Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by i<3milkshake)
    Here is what you said;



    Doesn't sound like a guy saying "rumours say", or anything of the sort. It sounds like a guy being arrogant and saying, black and white, what it does and does not say.

    You can go on about how knowledgeable you are as much as you want, that you even tell us what reports that haven't been released yet (and are thousands of pages long anyway) say tell us everything we need to know;

    You are full of yourself, and you are just full of manure.

    "It says Tony Blair has a messiah complex, I could have told you that". Oh well thank you Mr. Know it all for the findings of the report being so obvious to you before it even exists yet. Perhaps I could borrow your time machine at some point?

    Hilarious, you so arrogantly state the findings of the report like it is so obvious. "I could have told you that". It seems you base your views on complete nonsense. Then again, I shouldn't argue with an omniscient being like you who can see into the future and when they do they state the future events in such a matter of fact, "I could have told you that" kind of way". You probably know next weeks lotto numbers. Is that another future event that "you could have told me a long time ago"?
    Wow, you definitely really know you lost the argument and are focusing really hard on trying to 'beat' me on this inconsequential point.
    Well, for starters, the inquiry and the report are not the same thing. The inquiry finished 4 and a half years ago. The vast majority of it is public record. No time machine is required to give an opinion on something that happened in public between 2009 and 2011.
    As for the report, we know the reasons behind the lengthy delays- legal issues over certain documents and the maxwellisation process. But obviously you know otherwise, yes?
    So yeah, once again, nice strawman rant.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Wow, you definitely really know you lost the argument and are focusing really hard on trying to 'beat' me on this inconsequential point.
    Well, for starters, the inquiry and the report are not the same thing. The inquiry finished 4 and a half years ago. The vast majority of it is public record. No time machine is required to give an opinion on something that happened in public between 2009 and 2011.
    As for the report, we know the reasons behind the lengthy delays- legal issues over certain documents and the maxwellisation process. But obviously you know otherwise, yes?
    So yeah, once again, nice strawman rant.
    Not a strawman at all; you try and claim it is so obvious what this report entails when in reality you are just talking complete rubbish.

    Call it a strawman all you want, it really isn't. A person who loses the argument is the one who claims Libya and co are some democratic oasis (lol) and claims to have insider knowledge on this report, confidently stating its conclusions as if it were factual.

    The only fact here is that you talk some right nonsense
    Brb, I just inherited the gift pol pot has. I'm currently celebrating a conservative majority with Boris Johnson in charge. The reasons given were obvious- Bo Jo is a popular figure with the public, David Cameron will say in his (not yet public) speech.

    Also Chelsea will get relegated but when the Champions League.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Great response but you are forgetting the hash we made of India / Pakistan and most of Africa.
    The problem with the way we left the empire was that we did it too quickly (largely because we were all but forced to) and that a lot of former territories got dictators bankrolled by the US or USSR. In places like Singapore and Hong Kong they thrived precisely because they embraced the market whether democracies or not.

    I can't pretend that our final years of empire were stunning but a lot of the reasons these nations are poor today are because of their own bad choices upon independence. Those who viewed whites as the enemy largely impoverished themselves for decades.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by i<3milkshake)
    Not a strawman at all; you try and claim it is so obvious what this report entails when in reality you are just talking complete rubbish.

    Call it a strawman all you want, it really isn't. A person who loses the argument is the one who claims Libya and co are some democratic oasis (lol) and claims to have insider knowledge on this report, confidently stating its conclusions as if it were factual.

    The only fact here is that you talk some right nonsense
    Brb, I just inherited the gift pol pot has. I'm currently celebrating a conservative majority with Boris Johnson in charge. The reasons given were obvious- Bo Jo is a popular figure with the public, David Cameron will say in his (not yet public) speech.

    Also Chelsea will get relegated but when the Champions League.
    I've claimed Libya is better off now than before we intervened.
    You claim I said Libya is a democratic oasis.
    Strawman.

    I made an analysis on the Chilcot inquiry. You claim I made an analysis on the Chilcot report.
    Strawman.

    You then go on to make facetious comments about time machines to further emphasise your strawman argument, because you have nothing of substance to actually say.
    Super strawman.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    I've claimed Libya is better off now than before we intervened.
    You claim I said Libya is a democratic oasis.
    Strawman.

    I made an analysis on the Chilcot inquiry. You claim I made an analysis on the Chilcot report.
    Strawman.

    You then go on to make facetious comments about time machines to further emphasise your strawman argument, because you have nothing of substance to actually say.
    Super strawman.
    No, you described the areas intervened as;

    Libya; having "a democratically elected Libyan government". Bull-it is an absolute mess.

    Iraq; "Murderous tyrant toppled. Yes mistakes were made in the aftermath but Kurds have stopped being massacred and have flourished." Super bull-the place is a warzone full of murders and wannabe dictators, hardly the "improvement" you spoke of. And anyone who uses the words "flourished" to describe the Kurds in Iraq is a clown.

