A Muslim Europe is coming?

[Bee]

If you fight ISIS with air strikes or on ground, you'll have to make plans for a time after, first.
It's all useless, when another ISIS II. moves in afterwards.
You have to pressure Saudi Arabia, as they support ISIS and give them weapons. Stop delivering weapons in the middle east. They'll end up with ISIS anyway. I know, Germany sells amongst the most weapons there. It's a shame.
I do not have a clue about military and warfare, but here in Germany there are experts saying ISIS is easy to beat and other saying that it might take up to ten years to beat them...

 

[Mhumhain]

What is happening now can all be traced back to Bush and Bliar imperial war in Iraq that has led to where we are now. Iraq became the breading for awful radicalisation before 2003 there was no Al Qaeda in the country there were no weapons of mass destruction either Hans Blix had proven that. The genocide and atrocities carried by Britain and USA played in to the hands of the radicals recruitment. It's a vicious circle let there be peace stop the bombing now!

 

[Colombia]

What is happening now can all be traced back to Bush and Bliar imperial war in Iraq that has led to where we are now. Iraq became the breading for awful radicalisation before 2003 there was no Al Qaeda in the country there were no weapons of mass destruction either Hans Blix had proven that. The genocide and atrocities carried by Britain and USA played in to the hands of the radicals recruitment. It's a vicious circle let there be peace stop the bombing now!

No there was a psychopath by the name of Saddam Hussein, who had chemically gassed the Kurds, invaded Kuwait and repeatedly refused to comply with UN weapons inspectors.

Removing a murderous dictator is a good thing, and it wasn't an "imperial war", but unfortunately their exit strategy came up short thanks to Obama taking the security out of the country in 2011.

 

[sixesauldman]

No there was a psychopath by the name of Saddam Hussein, who had chemically gassed the Kurds, invaded Kuwait and repeatedly refused to comply with UN weapons inspectors.

Removing a murderous dictator is a good thing, and it wasn't an "imperial war", but unfortunately their exit strategy came up short thanks to Obama taking the security out of the country in 2011.

So two more psychopaths named Blair and Bush decided to invent some weapons of mass destruction and then kill 1.5 million Iraqi's trying to find them.

 

[McTallshort]

What is happening now can all be traced back to Bush and Bliar imperial war in Iraq that has led to where we are now. Iraq became the breading for awful radicalisation before 2003 there was no Al Qaeda in the country there were no weapons of mass destruction either Hans Blix had proven that. The genocide and atrocities carried by Britain and USA played in to the hands of the radicals recruitment. It's a vicious circle let there be peace stop the bombing now!

Oh yeah I'm sure ISIS will just stop killing people and sow flowers in their hair as soon as the bombing stops.

 

[Peat]

Oh yeah I'm sure ISIS will just stop killing people and sow flowers in their hair as soon as the bombing stops.

This.

Yes, the west has to take a huge amount of responsibility for what has happened, but the situation has changed. It's not us starting a war. There'll be a war with us and a war without us. The only way there is peace is the defeat, in some form, of Isis*. And the likelihood of that happening without military force at some point is, sadly, incredibly low.

Meanwhile, Isis has now expanded into Afghanistan.


*And a bunch of other events tbh.

 

[McTallshort]

This.

Yes, the west has to take a huge amount of responsibility for what has happened, but the situation has changed. It's not us starting a war. There'll be a war with us and a war without us. The only way there is peace is the defeat, in some form, of Isis*. And the likelihood of that happening without military force at some point is, sadly, incredibly low.

Meanwhile, Isis has now expanded into Afghanistan.


*And a bunch of other events tbh.

I doubt they will expand into Afghanistan, the Taliban won't take that lying down and they are very capable of giving ISIS a good kicking.

Also don't forget we had nothing to do with the situation in Syria, we didn't invade, or start bombing the regime.

 

[Peat]

I doubt they will expand into Afghanistan, the Taliban won't take that lying down and they are very capable of giving ISIS a good kicking.

Also don't forget we had nothing to do with the situation in Syria, we didn't invade, or start bombing the regime.

Google it. It's happening. Whether they'll stick I don't know but they're going for it.

