Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
So, Naomi, have you any idea what Cameron's actual plans are in response to my question posted yesterday at 08.16?
Once he's got his bombing campaign started, has he got an end-date or end-condition in mind? If so, what is it? Or will it be, as in 1914, that Brits next week will all be saying cheerfully, "It'll all be over by Christmas"?
How will we know if we've 'won' or is the situation really unwinnable, as you seem to suggest? What about collateral damage? Will the RAF be the first-ever force to kill no civilians during bombing-raids?
Conflicts are always finally resolved by diplomacy, even against people seemingly implacable to discussion. If not, is Cameron's invasion of Syria to be endless?
How can so many MPs - as well as rational people - start an air-war with not the remotest concept of what the answers are to any of these and a host of other queries?
Once he's got his bombing campaign started, has he got an end-date or end-condition in mind? If so, what is it? Or will it be, as in 1914, that Brits next week will all be saying cheerfully, "It'll all be over by Christmas"?
How will we know if we've 'won' or is the situation really unwinnable, as you seem to suggest? What about collateral damage? Will the RAF be the first-ever force to kill no civilians during bombing-raids?
Conflicts are always finally resolved by diplomacy, even against people seemingly implacable to discussion. If not, is Cameron's invasion of Syria to be endless?
How can so many MPs - as well as rational people - start an air-war with not the remotest concept of what the answers are to any of these and a host of other queries?
-- answer removed --
divebuddy - ////Conflicts are always finally resolved by diplomacy,//
That is simply not true. Unconditional surrender doesn't leave much room for diplomacy.//
That statement may well be true, but since surrender of any colour - unconditional or otherwise - is not in the ISIS remit.
Quizmonster's point is a valid and important. We can't simply bomb ISIS from now until Doomsday, so exactly how are we to proceed in dealing with the issues they have created?
Death and destruction - the West's current default position, simply convinces Isis even further - not that they need it - that are intent on their eradication.
We may be, but do we seriously think they will sit there and be bombed without the notion of retaliation being discussed by them?
And soon?
That is simply not true. Unconditional surrender doesn't leave much room for diplomacy.//
That statement may well be true, but since surrender of any colour - unconditional or otherwise - is not in the ISIS remit.
Quizmonster's point is a valid and important. We can't simply bomb ISIS from now until Doomsday, so exactly how are we to proceed in dealing with the issues they have created?
Death and destruction - the West's current default position, simply convinces Isis even further - not that they need it - that are intent on their eradication.
We may be, but do we seriously think they will sit there and be bombed without the notion of retaliation being discussed by them?
And soon?
How about this: http://
-- answer removed --
Well, no, I wasn't thinking of situations like "the Red Indians and Americans". The Native Americans were in a hopeless situation, given the geography and the might of their enemy to do what they willed. I was thinking more of factions effectively ‘at war’during the 20th century, particularly post the creation of the UN.
Kenya and South Africa had ‘terrorist’ problems which TALKS finally solved. If I remember correctly, Israel’s first president was originally deemed a terrorist but finished up ‘inside the fold’ after TALKS. I’m sure I could find quite a few other examples. If all these TALKS were not a form of diplomacy, what were they?
Kenya and South Africa had ‘terrorist’ problems which TALKS finally solved. If I remember correctly, Israel’s first president was originally deemed a terrorist but finished up ‘inside the fold’ after TALKS. I’m sure I could find quite a few other examples. If all these TALKS were not a form of diplomacy, what were they?
-- answer removed --
Weren't Germany and Japan along with others "implacable enemies" of ours at one time? There was a veritable pandemic of 'surrendering' by them in 1945. Are we still at war with any of them? We are not...far from it; we even share a union with several of them in Europe!
So, what happened during the seven decades since 1945? There were talks...lots of talks. And who did the talking? Diplomats, using the methods of DIPLOMACY.
History tells us that "implacability" is generally a temporary condition which tends to fade after boots on the ground - rather than just people in warplanes - utterly wreck the 'implacable' enemy's very foundations.
ISIL has existed for only a very few years. We have literally no idea how it may develop, so it amazes me to hear people claiming that it cannot conceivably EVER change.
