something makes him sure he is on the right track-but can he convince the people that certainty is at the end of that long and winding road ? That is the question.

He will have to put on a convincing side to the issues practically demonstrating that the inevitable is also apparent.That rains down the droplets of another world war in the minds of many. 
On a side note-if the inevitable is apparent in a most certain way, than the people are in a as a matter of fact way,- entitled to know.

There is considerable fear moungering going on over here acrossed the pond  

At any rate we shall see what unfolds.
And the curtin will rise again in this theater granduer on the world stage.
Back to top Go down
Ladygenie

avatar

Posts : 3342
Join date : 2012-11-16
Age : 57
Location : Yorkshire

PostSubject: Re: SHOULD WE OR SHOULDN'T WE ?   Sat Sep 07, 2013 5:28 pm

If it begins with chemical weapons then it will be nuclear missiles next and you know what? I believe that our Government knew that it was coming before all the "talks" began.
Back to top Go down
niagarafalls
Website Admin
Website Admin
avatar

Posts : 2697
Join date : 2012-11-23

PostSubject: Re: SHOULD WE OR SHOULDN'T WE ?   Sat Sep 07, 2013 6:58 pm

Some or even very many believe it is all part of a grand plan.
Some believe the banksters are behind it all.
those banks wto and all.

But yer right ,the nuclear threat is most serious.

There can be no grand plan if those kind of bombs start fly'en.

The g20 could not arrive at an alternate fix,they simply advised Obama not to do the strike. That says do nothing.

If there is a good case to present you can bet there will be a rather large extended audience.  Information and opinions will be fly'en on the internet come Tuesday.

From what it looks like there is not a lot of public support over here. I say looks like based on opinions to be found ,but as you can figure,the main stream media outlets are not doing serious polling about it. However the constituencies are very direct and quite pointed about opposition to the strike.


How the peoples opinion will effect the vote remains to question ,but how the voting will go at the polls during election season is fear itself to the politican. 

The writers at the white house will be busy this weekend,actually frantic busy. Intell may play a key roll .
Again anything can happen between now and Tuesday.
The point to addressing the people is to get the information out there.
Back to top Go down
beaver12
October 2013 top poster
October 2013 top poster
avatar

Posts : 3845
Join date : 2013-04-01
Age : 66
Location : nottingham

PostSubject: Re: SHOULD WE OR SHOULDN'T WE ?   Sat Sep 07, 2013 7:56 pm

Rolling Eyes  Point taken Niagra,but does any one know any thing thats set in stone,know the whole truth,i dont think even those in so called possitions of power know the whole truth,so how can the real truth be known,that truth shifts possition on an hourly basis on all sides,in effect its a right cock up from start to the eventual finish what ever that is going to be,and there is one day going to be a finish,then the name calling,the acusations,the finger pointing,the blame will be thrown at each other,with no doubt the victors opinion and possition out weighing the vanquished as per usual,the truth of the matter brushed away to be hidden and forgotten in history like all such conflicts of the past have since records began,then that brush will be cleaned put away untill the next conflict,and another conflict will as history can confirm will be only a matter of time,then the war game will again be played out,i wonder if those targets that are or most probley all ready have been picked out for a strike,and probley also antisipated by Assad,whats to stop Assad if it is true that his forces are the guilty ones who fired of those chemical bombs,from storeing some of the evidence within the confines of those targeted buildings,just waiting for the U.S to start fireing of those cruises,and bombs from aircraft,then who gets the resulting blame when many,many more people including women and children die a horrendus death from the resulting chemical gas cloud,there are no winners in war,just so many victims of mans stupidity,the media can and does say and make people believe what they are told to write by those who controle those presess,the power of the press is a powerful tool if used with skilled hands,thats were all the confussion stems from,all sides only report whats inportent to them with so much twisting of the trueth to suit,a lot of that so called truth is the truth as told the media by those in power that would not know how to tell the real truth if it hit them between the eyes,so the media,whats to rearly believe,all as true,some trueth,half trueth,and elimeant of trueth,or just a pack of lifes,what ever stage of trueth there may be,there will all ways be those that will believe one part of it,so know one gets the whole picture rearly,like i said what is the trueth.cool2
Back to top Go down
niagarafalls
Website Admin
Website Admin
avatar

Posts : 2697
Join date : 2012-11-23

PostSubject: Re: SHOULD WE OR SHOULDN'T WE ?   Sat Sep 07, 2013 8:04 pm

The truth Beaver is what eludes us wave
Back to top Go down
Ladygenie

avatar

Posts : 3342
Join date : 2012-11-16
Age : 57
Location : Yorkshire

PostSubject: Re: SHOULD WE OR SHOULDN'T WE ?   Sat Sep 07, 2013 8:13 pm

Cameron was very keen for the U.K to agree to go in and you could see he was not a happy bunny when the vote went against him.

