Off Topic Politics Thread
- Thread starter ChilcoSaint
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
I''m sure, if it does kick off and jizzmiester Johnson doesn't commit UK forces, that chump Trump will still give us the best trade deal ever. Or maybe, just maybe, not.
No I didn't mean that at all Beddy. It's over the barrel for Boris. Donnie's coming in dry.
Is it just me or is the world going completely bonkers? A statement by The US secretary of state Mike Pompeo said the US remains committed to de-escalation with Iran. This is a few hours after assassinating the Iran's most senior general Qassem Suleimani in a drone strike. I really don't see how a military strike such as this can in any way go together with de-escalation. It's madness for anyone to think that way and the world is becoming very dark and twisted these days.
It feels like we are entering an era of massive instability and uncertainty that might challenge many things that we previously accepted as normal. None of this feels right at all and it's frightening what it could lead to. Undoubtedly our government will do whatever Trump asks of them, and that will likely herald in a new open season on our citizens for even more terrorist attacks.
Well done Mr Trump, you complete and utter ****wit.
It feels like we are entering an era of massive instability and uncertainty that might challenge many things that we previously accepted as normal. None of this feels right at all and it's frightening what it could lead to. Undoubtedly our government will do whatever Trump asks of them, and that will likely herald in a new open season on our citizens for even more terrorist attacks.
Well done Mr Trump, you complete and utter ****wit.
I think it’s important to realise that US activity in the Middle East isn’t that coherent, isn’t driven by any carefully considered set of goals, and isn’t necessarily aligned to any consistent policy objective. There have always been hawks and doves in the State Department pulling in often completely opposing directions at the same time.
The hawks obviously feel empowered due to the President’s posturing over Iran, but from Trump’s point of view, posturing is possibly as far as he wants this to go. How far the current situation escalates is probably down to Iran at this point. I’m no apologist for Trump, but the record suggests he himself probably doesn’t want to see a conflict that will require American boots on the ground. There are clearly other voices in his administration, who are itching to use all those expensive war toys.
I agree with everything you wrote Archers but the worry is that these drone strikes the US is so fond of will likely hit one target too many, or the wrong target. and all hell could break loose. One of our family members was in the British Marines in Afghanistan and he said the common description of the American troops was "All the gear, and no idea". He said they would shoot at anything that moved, whether it was civilians or suspected Taliban fighters. He felt the three words "American, Military and Intelligence" should never be used in the same sentence because no matter how they were arranged it always amounted to a **** up.
He told us there was a big argument between a number of British and American senior officers because the American officers had issued a "Seek it, See it, Kill it" order and the civilian casualties in their sector went through the roof, literally in some cases. The British troops had developed a strategy of looking people in the eye and entering into discussions, rather than hiding behind dark glasses and pointing weapons at everyone.
I just find all this killing and chest thumping appalling. The world is on the verge of a climate catastrophe and the people who could take a positive leadership and actually do something about it would rather be slinging bombs at people in far off countries. Complete and utter madness.
He told us there was a big argument between a number of British and American senior officers because the American officers had issued a "Seek it, See it, Kill it" order and the civilian casualties in their sector went through the roof, literally in some cases. The British troops had developed a strategy of looking people in the eye and entering into discussions, rather than hiding behind dark glasses and pointing weapons at everyone.
I just find all this killing and chest thumping appalling. The world is on the verge of a climate catastrophe and the people who could take a positive leadership and actually do something about it would rather be slinging bombs at people in far off countries. Complete and utter madness.
An old mate of mine, still alive last I heard, was in the Coldstream Guards. He served in Korea, and he used to tell the story of how his regiment was relieved from the frontline by the Seaforth Highlanders. A few days after being relieved, they found out that those Seaforth Highlanders had been annihilated - by US artillery.
You're right, but at the same time it's hard to have a consistent policy objective when the situation is so complex. Yes, we've gone back and forth and you can argue that has hurt us (and the rest of the world), but at the same time we've also avoided truly massive ****ups.
