Russell Brand

A forum for all things Cardiff City

Re: Russell Brand

Postby Military Junta » Sat Jul 04, 2015 11:35 am

So it's gutter politics to respond with action is what you are saying ? Would you say the same when American responded after the Japanesse attack on Hawaii before they joined WW2 ?
User avatar
Military Junta
 
Posts: 6201
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Russell Brand

Advertisement

Advertisement
Login or Register to remove this ad.

Re: Russell Brand

Postby alfie sherwood » Sat Jul 04, 2015 11:51 am

Military Junta wrote:So it's gutter politics to respond with action is what you are saying ? Would you say the same when American responded after the Japanesse attack on Hawaii before they joined WW2 ?


Each individual conflict should be addressed on its own merits and certainly WW2 was a war that had to be fought by the allies.

IS absolutely have to be defeated but they ain't ever gonna be defeated long term by western intervention. UK Politicians of all persuasions know that, which is why proposed air strikes in Syria are nothing more than a cosmetic exercise to placate the yanks, the tabloids and the bloke down the pub. Meanwhile, innocent Brits will die in increased terrorist atrocities in response to our governments stupidity.

It's madness.
alfie sherwood
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 6:27 pm

Re: Russell Brand

Postby Military Junta » Sat Jul 04, 2015 11:59 am

alfie sherwood wrote:
Military Junta wrote:So it's gutter politics to respond with action is what you are saying ? Would you say the same when American responded after the Japanesse attack on Hawaii before they joined WW2 ?


Each individual conflict should be addressed on its own merits and certainly WW2 was a war that had to be fought by the allies.

IS absolutely have to be defeated but they ain't ever gonna be defeated long term by western intervention. UK Politicians of all persuasions know that, which is why proposed air strikes in Syria are nothing more than a cosmetic exercise to placate the yanks, the tabloids and the bloke down the pub. Meanwhile, innocent Brits will die in increased terrorist atrocities in response to our governments stupidity.

It's madness.


They wouldn't have been created of it wasn't for Miliband and his Labour Party stabbing the Syrian Rebels in the back
User avatar
Military Junta
 
Posts: 6201
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Russell Brand

Postby alfie sherwood » Sat Jul 04, 2015 12:09 pm

Military Junta wrote:
alfie sherwood wrote:
Military Junta wrote:So it's gutter politics to respond with action is what you are saying ? Would you say the same when American responded after the Japanesse attack on Hawaii before they joined WW2 ?


Each individual conflict should be addressed on its own merits and certainly WW2 was a war that had to be fought by the allies.

IS absolutely have to be defeated but they ain't ever gonna be defeated long term by western intervention. UK Politicians of all persuasions know that, which is why proposed air strikes in Syria are nothing more than a cosmetic exercise to placate the yanks, the tabloids and the bloke down the pub. Meanwhile, innocent Brits will die in increased terrorist atrocities in response to our governments stupidity.

It's madness.


They wouldn't have been created of it wasn't for Miliband and his Labour Party stabbing the Syrian Rebels in the back


[sigh] you still don't really seem to understand how western intervention in the Middle East works. But I'll try and explain it to you..again:

The west meddles and small problem, quickly becomes large problem, quickly becomes major threat to innocent western civilians at home and abroad.

Unless you can grasp that fact (and it is a fact), there's no point debating it.
alfie sherwood
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 6:27 pm

Re: Russell Brand

Postby Military Junta » Sat Jul 04, 2015 12:13 pm

alfie sherwood wrote:
Military Junta wrote:
alfie sherwood wrote:
Military Junta wrote:So it's gutter politics to respond with action is what you are saying ? Would you say the same when American responded after the Japanesse attack on Hawaii before they joined WW2 ?


Each individual conflict should be addressed on its own merits and certainly WW2 was a war that had to be fought by the allies.

IS absolutely have to be defeated but they ain't ever gonna be defeated long term by western intervention. UK Politicians of all persuasions know that, which is why proposed air strikes in Syria are nothing more than a cosmetic exercise to placate the yanks, the tabloids and the bloke down the pub. Meanwhile, innocent Brits will die in increased terrorist atrocities in response to our governments stupidity.

