Making the news today....

[Mark J]

20 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Starting from the bottom and working up Mark...

 

Displaced people should be provided temporary safe haven as close as is reasonably practical to the origin of the displacement so as to facilitate a speedy and efficient reabsorption to place of displacement on completion of hostilities.

 

Military action NOW, makes a mockery of the absence of it for the preceding years - which I happen to agree with.

 

Serious Economic and diplomatic action would be, IMHO, a better option all round.

Starting at the top and working down Kevin:

 

While I agree that ideally people should be temporarily rehoused in a safer neighbouring country, would we not be somewhat hypocritical by not offering them sanctuary if we were responsible for their displacement?  (I'm not suggesting that we scoop up the displaced in a C-10 and drop them off at Skegness)

Do you then agree that there should be no military action without Parliamentary approval?

 

Economic and diplomatic action aimed Who and Why?

 

You probably know about this than most on this forum, certainly more than I do.

 

Edited April 12, 2018 by Mark J

[matelot]

33 minutes ago, Mark J said:

Do people here reckon that we should be engaging in war in Syria?
Daesh (ISIL, ISIS, Islamic State) were the enemy.  Assad and his supporters (Russia, Iran, Kurdistan) kicked Daesh's ass.  Why should we get involved?  

Wow! Another of your posts that talks sense! Are you getting more right wing in your old age?

 

Three years ago the media reported Yazidi women getting sold in slave markets and people getting burned alive in cages. Now the "side" that were behind these human rights abuses are getting taken apart by Russia and we're meant to feel sorry for them....

 

Tbh, the West should just accept that secular dictators are the best option in the Middle East. Secular democracies don't work when a large part of your society want to drag a country back to the dark ages...

 

In Vietnam the yanks used some fairly vicious weapons against Vietnamese civilians. It's a bit rich of Trump to criticise Syria...

[Mark J]

10 minutes ago, matelot said:

Wow! Another of your posts that talks sense! Are you getting more right wing in your old age?

 

Three years ago the media reported Yazidi women getting sold in slave markets and people getting burned alive in cages. Now the "side" that were behind these human rights abuses are getting taken apart by Russia and we're meant to feel sorry for them....

 

Tbh, the West should just accept that secular dictators are the best option in the Middle East. Secular democracies don't work when a large part of your society want to drag a country back to the dark ages...

 

In Vietnam the yanks used some fairly vicious weapons against Vietnamese civilians. It's a bit rich of Trump to criticise Syria...

I just hate fascists.  What I'm suggesting isn't particularly right wing, or any wing in fact, it's just how it is as I see it.  Unnecessary labels help no-one.

 

The thing is though, that the West can't let the middle East do it's own thing due to the heavily armed Israeli govenment.  And the oil.  Let's not forget the oil.

Edited April 12, 2018 by Mark J

[matelot]

8 minutes ago, Mark J said:

The thing is though, that the West can't let the middle East do it's own thing due to the heavily armed Israeli govenment.  And the oil.  Let's not forget the oil.

Well in fifty years time when the ME runs out of oil we can leave them to their goat herding and pearl fishing.... 

[Commando]

Well in fifty years time when the ME runs out of oil we can leave them to their goat herding and pearl fishing.... 

Dubai’s oil pretty much ran out a decade ago, seem to be doing ok without it......

[Mark J]

12 minutes ago, matelot said:

Well in fifty years time when the ME runs out of oil we can leave them to their goat herding and pearl fishing.... 

You'd hope that within fifty years we may have embraced clean, sustainable energy.

 

I for one would be quite happy herding goats and fishing for pearls in my 90's.

 

 

Edited April 12, 2018 by Mark J

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

22 minutes ago, Mark J said:

Starting at the top and working down Kevin:

 

While I agree that ideally people should be temporarily rehoused in a safer neighbouring country, would we not be somewhat hypocritical by not offering them sanctuary if we were responsible for their displacement?  (I'm not suggesting that we scoop up the displaced in a C-10 and drop them off at Skegness)

Do you then agree that there should be no military action without Parliamentary approval?

 

Economic and diplomatic action aimed Who and Why?

 

You probably know about this than most on this forum, certainly more than I do.

 

Hypocracy for what? Not taking direct kinetic military action sooner? Confused!

 

parliamentary approval, or otherwise, is irrelevant in my reckoning. The solution will not be found in military intervention. 

 

Russia and Iran , for fucking meddling, before the mighty Israel laces the gloves up and starts issuing some serious spanking. 

[WesD]

39 minutes ago, Mark J said:

I think that a Prime Minister making their own decisions is a slippery slope to be on.  Tony Blair didn't really help when he went down that route.
I reckon that May has (and knows she has) the spine of a sea cucumber and the diplomatic skills of chest of drawers.

 

Maybe your right but they are PM for a reason. If they voted everything through parliament they may as well have a coalition PowerShare permanently. 

 

Like I said an official UN presence to leave em too it but being there to prevent chemical attacks as UN rather than being labelled as a country interfering. 

 

There is nothing wrong every once in a while following what the world does instead of being at the forefront all of the time. 

 

Go Macron I say. 

[Mark J]

22 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Hypocracy for what? Not taking direct kinetic military action sooner? Confused!

 

parliamentary approval, or otherwise, is irrelevant in my reckoning. The solution will not be found in military intervention. 

 

Russia and Iran , for fucking meddling, before the mighty Israel laces the gloves up and starts issuing some serious spanking. 

What I meant, was that if these peoples' homes get blown up through our military's actions, then it would be hypocritical to refuse them safe sanctuary in our own country.

 

I hope that the solution will be found without recourse for missile strikes.  However, the government has a record of interventions without the express will of the people.  That makes them as bad as the 'enemy' in my eyes, and betrays the values we are supposed to uphold.

 

Without the "fucking meddling" of Russia and Iran, the Islamic State would be right where everyone said they would be.

Edited April 12, 2018 by Mark J

[Mark J]

3 minutes ago, WesD said:

Maybe your right but they are PM for a reason. If they voted everything through parliament they may as well have a coalition PowerShare permanently. 

 

Like I said an official UN presence to leave em too it but being there to prevent chemical attacks as UN rather than being labelled as a country interfering. 

 

There is nothing wrong every once in a while following what the world does instead of being at the forefront all of the time. 

 

Go Macron I say. 

No one voted for May remember.  She's only PM because Cameron the pig lover bailed out after the referendum result.