The warhawks and neocons wanted one thing, the peaceniks and isolationists another. Both had some decent arguments and there was some logic in their arguments. All those competing voices in the US plus an unstable situation in the Mideast that turns on a dime has resulted in a overall incoherent policy. But each of those voices at least had some kind of internal logic to their plans. And there was some recognition that there was no easy solution.
The difference is that Trump isn't being pulled by competing voices. He's just doing whatever he feels like on any given day. He's always right, and if something goes wrong it's someone else's fault. What he wants is to be the king of the world, but he's both lazy and lacking the intellectual capacity to carry it off. So what you have is basically a dude throwing tantrums. He's more like a third world tin pot dictator or maybe a Nero-like crazy emperor than a Hitler or Putin.
I mean sadly, I think Putin is the one who will prevent Trump from dragging us into a disaster because the global instability is bad for Russia. It's a really sad day when we are relying on Putin as a savior.
Pleased to hear your pal escaped the carnage, but it's dreadfully sad the Seaforth Highlanders were slaughtered. Not much else one can say about such an awful tragedy.
Seems appropriate.
You must log in or register to see images
Sadly I to have been a victim of friendly fire from the yanks...........Damn near got a court martial because I dared fire back!!
The Dirty War On The NHS
Anyone who wants to watch the new John Pilger film about the NHS, here's a link to the ITV Hub where it can be viewed.
https://www.itv.com/hub/the-dirty-war-on-the-nhs/2a5959a0001
The original screening date was suppressed because the Tories didn't want this film to be seen before the general election, so OFCOM banned it until 5 days after the election was over.
This film is a frightening statement of what is around the corner for this country.
Anyone who wants to watch the new John Pilger film about the NHS, here's a link to the ITV Hub where it can be viewed.
https://www.itv.com/hub/the-dirty-war-on-the-nhs/2a5959a0001
The original screening date was suppressed because the Tories didn't want this film to be seen before the general election, so OFCOM banned it until 5 days after the election was over.
This film is a frightening statement of what is around the corner for this country.
Last edited:
You must log in or register to see images
I just pinched this piece from the Delhi Mail off Facebook. It is an excellent summary of the history of the Middle East and why we should avoid Trump’s attempt at warmongering like the plague:
Right, let's explain this impending war in "goodies and baddies" terms, that anyone can understand.
Iran actually hasn't started a war with anyone in about 300 years. They've been at war with Saddam Hussein, but then so has the west. They've been at war with IS, but then so have we- supposedly.
There are two countries that really hate Iran- really, really hate them. Israel, who've been engaged in a sort of Cold War with Iran since 1979. Iran has supported Hamas and Hezbollah- rather limply, it must be said- and the Israelis haven't taken that lying down, as you might expect: Mossad has been well at it, conducting discreet assassinations and helping Iranian dissident groups.
...and before you go there with the Iranian Embassy siege of 1980, the baddies in that were exactly such a dissident group, NOT the Iranian government. They were Khuzestani separatists. The people they were holding hostage- the people rescued by the SAS- were Iranian government officials and workers. (Probably no coincidence that a penniless group of Iranian dissidents suddenly got the resources to mount such a high-profile operation against the Iranian government halfway across the world in London shortly after Iran resumed its hostile stance to Israel after the 1979 coup...)
The other country that really hates Iran is Saudi Arabia. Why? Because the ruling Saudi royal family are Wahabist religious fanatics, that's why. Fanatical Sunnis. Iran is officially Shia, their Ayatollahs are Shia. IS, by the way, is a fanatical Sunni Wahabist organisation- covertly sponsored, trained and equipped by the Saudis. Most of the 9/11 bombers were Saudi. Bin Laden was Saudi, although admittedly, he wandered so far off the reservation that even they had to wash their hands of him.
Their mutual hatred of Iran makes for a strange, downbeat alliance between the Saudis and Israel. Which, by the way, is why IS have never attacked Israel in any way.
