Politics, politics, politics

[LutonSpurs]

Intervention isn't back and white. Sometimes it is necessary and some times it isn't. And as much as I hate the concept, so is collateral damage. You can't base your actions on good values because not everyone shares them.

Assad had to be stopped, more so than Ghadafi, but there was no benefit in this as Syria has eff all resources worth protecting. Lybia and Iraq were bad interventions. Iraq because it was based on lies. Libya because they didn't finish the job, got rid of Ghadafi and left it in the hands of nutters.

Syria would have required a start to finish plan, one that the west don't noramlly deliver on, Iraq and Afghanistan are perfect examples of jobs started and then left to rot.

What would have worked is no fly zones across Syria and Lybia. This could have changed a lot. And then invest in a democratic transition.

Maybe.

 

[scaramanga]

Taking action is one of the reasons this mess in happening in the first place. Its amazing that there are still dinosaurs around who think bombing **** out of everyone is helping create a better world.

If only there world were as simple as that black and white view then I'd agree.

 

[the dza]

Agreed - the time to have a meaningful effect and safe millions of lives is long gone.

Quick lesson for the Grauniad-reading muesli munchers of the world: A lack of action is often as deadly as taking action.

A shame those museli munchers weren't listened to before the last Iraq war wasn't it? There would very likely have been no al qaeda in Iraq and no ISIS.

But being that "we are where we are" (people love to say this about Iraq and the Middle East, to excuse any terrible decisions of the recent past) what would you like Britain to do right now? Do you think we would add anything to the 6,500 air-strikes the yanks have done in the past year?

If bombing doesn't really work (it doesn't seem to be making that much progress with regards ending the civil war in Syria or crushing ISIS) are you prepared for us to send troops? If so, how many? And what level of death for our forces would be acceptable to you?

For me, I don't think we need to get involved in the conflict. The only reason the yanks invite us to their parties in the desert is because then they can pretend that their actions aren't unilateral, but they don't need us there. They can drop their own bombs, they have lots of them. We'd be better off saving the money from the bombs and using it to help the refugees.

 

[Grays_1890]

I think you need to cut off the supply chain, place Syria under massive border sanctions and squeeze the guys down till they have nothing

 

[LutonSpurs]

We can establish no fly zones over Syria. We can empower Turkey to remove Assad and put in a moderate govt. we have to destroy ISIS by whatever means. Iran needs to be forced to stop sending troops to support Assad.

This is all the UNs job.

 

[scaramanga]

A shame those museli munchers weren't listened to before the last Iraq war wasn't it? There would very likely have been no al qaeda in Iraq and no ISIS.

Iraq was a war well worth fighting. Not for the flimflam reasons the lying tossers in the Labour government used but because the world needed to be rid of Saddam Hussein. The fact that the planning and execution were wrong doesn't make it wrong to have decided to go to war.

But being that "we are where we are" (people love to say this about Iraq and the Middle East, to excuse any terrible decisions of the recent past) what would you like Britain to do right now? Do you think we would add anything to the 6,500 air-strikes the yanks have done in the past year?

I certainly think we should.

If bombing doesn't really work (it doesn't seem to be making that much progress with regards ending the civil war in Syria or crushing ISIS) are you prepared for us to send troops? If so, how many? And what level of death for our forces would be acceptable to you?

That's the easiest to answer by far - one fewer than the number of people that would die if we didn't send troops in.

For me, I don't think we need to get involved in the conflict. The only reason the yanks invite us to their parties in the desert is because then they can pretend that their actions aren't unilateral, but they don't need us there. They can drop their own bombs, they have lots of them. We'd be better off saving the money from the bombs and using it to help the refugees.

I'd rather treat the cause than the symptom, but I understand that the ability to make tough decisions isn't part of everyone's skillset.

 

[DTA]

This has to be a better alternative though. Integrating hundreds of thousands of Muslims into Western Europe is asking for trouble. As a culture the majority are not integrating with the countries they move to. So it seems it is better for them to be relocated to countries that offer them a way of life that they want and need. We are already giving over 900 million in aid. Why should Western Europe shoulder the burden at all when neighbouring countries that are better suited are not taking them in.

You have to ask why, if they are getting away from the War that they want to get all the way over to Britain when there are nations much closer. Offering Aid to these countries is a much better solution. Some western European nations may well want to integrate masses of people but some cannot sustain it. Germany has an abundance of housing. But Spain has mass unemployment, as does Portugal. And this is not going to help their economies.

We as a nation are overcrowded in one Location. London. We already have mass housing issues. Must of these left wing liberals that want to let masses of refugees into this country do not live in London or see the non integration issues we are having. This will just cause more.

And I hate to say it. But with seeing how many British Muslims are leaving to get to Syria to join Isis. I just feel we are going to create a breeding ground for mass indoctrination. Praying on our morals whilst losing our own.

In terms of why should the want to come here instead of stay in Turkey for example.

Well in Turkey if they are in the camps they have a tent over their head and are fed (Turkey has received hardly any financial support for doing this, but this is partly their own fault as its to do with Not wanting to register them as international ly recognized refugees not doing it in the correct way or some brick like that).