    And as for ISIS being "on the back foot"; We have heard about Islamic terrorists being on the back foot since the first gulf war. They are never actually destroyed. Al Quaeda are still here, the Taliban... now they can be joined by Boko Haram and Al Nusra (the latter who were armed by the West but defeced straight after to Al Quaeda). Bull-o-meter is off the scale.

    You made an anlaysis on the Chilcot? Despite seeing nothing of it, virtually nothing? Doesn't surprise me. You don't have a time machine, you are just stating matter of fact things that you have pulled from your book of super bull then. The amount of bull you have mentioned here you could fertilise a farm.

    Analysis on the Chilcotyou so confidently stated what it is going to say you really are incredible. Incredibly full of bull really.

    BRB I am just making a matter of fact statement about something I know nothing about. I do this because I am a pseudo-intellectual.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Have a listen to this
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06kgvcl

    It makes for interesting listening. The reporter interviews many people including Hans Blix who gave evidence. Feel free to make up your mind as you please, but it feels like the writing is on the wall to me. I am sure I heard something over the weekend suggesting that the Attorney General was asked to reconsider his advice to TB when he gave his considered opinion that a war would be illegal.
    No offence, I'm taking the advice of the guy on here who is bessie mates with the upper echelons of government so he can make matter of fact statements about reports not even put out yet.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    The current democratically elected Libyan government controls the vast majority of the country and even has one of those secular, anti-Islamist autocratic strongmen warlords you're so fond of in General Haftar
    The current democratically elected Libyan government also fled to a boat because land was too dangerous (I can't find out if they still meet on a boat or not). It is embroiled in a civil war with an Islamist rival government that refused to step down after losing an election. ISIS controls part of the country, including Sirte and some of the surrounding towns and villages, and has a presence in Behghazi, the main city in the east. Various militias allied to different sides run around all over the place.

    The democratically elected government also does not even control Tripoli - the rival government Libyan dawn (who also control Misrata and a few other cities near Tripoli) does.

    I agree that we did not do much damage to Libya, as it was already in civil war when we intervened, and it would have ended up in a mess whether we intervened or not. However, let's be honest here - Libya is in chaos right now.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by i<3milkshake)
    And as for ISIS being "on the back foot"; We have heard about Islamic terrorists being on the back foot since the first gulf war. They are never actually destroyed. Al Quaeda are still here, the Taliban... now they can be joined by Boko Haram and Al Nusra (the latter who were armed by the West but defeced straight after to Al Quaeda). Bull-o-meter is off the scale.
    Just want to clear a few things up.

    Al Nusra is the Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria - it is Al Qaeda, so Nusra defecting to Al Qaeda makes no sense.

    The West has not armed Nusra. At least not intentionally.

    Western countries trained and armed some Syrian rebels who later defected to Nusra with their weapons (I believe that's what you were referring to). It was an FSA to Nusra (therefore Al Qaeda) defection, not a Nusra to Al Qaeda defection.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    Just want to clear a few things up.

    Al Nusra is the Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria - it is Al Qaeda, so Nusra defecting to Al Qaeda makes no sense.
    The West has not armed Nusra. At least not intentionally.
    They have.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...f34_story.html


    Western countries trained and armed some Syrian rebels who later defected to Nusra with their weapons (I believe that's what you were referring to). It was an FSA to Nusra (therefore Al Qaeda) defection, not a Nusra to Al Qaeda defection.
    It is common knowledge that the West armed and backed groups who then decided they wished to join the people they were supposed to be fighting.

    In any case it is embarassing for the West and perhaps they should get out and leave the whole establishing law and order to a proper leader there? Dictator or not. You have to be a dictator to keep a country together there.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by i<3milkshake)
    No, you described the areas intervened as;

    Libya; having "a democratically elected Libyan government". Bull-it is an absolute mess.

    Iraq; "Murderous tyrant toppled. Yes mistakes were made in the aftermath but Kurds have stopped being massacred and have flourished." Super bull-the place is a warzone full of murders and wannabe dictators, hardly the "improvement" you spoke of. And anyone who uses the words "flourished" to describe the Kurds in Iraq is a clown.

    And as for ISIS being "on the back foot"; We have heard about Islamic terrorists being on the back foot since the first gulf war. They are never actually destroyed. Al Quaeda are still here, the Taliban... now they can be joined by Boko Haram and Al Nusra (the latter who were armed by the West but defeced straight after to Al Quaeda). Bull-o-meter is off the scale.

    You made an anlaysis on the Chilcot? Despite seeing nothing of it, virtually nothing? Doesn't surprise me. You don't have a time machine, you are just stating matter of fact things that you have pulled from your book of super bull then. The amount of bull you have mentioned here you could fertilise a farm.

