Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Goliath wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
I'm going to say it again, and I'm going to make sure I use big letters so that you actually read it, and then I'm going to explain why afterwards.

Citation Needed.

You know why? Because it's not 'well known fact'. If you're making that sort of claim, you don't make some sort statement and qualify it by telling the person that you're arguing that they're ill-informed. The burden is on you to prove your assertions. Supply some goddamn evidence for these sweeping claims about imminent German civil war, or just stop talking.

Type the following into Google: "Angela Merkel's open door refugee policy will lead to civil war after thousands march through one city holding crucifixes during anti-Islam protest".

It'll lead you to an article describing the level of unrest that's been stirred up because of Merkel's misguided altruism. There's been reports of 'refugees' throwing stones at passing cars and fighting in the streets between refugees and discontent Germans. Let me make it clear that I'm NOT against having refugees in the UK, like a lot of you are wrongly accusing me of. I'm simply very concerned about the problems that an open door policy would bring to the UK, which is something that Comrade Corbyn is very keen on promoting. Given the threat that ISIS pose to the West, having free movement across the Eurozone is wildly naive. EVERY border should be heavily guarded!

A great deal of you have been very nasty and abusive to me because of this opinion, which doesn't surprise me because Comrade Corbyn's supporters are fast earning a reputation for acting badly towards anyone who thinks differently to them. Anyone who ACTUALLY KNOWS me would laugh at the notion of me being racist. Having genuine concerns about unchecked mass immigration does not make someone a racist. The lefties just love to throw the racist card at their opponents because it has such a negative stigma attached to it.

I've had a debate on here before about whether God was dead or not, and that wasn't nearly as nasty as this thread is. Jeez...

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Crazy right? The idea that we should protect British citizens...

You mean what is actually happening?

At the end of the day though the Falklands are essentially a small village several thousand miles away. 'National security' only goes so far.

National security isn't just a matter of defending stuff that is within convenient reach. In a globalised world, British interests lie all over the place, and our trade routes in and out.

Which is why it is heavily garrisoned, as I believe I have mentioned already. In reality though if Argentina somehow managed to overrun the Falklands it won't make all that much difference in the world at large. At worst it would bring down the UK government and that's about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Muhr wrote:
......when the world is at its most dangerous.......

You really don't know much history do you?

*runs back to keyboard* and before anyone starts on me about the crucifixes and anti-Islam slant on the article I've cited, I'll say this: I don't necessarily agree with the religious views of the protesters, I was asked to effectively "put up or shut up" by a thread contributer regarding proof of civil unrest in Germany. They said that I was talking rubbish when I mentioned there was civil unrest regarding mass immigration and they demanded proof, hence the article I cite in my last post. The point I'm making is that misguided altruism by idiotic Merkel has driven parts of Germany to the brink, end of.

Thank you for *finally* providing a source for some of your claims. Or at the very least telling someone else how to find your source because you could be bothered to type out the title of the article, but not to copy and paste the link, for some reason. It only took three requests.

As to the actual content of the link; right wing party leader makes claim that immigration is bad. More news at 10. Would you give it the same credence if Britain First or the BNP made that claim? I mean, it's Pegida. They're a political party whose entire purpose is to oppose islam. Are you really surprised that they're saying that islamic immigrants are bad? If there's a civil war due to immigration, they'll be the ones that are starting it.

Have you considered that the reason people are being rude to you is because you're being dismissive of them? Referring to him as Comrade Corbyn, *immediately* going on about how all of Corbyn's supporters are terrible people, and using the term "lefties", which generally isn't used in a positive manner.

Also, I'm not impling that you're racist because of your stance on mass immigration, I'm implying that some of your views may have a slight racist bias specifically, and solely, due to the fact that you singled out ethnic minorities whilst complaining about Corbyn supporters.

If I were to say "Well, obviously all of these people are wrong to support him. He's a buffoon that got in by pandering to the left, and appealing to incompetent fools. And I hear that half of them are gay" then the immediate assumption, based on the context, is that I believe that being gay is a negative attribute, seeing as it is listed among other criticisms of their supporters.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Crazy right? The idea that we should protect British citizens...

