Off Topic The Politics Thread

[rangercol]

Of that I don't know mate but dropping bombs isn't the answer. It will just incite more revenge terrorist activity on our shores imo.

Bob I have huge respect for you mate and your wish for a peaceful world is admirable.
However, as history shows us, sometimes we have to stand up against the bad guys and avoid apeasement allowing them to continue with their evil ways.
"Jaw jaw is better than war war" without a doubt but sometimes, regrettably the latter is the only option.

 

[colognehornet]

IMO there is no chance of Russia intentionally getting into a war with NATO as it's a war that they can't win. A conventional war would result in a huge defeat for Russia and if the absolute worst happened a nuclear conflict would guarantee absolute (mutual) destruction.
The biggest concern is an escalation via a mistake by either side resulting in war.
Trump is a hugely embarrassing figure, but he will not want a war with Russia. Putin is a hard line Nationalist but he too wouldn't want a conflict with the West.
I'm not sure whether we should have bombed Syria or not, but at some point a dictator killing his own people with chemical weapons needs to be stopped. May and co are damned if they do and damned if they don't imo.

At some point the war must be stopped in Syria - our actions in bombing will actually increase the sufferings of the Syrian people because their likely impact will be to lengthen that war. What could we really do to help Syria ? Firstly we need to accept that Assad is going to hold onto power - the only way to prevent that would be a land invasion of the country. I also abhore the use of chemical weapons - but these are only a tiny fraction of the millions who have died, and are dying, through the use of conventional weapons - the only way to bring this all to an end is to back Assad and help him bring it to an end quickly, however obnoxious such an alliance may appear.

 

[rangercol]

At some point the war must be stopped in Syria - our actions in bombing will actually increase the sufferings of the Syrian people because their likely impact will be to lengthen that war. What could we really do to help Syria ? Firstly we need to accept that Assad is going to hold onto power - the only way to prevent that would be a land invasion of the country. I also abhore the use of chemical weapons - but these are only a tiny fraction of the millions who have died, and are dying, through the use of conventional weapons - the only way to bring this all to an end is to back Assad and help him bring it to an end quickly, however obnoxious such an alliance may appear.

Yep. It is indeed a cesspool of choices and none of them good.

 

[Sooperhoop]

Sadly, often a 'dictator' style leader is the only way to have order in some of these countries. Iraq and Libya were perfect examples of crackpot leaders who were oppressive but maintained order, once they were removed their countries descended into factions who basically destroyed large parts of their countries. Sadly it was outside interference that pre-empted this and the active involvement of these 'liberators' probably has done a lot more harm than good, it seems we never learn...

 

[Frome-Ranger]

I can't claim to know a great deal about what is happening in Syria but this decision just seems wrong. A dictator with a proclivity to using violence against anyone he pleases without any mandate is not going to be deterred by us using the same. It's clear May is now just a sock puppet for Trump. It was nonsense about the timing of the strike as well, it happened when it did because parliament is back on Monday. We have a PM with no mandate from the people in a minority government taking military action off her own back, military action I believe most people would be against. It's a scary world.

 

[durbar2003]

This country needs the military might of the USA. We and Europe would fall easily if Russia were to invade, the don’t have any aggressive intentions because of the threat of America. Grow up people.

 

[bobmid]

This country needs the military might of the USA. We and Europe would fall easily if Russia were to invade, the don’t have any aggressive intentions because of the threat of America. Grow up people.

Then why does this tiny island of ours get involved then?

 

[bobmid]

Bob I have huge respect for you mate and your wish for a peaceful world is admirable.
However, as history shows us, sometimes we have to stand up against the bad guys and avoid apeasement allowing them to continue with their evil ways.
"Jaw jaw is better than war war" without a doubt but sometimes, regrettably the latter is the only option.

Unfortunately we weren't given an option? We just bombed away. Like I said before, don't be surprised when more attacks happen on our land when we are so keen to inflict it on others! That's not me justifying anything but stating an opinion.

 

[bobmid]

It begs the question, how does terrorism breed and spread and today is part of the reason why!

 

[bobmid]

Bob I have huge respect for you mate and your wish for a peaceful world is admirable.
However, as history shows us, sometimes we have to stand up against the bad guys and avoid apeasement allowing them to continue with their evil ways.
"Jaw jaw is better than war war" without a doubt but sometimes, regrettably the latter is the only option.

And I have huge respect for you too mate.
I won't pretend I have the answers as I dont. I just find it very strange that thousands have been killed by other means yet chemical killing gives the green light to bomb. Someone is pulling Mays strings.

 

[durbar2003]

Then why does this tiny island of ours get involved then?

Because this tiny island needs a big brother to look after it and we want our big brother to continue to like us.

 

[kiwiqpr]

So when Assad wins the middle east will be a much safer place then
Who has been backing him

 

[Stroller]

IMO there is no chance of Russia intentionally getting into a war with NATO as it's a war that they can't win. A conventional war would result in a huge defeat for Russia and if the absolute worst happened a nuclear conflict would guarantee absolute (mutual) destruction.
The biggest concern is an escalation via a mistake by either side resulting in war.
Trump is a hugely embarrassing figure, but he will not want a war with Russia. Putin is a hard line Nationalist but he too wouldn't want a conflict with the West.
I'm not sure whether we should have bombed Syria or not, but at some point a dictator killing his own people with chemical weapons needs to be stopped. May and co are damned if they do and damned if they don't imo.

