|
Post by Valerioch on Mar 26, 2022 21:52:23 GMT 1
Sleepy Joe sticking his foot in it yet again… absolute liability
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Mar 26, 2022 22:24:05 GMT 1
My dad developed Alzheimer’s in his late 70s, Biden looks scarily like him now. There’s an unmistakable expression that is characteristic of the condition.
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Mar 27, 2022 10:17:03 GMT 1
Whilst Biden only said what many think this might be a political own goal . www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10656033/Experts-slam-Biden-unprecedented-call-regime-change-Russia.html"Biden appeared to call for regime change in Russia during speech on Saturday on Warsaw 'For God's sake this man cannot remain in power,' he said in unscripted remark The call for Putin's removal from power alarmed foreign policy experts who say it will escalate tensions They warn that appearing to back Putin into a corner could give him 'nothing to lose' Kremlin responded with instant fury to Biden's comment, saying the US has no say in Putin's leadership White House scrambled to attempt to clarify Biden's remarks, insisting he was not calling for regime change "
|
|
|
Post by shrewder on Mar 27, 2022 10:29:53 GMT 1
Sleepy Joe sticking his foot in it yet again… absolute liability Just like his predecessor. Perhaps one the USA will elect a president that has the capability to do the job. Still I suppose those sort of people stay away from politics.
|
|
|
Post by shrewder on Mar 27, 2022 10:30:39 GMT 1
Meant "One day"
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Mar 27, 2022 11:13:40 GMT 1
Sleepy Joe sticking his foot in it yet again… absolute liability Just like his predecessor. Perhaps one the USA will elect a president that has the capability to do the job. Still I suppose those sort of people stay away from politics. we could say the same about our goverments .
|
|
|
Post by armchairfan on Mar 27, 2022 11:26:03 GMT 1
Sometimes, I really do worry for the future of democracy, given that here and in the US, it has become so divided and divisive, the vitriol and hatred being thrown around from both sides.....and, then, I thank all our predecessors for putting in place a system whereby we can eventually resolve our irreconcilable differences, the alternatives being to horrible to contemplate. Democracy is always messy, sometimes inefficient, and usually contradictory, but, on balance, worth fighting to preserve, as those same predecessors did in our past.
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Mar 27, 2022 12:38:48 GMT 1
Sometimes, I really do worry for the future of democracy, given that here and in the US, it has become so divided and divisive, the vitriol and hatred being thrown around from both sides.....and, then, I thank all our predecessors for putting in place a system whereby we can eventually resolve our irreconcilable differences, the alternatives being to horrible to contemplate. Democracy is always messy, sometimes inefficient, and usually contradictory, but, on balance, worth fighting to preserve, as those same predecessors did in our past.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Mar 28, 2022 16:37:39 GMT 1
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10660555/Roman-Abramovich-suffered-suspected-POISONING-Ukraine-peace-negotiators.htmlRoman Abramovich has suffered a suspected poisoning along with Ukraine peace negotiators earlier this month, sources said. The Chelsea FC owner was reportedly poisoned just weeks ago after a meeting in the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv whilst he acted as a a 'peacemaker' in the Russian war in Ukraine, reports the Wall Street Journal. Following the meeting in Kyiv, Abramovich as well as two senior members of the Ukrainian team developed symptoms that included red eyes, painful tearing as well as peeling skin on their faces and hands. Fake news, or a warning from Putin to recalcitrant oligarchs?
|
|
|
Post by martinshrew on Mar 28, 2022 16:58:12 GMT 1
You have everyone crying on about democracy then sleep Joe keeps harping on about a new leader in Russia. We'd probably like it yes, but leave that for the Russian people to decide/negotiate.
|
|
|
Post by severnaside on Mar 29, 2022 7:41:25 GMT 1
Winston Churchill once said;
" Democracy is the worst form of government...............apart from all the others."
|
|
|
Post by wookeywombat on Mar 29, 2022 11:46:11 GMT 1
Winston Churchill once said; " Democracy is the worst form of government...............apart from all the others." He was quoting someone else. The full quote was:- "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"
|
|
mbms
Shropshire County League
Posts: 26
|
Post by mbms on Mar 30, 2022 6:29:42 GMT 1
You have everyone crying on about democracy then sleep Joe keeps harping on about a new leader in Russia. We'd probably like it yes, but leave that for the Russian people to decide/negotiate. I get your point, but Putin has spent the last 20+ years convincing the Russian people that the country is great and it needs him to lead it to further greatness. With the vast majority of media in Russia controlled by the state or allies of the state (even before the war in Ukraine) he has a bit of a captive audience for his propaganda. His brand of nationalism is at the next level to pretty much anywhere else in the world and he is quick to stamp down on any and all resistance to it, as has been seen in the arrests of anyone protesting against the war. The loyalty towards him from the police and the professional armed forces is second to none, the conscripts, not so much, but they are kept in line by the officers and NCOs that are. Gulags in Russia are still a thing and it is the threat of those that keep the masses in line.
