Always find it amusing how the left are prepared to let innocent people die and get slaughtered overseas.
What's your solution for people dying in Africa, etc, etc, etc...
Oh that's right ignore the countries which don't have oil
I don't understand this argument. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Always find it amusing how the left are prepared to let innocent people die and get slaughtered overseas.
So... we should save every country whose people are being needlessly slaughtered? Or just the ones on the news?
Just because we don't do something for other countries does not mean we should not get involved elsewhere just for the sake of consistency. Its frankly ridiculous.
But you didn't answer the question. Is this situation only 'so out of control' because we are getting so much media about it? If you threw this much coverage at Africa, or even North Korea, the general public would be jumping up and down about that as well.
And your use of the term 'two wrongs don't make a right' in this situation, is subjective at best, and naive at worst. Which action are you attaching to the word 'right?'
Daytripper to a tee.
Flip the argument, accuse others, distract, muddy the water until people can't be bothered with the issue anymore, making the issue neutral for the Coalition when it should have been a clear mark against them.
I don't understand this argument. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Always find it amusing how the left are prepared to let innocent people die and get slaughtered overseas.
So... we should save every country whose people are being needlessly slaughtered? Or just the ones on the news?
Just because we don't do something for other countries does not mean we should not get involved elsewhere just for the sake of consistency. Its frankly ridiculous.
But you didn't answer the question. Is this situation only 'so out of control' because we are getting so much media about it? If you threw this much coverage at Africa, or even North Korea, the general public would be jumping up and down about that as well.
And your use of the term 'two wrongs don't make a right' in this situation, is subjective at best, and naive at worst. Which action are you attaching to the word 'right?'
The right thing to do is to prevent human death - if only one life can be saved then that can only be a good outcome.
The media and oil horsehite is just typical tin foil hat rubbish to be honest. Nonsensical that people would rather engage in that sort of frivoulous and pointless debate then solve the actual problem.
Always find it amusing how the left are prepared to let innocent people die and get slaughtered overseas.
What's your solution for people dying in Africa, etc, etc, etc...
Oh that's right ignore the countries which don't have oil
So lets ignore them all then.
Such compassion from the brave and heroic leftists once again.
We keep going to war with those we are against and for what actual purpose?
So the West can impose it's worldview on people and have no opposition to such a move.
I'd rather be Switzerland just for once.
You don't have to be a "leftist" to disagree with bombing the Middle East… again! FFS!
You don't have to be a "leftist" to disagree with bombing the Middle East… again! FFS!
Well that seems to be the prevailing view amongst those classified on the left side of politics.
And your solution for women and children being systematically raped as well as men and boys being murdered is ?????
Deja vu all over again.
No long-term plan, no idea of what we intend the place to look like after we're finished, no attempt to consider the unintended consequences of our actions, no finish date, no oversight or parliamentary debate worth the name. We're bombing because there are bad people and we have bombs and 'someone needs to do something'.
We will succeed in breaking up ISIS/ISIL, make no mistake - and then in a couple of years something basically identical will spring up, because you can't bomb an ideology out of existence and because all the thousands of people who've lost family or homes in our latest bombing campaign will be easy targets for radicalisation. Just like last time.
I don't claim to know what the right way of handling this is, but I sure as ■■■■ know that repeating every step of the same old plan that has miserably failed in both Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 15 years very ■■■■■■■ likely ain't it.
If you want to avert a very serious imminent danger to life which has the potential to become a catastrophe on a global scale, you'd be paying far less attention to ISIS and far more attention to Ebola. ISIS is just Middle-Easter scumbags being Middle-Eastern scumbags just like Middle Eastern scumbags have done for decades. If they ever looked likely to become a REAL global threat, Australia wouldn't have to do anything about it cos Turkey or Saudi Arabia who have a lot more to lose, would stomp them. The Ebola thing is starting to look very scary indeed - shows no sign of slowing down, has already killed something like 25% of the entire medical staff of some countries, is bound to get into the slums of the big cities sometime soon at which time infection rates and fatalities will skyrocket, and every person who gets it is a living vessel for viral mutation and increases the odds that the virus will finally evolve the ability to infect via aerosol while retaining its lethality, which is the doomsday scenario everyone's dreaded since the Reston outbreak.
