UKIP? They say they think the wars in the Middle East have been very bad. But they're barely not true fascism - they're far-right far-authoritarian, which typically love war. Probably will invade Nigeria or Sudan, something like that.

I think you're the first person ever to criticise UKIP for not being far enough to the right.
But in reality, they're not fascists, but instead their policy is just a load of uneducated populism. They don't have a workable foreign policy. Their 'plan' for the middle east is to just ignore it and hope t goes away, which includes an end to all foreign aid. They're a bunch of very daft people and thankfully only have 1 seat.

Their 'plan' for the middle east is to just ignore it and hope t goes away

That lines up pretty well with the plan most people on the forum seem to have for the Middle East.

Does anyone actually think that their countries are going to "intervene" since it's morally honourable?

You're being far too cynical. Do you honestly think that countries like France, who harshly criticized the Iraq War and tried to stay out of the Middle East for so long, are now getting involved just for some material gain?

World governments are finally realizing the threat that ISIS presents and are taking action to stop them. Even if a few of them have ulterior motives, the world will still be better off without ISIS.

I think you're the first person ever to criticise UKIP for not being far enough to the right.
But in reality, they're not fascists, but instead their policy is just a load of uneducated populism. They don't have a workable foreign policy. Their 'plan' for the middle east is to just ignore it and hope t goes away, which includes an end to all foreign aid. They're a bunch of very daft people and thankfully only have 1 seat.

Why is reducing a foreign aid budget considered such a bad thing? I don't understand the globalist ideology that dictates that Americans are responsible for South Americans, Africans, and Asians (and that's coming from an Asian who's parents were poor enough to remember going to bed without food and even they don't believe in foreign aid budgets)?

Edited 12/4/2015 22:35:49

I think you're the first person ever to criticise UKIP for not being far enough to the right.
But in reality, they're not fascists, but instead their policy is just a load of uneducated populism. They don't have a workable foreign policy. Their 'plan' for the middle east is to just ignore it and hope t goes away, which includes an end to all foreign aid. They're a bunch of very daft people and thankfully only have 1 seat.

I think you misread me. I meant that they were only a bit too left for me to call them fascist (which I don't mean as an insult, just a legitimate classification). I think UKIP is way too far right. I mostly agree with you, although I like more UKIP's plan on the Middle East than the current one.

That lines up pretty well with the plan most people on the forum seem to have for the Middle East.

Not really - many (most?) those who are against "intervention" are for foreign arming and/or humanitarian and refugee help.

You're being far too cynical. Do you honestly think that countries like France, who harshly criticized the Iraq War and tried to stay out of the Middle East for so long, are now getting involved just for some material gain?

"harshly criticised" is an overstatement. And this was probably for some propaganda, that America does not have puppet states (when what I think happened is America asked France to complain about American foreign policy a bit, maybe for a tad of money). They're all in the same political unit, NATO.

World governments are finally realizing the threat that ISIS presents and are taking action to stop them. Even if a few of them have ulterior motives, the world will still be better off without ISIS.

Mashriq is not a threat to most countries. Terrorist attacks are blown out of proportion to push agenda and the "folk's strength", again, they kill far less (in foreign countries) than firearm-related deaths. All countries have motives just for themselves - and all suzerains have motives for their king as well. Mashriq will not be stopped - what's to say that this will be any different than Iraq and Afghanistan? Don't be so trusting of the government.

Let's just all agree that SNP tend to make the correct choices and tend to have the correct opinions.

Except Scottish Nationalism.

Blind nationalism is bad, but their take on it is good.

Because they incorporate social-democracy and regionalism into their party platform? Based on my read of UK politics (correct me if I'm wrong) south of Scotland there is a lot of growing contempt for the SNP. And that too there are a fair number of UK citizens who prefer market capitalism over social-democratic government centralization.


Not really - many (most?) those who are against "intervention" are for foreign arming and/or humanitarian and refugee help.

I think your generalization of this is wrong. I'm against intervention, foreign arming of rebels, and refugee aid. Again, Britain and France and Germany have little to do with the internal domestic crisis in Syria or the refugee crisis its caused and thus have no responsibility to fix its excesses.

Edited 12/5/2015 02:12:16

Because they incorporate social-democracy and regionalism into their party platform? Based on my read of UK politics (correct me if I'm wrong) south of Scotland there is a lot of growing contempt for the SNP. And that too there are a fair number of UK citizens who prefer market capitalism over social-democratic government centralization.

Well, no bloody wonder. It's not really about economic policy - I like the SNP's plans on that, but it is for the country of Scottish folk, that advocates Scottish independence, isn't precisely being voted on by Englishmen, nor Welsh (they have their own Welsh Party). You live in America, right? Well, you're not going to be voting for Algonquian Nationalist Party, are you? And folk'd be pretty miffed if ANP was overrepresented.

I think your generalization of this is wrong. I'm against intervention, foreign arming of rebels, and refugee aid. Again, Britain and France and Germany have little to do with the internal domestic crisis in Syria or the refugee crisis its caused and thus have no responsibility to fix its excesses.

