Netanyahu's victims

And there are no "neutral entities" in the region except for israel as it happens.

The rest are sunni or shia

Or are you just saying anyone but america?

Fine . Lets get fcking nigeria to do it then
 
Does your blood pressure go up every time you post in chit chat?

Israel are hardly neutral since they've been at war and/or have had border disputes with pretty much every country in the region and honestly wouldn't exist without American backing.

In a very simplistic nutshell, "anyone but America" wouldn't be far off my position given that their intervention has nothing to do with the good of humanity. Indeed, wherever they've gone, they've usually left a huge mess behind which is why I would be sceptical if they did choose to intervene in Nigeria.

You've missed my points though...

1) Why don't the US get involved in every International outrage?

2) Do you genuinely, hand on heart, completely honest with yourself and your subconscious believe that America's confronting of ISIS has nothing to do with protecting American business interests?
 
Bachelors Hall said:
There is international outrage over the happenings in the Gaza strip yet the US are backing the aggressors (this item has been done to death in this thread already)

There are ongoing international outrages over the happenings in Nigeria and Darfur which have been perpetrated longer than the current events in Iraq. Where are America in these instances?

You can believe that the latest American intervention is purely altruistic and humanitarian if you wish. However, I don't believe that you believe this has sod all to do with protecting American interests.
Click to expand...

Backing the agressors ? Since when did the us back the missile attack on israel?

It says a lot that some would rather the us werent involved . That over the lives of the beseiged in iraq
 
The Gazans have been besieged a lot longer than the Iraqis...

As I said, this item has been done to death already.

I, Baroness Warsi and millions of others in the UK and countless more worldwide believe that Israel are ultimately the aggressors. You, Netanyahu, millions of others in the UK and countless more worldwide believe that the Palestinians are the aggressors.

Neither of us are going to move from our positions on this item.
 
clivex said:
America doesnt need iraqi oil at all. Not one bit of it

The un would not attack or have the capability to. Arab forces? Is that a wind up?

Its fcking great that we have americas capability and will to wipe out this scum. You can bet the christians under threat of genocide would agree. Somewhat...
Click to expand...

Clivex......Obama response on this matter......strong or otherwise, iyo?

Edit: I'm talking IS.
 
Last edited:
Bachelors Hall said:
Does your blood pressure go up every time you post in chit chat?

Israel are hardly neutral since they've been at war and/or have had border disputes with pretty much every country in the region and honestly wouldn't exist without American backing.

In a very simplistic nutshell, "anyone but America" wouldn't be far off my position given that their intervention has nothing to do with the good of humanity. Indeed, wherever they've gone, they've usually left a huge mess behind which is why I would be sceptical if they did choose to intervene in Nigeria.

You've missed my points though...

1) Why don't the US get involved in every International outrage?

2) Do you genuinely, hand on heart, completely honest with yourself and your subconscious believe that America's confronting of ISIS has nothing to do with protecting American business interests?
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree entirely, BH.

Intervention by the US at this time, is almost overwhemlingly on humanitarian grounds, in my view. After that, other considerations - principally the philosophical and geo-political threat posed by IS - have greater import than "business interests" in the region.
 
Grasshopper said:
Clivex......Obama response on this matter......strong or otherwise, iyo?

Edit: I'm talking IS.
Click to expand...

Not sure. yet to see the detail. Would have preferred sooner for sure but are where we are

Would be good to see other forces involved (no arab or UN please... we need to liquidate them) and i think it will come to that. The French did a fine job in Mali
 
Bachelors Hall said:
Does your blood pressure go up every time you post in chit chat?

Israel are hardly neutral since they've been at war and/or have had border disputes with pretty much every country in the region and honestly wouldn't exist without American backing.

In a very simplistic nutshell, "anyone but America" wouldn't be far off my position given that their intervention has nothing to do with the good of humanity. Indeed, wherever they've gone, they've usually left a huge mess behind which is why I would be sceptical if they did choose to intervene in Nigeria.

You've missed my points though...

1) Why don't the US get involved in every International outrage?

2) Do you genuinely, hand on heart, completely honest with yourself and your subconscious believe that America's confronting of ISIS has nothing to do with protecting American business interests?
Click to expand...

