Minjor wrote: » Same story for Saudi Arabia then? But in fairness, they've arms and hundred of planes bought from the West, about time they made themselves useful. When it comes down to it, that country is responsible for a lot of extremism over the years. It's time for them to start repenting for the huge funding they've given Islamic militants.
Gatling wrote: » Turkey doesnt get involved in any thing because there afraid of upsetting some of there own Muslim community , They are quite happy to be a member of nato as long as it doesnt involve them deploying troops or equipment , They could easily lead the way in these conflicts but there simply not interested , After this and isis is dealth with im pretty sure the kurds will set up there own state then things could get interesting, Add the fact a lot of foreign Isis are openly travelling through turkey to get both Syria and iraq
ardinn wrote: » Genuinely interested to hear opinions on why this would be interesting? I dont know much about it tbh!
SwiftJustice wrote: » How many countries has the noble peace prize winner bombed now?? Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia...Hope and Change lads.
LuckyLloyd wrote: » I have absolutely no issue with the US bombing ISIS targets, nor do I see an inherent condradiction between such an action and a policy objective of peace and stability in the region. There will always be justified military actions in this world.
SwiftJustice wrote: » Has the bombing campaigns in any of the countries on that list brought about peace and stability??
BoJack Horseman wrote: » Who is this "we"? What is your solution?
LuckyLloyd wrote: » I have absolutely no issue with the US bombing ISIS targets, nor do I see an inherent condradiction between such an action and a policy objective of peace and stability in the region.There will always be justified military actions in this world.
Meglamonia wrote: » Even if ISIS are rid of won't another group pop up in a few years with similar ideologies? Not being defeatist but we're almost fighting a losing battle against Islam, it's poison.
SwiftJustice wrote: » America bombs Iraq because it is threatening the peace and stability of the middle east with all of it's WMD's. It then invades the country, disbands the military and lets the militia have at each other. It then installs a puppet sectarian government that enraged the Sunni north that leads to instability and allows Isis to take control. America then turns its attention to Syria. Wanting to piss off Iran, it allows Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia to stir up a bloody Sunni/Shia civil war. It then wades in to train heart-eating 'moderates' and now to complete the circle **** it now wants to bring peace and stability by bombing the **** out of the country.
barry181091 wrote: » Haven't really followed this until recently but it really is craziness. I didn't realise the amount of fighters that have come from Ireland :eek: Wtf?
DarkyHughes wrote: » Who do people think is worse ISIS or the Shankill Butchers? ISIS are worse in terms of numbers which makes up a moderate sized guerrilla force were the Butchers were just a small unit of maybe a dozen men & the ISIS have much more sophisticated weaponry & have killed much more mainly thanks to those advantages.. But I think the Butchers were worse in the way they tortured & killed people in their romper rooms.
pablomakaveli wrote: » Why does it matter? Both are terrible. Its not a competition.
DarkyHughes wrote: » This is like that Father Ted episode "Speed" were milk float has to keep going around at a certain speed so a bomb won't go off & the priests are there trying to come up wit solutions to the problem "what about we say another mass perhaps?". It's like the Americans situation to the Iraq problem every single time. "what about some more bombing from above?" Since the the 1920's when we started using chemical weapons on them this has been our policy to these unfortunate people, overthrown presidents & kings, installed the Ba'th party, uninstalled it. We really are a bunch of dangerous maniacs.
DarkyHughes wrote: » Just because the Americans say it grand & because anyone else in the Western world is afraid to speak out against them doesn't make it justified.
DarkyHughes wrote: » It doesn't matter it's just a game you don't have to play if you don't want.
LuckyLloyd wrote: » I'm not speaking out against them on this one not because of their say so or fear. It's because I agree with them. If Irish men had been beheaded by these ***** I would want Irish troops on the ground over there. Call it irrational (it is irrational), but these terrorists are literally the scum of the ****ing earth and anything that causes them to die or potentially disperse is a positive thing for the world.
deseil wrote: » Agreed on all points except the "we"should be "they" . Unless of course your British or American.
DarkyHughes wrote: » When I say "we" I mean the West in general. You know us great guys who managed to slaughter 90 million people in 2 World Wars in the space of 30 years.
DarkyHughes wrote: » There was Irish people decapitated by bombs in Dublin did you want Irish troops to go into N.Ireland?