And our actions have strengthened Islamic extremism, which has led to this.

 

[McTallshort]

Google it. It's happening. Whether they'll stick I don't know but they're going for it.

And our actions have strengthened Islamic extremism, which has led to this.

Extremism has been alive and well for many years before 9/11 and the blame IMO sits squarely at the door of Saudi Arabia, Russia and Israel.

The Saudis for the teachings they have pushed out to moderate mosques in the west, Russia for the invasion of Afghanistan and Israel for their very aggressive policy with the Palestinians. You also have Pakistan fighting one lot of Taliban and supporting another, Iran for backing the people fighting whoever the Saudis are backing, Qatar for trying to behave like the Saudis by pumping their medieval style of Islam into the west.

Yes we bare some responsibility but its bigger and more complicated than the Corbyn types would want to believe.

 

[YoungScud]

No there was a psychopath by the name of Saddam Hussein, who had chemically gassed the Kurds, invaded Kuwait and repeatedly refused to comply with UN weapons inspectors.

Removing a murderous dictator is a good thing, and it wasn't an "imperial war", but unfortunately their exit strategy came up short thanks to Obama taking the security out of the country in 2011.

...Except for the fact that removing Hussein was never touted by the Bush and Blair. Never seen the pictures of Rumsfeld hugging and smiling with Saddam? Saddam was the US' man in the Middle East until he wasn't, and they didn't give a toss about how he treated anyone, so long as they got their noses in the trough. No sir, we were sold the pig in a poke of WMDs, no more, no less, and Hans Blix and his team had shown us they had none to speak of. It was, all of it, based, not on error, but lies. The reivisionism came when even the right-wing media could no longer support the claims of WMDs and a new slant was needed. Then regime change became the new mantra. If you believe otherwise, it's called cognitive dissonance.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

No there was a psychopath by the name of Saddam Hussein, who had chemically gassed the Kurds, invaded Kuwait and repeatedly refused to comply with UN weapons inspectors.



Removing a murderous dictator is a good thing, and it wasn't an "imperial war", but unfortunately their exit strategy came up short thanks to Obama taking the security out of the country in 2011.

That's just absurd. You can't make a statement like that with a straight face. You'd have to be blissfully ignorant to do so, so i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are trolling.



1) The ENTIRE premise, as stated at the time, had nothing to do with removing a dictator. Nothing. You can't change the rationale ex-post and expect people to buy the cool aid again.

2) If, as you claim, it's about removing dictators, one has to wonder why on earth are they cherry picking the ones with Oil reserves and leaving most of the others alone.

3) The US has been using the "removing dictators" (or equivalent) excuses for a long time. They used it in Latin America, South East Asia, Middle East, Africa. Hasn't really worked, has it?



It's as if you actually buy this "american exceptionalism" argument, which is kind of ironic, as a common trait most dictators have is believing they are all exceptional.

I'll be the first you recognize the US' contribution to mankind. Having said that, the period in question ain't their finest hour.

 

[ncurd]

What most people forget on the whole WMD question is Hussein delibrately went about about his business to try to convince people he did have them. Which is why the intelligence was confusing, there was no "lie" but deliberate inflating of the importance of evidence they did have from Hussein's misinformation campaign.

However it is also true the muerderous dictator thing only came up afterwards as a way of justifying the actions taken as there no WMD. Mind you some people including myself at the time didn't care if he had them and felt they were a reason to take him out.

Personally as long as there is a cohesive long term plan (which we clearly didn't have) I have no problem with taking out people regimes that brutalise other human being within their borders.



If you want to watch a great speech on interventionism and justification watch Hilary Benn's speech to the commons last week before the Syria vote (full 15 minuites of it).

 

[McTallshort]

...Except for the fact that removing Hussein was never touted by the Bush and Blair. Never seen the pictures of Rumsfeld hugging and smiling with Saddam? Saddam was the US' man in the Middle East until he wasn't, and they didn't give a toss about how he treated anyone, so long as they got their noses in the trough. No sir, we were sold the pig in a poke of WMDs, no more, no less, and Hans Blix and his team had shown us they had none to speak of. It was, all of it, based, not on error, but lies. The reivisionism came when even the right-wing media could no longer support the claims of WMDs and a new slant was needed. Then regime change became the new mantra. If you believe otherwise, it's called cognitive dissonance.