|
|
|
Post by frankwellshrews on Mar 30, 2022 9:47:33 GMT 1
You have everyone crying on about democracy then sleep Joe keeps harping on about a new leader in Russia. We'd probably like it yes, but leave that for the Russian people to decide/negotiate. Don't you need a democracy in the first place for the Russian people to be able to decide?
|
|
|
Post by armchairfan on Mar 30, 2022 9:52:41 GMT 1
You have everyone crying on about democracy then sleep Joe keeps harping on about a new leader in Russia. We'd probably like it yes, but leave that for the Russian people to decide/negotiate. Don't you need a democracy in the first place for the Russian people to be able to decide? Very true, to our oh-so-innocent ways of thinking......but from memory, the Bolsheviks of 1917 didn't quite see things the same way.
|
|
|
Post by frankwellshrews on Mar 30, 2022 10:32:33 GMT 1
Don't you need a democracy in the first place for the Russian people to be able to decide? Very true, to our oh-so-innocent ways of thinking......but from memory, the Bolsheviks of 1917 didn't quite see things the same way. With the greatest of respect, what does this have to do with anything? The point I'm trying to make is saying "let the Russians decide" isn't a good solution where the Russians have no mechanism to decide. This is where someone like Putin needs to be forcibly removed with a view to establishing a democracy. I suspect this is what "sleepy Joe" and others are getting at.
|
|
|
Post by severnaside on Mar 30, 2022 10:35:41 GMT 1
Very true, to our oh-so-innocent ways of thinking......but from memory, the Bolsheviks of 1917 didn't quite see things the same way. With the greatest of respect, what does this have to do with anything? The point I'm trying to make is saying "let the Russians decide" isn't a good solution where the Russians have no mechanism to decide. This is where someone like Putin needs to be forcibly removed with a view to establishing a democracy. I suspect this is what "sleepy Joe" and others are getting at. The question is; Who does the forcing?
|
|
|
Post by martinshrew on Mar 30, 2022 10:37:40 GMT 1
Very true, to our oh-so-innocent ways of thinking......but from memory, the Bolsheviks of 1917 didn't quite see things the same way. With the greatest of respect, what does this have to do with anything? The point I'm trying to make is saying "let the Russians decide" isn't a good solution where the Russians have no mechanism to decide. This is where someone like Putin needs to be forcibly removed with a view to establishing a democracy. I suspect this is what "sleepy Joe" and others are getting at. Let's do the Blair & Bush thing all over again and force ourselves where we're not wanted. Ffs, we're just obsessed with ****ing up everyone else's way of life and thinking everyone wants to live exactly like us, you find plenty don't and don't thank us for interfering.
