UKIP - The Future - Volume 4
Discussion
968 said:
With regards to Assad, it depends on your point of view. If you were Putin, Assad and his allies would be refugees of they fled the country much like Gaddafi might've been to Tony Blair, however, if Assad fled to the U.S. He'd be arrested for war crimes.
With regards to the worlds politics the EU can play a part of offering refuge to many displaced by war. It has enough resources and land to manage a large number and indeed many European countries have an entirely different viewpoint about this issue compared to yourself. However, I don't believe the EU alone should have to be the only safe haven, I think the U.S. China and other Asian countries could offer refuge.
so your solution is mass movement of population? (and inevitably moving the issues that caused the problem sin the first place coming with them)With regards to the worlds politics the EU can play a part of offering refuge to many displaced by war. It has enough resources and land to manage a large number and indeed many European countries have an entirely different viewpoint about this issue compared to yourself. However, I don't believe the EU alone should have to be the only safe haven, I think the U.S. China and other Asian countries could offer refuge.
Here's a radical though, how about sorting out the issues in their home countries?
Yes, I apreciate "we" had a hand in some of this s
t, (thanks Blair/CMD/etc) however, the best solution IMHO is to do a deal with Mr Putin and put in a massive peacekeeping force in every region that's a problem.No, I don't mean start another Vietnam (although I would argue we are already pretty close in several places), but put in an overwhelming force to stop all armed hostilities, empty the countries of weapons, and then allow for normal life to return.
Yes that would take years and cost millions, but hell, it's got to be a better long term solution all round.
You could argue Iraq's current mess is because we were all too keen to cut and run before they were capable of managing their own affairs in a sane manner.
Scuffers said:
so your solution is mass movement of population? (and inevitably moving the issues that caused the problem sin the first place coming with them)
Here's a radical though, how about sorting out the issues in their home countries?
Yes, I apreciate "we" had a hand in some of this st, (thanks Blair/CMD/etc) however, the best solution IMHO is to do a deal with Mr Putin and put in a massive peacekeeping force in every region that's a problem.
No, I don't mean start another Vietnam (although I would argue we are already pretty close in several places), but put in an overwhelming force to stop all armed hostilities, empty the countries of weapons, and then allow for normal life to return.
Yes that would take years and cost millions, but hell, it's got to be a better long term solution all round.
You could argue Iraq's current mess is because we were all too keen to cut and run before they were capable of managing their own affairs in a sane manner.
Maybe you should become secretary general of the UN. Here's a radical though, how about sorting out the issues in their home countries?
Yes, I apreciate "we" had a hand in some of this s
t, (thanks Blair/CMD/etc) however, the best solution IMHO is to do a deal with Mr Putin and put in a massive peacekeeping force in every region that's a problem.No, I don't mean start another Vietnam (although I would argue we are already pretty close in several places), but put in an overwhelming force to stop all armed hostilities, empty the countries of weapons, and then allow for normal life to return.
Yes that would take years and cost millions, but hell, it's got to be a better long term solution all round.
You could argue Iraq's current mess is because we were all too keen to cut and run before they were capable of managing their own affairs in a sane manner.
Firstly, I'm not advocating movement of the entire population, your hyperbole about numbers was just that as not the entire population of Syria has fled, but there are perhaps 6 million who have been displaced. Of course it would be ideal to solve the problem in Syria but somehow it doesn't seemed to have happened in more than 5 years, despite numerous diplomatic efforts on all sides. Perhaps because you weren't present, it didn't happen?
An overwhelming force did not help Iraq and has not helped Afghanistan in particular, they are still riven with conflict and poor governance.
Scuffers said:
Here's a radical though, how about sorting out the issues in their home countries?
Yes, I apreciate "we" had a hand in some of this st, (thanks Blair/CMD/etc) however, the best solution IMHO is to do a deal with Mr Putin and put in a massive peacekeeping force in every region that's a problem.
No, I don't mean start another Vietnam (although I would argue we are already pretty close in several places), but put in an overwhelming force to stop all armed hostilities, empty the countries of weapons, and then allow for normal life to return.
Yes that would take years and cost millions, but hell, it's got to be a better long term solution all round.
Fine saying that, but in the meantime there are tens of thousands of women with young children fleeing literally for their lives, the only prisoners ISIS take become slaves or executed. So should they stay put while the US and Russia and whoever decide what is the best way forward militarily?Yes, I apreciate "we" had a hand in some of this s
t, (thanks Blair/CMD/etc) however, the best solution IMHO is to do a deal with Mr Putin and put in a massive peacekeeping force in every region that's a problem.No, I don't mean start another Vietnam (although I would argue we are already pretty close in several places), but put in an overwhelming force to stop all armed hostilities, empty the countries of weapons, and then allow for normal life to return.
Yes that would take years and cost millions, but hell, it's got to be a better long term solution all round.
Before you can insert a peacekeeping force you have to negotiate with all parties about where the boundaries will be and what the timetable to ceasefire will be, is that happening at the moment?