You're not normal. You're an American traditionalist who has a slightly different outlook than most the traditionalists; if I've it right, you think since it isn't America's problem, and Russia, Iran are heading this expedition and killing the problem away already, why waste American resources on a problem they don't have to "solve"? You're anomalous - I can say more confidently that those who oppose "intervention" are mostly closer to centrism or ultranarchists (do they still exist?).

People say that we are killing civilians, and should therefore not bomb Syria. The other option is that instead, we should let ISIS indefinitely kill civilians.
I do agree in part with those who say Putin's doing enough, but we should still help out with intelligence, Spec Ops, etc. And although there is the risk of giving ISIS propaganda, if we don't bomb we look weak to our allies and lose support in a crucial region of the world. America can make it without too much outside oil, but Britain is reliant on imports, and with Russian tensions as they are, they need to keep OPEC happy. Th best anti-Isis propaganda we can get is destroying them.

People say that we are killing civilians, and should therefore not bomb Syria. The other option is that instead, we should let ISIS indefinitely kill civilians.
I do agree in part with those who say Putin's doing enough, but we should still help out with intelligence, Spec Ops, etc. And although there is the risk of giving ISIS propaganda, if we don't bomb we look weak to our allies and lose support in a crucial region of the world. America can make it without too much outside oil, but Britain is reliant on imports, and with Russian tensions as they are, they need to keep OPEC happy. Th best anti-Isis propaganda we can get is destroying them.

in fact France themselves killed 700 innocents in 'revenge'

Bullshit

Edited 12/5/2015 15:14:12

Maybe not 700 but there French dogs have carried out more than 20 air strikes which is bound to kill more innocents than the Paris attacks.

There is so much hypocrisy in this chat right now....the same people who mourned the 'tragedy' of the Paris attacks. Thinks it is right and just to bomb hundreds of innocents in Syria. It only matters when it's close to home

double post due to lag

Edited 12/5/2015 17:02:34

so far since paris attacks, 7 civilians have been killed by french airstrikes, and these death haven't actually been verified, but was reported by the group Raqqa is Being Slaughtered silently (not fans of the bombing), so lets say "at most" 7 have been killed. Wich is still 100 times less than the number you pulled out of your ass, and you talk about hypocrisy, that's rich.
Most bombing takes place on carefully selected targets, like training camps, and oil facilities controled by ISIS, center of commands. Of course there is gonna be civilian casualties, but there are gonna be civilian killed wether we bomb isis or not, most likelly more if we let assad and isis fight each other, with innocent people caught in the middle. In fact the US only started recently to bomb oil facilities controled by ISIS, because they use civilians to work for them there. Assad is believed to have killed more that 180,000 of his own people since 2011, and ISIS is killing relentlessly and purposefully everyone in their path, including civilians, and including children. According to Syrian Network for Human Rights, Assad killed 7,894 civilian between january and july of this year, while isis killed 1,131. The international coalition have killed 251 civilians since 2011.
And you think that the US and french bombing of syria is the big threat to innocent civilians? please...
I am not saying i'm a fan of the bombing in general, but if it is done smartly, by hitting strategic target and avoiding as much as possible civilian casualty, then i am all for it. Of course this alone is not enough, we need to support the kurds who are fighting on the ground (and not random groups of rebels who are likely as radicalized as ISIS), and use special forces to kill important targets (in the isis chain of command). If we can get an internationnal coalition composed of western nations, AND Russia, China, and most importantly the arab nations in the area, this would be our best shot at getting rid of ISIS.

Edited 12/5/2015 23:06:19

Blind Frenchy

Noone really answered my frain - do you really think that countries are going to "intervene" since it's morally the right thing to do, or that countries won't "intervene" but want the best for the site? Really?

Do you really think that countries are going to "intervene" since its morally the right thing to do

No I don't. I think your questioning of this is sound. I see America's eagerness to get into greater military involvement in Syria as a conduit to counter a supposed growing Russian influence in the Mid-East (which is completely unfounded in my opinion and highly speculative). I however do not understand what geopolitical advantage Germany gains by showing itself as the great humanitarian of the world by accepting so many Syrian refugees? Same with France and England - most people don't consider them great military powers, but everyone agrees they are great economic and social powers. Is the French and English objective to showcase their military power?

Well, no bloody wonder. It's not really about economic policy - I like the SNP's plans on that, but it is for the country of Scottish folk, that advocates Scottish independence, isn't precisely being voted on by Englishmen, nor Welsh (they have their own Welsh Party). You live in America, right? Well, you're not going to be voting for Algonquian Nationalist Party, are you? And folk'd be pretty miffed if ANP was overrepresented.

Well this isn't really a good analogy. Regionalism in the US is really contained to a North-South rivalry as a left-over tension from Civil War era ideologues. There are of course no regional parties in the US and I doubt there ever will be - unless the Texas Nationalist Movement gains major ground in the next decade. And lets say that there was regionalism in the US...my voting decision would be more likely based on the larger political-social-economic-cultural forces driving the party platform. Even if the ANP was biased in their favoritism of their region, if they promoted social or foreign policy objectives which I overwhelmingly agree with I would strongly consider voting for them...even if I didn't live in their sphere of regional influence.

Edited 12/6/2015 01:39:24

*Britain not England