You're factually incorrest regarding NATO. NATO didn't invade Iraq. NATO didn't invade Syria (as you mention). The NATO invasion of Afghanistan would almost certainly have been a total success but for one catastrophic mistake. The aim was to overthrow the Taliban and then pump billions of dollars into the economy ($34Bn a year was talked of) to move it possibly not into the 21st century but at least somehere along that route. However, Bush's advisors (mainly Rumsfeld - read "Bush's War" for the story) pushed for Iraq to be attacked. Attention moved away from Afghanistan, as did the money. It was left in exactly the dire state it had been but with an imposed government, something that never works. Attacking the root cause of instability by encouraging investment does work and has been shown to work. So, NATO didn't mess up. The US government did. EDIT: And Blair dragged the UK along with them. As for "We, the west, shouldn't have to receive the burden of these refugees. The government betrayed us, the people aren't responsible." Are you serious? That isn't the way democracy works. You can't separate the people from the government whenever you choose to do so. You're basically arguing that if you vote in a government you can choose whether to live with the consequences of what they then do on your behalf. Vin
I spoke to a Labour member the other week in the pub. I put forward that Corbyn might well be unelectable and he said "It's better to be out of power and saying what you believe than to be in power for the sake of it". Admirable on a philosophical level. Vin
A drone crashed into some (luckily) unoccupied seating at the New York Open. Sadly only a matter of time........
The problem is that, in general, governments facing a strong opposition do a better job. The idiocies in legislation (and there generally are some) are effectively highlighted and can be negotiated out. If the opposition is weak the government has carte blanche to do what it likes. It's also better in my opinion for democracy. the people who have voted for the losing side still feel they have a voice in Parliament so there's less agitation by extremists outside the political process to get their voices heard. To clarify, I believe this to be true whoever is in power; it works either way. Vin
I wouldn't care if my party leader was unelectable if they pushed policies that they believed in and I agreed with. Even Rupert Murdoch said that Corbyn "seems [the] only candidate who believes anything, right or wrong".
In my opinion one of the core reasons we have seemingly unsolvable issues in the middle east is due to how the borders are set. The current borders in the middle east were mostly set by a couple of politicians from from England and France in 1916. Straight lines were used to divvy up the territory between the colonial powers. 2 diplomats called Sykes and Picot basically just used a ruler to draw some lines on the atlas and those were going to be separate nations. Unfortunately they didn't take into account the differences in Islamic factions and the result was a bunch of 'nations' consisting of various tribes that were at best incompatible and at worst openly hostile. Take Iraq for example. The country is roughly 97% Muslim with 65% being Shia and about 32% being Sunni which also breaks into smaller factions such as Kurd's. The various denominations are incompatible and as such the country has been engaged in a perpetual civil war. There is an endless list of coups and power struggles but just in very recent memory: Saddam Hussein led the final coup which led to his rise of the Ba'ath party which was the minority Sunni Muslims. He was eventually overthrown by Western Powers which appointed a Shia run leadership Under Shia leadership a Sunni resistance cell formed out the remainder of the Ba'ath party and other Sunni die-hards...ISIS Had more thought been put into the establishment of the borders in regards to what faction/denomination lived where, and allowed each to rule their own, we wouldn't have a lot of the issues facing us today. TLDR: Western countries made up imaginary borders and tried to force different religions/denominations to get along under one government.
Margaret Thatcher said the same when she had a landslide victory....being free to make decisions without challenge is not necessarily a good thing.
Labour needs to be in the centre to win, they haven't won convincingly on the centre left since 1966. I want Corbyn to win as it will be funny, especially PMQ's (even if I'm to the right of Corbyn).
Just found out that the naked rambler comes from Eastleigh. I wonder where he keeps his ticket on his way to St Mary`s ?
As soon as Corbyn becomes leader all the stuff about him being to close to Russia will come out. Labour will probably end up with a bigger loss then the past election.
Sales of male grooming* products have fallen significantly. (http://www.cityam.com/223642/fall-metrosexual-hairy-hipsters-drive-down-sales-male-grooming-products ) They blame it on beards in general but I wonder if it could be laid at the door of a single twatbeard? Vin * In my case, a bar of soap and and whatever shampoo is about
Nothing more than fear-mongering and word-twisting from the centre-right press. It's hilarious comparing Telegraph headlines with actual Corbyn quotes. His actual quote whilst speaking to reporters on Russia Today - "What is security? Is security the ability to bomb, maim, kill, destroy, or is security the ability to get on with other people and have some kind of respectful existence with them?"
Interesting piece from David Miliband. http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/c...istory-of-helping-the-displaced-a2927366.html
TheTecondStain does indeed go rambling, but he doesn't come across this bloke because he's not a rambler, and not a member of any rambler group. He's just a solitary walker, whose routes take him down roads and paths. Ramblers mainly walk across Rights of Way and Bridlepaths, which means mountains, hills, fields, paddocks, woods and forests, and make sure the ways are kept open and in good walking condition for anyone to use. We occasionally cross roads and paths. I know someone who knows him though. I understand he had a bit of an epiphany of some stage in his life, while he was married and it all became too much for his wife after a few years of his new view of life, because it changed him dramatically as a person. So they eventually divorced. There are elements of what he stands for that certainly does make one question society's attitudes, but he could do better if he just joined a naturist group.
Same thing happened in Africa. That's why there's so much conflict between the Hutu and Tutsis (ignoring the fact that it was a division in part created by and perpetuated by the colonial power in question, in this case Belgium) leading to the 1994 Rwandan Genocide.