Strawman said:
Fine saying that, but in the meantime there are tens of thousands of women with young children fleeing literally for their lives, the only prisoners ISIS take become slaves or executed. So should they stay put while the US and Russia and whoever decide what is the best way forward militarily?
Before you can insert a peacekeeping force you have to negotiate with all parties about where the boundaries will be and what the timetable to ceasefire will be, is that happening at the moment?
point taken,Before you can insert a peacekeeping force you have to negotiate with all parties about where the boundaries will be and what the timetable to ceasefire will be, is that happening at the moment?
however just how long would it take to remove IS from the picture?
Yes, it would cost and yes it would involve a lot of boots on the ground, but don't you think that would be the right thing to do?
Scuffers said:
point taken,
however just how long would it take to remove IS from the picture?
Yes, it would cost and yes it would involve a lot of boots on the ground, but don't you think that would be the right thing to do?
Who knows? Not the Americans or anyone else it seems as they continue to murder, rape and terrorise the poor people living in those areas. Boots on the ground might be the right thing to do but tell that to US presidential hopefuls or indeed anyone with political ambition and they'll say no, because of the total fhowever just how long would it take to remove IS from the picture?
Yes, it would cost and yes it would involve a lot of boots on the ground, but don't you think that would be the right thing to do?
k up of Iraq/Afghanistan.Scuffers said:
point taken,
however just how long would it take to remove IS from the picture?
Yes, it would cost and yes it would involve a lot of boots on the ground, but don't you think that would be the right thing to do?
I'd like it to happen, but don't imagine it will. The US spends a vast amount of GDP on defence spending without more middle east involvement. Also there are fairly set KIA ratios before people start objecting, I know some British people who served in Afghanistan and even if they escaped physical injury some of them are affected psychologically for life. I'm probably too old to be useful on the frontline but part of me would want to go (out in a blaze of glory).however just how long would it take to remove IS from the picture?
Yes, it would cost and yes it would involve a lot of boots on the ground, but don't you think that would be the right thing to do?
968 said:
Who knows? Not the Americans or anyone else it seems as they continue to murder, rape and terrorise the poor people living in those areas. Boots on the ground might be the right thing to do but tell that to US presidential hopefuls or indeed anyone with political ambition and they'll say no, because of the total fk up of Iraq/Afghanistan.
why does it have to be americans? they are not the world's police force.k up of Iraq/Afghanistan.Scuffers said:
why does it have to be americans? they are not the world's police force.
They seem to believe they are, have the largest and most capable military and arguably created the problem in the first place. As Strawman has said the nearest military power would be Russia and would not be willing given their own military misadventures. They already arm Assad so by proxy are involved in Syria.968 said:
They seem to believe they are, have the largest and most capable military and arguably created the problem in the first place. As Strawman has said the nearest military power would be Russia and would not be willing given their own military misadventures. They already arm Assad so by proxy are involved in Syria.
still a preferable solution to the yanks charging in.Yes, I would be nice if the arab nations could sort their s
t out, but that's simply not going to happen any time soon.or do you suggest we ask the Israelis to do the job?
Scuffers said:
still a preferable solution to the yanks charging in.
Yes, I would be nice if the arab nations could sort their st out, but that's simply not going to happen any time soon.
or do you suggest we ask the Israelis to do the job?
To which Arab states do you refer? Lebanon, who house millions of refugees? Or do you mean the Gulf Arab states? And how is it their issue to sort out? Israel would not be able to resolve this conflict. Who was it that invaded Iraq and totally destabilised the entire region?Yes, I would be nice if the arab nations could sort their s
t out, but that's simply not going to happen any time soon.or do you suggest we ask the Israelis to do the job?
968 said:
To which Arab states do you refer? Lebanon, who house millions of refugees? Or do you mean the Gulf Arab states? And how is it their issue to sort out? Israel would not be able to resolve this conflict. Who was it that invaded Iraq and totally destabilised the entire region?
remind me again the origins of IS? (or just about all the jihadists).And yes, we invaded Iraq, with the yanks etc. that probably makes us exactly the wrong people to go back now.
Scuffers said:
Here's a radical though, how about sorting out the issues in their home countries?
Yes, I apreciate "we" had a hand in some of this st, (thanks Blair/CMD/etc) however, the best solution IMHO is to do a deal with Mr Putin and put in a massive peacekeeping force in every region that's a problem.
No, I don't mean start another Vietnam (although I would argue we are already pretty close in several places), but put in an overwhelming force to stop all armed hostilities, empty the countries of weapons, and then allow for normal life to return.
Yes that would take years and cost millions, but hell, it's got to be a better long term solution all round.
You could argue Iraq's current mess is because we were all too keen to cut and run before they were capable of managing their own affairs in a sane manner.