None of which I would have minded if we had actually got some oil out it.

 

[valley commando]

Extremism has been alive and well for many years before 9/11 and the blame IMO sits squarely at the door of Saudi Arabia, Russia and Israel.

The Saudis for the teachings they have pushed out to moderate mosques in the west, Russia for the invasion of Afghanistan and Israel for their very aggressive policy with the Palestinians. You also have Pakistan fighting one lot of Taliban and supporting another, Iran for backing the people fighting whoever the Saudis are backing, Qatar for trying to behave like the Saudis by pumping their medieval style of Islam into the west.

Yes we bare some responsibility but its bigger and more complicated than the Corbyn types would want to believe.

You'd know better than me regarding Russia but I'd also add USA to the list especially under either of the Bush regimes, I agree fully with you on Israel and the Saudis, Turkey also aren't blameless.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

What most people forget on the whole WMD question is Hussein delibrately went about about his business to try to convince people he did have them.

Source pls. That is not what i remember. Not even close.

Personally as long as there is a cohesive long term plan (which we clearly didn't have) I have no problem with taking out people regimes that brutalise other human being within their borders.

And who gets to decide which regimes are worthy of removing? By what means are those regimes to be removed?
What you wrote above is an euphemism for "whoever can do it is entitled to do it".

 

[ncurd]

Source pls. That is not what i remember. Not even close.

Give me time on this one it's not a simple thing to search for.

And who gets to decide which regimes are worthy of removing? By what means are those regimes to be removed?
What you wrote above is an euphemism for "whoever can do it is entitled to do it".

Sorry your really telling me ethnic cleansing is okay? Or gassing your own people? If you don't think Hussein was a terrible person then I don't what to think. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein's_Iraq

- - - Updated - - -

Okay first part is erroneous from what I've read previously reports at the time suggested this was the case however it now seams that this wasn't true. This is the problem with news sometimes, you read one thing and assume this is reported correctly but when it's later proven to be wrong you don't always see that part so continue to believe the falsehood no matter how much it was believed to be correct at the time.

Still WMD was never anything more than excuse in my book as we weren't allowed to attack him then. He should of never been allowed to stay in power after the first gulf war anyway.

 

[YoungScud]

Personally as long as there is a cohesive long term plan (which we clearly didn't have) I have no problem with taking out people regimes that brutalise other human being within their borders.

Not sure how you propose to do it, but count me in hwne we go after Iain Duncan Smith.

 

[ncurd]

Not sure how you propose to do it, but count me in hwne we go after Iain Duncan Smith.

Whilst Mr. Smith is a pretty horrible person I don't think he has actually broken any of the human rights act in his completely uncaring policies.

It's actually quite simple remove veto's from the UN and start calling human rights atrocities for what they are and start doing something about it. It's harder with countries like China where they have military force to be an issue but there are plenty of places where that's not the case. If the UN actually did what it was supposed to do instead of playing politics perpetually it would be colossal force for good.

The only reason why a resolution happened in Syria is nobody with a veto is on ISIS' (ISIL, IS or whatever you want to call it) side.

 

[Tony Manx]

Duncan smith and Frank Field are about the only two MPs who are realistic and going the right way!

 

[YoungScud]

Whilst Mr. Smith is a pretty horrible person I don't think he has actually broken any of the human rights act in his completely uncaring policies.

It's actually quite simple remove veto's from the UN and start calling human rights atrocities for what they are and start doing something about it. It's harder with countries like China where they have military force to be an issue but there are plenty of places where that's not the case. If the UN actually did what it was supposed to do instead of playing politics perpetually it would be colossal force for good.

The only reason why a resolution happened in Syria is nobody with a veto is on ISIS' (ISIL, IS or whatever you want to call it) side.

I'd certainly agree with you on the question of the veto. I'd go further though, and have no permamnent membersgip of the Security Council at all.