Ad Lib Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 I respect the moral obligation argument, and I see that it can just look like cowardice and rampant shitebaggery to say there's a moral obligation for someone to do something but because others have got there first, we don't have to do anything. However, as action was already being taken and in purely military terms what the UK can offer is inconsequential, I think it's possible to be more pragmatic about this and stop to think whether our involvement actually helps. I think it's valid to argue that you fully agree that there is a moral obligation for someone to take action against IS, but as that action is already being taken, you can respect that in light of Britain's history in the Middle East, particularly our 21st century contributions to the region, it's better for us not to become directly involved at risk of further radicalising people in the region and contriving to make this even worse. Although as the US is playing a prominent role, I guess it's possible to argue that if Western action radicalises people then the UK's involvement will make no difference to that. I completely see where you're coming from, I just don't feel that providing diplomatic and logistical support while stopping short of joining the bombing ourselves constitutes an abdication of our responsibility. I will say though that anyone using 'but we shouldn't be spending money on this when we have problems at home' is making a preposterous, morally indefensible argument. Perfectly reasonable post and one which actually gets to the nub of what should determine whether we intervene in this way or not, unlike most others who are opposing it on this thread. I think we only really disagree on the extent to which radicalisation and reconstruction are impacted if it's a relatively more U.S. dominated intervention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 I respect the moral obligation argument, and I see that it can just look like cowardice and rampant shitebaggery to say there's a moral obligation for someone to do something but because others have got there first, we don't have to do anything. However, as action was already being taken and in purely military terms what the UK can offer is inconsequential, I think it's possible to be more pragmatic about this and stop to think whether our involvement actually helps. I think it's valid to argue that you fully agree that there is a moral obligation for someone to take action against IS, but as that action is already being taken, you can respect that in light of Britain's history in the Middle East, particularly our 21st century contributions to the region, it's better for us not to become directly involved at risk of further radicalising people in the region and contriving to make this even worse. Although as the US is playing a prominent role, I guess it's possible to argue that if Western action radicalises people then the UK's involvement will make no difference to that. I completely see where you're coming from, I just don't feel that providing diplomatic and logistical support while stopping short of joining the bombing ourselves constitutes an abdication of our responsibility. I will say though that anyone using 'but we shouldn't be spending money on this when we have problems at home' is making a preposterous, morally indefensible argument. I'd say that the UK has to look at getting involved in these things a lot more carefully than the US. At least the US has the Atlantic separating them and they don't seem to have as much of a problem with homegrown extremists. I haven't heard of any "Jihadi Johns" from the US fighting with ISIS. I could be wrong though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heedthebaa Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 I've supported every overseas conflict as far back as the Falklands, but enough is enough !!. This is a step too far IMO. Yes something has to be done with these evil b*****ds, but its high time middle east countries started to get their hands dirty. We go into these conflicts hated, and come out despised and detested more with the job half done and millions Spunked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 I've supported every overseas conflict as far back as the Falklands, but enough is enough !!. This is a step too far IMO. Yes something has to be done with these evil b*****ds, but its high time middle east countries started to get their hands dirty. We go into these conflicts hated, and come out despised and detested more with the job half done and millions Spunked Exactly. We've sold Saudi and the Gulf states billions of pounds worth of weapons, time the royal princes got their helmets on and into their jets and tanks instead of hanging around London casinos and funding Jihadis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 I haven't heard of any "Jihadi Johns" from the US fighting with ISIS. There was already a thing on the World Service a while back about how ISIS consider most of the European volunteers to be virtually useless because they have no relevant combat experience. God knows what they'd do if a load of 25 stone American converts pitched up. Perhaps we should be encouraging it rather than preventing our idiots from going over there and joining them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 I think he meant the above quote where at least some of the people we are 'helping' will try and repay