View Single Post
Old 15-09-2016, 11:47   #9
Damien
Remoaner
Cable Forum Mod
 
Damien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32,942
Damien has a lot of silver blingDamien has a lot of silver blingDamien has a lot of silver blingDamien has a lot of silver blingDamien has a lot of silver bling
Damien has a lot of silver blingDamien has a lot of silver blingDamien has a lot of silver blingDamien has a lot of silver blingDamien has a lot of silver blingDamien has a lot of silver blingDamien has a lot of silver blingDamien has a lot of silver blingDamien has a lot of silver blingDamien has a lot of silver blingDamien has a lot of silver blingDamien has a lot of silver blingDamien has a lot of silver blingDamien has a lot of silver bling
Re: David Cameron is blamed for the rise of ISIS

Quote:
Originally Posted by adzii_nufc View Post
Knows North Korea are manufacturing Nuclear devices - Sanctions them. Country is starving, people executed when seen fit. Families murdered, people imprisoned for life without trial for bogus reasons.
North Korea was staving and killing it's own people long before sanctions. The US, China and South Korea had tried many other routes, including airdropping food during the famine in the early 90s. What's the alternative to sanctions though? Leave them to it? Invade?

Quote:
We can stop pretending we're fighting because its the right thing to do now..
This isn't a novel realisation. However most of the time we are fighting for, at least what we perceive, to be Western interests. The world isn't a fair place and I would rather Western nations be the ones influencing the world than Russia.

You mentioned Putin previously but his only concern is also expanding Russian influence, he didn't oppose arming the rebels because of a clairvoyance about ISIS getting hold of weapons but because he didn't want Assad toppled and Russian interests there harmed. He is all for propping up brutal dictators too the only difference is that they have no moral qualms about avoiding civilian casualties or the use of chemical weapons.

---------- Post added at 12:47 ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gavin78 View Post
Well that is just it they wont take on NK a country that might actually have the ability to fight back.
There have been plenty of occasions where the US could have taken NK at a canter. They don't because South Korea doesn't want a sudden unification of the peninsula due to the massive upheaval and cost having to take in 25 million citizens, a 50% increase, most of whom would be poor and poorly educated.

Also China wouldn't be best pleased with American forces so close to their border.
Damien is offline   Reply With Quote