Off To War ?

Well it came from thesimpsons icebreaker

Had to laugh but its crap of course . I thought their immediate and vital response in Mali was superb
 
I'd like to see a combined Arab League force go into Syria with a view to sorting this all out.

But it's easier for them to look the other way, do f*ck-all themselves, wait for Western Nations' patience to run out, and then denounce said Western nations when it inevitably goes pear-shaped in parts.

Spineless, hyopcritical c*nts, the lot of them.
 
Laughed just a bit at that one


They could do it if they got organised

I suggest that they admit they are fuckwits and allow Israel to control operations
 
Grass, why this itch all the time to get involved? There is a war, a horrible civil war, between a variety of forces, none of whom are democratic. If you waded in, who would you hand power to? If the Arab countries intervene, the same question arises. What should they do next?

The best we can do is look after the refugees and guarantee to take Assad and his higher-ups, and anyone else guilty of war crimes, to the Hague if they ever try to leave Syria.
 
Lebanon had a similar (long) civil war between (I assume) non democratic factions. That ended up as a democracy of sorts
 
Grey said:
Grass, why this itch all the time to get involved? There is a war, a horrible civil war, between a variety of forces, none of whom are democratic. If you waded in, who would you hand power to? If the Arab countries intervene, the same question arises. What should they do next?

The best we can do is look after the refugees and guarantee to take Assad and his higher-ups, and anyone else guilty of war crimes, to the Hague if they ever try to leave Syria.
Click to expand...

I agree to a large extent but there is a line, and if chemical weapons are being used to kill innocent people, then something has to be done. As per my first post tonight, I'm not sure what this is but sitting back with arms folded not really an option.
 
The line was crossed in the former yugoslav states too and resolved by "intervention" Might not have been perfect or timely enough but resolved it was. There are no concentration camps today

The whole world could act like fcking switzerland if it wanted perhaps and of course on the other side of the coin mistakes will be made but its exactly like watching an old owman been beaten up by some drunken bloke. Do you sit on hands and say none of my business or take at least some sort of stance?

I will always admire more those that take action with good intention sthan those that sit around wringing their hands
 
Last edited:
Grey said:
Grass, why this itch all the time to get involved? There is a war, a horrible civil war, between a variety of forces, none of whom are democratic. If you waded in, who would you hand power to? If the Arab countries intervene, the same question arises. What should they do next?

The best we can do is look after the refugees and guarantee to take Assad and his higher-ups, and anyone else guilty of war crimes, to the Hague if they ever try to leave Syria.
Click to expand...

Hi. I'm Grasshopper - we've obviously never met.

Are you having a laugh, Arthur?

Me? An advocate for intervention? Behave yourself.

I am (or was at least) trying to articulate the futility of intervention by anyone.

Is this likely a crime against humanity? Yes.
Is Assad likely responsible? Yes.
Is it an escalation of what was already a pitiful tragedy? Yes.
Doesn't every right-minded person want it to stop? Yes.
Will intervention improve matters? No. Not based on recent history (imo).

What can possibly be done though?

I haven't the faintest. Maybe draw a circle on the map; starting in Jerusalem, extend it 2000 miles in all directions, carpet-bomb everything in it constantly for six weeks, and then start again?

That's probably just the pragamtist in me speaking, though.:cool:
 
Last edited:
So what do you propose, anyone?

Sorry, Nick, I thought you were being serious about wanting the Arab League to intervene.
 
Last edited:
An intervention might be better than what is happening now. Not a good option but perhaps a better one. But one that has at least learned some lessons of past interventions. There is no good outcome I can see but at this stage it is about least bad option.
 
haven't the faintest. Maybe draw a circle on the map; starting in Jerusalem, extend it 2000 miles in all directions, carpet-bomb everything in it constantly for six weeks, and then start again?
Click to expand...

you could try but mossad always ahead of the game and would have blasted away the bombers before they left the ground

and good thing too
 
could be a genuine multinational intervention with the country sectioned 9in more ways than one) . I suspect china may sit on hands if push came to shove. Russia is rightly widely despised for any number of reasons and is virtually friendless in the g8. Now maybe they should be told its going to be a g7 again? perhaps?

Across the Un (im not sure exactly how these votes work) tsuggest to the other tinpot nations that israel is causing the war and their anti semitism will get them screaming for action

More seriously though, i suspect it would just be the usual crap failed authoritarian states taht would vote against
 
Last edited:
Grey said:
So what do you propose, anyone?

Sorry, Nick, I thought you were being serious about wanting the Arab League to intervene.
Click to expand...

If there is to be an intervention, then it should be the Arab League and absolutely no-one else.
 
Should only africans have intervened in mali then?

No perhaps not...

I suppose if "arab sensitivities" (yawn) are going to dominate as they so often do then yes.
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
Should only africans have intervened in mali then?
Click to expand...

The dynamic is different in Syria, imo.

To be honest, it's somewhat lost on me as to why France independently went into Mali. Possibly because it was an easy-scrap against a relative handful of Boko Haram basket-cases, rather than a proper war?
 
bit more than that.

state was vulnerable to a aq takeover They had control of the north of the country and had resources. It was starightforward

Syria is very different yes.
 
Last edited:
There you go then.

Why France and not another country though, Simmo? I take it that Mali must have been a colonial French outpost at some point? Or that France has a particular commercial interest in Mali?

Genuinely don't know. :cool:
 
Back
Top