So whose side are we in Britain on? The Saudis and Israelis of course. The cheerful, head-lopping, journalist-dismembering, fanatical sponsors of global terrorism on the one hand, and on the other, a right-wing ethnocentric regime which treats their own ethnic minorities in much the same way as Custer and Chivington treated the Plains Indians. Worse, if anything.
....and they're both our friends, both our allies, as is the other major player in this, Trump's America. I don't have to tell you what they're after, but it ain't peace, and it ain't democracy, unless peace and democracy are black and come in barrels,
If you look at the side we've picked in the Middle East, I'm afraid we ARE the baddies. An impossible scenario, I'll admit, for your average gammon to contemplate. For them, it's always the white people who are the goodies, Britain can do no wrong and the w*gs not only start at Calais, but are always the insane, warmongering bad guys. I'm sure that's how our thick-ear media will posit it for the dumbed-down masses. It's just not the truth, that's all.
Right, let's explain this impending war in "goodies and baddies" terms, that anyone can understand.
Iran actually hasn't started a war with anyone in about 300 years. They've been at war with Saddam Hussein, but then so has the west. They've been at war with IS, but then so have we- supposedly.
There are two countries that really hate Iran- really, really hate them. Israel, who've been engaged in a sort of Cold War with Iran since 1979. Iran has supported Hamas and Hezbollah- rather limply, it must be said- and the Israelis haven't taken that lying down, as you might expect: Mossad has been well at it, conducting discreet assassinations and helping Iranian dissident groups.
...and before you go there with the Iranian Embassy siege of 1980, the baddies in that were exactly such a dissident group, NOT the Iranian government. They were Khuzestani separatists. The people they were holding hostage- the people rescued by the SAS- were Iranian government officials and workers. (Probably no coincidence that a penniless group of Iranian dissidents suddenly got the resources to mount such a high-profile operation against the Iranian government halfway across the world in London shortly after Iran resumed its hostile stance to Israel after the 1979 coup...)
The other country that really hates Iran is Saudi Arabia. Why? Because the ruling Saudi royal family are Wahabist religious fanatics, that's why. Fanatical Sunnis. Iran is officially Shia, their Ayatollahs are Shia. IS, by the way, is a fanatical Sunni Wahabist organisation- covertly sponsored, trained and equipped by the Saudis. Most of the 9/11 bombers were Saudi. Bin Laden was Saudi, although admittedly, he wandered so far off the reservation that even they had to wash their hands of him.
Their mutual hatred of Iran makes for a strange, downbeat alliance between the Saudis and Israel. Which, by the way, is why IS have never attacked Israel in any way.
So whose side are we in Britain on? The Saudis and Israelis of course. The cheerful, head-lopping, journalist-dismembering, fanatical sponsors of global terrorism on the one hand, and on the other, a right-wing ethnocentric regime which treats their own ethnic minorities in much the same way as Custer and Chivington treated the Plains Indians. Worse, if anything.
....and they're both our friends, both our allies, as is the other major player in this, Trump's America. I don't have to tell you what they're after, but it ain't peace, and it ain't democracy, unless peace and democracy are black and come in barrels,
If you look at the side we've picked in the Middle East, I'm afraid we ARE the baddies. An impossible scenario, I'll admit, for your average gammon to contemplate. For them, it's always the white people who are the goodies, Britain can do no wrong and the w*gs not only start at Calais, but are always the insane, warmongering bad guys. I'm sure that's how our thick-ear media will posit it for the dumbed-down masses. It's just not the truth, that's all.
I've been puzzling over this post trying to understand under what circumstances you would return "friendly" fire.....possibly in a sniper/sniper engagement? I've served in the forces fortunately not experienced any action but I would have thought it would be reckless to return so-called friendly fire. I understand that you were in the RN, if it was an allied ship surely you wouldn't take it upon yourself to return such fire. Any possibility of expanding on the circumstances of this event?
Not a lot "D" notices etc..........Despite known communication between the two groups. Some of them were so jittery they started to open fire again and hit my mate. My fire was just a return warning it made him take cover then the firing ceased. My mate was fine though just a graze on his shoulder although we could have done with out that..............
Edit............ we did get an eventual apology