I'm afraid to say that I think both Cameron and Obama have been in collusion with each other before the talks began about the Syrian crisis....well this time Cameron didn't get his own way and I'm hoping that Obama doesn't either.

As sad and terrible as it is about what's happening in Syria, the U.K isn't strong with the amount of military forces we have left after Cameron made 1000s of them redundant.

We have also seen how easy it is for it to spill over to the U.K and for a British soldier to be murdered and decapitated by terrorist supporters.

The U.K has it's own problems that Cameron should be sorting out e.g the British children who are now going hungry because of all of his cuts in benefits and bedroom tax etc etc.

Britain has done more than it's fair share of trying to help other countries, it's time for the U.K stand back now.
Back to top Go down
niagarafalls
Website Admin
Website Admin
avatar

Posts : 2697
Join date : 2012-11-23

PostSubject: Re: SHOULD WE OR SHOULDN'T WE ?   Sat Sep 07, 2013 8:21 pm

That is exactly the opinion of very many over here LG.
Back to top Go down
Ladygenie

avatar

Posts : 3342
Join date : 2012-11-16
Age : 57
Location : Yorkshire

PostSubject: Re: SHOULD WE OR SHOULDN'T WE ?   Sat Sep 07, 2013 8:34 pm

and I don't think either America or the U.K can afford to upset Russia either as they won't hesitate to use nuclear weapons No
Back to top Go down
beaver12
October 2013 top poster
October 2013 top poster
avatar

Posts : 3845
Join date : 2013-04-01
Age : 66
Location : nottingham

PostSubject: Re: SHOULD WE OR SHOULDN'T WE ?   Sat Sep 07, 2013 10:21 pm

I think all Countrys should consontrait on their own boarder surcurity and look after their own,and not to go pokeing their noses into others disputes when they are not wonted or needed,the only exception being that which the United Nations was originaly set up to achive,a World peace keeping force for all,a place were all partys that have issues with others can go and submit their complaints and be helped to come to some form of agreemeant,all internal issues of any Country to be conducted with out any outside influence unless asked for,if asked for then the grivances then forwarded on to the U.N.for consideration,any Country found to be using weapons band under international law,like the use of Chemical weapons,or found to have stockpiles of such weapons and others that come within this scope like Napalme that was extensivly used during the vietnam war and would have but for the actions taken by the S.A.S. have been used during the Falkland war between Britain and Argentina by the Argentines,be looked on with disfavour and count against that Country in the U.N Final decission on wether or not a vote to take action be ratiffied,and for any members who have close ties with any waring Countrys be bound by a majority U.N vote,it would be very over optomistic of me to hope that Nuke weapons would also be added to that list of Band weapons,is this not what the U.N was set up for in the first place,seems a good idea,so why are some so intent on takeing indipendent actions that in real terms are aggressive acts of war,the only real losers being those poor souls on the ground caught between the bullets and the bombs who just wont a peaceful life.cool2 Some tho say that the U.N is nothing more than a paper Tiger,maby that could just be true judgeing on how slow they are at things when the pace of things moves at speed,maybe those sitting behind those U.N seats are to busy with their expensive lavish dinners and enjoying all that lovely cash they are paid to rearly put the effert thats needed in and linger out the overtime while people suffer,maybe thats why there is a growing frustration at the U.N which promotes indipendent actions being taken,which could be a very dangerous path for any one to take,its that long and winding road again with fog in between that affects visabiltiy.cool2
Back to top Go down
Ladygenie

avatar

Posts : 3342
Join date : 2012-11-16
Age : 57
Location : Yorkshire

PostSubject: Re: SHOULD WE OR SHOULDN'T WE ?   Sun Sep 08, 2013 5:21 am

There's a division already in the U.N over the Syria crisis, either way, any country or countries take part in any attack on Syria that will cause a wider division and we'll see a major and worse conflict happen.

If Cameron or Obama can't see that or are ignoring that then it shows that all they're interested in is looking powerful.