    Analysis on the Chilcotyou so confidently stated what it is going to say you really are incredible. Incredibly full of bull really.

    BRB I am just making a matter of fact statement about something I know nothing about. I do this because I am a pseudo-intellectual.
    Libya has a democratically elected government. That is a verifiable fact. The current situation is better than before we intervened- violent nationwide uprising against Gadaffi. That's all I ever said. Not that it's a democratic oasis, or anything else you want to invent me saying, only that progress has been made since the point of western intervention.

    Again, the Kurds might disagree with you there. They're immeasurably better off now. Saddam murdered millions of his own people, oppressed the majority of his country and started two major wars. His rule is hardly a beacon Iraq should look upon nostalgically. When the current conflict ends I have little doubt it will be a better country.

    Check out a current map of Iraq and Syria. On the backfoot definately, especially in Iraq.

    I really don't know how many times I can explain to you the difference between the Chilcot inquiry and the Chilcot report before concluding that you must be trolling or simply too proud to admit you were flat out 100% wrong.
    The Chilcot inquiry was held in public and is finished and concluded. That is what I gave an analysis on. Go back an reread our early exchanges. Quite clearly you bring up the inquiry and I talk about the inquiry. The Chilcot report on the inquiry is a different matter. Stop conflating the two.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Britains foreign policy is a joke only works to enrich a few corporations/indviduals whilst everyone else suffers. We're mislead through the media we're basically the US x 2 but without the military to back it up.

    Russia's foreign policy is more noble than ours. They're making us look bad.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    The current democratically elected Libyan government also fled to a boat because land was too dangerous (I can't find out if they still meet on a boat or not). It is embroiled in a civil war with an Islamist rival government that refused to step down after losing an election. ISIS controls part of the country, including Sirte and some of the surrounding towns and villages, and has a presence in Behghazi, the main city in the east. Various militias allied to different sides run around all over the place.

    The democratically elected government also does not even control Tripoli - the rival government Libyan dawn (who also control Misrata and a few other cities near Tripoli) does.

    I agree that we did not do much damage to Libya, as it was already in civil war when we intervened, and it would have ended up in a mess whether we intervened or not. However, let's be honest here - Libya is in chaos right now.
    They were in a ferry because they literally had just fled Tripoli for Tobruk and needed a quick convenient place to set up shop. The situation right now is General Haftar's forces control most of the country and don't seem to be losing ground to rivals at the least, but are on the offensive and are simply in a slow slog to regain enemy held territory. And yes you're correct, Libya is in chaos- it's still in the midst of a civil war. I firmly believe however it's in a better position than before we intervened. That doesn't mean I think it's a shining democratic utopia as has been claimed. It doesn't have to be one extreme or another.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by i<3milkshake)
    I think they show how disconnected politicians are from the public. They have also cost a lot of money and let us not forget the most important thing; they have caused huge hardship in the region.

    I don't support the fight in Iraq, Libya and Syria because the West just likes to bomb and then walk away. They topple a leader who kept the country relatively stable and then utterly fail to replace it with anything. Democracy, dictatorship, you choose, but they leave it with nothing. The Libyan government couldn't flee any further from its capital or they will be in the sea, etc etc.

    You can't impose Western values on these people. They need dictators, ones who understand the country. They keep the radical elements in check and are actually our best bet in fighting extremism.
    I'm not saying back Assad, Saudi etc but just leave them be-the UK is not the world policeman. You save money, are less of a target for extremists (who will focus their attacks on their domestic regimes now) and just don't make a pigs ear of the world. I know Camereon is as fond as a pigs ear as anyone but we have to move on.
    But we need the oil. Had Maggie not spunked the north sea oil on tax cuts and had we continued with our drive towards renewable energies rather than cut subsidies this term and had we not privatised nuclear power in the 1990s making them unviable to build we would not be reliant on either these Middle East clowns or Russia.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    Britains foreign policy is a joke only works to enrich a few corporations/indviduals whilst everyone else suffers. We're mislead through the media we're basically the US x 2 but without the military to back it up.

    Russia's foreign policy is more noble than ours. They're making us look bad.
    That's because Russia is a fascist state where the oil, arms companies are aligned with the state's interests rather than pursuing independent agendas. Therefore Russia's policy is more "noble" insofar as it has a clear and incontrovertible goal.

    Russia also have the advantage that Assad is a fascist too while we have a rock and hard place choice between bombing fascists with protectionist economies or bombing Islamists who are flat out crazy but will sell what they need to sell to keep the jihad going and who are patronised by our pseudocapitalist allies Saudi Arabia
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    That's because Russia is a fascist state where the oil, arms companies are aligned with the state's interests rather than pursuing independent agendas. Therefore Russia's policy is more "noble" insofar as it has a clear and incontrovertible goal.