Absolute bullshit. Israel would not exist without american backing? what complete bollocks. Its defence and economy is streets ahead of the region. You have not got a clue...

Israel is neutral when it comes to shia sunni. needs explaining?

Why dont you grow up and try and put aside your american prejudice? Simply put you would rather the christians in iraq copped it then have america involved. Simple fact is that NO ONE else has their capability so if you want to rule that out because of some ridiculous assumption about |'business interests" then that is frankly a disgusting stance
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
Not sure I agree entirely, BH.

Intervention by the US at this time, is almost overwhemlingly on humanitarian grounds, in my view. After that, other considerations - principally the philosophical and geo-political threat posed by IS - have greater import than "business interests" in the region.
Click to expand...

Not entirely agreeing with you either GH.

Curtailing the spread of ISIS's philosophical and geopolitical influence is a valid enough reason to intervene from the US perspective. However, the timing of the intervention coincides too closely with the ISIS advance on Erbil. I wasn't there when it was decided that air strikes should commence. Few people were. Personally I believe it would be a blend of the aforementioned factors and nothing to do with pure altruism.

As for that pint, can you keep it behind the bar for me? I'm staying sober for a few weeks.

clivex said:
Absolute bullshit. Israel would not exist without american backing? what complete bollocks. Its defence and economy is streets ahead of the region. You have not got a clue...
Click to expand...

I suppose Shimon Peres doesn't have a clue either

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Peres-We-cannot-exist-without-the-United-States

clivex said:
Israel is neutral when it comes to shia sunni. needs explaining?
Click to expand...

Israel is the enemy of both the Shia Hezbollah and the Sunni Hamas. Just because one is the enemy of both parties, doesn't make one a neutral entity.

clivex said:
Why dont you grow up and try and put aside your american prejudice? Simply put you would rather the christians in iraq copped it then have america involved. Simple fact is that NO ONE else has their capability so if you want to rule that out because of some ridiculous assumption about |'business interests" then that is frankly a disgusting stance
Click to expand...

My scepticism towards US foreign policy is more borne of years of studying American History than it is of any casual immaturity. Indeed, it might please you to know I'm also sceptical of Russian and Chinese foreign policy.

I don't want to see any group of peoples "cop it" ever. Nobody in their right minds would ever support genocide. If the US always acted as benign and neutral world police, then I would be behind them all they way. However, the US has only ever gotten involved in foreign affairs when it benefits them. Where were the US for Sri Lanka? Where were the US during Srebrenica? Where are they regarding what's currently happening in the Central African Republic? Besides, Russia, China and India are all capable of putting ISIS out of action - rather they have no reason to as they have no vested interests in the region.

I would describe your stance as disgusting but I try not to use emotive and personal language whilst discussing politics.

You still haven't answered.

Do you genuinely, hand on heart, completely honest with yourself and your subconscious believe that America's confronting of ISIS has nothing to do with protecting American business interests?

Is their action wholly down to pure, untainted, righteous, benevolent, humanitarian altruism without any consideration towards how the situation affects them?

You can lie to me and everybody else here all you want. After all, this is simply a horse racing forum (although to be honest, no amount of online shouting anywhere will make the slightest difference to the world). It's just a shame to see when somebody lies to themselves.
 
So what if business intetests are a side benefit? Rather isis controlled the oil.. ?

If you call me a liar then put up or basically fck off . Got it?
 
clivex said:
Your supposed studying didnt extend to knowledge if kosovo for a start

shall we go on?
Click to expand...

I spend a decent amount of time in the Balkans. Indeed, in January I stayed in the newly reopened Hotel Jugoslavia in Belgrade which was bombed as a part of the NATO campaign. Interestingly, even though my Bosnian girlfriend spent her childhood in Sarajevo being bombarded by Serb artillery, she doesn't think Belgrade should have been targeted by Nato.

Clinton went into Kosovo after criticism for not getting involved with Rwanda and Bosnia. Clinton didn't have to go in there and he didn't have to get involved in 1999. However, these circumstances presented an opening. Involvement in Serbia was enacted around the time of the Clinton Doctrine whereby it was stated that the US would act multilaterally with the UN when possible, but unilaterally when necessary. As part of the National Security Strategy, it also suggested that the US would act in circumstances they were "ensuring uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources".

