Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

CLAPTON

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

The 'situation we are in today' was caused by military intervention and interfering in the sovereignty of other countries and helping to destabilise them. Not doing that would be step 1.

It's disingenuous for the Tory and Labour right to turn on Corbyn and say that his policies won't work on a terrorist regime that was created by their policies. Had the likes of Corbyn been in power instead of Tony Blair then we wouldn't have invaded Iraq, wouldn't have helped destablised Libya and the world would have been a different place.

We keep using military might to solve problems and we keep failing. Why not at least try and use a different approach?

as I understand the situation the 'sovereign nations' were created by post WW1 victors
before that the area was rules by the Ottoman empire
before that the Arab Islamic Empire
before that Roman empire
before that....

etc etc.

so what are the REAL states there?

however I think that you may have answered my question : you would do something 'different' which wouldn't involve force.

MFW_ASAP

CLAPTON wrote: »

however I think that you may have answered my question : you would do something 'different' which wouldn't involve force.

I actually don't see why we insist on sending our troops halfway around the world to fight in regional conflicts that are none of our business. All we do is globalise the conflict, giving the terrorists a bigger platform on which to spout their rubbish.

Out of interest what would you do to solve the problem?

CLAPTON

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

I actually don't see why we insist on sending our troops halfway around the world to fight in regional conflicts that are none of our business. All we do is globalise the conflict, giving the terrorists a bigger platform on which to spout their rubbish.

Out of interest what would you do to solve the problem?

Sadly, there are many conflicts where there is no solution but to let murder, rape, torture etc prevail and let the strongest win.

There are some conflicts where I consider it is worthwhile to intervene: so I praise the Vietcong for destroying the vile PolPot, it was right to intervene in Sierra Leone, intervention in Yugoslavia was effective.

So I do see we have some responsibilities to our fellow peoples even if they aren't British.

With respect to the middle east, just a few years ago I would take the view that we can add nothing and should just let them kill each other even if that means innocent people will be killed.

However ISIL seems to me a different sort of animal, in that it won't be satisfied by winning territory or becoming a sovereign state but wishes to destroy all non believers.
I don't see a Corbyn style negotiated settlement with ISIL is likely.
It would be better to defeat it militarily even if a variety of dictatorships replaces it.
So I think it reasonable to try to contain it and trust that other Arabs/Kurds etc can defeat it on the ground.

MFW_ASAP

CLAPTON wrote: »

Sadly, there are many conflicts where there is no solution but to let murder, rape, torture etc prevail and let the strongest win.

There are some conflicts where I consider it is worthwhile to intervene: so I praise the Vietcong for destroying the vile PolPot, it was right to intervene in Sierra Leone, intervention in Yugoslavia was effective.

So I do see we have some responsibilities to our fellow peoples even if they aren't British.

With respect to the middle east, just a few years ago I would take the view that we can add nothing and should just let them kill each other even if that means innocent people will be killed.

However ISIL seems to me a different sort of animal, in that it won't be satisfied by winning territory or becoming a sovereign state but wishes to destroy all non believers.
I don't see a Corbyn style negotiated settlement with ISIL is likely.
It would be better to defeat it militarily even if a variety of dictatorships replaces it.
So I think it reasonable to try to contain it and trust that other Arabs/Kurds etc can defeat it on the ground.

The Kurds won't expand past their own territory, so they will only prove useful to a point. The only other forces capable of fighting Daesh are Syrian army and that will mean we'll have to start supporting Assad. What great company we have to keep when we get involved in foreign conflicts.

CLAPTON

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

The Kurds won't expand past their own territory, so they will only prove useful to a point. The only other forces capable of fighting Daesh are Syrian army and that will mean we'll have to start supporting Assad. What great company we have to keep when we get involved in foreign conflicts.

If the alternative is that ISIL conquers the whole of Syria and Iraq then yes, dealing with the other unpleasant people is a price worth paying.

MFW_ASAP

CLAPTON wrote: »

If the alternative is that ISIL conquers the whole of Syria and Iraq then yes, dealing with the other unpleasant people is a price worth paying.

What difference does it make to you if they did conquer Syria and Iraq?

CLAPTON

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

What difference does it make to you if they did conquer Syria and Iraq?

I believe we have some responsibilities to other human beings even if they aren't British.

I can't predict the future, but if they were to become a state holding their fanatic views, it is likely they would practice what they preach and wage a covert war on the non believers elsewhere.

.string.

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

The Kurds won't expand past their own territory, so they will only prove useful to a point. The only other forces capable of fighting Daesh are Syrian army and that will mean we'll have to start supporting Assad. What great company we have to keep when we get involved in foreign conflicts.

Well the concept of using a Syrian Army is precisely the plan that our Government has in mind, to develop a political settlement for Syria, so that a"new"Syria can emerge with its own forces and provide the ground muscle to expunge IS off their territory.

In the meantime, which is likely to be a long meantime, the Coalition, now with our help, will keep IS busy and prevent them from forming their own safe haven where they can plot and organise terrorist acts against us all.

The UK action is in line with the request of the U.N..

Seems like a plan to me.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

What difference does it make to you if they did conquer Syria and Iraq?

Rogue states like Afghanistan in the Taliban days allowed Al Queda a safe zone to develop the resources and planning/training needed for 9/11...

They then mounted a successful international attack where airliners were crashed into buildings and over 3000 people killed.

We cannot allow that to happen again.

.string.

Well, anyway, to get back on topic, I simply cannot believe that the SNP reflects Scottish opinion on this, Scots are not quiescent in these things. Voting against taking some direct action is not something I would expect, nor do I suspect it against every SNP member .. to me it smells of a Party Policy decision, cynically enacted to be seen to be acting against the Tory Party and hype up another policy clash.

It stinks.