Guest MattP Posted 30 September 2015 Posted 30 September 2015 Can't agree with the points how bombing can make this worse, Syria can't actually get in much more of a mess than a civil war with 3/4 factions fighting each other. If it does manage to make worse fcuk knows what we'll be faced with.
BigMicky Posted 30 September 2015 Posted 30 September 2015 Looking at the Russians and the Americans I personally agree more with the Russians. The Americans (with our help) invaded and destabilised countries over there, often illegally. Iraq being a prime example. We have helped create ISIS, and have helped destabilise Syria. The area was much more stable before we interfered and it was better when the dictators like Saddam Hussein kept control, as they dealt with the issues as soon as people stepped out of line. They are a different breed, they need controlling by dictators and we should have left them to it. It was like getting involved in an argument in the park in New Parks. You are better off leaving them to it and not get involved. I think if Assad was to keep control the area would be much more stable, like it was before we stepped out of line. We are targeting ISIS, but supporting other rebels. How the hell that will ever work I will never know? Well done Blair and Bush for creating all the instability that we are now suffering. They should have kept off the park in New Parks and let those over there deal with it their own way. Got to be a WUM. You can't possibly believe what you have written
bmt Posted 30 September 2015 Posted 30 September 2015 Looking at the Russians and the Americans I personally agree more with the Russians. The Americans (with our help) invaded and destabilised countries over there, often illegally. Iraq being a prime example. We have helped create ISIS, and have helped destabilise Syria. The area was much more stable before we interfered and it was better when the dictators like Saddam Hussein kept control, as they dealt with the issues as soon as people stepped out of line. They are a different breed, they need controlling by dictators and we should have left them to it. It was like getting involved in an argument in the park in New Parks. You are better off leaving them to it and not get involved. I think if Assad was to keep control the area would be much more stable, like it was before we stepped out of line. We are targeting ISIS, but supporting other rebels. How the hell that will ever work I will never know? Well done Blair and Bush for creating all the instability that we are now suffering. They should have kept off the park in New Parks and let those over there deal with it their own way. I'd be careful with the dehumanising language!
Rincewind Posted 30 September 2015 Posted 30 September 2015 I have always said for major conflicts just have the leaders fight it out to t the last man standing in the middle of a field. They would soon learn to find alternatives to wars. Just leave the common man to his pint in his local and discuss the pro's and con's of having Mahrez in the LCFC first team lineup.
Alf Bentley Posted 1 October 2015 Posted 1 October 2015 Western diplomacy does seem exceptionally poor at anticipating and handling Putin. You get the impression that they were completely taken off guard by his move to attack non-ISIL rebel forces. They shouldn't have been, surely? At every stage, the assumption should be that Putin will do whatever it takes and whatever he can get away with in order to maximise Russian national interest as he sees it. That's what he did in Ukraine, calculating that he could seize Crimea and infiltrate Russian-speaking eastern Ukraine, but probably no more. It shouldn't be a surprise that he does the maximum that he can get away with to support his mate Assad. It's not for nothing that Russia is so dominant at chess - brutal realpolitik calculations of strategy and tactics to maximise your gains. Putin also had a successful career in the KGB, for God's sake. He's seriously good at calculating how to ruthlessly use power for maximum gain. He's succeeded in rising to the top of one major gang (KGB) in testing circumstances - and now he's effectively running another gang, Russia, and is a pretty effective gang leader. Where that leaves Syria, I don't know. Turning the tide of Islamism seems to be the No. 1 priority, and there's certainly an argument that the chaos would be even greater if Assad was removed in the short-term. Maybe, if the Russians can be persuaded to lean on Assad to stop the atrocities in return for him staying in power short-term and the Russians focusing future attacks on ISIL, then ISIL could be crushed/controlled and some sort of post-civil war settlement between the Assad regime and non-Islamist rebel groups might be possible? Probably over-optimistic, but what alternative is there?
leicsmac Posted 1 October 2015 Posted 1 October 2015 Foxestalk word of the week: realpolitiks Very good. Now let's put it into a sentence. "Realpolitik is fvcking shit and could well end up in the human race blowing itself to kingdom come."
