All I got from this is he doesn't want to bomb other nations unless they really got to (like in a time of war) and I support that
We shouldn't have to be daisy chained to the US and bomb a nation because they tell us too
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;52287005]All I got from this is he doesn't want to bomb other nations unless they really got to (like in a time of war) and I support that
We shouldn't have to be daisy chained to the US and bomb a nation because they tell us too[/QUOTE]
We aren't though.
[QUOTE=Inspector N;52287279]We aren't though.[/QUOTE]
Yeah you and we are. Whenever something breaks out, the US always seeks assistance from the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand then seeks assistance from NATO nations and other powers
We are always dragged into this rot due to the alliance we have and the five eyes programme
Corbyn wants to end this unnecessary need for foreign nations to deal with problems it has little care about and protect the nation first before anyone else, and I support that
I think it's important to discuss how bombings and civilian deaths play into the terrorists' narrative whilst also not acting like it's the sole cause for violent Islamist extremism. I don't think Corbyn believes that terrorist attacks are 'our fault', and if he does then that's not the message he's putting across here. But I don't think our current tactic is working, and it's bizarre how the same people who praised Trump for saying this also admonish Corbyn for saying it in a calmer way.
I've always had the opinion that the UK should adopt a stance similar to Japan or Switzerland, just keep the military home as a self defence force. we're an island nation with nuclear power and that's mostly all we need. Stop joining the US in making the middle east even more unstable. Pump a nice big section of our military funding into the nation's infrastructure and public services.
If for whatever reason, another William, Napoleon or Hitler does want to invade the british isles, even if we didn't level them with nuclear power, we're part of NATO.
[QUOTE=ReligiousNutjob;52287521]I've always had the opinion that the UK should adopt a stance similar to Japan or Switzerland, just pull the military home and keep them as a self defence force. we're an island nation with nuclear power and that's mostly all we need. Stop joining the US in making the middle east even more unstable. Pump a nice big section of our military funding into the nation's infrastructure and public services.
If for whatever reason, another William, Napoleon or Hitler does want to invade the british isles, even if we didn't level them with nuclear power, we're part of NATO.[/QUOTE]
You adore NATO and yet chasten the idea of us upholding our military obligations. Not only is leaning on the US for our own defense cowardly, it is also immoral. The cherry on the cake is destroying your capability to defend yourself and only focusing within your own borders is a poor defense strategy.
Furthermore, I find your lack of interest and care for the lives of the Syrian people quite disgusting.
[editline]29th May 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;52287376]Yeah you and we are. Whenever something breaks out, the US always seeks assistance from the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand then seeks assistance from NATO nations and other powers
We are always dragged into this rot due to the alliance we have and the five eyes programme
Corbyn wants to end this unnecessary need for foreign nations to deal with problems it has little care about and protect the nation first before anyone else, and I support that[/QUOTE]
We are not dragged into it - we pursue it on our own best interest and for a moral obligation to do what's right - not turn a blind eye to suffering.
[QUOTE=Inspector N;52287562]You adore NATO and yet chasten the idea of us upholding our military obligations. Not only is leaning on the US for our own defense cowardly, it is also immoral. The cherry on the cake is destroying your capability to defend yourself and only focusing within your own borders is a poor defense strategy.
Furthermore, I find your lack of interest and care for the lives of the Syrian people quite disgusting.
[editline]29th May 2017[/editline]
We are not dragged into it - we pursue it on our own best interest and for a moral obligation to do what's right - not turn a blind eye to suffering.[/QUOTE]
The question is if bombing these countries is the best way to stamp out terror. And when you realize how many civilian deaths this kind of strategy ends up with, and how it very effectively makes the west seem like the aggressors that terrorists want us to be, yeah maybe it isn't.
Regarding Syria, I think we really dropped the ball by not moving in faster. That whole situation started out very clean, there was really no doubt the Syrian government was the problem and the resistance was very reasonable.
But we didn't intervene, and now that the war has dragged on for years it's dragged the country into the dirt, and the Syrian resistance with it. By now they're fractured and spend almost as much time bickering and fighting with each other as they do the government, and many parts have been coopted by terrorists or other extreme ideologies.
I think western terrorism is way overblown when it comes to the actual impact of the issue. There are bigger, graver problems here that claim way more victims. Politicians just like to use it to appeal to the population and as a tool for demagoguery because of the associated shock factor.
Basing your international policy heavily on issues like "stopping terrorism" is irresponsible and most of all hypocritical when you cause an amount collateral deaths several orders of magnitude greater than the threat you're claiming to protect your country from ever could.
Let's be real, western politicians are using the threat of terrorism as a political tool nowadays. And when bombing a target far away, they don't care about civilian casualties (unless the public hears about it - then suddenly, and only then, is it a tragedy), either because they're "acceptable casualties" or they're not "our people".
[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;52287847]Let's be real, western politicians are using the threat of terrorism as a political tool nowadays. And when bombing a target far away, they don't care about civilian casualties (unless the public hears about it - then suddenly, and only then, is it a tragedy), either because they're "acceptable casualties" or they're not "our people".[/QUOTE]
I'm more worried about the social/political implications of government power-grabs in the name of fighting or "safeguarding" against terrorism than actual terrorism itself. Like you said, terrorism is used as a political tool to manipulate citizens who are easily rallied against some "enemy" perpetually created from the foolish actions of governments, which results in altering of the political atmosphere and eroding freedoms from the citizens. We're never going to fix anything overseas by forcing people within their own borders to change and conform to our ideals, it will only result in more hatred and shit being endlessly fucked up. It would be nice to stop our bullying of other societies all over the world, and instead focus on fixing real problems in society and on building a better world/environment for our future generations, but I don't think that will happen for a very long time with the way shit has been happening within the past few decades.