It's madness.


They wouldn't have been created of it wasn't for Miliband and his Labour Party stabbing the Syrian Rebels in the back


[sigh] you still don't really seem to understand how western intervention in the Middle East works. But I'll try and explain it to you..again:

The west meddles and small problem, quickly becomes large problem, quickly becomes major threat to innocent western civilians at home and abroad.

Unless you can grasp that fact (and it is a fact), there's no point debating it.


Who the f**k so you think you are ? The Syrian people needed our help and we're getting gassed to death yet Miliband voted against giving them the help and they only had IS left to help them. That is a fact so stop trying to patronise me with your left wing bollox for once
User avatar
Military Junta
 
Posts: 6201
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Russell Brand

Postby alfie sherwood » Sat Jul 04, 2015 12:32 pm

Military Junta wrote:
alfie sherwood wrote:
Military Junta wrote:
alfie sherwood wrote:
Military Junta wrote:So it's gutter politics to respond with action is what you are saying ? Would you say the same when American responded after the Japanesse attack on Hawaii before they joined WW2 ?


Each individual conflict should be addressed on its own merits and certainly WW2 was a war that had to be fought by the allies.

IS absolutely have to be defeated but they ain't ever gonna be defeated long term by western intervention. UK Politicians of all persuasions know that, which is why proposed air strikes in Syria are nothing more than a cosmetic exercise to placate the yanks, the tabloids and the bloke down the pub. Meanwhile, innocent Brits will die in increased terrorist atrocities in response to our governments stupidity.

It's madness.


They wouldn't have been created of it wasn't for Miliband and his Labour Party stabbing the Syrian Rebels in the back


[sigh] you still don't really seem to understand how western intervention in the Middle East works. But I'll try and explain it to you..again:

The west meddles and small problem, quickly becomes large problem, quickly becomes major threat to innocent western civilians at home and abroad.

Unless you can grasp that fact (and it is a fact), there's no point debating it.


Who the f**k so you think you are ? The Syrian people needed our help and we're getting gassed to death yet Miliband voted against giving them the help and they only had IS left to help them. That is a fact so stop trying to patronise me with your left wing bollox for once


You don't have to be a left winger to recognise that there is never a happy ending to Britain and America getting involved in the Middle East. If that's "left wing bollox," well, I'll take that all day long over neoliberal bollox that increases the risk of terrorist attacks on our citizens.
alfie sherwood
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 6:27 pm

Re: Russell Brand

Postby Military Junta » Sat Jul 04, 2015 1:49 pm

The first Iraq war ended well with the people of Kuwait being freed of the Iraq oppresors so not every involment ended badly
User avatar
Military Junta
 
Posts: 6201
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Russell Brand

Postby Enola Gay » Sat Jul 04, 2015 2:10 pm

alfie sherwood wrote:
mr'mogreenz wrote:People bringing politics into this. Yesterdays minutes silence had fukall to do with politics. It was about everyday people showing a bit of respect. But if you want to turn this into a political debate, then let's not forget who was mostly responsible for all this mess. a certain Mr Blair with his lies and bulshit. I would never vote for any of them. Labour, conservatives, ukip, they are all a bunch of self serving kunts in my book. But as I see it, the conservatives inherited this mess from the previous government. As for Syria-iraq?!?! In my oppinion those places are now beyond repair and the only way I can see it ever getting sorted, is for everyone to stop meddling and let it come to its own conclusion..... Eventually Isis will implode in on its self...but The more we interfere the more we feed these twats. I remember a certain sadam Husain warning us this would happen if we ever got rid of him (weldone bush and Blair) and for all these british Muslims who are looking to go and join Isis.....lets all have a whip round and by them the plane tickets so they can fukoff. That's all I have to say on the matter.


