That wouldn’t happen if Modi was in power then.
Originally posted by @pap
Bombing rarely solves anything.
With due respect, Pap, that’s not what you said on the Russia thread. On the Russia thread you advocated bombing as the only way of solving the problem in Syria. Even though there was consistent evidence that the Russians weren’t actually focussing on ISIS but instead the Syrian dissidents of Asaad, and civilians in those territories. Your take was keeping Asaad in power was the only way of resolving the ISIS problem in Syria. I’m paraphrasing and not pulling your actual quotes, so please do correct me if I’m wrong.
But it gives the impression that you’re fine with bombs as long as they don’t come from the West. Let’s at least be straight up with this.
My auntie is Algerian and has lived in Lyon for 60 years, she is incredibly sad on so many accounts concerning this, no bombs.
Survation poll. Interesting reading for the hawks; the British public is only behind action in Syria if it’s UN backed. Only 15% support the French strategy.
Some more interesting polls, but bear in mind the small sample frame of about 1500.
Cameron’s prepared to ignore all that, though.
I’ve just re-read that entire thread, including my own posts. Where have I said what you’ve claimed I’ve said?
I am totally against bombing Syria but it could never go to the UN anyway as it would get vetoed by the corrupt Russians keeping their puppet there, I’m with stay the fuck out and getting on with our own lives. Whatever the West does we get shafted by the liberal sandal wearers so lets please them and ourselves and stay the fuck out of others business.
This is because they didn’t research it properly, they just did it ‘On a Raqqa tip’.