Chemical weapons that kill 150 or ordinary weapons that kill 50,000? I don't really see the need to distinguish in the way that William Hague does. White phosphorous is not an ordinary weapon when used to kill civilians, though America and Israel would perhaps like it to be. Regardless, Israel did use it. Syria's chemical weapons are still largely in the realm of propaganda than anything tenable.
As for Greenbeanz, I am not trying to score points. I am posting a political thread on a boxing forum, I am expressing my honest point of view. I don't believe that the rebels should be armed. They have eaten a dead soldiers intestines, does that sound like the Robin Hood posse that will eventually want to be warm and cosy with Middle England? It's NONE of our business and we are falling into the same old traps.
If we are to be supporting rebels then I ask for consistency, support the Palestinians and the Bahraini's too. Otherwise, you are a hypocrite nation with a proven track record of telling porkies. We practially ignore countries that DO have nukes and a proven track record of invading its neighbors.Oh, but we like that. We don't even just invade our neighbors we make up things and invade countries far, far away.
The agendas are obvious and people in Britain and America know the score. They are against arming the rebels as polls show. Most of the Middle East is against it too, but the will of the people is once again swept aside by the dictarorial war drum powers of Britain and America. Is the the majority of the world just trying to score points, because if we erase my views and those of Kirkland, we still have everyone here against arming the rebels and the majority of the people around the world too.
Bookmarks