Politics & Stuff

[CHOULO19 24,332]

How the hell do we fight an ideology with millions, maybe hundreds of millions of followers? Conventional warfare won't work against people who are comfortable hiding amongst women and children.

The barbarism is simply incomprehensible and belongs in the middle-ages.

By not helping to create them in the first place?

Stop arming and supporting them in Syria and Libya (and to a lesser extent Egypt). Aim to actually end them instead of just keeping things in the balance in order to use them for political gains when you want. Collaborate with with Iran, Al Assad and Hezboullah to form an alliance against them. That would be a good start...

[Fulham Broadway 16,923]

By not helping to create them in the first place?

Stop arming and supporting them in Syria and Libya (and to a lesser extent Egypt). Aim to actually end them instead of just keeping things in the balance in order to use them for political gains when you want. Collaborate with with Iran, Al Assad and Hezboullah to form an alliance against them. That would be a good start...

....and to not turn a blind eye to Qatar and Saudi Arabian funding for ISIS just because they buy billions worth of weapons from us and the US.

[The only place to be 11,313]

By not helping to create them in the first place?

Stop arming and supporting them in Syria and Libya (and to a lesser extent Egypt). Aim to actually end them instead of just keeping things in the balance in order to use them for political gains when you want. Collaborate with with Iran, Al Assad and Hezboullah to form an alliance against them. That would be a good start...

We didn't create the root of this issue.

These people are barbarians following an ideology that is medieval. 'Us' selling them weapons to kill each other is not the problem. This man was killed with a knife, but of course I'm sure we'll find a way to blame Israel at some point.

Circular logic is always best.

[Fulham Broadway 16,923]

Tne politicians, and the clamourers from the sidelines for 'carpet bombing' or the return of Western military forces to Iraq to rescue the Yazidi people and the Kurds from a genocide at the hands of ISIS, bear ultimate responsibility for the mayhem they’re weeping over. They created it, they inflamed it. ISIS might be doing the killing, but the space in which ISIS could rise and gain influence was provided by Western forces, by the Western invasion of Iraq and Western intervention in Syria

[The only place to be 11,313]

Tne politicians, and the clamourers from the sidelines for 'carpet bombing' or the return of Western military forces to Iraq to rescue the Yazidi people and the Kurds from a genocide at the hands of ISIS, bear ultimate responsibility for the mayhem they’re weeping over. They created it, they inflamed it. ISIS might be doing the killing, but the space in which ISIS could rise and gain influence was provided by Western forces, by the Western invasion of Iraq and Western intervention in Syria

So you would have been happy allowing Saddam to stay in power? That's a valid point. He was an animal who treated his people with barbarism, but he kept them in line. Now we have a far more pernicious ideology spreading throughout the area.

So your argument is essentially supporting the lesser of two evils, and obviously blaming the west, arms companies, Israel etc.

What do people like you who simply attribute blame from the sidelines actually want to do?

[Fulham Broadway 16,923]

So you would have been happy allowing Saddam to stay in power? That's a valid point. He was an animal who treated his people with barbarism, but he kept them in line. Now we have a far more pernicious ideology spreading throughout the area.

So your argument is essentially supporting the lesser of two evils, and obviously blaming the west, arms companies, Israel etc.

What do people like you who simply attribute blame from the sidelines actually want to do?

Saddam was no worse than any other despot in the middle east. He was set up when he asked the then US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, if Iraq could have Kuwait back, which had originally belonged to Iraq, but was artificially created by Britain in the 1920s. Albright is on record as saying the US has no problem with your sovereign claim to Kuwait.

Oil reserves and a personal grudge by George Bush snr were the reasons for invasion and slaughtering of Iraqis.

What do I want to do ? Nothing, stop interfering in the Middle East, stop all this dressed up neo colonialism. I saw enough of it in the Falklands.

[The Skipper 20,593]

Britons: Congratulations, as of this morning, you are an extra £539 in debt. Nor are you alone. The entire country has just lost £34bn. How did we manage that?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/01/great-british-railway-rake-off-rolls-on?CMP=fb_gu

[The only place to be 11,313]

Saddam was no worse than any other despot in the middle east.

