Because it's wrong to watch him killing his people ?
Because it will strengthen ISIS ?
- - - Updated - - -
Because it's wrong to watch him killing his people ?
Because it will strengthen ISIS ?
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
A Political Thread
- Thread starter Draggs
- Start date
- Status
Because it's wrong to watch him killing his people ?
Because it will strengthen ISIS ?
- - - Updated - - -
Because it's wrong to watch him killing his people ?
Because it will strengthen ISIS ?
LiRFCMatt
Bench Player
It's the murder of innocent Syrians that will reinforce the idea that there can be no cohesion between Muslims and non-Muslims, and could very well cause them to join ISIS to "protect themselves" from the Western bombs. American bombing has already resulted in something like 680 deaths (http://www.vocativ.com/news/254506/how-many-civilians-has-the-u-s-killed-bombing-isis/) of people like you or me who had nothing to do with ISIS. Their brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers and children will understandably hate the West, as many Westerners hate ISIS, and they might find that joining ISIS is their best hope to stop us, as many here find it is our best way to stop them.
Furthermore, without an actual plan this is all a bit silly, Cameron has rushed into this vote with his emotions and failed to come up with a suitable plan for after the bombs. Maybe if he stopped dealing with Saudi Arabia who are directly funding ISIS then they wouldn't be such a threat. Bombing should have been a last resort, not the first choice, especially when there are peaceful ways we can reduce the ISIS effect in the meantime.
I agree we should let the Russians get on with it and put Assad back in power.
But in Iraq bombing on behalf of the Iraqi government has not increased support for ISIS it's helped turn them back. Bombing could work but you need troops to take and hold the ground.
Also this murder of innocent Syrians you talk about is being perpetrated far more by ISIS than any western air force so does that mean people will be driven form them to join the government forces? No
LiRFCMatt
Bench Player
That's not the point. I refuse to support a government that will kill innocent people when there are other steps we could take, especailly when, as many people have pointed out, we have no idea what the result of this will be, just that lots of people will die. This isn't a game, these are actual people. Normal people. How on earth can we sit idly by whilst our government is going to kill them whilst still funding Saudi Arabia to give ISIS money! It's ludicrous what Cameron is doing, in my opinion, and I just don't see how people can support such a barbaric, poorly thought out war tactic when it will very likely do nothing to defeat ISIS.
I know that's why we should stay out of it and let the Russians deal with it, let them take the risks plus it's the only real way of stabilizing Syria.
Oh and just a small point Saudi Arabia fund us not the other way around.
LiRFCMatt
Bench Player
Sorry I should have said that we're giving them weapons, not money. Actual weapons.
Well we have sold them some planes all above board and and some radar stuff. Not sure what else, certainly no firearms.
My problem with the Saudis is the funding they are pumping into mosques in this country. The rise in fundamentalism is down squarely to them.
We don't sell them any weapons as such in a guise of munitions but we do sell them and other Arab countries a vast array of military and intelligence equipment.
CivilIan casualties are a horrible reality of war you can't avoid them, you can do your best to mitigate them but they'll happened regardless. The problem is if we decided never to attack due to civilian deaths no offensive would very be carried out as you just put yur strategic centers in the middle of a populous area. So sorry people who say no civilian deaths are saying no wars ever regardless of the reasons why.
For me it's an equation which I'm sure the military do try to work out, will killing x civilians lead to less than x dying in the future. Let's not forget here ISIS flat out murder anyone who disagrees with them so whilst yes there have been a lot of civilians casualties in the bombing campaign is that more or less than there would of been had there been no campaign? I'll be amazed if anyone here is qualified to answer that question.
CivilIan casualties are a horrible reality of war you can't avoid them, you can do your best to mitigate them but they'll happened regardless. The problem is if we decided never to attack due to civilian deaths no offensive would very be carried out as you just put yur strategic centers in the middle of a populous area. So sorry people who say no civilian deaths are saying no wars ever regardless of the reasons why.
For me it's an equation which I'm sure the military do try to work out, will killing x civilians lead to less than x dying in the future. Let's not forget here ISIS flat out murder anyone who disagrees with them so whilst yes there have been a lot of civilians casualties in the bombing campaign is that more or less than there would of been had there been no campaign? I'll be amazed if anyone here is qualified to answer that question.
So let me get this straight:
There are some people who
1) Don't like Assad
2) Don't like Military action
3) Don't like Islamic State
4) think our process is undemocratic
How are you going to stop anything? Putting pressure on countries sympathetic to them are going to do nothing, and will lead to nothing if there isn't military action of some kind to back it up, why should they put themselves in the Cross hairs of something that has gone through the entire region without some military action against themselves.
Let's face it some countries just are not ready for democracy, and won't be for a while.
There are some people who
1) Don't like Assad
2) Don't like Military action
3) Don't like Islamic State
4) think our process is undemocratic
How are you going to stop anything? Putting pressure on countries sympathetic to them are going to do nothing, and will lead to nothing if there isn't military action of some kind to back it up, why should they put themselves in the Cross hairs of something that has gone through the entire region without some military action against themselves.
Let's face it some countries just are not ready for democracy, and won't be for a while.
Last edited:
I don't normally get involved in politics but Donald Trump is a massive bl-end. He's now said Police in London are scared for their lives as its so radicalised. Tripe to the nth degree. Love Boris' comeback:
"Crime has been falling steadily both in London and in New York - the only reason I wouldn't go to some parts of New York is the real risk of meeting Donald Trump," he added.
That's a burn.
"Crime has been falling steadily both in London and in New York - the only reason I wouldn't go to some parts of New York is the real risk of meeting Donald Trump," he added.
That's a burn.
Yes he is a bell end but unfortunately there are many millions of septic tanks that think he's right on man! Americans are terrified of everything, thats why an AR15 is an acceptable form of home protection where as in England we use door locks and some one like him will always be popular because he tells Americans what they want to believe.
I know
Its scary how many people share that view and consider it a normal train of thought.
LiRFCMatt
Bench Player
The circus of Donald Trump makes me so glad I'm not over there in America. Just the thought of meeting someone that supports him makes me shudder. Even our idiots aren't Trump level.
LiRFCMatt
Bench Player
If you replace the word "Muslim" with "Jewish" in his speeches, he sounds scarily like a Nazi. Not a nice comparison to make, but when someone demands people carry around a Muslim ID, it becomes scarily similar to a certain yellow star that was implemented in Nazi Germany.
Watching Trump debate is like watching a pigeon play chess. It will **** on the board, knock over all the pieces and still strut around as if he won the game.
Not really, Labour under Corybn are an irrelevance. Who cares who he picks? they will all rebel against him at some point.
Will also add its probably taking so long because no one wants the jobs on offer.
Last edited:
I would like to think you are right but the Scots voted caviar into power in Scotland and Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour Party so rule nothing out..........
I think people somewhat overstate the role of left-right politics when it comes to election chances. e.g. in USA, Bernie Sanders is actually fairly popular amongst Republicans. Won his senator spot with 71% of the vote, when two elections prior it was held by a three-term Republican. I think of Corbyn in a similar way. The measures he supports has wide support across the entire political spectrum. I'll be voting Labour for the first time in the next elections because of Corbyn.
- Status
Similar threads
