personally I don't think it matters a zot if they did or didn't use chemical weapons.
We have seen the folly of going after WMD's before ------- why repeat the same mistake?
And if you insist ---- wouldn't you have to go for regime change?
Can we really expect to get a positive result from throwing a few missiles into chemical weapons dumps (that we are 'sure' exist) - in a limited, narrow action?
What do we hope to achieve? - teach bad puppy a lesson?
Destroy the said chemical dumps? - hmmmm, how do you destroy a chemical dump in a populated area without mass casualty?
Ok, you can target accurately - but we are not just talking about destroying structure here - we are supposedly talking about destroying agents --------- sounds like a lot of heat needed to me ----------------- and a lot of pollution -
dropping all over the people we are supposed to be protecting.
And then? Bugger off home - saying, now don't do it again!
Come on ---------- when did that happen?
This is stupidity on a grand scale and the support for USA is small ----------- and getting smaller.
Crikey, even the French have pulled the pin -- something I thought they wouldn't do because the POMS said no early - normally the French would say go because the POMS said no -
but, now, they are saying lets wait to read the report - hmmmm. Backing out of the kneejerk - very unusual for the Frogs.
All particularly silly really - no matter what is done, atrocities will continue in Syria like they have for thousands of years - sad, but true.
I suppose in a way it's a good thing if the US strikes - gives Kerry something to do -------- if he got bored he might just bomb Tasmania - absolute haven of anti US sentiment :)