Much like the Monroe doctrine was used for the attempts on Cuba, the actions in Serbia/Kosovo set a precedent whereby the US can undermine international law, treaty and process.

You can go on if you want but to be honest, I'm only killing time here really.

clivex said:
So what if business intetests are a side benefit
Click to expand...

You've just changed your stance dramatically. Just this morning, it was ridiculous and disgusting to insinuate that the US was looking out for corporate interests. Now it's perfectly true and acceptable.

clivex said:
Rather isis controlled the oil.. ?
Click to expand...

Where did I suggest that? I'm happy to see ISIS blown off the face of the earth. Who controls the oil isn't my decision. Ideally, the oil would be controlled by Iraqi citizens but it appears you'd rather the Americans control it, even though "America doesnt need iraqi oil at all. Not one bit of it".

clivex said:
If you call me a liar then put up or basically fck off . Got it?
Click to expand...

Are you threatening me? :blink:

Calm down, it's Sunday afternoon and this is a horse racing forum.
 
BH, I'm not denying that the oil fields are high in US thoughts; but in my view, this is for strategic reasons, rather than any immediate "business concerns". The strategic aim here is two-fold; to arrest the alarming speed with which IS has been able to spread its influence, and to secure infrastructure (e.g. Oil-feilds and refineries) which would be to IS strategic benefit. The timeline for intervention is driven by the above. Sort out the strategic aims, and the "business reasons" rather take care of themselves.

Clearly, saving the Yazidis, serves neither of those strategic aims, hence there must be another reason for it......and I think it's self-evident that it's being driven by humanitarian concern.

As to the wider-point, the US is rather damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't.

Obama has tended towards a more withdrawn position (in terms of foreign policy) than previous administrations, but the emeregnce of IS demands a response. The area is a tinder-keg as it is, and the creation of a Sunni-fundamestalist State on Iran's border, would be like putting a match to it. Israel could also get drawn into matters, at which point, the entire region goes up in a puff of smoke......and who knows how far the collateral damage would reach?

By any definition, IS represent a clear and present danger, and a co-ordinated response (preferably involving a far-reaching global coalition) is absolutely warranted.
 
Last edited:
I think we're reading the roughly the same page, just from different angles.

I'm not opposed to America giving ISIS the old 'pew pew'. I'm not opposed to anyone taking down ISIS. I agree that the US is acting with strategic and/then business interests at heart. Having said that, neither the Chinese nor the Russians would exactly welcome the Middle East being blown to smithereens and I feel that if the US hadn't have acted, the Chinese/Russians would have stepped in eventually. It's just lucky for them that the US is first in.

I do not agree that this is a benevolent, bully bashing gesture in the slightest. The Yazidis were pleading for US assistance over six weeks ago. If the US is to save the Yazidis then it's going to be incidental - with a thumbs up and big grin for PR purposes. As I mentioned with CAR, Sri Lanka, Srebrenica etc etc etc. America doesn't prevent genocide for the sake of preventing genocide.
 
I never said america should control the oil. If you bothered to look you would see where americas oil comes from. Iraq is neither here nor there.

studied american history for years? It shouldnt have taken that long to get a gcse
 
I'm sure there's arguments which go back to the 2003 invasion which show American interests being served well, but to talk about them in the midst of a massacre seems a slight diversion.

I do think sometimes you have to cut off a leg to save the body with foreign millitary interventions. I would have liked to have seen action in Syria also.

I'm not a fanatic religious person but reports of 500 woman and children buried alive is enough to make you want to say a few prayers.
 
Last edited:
America could not gave stopped sri lanka. That was an overnight operation

Grass is right. Imagine the squealing if america went into half these places? After being assured hat they always "leave a mess" suddenly they dont "leave a mess" enough times
 
clivex said:
I never said america should control the oil. If you bothered to look you would see where americas oil comes from. Iraq is neither here nor there.

studied american history for years? It shouldnt have taken that long to get a gcse
Click to expand...