Little boys who want to play war.
Back to top Go down
niagarafalls
Website Admin
Website Admin
avatar

Posts : 2697
Join date : 2012-11-23

PostSubject: Re: SHOULD WE OR SHOULDN'T WE ?   Sun Sep 08, 2013 1:11 pm

Protests to war are happening over here-there just isn't much if any popular support for a strike of any kind.

But if you look at the Russian fleet movement tword Syrian waters ,it just might gain you insight into whats at stake. 

There is more to it that is said.

I expect we will get some eye opening information in the next two days prior to the presidential address on Tuesday. Opinions,views are shifting regards g20 as more details come to light. 

This is not to say there is anything good about a military strike -but we are seeing the old standoffishness of that old soviet mentality.

There are surprises in the works.
As it stands there just isn't the votes in congress for the green light on this one. 

Constituencies.

cof:
Back to top Go down
beaver12
October 2013 top poster
October 2013 top poster
avatar

Posts : 3845
Join date : 2013-04-01
Age : 66
Location : nottingham

PostSubject: Re: SHOULD WE OR SHOULDN'T WE ?   Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:20 pm

There is all ways more to things than meets the eye,whats joe public got to do with the way of things,we are just the porns in the wider scope of things,tools to meet the ends so to speak,whats the lives of the bottom 95% of the Worlds populas,they are just there to do what the top 5% bid them to do,slaves and we are all lead to not believe that,yes slaves,modern day slaves,there is a Middle class to thoe,of the top 5% i would put it that 3% constitute the Middle ruleing Class,that leaves 2% at the top cool2 ahr but is the Number one spot rearly at the top of the pile,or is that top spot well Hidden within the lower ranks,maby thats why they,the Ghost leaders are where they are,well Hidden yet reap the all the rewards going World wide,known only by those who need to know yet maintain a close finger on the right Buttons to press at any given time,and at any location World wide,a thing of fantasy you might say,maybe so,but then again cool2 Yes the Russian Fleet,well a ship or two above the waves,maybe one or two belowe also,and probly afew Metal birds with talons Hovering around,well Syria is their only base in the Med for their visiting fleet isnt it,or is it cool2 Syria+Iran cool2 think about it,both well possitioned nicely for the former Soviat Union,are they missing those good old days of the Cold War,just took a break so as to stock up and learn,update their increaseingly out dated Tecnologies,which the Good Ole U.S.of A then helped provide after the apparant fall of the iron curtain and an apparent rush towards Democrassey,same to with some other Countrys also,the Islamists have well embraced the Modern way of things and use their new Nollage to good effect,maybe even Russia needs to keep a close eye on them also,as they have a habit of biteing any ones hand even their own,yes there is more to what is going on over the Syrian issue and beyond Syria,well we the joe public,why should we be told the whole trueth,we are just the cannon fodder cool2 and the game goes on cool2 any one know the pressant score,is it 15.love,or Duce dont think Game set and match is in sight just yet,maybe new Tennis balls please Ball Boy and a wink at the Umpire Suspect Suspect
Back to top Go down
niagarafalls
Website Admin
Website Admin
avatar

Posts : 2697
Join date : 2012-11-23

PostSubject: Re: SHOULD WE OR SHOULDN'T WE ?   Mon Sep 09, 2013 5:02 am

OK, so, it may have been a rouge act from within Assad's regime. There appears to be indications Assad himself did not authorize or know of the chemical launch. That's one the angles being looked at currrently and that was a matter of topic at the g20 dinner party.Transcripts confirm that.

What we may see in the days ahead as was mentioned early on up thread is defection. There was a recent crossing into Turkey but not by a ranking serving officer of Assad's regime. 

If this happens their is still the issues of Assad not allowing U.N. investigators in there to get to the buttom on what went down.That makes him guilty in the associative aspect of the crime. As you recall he held up the process.

If it's a rouge act carried out by one or a number of ranking members of Assad's forces that plan on joining the rebels, that could mean Assad is not really winning at all as was said by Putin.

That theory calls into play the trap.And if it holds water,Assad has no clue who is loyal in his regime and who is not.
Which also indicates his power is figurative.

The Powder KEG.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: SHOULD WE OR SHOULDN'T WE ?   

Back to top Go down
 
SHOULD WE OR SHOULDN'T WE ?
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 4Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
UKChattabout.co.uk :: Community General Chat :: Debates-
Jump to: