Miliband, the turd that Bliar shat out of his arse - to try and gain brownie points using such a tragic and emotive subject is vile.
I read the news today oh boy! Page 1,727
Quote: Paul Wimsett @ 24th April 2015, 1:11 PM BSTRemoving ourselves from Iraq seems to make some sense though, Chaps? How would you like to be governed by a country thousands of miles away?
You talking about the SNP?
You've been borrowing someone's joke book?
Quote: Lazzard @ 24th April 2015, 1:27 PM BSTYou talking about the SNP?
We're taking over the World! *loud burst of maniacal laughter*
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-32233184
A man who battered his wife with a rolling pin has been sentenced to a 3 year stretch. The prosecution took their time proving it.
Quote: keewik @ 24th April 2015, 2:36 PM BSTWe're taking over the World! *loud burst of maniacal laughter*
Christ! We'll all be wearing skirts soon. 
Quote: Hercules Grytpype Thynne @ 24th April 2015, 6:13 PM BSTChrist! We'll all be wearing skirts soon.
If so I hope you'll be crossing your legs while posting in the "Let's All Play A Game"-thread then and every other thread I visit on a regular basis.
Quote: Hercules Grytpype Thynne @ 24th April 2015, 9:31 AM BSTI don't know why Miliband doesn't just come out and accuse Cameron of being in charge of one of the trafficker's boats in the Med. and be done with it.
What a utter lump of shit he is proving to be with his pathetic accusations.
There is scoring points and there is scoring points but this is the dregs.
Wow, Hercules sure doesn't mince his words, does he? 
Well yes, it's a curious position which Miliband is taking.
He seems to want to tap into a feeling by many (I'm one of them) that Britain's part in invervening in various parts of the world in recent years has been nothing short of disastrous.
Our interventions in Lybia have led to a collapse of the state together with all law and order in Lybia, have destabilised Mali, and are believed to contributed to trouble in Algeria, Tunisia - even Nigeria (by means of arms with which Lybia was flooded).
But Miliband appears to possess a very short term memory. For I do not recall Miliband (nor Labour for that matter) objecting to intervention in Lybia.
So he now is objecting to something which he seemed to be backing when it was happening, because with hindsight it clearly was a mistake.
As someone who was soundly against it at the time, I'm somewhat staggered by this bizarre change of heart.
What is interesting is that Cameron and his minions on the other hand are merely objecting to their opponent's volte face and avoiding any comment about the regional disaster for which their master clearly bears partial responsibility.
Just take Syria; we were actively engaged in destablising Assad's regime. Islamic State made its name in Syria. By seeking to weaken Assad, we helped strengthen them, despite Russia's warnings.
I almost expect to learn one day that were active in helping them at first (just as we once helped the Khmer Rouge).
What is clear is that a great many refugees in the Med are Syrian, even minorities from Iraq displaced by Islamic State.
What is clear is that Lybia was thrown into turmoil by the UK and France when we went down there to play soldiers.
So does it look good for Cameron? No, the man's a perfect fool.
But would Miliband have done any different? Don't make me laugh.
Quote: Gussie Fink Nottle @ 24th April 2015, 6:40 PM BSTWow, Hercules sure doesn't mince his words, does he?
Well yes, it's a curious position which Miliband is taking.
He seems to want to tap into a feeling by many (I'm one of them) that Britain's part in invervening in various parts of the world in recent years has been nothing short of disastrous.
Our interventions in Lybia have led to a collapse of the state together with all law and order in Lybia, have destabilised Mali, and are believed to contributed to trouble in Algeria, Tunisia - even Nigeria (by means of arms with which Lybia was flooded).
But Miliband appears to possess a very short term memory. For I do not recall Miliband (nor Labour for that matter) objecting to intervention in Lybia.
So he now is objecting to something which he seemed to be backing when it was happening, because with hindsight it clearly was a mistake.