Yet we're spending hundreds of millions of $ on bombing a handful of scumbags in the middle east, while international aid towards handling the the Ebola epidemic is still something like 80% from volunteers and charitable donations ffs. I know which international crisis I'm most afraid of, and it isn't rappers cutting the heads off journalists.
We keep going to war with those we are against and for what actual purpose?
So the West can impose it's worldview on people and have no opposition to such a move.
I'd rather be Switzerland just for once.
Err - to stop people being mindlessly slaughtered and raped by a group of pyschopaths.
Fairly good reason I would have thought. :o
Deja vu all over again.
No long-term plan, no idea of what we intend the place to look like after we're finished, no attempt to consider the unintended consequences of our actions, no finish date, no oversight or parliamentary debate worth the name. We're bombing because there are bad people and we have bombs and 'someone needs to do something'.
We will succeed in breaking up ISIS/ISIL, make no mistake - and then in a couple of years something basically identical will spring up, because you can't bomb an ideology out of existence and because all the thousands of people who've lost family or homes in our latest bombing campaign will be easy targets for radicalisation. Just like last time.
I don't claim to know what the right way of handling this is, but I sure as **** know that repeating every step of the same old plan that has miserably failed in both Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 15 years very ******* likely ain't it.
If you want to avert a very serious imminent danger to life which has the potential to become a catastrophe on a global scale, you'd be paying far less attention to ISIS and far more attention to Ebola. ISIS is just Middle-Easter scumbags being Middle-Eastern scumbags just like Middle Eastern scumbags have done for decades. If they ever looked likely to become a REAL global threat, Australia wouldn't have to do anything about it cos Turkey or Saudi Arabia who have a lot more to lose, would stomp them. The Ebola thing is starting to look very scary indeed - shows no sign of slowing down, has already killed something like 25% of the entire medical staff of some countries, is bound to get into the slums of the big cities sometime soon at which time infection rates and fatalities will skyrocket, and every person who gets it is a living vessel for viral mutation and increases the odds that the virus will finally evolve the ability to infect via aerosol while retaining its lethality, which is the doomsday scenario everyone's dreaded since the Reston outbreak.
Yet we're spending hundreds of millions of $ on bombing a handful of scumbags in the middle east, while international aid towards handling the the Ebola epidemic is still something like 80% from volunteers and charitable donations ffs. I know which international crisis I'm most afraid of, and it isn't rappers cutting the heads off journalists.
Ebola and IS are not dependent on each other.
The idea that monies/effort is being diverted from solving Ebola to fight IS is ludicrous.
Err - to stop people being mindlessly slaughtered and raped by a group of pyschopaths.We keep going to war with those we are against and for what actual purpose?
So the West can impose it's worldview on people and have no opposition to such a move.
I'd rather be Switzerland just for once.
Fairly good reason I would have thought. :o
That's the same reason we invaded Sudan and a host of other African nations.
Wait a second..
You don't have to be a "leftist" to disagree with bombing the Middle East… again! FFS!
Well that seems to be the prevailing view amongst those classified on the left side of politics.
And your solution for women and children being systematically raped as well as men and boys being murdered is ?????
Any what evidence do you have that bombing ISIS will stop these rapes and murders? Because in general, over the past 15 years we've seen that the more a place is bombed, the more likely it is that societal breakdown (including rapes and murders) will happen there, and extremism will arise among the survivors.
If bombing is your policy, then you are responsible for the unintended consequences as well as the intended consequences. Good intentions are no excuse for incompetent policies.
