Surely you need to be a little mad to be a great leader ?
But not as mad as Milliband cause hes just plain daft..
As Ernie has already pointed out: there wasn't a peep out of them when the israeli's were dropping white phosphorous on Palestinian children, but now appear to be horrified by chemical weapons in Syria.
Forget the comparisons with Iraq. Getting involved in a civil war? An alliance with France? Against an enemy being supported by Russia and China? More Vietnam, than iraq. About the only (of many) American military follies we sensibly stated well out of! We'll be equally as glad we stayed out of this one. The French will soon disappear. Just like they did before.
Someone certainly needs to leads you to enlightenment I will give you that
We had chemical weapons in WW2. So what. The key point is we didn't deploy them
Why do you think we had them - was it just that during the war we thought hey lets waste loads of resources on making something we have no intention whatsoever of ever using and then secretly store it.
Clearly it was made because it would have been used - presumably if we were invaded or as a last cause or some such.
Thats exactly their intention Junkyard. Churchill directed the project.
The storage facility still exists. Search 28days later forum.
I'm glad Churchill directed that particular project, its what I'd expect a great leader to do.
so you must like the great syrian leader even more as not only did he do this he also deployed them
Saddam Hussein was too daft to realise that all great leaders have a ready supply of chemical weapons.
But President Assad reminds me a little of Winston Churchill. It's those great leadership qualities I think.
No Churchill had the foresight to protect this country by whatever means if we were invaded. As i said, a great leader.....
Assad has done exactly the same thing so why is not a great leader?
Are we really comparing assad with Churchill???
Come on now, that's pretty disgraceful.
Yep, as I said ..... Saddam Hussein lacked those great leadership qualities. What sort of pisspoor leader had no chemical weapons ready to use when their country is invaded ?
Bashar al-Assad on the other hand.........Churchillian stature
Are we really comparing assad with Churchill???
Well yes. Apparently great leaders have chemical weapons ready to be used if their country is invaded.
Just exposing the hatred junkyard and ernie have for their own country 😉
Well yes. Apparently great leaders have chemical weapons ready to be used if their country is invaded.
Should I get some for my house? Just in case?
I think the real baddy is whoever supplied those chemical weapons in the full knowledge of how they worked.
We should declare war on them.
Oh....
🙂
....that'll be Russia then.
A time of war is no time to start trusting your enemy - you have to cover all bases to protect your own skin. Its kill or be killed time. Of course if Hitler was successful in landing troops on the ground in England and we had become entranced in a WW1 style trench warfare and Hitler started chucking chemical weapons around, then we were prepared to retaliate - but it is worth noting that during the whole of WW2 both sides did not resort to using chemical weapons in open combat - though unfortunately they gassed the Jews in the camps. There is a gulf of difference between covering your options and bases, and actually using the things.
Assad clearly is a great leader just as Hitler was. He's managed to stay in charge through this whole crisis so far, so people are prepared to follow him, just as a whole nation followed Hitler into a World War, i'm sure against their better personal judgements. They were great leaders, though their aims and objectives are clearly wrong and abhorrent.
Are we really comparing assad with Churchill???
bloodynora seems to be
Should I get some for my house? Just in case?
Best find out whether bloody nora likes you or not so I can decide if it is good or bad.
Of course if Hitler was successful in landing troops on the ground in England
I assume you mean Britain when you say England there?
F me, Hammond is talking like he's actually experienced something other than comfy university, boardrooms and parliament. As if he's has a *ing clue what soldiers think. What a Jeremy hunt.
bloodynora - MemberJust exposing the hatred junkyard and ernie have for their own country
Well nora you didn't mention either me or Junkyard. You only mentioned Churchill.
And you mentioned Churchill only to point out that you expect "great leaders" to have chemical weapons at their disposal ready to use if threatened.
Only someone with your level of logic would think that it was a good idea to make that point on a thread which is discussing how to deal with President Assad alleged use of chemical weapons.
So I guess it's well in keeping with your irrational logic to claim that what you were in fact really saying was that me and Junkyard hate our country.
