BruceVC

Yeah its easy to suggest what the USA should be doing as an ardent and vociferous opponent of the current president ...because you don't have to deliver on it

Its weird but I have just downloaded the whole series to watch again Oz is brutal, brilliant and absolutely compelling...its like you can't wait to see who else joins the prison and what faction he will join I'm surprised you are comfortable with it though, it pushed the boundaries of homosexual sex and it gets more intense later on so prepare yourself

Wowzers that pizza looks great, you see Gfted1 we have lots in common...like Pizza Maybe we should go there on our first date meeting....I assume you prefer somewhere where you feel comfortable

You know whats weird, I added those last 3 so the Pizza isn't suppose to have them You have a knack for food Here is the restaurant I ordered from, they specialize in Gourmet Pizzas http://www.colcacchio.co.za/

I had one of my designer Pizzas tonight, this time I went with Italian sausage, chorizo, mushroom, onion, roasted red pepper, chilli, Gorgonzola, Banana and bacon It is delicious

That's twentieth century colonial power thinking No. But you can't always force a cultural change at gunpoint. Sure, it would be nice to accelerate the process, but cultural changes sometimes takes generations. And without a cultural change and the embracing of new ideas, outside intervention will most likely have no positive long term effect. I.e. point in case the 3 above examples. Would you say the world is a better place now than it was before the west encouraged (and in some cases outright supported militarily) the destabilizing of the ruling regimes in the countries above? All of those conflicts had one thing in common, it was never about accepting "Western ideas", it was about religious differences, old grudges and tribal/clan affiliations. Okay I see you guys seem to misunderstand what I mean by " regime change " and " western intervention " I need to clarify a few things first, I'm just going to be direct. Please don't take this wrong way and think I'm being condescending or rude. I'm confidant you won't take offense....oh I'll also make some assumptions about your view which you can obviously correct if you want. Its easier to explain my overall point if I make assumptions about what I think you believe So firstly please lets try to not even use the word " colonial " when I talk about Western intervention. I'm not trying to tell you what words to use but the words like " colonialism " , " neo-colonialism" , '' imperialism", " white capital " are used by people as an insult to the West for the historical injustice many people suffered under due to Colonialism. But we aren't talking about anything even remotely like what the Colonists did hundreds of years ago in Africa. So what I often find in my own country is people will use the word "colonialism " when they don't want to transform something in our society that needs to change...they prevent certain changes in our society that are for the good of everyone For example so you see I'm not joking, read this http://www.dawn.com/news/1210357/safrican-tribal-chief-gets-12-years-jail So you may think " yeah this seems fair" and it is except for the fact last night on one of the radio talk shows there was real debate where some people were saying " its not right to charge an African Chief " and one guy was seriously raising a point that basically said " we as Africans shouldn't be judged under Colonial Western law systems ...its un-Affrican " He wants African tribal law to have precedent which means NOTHING would happen to this chief ...so thats there idea of justice Of course our Constitution and normal legal system always wins but you then have this group of people who will phone in and make these irritating comments like " we need to stop following the West" .....they would just prefer these Chiefs, who live on Taxpayers money, to be above the law So those are types of people who still use words like " colonial " Anyway thats PART 1 .,....I need a break before I continue

What exactly did you do? It sounds interesting

«It would be well for your government to consider that having your ships and ours, your aircraft and ours, in such proximity... is inherently DANGEROUS. Wars have begun that way, Mr. Ambassador.» (lol @ "moderate rebels" btw. Yeah, the whole three of them need protecting!) Okay that is true ....what exactly is a " moderate rebel " in the context of the whole ME actually

Strip club do make everything better and I'm sure youre a swell guy. You are just what I classify as a "chicken little" where not a day passes where a bit of sky doesn't fall on your head. Due to certain personality flaws within myself I find this type of person unpleasant to socialize with irl. Its not you, its me. Aside, the above joke was in poor taste and I apologize. I'm not a violent person unless circumstances force me to be. Come now...you can't think I took that seriously? You are absolutely under NO obligation to meet me in RL....and its not rude to say that. I suppose my forum etiquette may seem a little erratic at times...and annoying I wouldn't want to meet someone like that in RL But for me its not a big deal, I would basically meet everyone on these forums for a drink. And then I would formulate an opinion This is a forum...its best to not take anything potentially rude or insulting personally

I know, my intelligence can be intimidating. But Gfted1 not everyone can be clever...you have other skills like your DIY..that's something to be proud of ? Actually 95% of people really like me when they first meet me ( I obviously am aware and control my excessive talking )....but you and I would be at a hardcore strip club for our first meeting, we don't want to overdo the whole " lets sit and prove we need to get to know each other in RL )

I don't know Gorth...your view seems to me like someone who is just prepared to let genocide happen....the world and the West has a moral responsibility to prevent this. But it cannot also have to govern the country once the dictator is removed This is up to the citizens of the country...and all those examples you mentioned are cases where the new rulers and or leaders failed to govern properly. Surly you cannot blame the West for leaving countries to there own political destiny?