Finnaldo Posted 1 October 2015 Posted 1 October 2015 Although Rob worded it pretty badly I can sort of see his point in terms of a massive cultural contrasts. Western ideal and ideologies have developed over centuries if not a millennium of gradual evolution in Europe.This worked in America due to the local population being entirely replaced with said Europeans from the 16th Century and in Japan and East Asia due to a somewhat similar technological advances. Modern democracy rose from the emergence of a middle class and from amendments from the previous feudal system we had in place beforehand. The Middle East never had this, however. Up until the 1920s the majority of the region was ruled by a sole power which had either direct control or immense influence over any state around it. Think the Shahs (Kings of Kings in Persian) of the Persian Empire, Parthian Empire and Sassanid Empire, the Caliphs of the Rashidun Caliphate, and the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. From the fall of the Western Rome we developed small fiefdoms which gradually became nation states which over time became more democratic whilst the middle east was held by one power ruled by a single ruler. We continued to grow and prosper as religious objection and more secular practices drew influence from previously lost Roman thought in form of the Renaissance and from that came competition from rival nations to further trade interests and begin new explorations such as India & China and create new technology which would become the industrial Revolution. Meanwhile the middle east was locked in a single empire with no rivals other than some minor Eastern European nations and whilst the Ottomans were fairly secular, you could argue that strict Islamic views still restricted scientific and technological advances more than the West did. Overall since the fall of the Ottoman Empire and a few British colonies, most of the middle east has only been exposed to Western democracy and ideologies such as capitalism for under a hundred years, It's fair to say pre-war that Syria was one of the more educated and 'advanced' in Western terms but seemingly across the board there's still that one-leader mentality in the State and institutions themselves. When that's overthrown by Western powers they have the only other constancy pre-western intervention: Islam. Obviously only a minority will fall into it but after decades of living in a warzone in which all you see is Western intervention and growing up with it could become an ugly association of intervention and war as simply a Western Imperialism. Therefore the fallbacks of ISIS, the Taliban, Hamas etc. becomes a convenient route to exact this anger, beginning the radicalisation process. In my opinion, that's what makes this such a catch-22. Do you allow a despot to carry torture and abuse his people, or do you let that cultural dependency crumble in favour of an Islamist insurrection? Especially now it's too late to go back on Iraq or Afghanistan, and Russia encroaching on Syria. I could see the lesser of two evils as dropping the Western bias and aiding Assad in this instance.
MooseBreath Posted 1 October 2015 Posted 1 October 2015 Very good. Now let's put it into a sentence. "Realpolitik is fvcking shit and could well end up in the human race blowing itself to kingdom come." Yesterday your posts moved me to search Google to see if there was a word for someone who has a constant fear of impending doom or apocalypse. There isn't, which is great because it means we can invent one especially for you. Suggestions: Apocophobe Extinctophobe Mac Doom Syndrome Together We Are Timid, Waging Against Neighbours Krikey, Extinction Reality
leicsmac Posted 1 October 2015 Posted 1 October 2015 I think "nihilist" runs it closest Moose, though that's not a fear per se and believe it or not I'm more an optimist than a pessimist...humans can be so much more than they are now. But if I can't be pissed off and rant about the world being grotesquely unfair on the wonderful platform of FoxesTalk, then what's the world coming to? Loving the acronym work by the way.
Mike Oxlong Posted 1 October 2015 Posted 1 October 2015 Yesterday your posts moved me to search Google to see if there was a word for someone who has a constant fear of impending doom or apocalypse. Leicesterfan?
Rincewind Posted 1 October 2015 Posted 1 October 2015 Yesterday your posts moved me to search Google to see if there was a word for someone who has a constant fear of impending doom or apocalypse. Leicesterfan? Doom and boom merchant.
MPH Posted 1 October 2015 Posted 1 October 2015 Yesterday your posts moved me to search Google to see if there was a word for someone who has a constant fear of impending doom or apocalypse. There isn't, which is great because it means we can invent one especially for you. Suggestions: Apocophobe Extinctophobe Mac Doom Syndrome Together We Are Timid, Waging Against Neighbours Krikey, Extinction Reality Green party member?