He was a cunt pure and simple. It's not a defence to state the bleeding obvious that there were other cunts in the middle east.

What do I want to do ? Nothing, stop interfering in the Middle East, stop all this dressed up neo colonialism. I saw enough of it in the Falklands.

So you're a proponent of non-interventionism then? Allowing women and minorities to be subjugated for generations because it's the easy option?

Using trendy terms like neo-colonialism to wash your hands of any responsibility to do the right thing by helping those who are denied the opportunity to help themselves is cowardly, nothing more. Honestly I think people of your ilk who preach about the evils of Israel, the plundering of national resources and dangers of capitalism whilst actively supporting a football club owned by someone like Roman Abramovich are hilarious. It's hypocrisy and nothing more.

[Fulham Broadway 16,923]

He was a cunt pure and simple. It's not a defence to state the bleeding obvious that there were other cunts in the middle east.

So you're a proponent of non-interventionism then? Allowing women and minorities to be subjugated for generations because it's the easy option?

Using trendy terms like neo-colonialism to wash your hands of any responsibility to do the right thing by helping those who are denied the opportunity to help themselves is cowardly, nothing more. Honestly I think people of your ilk who preach about the evils of Israel, the plundering of national resources and dangers of capitalism whilst actively supporting a football club owned by someone like Roman Abramovich are hilarious. It's hypocrisy and nothing more.

So why not pick on, to use your terms. other cunts then ? Youre selective in your colonialism are you ?

So as an advocate of interventionsim, youd be quite happy for us to be carpet bombed by Iraq because they want 'regime change' in the UK

Your selective hypocrisy when it comes to interventiion is only surpassed by your stance changing on almost every post on chelsea players .

[The only place to be 11,313]

So why not pick on, to use your terms. other cunts then ? Youre selective in your colonialism are you ?

So from advocating non-interventionism you're now positing the notion of some mass invasion of the middle east?

So as an advocate of interventionsim, youd be quite happy for us to be carpet bombed by Iraq because they want 'regime change' in the UK

That's a rather bizarre suggestion to make....they don't have the capabilities to do that, although they were shown to be supporting small cells who did have ambitions to attack us.

Your selective hypocrisy when it comes to interventiion is only surpassed by your stance changing on almost every post on chelsea players .

I don't see where I've been hypocritical about this. I recognise there are economic factors that make intervening in some areas impossible.

You're also lying about my stance changing on almost every post on Chelsea players, although if you actually want to back that up with facts then I'm more than happy to show where you're incorrect.

For instance, I've criticised Oscar heavily but have recently applauded him for his performances in a different role in the team. I've also acknowledged that JT has rehabilitated his image not just off the pitch but on it in recent years.

But once again I'll just assume your accusation wasn't exactly well thought through and doesn't bear up to scrutiny.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

We didn't create the root of this issue.

These people are barbarians following an ideology that is medieval. 'Us' selling them weapons to kill each other is not the problem. This man was killed with a knife, but of course I'm sure we'll find a way to blame Israel at some point.

Circular logic is always best.

Yes, you did. The root of this ideology is the south of what was the Soviet Union where your country and the US spent millions on arming and funding extremists groups to fight against the soviet union. More importantly, millions were paid to Sheikhs to promote this ideology of Jihad among people in Mosques (especially in Friday prayers) and convincing Muslims that it is their duty. The religious leaders of this movement who later became the leaders of Al Qaeda, all spent some time in their lives living in the UK. Ben Laden, Al Zarqawi...etc. All of them. Look them up.

The ideology only crept into the middle east after invasion of Iraq. They had a place with no order and peace to grow and with people that were willing to do anything to fight the invading forces. Contrary to what you are told, very very few minorities in Iraq supported western involvement, let alone an invasion. They hated Saddm, but not as much as the UK and US.

But your governments never really severed all the ties with them. I remember in 2004 or 2005 when a Qaeda related group killed a few Lebanese Army soldiers. The army hunted them and killing and arresting a bunch of them. That is when Condalisa Rice herself decided to come to Lebanon to convince our President at the time Emile Lahoud to release the extremists, funny right?