I'm probably going to surprise you by agreeing with a large amount of what you've written:

Yesterday's minute silence SHOULD have had f**k all to do with politics. And it wouldn't have, if Cameron ( backed by the usual Labour Patsy's ) hadn't chosen to announce at almost exactly the same time that we will in all likelihood begin attacks on IS targets in Syria. An action that anyone with half a brain knows will greatly increase the terror threat against Brits everywhere. Cameron has been itching to please the yanks, the reactionary British press and Tory grassroots and launch these raids in Syria for some time and to do so on the backs of the deaths of innocent civilians in Tunisia is about as cynical as it gets. Politics of the gutter. It really is a disgrace.

Agree with you about Blair. He's a war criminal, whose day in The Hague is long overdue. Also agree about the need for us to stop meddling in the Middle East (for once poseur Russell Brand got it right!!) as it will just make matters worse.

To reiterate an earlier point - the only lasting solution to IS will ultimately come from Middle East countries themselves but it will be a slow process. Tragically, the west through continued interference will make western citizens sitting ducks for random Islamic terrorist attacks.

It's very sad but rather than blaming big mouth Brand, let's blame the fuckin idiots who govern Britain/USA/France etc and the loons who think religion is worth more than human life :thumbup:


I think both you and City Slicker are spot on with regards to this.
Enola Gay
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:47 pm

Re: Russell Brand

Postby Enola Gay » Sat Jul 04, 2015 2:10 pm

alfie sherwood wrote:
mr'mogreenz wrote:People bringing politics into this. Yesterdays minutes silence had fukall to do with politics. It was about everyday people showing a bit of respect. But if you want to turn this into a political debate, then let's not forget who was mostly responsible for all this mess. a certain Mr Blair with his lies and bulshit. I would never vote for any of them. Labour, conservatives, ukip, they are all a bunch of self serving kunts in my book. But as I see it, the conservatives inherited this mess from the previous government. As for Syria-iraq?!?! In my oppinion those places are now beyond repair and the only way I can see it ever getting sorted, is for everyone to stop meddling and let it come to its own conclusion..... Eventually Isis will implode in on its self...but The more we interfere the more we feed these twats. I remember a certain sadam Husain warning us this would happen if we ever got rid of him (weldone bush and Blair) and for all these british Muslims who are looking to go and join Isis.....lets all have a whip round and by them the plane tickets so they can fukoff. That's all I have to say on the matter.


I'm probably going to surprise you by agreeing with a large amount of what you've written:

Yesterday's minute silence SHOULD have had f**k all to do with politics. And it wouldn't have, if Cameron ( backed by the usual Labour Patsy's ) hadn't chosen to announce at almost exactly the same time that we will in all likelihood begin attacks on IS targets in Syria. An action that anyone with half a brain knows will greatly increase the terror threat against Brits everywhere. Cameron has been itching to please the yanks, the reactionary British press and Tory grassroots and launch these raids in Syria for some time and to do so on the backs of the deaths of innocent civilians in Tunisia is about as cynical as it gets. Politics of the gutter. It really is a disgrace.

Agree with you about Blair. He's a war criminal, whose day in The Hague is long overdue. Also agree about the need for us to stop meddling in the Middle East (for once poseur Russell Brand got it right!!) as it will just make matters worse.

To reiterate an earlier point - the only lasting solution to IS will ultimately come from Middle East countries themselves but it will be a slow process. Tragically, the west through continued interference will make western citizens sitting ducks for random Islamic terrorist attacks.

It's very sad but rather than blaming big mouth Brand, let's blame the fuckin idiots who govern Britain/USA/France etc and the loons who think religion is worth more than human life :thumbup:


I think both you and City Slicker are spot on with regards to this.
Enola Gay
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:47 pm

Re: Russell Brand

Postby Enola Gay » Sat Jul 04, 2015 2:13 pm

Military Junta wrote:The first Iraq war ended well with the people of Kuwait being freed of the Iraq oppresors so not every involment ended badly


The motive had nothing to do with freeing the people of Kuwait. This was simply the propaganda used to protect the West's (USA's) interest in the oil reserves in the region. Surely you can see that?
Enola Gay
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:47 pm