But that is no way to live and bring up a family, no school no jobs and a tent for shelter. This is not a long term solution

So many leave the camps and try to find work in other parts of Turkey, some do, but the vast majority can't (we are talking about 2 million here- (and the real Figure may be higher as there are political reason why those in charge may not want to realise higher estimates).

So a lot are begging, sleeping in parks, or being taken Advantage by working for extremely low pay.

If you are saying stay there, there needs to be a credible plan to be able to intergrate (2million) them in to the economy, and i would think we are talking about multiple billions of pounds to be able to do it.


Is say every Euro state giving 2 billion a year (richer countries giving more poorer less) more desirable than taking in 75000 -100,000 people each? To ease the burden?

Those figures are from my back side, I have no idea what it would cost etc, but you get my point as this as an example.

 

[scaramanga]

We can establish no fly zones over Syria. We can empower Turkey to remove Assad and put in a moderate govt. we have to destroy ISIS by whatever means. Iran needs to be forced to stop sending troops to support Assad.

This is all the UNs job.

Would that be the UN that failed to protect Bosnians or the one that went out of its way to avoid using the word "Genocide" when discussing Rwanda because it didn't want to get its hands dirty?

You're right that it's the UN's job. The UN has consistently shown itself to be thoroughly incapable of doing its fudging job and needs to be replaced by someone/something that can.

 

[Grays_1890]

But that is no way to live and bring up a family, no school no jobs and a tent for shelter. This is not a long term solution

Although I agree to a certain extent being looked after by a country that's not your own is surely better than the life you have had to flee?

This will sound cold and very matter of fact but that kind of goes with the territory of being a refugee because your not fleeing to become an integral part of the country you are fleeing to? Also it is a relative short term solution because once safe you should return to your country of origin, that by definition is what being a refugee is.

 

[the dza]

Iraq was a war well worth fighting. Not for the hogwash reasons the lying tossers in the Labour government used but because the world needed to be rid of Saddam Hussein. The fact that the planning and execution were wrong doesn't make it wrong to have decided to go to war.


I certainly think we should.


That's the easiest to answer by far - one fewer than the number of people that would die if we didn't send troops in.


I'd rather treat the cause than the symptom, but I understand that the ability to make tough decisions isn't part of everyone's skillset.

So you think Iraq was a war worth fighting. I totally disagree, but let's leave that to one side.

You would send troops in to Syria, correct?

How can we know the number of people saved by sending troops? We can't. But let's pretend that we can know for certain your answer of "one fewer than the number of people that would die if we didn't send troops in." The size of our army is 186k including reserves. So you'd happily commit the lot to death if it meant saving 186,001 Syrian civilians? That'd leave us with no army, which would be insane. I don't think you're insane. Realistically, what would you like us (and by 'us' I mean our armed forces, because neither of us are going to go out there and get blown up) to commit to this fight?

 

[Sandman]

Although I agree to a certain extent being looked after by a country that's not your own is surely better than the life you have had to flee?

This will sound cold and very matter of fact but that kind of goes with the territory of being a refugee because your not fleeing to become an integral part of the country you are fleeing to? Also it is a relative short term solution because once safe you should return to your country of origin, that by definition is what being a refugee is.

So I think Cameron came up with this option did he not? that we can take in as many refugees but that there is a stipulation that once Syria is back to a balanced state or a better alternative it given that these refugees then return home. No Humans Rights interventions. No I have a life here now and dont want to give it up etc. On those terms I think most countries would help out. But that is not what is going to happen. Once here they will want to stay, have children and live. And then will they ever want to return to Syria? and if they do not will we have the power to return them? I think not and it could be a ton of future court cases.


In Spain. There is a massive town. Totally unpopulated. Built before the Economic down turn. Maybe that could be funded by the Eurozone as a refugee area. Send money for that rather than just pay loads of aid that filters down to nothing. Or take on yet more refugess and imigrants to an already over populated area.

 

[LutonSpurs]

Would that be the UN that failed to protect Bosnians or the one that went out of its way to avoid using the word "Genocide" when discussin Rwanda because it didn't want to get it's hands dirty?

You're right that it's the UN's job. The UN has consistently shown itself to be thoroughly incapable of doing its fudgeing job and needs to be replaced by someone/something that can.

I completely agree. They are a shambles. It just is the only body which ticks all the boxes who should be doing this.

 

[scaramanga]

So you think Iraq was a war worth fighting. I totally disagree, but let's leave that to one side.

You would send troops in to Syria, correct?

How can we know the number of people saved by sending troops? We can't. But let's pretend that we can know for certain your answer of "one fewer than the number of people that would die if we didn't send troops in." The size of our army is 186k including reserves. So you'd happily commit the lot to death if it meant saving 186,001 Syrian civilians? That'd leave us with no army, which would be insane. I don't think you're insane. Realistically, what would you like us (and by 'us' I mean our armed forces, because neither of us are going to go out there and get blown up) to commit to this fight?

The number we send in that sense is a tactical decision and not a moral one (therefore outside the context of this discussion). You'll have to find someone else if you want to play war games and chat about military tactics as I couldn't find it less interesting.

