Red-Robbo Posted September 26, 2014 Report Share Posted September 26, 2014 and guess what I agree, I watched the detestable George Galloway on This Week, last night and I agreed with what he said "this is Turkey's, Saudi Arabia, Syria's and Iraq's fight and not ours" and watching him wipe the floor with the vile Jacqui Smith cheered me up as well, it was very strange he was very respectful to Michael Portillo and never crossed swords with him at all but he got very angry with Smith. I did feel guilty after I realised that I agreed with Galloway and took a shower very soon afterwards. Hehe. For once, a post I could have written myself Es! ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted September 26, 2014 Report Share Posted September 26, 2014 Hehe. For once, a post I could have written myself Es! ;-) i'm sorry to say what is happening and has happened during the past 25 years in the middle east, the oil rich Arab world has always expected the rest of the world (usually USA and UK) to fight their battles for them. Seeing photo's of saudi princes in fighter jets is an absolute joke, this was sort of galling publicity was rampant during the first gulf war and the Saudi princes didn't get anywhere near a danger zone and were shamelessly allowed to claim RAF kills into the bargain and Galloway even alluded to that last night saying that he had seen nor heard one shred of evidence to back up the claim that Saudi jets are involved in the real air strikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted September 26, 2014 Report Share Posted September 26, 2014 i'm sorry to say what is happening and has happened during the past 25 years in the middle east, the oil rich Arab world has always expected the rest of the world (usually USA and UK) to fight their battles for them. Seeing photo's of saudi princes in fighter jets is an absolute joke, this was sort of galling publicity was rampant during the first gulf war and the Saudi princes didn't get anywhere near a danger zone and were shamelessly allowed to claim RAF kills into the bargain and Galloway even alluded to that last night saying that he had seen nor heard one shred of evidence to back up the claim that Saudi jets are involved in the real air strikes. Indeed. I expect the only major Arab effort to come from Jordan, who have IS forces just across the border from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted September 26, 2014 Report Share Posted September 26, 2014 Indeed. I expect the only major Arab effort to come from Jordan, whose have IS forces just across the border from them. Smith tried to offer up Jordan as a democracy and Galloway slapped her right down on that one, you should try to find it on catch up, he was on fire, shit just off for another shower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted September 26, 2014 Report Share Posted September 26, 2014 Enjoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted September 26, 2014 Report Share Posted September 26, 2014 Smith tried to offer up Jordan as a democracy and Galloway slapped her right down on that one, you should try to find it on catch up, he was on fire, shit just off for another shower. I'm not sure that Galloway- friend of Hussain, Ghadaffi and Assad, bastians of democracy all. Not saying I agree with the air strikes but I don't agree with Galloway. Ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted September 27, 2014 Report Share Posted September 27, 2014 I'm not sure that Galloway- friend of Hussain, Ghadaffi and Assad, bastians of democracy all. Not saying I agree with the air strikes but I don't agree with Galloway. Ever So are you saying this is the west's fight? and as per usual leave the Arabs and now Turks whose borders are the border's being threatened by isis to sit on their cowardly arses once more, whilst the west comes to the rescue?. As Galloway says Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia have the military might to deal with this themselves and the west can supply the expertise, Saudi Arabia has 700 war planes FFS, they don't need us they just need to actually grow a set and fight their own battles for once and stop hiding behind their barrels of oil. 5 weeks on and the air strikes are not working, Andrew Neil alluded to a New York Times article stating that isis had not relinquished any ground whatsoever since the air strikes began, in fact isis had just taken over an army barracks 30k from Baghdad, this needs to be a ground operation and it needs to be the countries mentioned to mount that operation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted September 27, 2014 Report Share Posted September 27, 2014 So are you saying this is the west's fight? and as per usual leave the Arabs and now Turks whose borders are the border's being threatened by isis to sit on their cowardly arses once more, whilst the west comes to the rescue?. As Galloway says Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia have the military might to deal with this themselves and the west can supply the expertise, Saudi Arabia has 700 war planes FFS, they don't need us they just need to actually grow a set and fight their own battles for once and stop hiding behind their barrels of oil. 5 weeks on and the air strikes are not working, Andrew Neil alluded to a New York Times article stating that isis had not relinquished any ground whatsoever since the air strikes began, in fact isis had just taken over an army barracks 30k from Baghdad, this needs to be a ground operation