Of course neither side wants an all-out war, but we've got a narcissist in the White House and another one in the Kremlin - a highly dangerous combination. Early signs are that the bombing was carefully contained and that the Syrians and Russians were warned as to what the targets were. They will have evacuated the sites, but it's still highly likely that innocents will have been killed in the attack. It's a relief that Russia does not seem to have been provoked into military retaliation, although there are fears that Putin is likely to retaliate with cyber attacks. I don't see why the coalition couldn't have waited until after the OPCW have conducted their investigation, though.

I am also concerned about the legal and constitutional legitimacy of Britain's participation. We have a Prime Minister without a majority bypassing Parliament to join an attack that public opinion opposed. Slavishly following Trump was a dangerous course to take and parliament should have been consulted.

 

[kiwiqpr]

If the Syrians and Russians were both warned so to avoid any deaths why did the Syrians and Russians not bother to let the local civilians know

 

[colognehornet]

And I have huge respect for you too mate.
I won't pretend I have the answers as I dont. I just find it very strange that thousands have been killed by other means yet chemical killing gives the green light to bomb. Someone is pulling Mays strings.

As you say, thousands have died by other means, and, as always, most were civilians. Somehow there is moral outrage about civilian deaths in warfare, yet that is the modern tendency. In World War 2 there were 2 civilian deaths to every one military, in Vietnam it was the same ratio, and in the Iraq war 77% of those who died were civilians. The highest ratio of civilian to military dead was/is in US. drone strikes on Pakistan - ten civilians for every one combatant. So the Americans are in no position to take the high ground on this one. It throws the idea of 'our brave men on the front line' rather on it's head because, statistically, being in the military is the safest place to be in modern warfare. Maybe what should be banned is not just chemical weapons, but rather all war conducted from the air.

 

[bobmid]

As you say, thousands have died by other means, and, as always, most were civilians. Somehow there is moral outrage about civilian deaths in warfare, yet that is the modern tendency. In World War 2 there were 2 civilian deaths to every one military, in Vietnam it was the same ratio, and in the Iraq war 77% of those who died were civilians. The highest ratio of civilian to military dead was/is in US. drone strikes on Pakistan - ten civilians for every one combatant. So the Americans are in no position to take the high ground on this one. It throws the idea of 'our brave men on the front line' rather on it's head because, statistically, being in the military is the safest place to be in modern warfare. Maybe what should be banned is not just chemical weapons, but rather all war conducted from the air.

With the statistics you state above, these casualties only enhance the radicalisation of terrorism on our own shores.

 

[YorkshireHoopster]

This country needs the military might of the USA. We and Europe would fall easily if Russia were to invade, the don’t have any aggressive intentions because of the threat of America. Grow up people.

Not sure that's right. Russia has been invaded several time over the years and because of its rivalry with Britain during the days of the British Empire has been seen as the enemy for centuries. Since the Russian revolution it has continued to be seen as the bad guy of Europe and since Nato was formed it has had a huge nuclear arsenal pointed its way. Those missiles and guns have been moved closer and closer over the last twenty years as the Communist bloc has broken down. Little surprise therefore that Russia has always felt threatened.

There is no evil Communist conspiracy from Moscow to take over the world and never has been. I suspect that if the US faced a nuclear threat that was coming closer and closer to its shores by the year they would act in much the same way.

 

[ELLERS]

Since the Russian revolution it has continued to be seen as the bad guy of Europe and since Nato was formed it has had a huge nuclear arsenal pointed its way. Those missiles and guns have been moved closer and closer over the last twenty years as the Communist bloc has broken down. Little surprise therefore that Russia has always felt threatened.

There is no evil Communist conspiracy from Moscow to take over the world and never has been. I suspect that if the US faced a nuclear threat that was coming closer and closer to its shores by the year they would act in much the same way.

Maybe Russia is seen as the bad guy because Stalin murdered 10's millions of his people. I don't remember the US sending 12 million people to their deaths in Gulags. Still lets blame America for everything.
12007189_10207422325902512_1692187755_n.jpg

 

[BobbyD]

Maybe Russia is seen as the bad guy because Stalin murdered 10's millions of his people. I don't remember the US sending 12 million people to their deaths in Gulags. Still lets blame America for everything.
12007189_10207422325902512_1692187755_n.jpg

nah we just decide to bomb the hell out of countries like iraq and libya and supply weapons to ISIS and Saudi Arabia and we support israel who basically land grab and kill protestors oh and who can forget our support for pinochet.

oh and we let our people starve and live out on the streets.

 

[ELLERS]

Corbyn is a spineless red jellyfish!

Spot on Goldie. The bloke is a Russian sympathizer. Even Vince Cable had a dig at him yesterday saying he 'always votes against'.
He couldn't even be honest regarding Brexit. He left many Labour voters in limbo because he didn't have the spine to say he wanted out of Europe. People blame Cameron for Brexit but 'comrade jellyfish' played a massive part. He tried to play both sides and it backfired. He is doing the same now.