You mean what is actually happening?

At the end of the day though the Falklands are essentially a small village several thousand miles away. 'National security' only goes so far.

National security isn't just a matter of defending stuff that is within convenient reach. In a globalised world, British interests lie all over the place, and our trade routes in and out.

Which is why it is heavily garrisoned, as I believe I have mentioned already. In reality though if Argentina somehow managed to overrun the Falklands it won't make all that much difference in the world at large. At worst it would bring down the UK government and that's about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Muhr wrote:
......when the world is at its most dangerous.......

You really don't know much history do you?

Actually I do. I'm aware that this is supposed to be one of the most peaceful times in world history, but I was referring to the threat that ISIS pose and the cauldron of ill feeling that the Middle East is currently experiencing. Add to that the fact that nuclear weapons exist and surely you can see why I said that. Being sarcastic or facetious isn't very conducive to a healthy debate, by the way...

 Muhr wrote:
They said that I was talking rubbish when I mentioned there was civil unrest regarding mass immigration and they demanded proof, hence the article I cite in my last post.

Did I? I seem to recall my statement actually asking for evidence for what is a fairly outlandish claim.

The point I'm making is that misguided altruism by idiotic Merkel has driven parts of Germany to the brink, end of.

This is the thing I'm talking about with you coming across as not actually wanting a discussion. For some reason you feel the need to attach puerile insults to the name of anyone you disagree with, as if it somehow strengthens your argument. We get it, you don't like them. That comes across perfectly well without you calling them names.

Being sarcastic or facetious isn't very conducive to a healthy debate, by the way...

He says, making a point of attaching insults to the name of any political figure he disagrees with, and using disparaging terms for political opponents.

 Goliath wrote:
Thank you for *finally* providing a source for some of your claims. Or at the very least telling someone else how to find your source because you could be bothered to type out the title of the article, but not to copy and paste the link, for some reason. It only took three requests.

As to the actual content of the link; right wing party leader makes claim that immigration is bad. More news at 10. Would you give it the same credence if Britain First or the BNP made that claim? I mean, it's Pegida. They're a political party whose entire purpose is to oppose islam. Are you really surprised that they're saying that islamic immigrants are bad? If there's a civil war due to immigration, they'll be the ones that are starting it.

Have you considered that the reason people are being rude to you is because you're being dismissive of them? Referring to him as Comrade Corbyn, *immediately* going on about how all of Corbyn's supporters are terrible people, and using the term "lefties", which generally isn't used in a positive manner.

Also, I'm not impling that you're racist because of your stance on mass immigration, I'm implying that some of your views may have a slight racist bias specifically, and solely, due to the fact that you singled out ethnic minorities whilst complaining about Corbyn supporters.

If I were to say "Well, obviously all of these people are wrong to support him. He's a buffoon that got in by pandering to the left, and appealing to incompetent fools. And I hear that half of them are gay" then the immediate assumption, based on the context, is that I believe that being gay is a negative attribute, seeing as it is listed among other criticisms of their supporters.

I didn't cut and paste the link for one very simple reason: I don't know how to do that on my Kindle Fire. It's not the same as a lap top or PC otherwise I would've done what you said. About the thing you mentioned regarding people being nasty to me. If I've come across as dismissive to anyone I apologise. That certainly isn't what I intended. I was expecting the debate to possibly get a little heated, but I didn't want it to descend into abuse and nasty accusation, neither of which I'm guilty of, apart from indirectly calling someone a moron and idiot, that is (to which I apologise...being called a racist isn't pleasant).

When I've used the term 'leftie' I mean it as someone who is a dove as opposed to a hawk but to an extreme. I see 'Comrade' Corbyn as one such leftie. His refusal to wear a red poppy until forced to was, I found, very offensive. He's closely affiliated to the Stop The War group, which has described ISIS fighters as "freedom fighters" as well as western governments as the real enemy. Again, that really winds me up. We're (the West) far from perfect, and we've made some horrendous mistakes that, in part, have been responsible for the rise of ISIS, but Corbyn's attitude has an unmistakable slant that shows understanding towards ISIS terrorists and condemnation for the West. As a potential PM he...scares the living daylights out of me, probably why I seem so passionate in my wording. I've yet to hear him even admit that ISIS need stopping, which is something that the vast majority of us can agree on.