Re: Russell Brand

Postby Military Junta » Sat Jul 04, 2015 2:19 pm

Oil had f**k all to do with the first Iraq war. The left are blinkered with the apparent oil purposes of the second Iraq war and have since stated that purpose for every war since and even before!!! I suppose WW1 and WW2 was over war too in your eyes
User avatar
Military Junta
 
Posts: 6201
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Russell Brand

Postby Enola Gay » Sat Jul 04, 2015 2:40 pm

Military Junta wrote:Oil had f**k all to do with the first Iraq war. The left are blinkered with the apparent oil purposes of the second Iraq war and have since stated that purpose for every war since and even before!!! I suppose WW1 and WW2 was over war too in your eyes


Really? I think you're being very naive. You usually polarise opinions but I always respect your posts, as I do in this thread but are you seriously telling me that if Iraq had invaded a Kuwait (and let's remember who originally carved out the the region's national boundaries) that had no resources or strategic value in accessing theses resources, that the West would've lent its might to ousting the Iraqis?
Where were we when the world witnessed the genocidal atrocities in Rwanda??!
Enola Gay
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:47 pm

Re: Russell Brand

Postby Military Junta » Sat Jul 04, 2015 2:58 pm

Enola Gay wrote:
Military Junta wrote:Oil had f**k all to do with the first Iraq war. The left are blinkered with the apparent oil purposes of the second Iraq war and have since stated that purpose for every war since and even before!!! I suppose WW1 and WW2 was over war too in your eyes


Really? I think you're being very naive. You usually polarise opinions but I always respect your posts, as I do in this thread but are you seriously telling me that if Iraq had invaded a Kuwait (and let's remember who originally carved out the the region's national boundaries) that had no resources or strategic value in accessing theses resources, that the West would've lent its might to ousting the Iraqis?
Where were we when the world witnessed the genocidal atrocities in Rwanda??!


The same could be said for many atrocities in the world but for oil to be the key of almost every reason for every war in the Middle East is complete bollox. You don't even mention that the fact that the different Muslim tribes who hate each other so much maybe an issue of why wars in that area start ? Iran/Iraq war have something to do with oil ?
User avatar
Military Junta
 
Posts: 6201
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Russell Brand

Postby Enola Gay » Sat Jul 04, 2015 3:51 pm

We didn't become (directly) involved in that conflict though.
The various tribal/religious factions that exist there were dumped into the various nation states created by us following the Crimean War, Treaty of Versailles, reshaping of Palestine etc.. No wonder there's an uprising every time we oust dictators who effectively kept the lid on insurgency...
By the way, I'm no Russell Brand fan either but I do think he makes a valid point here.
Enola Gay
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:47 pm

Re: Russell Brand

Postby Military Junta » Sat Jul 04, 2015 3:56 pm

I'm Brands way of thinking we supplied weapons to the Syrian Rebels so we done the same to Iraq against Iran. Oil apparantely has everything to do with it so where was in during the Iraq/Iran war ?
User avatar
Military Junta
 
Posts: 6201
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Russell Brand

Postby Military Junta » Sat Jul 04, 2015 3:59 pm

Enola Gay wrote:We didn't become (directly) involved in that conflict though.
The various tribal/religious factions that exist there were dumped into the various nation states created by us following the Crimean War, Treaty of Versailles, reshaping of Palestine etc.. No wonder there's an uprising every time we oust dictators who effectively kept the lid on insurgency...
By the way, I'm no Russell Brand fan either but I do think he makes a valid point here.