|
|
|
Post by frankwellshrews on Mar 30, 2022 10:59:07 GMT 1
With the greatest of respect, what does this have to do with anything? The point I'm trying to make is saying "let the Russians decide" isn't a good solution where the Russians have no mechanism to decide. This is where someone like Putin needs to be forcibly removed with a view to establishing a democracy. I suspect this is what "sleepy Joe" and others are getting at. Let's do the Blair & Bush thing all over again and force ourselves where we're not wanted. Ffs, we're just obsessed with ****ing up everyone else's way of life and thinking everyone wants to live exactly like us, you find plenty don't and don't thank us for interfering. Few things to unpack here; firstly, your contention was "let the Russians decide". "The Russians" can't decide if they live under a de facto dictatorship. Could you argue that "the Russians" have made their choice by not rising up and chucking out Vlad? Maybe but then, as we've seen, they also face some beutal repression and propaganda so not really a fair fight. I don't think Biden or anyone else is advocating " doing a Bush/Blair". I think they are saying that Putin has to be removed before the West will do business with Russia again, however that gets done. Lots if rumours swirling that the elite in Russia are not happy with Putin and looking to replace him. USA signalling they're open to that happening? As for the Iraq thing though, what went wrong? I'd argue Hussein was an evil dictator who gassed people at Halapja and the western powers did well to remove him. The mistakes came after that, with a largely American led initiative to completely change the social structure of Iraq and, crucially, completing ostracised anyone linked to the Baath party (who then rose up and formed criminal groups themselves). Point being it's not necessarily the concept of "regime change" that's wrong (after all, what would have happened in 1939 if the Allies had gone "well, that's their way of life, let's just leave them to it"?) so much as the execution. Is advocating for an internal coup led by people who understand the lay of the land better but are willing to work with the west a sign the western powers have learned from past misadventures or just an acknowledgement of Russia nuclear threat? Who knows. Either way, you can't very well advocate for "letting the Russians decide" and simultaneously support the continued rule of a dictator who's shown the level of military force he's willing to use to get what he wants because "we should just stay out of it". That's an either/or situation.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Mar 30, 2022 11:17:11 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by armchairfan on Mar 30, 2022 14:48:06 GMT 1
Very true, to our oh-so-innocent ways of thinking......but from memory, the Bolsheviks of 1917 didn't quite see things the same way. With the greatest of respect, what does this have to do with anything? The point I'm trying to make is saying "let the Russians decide" isn't a good solution where the Russians have no mechanism to decide. This is where someone like Putin needs to be forcibly removed with a view to establishing a democracy. I suspect this is what "sleepy Joe" and others are getting at. My point is, in fact, exactly the same as yours, being that the Russians are not really renowned for their democratic approach to governance.
|
|
|
Post by armchairfan on Mar 30, 2022 15:44:35 GMT 1
Let's do the Blair & Bush thing all over again and force ourselves where we're not wanted. Ffs, we're just obsessed with ****ing up everyone else's way of life and thinking everyone wants to live exactly like us, you find plenty don't and don't thank us for interfering. Few things to unpack here; firstly, your contention was "let the Russians decide". "The Russians" can't decide if they live under a de facto dictatorship. Could you argue that "the Russians" have made their choice by not rising up and chucking out Vlad? Maybe but then, as we've seen, they also face some beutal repression and propaganda so not really a fair fight. I don't think Biden or anyone else is advocating " doing a Bush/Blair". I think they are saying that Putin has to be removed before the West will do business with Russia again, however that gets done. Lots if rumours swirling that the elite in Russia are not happy with Putin and looking to replace him. USA signalling they're open to that happening? As for the Iraq thing though, what went wrong? I'd argue Hussein was an evil dictator who gassed people at Halapja and the western powers did well to remove him. The mistakes came after that, with a largely American led initiative to completely change the social structure of Iraq and, crucially, completing ostracised anyone linked to the Baath party (who then rose up and formed criminal groups themselves). Point being it's not necessarily the concept of "regime change" that's wrong (after all, what would have happened in 1939 if the Allies had gone "well, that's their way of life, let's just leave them to it"?) so much as the execution. Is advocating for an internal coup led by people who understand the lay of the land better but are willing to work with the west a sign the western powers have learned from past misadventures or just an acknowledgement of Russia nuclear threat? Who knows. Either way, you can't very well advocate for "letting the Russians decide" and simultaneously support the continued rule of a dictator who's shown the level of military force he's willing to use to get what he wants because "we should just stay out of it". That's an either/or situation. I take on board many of the points you make; it has often been asked whether the ordinary non politically-committed people of this country would have simply accepted Nazi rule had they lived in the Germany of the thirties; arguably, the ordinary Russian now has to face that sort of reality....hardly a comfortable position, irrespective of what may be going on within the upper echelons of the Kremlin. As for Iraq, I do agree that the mistakes were largely committed AFTER the invasion, but neither we nor the US could possibly have known that at the time of the invasion; that the western powers " did well to remove him", because he was generally known to be, in your words, "an evil dictator"; on this I wholeheartedly agree, but as I recall, it was largely the Left who opposed the western invasion for being both de jure, and morally, wrong, ab initio; I have no idea whether you supported western action at the time, but you now seem to be suggesting that it was justifiable, in order to rid the world of "an evil dictator'. In the context of Russia and Mr Putin, that is an infinitely weightier issue to resolve, because the presence of WMD is an undeniable and inescapable fact, rather than the "spiced-up" contents of a dubious dossier; for this reason alone, a reality check is required, and there is absolutely no value to be gained, nor lessons to be learned, from comparisons. An alternative to direct military action by western powers can only be the ongoing continuance of the "proxy wars" which have been fought all over the globe for at least the last century, which is the logical consequence of your stance - one which, I have to say, I accept.
