Maybe George Bush ratings for the war on Iraq gives an incline as to why they decided what to do. http://news.gallup.com/poll/8119/rally-boosting-bush-approval-ratings.aspx
4 dead already at least some got what they wanted. Maybe when it's all over the Queen can invite Assad to be get house guest again at Buckingham Palace.
Nah, it's the Brexit bus money up in smoke... These magic money trees grow quick when national security is (or rather isn't) threatened.
Irony? Or are you really sure we would bomb Saudi Arabia if they used banned weapons? It destroys evidence as to whether the places bombed did have chemical weapons. You've not read the thread. If there were chemical weapons there, what happens to the chemicals released?
Just found this article from 2013. Interesting reading about the oil pipelines: https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines
Iran, Iraq and Lebanese Hezbollah. So the countries bordering who don't want a destabalized nation on their doorstep Turkey are too busy killing Kurds and land grabbing to really give a shit about Assad bar he is a neighbour, their intervention is purely in their interests But it's alright our leaders can from afar start shit near 10 years ago across north africa and the middle east, then watch libya fall to bits, Egypt become more hardline and syria completely fucked up, then take the moral stance. I have no idea what has been gained in the last decade by any major power be it the US and Russia, but plenty (of lives) have been lost
Not entirely comfortable with launching strikes without any vote, or in this case even debate, in parliament first.
Seems about right as a response to be fair. Hopefully a few days of political nonsense then all goes quiet.