Hilarious that this same group of do-gooders feel that its okay to ignore rape and murder (because that's what we always do) but will be outraged to the point of irrationality if someone winks or has to pay an extra $6 to go to the doctor.
Absoloutly amazing how some of you reconcile some of your beliefs.
Deja vu all over again.
No long-term plan, no idea of what we intend the place to look like after we're finished, no attempt to consider the unintended consequences of our actions, no finish date, no oversight or parliamentary debate worth the name. We're bombing because there are bad people and we have bombs and 'someone needs to do something'.
We will succeed in breaking up ISIS/ISIL, make no mistake - and then in a couple of years something basically identical will spring up, because you can't bomb an ideology out of existence and because all the thousands of people who've lost family or homes in our latest bombing campaign will be easy targets for radicalisation. Just like last time.
I don't claim to know what the right way of handling this is, but I sure as **** know that repeating every step of the same old plan that has miserably failed in both Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 15 years very ******* likely ain't it.
If you want to avert a very serious imminent danger to life which has the potential to become a catastrophe on a global scale, you'd be paying far less attention to ISIS and far more attention to Ebola. ISIS is just Middle-Easter scumbags being Middle-Eastern scumbags just like Middle Eastern scumbags have done for decades. If they ever looked likely to become a REAL global threat, Australia wouldn't have to do anything about it cos Turkey or Saudi Arabia who have a lot more to lose, would stomp them. The Ebola thing is starting to look very scary indeed - shows no sign of slowing down, has already killed something like 25% of the entire medical staff of some countries, is bound to get into the slums of the big cities sometime soon at which time infection rates and fatalities will skyrocket, and every person who gets it is a living vessel for viral mutation and increases the odds that the virus will finally evolve the ability to infect via aerosol while retaining its lethality, which is the doomsday scenario everyone's dreaded since the Reston outbreak.
Yet we're spending hundreds of millions of $ on bombing a handful of scumbags in the middle east, while international aid towards handling the the Ebola epidemic is still something like 80% from volunteers and charitable donations ffs. I know which international crisis I'm most afraid of, and it isn't rappers cutting the heads off journalists.
Ebola and IS are not dependent on each other.
The idea that monies/effort is being diverted from solving Ebola to fight IS is ludicrous.
Only correct because there was never a chance of monies being used to fight Ebola - reasons already outlined.
You don't have to be a "leftist" to disagree with bombing the Middle East… again! FFS!
Well that seems to be the prevailing view amongst those classified on the left side of politics.
And your solution for women and children being systematically raped as well as men and boys being murdered is ?????
Any what evidence do you have that bombing ISIS will stop these rapes and murders? Because in general, over the past 15 years we've seen that the more a place is bombed, the more likely it is that societal breakdown (including rapes and murders) will happen there, and extremism will arise among the survivors.
If bombing is your policy, then you are responsible for the unintended consequences as well as the intended consequences. Good intentions are no excuse for incompetent policies.
And your solution is what?
Ignore it until IS have killed off whats left of their opponents.
Deja vu all over again.
No long-term plan, no idea of what we intend the place to look like after we're finished, no attempt to consider the unintended consequences of our actions, no finish date, no oversight or parliamentary debate worth the name. We're bombing because there are bad people and we have bombs and 'someone needs to do something'.
We will succeed in breaking up ISIS/ISIL, make no mistake - and then in a couple of years something basically identical will spring up, because you can't bomb an ideology out of existence and because all the thousands of people who've lost family or homes in our latest bombing campaign will be easy targets for radicalisation. Just like last time.
I don't claim to know what the right way of handling this is, but I sure as **** know that repeating every step of the same old plan that has miserably failed in both Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 15 years very ******* likely ain't it.
