Ahh the Paris attacks remember that but 10 times worse on a daily basis.

Ahh "kill all infidels" remember that? It would have happened regardless.

It's a tough question. The best thing would be to give control back to the Iraqi government, only this time prop up their infrastructure and education to make the country more stable. There's still no guarantee they won't fall apart again, but with the right tools we can make it far less likely for another terrorist group to gain this kind of ground.

So hand Syria over to Iraq when all this fighting ends?

We shouldn't be involved. I admire Jeremy Corbyn, however, for allowing his party to have a free vote. He holds his opinions highly to himself, and he is perfectly happy for his party members to hold their opinions highly to themselves. Unlike fucking David Cameron who will get somebody out of work if they go against him with his whole EU shit.

@Ox, Jeremy Corbyn is allowing his party a free vote on everything, not just air strikes. Also, the majority of Labour MPs voted against it. Also, how Labour voted didn't matter because the Tories used their majority to win the vote.

On the other hand, look how cleverly the SNP voted. (As usual)

Edited 12/3/2015 21:43:41

You're right. Smart move by the SNP. If this bombing campaign stretches on indefinitely they can use it in the next elections to push for another referendum or at least demand even greater devolutions of power. At the same time I fear a reprisal attack on UK by ISIL/Daesh like the one committed against France in retaliation for the bombings. If that happens, then that could throw the current party alignments into flux. But in reality if the citizens of UK want a committed party against European foreign adventurism while standing strong for UK unity then UKIP is probably a good bet :P

Either way I don't understand why Western Europe and America want to waste tax payer dollars on a bombing campaign that Putin is more than willing to do for us.

Either way I don't understand why Western Europe and America want to waste tax payer dollars on a bombing campaign that Putin is more than willing to do for us.

What you said is probably one of the reasons why.

What you said is probably one of the reasons why.

That implies that Putin and Russia is a greater or equal existential threat to Western Nations than ISIL, and I don't think any rationally minded person could 1) argue this and 2) justify it.

Does anyone actually think that their countries are going to "intervene" since it's morally honourable? No, the only grounds that they're going to intervene is to grow their own interests.

Russia and Iran help Syria since they're both good allies with Syria, which they need as a strategic site to have allies and to make sure that every country that isn't "allied" with America in the Middle East is wrecked aside from Iran.

The American and the like are to insure that the SAR gets wrecked, some Kurdestan independence and other good potential war-starters amongst already divided common opposition front. Some more chaos in some boroughs like Dimashq, Halab, and Homs? Wonderful.

Afghanistan: Wrecked.
Arabia: Allied.
Bahrain: Allied.
Egypt: Serious internal problems in 2011, now most seen in Sinai. Strong enough to resist better.
Emirates: Allied.
Iran: Managed to stop most American strikes before it got serious, but is constantly bullied by America.
Iraq: Badly hurt in the Gulf War, wrecked in the Iraq War.
Israel: Allied. Mini-America of Middle East foreign policy.
Jordan: Allied.
Kuwait: Allied.
Lebanon: Hurt in great domestic violence, but as its value as a strategic site went up, less and less problems.
Oman: Allied.
Palestine: Wrecked.
Qatar: Allied.
SAR: Wrecked.
Turkey: Allied.
Yemen: Allied, but after a long campaign, the IM eventually striked revolution, and the new government? Wrecked.

Anyhow, most folk here know my opinion and arguments on this.

You're right. Smart move by the SNP. If this bombing campaign stretches on indefinitely they can use it in the next elections to push for another referendum or at least demand even greater devolutions of power. At the same time I fear a reprisal attack on UK by ISIL/Daesh like the one committed against France in retaliation for the bombings. If that happens, then that could throw the current party alignments into flux. But in reality if the citizens of UK want a committed party against European foreign adventurism while standing strong for UK unity then UKIP is probably a good bet :P

First off, SNP's not a chance outside Scotland, and as for Scotland, they've got practically as much vote as they can. But it is a good choice. Also, UKIP? They say they think the wars in the Middle East have been very bad. But they're barely not true fascism - they're far-right far-authoritarian, which typically love war. Probably will invade Nigeria or Sudan, something like that.

That implies that Putin and Russia is a greater or equal existential threat to Western Nations than ISIL, and I don't think any rationally minded person could 1) argue this and 2) justify it.

Neither is a threat, both are targets.

UKIP? They say they think the wars in the Middle East have been very bad. But they're barely not true fascism - they're far-right far-authoritarian, which typically love war. Probably will invade Nigeria or Sudan, something like that.

I think you're the first person ever to criticise UKIP for not being far enough to the right.
But in reality, they're not fascists, but instead their policy is just a load of uneducated populism. They don't have a workable foreign policy. Their 'plan' for the middle east is to just ignore it and hope t goes away, which includes an end to all foreign aid. They're a bunch of very daft people and thankfully only have 1 seat.

Their 'plan' for the middle east is to just ignore it and hope t goes away

That lines up pretty well with the plan most people on the forum seem to have for the Middle East.

Does anyone actually think that their countries are going to "intervene" since it's morally honourable?