Oh dear. Scuffers on foreign policy. It neither begins nor ends well. And the middle is a bit sYes, I apreciate "we" had a hand in some of this s
t, (thanks Blair/CMD/etc) however, the best solution IMHO is to do a deal with Mr Putin and put in a massive peacekeeping force in every region that's a problem.No, I don't mean start another Vietnam (although I would argue we are already pretty close in several places), but put in an overwhelming force to stop all armed hostilities, empty the countries of weapons, and then allow for normal life to return.
Yes that would take years and cost millions, but hell, it's got to be a better long term solution all round.
You could argue Iraq's current mess is because we were all too keen to cut and run before they were capable of managing their own affairs in a sane manner.
t too. "Do a deal with Mr Putin". What makes you think he wants to do a deal? His interests are in having some nice little hotspots going on around the world that keep the US military occupied.
"Put in a massive peacekeeping force in every region that's a problem". Define "problem". Generating refugees? Civil unrest? Failed state? Civil war? Islamic extremists? How many fronts do you think can be fought at once? And what do you do when China decides that Taiwan or Tibet are "problems"? Or Russia decides the whole of Ukraine is a problem? Or India decides Pakistan is a problem? And what are the parameters of "peacekeeping"?
"put in an overwhelming force to stop all armed hostilities, empty the countries of weapons". Riiiight. We can't empty the UK of weapons, and we have the most restrictive gun laws in the world. How TF is anyone going to be able to empty, errr, Afghanistan for example of weapons? And where on earth (literally) is the overwhelming force to occupy all these nations coming from?
"that would take years and cost millions". No. It would be a never ending task that would cost hundreds of billions, if not trillions. To take one example: Afghanistan, again. History has shown that it is basically impossible to conquer. The British, the Russians and the US have all tried. And all failed. And that's just one country. Iraq: impossible for the US to subjugate.
Hopeless ideas, not remotely thought about, let alone thought through.
Scuffers plan is not feasible, but he does have a point. I suggest a huge UN peacekeeping force in Libya to pacify it and create a country of refuge. Similar to what the UK did in creating Sierra Leone, or the yanks did with Liberia. It would cost a fortune, but then so does anything else.
Greg66 said:
Oh dear. Scuffers on foreign policy. It neither begins nor ends well. And the middle is a bit st too.
"Do a deal with Mr Putin". What makes you think he wants to do a deal? His interests are in having some nice little hotspots going on around the world that keep the US military occupied.
so? would you rather allow the current situation in several countries continue?t too. "Do a deal with Mr Putin". What makes you think he wants to do a deal? His interests are in having some nice little hotspots going on around the world that keep the US military occupied.
Greg66 said:
"Put in a massive peacekeeping force in every region that's a problem". Define "problem". Generating refugees? Civil unrest? Failed state? Civil war? Islamic extremists? How many fronts do you think can be fought at once? And what do you do when China decides that Taiwan or Tibet are "problems"? Or Russia decides the whole of Ukraine is a problem? Or India decides Pakistan is a problem? And what are the parameters of "peacekeeping"?
eh?Pakistan is it's own problem, along with Afghanistan, but that's nothing like the same problem in Iraq/Syria/etc.
Greg66 said:
"put in an overwhelming force to stop all armed hostilities, empty the countries of weapons". Riiiight. We can't empty the UK of weapons, and we have the most restrictive gun laws in the world. How TF is anyone going to be able to empty, errr, Afghanistan for example of weapons? And where on earth (literally) is the overwhelming force to occupy all these nations coming from?
come again? so we have people with RPG's, 155mm howitzers, A1M tanks running about in the UK?Yes, we have a few hard cases with hand guns, but in trivial numbers, hell we don't have the same kind of supply of AK's etc.
Greg66 said:
"that would take years and cost millions". No. It would be a never ending task that would cost hundreds of billions, if not trillions. To take one example: Afghanistan, again. History has shown that it is basically impossible to conquer. The British, the Russians and the US have all tried. And all failed. And that's just one country. Iraq: impossible for the US to subjugate.
Hopeless ideas, not remotely thought about, let alone thought through.
so, once again, what is your solution?Hopeless ideas, not remotely thought about, let alone thought through.
968 said:
treepke said:
Won't be long when you will have much more time also.... new eyedrops replacing the need for cataract surgery I have heard. 
Nope. That story has been around for years and there is no benefit in drops to 'prevent' cataracts.You should be a politician as you know full well I didn't say "prevents" cataracts now did I?
Your Iphone or the Trust's?
treepke said:
Blimey for a man who is very busy you seem to have a lot of spare time on your hands..... I pop out for a couple of hours and you've made posts here there and everywhere.
You should be a politician as you know full well I didn't say "prevents" cataracts now did I?
Your Iphone or the Trust's?
Smart phones are wonderful things aren't they? A few patients have failed to attend (again) so have had a few minutes to post. Oh and drops will not cure/prevent or do anything else to cataracts. The only option for treatment for the forseeable future is surgery. There is nothing else that works.You should be a politician as you know full well I didn't say "prevents" cataracts now did I?
Your Iphone or the Trust's?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff