weasel decentral

You dismiss my entire arguement because there is no systemic tribe vs tribe genocide??
where did i even claim this systemic was the case, i said tribal blood bath.

my essential point is the same has the intervention made it safer for the country as a whole or the world?

weasel decentral

sarcasm the first casualty of war

Oyibopeppeh

I dismissed your argument since it was flawed. There has never been any suggestion of a "tribal blood bath" in any of the news reports which I'm reading

weasel decentral

You are arguing your point by picking on one item to dispute and dismissing the rest by association. Because you haven't personally heard means my arguement is flawed, I like the presumptiveness of this point of view.

to repeat have any of the recent conflicts in iraq, afganistan or libya made the countries safer for the residents we liberated and the world in general?
surely the essential point of western incursion is to achieve at least one of things?

Oyibopeppeh

Stop trying to weasel your way out of the fact you are arguing for the sake of it

scrubbedexpat141

I see what you're saying.

Yes and no....Iraq certainly does not possess WMD's and does not have a leader mad enough to try and make / use them.

Libya - Mad Dog was always a fun sort of mental, but then started to get a bit more scary mental, losing the fun somewhere. Whether Libya provided any direct threat to the rest of the world bar chest beating and fist pumping then I don't know?

Syria - I don't see any real reason why we shouldn't intervene. It's just blatant slaughter of Syrians by the Syrian Government and army. How we could make that situation worse I don't know.

Iran - Nuclear or no nuclear, that is the real question. The western world seems terrified of ****ing it up again like in Iraq.

All of the above could easily be prime places for us to wade in or have waded in with size 12's and kicked the place about a bit. Iraq is redeveloping, theres massive investment from UK companies providing PFI type models for hospitals, BP are going to spend $1bn on infrastructure development alone so they can take as much black gold as possible.

I think the western world does it's best to **** everything up when it goes into places, but I also think the western press does it's level best to blame the US / UK / UN et al afterwards for failing to improve the country when there are levels of improvement being shown already.

Difficult.

I tihnk you are right but only to an extent.

Norm_uk

Yes there's not a lot of choice at the moment. Any politician with passion and fire tends to be on the periphery due to holding odd views or likely not kissing enough arse above them.

Cameron is still new in the job, we'll see if he does well when a crisis comes up. So far it does seem like a little bit more of the same plus a the odd no to an election promise.

Still as long as it's not the reds I'm happy
N.

Norm_uk

I'm not sure what you mean by different to be honest. It sounds like a polite way of saying you're wrong

I never claimed politics was an exact science. One can approach politics using the scientific method though.

Most leaders are not bothered by other leaders, even when countries are competing with each other. You don't hear of China calling for Obama's removal or vice versa because they are always annoying each other with trade disputes and economic competition. The leaders that are targeted tend to be utter dictators who make constant threats and who murder their own people with impunity and show little response to reasonable diplomacy.

And even then not all of them are called for removal...it's a combination of other countries feeling their interests are seriously threatened, of regional stability is threatened and also when their own people are being killed and oppressed.

Let's not forget in many cases people have asked the international community for help in removing dictators - it's not a simple of matter of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy waking up one morning and deciding they don't like one person and then making up stories to justify invading them.

Not when it's leaders are murdering thousands of their own people - and it's not like they are deliberately targeting anything other than the military and agents of the government who are complicit in crimes. We live in a global community, if one country starts mass murdering people they don't like it creates a huge mess of refugees, asylum seekers and instability which other countries, and especially western countries have to pick up. We have absorbed and cared for hundreds of thousands of people from all over the world running from terrible dictators. That gives us the right to say we're going to solve the problem at the source if it's not fixed in-house...

N.

Norm_uk

A strike on Mecca would stir up the existing fifth column in the West...not that it needs encouraging.

N.

Norm_uk

Do you have a link old chap?

N.

Oyibopeppeh

One of many. This one from the BEEB

"President Barack Obama says the US "will not hesitate" to use force to stop Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, but says diplomacy could still succeed.

Addressing an influential pro-Israel lobby group, Mr Obama also warned against "loose talk" of war in the dispute with Tehran".

Linky:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17251279

Norm_uk

So do you think Iran should be nuclear armed then so we can see all the Sunni's in the region scramble to get their own nuclear weapons and see an arms race matching the Cold War or worse...except some of the people believe in an afterlife so have no problem using lots of these weapons unlike the Soviets who were secularists and could be backed down with enough serious threats.

Religious people with nuclear weapons is perhaps the worst possible thing that can happen in the world...

N.

Meow

Now that truly scares me. Particularly those that are so indoctrinated that they cannot see any other point of view, believe they have god on their side and no care about the consequences.

Religion and politics should be separate. No good comes from such narrow-minded conviction.

scrubbedexpat141

Here Here.

Religion should be separate to anything that affects the masses.

Meow

My view has always been that it should be a private choice and a private practice. It may well inform public behaviour, but shouldn't do so to the detriment of others.

Frankly, you can believe whatever you like, but keep it to yourself.