Is History about to repeat itself?

[unbeliever 10]

erm.....okay, i will take a wild guess, was it peace keeping

 

So your implication that you knew and that I was stupid for not knowing was a bluff. I suspected as much.

 

People with no oil, who followed a different faith from most of the west, and who have nothing of value to us were being murdered in large numbers.

Our people put themselves at risk to stop that. We also spent a lot of money on it. Exactly in the same way that firemen and police officers put themselves at risk to protect people they don't know.

 

So, back to the original point which you attempted to deflect. If you're universally against military action, are you also against police and firemen?

 

It would be helpful if you would stop trying to make your opponents look stupid. It backfires a lot.

They're not stupid and I don't think you are really either, but your debate tactics make it look like you have no real case to make. There is a real case to make and you're not making it.

I'm not suggesting that you go all passive. But there is a middle ground of aggressive debate between passivity and your approach.

Edited January 27, 2016 by unbeliever

[banjodeano 31]

I'd advise getting back on topic and quit trading insults!...Just friendly advice!

Thanks for the advice Pete, but if you want eliminate bickering, please do it at the root source, i was only responding to people having a dig at me

 

Ah, so that would be when he was still that obscure backbencher most anyone had ever heard of.

Why should people have "listened to him" more than to Robin Cook, Leader of the House of Commons, or to Clare Short, a Secretary of State?

 

Or to the heads of state of no less prominent countries than France and Germany, who were opposing the invasion?

 

The messianic complex seems to be working, the force is strong in the Corbynistas

i didnt mean it literally, i meant people like him who were against the war, not him personally, just his type

 

So your implication that you knew and that I was stupid for not knowing was a bluff. I suspected as much.

 

People with no oil, who followed a different faith from most of the west, and who have nothing of value to us were being murdered in large numbers.

Our people put themselves at risk to stop that. We also spent a lot of money on it. Exactly in the same way that firemen and police officers put themselves at risk to protect people they don't know.

 

So, back to the original point which you attempted to deflect. If you're universally against military action, are you also against police and firemen?

 

It would be helpful if you would stop trying to make your opponents look stupid. It backfires a lot.

They're not stupid and I don't think you are really either, but your debate tactics make it look like you have no real case to make. There is a real case to make and you're not making it.

I'm not suggesting that you go all passive. But there is a middle ground of aggressive debate between passivity and your approach.

Oh, Hark at me...

Dont try and claim the moral high ground with me by accusing me of trying to make you look stupid, my first comment on this thread was replied to you with.............

"Oh Hello.

This conversation was getting far too sensible. Welcome".

Which implies that i have no sensible comments, i am sure that even you will acknowledge that that was an inflammatory remark from the offset.

The trouble with people like you and Eric, is that you like to give it out but cannot take it back.

I also thank you for your advice on debating skills, but to be honest, i dont follow anyone else's rules or agenda, i debate how i see fit, and if that just happens to pull your chains then tough..you will have to deal with it or just ignore my posts, i am within the forum rules and show respect where deserved and received..

Back to the topic at hand.

Firstly i am not universally against military action, i have never said that, what i am against is our troops fighting for the American dollar. i believe our troops are being used to destabilise foreign governments so the UK and the USA can gain financially from their down fall.

You have pin pointed one example where our troops were sent in to keep peace, but there are literally loads more countries where genocide occurs and we do nothing about it, as indeed we are turning a blind eye to the Saudis brutal treatment of its own people, what was it 147 behadings in one day? and then there is Yemen, we seemed to have turned a blind eye to that.

Lastly, why would i be against policemen and firemen? that just doesnt make any sense to me

[unbeliever 10]

 

Oh, Hark at me...

Dont try and claim the moral high ground with me by accusing me of trying to make you look stupid, my first comment on this thread was replied to you with.............

"Oh Hello.

This conversation was getting far too sensible. Welcome".

Which implies that i have no sensible comments, i am sure that even you will acknowledge that that was an inflammatory remark from the offset.

The trouble with people like you and Eric, is that you like to give it out but cannot take it back.

I also thank you for your advice on debating skills, but to be honest, i dont follow anyone else's rules or agenda, i debate how i see fit, and if that just happens to pull your chains then tough..you will have to deal with it or just ignore my posts, i am within the forum rules and show respect where deserved and received..

Back to the topic at hand.

Firstly i am not universally against military action, i have never said that, what i am against is our troops fighting for the American dollar. i believe our troops are being used to destabilise foreign governments so the UK and the USA can gain financially from their down fall.

You have pin pointed one example where our troops were sent in to keep peace, but there are literally loads more countries where genocide occurs and we do nothing about it, as indeed we are turning a blind eye to the Saudis brutal treatment of its own people, what was it 147 behadings in one day? and then there is Yemen, we seemed to have turned a blind eye to that.