[img] 
[/img]
What's the calm down comment for zippykona ? Nora seems very relaxed adding winkies to his post, and I find his comments hugely entertaining.
And meanwhile, the Syrian civil war goes on, with no idea or plan on how to bring it to an end, other than firing a limited number of cruise missiles at them for a bit and hoping for the best 🙁
Is it me or is the BBC being particularly hawkish on Syria? More graphic images, emotive tone and language than I can remember for a long time, although granted video phones allow access to more raw footage. Feels like there are a few over eager editors with agendas. Watching Newsnight, there was a slow zooming shot into the face of a clearly distressed aid worker just back from the scene of the presumed napalm attack.
[quote=athgray ]Is it me or is the BBC being particularly hawkish on Syria? More graphic images, emotive tone and language than I can remember for a long time, although granted video phones allow access to more raw footage. Feels like there are a few over eager editors with agendas. Watching Newsnight, there was a slow zooming shot into the face of a clearly distressed aid worker just back from the scene of the presumed napalm attack.
My perception is that they are publishing a lot more pro-war tweets on their sites than anti, but maybe that's just reflecting what they are receiving.
There is a gulf of difference between covering your options and bases, and actually using the things.
If Churchill was saving all of those chemical weapons for when Britain was invaded, then why didn't he use them for when Britain was invaded? The Channel Islands and other British territory was occupied by fascist Germany. If Syrian territory has been invaded and occupied for years (the Golan Heights), what does that mean for the use of chemical weapons in Syria?
There are a few closet plastic Commies on here. For its many faults at least our democracy isnt as deeply flawed as junkyards dream.
If Churchill was saving all of those chemical weapons for when Britain was invaded, then why didn't he use them for when Britain was invaded?
Genuine guess here. But because the Channel Islands don't mean squat in comparison to mainland Britain. The cost and risks associated with deploying them would not ave justified any potential gains.
I don't think there in Britain.
And Churchill.
How great he is depends on how blinkered you wish to be with his involvement with Britains Imperial past. And additionally how much navel gazing you wish to do.
Man of his times that's for sure. Regardless, I'd quite like to read a book about his life. If only for his little South African jolly.
Read about him. Genuine balls taking a demotion fighting on the front KNOWING the odds from being in management previously.
Churchill....awesome, we could do with another of his stature.
Todays politicians are pygmies in comparison, nobody seems to govern on principle any more, running the country seems to be about monitoring the opinion polls for changes and responding accordingly with what they think the public wants.
Isn't that the point of democracy? To give the public what it wants?
molgrips earlier
But is a government, even one elected with a majority, ever expected to have the will of the pepole ALL the time? Surely that's unreasonable?
There are a few closet plastic Commies on here.
I am not a communist[ not according to Marx anyway and I defre to him over you on this issue] but I do believe the wealth of the planet should be shared out equally so we dont have staving people- I can see why that makes you mock me though 🙄
I dont think my political views could be described as in the closet either.
For its many faults at least our democracy isnt as deeply flawed as junkyards dream.
If you must stoop to a childish ad homs could you make it specific enough for me to know WTF you mean?
Is it me or is the BBC being particularly hawkish on Syria? More graphic images, emotive tone and language than I can remember for a long time, although granted video phones allow access to more raw footage. Feels like there are a few over eager editors with agendas.
Tony Blair's military adventure into Iraq over 10 years ago was a badly planned disaster based on lies and misinformation. Iraqis are still dying at the rate of more than 30 a day as a consequence of this.
But the only person who actually lost their job due to the blunders and failings that was the Iraq War, was the Director-General of the BBC. He was sacked because the BBC dared to suggest that what is now universally known as the dodgy dossier was "sexed up" by the government.
The British government under Tony Blair was not prepared to tolerate the BBC challenging or questioning the lies and misinformation which they had used to justify going to war.
They saw the role of the BBC as loyally disseminating government propaganda, not seeking the truth. The Director-General of the BBC paid the price and the BBC learnt a lesson it's never forgotten.
Today the BBC is a more timid organisation and more reluctant to challenge the government's narrative on major international issues.
Another disastrous and damaging legacy of Tony Blair's premiership.