and it needs to be the countries mentioned to mount that operation. What I was saying (though not very well after a couple of glasses of wine too many) was that it's a bit rich of Galloway to criticise the human rights records of this 'Partnership of the willing' given the company he used to keep As for the rest of it, I agree; this should be led by Arab nations, preferably Sunni ones rather than Shia. But we shouldn't pretend we don't have a stake in this because we do. At the end of the day, the Iraqi government made a direct plea for military assistance and we agreed. I'm not sure it's the right course of action myself, but I can understand the arguments for it. Boots on the ground would be a whole different ball game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasbuster Posted September 27, 2014 Report Share Posted September 27, 2014 I'm not sure that Galloway- friend of Hussain, Ghadaffi and Assad, bastians of democracy all. Not saying I agree with the air strikes but I don't agree with Galloway. Ever I share your sentiments, loathe the bloke with a passion. He is however, (somewhat unfortunately), an excellent orator and formidable opponent, who is captivating when in full flow. Even with his back to the wall he can wipe the floor with his opponents, even with some of his most abhorrent opinions. Adolf Hitler had similar skills ! ( ) He makes a good point about the Arab states around Syria and Iraq sorting this mess out. However, the Arab League could not organise a (non-alcoholic) piss up in a (non-alcoholic) brewery. They need somebody to hold them together, otherwise they would just squabble between themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambridge Batch Red Posted September 27, 2014 Report Share Posted September 27, 2014 He does make some interesting points. The cost of these bombs we are about to drop is astronomical. A cruise missile alone is the same price as a London semi-detached. (Note my lack of fact checking here). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted September 27, 2014 Report Share Posted September 27, 2014 What I was saying (though not very well after a couple of glasses of wine too many) was that it's a bit rich of Galloway to criticise the human rights records of this 'Partnership of the willing' given the company he used to keep As for the rest of it, I agree; this should be led by Arab nations, preferably Sunni ones rather than Shia. But we shouldn't pretend we don't have a stake in this because we do. At the end of the day, the Iraqi government made a direct plea for military assistance and we agreed. I'm not sure it's the right course of action myself, but I can understand the arguments for it. Boots on the ground would be a whole different ball game Why should we fight this when these cowardly Arab states who are the ones being threatened, sit on their smelly arses, getting up occasionally to witness a stoning, somebody having his hand chopped off or some other cowardly barbaric act?. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran especially have huge well armed forces, let them deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted September 27, 2014 Report Share Posted September 27, 2014 Why should we fight this when these cowardly Arab states who are the ones being threatened, sit on their smelly arses, getting up occasionally to witness a stoning, somebody having his hand chopped off or some other cowardly barbaric act?. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran especially have huge well armed forces, let them deal with it. I agree that Iraqs neighbours should be taking the lead on this, but we have to accept that we do have a level of responsibility for the situation due to our prior actions. Iran should be nowhere near this though; part of IS' rhetoric is that Shia oppress Sunni and so having their army come over the border and blow up Sunni Muslims will be exactly the wrong image. I agree though (perhaps not in as colourful language as you) that Jordan, Saudi, Turkey and UAE could Quite easily sort this on their own Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted September 27, 2014 Report Share Posted September 27, 2014 I agree that Iraqs neighbours should be taking the lead on this, but we have to accept that we do have a level of responsibility for the situation due to our prior actions. Iran should be nowhere near this though; part of IS' rhetoric is that Shia oppress Sunni and so having their army come over the border and blow up Sunni Muslims will be exactly the wrong image. I agree though (perhaps not in as colourful language as you) that Jordan, Saudi, Turkey and UAE could Quite easily sort this on their own Jihadism existed before either Iraq War. You could take it back to the 19th century, and in its modern form, from the writing of Qutb, an Egyptian hanged for plotting to assassinate Nasser. IS - since that's what we're talking about here - was formed in Syria, not Iraq - the offspring of an attempted Sunni uprising against the Shia, Assad. While the Second Iraq War was a massive, totally unnecessary piece of military adventurism, you could well argue that the country was a basket case already. 