Morally it's a simple case. If one fewer person dies from a war compared to there not being a war then it's justified.

 

[the dza]

The number we send in that sense is a tactical decision and not a moral one (therefore outside the context of this discussion). You'll have to find someone else if you want to play war games and chat about military tactics as I couldn't find it less interesting.

Morally it's a simple case. If one fewer person dies from a war compared to there not being a war then it's justified.

Morally, it's ok for a limitless number of British soldiers to die in a fight where they aren't actually defending their own country? I don't think that's fair on our armed forces or a particularly pragmatic view.

 

[scaramanga]

Morally, it's ok for a limitless number of British soldiers to die in a fight where they aren't actually defending their own country? I don't think that's fair on our armed forces or a particularly pragmatic view.

People are people. One life I know nothing about is the same as any other life I know nothing about.

The only lives I consider to be more valuable than those of others are my friends and family. Actually, Alain Ducasse's life is worth quite a bit more than most to me too.

 

[Baleforce]

Morally, it's ok for a limitless number of British soldiers to die in a fight where they aren't actually defending their own country? I don't think that's fair on our armed forces or a particularly pragmatic view.

i'm of the view that nationality isn't relevant in this situation, we are all human, there is some horrible stuff going on which unchecked will only get worse, we have dead babies washing up on Mediterranean beaches, how bad is what they are running from when a parent is prepared to take that risk, for me, we send as many people as we can, and we keep killing the bad guys until there aren't any left, its not a case of picking the best of the bad bunch and helping them, we should take out the lot, ISIS, Assad, and the rebels

we've made a commitment to police the world, lets fudging get on with it

people will want to go home when its safe to do so, we are an incredibly stupid species when it comes to making arbitrary attachments to objects and places

 

[the dza]

People are people. One life I know nothing about is the same as any other life I know nothing about.

Then why intervene at all? At some point the war will end and you won't have known any of the dead. Especially when intervention has no guarantee of lowering the number of the dead and could even make things worse, as in our recent interventions in nearby countries. With the benefit of hindsight, a lack of intervention may have prevented this crisis. Maybe this time, we should try NOT intervening.

i'm of the view that nationality isn't relevant in this situation, we are all human, there is some horrible stuff going on which unchecked will only get worse, we have dead babies washing up on Mediterranean beaches, how bad is what they are running from when a parent is prepared to take that risk, for me, we send as many people as we can, and we keep killing the bad guys until there aren't any left, its not a case of picking the best of the bad bunch and helping them, we should take out the lot, ISIS, Assad, and the rebels

we've made a commitment to police the world, lets fudgeing get on with it

people will want to go home when its safe to do so, we are an incredibly stupid species when it comes to making arbitrary attachments to objects and places

Policing the world has helped create ISIS, al qaeda and prop up GHod knows how many ar5ehole dictators and brutal regimes. It is time to stop trying to police the world or even think that we can. It keeps coming back to bite us, one way or another.

 

[Sandman]

Then why intervene at all? At some point the war will end and you won't have known any of the dead. Especially when intervention has no guarantee of lowering the number of the dead and could even make things worse, as in our recent interventions in nearby countries. With the benefit of hindsight, a lack of intervention may have prevented this crisis. Maybe this time, we should try NOT intervening.



Policing the world has helped create ISIS, al qaeda and prop up GHod knows how many ar5ehole dictators and brutal regimes. It is time to stop trying to police the world or even think that we can. It keeps coming back to bite us, one way or another.

I agree on this. Im into letting them deal with the problems in their own areas. Stop making enemies that then want to go on and cause terrorist attrocities. They dont want to mix culturally so saying we are all human in the end is a dead end statement. Religion will always cause division. This then brings up all the issues that have started most wars.

 

[scaramanga]

Then why intervene at all? At some point the war will end and you won't have known any of the dead. Especially when intervention has no guarantee of lowering the number of the dead and could even make things worse, as in our recent interventions in nearby countries. With the benefit of hindsight, a lack of intervention may have prevented this crisis. Maybe this time, we should try NOT intervening.

To stop atrocities and do what any human being has the responsibility to do.

Policing the world has helped create ISIS, al qaeda and prop up GHod knows how many ar5ehole dictators and brutal regimes. It is time to stop trying to police the world or even think that we can. It keeps coming back to bite us, one way or another.

Policing the world didn't make people bad. It may have changed bad people for others, it may have moved some from one place to another.

I genuinely don't know how to make this point without invoking Godwin, but surely a policy of never intervening when bad people do bad things is even worse than letting 'Murrica, fudge Yeah! make tactical military decisions?

 

[Baleforce]

Then why intervene at all? At some point the war will end and you won't have known any of the dead. Especially when intervention has no guarantee of lowering the number of the dead and could even make things worse, as in our recent interventions in nearby countries. With the benefit of hindsight, a lack of intervention may have prevented this crisis. Maybe this time, we should try NOT intervening.



Policing the world has helped create ISIS, al qaeda and prop up GHod knows how many ar5ehole dictators and brutal regimes. It is time to stop trying to police the world or even think that we can. It keeps coming back to bite us, one way or another.

thats because we haven't finished yet