As someone who was soundly against it at the time, I'm somewhat staggered by this bizarre change of heart.
What is interesting is that Cameron and his minions on the other hand are merely objecting to their opponent's volte face and avoiding any comment about the regional disaster for which their master clearly bears partial responsibility.
Just take Syria; we were actively engaged in destablising Assad's regime. Islamic State made its name in Syria. By seeking to weaken Assad, we helped strengthen them, despite Russia's warnings.
I almost expect to learn one day that were active in helping them at first (just as we once helped the Khmer Rouge).What is clear is that a great many refugees in the Med are Syrian, even minorities from Iraq displaced by Islamic State.
What is clear is that Lybia was thrown into turmoil by the UK and France when we went down there to play soldiers.
So does it look good for Cameron? No, the man's a perfect fool.But would Miliband have done any different? Don't make me laugh.
That reads like UKIP foreign policy. I agree with their preference for non-interventionism. It is a very weird situation today. The greatest pacifists in the UK and the US now appear to be on the far right.
Quote: A Horseradish @ 24th April 2015, 6:51 PM BSTThat reads like UKIP foreign policy. I agree with their preference for non-interventionism. It is a very weird situation today. The greatest pacifists in the UK and the US now appear to be on the far right.
That is, if you are prepared to believe UKIP.
But these sort of conflicts always get sold as patriotism and 'supporting our armed forces', etc.
(officially we haven't even accepted yet that we were defeated militarily in Iraq and Afghanistan due to those very reasons)
Is there anyone here who believes that when it comes to that, UKIP, the chief flag wavers, will stand by and oppose any actions our troops are engaged in?
I think not.
Quote: Gussie Fink Nottle @ 24th April 2015, 7:02 PM BSTThat is, if you are prepared to believe UKIP.
But these sort of conflicts always get sold as patriotism and 'supporting our armed forces', etc.
(officially we haven't even accepted yet that we were defeated militarily in Iraq and Afghanistan due to those very reasons)
Is there anyone here who believes that when it comes to that, UKIP, the chief flag wavers, will stand by and oppose any actions our troops are engaged in?
I think not.
I think they will oppose much as they have already done so. Mostly or exclusively it will remain from outside Parliament. I do need to qualify my remarks. I am not convinced that a little knitting is a reasonable alternative to the necessity of smashing IS into 49 shades of oblivion. But I did oppose all the Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya by-jingo, Carruthers, tripe and I also consider that Putin should immediately be given an honorary OBE. In fact, let's give everyone in Russia one. They deserve it.
Quote: A Horseradish @ 24th April 2015, 7:07 PM BSTI think they will oppose much as they have already done so. Mostly or exclusively it will remain from outside Parliament. I do need to qualify my remarks. I am not convinced that a little knitting is a reasonable alternative to the necessity of smashing IS into 49 shades of oblivion. But I did oppose all the Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya by-jingo, Carruthers, tripe and I also consider that Putin should immediately be given an honorary OBE. In fact, let's give everyone in Russia one. They deserve it.
Oh, Islamic State are not going to go away anytime soon. And yes, they will not retire. They will need shooting dead.
I am by no means a pacifist.
But in as simple a game as chess, you are expected to think a move or two ahead, at least. Foreign policy requires that all the more.
This is patently what our great leaders have not been doing.
They barge in somewhere with their laser guided missiles and then expect tranquility and brotherly love to break out overnight.
Instead in Lybia we caused mayhem throughout North Africa and created another failed state.
Or else they meddle and support god-knows-who in order to weaken some rival of ours. With disastrous consequences.
In Syria that approach helped make Islamic State a regional player and in the Ukraine it provoked a Russian bear.
There have been voices suggesting that the quality of advice by the foreign office is by no means what it once was, largely due to the diminution of its budget.
But ultimately the responsibility must rest with the twit who makes the decision. And in recent years those decisions were blatantly wrong from the very outset and could be identified as such at the time.