|
|
|
Post by frankwellshrews on Mar 30, 2022 16:03:28 GMT 1
Few things to unpack here; firstly, your contention was "let the Russians decide". "The Russians" can't decide if they live under a de facto dictatorship. Could you argue that "the Russians" have made their choice by not rising up and chucking out Vlad? Maybe but then, as we've seen, they also face some beutal repression and propaganda so not really a fair fight. I don't think Biden or anyone else is advocating " doing a Bush/Blair". I think they are saying that Putin has to be removed before the West will do business with Russia again, however that gets done. Lots if rumours swirling that the elite in Russia are not happy with Putin and looking to replace him. USA signalling they're open to that happening? As for the Iraq thing though, what went wrong? I'd argue Hussein was an evil dictator who gassed people at Halapja and the western powers did well to remove him. The mistakes came after that, with a largely American led initiative to completely change the social structure of Iraq and, crucially, completing ostracised anyone linked to the Baath party (who then rose up and formed criminal groups themselves). Point being it's not necessarily the concept of "regime change" that's wrong (after all, what would have happened in 1939 if the Allies had gone "well, that's their way of life, let's just leave them to it"?) so much as the execution. Is advocating for an internal coup led by people who understand the lay of the land better but are willing to work with the west a sign the western powers have learned from past misadventures or just an acknowledgement of Russia nuclear threat? Who knows. Either way, you can't very well advocate for "letting the Russians decide" and simultaneously support the continued rule of a dictator who's shown the level of military force he's willing to use to get what he wants because "we should just stay out of it". That's an either/or situation. I take on board many of the points you make; it has often been asked whether the ordinary non politically-committed people of this country would have simply accepted Nazi rule had they lived in the Germany of the thirties; arguably, the ordinary Russian now has to face that sort of reality....hardly a comfortable position, irrespective of what may be going on within the upper echelons of the Kremlin. As for Iraq, I do agree that the mistakes were largely committed AFTER the invasion, but neither we nor the US could possibly have known that at the time of the invasion; that the western powers " did well to remove him", because he was generally known to be, in your words, "an evil dictator"; on this I wholeheartedly agree, but as I recall, it was largely the Left who opposed the western invasion for being both de jure, and morally, wrong, ab initio; I have no idea whether you supported western action at the time, but you now seem to be suggesting that it was justifiable, in order to rid the world of "an evil dictator'. In the context of Russia and Mr Putin, that is an infinitely weightier issue to resolve, because the presence of WMD is an undeniable and inescapable fact, rather than the "spiced-up" contents of a dubious dossier; for this reason alone, a reality check is required, and there is absolutely no value to be gained, nor lessons to be learned, from comparisons. An alternative to direct military action by western powers can only be the ongoing continuance of the "proxy wars" which have been fought all over the globe for at least the last century, which is the logical consequence of your stance - one which, I have to say, I accept. You're misrepresenting opposition to Iraq; few shed a tear over the removal of Sadam Hussein. Lots of people were concerned about the lies told to garner support for military action and the blatant profiteering from the private sector in both the US and UK in carving up Iraq afterwards. Lots of people basically saw the war as a thinly veiled cover for a resource grab and it turns out they were right. If you look at the history of the British in Iraq in the 20th century you can see why people weren't overly enthusiastic about the proposals. Don't seem to remember anybody arguing it was wrong to remove a dictator with a track record of using chemical weapons on minority groups though.
