Berberis Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) How is this any different than the UK / US? Examples would be nice. Compare them to how Russian lied about sending its troops to either Syria and Ukraine. Or about the civilian flight they shot down too. Ask yourself when the last time the UK publicly stated something that turned out to be an outright lie. Edited October 2, 2015 by Berberis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 It's not a question of being against that approach, which is entirely commonsensical and laudable, at all. It's the fact that ISIS are, by their own clear and unequivocal statements, repeated time and time again for the past 3 years or more, completely uninterested in any such talking. They want a pan-Arabic caliphate to begin with, and a global one at term. That's it. Nothing short of that will do. Question to you: do you think the world should let them? even merely keep what they've got now? By all means, you or Corbyn or the Dalai Lama or Mother Angela or what-his-face-head-of-UN-guy go talk. You can even go to the trouble of formally signing bits of papers. You know, just like Chamberlain and Stalin did with Hitler in the 30s Of course I don't think we should let them, and I am actually mostly in favour of a military solution. I was just saying that 'talking' should always be the first avenue tried, followed up swiftly after by bombs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarryRiley Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Examples would be nice. Compare them to how Russian lied about sending its troops to either Syria and Ukraine. Or about the civilian flight they shot down too. Lied about WMDs in Iraq to invade a sovereign nation leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Just to add. I think we should pretty much do this: - Offer peace talks with ISIS leaders on mutual terms warning that military action will take place if these talks fail. - If they refuse, or talks stall or killings continue then we go to complete, full powered UN sanctioned military involvement and occupation of their lands and send them off to their supposed virgins in the sky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Lied about WMDs in Iraq to invade a sovereign nation leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Good example and very true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodmally Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 The West refuses to get heavily involved in Syria because their electorates won't like it. Putin has no problem with that because his elections are rigged he is massively popular and wins no matter what. Constant appeasement of Putin, as has happened in Ukraine/Crimea will only last for so long. It's a shame that the Russian people don't have the spirit of 1917 because a country of that size really needs democracy rather than a being led by a short bald man with a big ego. Your right in everything you say about Putin but on this occasion he is right to intervene. Democracy wont thrive while you have thugs from Assad or ISIS trying to gain power. The west made a mistake going to war in Iraq and Afganistan so are now too cowardly to take action here. Where actuall action should be taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SqueakyPete Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Just to add. I think we should pretty much do this: - Offer peace talks with ISIS leaders on mutual terms warning that military action will take place if these talks fail. - If they refuse, or talks stall or killings continue then we go to complete, full powered UN sanctioned military involvement and occupation of their lands and send them off to their supposed virgins in the sky. Offer peace talks to ISIS?. Was that said with your tongue in cheek? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny5 Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Your right in everything you say about Putin but on this occasion he is right to intervene. Democracy wont thrive while you have thugs from Assad or ISIS trying to gain power. The west made a mistake going to war in Iraq and Afganistan so are now too cowardly to take action here. Where actuall action should be taken.It's because they made such a pigs ear of Iraq and Afghanistan that Syria's war has ended up in this state. I still think we were right to go to get ground troops in Iraq/Afghanistan but went in for the wrong reasons and had/still have no idea how those cultures think. Hence a catastrophic exit strategy. Because of that Western electorates don't trust their governments reasons (rightly!) and don't have the stomach for another ground war in Syria. Western countries should have been in Syria, on the ground, 3 years ago, or at the latest when Assad started using chemical weapons. They didn't because the value of saving/liberating the people from Assad is more trouble to the Western powers than it is worth from their electorates. Essentially all the Westerners moaning about how horrible it is in Syria now are partially to blame for how horrible it is now. Russia is only in there now for purely selfish reasons, creating and consolidating a presence in the Middle East. It's a right mess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Offer peace talks to ISIS?. Was that said with your tongue in cheek? Nope. Why would you not if they accept? Clearly the odds of that happening is about equal to winning the new lottery 6 times in a row, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't try. The problem I have with the UN and most western democracies is that we don't seem to learnt from Chamberlains mistake and once it's clear there is no use talking it's time to escalate and quickly. And if you aren't prepared to escalate then there's no use in talking either. Just wait to be conquered instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SqueakyPete Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) Nope. Why would you not if they accept? Clearly the odds of that happening is about equal to winning the new lottery 6 times in a row, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't try. The problem I have with the UN and most western democracies is that we don't seem to learnt from Chamberlains mistake and once it's clear there is no use talking it's time to escalate and quickly. And if you aren't prepared to escalate then there's no use in talking either. Just wait to be conquered instead. Because even if they did accept the offer,who would be daft enough to believe them (maybe Corbyn? ). The very fabric of ISIS is made of anti-westernization rhetoric,and that won't change at all. Besides,I think there is a much bigger picture to all of this. Airstrikes have been going off now for over a year in Syria,yet ISIS seems to be growing at an alarming rate. How is that possible? I believe that while ISIS is not a direct threat to us,they are being used as temporary pawns,occupying territories so that Assad doesn't gain them. My thoughts are that Americas plan was to... Support the Rebels>Topple Assad>Deal with IS>Reap ill gotten gains. But now Russia is involved,there plan is to... Blow the Rebels out of Syria>Deal with ISIS>Reap ill gotten gains through Assad in exchange for this help It also sends out a message that mother Russia is back,whilst flipping the middle finger at America. Edited October 2, 2015 by SqueakyPete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now