P.S. regards UKIP; I understand UKIPers as a bunch of renegade Tories. And Tories always tend to rally round the armed forces and play the patriotism card when it comes to it. So I really don't believe their current statements are more than lip service. If push comes to shove, they'll fall into line.
Quote: Gussie Fink Nottle @ 24th April 2015, 7:43 PM BSTOh, Islamic State are not going to go away anytime soon. And yes, they will not retire. They will need shooting dead.
I am by no means a pacifist.
But in as simple a game as chess, you are expected to think a move or two ahead, at least. Foreign policy requires that all the more.This is patently what our great leaders have not been doing.
They barge in somewhere with their laser guided missiles and then expect tranquility and brotherly love to break out overnight.
Instead in Lybia we caused mayhem throughout North Africa and created another failed state.Or else they meddle and support god-knows-who in order to weaken some rival of ours. With disastrous consequences.
In Syria that approach helped make Islamic State a regional player and in the Ukraine it provoked a Russian bear.There have been voices suggesting that the quality of advice by the foreign office is by no means what it once was, largely due to the diminution of its budget.
But ultimately the responsibility must rest with the twit who makes the decision. And in recent years those decisions were blatantly wrong from the very outset and could be identified as such at the time.
P.S. regards UKIP; I understand UKIPers as a bunch of renegade Tories. And Tories always tend to rally round the armed forces and play the patriotism card when it comes to it. So I really don't believe their current statements are more than lip service. If push comes to shove, they'll fall into line.
Yes - well - and I am a bit uncomfortable with too much of this heavy-ish stuff from my own keys on BCG - the quality of advice by the foreign office is indeed by no means what it once was, largely due to the diminution of its budget. When it comes to political matters, I think in three different ways - (1) what I like about politicians and any policy - now significantly diminishing (2) figures I can respect even if they are in a party I dislike - now significantly diminishing and (3) nearly all politicians are tossers - a rapid, steep, upward curve. But in category (2), I am quite a fan of - stops to cough - the Tory, Rory Stewart. He has made the same points on foreign office budget/advice and it applies more broadly.
As for Russia, it is not a bear. It is Gandhi in the modern age. EU was expanded because of the constant pushing - actually thrusting - in/on indifferent European politicians by the overrated Cook and the cockatoo Straw. The left when it operates as the right has a horrible habit of doing such things as it is secretly more closely tied in with the American establishment than even the Tories.
Of course, most of the reporting of Cook's ultimate death on a mountain was full of factual errors and there could have been an awful lot more to that one - nudge in the ribs here and a light comment about how beautiful the town of Cheltenham can be - but that's a different matter to what he did in office which was compliant with Blair. Consequently, the EU sits like the sort of dense 1960s style tower blocks that used to be so popular in East Germany at its most malevolent right on and almost up Russia's bumper. Imagine your neighbours building something similar to your boundary fence. You would if possessed of any integrity - and I am sure you have integrity in bucket loads - send a small nuclear device towards their kitchen window at the least. Especially if they were indoors at the time.
In contrast, Putin entertained Goldie Hawn and other luvvies with a rendition of "Blueberry Hill" and for all I know spent a week in a monastery asking the Lord for his enemies to be forgiven. You are wrong about UKIP. They love him as they are principally informed by the Tea Party who have a post Vietnam drop out mentality. Oh, except when it comes to making a fast buck over which they would keenly murder old grans. As for any religion that occasionally purports to accompany it, it's window dressing.
Quote: Gordon Bennett @ 24th April 2015, 6:23 PM BSTIf so I hope you'll be crossing your legs while posting in the "Let's All Play A Game"-thread then and every other thread I visit on a regular basis.
Pants are de rigeur with skirts. Get yourselves to M & S.
Quote: Gussie Fink Nottle @ 24th April 2015, 6:40 PM BSTWow, Hercules sure doesn't mince his words, does he?
Say what you see. The whole system stinks.