If I found you surrounded by a group of people who were clearly about to set about you, I'd get involved and help you as much as I could. I'm not the piece of dung that you guys seem to think I am. I've worked for the Samaritans for five years as well as a qualified nurse for more than ten years. My instinct is to help others not hurt them, which is why seeing me as a waste of space racist is so wide of the mark. We're living in a very dangerous time, and the more protection the UK has the better, which is precisely why I get concerned when a hard-left MP takes control of the Labour Party. Corbyn's policies almost always cause me concern: the scrapping of our nuclear deterrent, wanting unchecked mass immigration, talking about the Falklands as if he would rather give it to Argentina, hearing Diane Abbot say about Charman Mao "I think, on balance, he did more good than harm" knowing that the dictator was responsible for 60 million deaths, he wants the UK's close relationship with the US to come to an end and wants us to then "get into bed" with Russia etc etc. The man terrifies me and I dread to think what would happen to the UK were he in charge. If we found ourselves in a situation where military force was obviously needed, such as the Falklands was invaded by Argentina, can you honestly say that Corbyn would fight for the Falklands people? No, he wouldn't, and everyone knows that.

Here's a prediction for you: if Corbyn ever becomes PM, Argentina will invade the Falklands, knowing that Corbyn will dither and refuse to send in the military like Thatcher did in '82. I genuinely fear for my country if he became PM. That doesn't make me a racist.

I can back Muhr up on that. I have a Kindle Fire and they're a fething pain in the arse when you need to copy and paste. Usually I can't be arsed myself when I'm using it.

 Muhr wrote:
the cauldron of ill feeling that the Middle East is currently experiencing. Add to that the fact that nuclear weapons exist and surely you can see why I said that. .

So no real change since the late 40's then.

Islamic terrorism is an issue but lets not pretend that a handful of misguided idealists living in a dystopia of their own making are going to be starting WWIII or will be able to seriously have any impact on the Western world without getting squashed flat.

The world is safer today than it has ever been. No amount of scaremongering is going to change that; by you, the cretins at Britain First or by Daesh.

A view from Germany on the refugee crisis:
I reckon most people over here think Merkel's comments were a little ill judged and some are certainly worried about the country's capacity to cope with the influx.

But what commentators outside of Germany miss out on I think is that many older Germans have direct, personal experience of being refugees. Many had to flee Poland at the end of the second world war, and others fled the GDR. People of the older generation have more sympathy for others in that situation because of this experience.

That's not to say people aren't unhappy about it though- some definitely are. Pegida are not really a political party - they're a collection of grumpy retirees and some younger folk. They're most popular in the East, where there is a lot more economic stagnation but actually far fewer immigrants than the West of Germany. Outside of a few cities in the East, most Pegida demonstrations are drowned out by gigantic counter demonstrations, which to be honest the British press is very bad at reporting.

I reckon at lot of Germany's problem with migrants (and this will probably be true of the Syrians too) is that they've tended to just let them "fall where they may" leading to a lot of the migrant population being concentrated in poorer neighbourhoods or regions. Comparing the situation in (relatively) economically depressed Lower Saxony to that in car-company central Baden-Wurtenberg clearly shows the impact of a large number of migrants on economically depressed regions, and I can definitely see why Germans who see their inner cities sort of hollowed out by this sort of thing get annoyed.

It's a complex issue alright. But I find it mind boggling that people can be pro-bombing Syria and not accept that the poor bastards that just want to have a life out there and get it in the neck from Assad, Isis, the russian bombs and (much more rarely) the odd stray western bomb have just had enough and are legitimately fleeing war and in some cases genocide. The response of the EU has been poor - though the response of the filthy rich Gulf states has been even worse, but who's shocked?

In short - there is no civil unrest in any meaningful sense in Germany, and most people are cautiously concerned about the refugees and the challenges they bring for Germany in the future.
That's my view as an Irish ex-pat over here anyhow - I speak enough german to understand what people are saying in the streets, my partner is German and I have many german friends.