    Russia also have the advantage that Assad is a fascist too while we have a rock and hard place choice between bombing fascists with protectionist economies or bombing Islamists who are flat out crazy but will sell what they need to sell to keep the jihad going and who are patronised by our pseudocapitalist allies Saudi Arabia
    I agree but Russia's got the right idea to support Assad and call for a democratic vote.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by i<3milkshake)
    I think they show how disconnected politicians are from the public. They have also cost a lot of money and let us not forget the most important thing; they have caused huge hardship in the region.

    I don't support the fight in Iraq, Libya and Syria because the West just likes to bomb and then walk away. They topple a leader who kept the country relatively stable and then utterly fail to replace it with anything. Democracy, dictatorship, you choose, but they leave it with nothing. The Libyan government couldn't flee any further from its capital or they will be in the sea, etc etc.

    You can't impose Western values on these people. They need dictators, ones who understand the country. They keep the radical elements in check and are actually our best bet in fighting extremism.
    I'm not saying back Assad, Saudi etc but just leave them be-the UK is not the world policeman. You save money, are less of a target for extremists (who will focus their attacks on their domestic regimes now) and just don't make a pigs ear of the world. I know Camereon is as fond as a pigs ear as anyone but we have to move on.
    That is what dictatorships look like. You said they need that.

    Uh, I seem to be becoming more supportive of the Tony Blairs and Christopher Hitchin's of the world. :-/

    It's like what Orwell said about the Nazis. Non interventionism eventually becomes the same as supporting them.

    Also considering the hardship they are in a lot fo the kurds are doing there damnest to create a society much more democratic that ours. They are not barbarians incapable of building a society based on enlightenment values.We should be helping these sorts of groups fight ISIS and bring democracy to the region. But would these Kurds go along with our imperialistic interest in oil? Or is it like when Iran attempted to nationalize our oil colonies. That brought out our true colors, we care not for fostering democracy when said democracy produces outcomes we do not like, in which case we crush it brutally.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/30/op...ment.html?_r=1
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    I agree but Russia's got the right idea to support Assad and call for a democratic vote.
    What other party could challenge? Even if the election isn't rigged. The post 2011 Syrian election rules outlaw ethnic/religious parties and in light of ISIS rightly so - any Western or Russian settlement would do the same. But the problem is this seems to be the way most opposition Syrians define themselves. So in 2012 Assad won 168 of 174 seats up for election.

    In my view Assad must ultimately be ousted by Western intervention but with Russia moving first we cannot now intervene without sparking a major face-off with Russia.

    The problem is I imagine this was exactly the sort of calculation that already took place with Iraq and that didn't exactly work out too well either.

    I continue to support a dirigiste energy independence policy for the UK (and/or Europe) based on renewables and nuclear and maybe fracking.

    If we were to eventually sort out the democratic process in Syria I would actually suggest an electoral outlet for Islamism and the Kurds and so on, some sort of power sharing structure and political representation seems like the only hope of sorting such things out as we have seen in Ireland and Palestine until the Hamas reverse.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    That's because Russia is a fascist state where the oil, arms companies are aligned with the state's interests rather than pursuing independent agendas. Therefore Russia's policy is more "noble" insofar as it has a clear and incontrovertible goal.

    Russia also have the advantage that Assad is a fascist too while we have a rock and hard place choice between bombing fascists with protectionist economies or bombing Islamists who are flat out crazy but will sell what they need to sell to keep the jihad going and who are patronised by our pseudocapitalist allies Saudi Arabia
    Quite a good summary to be fair
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    The first thing you need to correct is that you read the Guardian.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    What other party could challenge? Even if the election isn't rigged. The post 2011 Syrian election rules outlaw ethnic/religious parties and in light of ISIS rightly so - any Western or Russian settlement would do the same. But the problem is this seems to be the way most opposition Syrians define themselves. So in 2012 Assad won 168 of 174 seats up for election.

    In my view Assad must ultimately be ousted by Western intervention but with Russia moving first we cannot now intervene without sparking a major face-off with Russia.

    The problem is I imagine this was exactly the sort of calculation that already took place with Iraq and that didn't exactly work out too well either.

    I continue to support a dirigiste energy independence policy for the UK (and/or Europe) based on renewables and nuclear and maybe fracking.

    If we were to eventually sort out the democratic process in Syria I would actually suggest an electoral outlet for Islamism and the Kurds and so on, some sort of power sharing structure and political representation seems like the only hope of sorting such things out as we have seen in Ireland and Palestine until the Hamas reverse.
    lol who do the west want in the place of Assad!? exactly. It's even more of a joke. Democratic elections are the only way, i still think Assad would win.

    Russia has made the right choice and i support them fully 100% like many other Brits do. I just hope they're not stupid enough to undergo a face off with Russia which i know they're not. lol.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.