quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

Cameron quit his holiday to return to 10 Downing St.

'Bout time he got his head down and started grafting.

Not sure if you know the history with this fella but he's a marketing man by trade so you can imagine the relentless and pointless sound-bites we get from him and his associates, and he likes to be seen riding a bike to work in an attempt to show his green and athletic credentials.

Christ, that's all we need. Some mad fucker who thinks riding a bike to work demonstrates his credentials as a politician.

'Bout time we put targets on these sorts of people. You've got 5 hours to sort out the Israel/Palestine thing or you'll be sweeping the streets with the rest of us.

I don't mind him actually for a Tory boy. He's one of the better ones. And rumour has it that Merkel has been in his ear more than once in an attempt to get her hips knocked in. You wouldn't though would you: nice lady but ex-Stasi which usually means violent and domineering.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

In an act of brazen shocking brutality, the Islamist terrorist group IS today brutally executed a US citizen they had been holding. The execution, thought to be IS's response to US bombing raids on its forces in Iraq, was posted to the Internet. The executor seemed to have a British accent. That a UK citizen can murder a US citizen in Iraq underlines the international aspect of IS's plans to establish an Islamic Caliphate in North Iraq and NE Syria.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2014/aug/20/iraq-crisis-outrage-over-isis-beheading-of-us-journalist-james-foley-live-updates

It is hard to see how the US can let such a direct challenge pass unanswered. Some have suggested that the execution, and its styling as a direct challenge to the US, are a measure of how effective recent US air strikes against IS forces have been. Obama has been clear that there will be no "boots on the ground" in response to IS provocations.

So how should the US respond to this outrage? What are the implications for the ME generally? Will this lead to 'mission creep' and a more substantial US involvement in the Iraq/Syria imbroglios? More generally how should the West respond to IS, a group with a horrifying agenda of dragging the world back into the Dark Ages? What is the most effective strategy to adopt?

Has the old order in the region, which has held since the days of Sykes-Picot and the Otttomans collapsed beyond repair?

hey don't ya know these people are just misunderstood, and we should EMBRACE THEM, not oppress them?
and that the VAST majority of them are peace loving an all that?
and that Israel should be condemned for standing up to these types of people?

I just got one question, IF the vast majority of them are peace loving etc etc etc, why don't THEY stand up to these people and stop them?

1) Because they are dividing the country along Sunni/Shiite/Kurdish lines, and people like it that way (the Kurds certainly opposed their intrusion north).

2) Same reason people don't stand up to violent criminals with military arms here. Hello.

quote:

But come to that, Thatcher or Reagan would roll or unroll into twats. They were both omnidirectional twats as I recall.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

But come to that, Thatcher or Reagan would roll or unroll into twats. They were both omnidirectional twats as I recall.

The worldview they both held was just too simple; therefore, their solutions to the problems in it were too simple, as well. Re that: we've already seen, on this thread, that some people are so terminally dense that, for instance, they can't distinguish between one kind of Muslim and another. The fact that they get to vote, and thereby have some even minimal influence on government foreign policy, is almost frightening, at times.

quote:

So I completely disagree their worldview was too simple; rather, I would say it was absent of the false idealism that pervades so much thinking that leads us all into the dark.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

But come to that, Thatcher or Reagan would roll or unroll into twats. They were both omnidirectional twats as I recall.

The worldview they both held was just too simple; therefore, their solutions to the problems in it were too simple, as well. Re that: we've already seen, on this thread, that some people are so terminally dense that, for instance, they can't distinguish between one kind of Muslim and another. The fact that they get to vote, and thereby have some even minimal influence on government foreign policy, is almost frightening, at times.

I distinguish between Muslims in this way. The Sufis aren't homicidal. Their entire worldview is different and fundamentally mystical. But whether you are Sunni or Shia, to me the differences get down to whether you are a fundamentalist Muslim who follows the word of the Quran (the Wahhabis certainly qualify, but so do a lot of others) or whether you, by the Quran's own definitions, don't qualify. Then you're really an apostate. Now there are more than enough so-called "moderate" Muslims who essentially endorse everything evil about fundamentalist Islam. So, yes, I group them all together. It's also important to consider that, Christianity for example, after Aquinas, accepted reason. It was Augustine who demanded faith. The Muslims are generally Augustinian. Their religion is based on utter faith, the denial of reason, and on violence. Mohammed's sayings in Medina all by Quranal doctrine supersede those from Mecca. So to quote the peaceful Mohammed is to ignore this fact.

As far as Reagan's and Thatcher's being too simple, both were highly intelligent (Reagan wrote most of his own speeches in his earlier days and was a voracious reader -- as many of the people who disliked him eventually came to admit). They both had plenty of cajones and they both turned their countries around. That's more impressive than Jack Welch at GE. So I completely disagree their worldview was too simple; rather, I would say it was absent of the false idealism that pervades so much thinking that leads us all into the dark.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

So I completely disagree their worldview was too simple; rather, I would say it was absent of the false idealism that pervades so much thinking that leads us all into the dark.