That's a good read and raises several valid concerns but the main ones should be mitigated, for me these are Russia and USA accidentally shooting each others planes down but they are communicating so this seems unlikely The Syrian rebels aligned with the West getting attacked....I cant see how this is going to work out if the Russians stay committed? Surly they would at sometime attack this group? But they are in the North and ISIS is in the West so this also should be negligible

Yeah an influential, respected, reasonable and charismatic Arab leader to unit the region ....but thats wish fill thinking if you consider just the historical resentment between Sunni and Shia But what really gets to me is the lack of empathy and concern that the likes of Saudi Arabia and the UAE have for the sufferings of the Syrians. These countries are the most stable and wealthiest in the region yet they haven't taken in 1 Syrian ....not one Now I understand the Shia\Sunni conflict but they are all Arabs....they all belong to the Arab League and you would think under the circumstances they would help the refugees. But no ....so much for this concept of " Arab unity " And some of you guys think they would be able to subvert and control the West

No, the West needs to abide by the rules of the United Nations Security Council and respect the veto But these aren't the West rules, these are the UN and therefore global rules Yeah, but not everyone on the world follows them - back to the topic - so want is your problem, 'west' can't intervene even if want. So what is your solution? Yes sometimes countries do ignore the UN .....but it always ends badly. People tend to dismiss the UN and say its " useless and a puppet of the West" but when it comes to long term economic support and effective sanctions the UN does work, yes the Veto can be argued is actually a hindrance to action,like Syria, but I accept that we need China and Russia on the Security Council as it adds balance Even the USA learnt this lesson that you cannot dismiss the UN....2005 and the reality started dawning on all of us that Iraq was a complete mistake....a real disaster and correctly so countries like France and Germany refused to help due to being dismissed by the Neo-cons like Rumsfeld Now back to your question. Lets be clear the West could intervene in Syria, and the UN would support this, if it wanted to...but it mustn't. I am of the opinion that you just leave Syria to the ME and countries like Russia Now you may think " but the war is a stalemate and its just dragging on " but I believe the ME needs to learn to resolve its own issues Also you must realize the West does believe in things like human rights and Assad has demonstrated he is one of the worst and most brutal leaders we have seen so its highly unlikely they will help him in anyway . Its quite amazing how this just doesn't bother the Russians ....they seem to have no problem with the mass murder he ordered of his own people. And he used chemical weapons So in summary the West will continue to use airstrikes and train people like the Kurds but it won't do more than that so others will need to sort it out

No, the West needs to abide by the rules of the United Nations Security Council and respect the veto But these aren't the West rules, these are the UN and therefore global rules

I am not well informed about Lybia but as far as I know there were no ground troops either. And think you are overlooking is that OSN dont have mandate to send troops here as it Russia veto it as there is no formal invitation from legit goverment. So you are saying that 'west' should break its own rules and laws? Yes let me explain further, any type of regime change like this would require ground troops. Libya was exactly like that, the West used airstrikes to destroy Gaddafi's artillery and military hardware. But the hard city to city fighting was done by the Libyan rebels. Syria in the beginning was the same, the Syrian rebels wanted the West to destroy Assads military hardware but they were prepared to do the hand to hand fighting which would have been much more brutal than Libya And yes you correct the Russians and Chinese vetoed the West intervening in the beginning of the Syrian conflict and I'm glad that they are respecting the UN Security council....so they must not rules of the UN Still evading my question do you I thought I did answer it, my bad. What question are you referring to?

I am not well informed about Lybia but as far as I know there were no ground troops either. And think you are overlooking is that OSN dont have mandate to send troops here as it Russia veto it as there is no formal invitation from legit goverment. So you are saying that 'west' should break its own rules and laws? Yes let me explain further, any type of regime change like this would require ground troops. Libya was exactly like that, the West used airstrikes to destroy Gaddafi's artillery and military hardware. But the hard city to city fighting was done by the Libyan rebels. Syria in the beginning was the same, the Syrian rebels wanted the West to destroy Assads military hardware but they were prepared to do the hand to hand fighting which would have been much more brutal than Libya And yes you correct the Russians and Chinese vetoed the West intervening in the beginning of the Syrian conflict and I'm glad that they are respecting the UN Security council....so they must not rules of the UN