None of this really has much to do with Corbyn though- he's more about economic justice than anything else.

 Goliath wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 motyak wrote:
"The Paris attacks were caused by terrorists posing as refugees"

Wasn't that debunked?

No it was a partial explanation. Some of the attackers were recent refugees, some were not.

'some' being 1 out of the 8 attackers, I believe? The rest being French or Belgian nationals. So 'partial explanation ' in so much as the smaller part of my pinky finger is a 'partial hand'

Edit: Evidence here is saying that six of the people involved were French or Belgian nationals, which is more than half of the 11 main perpetrators. So more like saying 2 fingers is a partial fist.

It means there is a case to answer for. Either the terrorists infiltrated Europe amongst refugees, or were radicalised swiftly by other Jihadists already in France and Belgium.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Muhr wrote:


Here's a prediction for you: if Corbyn ever becomes PM, Argentina will invade the Falklands, knowing that Corbyn will dither and refuse to send in the military like Thatcher did in '82. I genuinely fear for my country if he became PM. That doesn't make me a racist.

Argentina might not need to. They could simply ask for the islanders to be betrayed and Corbyn would allow joint sovereignty 'for peace'. Once the Argies were legally on the islands they would go to the UN and ask for joint sovereignty to be revoked.

My view on the refugee immigration from Syria is like this, not in order of importance.

1. There are legal procedures for refugees. Once someone has got safely to Turkey for example, they don't have a legal right to re-refugee themselves to the EU.
2. Much of western Europe is already quite crowded and we will have difficulties absorbing large numbers of foreigners.
3. 11 million people, half the population, have been dislocated from Syria by their civil war. Can they all come to Europe?
4. If they do, what about the populations of Iraq and Libya, about 40 million between them? Can half of them fit into Europe? What happens if Egypt has a train crash, there are 82 million there.
5. If Europe could absorb all these people, what happens in the countries they left behind? Who is going to rebuild, when everyone with money, skills, ambition and energy, has come over to the EU?

I don't think the realistic solution is for Europe to accept any numbers of people from anywhere. Their own countries need to become places that people want to stay in and make a successful, happy life.

I have no idea how to achieve this.

 Orlanth wrote:
They could simply ask for the islanders to be betrayed and Corbyn would allow joint sovereignty 'for peace'. Once the Argies were legally on the islands they would go to the UN and ask for joint sovereignty to be revoked.

Meanwhile, in the real world.......

 Kilkrazy wrote:
My view on the refugee immigration from Syria is like this, not in order of importance.

1. There are legal procedures for refugees. Once someone has got safely to Turkey for example, they don't have a legal right to re-refugee themselves to the EU.
2. Much of western Europe is already quite crowded and we will have difficulties absorbing large numbers of foreigners.
3. 11 million people, half the population, have been dislocated from Syria by their civil war. Can they all come to Europe?
4. If they do, what about the populations of Iraq and Libya, about 40 million between them? Can half of them fit into Europe? What happens if Egypt has a train crash, there are 82 million there.
5. If Europe could absorb all these people, what happens in the countries they left behind? Who is going to rebuild, when everyone with money, skills, ambition and energy, has come over to the EU?

I don't think the realistic solution is for Europe to accept any numbers of people from anywhere. Their own countries need to become places that people want to stay in and make a successful, happy life.

I have no idea how to achieve this.

My thoughts exactly. Europe simply can't integrate that many people. The EU is already pretty close to falling apart. The only real solution is to make Syria and Iraq stable again, so the people can go back to rebuild. This really should be the main issue for British and European politics. There is nothing more important right now.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
They could simply ask for the islanders to be betrayed and Corbyn would allow joint sovereignty 'for peace'. Once the Argies were legally on the islands they would go to the UN and ask for joint sovereignty to be revoked.

Meanwhile, in the real world.......

That is the real world.

Pay attention.

Let's trim back the posts that are purely catty guys

 Orlanth wrote:

Pay attention.

So what exactly is your wondrous insight based upon? It certainty doesn't seem to be reality.

WHY would Corbyn give Argentina the Falklands? WHAT proof do you have that he would ever do this?