The US knew they could still use them and they did. A revolution was shaping up in several countries at the start of the 2010s. It had absolutely nothing to do with religion or even politics. It started with a guy setting himself on fire because the police had confiscated his vegetable cart! But after they lost an ally in Tunisia the US decided to ride the wave...well where it suited them at least. They brought their old extremist friends to the party. They had a beef to settle with practically all the existing regimes in the area, The NATO armed and funded them in Lybia and got what they wanted, they backed them in Egypt (different group, but not too dissimilar) but Syria was different. Al Assad had a strong army and the backing of A LOT of his people. Billions of dollars worth of weapons were given to them, and to be fair, secular Syrian rebels. But the secular rebels disappeared in time and part of the extremists groups turned against the US and the other extremists groups and formed what is known as IS.

Those barbarians you talk about have never in their history fought with anything except for 'your' weapons. And they never bought those weapons, they were always given to them to serve a political objective of yours.

So you would have been happy allowing Saddam to stay in power? That's a valid point. He was an animal who treated his people with barbarism, but he kept them in line. Now we have a far more pernicious ideology spreading throughout the area.

So your argument is essentially supporting the lesser of two evils, and obviously blaming the west, arms companies, Israel etc.

What do people like you who simply attribute blame from the sidelines actually want to do?

You really know nothing of your own countries interventions in the region, do you?

The Baath party in Iraq was first brought to power by the US and UK to overthrow Qasim and minimize the power of the communist party in the country. Then Saddam himself was helped by your governments to force Al Bakr into retirement and replace him and execute hundreds of leaders in his party to stop a proposed Iraqi-Syrian unity that Al Bakr. He was 'your' man from the start and did your bidding for a long time. He took his whole country to war with Iran after the Islamic revolution for your sake alone.

[Fulham Broadway 16,923]

So from advocating non-interventionism you're now positing the notion of some mass invasion of the middle east?

That's a rather bizarre suggestion to make....they don't have the capabilities to do that, although they were shown to be supporting small cells who did have ambitions to attack us.

I don't see where I've been hypocritical about this. I recognise there are economic factors that make intervening in some areas impossible.

You're also lying about my stance changing on almost every post on Chelsea players, although if you actually want to back that up with facts then I'm more than happy to show where you're incorrect.

For instance, I've criticised Oscar heavily but have recently applauded him for his performances in a different role in the team. I've also acknowledged that JT has rehabilitated his image not just off the pitch but on it in recent years.

But once again I'll just assume your accusation wasn't exactly well thought through and doesn't bear up to scrutiny.

How am I positing an invasion of the Middle East -if youre going to twist things to suit some Sun Reader agenda, try and be a bit clever about it

You are either for intervention or not. If , I ask again, Iraq wanted regime change in the UK , youre happy about this are you ? Or is only British intervention allowed, which results in Blowback, or terrorism as the authorities like to call it

All the staff are well aware of your changing stance on Chelsea players, its quite embarassing.

[Fulham Broadway 16,923]

Retired British colonel on BBC this morning, he said the best way to sort out Iraq is parachute Blair and Bush in, seeing as they created the whole bloody mess.

He has a point.....

[The only place to be 11,313]

How am I positing an invasion of the Middle East -if youre going to twist things to suit some Sun Reader agenda, try and be a bit clever about it

Bernard Manning, Sun-reader....you're going to run out of freshman pejorative terms at this rate.

You are either for intervention or not. If , I ask again, Iraq wanted regime change in the UK , youre happy about this are you ? Or is only British intervention allowed, which results in Blowback, or terrorism as the authorities like to call it

I'm for intervention that frees oppressed peoples. It doesn't have to be purely militarily but can be culturally and economically.

If Iraq wanted regime change in this country then I assume it would be to institute their own brand of medieval philosophy, ergo I would be against it. I'm a firm proponent of western, liberal, progressive ideology that enfranchises ALL people regardless of gender, sexual preference, colour or creed.

All the staff are well aware of your changing stance on Chelsea players, its quite embarassing.

So that's you, rmpr, choulo et al....oh no.

