still waiting for all these links from you and wrencat...

I've stopped replying to him.

His reply to me above, for example, which demonstrates yet again he can only be an utter imbecile or a troll. The jury is out.

What link have you asked from me? Go on, quote your post where you have asked me?

Regards

King James

Sound advice.

Why is it May can’t find money for the NHS, or pensioners or school meals but can always find a hundred million to launch a load of missiles when trump asks her? Or a billion to save her party of course

Regards

King James

This made me laugh and it’s Cronus to a Tee but the only evidence so far to prove it was Assad that used chemical weapons is from France, who have claimed that after reviewing photos they have concluded it was Syria. Utterly laughable

Regards

King James

It seems the chemicals used were not nerve agents but chlorine. Bombing factories might be symbolic, but Assad can just nip to Boyes & buy some more. I am touched that Trump & Co are so appalled by the use of chemicals. Presumably he was equally upset when the US coalition used white phosphorus in civilian neighbourhoods in Raqqa last year?

I can buy Chlorine GAS in Boyes??

Only just seen the PM's speech to the nation regarding the Syrian attack.
It was cringeworthy at best.
Reminded me of Blair at his most insincere.
Yuk!

Blair = Looked demented with them gleaming eyes and mangled up mouth smile.
May = Looks and sounds totally neurotic to me. She could burst into tears and have a mental breakdown at any given moment.

You don't buy it in gas form. It is illegal to transport chlorine gas in a number of countries, though that probably wouldn't bother Assad too much. It has to be pressurised & cooled for storage & transportation in liquid form. So look next to the yoghurts.

The general consensus based on initial evidence seems to be that chlorine and sarin were both used in the attack. Chlorine is a chemical weapon - a 'choking agent'. Sarin, as I'm sure you're aware, is a nerve agent. Use of both are illegal according to international law - the Geneva Protocol of 1925 and the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention.

Chlorine attacks - normally via barrel bomb - are not uncommon in Syria, however they have been largely ignored as chlorine is a common chemical and cannot therefore be easily regulated or traced, and because it requires higher concentrations and longer exposure it tends to injure rather than kill. The relatively high number of deaths and indeed the symptoms of many victims on this occasion point to a nerve agent.

I'm sure Assad could ultimately still produce and use sarin in the future. However, by destroying existing production and storage facilities we damage his ability to do so. It also sends a message to him and his Russian cronies that they cannot act with impunity.

Going to the UN is utterly pointless as Russia vetoes everything. That's why Corbyn's hand-wringing is nothing but empty words. Nothing will change the fact Assad will win this war, but if the international community sits back and ignores sarin attacks a very dangerous precedent is being set. The strong international reaction to the Salisbury attack shows just how seriously nerve agent attacks are viewed.

FFS, when the French are leading the charge you know there must be a strong case.

so, your point was?

I'm not sure she's the worst Prime Minister, but she has to be the worst dancer!

Why didn't she just politely decline instead of doing that ridiculous "thing"

She needs to stop going on flights of fancy & concentrate on the job in hand, or we'll end up been taken down the ultra-right wing path by default.