Sadly, if you read some of the comments after, you’ll see that they do.

Whenever I read something like this, I can’t resist a wry smile, since the writer seems to think that we’re being treated to some (almost divine) revelation; having been lied to, and cheated, by politicians, of all colours, through my long life, I’ve long ago realised that the old joke, “How can you tell when a politician’s lying? His lips move.” is too truthful to be funny.
And do try to remember, if Kerry and Hague are lying, Assad must be telling the truth, and he has an exemplary record in that department, doesn’t he? Personally, if someone reliant on Russia, China and Iran as allies, should ever shake my hand, I’d count my fingers afterwards.
Should we do anything? No, of course not, but when did any government care what we say, or think? It’s far enough from the next election for them to be able to, as usual, do as they please, while we collect, and pay, the (butcher’s) bill.

Your post is confusing.

It appears that, contrary to what you’re saying in parts of your answer, that you are actually agreeing with me.

If they are targeted on to military and weapons installations, none but military personnel.
No.

I know you know this, but further to the question, every single time cruise missiles have been used in every single theatre, innocent civilians have been killed.

The US and the Uk aren’t doing nothing.

They are supplying the opposition, and have been on their side since day 1.

Even though they have a fundamentalist Islamic terror element to them, Al Qaida inclusive.

Was all the rubbish over the last 12 to 15 years wrt terrorism, Al Qaida/taliban just cheap, meaningless soundbites?

These are the people who are in charge of the west….

Yes, yes, yes……however I don’t think Obama has any choice. If it is proven that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons then Obama’s red line has been crossed and his “equation has changed”. He will lose any credibility if he does not carry out his threat. That would mean Tomahawks from a long way off and probably that’s all. The UK should give full support, but no more.

Hague and Kerry have already decided it was Assad who used chemical weapons.

So far, they haven’t provided one iota or shred of evidence.
This is simply a follow on to the fact that they’ve always supported the opposition, regardless of the facts that the opposition have already been found out to have used chemical weapons already, and that they count among their ranks Al Quaida, of who’s ilk murdered innocent people in the London bombings, and recently beheaded a soldier in full view of everybody on a London street.

This is ignoring the deeds in Syria, such as sawing a priests head off whilst filming it, and the public execution of a young lady, among many others.

Kerry has said he will release further proof that it was Assad in the next few days. Sure…

I think Kerry is a liar, as is Hague.
And that the evidence dossier will be manufactured, just like the Iraqi dossier was.

The most extraordinary thing about all of this, is that there are people out there that actually believe anything that comes out of their mouths.
Frankly, I’m flabbergasted.

It does appear though, reading through the comments sections on the various news sites and forums I frequent, that the vast majority of people commenting think that Hague in particular is being agenda driven, deceitful, and economic with the truth…

It can’t carry the AIM-9, there’s a pic of ONE with the rails but that means nothing.

Perhaps PLA is right.

I was just inclined to believe what other posters always post.

This picture below took me 20 seconds to find.

There are historical rivalries (they used to compete for first place in South America, a competition Brazil won), some dislikes (I remember Brazilians grumbling at Argentinean arrogance when I was there in the 1980s, this being particularly annoying because in Brazilian minds, Argentina had nothing to be arrogant about) & the level of co-operation fluctuates with whoever is in power in each country.

One can see why Argentina would want Brazilian money & technology, but what’s in it for Brazil? What does Argentina have to offer? A dysfunctional political system; exports (beef, soybeans, grain) which compete with those of Brazil; hostility to foreign (including Brazilian) investment – and so on. And is Argentina ready yet to accept a junior role? I suspect not. Subordination to Brazilian foreign policy & military procurement plans (the reality of a close alliance) would be intolerable for Argentina.

The Mirage 2000 plan would be beneficial to Argentina, but again, what’s in it for Brazil? Brazil wants its aviation industry to move ahead, not look back to 1970s designs. It’s already competitive on world markets for civil aircraft. Mirage 2000 doesn’t help that ambition.

As for R99 – well, you have to ask how likely that is, when Argentina has had since the 1990s to show an interest, & instead has talked to SAAB about SF340s, & made enquiries elsewhere.

The KC390 deal might seem to suggest that Argentinean attitudes are changing, & Brazil might now be taken seriously as a source of aircraft, but I suspect that to think that would be a mistake. Argentina still & especially the armed forces) sees itself as European, & Brazil as third world, & wants what it sees as the best, i.e. European & US products. The KC390 is an exception because it allows Argentinean manufacturers to participate & even do some design work. That wouldn’t apply to R99.

BTW, I find this obsession with the Falklands tiresome. Argentina has invested absolutely nothing in the abilities of its armed forces to harass or capture the islands for 30 years. Indeed, it has done the exact opposite, running down those capabilities of its forces disproportionately, while drastically cutting its forces overall. The governments which make the biggest noise about the Falklands (e.g. the current one) are those which have the least interest in taking them over. If the Falklands were Argentinean, what would Cristina have to distract the people with? How could she divert attention from the incompetence & corruption of her administration? A threat of war with Chile? Far, far too dangerous! Much harder to control, & more economically damaging.

It’s hard to disagree with any of this, although..

One can see why Argentina would want Brazilian money & technology, but what’s in it for Brazil? What does Argentina have to offer?

They have the same thing to offer that any private company finds attractive, and which drives common economic markets, that leads to closer political and military ties: Consumers. Over 40 million of them.

The only short coming the Lightning really had was its short range, beyond that it would have make quick work of the Mig-23 especially the more versatile export versions.

Sure.

The Lightnings radar and AAM’s were technological marvels.