President Donald Trump

[rigsby]

While it's true that I reluctantly supported Trump¡'s punitive airstrikes a year ago (and I'm quite happy to admit I was mistaken then as recent events have proved) it's an absolute lie to suggest that I advocated "boots on the ground" in Syria or elsewhere,especially in Iraq.

FWIW,I happen to think that only those nations that have risked their own ground troops in Syria (ie Russia,Iran as well as Assad) have a legitimate right to be represented at the peace talks which will inevitably follow the eventual termination of the civil war in Syria.That's presumably why Cameron was so desperate to get involved back in 2013.Doubtless the USA (and UK) will be making noises off when that time comes, though.

Actually,as I've said before,I've never approved of ground forces being used in Syria unless they followed on from a United Nations resolution to that effect.We're done here I think.

Were not quite done are we. Not if you have publicly called me out for lying.

The good old UN, Politicians around the world can hide behind the US founded and controlled pointless international body and now Tangled hides behind it. Try watching a few speeches by Nikki Haley and you will soon realise why the US has been allowed to bombed over 30 countries since the UN was set up. Iran are next on the list yet they have never attacked anyone so far.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Were not quite done are we. Not if you have publicly called me out for lying.

The good old UN, Politicians around the world can hide behind the US founded and controlled pointless international body and now Tangled hides behind it. Try watching a few speeches by Nikki Haley and you will soon realise why the US has been allowed to bombed over 30 countries since the UN was set up. Iran are next on the list yet they have never attacked anyone so far.

You do keep moving the goalposts.However, you won't find any post of mine which has ever advocated boots on the ground in Syria without UN backing.It was the failure of such a UN resolution,which meant that I (and millions of other leftists throughout the world) could not support the UK/USA intervention in Iraq (also supported by the Spanish government at the time,incidentally).

 

[rigsby]

You do keep moving the goalposts.However, you won't find any post of mine which has ever advocated boots on the ground in Syria without UN backing.It was the failure of such a UN resolution,which meant that I (and millions of other leftists throughout the world) could not support the UK/USA intervention in Iraq (also supported by the Spanish government at the time,incidentally).

Some of us on the so called right wing were against troops going to Iraq, Afghanistan and certainly not Syria whether it was sanctioned by the UN or not.

Claiming you said no such thing and then changing it to only if it was agreed by the UN is deceitful.

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

deleted post

 

[rigsby]

Possibly unlike anyone on this forum I have worked for the UN and also "done" a peace keeping tour. The the UN is NOT US led, mores the pity; however it is largely US funded;- as are most missions.
The UN has so many mission deployment rules and tests that I am amazed anything has ever been passed. Indeed things only seem to happen if a major veto nation (Russia or China?) has walked out in a sulk.
You, Riggers are wrong in pillaring the UN on military intervention missions when that is an almost impossible role to be agreed; and you, TUIB are wrong if you believe a UN mandate would be passed.

When the UN tried to stop Iraq using chemical weapons against the Iranian army, civilians and the Kurds (100,000 casualties) it was the US and Britain who blocked it. Surprise, surprise it was all the western countries that supplied the chemicals and equipment to Saddam at the time.

The US do "encourage" other countries to agree with them by threatening to stop aid or funding in other areas etc.

When you worked for the UN did you have to pay any tax ? Not sure if its still the rule but you never used to.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Possibly unlike anyone on this forum I have worked for the UN and also "done" a peace keeping tour. The the UN is NOT US led, mores the pity; however it is largely US funded;- as are most missions.
The UN has so many mission deployment rules and tests that I am amazed anything has ever been passed. Indeed things only seem to happen if a major veto nation (Russia or China?) has walked out in a sulk.
You, Riggers are wrong in pillaring the UN on military intervention missions when that is an almost impossible role to be agreed; and you, TUIB are wrong if you believe a UN mandate would be passed.

Jim,I suggest you scroll back to post 689 on this thead where I explicity stated no UN resolution for joint intervention in Syria would be passed while Russia was a permanent member of the Security council.

 

[maninasuitcase]

Where have I claimed that?

When did I claim that ?

As for 9/11 like I say do your research. You will have to come out from your suitcase some time and confront your Cognitive Dissonance some time.

To quote George Orwell "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"

Er in your post where you suggested a link between Cook's death a week after he said there was no such thing as Al Qeada.

You really need to keep notes of all your fanatical claims Rigsby.

Still waiting for the evidence that Shrimperzone members helped cover up paedophile rings BTW.