Guest MattP Posted 1 October 2015 Posted 1 October 2015 Couple of great posts from Alf and Finnaldo, good reads. Putin has seen a void here the rest of the World has left and he'll take advantage, he sees a half hearted approach from elswhere and takes full advantage, same as Crimea. The only real risk is that Russia gets involved again in a war against Islamists long term, not so much a problem fighting abroad but could have serious repercussions in Chechnya. It shouldn't be any surprise than Putin is running rungs around Obama, in their early 20's Putin was rising through the ranks of the KGB while Obama was chairing the "chang chang cannibis club" at college, according some reports today he even now has Iraq, Syria, Iran and Russia all talking together and sharing intelligence while the US is sat on the sidelines wondering what is going on, I don't think he knows how to respond. Putin has played a blinder though, Russia is now being seen as part of the solution rather than the problem. Something that was being laughed at just 2-3 years ago.
MPH Posted 1 October 2015 Posted 1 October 2015 Couple of great posts from Alf and Finnaldo, good reads. Putin has seen a void here the rest of the World has left and he'll take advantage, he sees a half hearted approach from elswhere and takes full advantage, same as Crimea. The only real risk is that Russia gets involved again in a war against Islamists long term, not so much a problem fighting abroad but could have serious repercussions in Chechnya. It shouldn't be any surprise than Putin is running rungs around Obama, in their early 20's Putin was rising through the ranks of the KGB while Obama was chairing the "chang chang cannibis club" at college, according some reports today he even now has Iraq, Syria, Iran and Russia all talking together and sharing intelligence while the US is sat on the sidelines wondering what is going on, I don't think he knows how to respond. Putin has played a blinder though, Russia is now being seen as part of the solution rather than the problem. Something that was being laughed at just 2-3 years ago. Cant help but think also that Putin is looking for long term economic partners. The more he is isolated by economic sanctions arising from the Ukraine and Crimea situation, the more he'll want strategically placed economic partners.
Mike Oxlong Posted 1 October 2015 Posted 1 October 2015 Couple of great posts from Alf and Finnaldo, good reads. It shouldn't be any surprise than Putin is running rungs around Obama, in their early 20's Putin was rising through the ranks of the KGB while Obama was chairing the "chang chang cannibis club" at college ............ By that token, they must both be in awe of the pig fvcker !
Carl the Llama Posted 1 October 2015 Posted 1 October 2015 Couple of great posts from Alf and Finnaldo, good reads. Putin has seen a void here the rest of the World has left and he'll take advantage, he sees a half hearted approach from elswhere and takes full advantage, same as Crimea. The only real risk is that Russia gets involved again in a war against Islamists long term, not so much a problem fighting abroad but could have serious repercussions in Chechnya. It shouldn't be any surprise than Putin is running rungs around Obama, in their early 20's Putin was rising through the ranks of the KGB while Obama was chairing the "chang chang cannibis club" at college, according some reports today he even now has Iraq, Syria, Iran and Russia all talking together and sharing intelligence while the US is sat on the sidelines wondering what is going on, I don't think he knows how to respond. Putin has played a blinder though, Russia is now being seen as part of the solution rather than the problem. Something that was being laughed at just 2-3 years ago. Since you put it in quotes I felt compelled to google that bizarrely specific claim of yours. From what I can find he's openly admitted to smoking pot with his buddies at college and they referred to themselves as the "choom gang". I can't find any mention of Obama holding some sort of chairperson of the stoners role or of this chang chang cannibis[sic] club.
Claridge Posted 1 October 2015 Posted 1 October 2015 I have always said for major conflicts just have the leaders fight it out to t the last man standing in the middle of a field. They would soon learn to find alternatives to wars. Just leave the common man to his pint in his local and discuss the pro's and con's of having Mahrez in the LCFC first team lineup. Cons to having mahrez in the team? Where's my nuke you non-believer
sphericalfox Posted 1 October 2015 Posted 1 October 2015 Only feels like yesterday we were discussing this. http://www.foxestalk.co.uk/forums/topic/80110-syria-what-happens-next/?p=2713741
Rincewind Posted 2 October 2015 Posted 2 October 2015 Well if they cannot get this right we are in a mess. https://www.facebook.com/Whosyourbaba/videos/10153350621017912/
Guest MattP Posted 2 October 2015 Posted 2 October 2015 Well if they cannot get this right we are in a mess. https://www.facebook.com/Whosyourbaba/videos/10153350621017912/ If a news reporter can't read his autocue right we are all in a mess?
Guest MattP Posted 2 October 2015 Posted 2 October 2015 Anti-war protest outside the Russian embassy.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.