130,000 Shia, and at least 50,000 Kurds (plus many thousands of other opponents) had died in campaigns against them by Saddam in the decade before the second incursion. The country was a powder keg of religious sectarianism and hatred only being kept in check by the fear and brutality of a 69-year-old dictator. Let's face it, his sons never looked up to the challenge of taking over, the country was likely to have disintegrated at his death, natural or unnatural as that may have been. The mistake IMO was to have created an Iraqi state in the first place after the First world war. welding together ethno-religious groups who basically hate each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshy Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 Jihadism existed before either Iraq War. You could take it back to the 19th century, and in its modern form, from the writing of Qutb, an Egyptian hanged for plotting to assassinate Nasser. IS - since that's what we're talking about here - was formed in Syria, not Iraq - the offspring of an attempted Sunni uprising against the Shia, Assad. While the Second Iraq War was a massive, totally unnecessary piece of military adventurism, you could well argue that the country was a basket case already. 130,000 Shia, and at least 50,000 Kurds (plus many thousands of other opponents) had died in campaigns against them by Saddam in the decade before the second incursion. The country was a powder keg of religious sectarianism and hatred only being kept in check by the fear and brutality of a 69-year-old dictator. Let's face it, his sons never looked up to the challenge of taking over, the country was likely to have disintegrated at his death, natural or unnatural as that may have been. The mistake IMO was to have created an Iraqi state in the first place after the First world war. welding together ethno-religious groups who basically hate each other. As I've said before. Why is the international community always so afraid of rectifying past mistakes? Iraq should obviously be split into three, Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds. They'll never be happy otherwise. The same mistake of course is being made in the Ukraine which is a basket case like Iraq. So many claims and counter claims and manoeuverings by the ''Great Powers''. Is the EU now a ''Great Power''? Its leaders certainly like to see it as one, it massages their egos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 Phew, every things ok folks Harriet Harridan has asked Dave to phone her every time a Tornado is sent on an operation, isis you are ******* toast, thanks as ever Harriet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 Phew, every things ok folks Harriet Harridan has asked Dave to phone her every time a Tornado is sent on an operation, isis you are ******* toast, thanks as ever Harriet. As ever with a story originating from Irish drug dealer and convicted tax dodger Paul "Guido Fawkes" Staines the truth is somewhat difference. Part of the "deal" between the parties to support this deployment was that everyone would be kept in touch with developments on the ground. Harman asked that her office was kept informed when actual air strikes took place. As shadow deputy PM she's the person tasked with disseminating this information to other Labour leaders. Clegg's office has a similar arrangement. Not quite as published in the Mail, Telegraph etc. Never mind, I'm sure they'll be able to illustrate it with an unflattering freeze frame VT of her eating a sandwich or something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 As ever with a story originating from Irish drug dealer and convicted tax dodger Paul "Guido Fawkes" Staines the truth is somewhat difference. Part of the "deal" between the parties to support this deployment was that everyone would be kept in touch with developments on the ground. Harman asked that her office was kept informed when actual air strikes took place. As shadow deputy PM she's the person tasked with disseminating this information to other Labour leaders. Clegg's office has a similar arrangement. Not quite as published in the Mail, Telegraph etc. Never mind, I'm sure they'll be able to illustrate it with an unflattering freeze frame VT of her eating a sandwich or something... She eats sandwiches?, where did that come from the daily sport? and I thought Dave and Nick shared a bed like Morecambe and Wise, so that would be a wasted phone call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 She eats sandwiches?, where did that come from the daily sport? and I thought Dave and Nick shared a bed like Morecambe and Wise, so that would be a wasted phone call. Laurel and Hardy would be a more apt comparison, Es. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 Laurel and Hardy would be a more apt comparison, Es. and Harriet and Ed, as Lucy Ball and Desi Arnaz, the really odd couple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted September 29, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 29, 2014 So death tax down, but more cuts. I'm not sure that's a vote winner, although a further cap on working age benefits is most welcome. All pretty uninspiring so far, Labour were so bland the talk was more of the content missed out than what was said. UKIP were a predictable non event. So as it stands the choice will be more of the same but with slightly higher taxes, more of the same but with slightly lower tax or a wasted vote on loonkip or the lib dems... Am I wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 29, 2014 Report Share Posted September 29, 2014 About right I'd say. Not sure where we are heading election wise. Labour will probably win a few more seats in the fringes of its core area and maybe succeed where the Tory vote is dilutated by UKIP I can't see any majorities myself so that leaves two choices given that Lab/LD won't work together anymore Labour Minority Govenment Tory/Lib Dem Collation Or erm.