 

[mattitouk]

I see we have the pleasure of Donald Trumps company on Friday 13th July (of all dates)...what could possibly go wrong! :sad:

 

[MK Shrimper]

Bottles of **** at the ready troops.

 

[GBJ]

Bottles of **** at the ready troops.

Although I know you're not serious, along with thousands of other of your like minded fellows, it intrigues me nonetheless, that lefties have such double standards & inconsistencies.

Where was the outrage & violence-inciting-hyperbole, when the King of Saudi visited a few months ago? I'd have thought a nation steeped in misogyny, inequality & corruption, would be far more deserving of a public show of condemnation?

 

[MK Shrimper]

Although I know you're not serious, along with thousands of other of your like minded fellows, it intrigues me nonetheless, that lefties have such double standards & inconsistencies.

Where was the outrage & violence-inciting-hyperbole, when the King of Saudi visited a few months ago? I'd have thought a nation steeped in misogyny, inequality & corruption, would be far more deserving of a public show of condemnation?

No, absolutely not. The King of Saudi Arabia, whilst an absolute ****, won't cause catastrophic, irreversible damage to the planet unlike that Orange tit who will increase climate change or threaten to throw around nuclear weapons.

 

[GBJ]

No, absolutely not. The King of Saudi Arabia, whilst an absolute ****, won't cause catastrophic, irreversible damage to the planet unlike that Orange tit who will increase climate change or threaten to throw around nuclear weapons.

Really? I mean, ok, I fully understand why Trump isn't very popular with the left. But honestly, the threat of nuclear war is a dramatic & hysteric fable. Im willing to lay a sizeable bet to that effect :)

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia's CV has to be one of the worst on the planet. It just strikes me as odd, that the vitriolic outrage aimed at The Donald, was AWOL, when an even worse national representitive rocked up on these shores. There will be poverty stricken families, females & homosexuals living in Saudi Arabia right now, who wish someone as bad as Donald was their president.

I'm no weatherman, but I'm gunna go out on a limb and forecast widespread, human-sized snowflakes on July 13th :)

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Really? I mean, ok, I fully understand why Trump isn't very popular with the left. But honestly, the threat of nuclear war is a dramatic & hysteric fable. Im willing to lay a sizeable bet to that effect :)

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia's CV has to be one of the worst on the planet. It just strikes me as odd, that the vitriolic outrage aimed at The Donald, was AWOL, when an even worse national representitive rocked up on these shores. There will be poverty stricken families, females & homosexuals living in Saudi Arabia right now, who wish someone as bad as Donald was their president.

I'm no weatherman, but I'm gunna go out on a limb and forecast widespread, human-sized snowflakes on July 13th :)

As Bob Dylan told us :-" You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." :winking:

 

[rigsby]

As Bob Dylan told us :-" You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." :winking:

One thing is for sure, Bob Dylan didn't need the UN or the Guardian to tell him which way the wind blows

 

[SARF]

No, absolutely not. The King of Saudi Arabia, whilst an absolute ****, won't cause catastrophic, irreversible damage to the planet unlike that Orange tit who will increase climate change or threaten to throw around nuclear weapons.

The country that supplies ****eloads of the worlds oil. And hates women. And booze
Don’t even get me started on the so called commonwealth countries we have be arse kissing this month
I think over half of them believe homosexuality is illegal. Still. As long as the Donald patted a birds arse back in 93 that’s ok then

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

The country that supplies ****eloads of the worlds oil. And hates women. And booze
Don’t even get me started on the so called commonwealth countries we have be arse kissing this month
I think over half of them believe homosexuality is illegal. Still. As long as the Donald patted a birds arse back in 93 that’s ok then

if you think that Trump's only crime is patting someone's arse in 93 you have a lot of catching up to do.

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

if you think that Trump's only crime is patting someone's arse in 93 you have a lot of catching up to do.

care to list these crimes?

 

[MK Shrimper]

So the alleged crimes of sexual assault aren't enough for some of you? What's that I hear, that women don't matter? No wonder you're so pro-Trump.

 

[Uncle Leo]

I enjoyed Michelle Wolf's work over the weekend.

[barna]Saw her supporting Chris Rock back in January. One of those comedians who has you putting your head in your hands every few minutes because you can't believe she went *there*.[/barna]

 

[MK Shrimper]

I enjoyed Michelle Wolf's work over the weekend.

[barna]Saw her supporting Chris Rock back in January. One of those comedians who has you putting your head in your hands every few minutes because you can't believe she went *there*.[/barna]

Indeed. I read some of the transcript. Brave lady - though maybe the Republicans should have gone with a safer choice like Bernard Manning or Jim Davidson.