If you want to avert a very serious imminent danger to life which has the potential to become a catastrophe on a global scale, you'd be paying far less attention to ISIS and far more attention to Ebola. ISIS is just Middle-Easter scumbags being Middle-Eastern scumbags just like Middle Eastern scumbags have done for decades. If they ever looked likely to become a REAL global threat, Australia wouldn't have to do anything about it cos Turkey or Saudi Arabia who have a lot more to lose, would stomp them. The Ebola thing is starting to look very scary indeed - shows no sign of slowing down, has already killed something like 25% of the entire medical staff of some countries, is bound to get into the slums of the big cities sometime soon at which time infection rates and fatalities will skyrocket, and every person who gets it is a living vessel for viral mutation and increases the odds that the virus will finally evolve the ability to infect via aerosol while retaining its lethality, which is the doomsday scenario everyone's dreaded since the Reston outbreak.
Yet we're spending hundreds of millions of $ on bombing a handful of scumbags in the middle east, while international aid towards handling the the Ebola epidemic is still something like 80% from volunteers and charitable donations ffs. I know which international crisis I'm most afraid of, and it isn't rappers cutting the heads off journalists.
Ebola and IS are not dependent on each other.
The idea that monies/effort is being diverted from solving Ebola to fight IS is ludicrous.
Then I'll just repeat my comments on the ISIS thing, without any mention of Ebola, since you seem to be deliberately ignoring that part of my post.
Deja vu all over again.
No long-term plan, no idea of what we intend the place to look like after we're finished, no attempt to consider the unintended consequences of our actions, no finish date, no oversight or parliamentary debate worth the name. We're bombing because there are bad people and we have bombs and 'someone needs to do something'.
We will succeed in breaking up ISIS/ISIL, make no mistake - and then in a couple of years something basically identical will spring up, because you can't bomb an ideology out of existence and because all the thousands of people who've lost family or homes in our latest bombing campaign will be easy targets for radicalisation. Just like last time.
I don't claim to know what the right way of handling this is, but I sure as **** know that repeating every step of the same old plan that has miserably failed in both Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 15 years very ******* likely ain't it.
Deja vu all over again.
No long-term plan, no idea of what we intend the place to look like after we're finished, no attempt to consider the unintended consequences of our actions, no finish date, no oversight or parliamentary debate worth the name. We're bombing because there are bad people and we have bombs and 'someone needs to do something'.
We will succeed in breaking up ISIS/ISIL, make no mistake - and then in a couple of years something basically identical will spring up, because you can't bomb an ideology out of existence and because all the thousands of people who've lost family or homes in our latest bombing campaign will be easy targets for radicalisation. Just like last time.
I don't claim to know what the right way of handling this is, but I sure as **** know that repeating every step of the same old plan that has miserably failed in both Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 15 years very ******* likely ain't it.
If you want to avert a very serious imminent danger to life which has the potential to become a catastrophe on a global scale, you'd be paying far less attention to ISIS and far more attention to Ebola. ISIS is just Middle-Easter scumbags being Middle-Eastern scumbags just like Middle Eastern scumbags have done for decades. If they ever looked likely to become a REAL global threat, Australia wouldn't have to do anything about it cos Turkey or Saudi Arabia who have a lot more to lose, would stomp them. The Ebola thing is starting to look very scary indeed - shows no sign of slowing down, has already killed something like 25% of the entire medical staff of some countries, is bound to get into the slums of the big cities sometime soon at which time infection rates and fatalities will skyrocket, and every person who gets it is a living vessel for viral mutation and increases the odds that the virus will finally evolve the ability to infect via aerosol while retaining its lethality, which is the doomsday scenario everyone's dreaded since the Reston outbreak.
Yet we're spending hundreds of millions of $ on bombing a handful of scumbags in the middle east, while international aid towards handling the the Ebola epidemic is still something like 80% from volunteers and charitable donations ffs. I know which international crisis I'm most afraid of, and it isn't rappers cutting the heads off journalists.
Ebola and IS are not dependent on each other.