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted September 29, 2014 Report Share Posted September 29, 2014 The Tory plan seems to be "cut taxes for the wealthy, cut benefits for the poor", i.e. Same as ever. Labour don't seem to know what they're doing. UKIP seems to be pie in the sky, The Lib Dems are probably just hoping they don't piss anyone else off. Hobson's choice really Tomarse- why don't you think Labour and LD will work together? Seems to me (with perhaps Greens thrown in if they gain a couple of seats as I think they might) the most likely coalition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 29, 2014 Report Share Posted September 29, 2014 The Tory plan seems to be "cut taxes for the wealthy, cut benefits for the poor", i.e. Same as ever. Labour don't seem to know what they're doing. UKIP seems to be pie in the sky, The Lib Dems are probably just hoping they don't piss anyone else off. Hobson's choice really Tomarse- why don't you think Labour and LD will work together? Seems to me (with perhaps Greens thrown in if they gain a couple of seats as I think they might) the most likely coalition More because they've openly stated that they wouldn't work together at this stage. Of course it might change when it comes around to May.. there must be a good chance Clegg could lose his seat in a heavy lefty/student area of Sheffield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted September 29, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 29, 2014 Will the Lib Dems still exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted September 29, 2014 Report Share Posted September 29, 2014 More because they've openly stated that they wouldn't work together at this stage. Of course it might change when it comes around to May.. there must be a good chance Clegg could lose his seat in a heavy lefty/student area of Sheffield. I imagine the Lib Dems would have scoffed in derision if you suggested in October 2009 going into government with the Tories in May 2010. Political needs must. I think Clegg is potentially in a bit of bother, but I think he'll hold his seat; Hallam is full of Guardian reading graphic designers and advertising execs with children named Tallulah and a subscription to an organic cheese Mail order service (actually, that sounds awesome...): Lib Dem core vote. 95% of the students he screwed in 2010 have moved elsewhere and which party had actually stood up and presented an alternate for students in the interim? I personally think we'll have another hung parliament and a Lab-Lib coalition will end up in charge- probably with a few others thrown in to get a workable majority Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted September 29, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 29, 2014 I imagine the Lib Dems would have scoffed in derision if you suggested in October 2009 going into government with the Tories in May 2010. Political needs must. I think Clegg is potentially in a bit of bother, but I think he'll hold his seat; Hallam is full of Guardian reading graphic designers and advertising execs with children named Tallulah and a subscription to an organic cheese Mail order service (actually, that sounds awesome...): Lib Dem core vote. 95% of the students he screwed in 2010 have moved elsewhere and which party had actually stood up and presented an alternate for students in the interim? I personally think we'll have another hung parliament and a Lab-Lib coalition will end up in charge- probably with a few others thrown in to get a workable majority The SNP for starters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
screech Posted September 29, 2014 Report Share Posted September 29, 2014 What a choice for us voters eh? Labour with the economy frightens the shit out of me. It would be like giving my 9 year old my credit card and the password to my Amazon account. I have never voted Tory in my life but, even that is more appealing than having Labour let loose with the money again and believe me that hurts saying that. I hope it's Tory with one other, be that Liberals/Greens or UKIP. Please, anyone but Labour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasbuster Posted September 29, 2014 Report Share Posted September 29, 2014 What a choice for us voters eh? Labour with the economy frightens the shit out of me. It would be like giving my 9 year old my credit card and the password to my Amazon account. I have never voted Tory in my life but, even that is more appealing than having Labour let loose with the money again and believe me that hurts saying that. I hope it's Tory with one other, be that Liberals/Greens or UKIP. Please, anyone but Labour. Zero chance of the Conservatives teaming up with the Greens. I am with you though, anyone but Labour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted September 29, 2014 Report Share Posted September 29, 2014 Have the Tories mentioned any new policies re their own MP's sending naked photos of themselves by txt ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted September 29, 2014 Report Share Posted September 29, 2014 Have the Tories mentioned any new policies re their own MP's sending naked photos of themselves by txt ?? No although thankfully Harriet, Patricia and Jack have said that will lobby on his behalf to get government funding, after all fairs fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.