|
|
|
Post by martinshrew on Mar 30, 2022 16:06:51 GMT 1
I take on board many of the points you make; it has often been asked whether the ordinary non politically-committed people of this country would have simply accepted Nazi rule had they lived in the Germany of the thirties; arguably, the ordinary Russian now has to face that sort of reality....hardly a comfortable position, irrespective of what may be going on within the upper echelons of the Kremlin. As for Iraq, I do agree that the mistakes were largely committed AFTER the invasion, but neither we nor the US could possibly have known that at the time of the invasion; that the western powers " did well to remove him", because he was generally known to be, in your words, "an evil dictator"; on this I wholeheartedly agree, but as I recall, it was largely the Left who opposed the western invasion for being both de jure, and morally, wrong, ab initio; I have no idea whether you supported western action at the time, but you now seem to be suggesting that it was justifiable, in order to rid the world of "an evil dictator'. In the context of Russia and Mr Putin, that is an infinitely weightier issue to resolve, because the presence of WMD is an undeniable and inescapable fact, rather than the "spiced-up" contents of a dubious dossier; for this reason alone, a reality check is required, and there is absolutely no value to be gained, nor lessons to be learned, from comparisons. An alternative to direct military action by western powers can only be the ongoing continuance of the "proxy wars" which have been fought all over the globe for at least the last century, which is the logical consequence of your stance - one which, I have to say, I accept. You're misrepresenting opposition to Iraq; few shed a tear over the removal of Sadam Hussein. Lots of people were concerned about the lies told to garner support for military action and the blatant profiteering from the private sector in both the US and UK in carving up Iraq afterwards. Lots of people basically saw the war as a thinly veiled cover for a resource grab and it turns out they were right. If you look at the history of the British in Iraq in the 20th century you can see why people weren't overly enthusiastic about the proposals. Don't seem to remember anybody arguing it was wrong to remove a dictator with a track record of using chemical weapons on minority groups though. I very much agree with your initial points. One thing I would say is that plenty are of the viewpoint the entire middle east is far less stable since Saddam was removed. We just went in there and made it an even worse place overall.
|
|
|
Post by armchairfan on Mar 30, 2022 16:42:58 GMT 1
I take on board many of the points you make; it has often been asked whether the ordinary non politically-committed people of this country would have simply accepted Nazi rule had they lived in the Germany of the thirties; arguably, the ordinary Russian now has to face that sort of reality....hardly a comfortable position, irrespective of what may be going on within the upper echelons of the Kremlin. As for Iraq, I do agree that the mistakes were largely committed AFTER the invasion, but neither we nor the US could possibly have known that at the time of the invasion; that the western powers " did well to remove him", because he was generally known to be, in your words, "an evil dictator"; on this I wholeheartedly agree, but as I recall, it was largely the Left who opposed the western invasion for being both de jure, and morally, wrong, ab initio; I have no idea whether you supported western action at the time, but you now seem to be suggesting that it was justifiable, in order to rid the world of "an evil dictator'. In the context of Russia and Mr Putin, that is an infinitely weightier issue to resolve, because the presence of WMD is an undeniable and inescapable fact, rather than the "spiced-up" contents of a dubious dossier; for this reason alone, a reality check is required, and there is absolutely no value to be gained, nor lessons to be learned, from comparisons. An alternative to direct military action by western powers can only be the ongoing continuance of the "proxy wars" which have been fought all over the globe for at least the last century, which is the logical consequence of your stance - one which, I have to say, I accept. You're misrepresenting opposition to Iraq; few shed a tear over the removal of Sadam Hussein. Lots of people were concerned about the lies told to garner support for military action and the blatant profiteering from the private sector in both the US and UK in carving up Iraq afterwards. Lots of people basically saw the war as a thinly veiled cover for a resource grab and it turns out they were right. If you look at the history of the British in Iraq in the 20th century you can see why people weren't overly enthusiastic about the proposals. Don't seem to remember anybody arguing it was wrong to remove a dictator with a track record of using chemical weapons on minority groups though. Again, what you say is not without merit, but I am not in any way misrepresenting your(?) opposition to Iraq at all - it was you who suggested that the western powers " did well to remove him", implying that it was the right thing to do; Perhaps I have drawn the incorrect inference - and perhaps, also, it was a case of doing the right thing, but for entirely bogus reasons, hence Meesrs Campbell and Blair felt the need to "sex up" that infamous dossier. I any event, that is an argument of the past, and has, I feel, been more than adequately covered - its relevance to the Putin - Ukraine conflict is, I submit, somewhat tenuous, certainly in terms of both any military developments and also any consequences thereof.
|
|
mbms
Shropshire County League
Posts: 26
|
Post by mbms on Mar 30, 2022 18:49:58 GMT 1
As a Labour voter it is to my shame that it was a Labour government that was so intent on assisting the Americans and their regime change agenda in Iraq. Equally it is something to be proud of that the majority of votes against the invasion came from the Labour benches, the vote would have failed miserably without the votes of the vast majority of the Tory MPs. I was also against the NATO operations in Libya. Yes we got rid of two 'evil dictators' to quote others on here, but what sort of plan was there for afterwards? None that I can see.
Iraq, Libya and more recently Syria (where we in the west were also trying to change the regime) became home to terrorist organisations and allowed ISIS to come into being. It's really simple to google 'then and now' photographs of Baghdad, Tripoli and Aleppo and the contrast is stark. We in the west are at least partially and in many cases primarily to blame for that, it is little wonder that some people in these countries hate us and who can blame them?