Well I know one thing, we can't send in you Czechs to handle the negotiations with the Syrians .....you guys aren't that good at dealing with Muslims it seems? I was watching how some Syrians who came to Czech were marked with some stamp...like prisoners in a concentration camp ... Oh well ...you can't be good at everything Ah, you didn't comment anything I said at all. But oh well, what to expect from you right? And yeah they get numbers on hands (same we do to new born baby so its not switched to someone else baby in hospital) because they didn't got any documentation. Do you have better idea how to identify someone? . Anyway we in Czech are laughting on EU currently. For example there is free border crossing inside EU and we are supposed to get some refugees via quotas, but how on Earth we are supposed to keep them here when Motherland Merkland is right next to us? I don't even bring up how much less our social system is giving Sorry I had commented earlier, the West could have solved the Syrian problem in the beginning. They would have removed Assad like Gaddafi and then left the country in the hands of the Free Syrian Army....would that have been maintained peacefully? Who knows ....look at Libya now but I assume Libya would have been helped by The West and the Sunni countries. But end of the day I don't know ...but surly its better than the current disaster Don't worry about getting refugees...you guys have done a good job at putting them off wanting to immigrate to Czech. But my view is the Syrians shouldn't be coming to the EU at all in these numbers and even then the EU shouldn't be forcing countries like Hungary and Czech to accept refugees. There are too many cultural differences and thats understandable

And we like to talk about restaurants and cheese, thats important

Lets be honest do we really care about the ME? I'm not being hateful but they don't care about me and thats fine. Of course I would rather there was peace and the average citizen had a good life but end of the day until the governments in the region start adopting the proper principles of what a Democracy stands for and what real human rights means they are just going to be going through turmoil Yeah and you right, Assad can stay in power. He is a mass murderer of his own people and doesn't deserve to rule a country but this is the ME, I'm done getting upset with people who are intransigent. I'm happy with the fact the Iran negotiations went well and as long as the Gulf states are peaceful then thats probably the best I can hope for under the current circumstances Well I know one thing, we can't send in you Czechs to handle the negotiations with the Syrians .....you guys aren't that good at dealing with Muslims it seems? I was watching how some Syrians who came to Czech were marked with some stamp...like prisoners in a concentration camp ... Oh well ...you can't be good at everything

Okay so Malc has raised a valid question " why only airstrikes ïf they aren't enough to defeat ISIS " So I think the USA did feel some responsibility for the the disastrous state that Iraq deteriorated to 3 years after the last US troops left...and I think the idea of a genocide that they were indirectly responsible for would have been something that they wouldn't want to be associated with But there were several informed opinions that said airstrikes weren't enough and this was something Obama would have been aware of , the USA is relying on coalition partners like the Kurds to do the ground fighting but this is clearly not working But I'm sorry I don't see why the West should commit ground troops so what Zora said is also relevant. Its the " best " strategy under the circumstances.

It's bad because the west has consistently made a mess of things, has had a year to degrade ISIS with little progress shown and apart from having made a mess of things looks likely to make a further mess of things with no consistent strategy from the past, present or future. Russian intervention can scarcely be worse than that. Plus, if you happen to loathe retrograde extremists you can pretty much guarantee that Russia will go after the lot, not just selective ones based on not offending certain 'allies'. No Zora your view about the West in Syria is wrong...again They know to defeat ISIS ground troops are needed....but why should Western soldiers have to die for a ME conflict ? So its more a case of " its not worth the sacrifice and commitment of resources " And the airstrikes helped prevent the massacre of tens of thousands of Yazidis....it seems you conveniently forget that but I understand its hard to give credit to the West

TN in real life people sometimes ask me " if I ever stop talking " ....cause I talk a lot in RL

Nah this board is much better ...now we all respect SJ issues and everyone is very PC You'll notice there isn't even a " Hot Women Thread " as we don't like to objectify women unless it can't be helped

Yeah the whole Russian involvement does seem a little late and ultimately lackluster Think about the best result, somehow the Russians manage to beat the Free Syrian Army and ISIS and the Al-Qaeda groups in Syria and Assad stays in power ....in power of what? He will be alienated by the West and most of the ME....his country will stay broken and completely economic dependent on Iran and other allies ....a Russian victory would be a Pyrrhic Victory. If the West was involved then it would work but I doubt they would help Russia to help Assad...and I can't blame them Drowsy doesnt generally want to acknowledge much Serbian responsibility for any atrocities or blame for there involvement in Bosnia or Kosovo. Its the most bizarre thing as I accept my families role in Apartheid and I condemn the system ....but it doesn't define me Its strange how most Serbs I speak to dont want to accept there role in the wars....its not a big deal as it should be seen as a way to actually liberate people.