Jeremy Corbyn - this guy worries me

My prediction is Corbyn gets stabbed in the back by his own,the labour party splits into labouir and real labour,tories stay in power forever and the UK splits up.

 

This is where I strongly disagree with Cameron's policy, which is actually US policy, which is the same thing when it comes to matters of war.

Cameron and the US want to create yet another power vacuum, to be filled by the next al quaida or IS, ready for the next war.

As much as Putin and Assad are proper dodgy, I think they're, not exactly in the right, but less wrong than the US and their poodle, Cameron.

Russian strategy is to give Assad the breathing space to regain control of Syria. As much as Assad sounds like a bad man, it seems like a sound strategy to me. If we really must meddle in the internal affairs of another state, perhaps we should wait til doing so would not further complicate an almost impossible situation. The US thought it would be a good idea to topple Saddam in Iraq. Now Iraq is controlled by IS. Now they want to finish off an already weakened Assad in Syria, and Syria is mostly under IS control. I think Russia's strategy of bolstering the existing authority so that they can regain control of their own country is the right strategy.

Sent from my HTC Desire 610 using Tapatalk

 

@ARMANDII, if any of it was about dictators or what I would accept here, then we'd have to go after, among others, Saudi Arabia, a state that is very brutal to anyone that doesn't tow the line, north Korea, China, several African countries, in fact, quite a large chunk of the world.

We can't say that Assad has to go because he's horrible, and then turn a blind eye to the fact that that nutter in north Korea has his own family members executed on a whim, or while people in China get official beatings or disappear for thinking the wrong thing.

The war with IS is nothing to do with democracy vs dictatorship in one state, it is about a well organised bunch of absolutely crazy people who don't belong to or recognise a single state, and need to be stopped. If Assad can get the breathing space to regain control, then IS have less control, and thus are weakened. I guess an obvious question is, would it be better if Assad was in power and not IS, or would it be better if Assad lost all of his ground, and all of his control, and IS became victorious.

 

"Where is the political profit or logic in that? To be honest, I think you have to have at least lived in the Middle East for a period to understand how tribal, religious, political history going back thousands of years is still fresh in the minds of the people and is still used to fuel the fires of war"

Or Bradford/Leicester

Jack McH

 

I think one of the reasons why we want to remove Assad, is that his actions are causing tens of thousands of his own people to try to come and live here. That sort of makes it our business in a way that doesn't apply to North Korea etc.

 

I might be wrong, but I believe there were not tens of thousands of Syrians coming here before the Syrian people turned on their own government and started a civil war. I do not judge them. I know nothing of daily life in Syria. I'm just going off the facts as reported.

Sent from my HTC Desire 610 using Tapatalk

 

As opposed to the alternative? Go off the conspiracy theorists posts on internet? or worse, the bipolar hysteria that is the Facebook chatter? Or, we could just bury our heads in the sand. All of these alternatives, as imperfect as they are, are probably better than actually going to have a look.

 

If they wanted assistance, I'm pretty sure they could have asked for it. If they'd asked, I'm pretty sure we'd have ignored them. So there seems to be no logic to it.