Lastly, why would i be against policemen and firemen? that just doesnt make any sense to me

 

My initial comment was intended to be light hearted. I just meant that we were lacking an opposition voice to the consensus which was emerging.

 

Your comments this time seem to be that because we're not practically capable of protecting innocent people everywhere, we shouldn't do it anywhere. That doesn't make much sense to me.

I wasn't attempting to impose rules on you. I use to hold views similar to yours. I really think that you could win some people over if you chose to express yourself a little differently. It's entirely up to you though. At the moment I suspect that you're an asset to your opposition.

I think I've made it quite clear that there's a legitimate parallel between international military action to protect people and domestic action to do the same. If you don't accept it, that's your prerogative, but it's a strong argument. We're all just people after all.

[L00b 441]

i didnt mean it literally, i meant people like him who were against the war, not him personally, just his type

Fair enough.

 

That said, what would be interesting to know is what his motives were at the time.

 

The arguments on which people opposed the invasion of Iraq were far and wide, from the prescient (it will cause...exactly what has been happening since with AQ, Daesh, the Arab Springs, <etc.>) to the vacuous ("let's just procrastinate some more") and everything in-between.

 

Anyhow, pretty much off-topic (and for which I apologise).

[Eric Arthur 10]

That said, what would be interesting to know is what his motives were at the time.

 

I skimmed through some of Hansard yesterday after the point was made. Forearmed is forewarned.

 

In truth, Corbyn wasn't saying very much at all. He was interested in Kurds in Turkey and radiation leaks on nuclear submarines but I didn't come across anything about Kuwait apart from an unsuccessful attempt to interrupt Margaret Thatcher's speech before the vote.

 

I might have missed Corbyn making a big Nostradamus style prediction.

[Alan Ladd 10]

Daesh have exploited the Arab spring, which started in Tunisia and, to my knowledge, was not invaded or bombed by the UK or the USA. For that matter neither was Syria.

 

Agreed, I would also argue that the dictators were weakened by the downfall of Saddam and as a result the Arab spring took place.

 

Frankly we could argue were this started till the cows com home and probably end up during the fall of Jerusalem to the Muslims in the 7th century!

 

The fact is we are were we are, and if western politicians continue to pussy foot around hoping that Daesh will go away we will all suffer for it.

 

---------- Post added 28-01-2016 at 13:01 ----------

 

The Americans have supposedly been doing that for the last 18ish months or so, and got where??

All the people who are so quick to slag Corbyn off, would do well to realise that if we had listened to him in the first place, we wouldn't be in this mess, but we went along with our American puppet masters......to spread a little democracy

 

You write as if Corbyn was the lost voice in the wilderness. Labour ministers resigned over Blair and Browns criminal act. France and a number of other allies would have nothing to do with the invasion of a sovereign country.

 

Corbyn was then what he is now, a non entity. A political agitator, never a politician. When you compare him to those ministers such as Robyn Cooke it shows how weak and ineffectual he was then. In view of the fact he is now leader of that once great party it shows how badly Labour has declined.

[glennpickard 10]

re ISIS. I don't believe they will be doing much negotiating. They are so barbaric, and only understand death & destruction. It will ultimately mean "Boots on the ground" if we want them cleared up. Air power alone cannot do it.

But Iranians, Turks, Syrians, Saudis, Jordanians, Egyptians etc should be the boots, and the west the strategy and weaponry for the most part. This group of "Neighbour" countries have as much or more to lose from ISIS further development as the west does

[Solomon1 10]

After hearing about more destruction of world heritage sites by Daesh attempting to wipe our history in favour of their own, it dawned on me how similar this whole situation is/was to the rise of the Nazi's in Germany

 

This has been on my mind a lot dude

[Waldo 96]

After hearing about more destruction of world heritage sites by Daesh attempting to wipe our history in favour of their own, it dawned on me how similar this whole situation is/was to the rise of the Nazi's in Germany.

 

We are told that Daesh does not represent a majority of Muslims. Nazi's did not represent a majority of Germans either. If Germany had countered the rise of the Nazi party, the world history would be much different to what we have today. Germans would not have suffered for years after Hitlers death too.

 

We have today, politicians such as the Labour leader openly talking about discussions with Daesh to find a peaceful solution. This is what happened prior to WWII with Germany. We see Daesh trying to erase the history of the areas they control. The Nazis did the exact same thing. Dissent is met with death, both in the time of the Nazi's and now by Daesh.

 

What history has taught us is, if you allow groups like the nazi's or daesh to grow, they eventually pose a massive threat to everyone, but those whom they came from, suffer the most in the long run.

 

I think one big problem we have, is people tend to look at things in isolation.

[Solomon1 10]

I think one big problem we have, is people tend to look at things in isolation.

 

 

Hi Waldo, what's up man