Blimey, SRD - I won't speak about Reagan, but you set yourself against a truly enormous array of intellectual opinion re Thatcher, there. Right as well as Left, I should say. She's so widely believed to have established a hyper idealism of neoliberalism here in the UK that the term 'Thatcherism' has eclipsed that of 'socialism' as the 'new dogma'.

'False idealism' - of, perhaps, socialism? Lawks. No. She didn't trash that - it had already been trashed, long before. She just cobbled together the most giant of all straw men, then boiled up her own hyper-idealistic dogma in order to 'counter' it.

Jeez, SRD. I have to say it: you aren't in tune with things this side of the Atlantic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

In an act of brazen shocking brutality, the Islamist terrorist group IS today brutally executed a US citizen they had been holding. The execution, thought to be IS's response to US bombing raids on its forces in Iraq, was posted to the Internet. The executor seemed to have a British accent. That a UK citizen can murder a US citizen in Iraq underlines the international aspect of IS's plans to establish an Islamic Caliphate in North Iraq and NE Syria.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2014/aug/20/iraq-crisis-outrage-over-isis-beheading-of-us-journalist-james-foley-live-updates

It is hard to see how the US can let such a direct challenge pass unanswered. Some have suggested that the execution, and its styling as a direct challenge to the US, are a measure of how effective recent US air strikes against IS forces have been. Obama has been clear that there will be no "boots on the ground" in response to IS provocations.

So how should the US respond to this outrage? What are the implications for the ME generally? Will this lead to 'mission creep' and a more substantial US involvement in the Iraq/Syria imbroglios? More generally how should the West respond to IS, a group with a horrifying agenda of dragging the world back into the Dark Ages? What is the most effective strategy to adopt?

Has the old order in the region, which has held since the days of Sykes-Picot and the Otttomans collapsed beyond repair?

hey don't ya know these people are just misunderstood, and we should EMBRACE THEM, not oppress them?
and that the VAST majority of them are peace loving an all that?
and that Israel should be condemned for standing up to these types of people?

I just got one question, IF the vast majority of them are peace loving etc etc etc, why don't THEY stand up to these people and stop them?

1) Because they are dividing the country along Sunni/Shiite/Kurdish lines, and people like it that way (the Kurds certainly opposed their intrusion north).

2) Same reason people don't stand up to violent criminals with military arms here. Hello.

realllyyy guess you haven't heard what's happening in Ferguson Mo

quote:

hey don't ya know these people are just misunderstood, and we should EMBRACE THEM, not oppress them?
and that the VAST majority of them are peace loving an all that?
and that Israel should be condemned for standing up to these types of people?

I just got one question, IF the vast majority of them are peace loving etc etc etc, why don't THEY stand up to these people and stop them?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
In an act of brazen shocking brutality, the Islamist terrorist group IS today brutally executed a US citizen they had been holding. The execution, thought to be IS's response to US bombing raids on its forces in Iraq, was posted to the Internet. The executor seemed to have a British accent. That a UK citizen can murder a US citizen in Iraq underlines the international aspect of IS's plans to establish an Islamic Caliphate in North Iraq and NE Syria.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2014/aug/20/iraq-crisis-outrage-over-isis-beheading-of-us-journalist-james-foley-live-updates
It is hard to see how the US can let such a direct challenge pass unanswered. Some have suggested that the execution, and its styling as a direct challenge to the US, are a measure of how effective recent US air strikes against IS forces have been. Obama has been clear that there will be no "boots on the ground" in response to IS provocations.

quote:

So how should the US respond to this outrage? What are the implications for the ME generally? Will this lead to 'mission creep' and a more substantial US involvement in the Iraq/Syria imbroglios? More generally how should the West respond to IS, a group with a horrifying agenda of dragging the world back into the Dark Ages? What is the most effective strategy to adopt?
Has the old order in the region, which has held since the days of Sykes-Picot and the Otttomans collapsed beyond repair?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Look, BY, it wouldn't hurt you to do just a *bit* of reading on this subject, would it? That comment was pretty embarrassing, frankly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Look, BY, it wouldn't hurt you to do just a *bit* of reading on this subject, would it? That comment was pretty embarrassing, frankly.

Someone from the right reading up on the subject Peon ? Thats a bit of a radical idea, even for you

Odd how the same posters who wanted Obama to get US troops out of Iraq, now complain that he didnt get involved in Syria. Obama has two choices to deal with ISIS, boots on the ground or continued air strikes. I suspect the later will be the more palitable to the general public. Carpet bombing makes me think one thing, what fucking planet are you people on ? It will only achieve what Bush and Blair achieved, and make matters worse.