The idea that monies/effort is being diverted from solving Ebola to fight IS is ludicrous.
Then I'll just repeat my comments on the ISIS thing, without any mention of Ebola, since you seem to be deliberately ignoring that part of my post.
Deja vu all over again.
No long-term plan, no idea of what we intend the place to look like after we're finished, no attempt to consider the unintended consequences of our actions, no finish date, no oversight or parliamentary debate worth the name. We're bombing because there are bad people and we have bombs and 'someone needs to do something'.
We will succeed in breaking up ISIS/ISIL, make no mistake - and then in a couple of years something basically identical will spring up, because you can't bomb an ideology out of existence and because all the thousands of people who've lost family or homes in our latest bombing campaign will be easy targets for radicalisation. Just like last time.
I don't claim to know what the right way of handling this is, but I sure as **** know that repeating every step of the same old plan that has miserably failed in both Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 15 years very ******* likely ain't it.
Err - how do you know there is no long term plan etc?
Just because its not on the front page of The Guardian does not mean an exit criteria does not exist. In fact, you can bet that all your questions have been covered off ad-nauseum.
Deja vu all over again.
No long-term plan, no idea of what we intend the place to look like after we're finished, no attempt to consider the unintended consequences of our actions, no finish date, no oversight or parliamentary debate worth the name. We're bombing because there are bad people and we have bombs and 'someone needs to do something'.
We will succeed in breaking up ISIS/ISIL, make no mistake - and then in a couple of years something basically identical will spring up, because you can't bomb an ideology out of existence and because all the thousands of people who've lost family or homes in our latest bombing campaign will be easy targets for radicalisation. Just like last time.
I don't claim to know what the right way of handling this is, but I sure as **** know that repeating every step of the same old plan that has miserably failed in both Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 15 years very ******* likely ain't it.
If you want to avert a very serious imminent danger to life which has the potential to become a catastrophe on a global scale, you'd be paying far less attention to ISIS and far more attention to Ebola. ISIS is just Middle-Easter scumbags being Middle-Eastern scumbags just like Middle Eastern scumbags have done for decades. If they ever looked likely to become a REAL global threat, Australia wouldn't have to do anything about it cos Turkey or Saudi Arabia who have a lot more to lose, would stomp them. The Ebola thing is starting to look very scary indeed - shows no sign of slowing down, has already killed something like 25% of the entire medical staff of some countries, is bound to get into the slums of the big cities sometime soon at which time infection rates and fatalities will skyrocket, and every person who gets it is a living vessel for viral mutation and increases the odds that the virus will finally evolve the ability to infect via aerosol while retaining its lethality, which is the doomsday scenario everyone's dreaded since the Reston outbreak.
Yet we're spending hundreds of millions of $ on bombing a handful of scumbags in the middle east, while international aid towards handling the the Ebola epidemic is still something like 80% from volunteers and charitable donations ffs. I know which international crisis I'm most afraid of, and it isn't rappers cutting the heads off journalists.
Ebola and IS are not dependent on each other.
The idea that monies/effort is being diverted from solving Ebola to fight IS is ludicrous.
Then I'll just repeat my comments on the ISIS thing, without any mention of Ebola, since you seem to be deliberately ignoring that part of my post.
Deja vu all over again.
No long-term plan, no idea of what we intend the place to look like after we're finished, no attempt to consider the unintended consequences of our actions, no finish date, no oversight or parliamentary debate worth the name. We're bombing because there are bad people and we have bombs and 'someone needs to do something'.
We will succeed in breaking up ISIS/ISIL, make no mistake - and then in a couple of years something basically identical will spring up, because you can't bomb an ideology out of existence and because all the thousands of people who've lost family or homes in our latest bombing campaign will be easy targets for radicalisation. Just like last time.
I don't claim to know what the right way of handling this is, but I sure as **** know that repeating every step of the same old plan that has miserably failed in both Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 15 years very ******* likely ain't it.