You're being far too cynical. Do you honestly think that countries like France, who harshly criticized the Iraq War and tried to stay out of the Middle East for so long, are now getting involved just for some material gain?

World governments are finally realizing the threat that ISIS presents and are taking action to stop them. Even if a few of them have ulterior motives, the world will still be better off without ISIS.

I think you're the first person ever to criticise UKIP for not being far enough to the right.
But in reality, they're not fascists, but instead their policy is just a load of uneducated populism. They don't have a workable foreign policy. Their 'plan' for the middle east is to just ignore it and hope t goes away, which includes an end to all foreign aid. They're a bunch of very daft people and thankfully only have 1 seat.

Why is reducing a foreign aid budget considered such a bad thing? I don't understand the globalist ideology that dictates that Americans are responsible for South Americans, Africans, and Asians (and that's coming from an Asian who's parents were poor enough to remember going to bed without food and even they don't believe in foreign aid budgets)?

Edited 12/4/2015 22:35:49

I think you're the first person ever to criticise UKIP for not being far enough to the right.
But in reality, they're not fascists, but instead their policy is just a load of uneducated populism. They don't have a workable foreign policy. Their 'plan' for the middle east is to just ignore it and hope t goes away, which includes an end to all foreign aid. They're a bunch of very daft people and thankfully only have 1 seat.

I think you misread me. I meant that they were only a bit too left for me to call them fascist (which I don't mean as an insult, just a legitimate classification). I think UKIP is way too far right. I mostly agree with you, although I like more UKIP's plan on the Middle East than the current one.

That lines up pretty well with the plan most people on the forum seem to have for the Middle East.

Not really - many (most?) those who are against "intervention" are for foreign arming and/or humanitarian and refugee help.

You're being far too cynical. Do you honestly think that countries like France, who harshly criticized the Iraq War and tried to stay out of the Middle East for so long, are now getting involved just for some material gain?

"harshly criticised" is an overstatement. And this was probably for some propaganda, that America does not have puppet states (when what I think happened is America asked France to complain about American foreign policy a bit, maybe for a tad of money). They're all in the same political unit, NATO.

World governments are finally realizing the threat that ISIS presents and are taking action to stop them. Even if a few of them have ulterior motives, the world will still be better off without ISIS.

Mashriq is not a threat to most countries. Terrorist attacks are blown out of proportion to push agenda and the "folk's strength", again, they kill far less (in foreign countries) than firearm-related deaths. All countries have motives just for themselves - and all suzerains have motives for their king as well. Mashriq will not be stopped - what's to say that this will be any different than Iraq and Afghanistan? Don't be so trusting of the government.

Let's just all agree that SNP tend to make the correct choices and tend to have the correct opinions.

Except Scottish Nationalism.

Blind nationalism is bad, but their take on it is good.

Because they incorporate social-democracy and regionalism into their party platform? Based on my read of UK politics (correct me if I'm wrong) south of Scotland there is a lot of growing contempt for the SNP. And that too there are a fair number of UK citizens who prefer market capitalism over social-democratic government centralization.


Not really - many (most?) those who are against "intervention" are for foreign arming and/or humanitarian and refugee help.

I think your generalization of this is wrong. I'm against intervention, foreign arming of rebels, and refugee aid. Again, Britain and France and Germany have little to do with the internal domestic crisis in Syria or the refugee crisis its caused and thus have no responsibility to fix its excesses.

Edited 12/5/2015 02:12:16

Because they incorporate social-democracy and regionalism into their party platform? Based on my read of UK politics (correct me if I'm wrong) south of Scotland there is a lot of growing contempt for the SNP. And that too there are a fair number of UK citizens who prefer market capitalism over social-democratic government centralization.

Well, no bloody wonder. It's not really about economic policy - I like the SNP's plans on that, but it is for the country of Scottish folk, that advocates Scottish independence, isn't precisely being voted on by Englishmen, nor Welsh (they have their own Welsh Party). You live in America, right? Well, you're not going to be voting for Algonquian Nationalist Party, are you? And folk'd be pretty miffed if ANP was overrepresented.

I think your generalization of this is wrong. I'm against intervention, foreign arming of rebels, and refugee aid. Again, Britain and France and Germany have little to do with the internal domestic crisis in Syria or the refugee crisis its caused and thus have no responsibility to fix its excesses.

You're not normal. You're an American traditionalist who has a slightly different outlook than most the traditionalists; if I've it right, you think since it isn't America's problem, and Russia, Iran are heading this expedition and killing the problem away already, why waste American resources on a problem they don't have to "solve"? You're anomalous - I can say more confidently that those who oppose "intervention" are mostly closer to centrism or ultranarchists (do they still exist?).

People say that we are killing civilians, and should therefore not bomb Syria. The other option is that instead, we should let ISIS indefinitely kill civilians.
I do agree in part with those who say Putin's doing enough, but we should still help out with intelligence, Spec Ops, etc. And although there is the risk of giving ISIS propaganda, if we don't bomb we look weak to our allies and lose support in a crucial region of the world. America can make it without too much outside oil, but Britain is reliant on imports, and with Russian tensions as they are, they need to keep OPEC happy. Th best anti-Isis propaganda we can get is destroying them.