captain kirk Posted September 2, 2013 Author Share Posted September 2, 2013 UN deputy chief denies US claims: Syria did not delay chemical weapons inspections Publicerat den 2 september 2013 kl 15:18 US Secretary of State John Kerry has repeatedly accused the Syrian government of delaying UN inspections of the alleged chemical weapons attacks outside Damascus. But that was never the case, UN Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson said on Saturday, describing the discussions with the Syrian government as ”one of the quickest negotiations we have had”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 Its quite good watching Miliband gradually realise he made a c**t of himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain kirk Posted September 2, 2013 Author Share Posted September 2, 2013 Its quite good watching Miliband gradually realise he made a c**t of himself. 20 years late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blanco Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 the yanks are going full retard. the chemical attack in damascus "was an indirect attack on america's security" according senator robert menendez. these people are insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAFC Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Indirect attack on Americas grip on control over syria and most of he middle east. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboMikey Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 We should fire some friendship missiles over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbornbairn Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 We should get the popcorn out and enjoy the show. This one's not costing us anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Indirect attack on Americas grip on control over syria and most of he middle east. The US doesn't control Syria, but does have key client states in the Middle East. That is how major global powers operate: dry your eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Maybe China have the right idea. Stay out of countries you haven't already conquered (Tibet), deal with countries equally and non-judgementally unless they bring up the aforementioned T word, and suck them dry of raw materials in return for a crappy railway. Bit like what we used to do. America used to love dictators, what's up with them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Maybe China have the right idea. Stay out of countries you haven't already conquered (Tibet), deal with countries equally and non-judgementally unless they bring up the aforementioned T word, and suck them dry of raw materials in return for a crappy railway. Bit like what we used to do. America used to love dictators, what's up with them? they still love them in saudia arabia, the u.a.e and egypt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Aye, weird that they're taking the Sunni side, especially after 9/11. Thought they had fracking oil of their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Maybe China have the right idea. Stay out of countries you haven't already conquered (Tibet), This the same China that since WWII has invaded Vietnam, fought in the Korean War, fought border wars with Russia\USSR, Taiwan and India, heavily supported guerillas in Rhodesia\ Zimbabwe, currently very heavily involved in many African countries. The reason China is not as balls deep into other countries shite as the US is due to lack of funds, military power and not being around to pick up the post colonial roles in the 50 and 60s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Maybe China have the right idea. Stay out of countries you haven't already conquered (Tibet), deal with countries equally and non-judgementally unless they bring up the aforementioned T word, and suck them dry of raw materials in return for a crappy railway. Bit like what we used to do. America used to love dictators, what's up with them? China 'stays out' of Tibet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 This the same China that since WWII has invaded Vietnam, fought in the Korean War, fought border wars with Russia\USSR, Taiwan and India, heavily supported guerillas in Rhodesia\ Zimbabwe, currently very heavily involved in many African countries. The reason China is not as balls deep into other countries shite as the US is due to lack of funds, military power and not being around to pick up the post colonial roles in the 50 and 60s. Lack of funds eh! What military adventures have they undertaken in the last quarter century? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Lack of funds eh! And the laughing..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Well they certainly have funds now, and I don't think they've bombed anyone for a while. Maybe because they take capitalism more seriously as new believers, and find it cheaper to secure their raw materials through bribery and cooperation than trying to enforce their will with military might. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorlomin Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Well they certainly have funds now, and I don't think they've bombed anyone for a while. They dont you moron. Their defense spending is only about a par with the UKs when they have 3 ongoing border disputes with countries they have recently been to war with: Taiwan, Russia and India plus two low level internal insurgencies in Tibet and the Uighur population that they have to provide forces to cover. They also have hostilities with the potent Japanese navy, various territorial disputes with the Philippines and Vietnam plus the need to muster a credible deterrent to the US in their home waters. How someone is dim enough to think that given those circumstance, a very limited blue water navy, no real airlift capacity to speak off, they should be expected to be getting themselves into expeditionary warfare beyond their immediate sphere of influence is anyone's guess. They are not more active in the world largely because they have no physical ability to be aggressive and active. Where they can confidently project force, they have been over the past few years, as far as they think they can get away with with the US. On the other hand the are blowing tens of billions and more a year on soft power influence in peripheral spheres like Africa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 No need to be rude. When were they last at war with Russia, India or Taiwan? It's like saying Britain was recently fighting in Aden or Malaysia. China has changed massively since the post WW2 era, Russia is no longer a threat, ideology is no longer a motivation. For prosperity and growth they need good relations with their customers, the West, and their suppliers, everyone else. War just messes that up. P.S. You mentioned that China's defence spending is on par with the UK. Their GDP is more than 3 times ours. Which proves they're a bunch of peace loving hippies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain kirk Posted September 5, 2013 Author Share Posted September 5, 2013 Al Qaeda linked rebels attack Christian village in Syria , this story has been reported on RT and AJ yet to see it on Western media ,obviously not a suitable subject! http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_24020992/al-qaida-linked-rebels-attack-village-syria http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qn6Snf__nxY&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DQn6Snf__nxY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.