If you can answer these 2 absolutely vital questions satisfactorily then I may begin to take your preposterous statement seriously. As it is though its pure fantasy.

 Muhr wrote:
I'll start by coming straight out and just saying it: I HATE this man with a passion! He wishes to rid the UK of its nuclear deterrent and his party has a Maoist streak running through it which puts the Grand Canyon thoroughly to shame. His pacifistic proclivities often manifest as terrorist-sympathetic tantrums that strongly condemn the actions of our military and our allies in the war on terror while simultaneously being an apologist for ISIS' murdering of our citizens.

You don't know what Maoism is, do you?

And has the War on Terror been anything but a massive drain on resources and an incomprehensible failure?

It's the new 'Trotskyite' or 'Trot' I assume it is being used to mean 'very left wing' and is used interchangeably with 'loony left'.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

 Muhr wrote:
I'll start by coming straight out and just saying it: I HATE this man with a passion! He wishes to rid the UK of its nuclear deterrent and his party has a Maoist streak running through it which puts the Grand Canyon thoroughly to shame. His pacifistic proclivities often manifest as terrorist-sympathetic tantrums that strongly condemn the actions of our military and our allies in the war on terror while simultaneously being an apologist for ISIS' murdering of our citizens.

You don't know what Maoism is, do you?

And has the War on Terror been anything but a massive drain on resources and an incomprehensible failure?

I confess that I'm certainly no expert on Maoism, but I know that Corbyn's inner circle have very anti-establishment tendancies. The Socialist Worker Party and Unite's Red Len often say outrageous things that no sane person would agree with. If I'm honest it's numerous sources I've read that have claimed that a Maoist streak runs through Corbyn's party. Upon reading that I heard about Diane Abbott (I think her name is) saying that she thought Chairman Mao did more good than harm. Then there was yet another MP (I think it was a fella named McDonell, though I may be mistaken in the actual name) who threw a copy of Chairman Mao's little red book across the Despatch Box for George Osbourne to pick up. He said that Osbourne could benefit from the wisdom found in its pages.

I've gone out of my way to try and be more reasonable with you guys but you still seem determined to be condescending towards me. If you've read my earlier discussions with certain other contributors you'll see how I/we worked out how not to be as catty with each other. I'd appreciate it if you afforded the same courtesy.

Yes the War on Terror certainly has been a huge drain on resources, I agree with you on that, but does that mean we should just give up? I've no idea how we could best combat the mess we now find ourselves in. ISIS seem to be similar to the Alpha Legion - you cut one head off, two grow back in its place, but we can't NOT fight them because they're hell bent on seeing us destroyed. The ONLY way I can see how we'll stop them is by force of arms carefully applied, which is precisely why Corbyn isn't the man for the top job - he's a pacifist who simply wouldn't ever give the order to fight back. He'd try negotiating and reasoning with ISIS, and I think we all know how far that would get us...

Radical Islam is a cancer that MUST be stopped, but exactly how we could best do that escapes me; however, that doesn't mean we should declare our effort a failure and just give up.

 Muhr wrote:
Radical Islam is a cancer that MUST be stopped, but exactly how we could best do that escapes me; however, that doesn't mean we should declare our effort a failure and just give up.

So you don't know how it can be stopped, but you're sure that it involves killing enough Bad People and anyone who opposes this plan is wrong. And you don't know if it's even possible to win this fight, admit that killing ISIS is like cutting heads off a hydra, but insist that even if Doing Something About The Problem means making the problem worse it's still better than doing nothing at all.

When doing nothing means we suffer more terrorist attacks, or possibly even having to contend with an aggressive military power a century down the road, yeah its better than doing nothing.

We can at least ensure they never advance beyond their current level of organization and resources. If left unmolested they pose the very real threat of taking over established countries, gaining enough resources to form an army capable of attacking beyond the general area, and maybe even nuclear weapons. They will continue to radicalize people in neighboring countries and increase their base of sympathy.

 Muhr wrote:


Radical Islam is a cancer that MUST be stopped, but exactly how we could best do that escapes me; however, that doesn't mean we should declare our effort a failure and just give up.

What would your reaction be if your loved ones were killed by Daesh forces?