We all know that given the slightest excuse the US will be pushing for an invasion of Iran next and many of the parliamentarians that are currently so critical of Putin will no doubt be banging the drum for us to join in. No doubt the Saudis will want to be involved too, seeing as they are already fighting a proxy war with Iran in Yemen with weapons and training all provided by us and America. Israel will probably want to play their part too.
Why can't we just spend a fraction of the money that we will inevitably spend on war on trying to persuade these countries to become more open, more tolerant and less extreme (to our way of thinking anyway)? BTW the most extreme country in that part of the world is Saudi Arabia, but like I said they're a massive customer of ours and we all know that the customer is always right
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Mar 30, 2022 19:56:19 GMT 1
As a Labour voter it is to my shame that it was a Labour government that was so intent on assisting the Americans and their regime change agenda in Iraq. Equally it is something to be proud of that the majority of votes against the invasion came from the Labour benches, the vote would have failed miserably without the votes of the vast majority of the Tory MPs. I was also against the NATO operations in Libya. Yes we got rid of two 'evil dictators' to quote others on here, but what sort of plan was there for afterwards? None that I can see.
Iraq, Libya and more recently Syria (where we in the west were also trying to change the regime) became home to terrorist organisations and allowed ISIS to come into being. It's really simple to google 'then and now' photographs of Baghdad, Tripoli and Aleppo and the contrast is stark. We in the west are at least partially and in many cases primarily to blame for that, it is little wonder that some people in these countries hate us and who can blame them?
We all know that given the slightest excuse the US will be pushing for an invasion of Iran next and many of the parliamentarians that are currently so critical of Putin will no doubt be banging the drum for us to join in. No doubt the Saudis will want to be involved too, seeing as they are already fighting a proxy war with Iran in Yemen with weapons and training all provided by us and America. Israel will probably want to play their part too.
Why can't we just spend a fraction of the money that we will inevitably spend on war on trying to persuade these countries to become more open, more tolerant and less extreme (to our way of thinking anyway)? BTW the most extreme country in that part of the world is Saudi Arabia, but like I said they're a massive customer of ours and we all know that the customer is always right Wars are like the premier league , they haven't existed for many years and didn't happen previously so we don't mention them
|
|
mbms
Shropshire County League
Posts: 26
|
Post by mbms on Mar 31, 2022 8:21:08 GMT 1
As a Labour voter it is to my shame that it was a Labour government that was so intent on assisting the Americans and their regime change agenda in Iraq. Equally it is something to be proud of that the majority of votes against the invasion came from the Labour benches, the vote would have failed miserably without the votes of the vast majority of the Tory MPs. I was also against the NATO operations in Libya. Yes we got rid of two 'evil dictators' to quote others on here, but what sort of plan was there for afterwards? None that I can see.
Iraq, Libya and more recently Syria (where we in the west were also trying to change the regime) became home to terrorist organisations and allowed ISIS to come into being. It's really simple to google 'then and now' photographs of Baghdad, Tripoli and Aleppo and the contrast is stark. We in the west are at least partially and in many cases primarily to blame for that, it is little wonder that some people in these countries hate us and who can blame them?
We all know that given the slightest excuse the US will be pushing for an invasion of Iran next and many of the parliamentarians that are currently so critical of Putin will no doubt be banging the drum for us to join in. No doubt the Saudis will want to be involved too, seeing as they are already fighting a proxy war with Iran in Yemen with weapons and training all provided by us and America. Israel will probably want to play their part too.
Why can't we just spend a fraction of the money that we will inevitably spend on war on trying to persuade these countries to become more open, more tolerant and less extreme (to our way of thinking anyway)? BTW the most extreme country in that part of the world is Saudi Arabia, but like I said they're a massive customer of ours and we all know that the customer is always right Wars are like the premier league , they haven't existed for many years and didn't happen previously so we don't mention them Unless England happen to be playing Germany and the "two World Wars and one World Cup" chants come out.
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Mar 31, 2022 8:46:37 GMT 1
Wars are like the premier league , they haven't existed for many years and didn't happen previously so we don't mention them Unless England happen to be playing Germany and the "two World Wars and one World Cup" chants come out. whereas when we play France we don't mention the war presumably because they kicked our arse more than we did theirs
|
|
|
Post by South Stand Salopian on Mar 31, 2022 14:08:45 GMT 1
|
|