The two nations hardly mentioned in this conflict who have both got influence and even supported ISIS are Saudi and Qatar. Both should either do more to reign in the terrorists or face sanctions (As if that will happen)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
In an act of brazen shocking brutality, the Islamist terrorist group IS today brutally executed a US citizen they had been holding. The execution, thought to be IS's response to US bombing raids on its forces in Iraq, was posted to the Internet. The executor seemed to have a British accent. That a UK citizen can murder a US citizen in Iraq underlines the international aspect of IS's plans to establish an Islamic Caliphate in North Iraq and NE Syria.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2014/aug/20/iraq-crisis-outrage-over-isis-beheading-of-us-journalist-james-foley-live-updates
It is hard to see how the US can let such a direct challenge pass unanswered. Some have suggested that the execution, and its styling as a direct challenge to the US, are a measure of how effective recent US air strikes against IS forces have been. Obama has been clear that there will be no "boots on the ground" in response to IS provocations.

He also said that the US wouldn't be Iraq's Air Force, too. Yet...

quote:

So how should the US respond to this outrage? What are the implications for the ME generally? Will this lead to 'mission creep' and a more substantial US involvement in the Iraq/Syria imbroglios? More generally how should the West respond to IS, a group with a horrifying agenda of dragging the world back into the Dark Ages? What is the most effective strategy to adopt?
Has the old order in the region, which has held since the days of Sykes-Picot and the Otttomans collapsed beyond repair?

I guess there needs to be a discussion about how much a country should do to involve itself in a situation where one of it's citizens inserted himself into an area that was dangerous. Does the US have any right to avenge this guy's death? Does the US have any right to protect - and at what cost - the lives of their Citizens living outside the US?

If the US has that right (let's not even talk about if they have the responsibility), doesn't Russia have that same right to protect it's citizens in Ukraine?

Does Mexico have the right to invade the US because some of it's citizens are being abused? What about the other SA countries whose citizen children have allegedly been abused at the hands of USBP?

If the Feds send people abroad, the Feds should have the responsibility, and the right to protect (and avenge) those that are abused. If Time magazine sends a reporter into a hostile area and something bad happens, isn't that the responsibility of Time magazine? If someone goes there, of their own volition, shouldn't that be on them?

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Look, BY, it wouldn't hurt you to do just a *bit* of reading on this subject, would it? That comment was pretty embarrassing, frankly.

Someone from the right reading up on the subject Peon ? Thats a bit of a radical idea, even for you

Odd how the same posters who wanted Obama to get US troops out of Iraq, now complain that he didnt get involved in Syria. Obama has two choices to deal with ISIS, boots on the ground or continued air strikes. I suspect the later will be the more palitable to the general public. Carpet bombing makes me think one thing, what fucking planet are you people on ? It will only achieve what Bush and Blair achieved, and make matters worse.

The two nations hardly mentioned in this conflict who have both got influence and even supported ISIS are Saudi and Qatar. Both should either do more to reign in the terrorists or face sanctions (As if that will happen)

And Qatar, along with Turkey and Iran, also support Hamas. That's an argument for taking out Qatar! Unfortunately, that wouldn't do much good. We can't sanction the Saudis because they are a bulwark against Iran and Hamas for now (enemy of my enemy). This is realpolitik, not any endorsement of the Saudis who can go the way of Ozymandias as far as I am concerned.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Look, BY, it wouldn't hurt you to do just a *bit* of reading on this subject, would it? That comment was pretty embarrassing, frankly.

Someone from the right reading up on the subject Peon ? Thats a bit of a radical idea, even for you

Odd how the same posters who wanted Obama to get US troops out of Iraq, now complain that he didnt get involved in Syria. Obama has two choices to deal with ISIS, boots on the ground or continued air strikes. I suspect the later will be the more palitable to the general public. Carpet bombing makes me think one thing, what fucking planet are you people on ? It will only achieve what Bush and Blair achieved, and make matters worse.

The two nations hardly mentioned in this conflict who have both got influence and even supported ISIS are Saudi and Qatar. Both should either do more to reign in the terrorists or face sanctions (As if that will happen)

And Qatar, along with Turkey and Iran, also support Hamas. That's an argument for taking out Qatar! Unfortunately, that wouldn't do much good. We can't sanction the Saudis because they are a bulwark against Iran and Hamas for now (enemy of my enemy). This is realpolitik, not any endorsement of the Saudis who can go the way of Ozymandias as far as I am concerned.

Well you cant have it both ways you. Either you put up with ISIS because your "Realpolitik" says as much or you fucking deal with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

No, you can keep the Saudis against Iran and still get rid of ISIS. ISIS to my knowledge aren't so close to the Saudis. The Saudis don't get to keep ISIS. Realpolitik applies to them too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

No, you can keep the Saudis against Iran and still get rid of ISIS. ISIS to my knowledge aren't so close to the Saudis. The Saudis don't get to keep ISIS. Realpolitik applies to them too.

You need to keep up to speed on Saudi.

Whatever became of that other bulwark against Iran, Saddam someone or other. Do you need reminding the nationalities of most of the 9/11 bombers ? Do you need reminding where AQ got much of its funding ?