Now why do you expect any different reaction by others when our forces do the same?

We cannot bomb an idea out of existence. By engaging Daesh on their terms, with violence, we are contributing massively to their success.

The only we to effectively "kill" Daesh is to stop creating desperate people for them to recruit from. We stop creating desperate people by not dropping bombs on their homes.

It's not rocket appliances.

ISI already has the resources to expand outside of its immediate area in Iraq and Syria. It's made inroads into Afghanistan and Libya.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
My view on the refugee immigration from Syria is like this, not in order of importance.

1. There are legal procedures for refugees. Once someone has got safely to Turkey for example, they don't have a legal right to re-refugee themselves to the EU.
2. Much of western Europe is already quite crowded and we will have difficulties absorbing large numbers of foreigners.
3. 11 million people, half the population, have been dislocated from Syria by their civil war. Can they all come to Europe?
4. If they do, what about the populations of Iraq and Libya, about 40 million between them? Can half of them fit into Europe? What happens if Egypt has a train crash, there are 82 million there.
5. If Europe could absorb all these people, what happens in the countries they left behind? Who is going to rebuild, when everyone with money, skills, ambition and energy, has come over to the EU?

I don't think the realistic solution is for Europe to accept any numbers of people from anywhere. Their own countries need to become places that people want to stay in and make a successful, happy life.

I have no idea how to achieve this.

I have a radical solution. Lets stop bombing them, Let's allow them to live in their own house, in their own villages. Without the fear that every jumped up tom, dick or harry with a bomber, is going to rain lethal gak on them. Enough with the bomb them into democracy crap. Stop trying to do regime changes.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
My view on the refugee immigration from Syria is like this, not in order of importance.

1. There are legal procedures for refugees. Once someone has got safely to Turkey for example, they don't have a legal right to re-refugee themselves to the EU.
2. Much of western Europe is already quite crowded and we will have difficulties absorbing large numbers of foreigners.
3. 11 million people, half the population, have been dislocated from Syria by their civil war. Can they all come to Europe?
4. If they do, what about the populations of Iraq and Libya, about 40 million between them? Can half of them fit into Europe? What happens if Egypt has a train crash, there are 82 million there.
5. If Europe could absorb all these people, what happens in the countries they left behind? Who is going to rebuild, when everyone with money, skills, ambition and energy, has come over to the EU?

I don't think the realistic solution is for Europe to accept any numbers of people from anywhere. Their own countries need to become places that people want to stay in and make a successful, happy life.

I have no idea how to achieve this.

My thoughts exactly. Europe simply can't integrate that many people. The EU is already pretty close to falling apart. The only real solution is to make Syria and Iraq stable again, so the people can go back to rebuild. This really should be the main issue for British and European politics. There is nothing more important right now.

The problem is that Syria and Iraq never really were stable. The idea that these places were ever meaningful states in the first place was, well, silly. They were lines drawn in the sand by people from entirely different civilizations and thousands of miles away who had no idea what these places were actually like and never intended them to be anything but rump states for their own purposes. The Kurds for instance never really considered themselves "Iraqi", and "Iraqi" Kurdistan is never going to bow to Baghdad ever again without being conquered. These states kind of worked for a time, when they were either propped up by imperialist powers of one sort or another (the UK, France, the US, the USSR, etc) that created them or saw uses for them, or when they could internally control information & the means of force well enough for strongmen to impose their singular will, but such times have passed, and they're now re-ordering themselves along more natural lines, ableit in a far nastier manner than had such been done when the Ottoman Empire was dismantled following WW1.

This unfortunately just isn't something the rest of the world can fix or stabilize really, its going to have to play out. The rest of the world may be able to mitigate some of the worst aspects and try and care for those that want to escape, but largely it's in a very similar place to Europe in the early 20th century, and Europe took two massive world wars and the blood of millions to work its problems out. The middle east's issues are much the same, and the solution unfortunately is likely to be much the same.

 Grey Templar wrote:
When doing nothing means we suffer more terrorist attacks, or possibly even having to contend with an aggressive military power a century down the road, yeah its better than doing nothing.