ISIS in kind. Not repaying ISIS in kind but Sunni civilians under ISIS rule Ah, got you. Consider the source though. Rudaw is the Kurdish government's English language mouthpiece. The language used makes me question the accuracy of the translation, because it seems particularly ambiguous. I think the guy was speaking about ISIS soldiers (who are, essentially civilians) rather than Sunni residents of Kirkuk and/or Mosul. That said, Kirkuk is the home of the less tolerant Arabs, so it is possible that your interpretation is correct. What happened in Libya and Syria was that genuinely progressive, democratic movements were leaped upon by pretty nasty folk. The idea that the Iraqi conflict is between the ISIS baddies and the Western supporting goodies is narratively easy but not accurate. It's the same narrative that makes people argue that ISIS are funded by the US. They simply aren't. To make things slightly clearer, because I didn't word that very well, the unquestionably peace-minded and innocent Yezidi population of Kurdistan was rescued by a combination of US drones, Kurdish peshmerga (good guys) and PKK radicalists (not such good guys). This isn't a two-sided conflict at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour Skinner Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 well done Ian Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Ah, got you. Consider the source though. Rudaw is the Kurdish government's English language mouthpiece. The language used makes me question the accuracy of the translation, because it seems particularly ambiguous. I think the guy was speaking about ISIS soldiers (who are, essentially civilians) rather than Sunni residents of Kirkuk and/or Mosul. That said, Kirkuk is the home of the less tolerant Arabs, so it is possible that your interpretation is correct. What happened in Libya and Syria was that genuinely progressive, democratic movements were leaped upon by pretty nasty folk. The idea that the Iraqi conflict is between the ISIS baddies and the Western supporting goodies is narratively easy but not accurate. It's the same narrative that makes people argue that ISIS are funded by the US. They simply aren't. To make things slightly clearer, because I didn't word that very well, the unquestionably peace-minded and innocent Yezidi population of Kurdistan was rescued by a combination of US drones, Kurdish peshmerga (good guys) and PKK radicalists (not such good guys). This isn't a two-sided conflict at all. There are million different sides and a million different angles. I tend to believe that's it's all about this Qatar pipeline that will cut off the Russians hydrocarbon stranglehold of Europe. It's almost always about resources. Christ, in the 50s when the elected leader of Iran decided that his country should take back control of it's oil fields from BP, the UK gov decided it would be better to overthrow him and have a dictator in his place for a few decades. I'm not fooled into thinking that the UK and US gov are good guys and that they give the shiniest of shites about the people in these countries. Make no mistake about it, if the Middle East didn't have so much hydrocarbon reserves then none of this would be happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkoRaj Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Should throw that p***k in the Clyde...I heard he only done it as he had a wager on. Most people I speak to in Inverclyde are convinced iain mckenzie pressed the wrong button by accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 well done Ian Davidson what did he do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 This isn't a two-sided conflict at all. It is really. It's a Sunni v Shia civil war, neither side are very nice. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar fund and arm the Sunni side, including clerics and schools around the world promoting Jihad. The Shia are in the minority, so all they mainly have is Iran, Iraq and what's left of the Shia affiliated Syrian Government. The Kurds are mainly Sunni, but are hated by both sides because they're not wee free enough for ISIS. Even Saudi has got worried by what they've spawned, in case their own Sunni population start thinking ISIS might be better defenders of Mecca than the alky gambling hooring hypocrytes in the Royal Family. We created a lot of these problems in our imperial past, and have exacerbated them in recent years with our poodling of American neocons, with no thought for reconstruction, so we have a debt to pay. We have limited military resources, so I think we should thinking about protecting the one group we did manage to help the last time, the Kurds, thanks to that manly man, the great John Major. The Shia humiliated us by refusing our help and kicking us out of Basra, and the Sunni never thought much of us anyway. P.S. If we decide to help the Kurds we might come up against the Turks, who have a bigger army than us, so let's be careful. Remember what happened at Gallipoli. Unless we're just hiding behind the Americans and pretending to be important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 well done Ian Davidson He's resigned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booker-T Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Is this poster Wan Bawbag an alias of Casual Bystander because his questions are as stupid and he sounds delusional? i thought he was you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.