Again, if you'd actually like to back up your.....sorry, couldn't finish that sentence without laughing.

[The only place to be 11,313]

Retired British colonel on BBC this morning, he said the best way to sort out Iraq is parachute Blair and Bush in, seeing as they created the whole bloody mess.

He has a point.....

What a great line. It wouldn't actually have any real-world positive effect but is that really what we're after here?

[The only place to be 11,313]

Yes, you did. The root of this ideology is the south of what was the Soviet Union where your country and the US spent millions on arming and funding extremists groups to fight against the soviet union

Actually the ideology I'm referring to is hundreds of years old. It seems that your post was written on a misunderstood premise.

[Fulham Broadway 16,923]

I'm for intervention that frees oppressed peoples. It doesn't have to be purely militarily but can be culturally and economically. If Iraq wanted regime change in this country then I assume it would be to institute their own brand of medieval philosophy, ergo I would be against it. I'm a firm proponent of western, liberal, progressive ideology that enfranchises ALL people regardless of gender, sexual preference, colour or creed.

So then, who decides what oppressed people are, you ? Blair ? what level of oppression ?

The health service under Saddam was better that the UK for example, so should they have invaded because we were oppressed ? Or is that only up to Western countries ?

The 'medieval philosophies' as you call them , as I have already explained. were unleashed after the toppling of the Bathist regime, MI6 told the government thats what would happen, but they ignored the advice

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Actually the ideology I'm referring to is hundreds of years old. It seems that your post was written on a misunderstood premise.

It seems you're attempt to run away from all the facts I made in that post is a bit too obvious, so I'll quote them again for you:

Yes, you did. The root of this ideology is the south of what was the Soviet Union where your country and the US spent millions on arming and funding extremists groups to fight against the soviet union. More importantly, millions were paid to Sheikhs to promote this ideology of Jihad among people in Mosques (especially in Friday prayers) and convincing Muslims that it is their duty. The religious leaders of this movement who later became the leaders of Al Qaeda, all spent some time in their lives living in the UK. Ben Laden, Al Zarqawi...etc. All of them. Look them up.

The ideology only crept into the middle east after invasion of Iraq. They had a place with no order and peace to grow and with people that were willing to do anything to fight the invading forces. Contrary to what you are told, very very few minorities in Iraq supported western involvement, let alone an invasion. They hated Saddm, but not as much as the UK and US.

But your governments never really severed all the ties with them. I remember in 2004 or 2005 when a Qaeda related group killed a few Lebanese Army soldiers. The army hunted them and killing and arresting a bunch of them. That is when Condalisa Rice herself decided to come to Lebanon to convince our President at the time Emile Lahoud to release the extremists, funny right?

The US knew they could still use them and they did. A revolution was shaping up in several countries at the start of the 2010s. It had absolutely nothing to do with religion or even politics. It started with a guy setting himself on fire because the police had confiscated his vegetable cart! But after they lost an ally in Tunisia the US decided to ride the wave...well where it suited them at least. They brought their old extremist friends to the party. They had a beef to settle with practically all the existing regimes in the area, The NATO armed and funded them in Lybia and got what they wanted, they backed them in Egypt (different group, but not too dissimilar) but Syria was different. Al Assad had a strong army and the backing of A LOT of his people. Billions of dollars worth of weapons were given to them, and to be fair, secular Syrian rebels. But the secular rebels disappeared in time and part of the extremists groups turned against the US and the other extremists groups and formed what is known as IS.

Those barbarians you talk about have never in their history fought with anything except for 'your' weapons. And they never bought those weapons, they were always given to them to serve a political objective of yours.

You really know nothing of your own countries interventions in the region, do you?

The Baath party in Iraq was first brought to power by the US and UK to overthrow Qasim and minimize the power of the communist party in the country. Then Saddam himself was helped by your governments to force Al Bakr into retirement and replace him and execute hundreds of leaders in his party to stop a proposed Iraqi-Syrian unity that Al Bakr. He was 'your' man from the start and did your bidding for a long time. He took his whole country to war with Iran after the Islamic revolution for your sake alone.

Good luck coming up with a proper response.