And I never said that America gets its oil from Iraq. I said that US companies (ExxonMobil, Chevron, Marathon etc) dominate the Iraqi/Kurdish fields which, in turn, has a substantial European market.

Are you implying that I'm not very intelligent? I can't tell...

clivex said:
America could not gave stopped sri lanka. That was an overnight operation

Grass is right. Imagine the squealing if america went into half these places? After being assured hat they always "leave a mess" suddenly they dont "leave a mess" enough times
Click to expand...

In those instances of genocide, I never stated that the US should have gotten involved on any of those occasions (ideally, that's what the UN is supposed to be there for but it's honestly not fit for purpose). I was raising the issue as it contradicts the assertion that the US is striking ISIS because it's "the right thing to do".

As for the US being damned if they do and damned if they don't, why would they give a damn if they're being damned by another country? What are the finger-waggers going to do to America? Wag their fingers? Impose boycotts? Declare war? Neither China nor Russia care about how they're perceived so it would be fallacious to imagine the US being any different on a global scale. This is even when taking into account the fact that Obama is one of the least cavalier presidents in recent times.
 
Hamas executes 18 Palestinians in Gaza.

Will there be any protests against the deaths of these 18 Palestinians?
Hamas does an ISIS and "executes" its own Palestinian people.
Hamas initiates an operation called "Strangling The Necks". (Strangling the necks of fellow Palestinians, that is).

Seven palestinians shot by firing squad in Palestine Square after Friday prayers.
Another 11 Palestinians executed by Hamas at an abandoned police station elsewhere in Gaza City.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/22/us-mideast-gaza-idUSKBN0GM11320140822

_______________________________________
 
icebreaker said:
Will there be any protests against the deaths of these 18 Palestinians?
Click to expand...

Probably not - because most people have more sense than to waste their time. Your own argument - that Hamas are an implacable jihadist group hell-bent on flattening Israel - suggests that protesting would have absolutely zero chance of having any impact, and would serve to legitimise them if anything.

Anyway, why should it be incumbent on people who ostensibly practice the same religion as Hamas just to protest the group to somehow prove to you and me that they do not support them?
 
The question, I guess, was more rhetorical than anything else. Because the answer is glaringly obvious -- no there will not be any protests.
But does that not raise the issue of why those who protested so vehemently against Israel are now not prepared to to make a whimper about Palestinian deaths caused by Hamas. It does suggest that there is an agenda at play here; i.e., an anti-Semitic agenda.
In other words, a Palestine killed by an Israeli stray bomb is worth protesting about, but, another Palestinian summarily and deliberately killed by a Hamas bullet isn't.
 
It cant be denied that there is a large grouping of people who are only ever motivated by israeli "attrocities". And its far from just muslims
 
Indeed, yes !
Whilst those same people also ignore the fact that Israel is defending itself against an avowed existential threat to itself and its citizens.
 
It's time both of you gave up this simplistic and tiresome line of argument.

Israel professes to be a democracy and to respect human rights, something both of you make much play of. Nobody makes such claims of moral superiority on behalf of Hamas.

Israel receives much support from the west ranging from direct aid for military hardware to shared commercial and security intelligence, favoured access to markets and moral support at the UN. Hamas does not .

Israel is vastly more powerful than Hamas (and has gone beyond what most people think is acceptable in order to prove it).

Culturally speaking Israel since its inception has been part of Europe and the west and has traditionally received a sympathetic hearing.

Why exactly should you presume to expect people to be out protesting about today's grotesque events in Gaza? If you think it so amazingly important that people should be out protesting why aren't you out leading marches yourselves?
 
Last edited:
icebreaker said:
But does that not raise the issue of why those who protested so vehemently against Israel are now not prepared to to make a whimper about Palestinian deaths caused by Hamas. It does suggest that there is an agenda at play here; i.e., an anti-Semitic agenda.
In other words, a Palestine killed by an Israeli stray bomb is worth protesting about, but, another Palestinian summarily and deliberately killed by a Hamas bullet isn't.
Click to expand...

I give up - either you can't read or you are so determined to tell us all about this apparent anti-Semitic agenda that you aren't even willing to debate alternative arguments.
 
Back
Top