posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 08:14 AM
Why should 'we' be involved in meetings about a military operation 'we' are not going to be involved in?
Maybe I would expect the US to keep the UK abreast of developments etc and any imminent intervention but there's no need to be involved in the nitty
gritty of developing plans etc - I don't see any sort of insult in this at all.
reply to post by SupersonicSerpent
I hope the U.K and U.S fall out,it would be best for the U.K to build bridges with Germany and other EU countries,...
Many in the UK would disagree with you there, especially about having closer links with the EU - it's a discussion that is urgently required in the
UK, sitting astride the fence is doing our country no good at all.
....the yanks just start one war after another.....
With all due respect please have even a casual look at European history - it's a non-stop catalogue of war upon war - people in glass houses and all
....come collect your trident missiles israel will be happy for a weapons arsenal increase.
They are 'OUR' missiles and I for one wish to keep them for the time being!
reply to post by woodwardjnr
I'm sure the US will still be happy to use any intel provided by SAS who are probably already on the ground in Syria. Maybe we should eject these
forces and let American special forces take over.
I'm sure the SAS / SBS are there mate - should we pass intel on?
If it means reducing the risk of civilians being caught up in any 'collateral damage' then most definitely yes we should pass it on.
Other than that, I'm not sure.