This is it.
We keep making the same mistakes.
We seem to think that we aren't the problem but the solution, yet in reality we are the problem.
By we i mean the West lead by a USA that just loves shooting first and asking questions later.
Every US Administration since LBJ has seemed to think that okay they are doing things we don't lie, we'll just blow the ■■■■ out of them..then it backfires and escalates. Sadly the US has supporters in both Europe and here who have the same mentality.
Perhaps the West needs to stop the idea of imposing its will on others and let the others decide what they want to do first.
But you didn't answer the question. Is this situation only 'so out of control' because we are getting so much media about it? If you threw this much coverage at Africa, or even North Korea, the general public would be jumping up and down about that as well.I don't understand this argument. Two wrongs do not make a right.So... we should save every country whose people are being needlessly slaughtered? Or just the ones on the news?Always find it amusing how the left are prepared to let innocent people die and get slaughtered overseas.
Just because we don't do something for other countries does not mean we should not get involved elsewhere just for the sake of consistency. Its frankly ridiculous.
And your use of the term 'two wrongs don't make a right' in this situation, is subjective at best, and naive at worst. Which action are you attaching to the word 'right?'
The right thing to do is to prevent human death - if only one life can be saved then that can only be a good outcome.
The media and oil horsehite is just typical tin foil hat rubbish to be honest. Nonsensical that people would rather engage in that sort of frivoulous and pointless debate then solve the actual problem.
Yep... Western military action will result in a complete end to innocent deaths. Are you freakin serious?
The media and oil stuff isn't tin foil stuff, it's a clear agenda that isn't even hidden anymore.
And the fact that you keep making this a left wing v right wing thing, shows to me that you are incapable of looking outside your own strict belief structures, which makes your opinion horribly tainted.
Err - how do you know there is no long term plan etc?
Just because its not on the front page of The Guardian does not mean an exit criteria does not exist. In fact, you can bet that all your questions have been covered off ad-nauseum.
That's exactly what everyone said in 2003.
Trust us.
There is a long-term plan.
We're bringing peace and democracy.
It'll work this time - really.
Limited intervention.
Surgical strikes.
We're only staying until Iraqi forces are ready.
Deja ******* vu.
I know there's no long term plan because Abbott and Obama have waffled pathetically and contradicted themselves whenever they've been asked 'what is the long term plan?' And because to have a meaningful long-term plan you'd need to have the input and the buy-in of Turkey, Kurdistan, Jordan, Iraq (or what disintegrating fragments of it still exist) and even Syria and Iran, and working that (even if you could!) out would be a long, time-consuming negotiation and there's no indication it ever even started to take place.
Nope, this is blind faith stuff. Bomb the bad people (and some perfectly innocent people who happen to be in the wrong place, but **** happens) and then work out the details later.
The vicious truth is that no industrial nation has yet worked out how to win a war on foreign soil against an opponent using guerilla tactics. Killing a bunch of people is easy, sure - some of them might even be the people you wanted to kill - but WINNING is very very hard. The US, the USSR, the French, and probably a bunch of others i can't remember right now have all tried and all failed.
This is not a choice between right and wrong. Turning a blind eye to ISIS is wrong. But launching a bombing campaign that will kill more innocents than legitimate targets (because bombing campaigns always, always do) with no guarantee or even reasonable hope that it will result in a long-term improvement of the situation - and in fact a very high likelihood it'll make thigs worse longterm - is also wrong
There's a reasonable possibility that, just like the Sept 11 attacks, part of the motivation of ISIS's latest atrocities is to lure the West into exactly this sort of action in order to further radicalise people in the war zone and make it harder for there to be a long-term peaceful understanding between middle-eastern Islam and western ideals. That makes bombing not only wrong, but wrong and dumb. Staying out completely is both wrong and smart. If there is a right and smart option, I honestly don't know what it is, and I don't think anyone else does either.