So, what happened during the seven decades since 1945? There were talks...lots of talks. And who did the talking? Diplomats, using the methods of DIPLOMACY.
History tells us that "implacability" is generally a temporary condition which tends to fade after boots on the ground - rather than just people in warplanes - utterly wreck the 'implacable' enemy's very foundations.
ISIL has existed for only a very few years. We have literally no idea how it may develop, so it amazes me to hear people claiming that it cannot conceivably EVER change.
Slaughter Jews, homosexuals and the disabled...Aryans are the world's master race, the rest are Untermenschen...the world is ours to conquer and grasp... I could go on about Germany's belief-system in the 1930s, but can't be bothered.
In other words, Germany's "mindset bore no resemblance whatsoever to our own and their philosophy was immutable" (at the time!)
However, good old Bomber Harris, with American help, softened them up and "boots on the ground" - with Russian feet in them from the east and Allied feet in them from the west - eventually made them mutable!
Cameron's idiocy is that he, like others, doesn't plan to use any such feet to accompany the rather pathetic handful of aircraft he's committing to the fray.
Let's just wait and see how successful his plan is!
In other words, Germany's "mindset bore no resemblance whatsoever to our own and their philosophy was immutable" (at the time!)
However, good old Bomber Harris, with American help, softened them up and "boots on the ground" - with Russian feet in them from the east and Allied feet in them from the west - eventually made them mutable!
Cameron's idiocy is that he, like others, doesn't plan to use any such feet to accompany the rather pathetic handful of aircraft he's committing to the fray.
Let's just wait and see how successful his plan is!
Quizmonster, // I could go on about Germany's belief-system in the 1930s, but can't be bothered.//
Perhaps you should be bothered because you’re failing to comprehend entirely. Radical Islam isn’t a race; there is no ‘country’ to cleave to; no indigenous people to fight for. There is no patriotism – only brotherhood in Islam which means ‘submission’ and that is exactly what ISIS is doing – submitting to the will of Allah whose law supersedes all man made laws. The only people they seek to destroy are those who will not submit to the will of Allah. They will not stop because they cannot stop. They are fighting for Allah and by extension they are ensuring the safety of their souls. This philosophy can be compared to no other. Blimey! This is hard work!
Perhaps you should be bothered because you’re failing to comprehend entirely. Radical Islam isn’t a race; there is no ‘country’ to cleave to; no indigenous people to fight for. There is no patriotism – only brotherhood in Islam which means ‘submission’ and that is exactly what ISIS is doing – submitting to the will of Allah whose law supersedes all man made laws. The only people they seek to destroy are those who will not submit to the will of Allah. They will not stop because they cannot stop. They are fighting for Allah and by extension they are ensuring the safety of their souls. This philosophy can be compared to no other. Blimey! This is hard work!
I lived and worked in Arabic lands for years and truly don't need you to explain Islam to me!
Perhaps you yourself are unaware that “we have been here before” in our relationship with that faith. If you click https:/
“Muhammed Ahmad's posthumous son, Abd al-Rahman al-Mahdi, became a leader of the neo-Mahdist movement in the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan who the British considered important as a moderate leader of the Mahdists.”
As you may see, even the messianic redeemer of Islam could be (quote) “a moderate leader”. So much for your oft-repeated claims that such people are immutable.
I hope in particular that the UK comes out of our current situation rather better than General Gordon and his army did in his!
Perhaps you yourself are unaware that “we have been here before” in our relationship with that faith. If you click https:/
“Muhammed Ahmad's posthumous son, Abd al-Rahman al-Mahdi, became a leader of the neo-Mahdist movement in the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan who the British considered important as a moderate leader of the Mahdists.”
As you may see, even the messianic redeemer of Islam could be (quote) “a moderate leader”. So much for your oft-repeated claims that such people are immutable.
I hope in particular that the UK comes out of our current situation rather better than General Gordon and his army did in his!
Latest Posts
How it Works47 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles106 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles112 mins ago
I Am Supposed To To What I Am Told
Body & Soul187 mins ago
ChatterBank192 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.