It'll be up to our generation to fix all this. We're getting close to a point where we will be handed over the reins, and we've got a mighty big mess to clean up. We will also have to decide whether we want to continue this path down of effectively upholding the now decade-long "us vs. them" mentality, or if we want to try and make our own society more inclusive.
We must also do something about all these measures that have been taken in the name of protection: do we continue to take away citizen rights while exaggerating the threat of terrorism, or do we go into reverse and acknowledge that terrorism, while a genuine problem that should not be ignored, is not going to destroy our society, nor that it is as likely to happen as politicians like to say it is.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;52287005]All I got from this is he doesn't want to bomb other nations unless they really got to (like in a time of war) and I support that
We shouldn't have to be daisy chained to the US and bomb a nation because they tell us too[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately because of how Australia is geopolitically we actually have to support the US in it's endeavours overseas, as bad as that sounds.
Australia's economy is not self-sufficient a lot of it is from exports and imports, those of which are taken/brought from overseas by boats. Our navy isn't strong enough to protect all of the sea routes and boats, so Australia has to suck up to whatever country is the biggest naval power at the time; at first it was England now it's America. To keep America happy we kind of act as their backup; so if there is ever a time where we need America they will be obliged to help.
[editline]30/05/16[/editline]
Clearly the solution is the Australian Empire must rise.
[QUOTE=Inspector N;52287562]You adore NATO and yet chasten the idea of us upholding our military obligations. Not only is leaning on the US for our own defense cowardly, it is also immoral. The cherry on the cake is destroying your capability to defend yourself and only focusing within your own borders is a poor defense strategy.
[B]Furthermore, I find your lack of interest and care for the lives of the Syrian people quite disgusting.[/B]
[editline]29th May 2017[/editline]
We are not dragged into it - we pursue it on our own best interest and for a moral obligation to do what's right - not turn a blind eye to suffering.[/QUOTE]
You can care about Syrian lives without thinking that bombing them and causing hundreds of civilian casualties as collateral is the right way to go about helping them.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;52288135]You can care about Syrian lives without thinking that bombing them and causing hundreds of civilian casualties as collateral is the right way to go about helping them.[/QUOTE]
That's not what is happening. Hundreds of civilian casualties?
Conversely, you can't care about Syrian lives if you are opposed to the destruction of 388 armoured Humvees, 1,000+ fuel tankers, 2,000 improvised vehicles, 164 tanks and 45,000 ISIS fighters - all a pitiful amount next to what could be achieved would people not [B]beg [/B]for inaction.
[QUOTE=Inspector N;52288446]That's not what is happening. Hundreds of civilian casualties?
Conversely, you can't care about Syrian lives if you are opposed to the destruction of 388 armoured Humvees, 1,000+ fuel tankers, 2,000 improvised vehicles, 164 tanks and 45,000 ISIS fighters - all a pitiful amount next to what could be achieved would people not [B]beg [/B]for inaction.[/QUOTE]
oh, quit this cheap ass guilt tripping. you can obviously care about syrian lives without liking our current approach to fighting terrorism. this is not debatable. you don't get to dictate how other people feel about things
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52288504]oh, quit this cheap ass guilt tripping. you can obviously care about syrian lives without liking our current approach to fighting terrorism. this is not debatable. you don't get to dictate how other people feel about things[/QUOTE]
It is debatable - you're wrong and you can't. Deride me all you want, if that eases you conscience.
A different solution to the war on terror could be Russias approach, we kidnap the families of terrorists and threaten to execute them if they don't hand themselves in. Then we shoot captured terrorists with pig fat covered bullets to deny them entry to paradise and make sure they know we're doing that. Make them completely terrified of us, because right now they think we're a joke.
[QUOTE=Jack32;52297535]A different solution to the war on terror could be Russias approach, we kidnap the families of terrorists and threaten to execute them if they don't hand themselves in. Then we shoot captured terrorists with pig fat covered bullets to deny them entry to paradise and make sure they know we're doing that. Make them completely terrified of us, because right now they think we're a joke.[/QUOTE]
Well that's one way to increase suicide bombings.
[QUOTE=Jack32;52297535]A different solution to the war on terror could be Russias approach, we kidnap the families of terrorists and threaten to execute them if they don't hand themselves in. Then we shoot captured terrorists with pig fat covered bullets to deny them entry to paradise and make sure they know we're doing that. Make them completely terrified of us, because right now they think we're a joke.[/QUOTE]
First of all, I'm pretty sure pork being forbidden to Muslims is more about intent than it is them having some werewolf-style weakness to it. Secondly, Russia still suffers terrorist attacks.
So no, 'Russia's approach' of combating terrorism with petty spite and guilt by blood is not what I'd call a solution. A solution would involve less terrorist attacks.
[QUOTE=Elstumpo;52297752]Well that's one way to increase suicide bombings.[/QUOTE]
Can't suicide bomb if you're already dead.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