You know those trillions of dollars and thousands of lives spent destabilising the region and allowing these extreme groups to form and seize power? Imagine instead if they had been spent building bridges (literal and metaphorical), hospitals, schools, trade and cultural links, etc.

Hell, even throw in a bone to the paranoid nutcases in "government" (ie their not so secret sources of lobby money) and beef up domestic cyber and boarder security.

That is doing something, but doing something positive. And I guarantee that it would have given better results than war in all but name and responsibility...

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Pay attention.

So what exactly is your wondrous insight based upon? It certainty doesn't seem to be reality..

Multiple press sources. See below.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

WHY would Corbyn give Argentina the Falklands? WHAT proof do you have that he would ever do this?

Technically he wouldnt, but join sovereignty will reduce the invasion distance to 0.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

If you can answer these 2 absolutely vital questions satisfactorily then I may begin to take your preposterous statement seriously. As it is though its pure fantasy.

You need to learn to think. Don't flatly dismiss as fantasy what can be easily and credibly souced. It makes you look ignorant.
It also makes sense.

Try some quotes for you.

Galloway has called for it, and Corbyn and Galloway have a lot of common ground:

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/uk-argentina-falkland-islands-064/

Mentioned in the Argentine press and echoed by Argentine articles in the US:

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/04/09/the-future-of-the-falkland-islands-without-margaret-thatcher/share-falkland-sovereignty-and-put-the-past-behind


Argentines support Corbyns rise because they suspect appeasement will follow:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3232079/With-friends-like-Corbyn-s-victory-hailed-ARGENTINA-support-giving-control-Falklands.html


Corbyn calls for joint administration criticised:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/wounded-falklands-veteran-attacks-ignorant-6350048
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11833264/Jeremy-Corbyns-Falklands-plan-tantamount-to-surrender-to-Argentina-warns-wounded-veteran-Simon-Weston.html

Jeremy Corbyn has been accused by veteran Simon Weston of "repugnant surrender" to Argentina for suggesting it should be given the right to jointly govern the Falklands Mr Corbyn, who opposed the invasion, said that there has to be a move towards "real peace" and that Britain must open a "dialogue" with Argentina over the future of the islands.
He said that under the arrangement the Falklands could retain their British nationality while a joint administration is put in place.

Still think its a fantasy?

 Orlanth wrote:

Still think its a fantasy?

So you think that Corbyn will give the Falklands to Argentina based upon his opposition to military action in 1982 and that he has said in the past that there could be some kind of 'joint administration'? Given that one of the example he gave for joint administration is Gibraltar he is far more likely to mean something along the lines of the Cordoba agreement with its giant Spanish power grabs such as:

Flights between Spain and Gibraltar
More phone lines into Gibraltar
Lifting of limits on dialling Gibraltar from Spain and mobile roaming in Spain for Gibraltar mobile phones
Dispute over pension payments to Spaniards who once worked in Gibraltar resolved
Spain promised to reduce its border controls and ease movement across the frontier

As for your 'sources' I especially like how the first 2 aren't even about Corbyn. Well played. You have also failed to provide any realistic reason as to WHY he would give the Falklands to Argentina.

I can think perfectly clearly thank you very much, I like to base my thinking on something a little more concrete than you apparently do though.

As for the SYrian airstrikes, Frankie Boyles column in the guardian sums my view up very well. Link

 feeder wrote:
What would your reaction be if your loved ones were killed by Daesh forces?

Now why do you expect any different reaction by others when our forces do the same?

We cannot bomb an idea out of existence. By engaging Daesh on their terms, with violence, we are contributing massively to their success.

The only we to effectively "kill" Daesh is to stop creating desperate people for them to recruit from. We stop creating desperate people by not dropping bombs on their homes.

People don't join ISIL because they're desperate, they join ISIL because they're sick feths who want to remake the Middle East in their own image. That is the idea of ISIL: that they can create a theocratic dictatorship that spans from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean, built on the corpses of the Shia and everyone else who doesn't buy into the ISIL dream. And you can bomb that idea out of existence, because eventually people will stop believing these jackasses when they promise that no, really, this time it will work and not just lead to their slow and messy deaths.