We allowed the locals to let the spring raising themselves ffs!!! The left have very blinkered and short memories.we only helped in Libya when Gadaffi publicly stated that we would do atrocities in Bengazi. Now earlier on you mentioned Rewanda yet you would have been prepared to watch on while the people of Bengazi were butchered then I take it
User avatar
Military Junta
 
Posts: 6201
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Russell Brand

Postby alfie sherwood » Sat Jul 04, 2015 4:08 pm

Military Junta wrote:
Enola Gay wrote:
Military Junta wrote:Oil had f**k all to do with the first Iraq war. The left are blinkered with the apparent oil purposes of the second Iraq war and have since stated that purpose for every war since and even before!!! I suppose WW1 and WW2 was over war too in your eyes


Really? I think you're being very naive. You usually polarise opinions but I always respect your posts, as I do in this thread but are you seriously telling me that if Iraq had invaded a Kuwait (and let's remember who originally carved out the the region's national boundaries) that had no resources or strategic value in accessing theses resources, that the West would've lent its might to ousting the Iraqis?
Where were we when the world witnessed the genocidal atrocities in Rwanda??!


The same could be said for many atrocities in the world but for oil to be the key of almost every reason for every war in the Middle East is complete bollox. You don't even mention that the fact that the different Muslim tribes who hate each other so much maybe an issue of why wars in that area start ? Iran/Iraq war have something to do with oil ?


Iran/Iraq war didn't directly involve a western power in military conflict for a start, which is what the whole thrust of the original discussion was about.

Nobody is suggesting that countries within the Middle East aren't perfectly capable of having seriously major disputes between themselves! It's a volatile place with very different regional traditions, especially to our own. The suggestion from many of us is that the west should leave well alone and not get involved (as we seem perfectly capable of doing in plenty of other regions of the world).

Britain, America and France have all tried playing the policeman in that area. Even if we follow your line of thought and accept that our involvement is always for altruistic reasons rather than business ones...it's patently obvious that western involvement is ALWAYS a bad idea in the long run as it is quickly viewed as colonial.

I'd personally rather not see another drop of western blood, either service personnel or civilian, lost because of fuckin crazy foreign policy emanating from Downing Street or The White House. Enough is enough, the international community and Middle East countries themselves more than have the capability to defeat IS. That is where the solution lies.
alfie sherwood
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 6:27 pm

Re: Russell Brand

Postby alfie sherwood » Sat Jul 04, 2015 4:13 pm

Military Junta wrote:
Enola Gay wrote:We didn't become (directly) involved in that conflict though.
The various tribal/religious factions that exist there were dumped into the various nation states created by us following the Crimean War, Treaty of Versailles, reshaping of Palestine etc.. No wonder there's an uprising every time we oust dictators who effectively kept the lid on insurgency...
By the way, I'm no Russell Brand fan either but I do think he makes a valid point here.


We allowed the locals to let the spring raising themselves ffs!!! The left have very blinkered and short memories.we only helped in Libya when Gadaffi publicly stated that we would do atrocities in Bengazi. Now earlier on you mentioned Rewanda yet you would have been prepared to watch on while the people of Bengazi were butchered then I take it


Every western leader would have Gaddafi back in a heartbeat compared to what we have now.
alfie sherwood
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 6:27 pm

Re: Russell Brand

Postby Enola Gay » Sat Jul 04, 2015 6:18 pm

Military Junta wrote:
Enola Gay wrote:We didn't become (directly) involved in that conflict though.
The various tribal/religious factions that exist there were dumped into the various nation states created by us following the Crimean War, Treaty of Versailles, reshaping of Palestine etc.. No wonder there's an uprising every time we oust dictators who effectively kept the lid on insurgency...
By the way, I'm no Russell Brand fan either but I do think he makes a valid point here.


We allowed the locals to let the spring raising themselves ffs!!! The left have very blinkered and short memories.we only helped in Libya when Gadaffi publicly stated that we would do atrocities in Bengazi. Now earlier on you mentioned Rewanda yet you would have been prepared to watch on while the people of Bengazi were butchered then I take it


My point was that the world just sat back and watched what went on in Rwanda because it had no value in terms of resource.
Enola Gay
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:47 pm

Previous


Return to General Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bakedalasker, bluebirdoct1962, Facebook [Bot], Google [Bot], ias [Bot], MikeO76, oohahhPaulMillar, Proximic [Bot], Underhill1927 and 178 guests

Disclaimer :
The views and comments entered in these forums are personal and are not necessarily those of the management of this board.
The management of this board is not responsible for the content of any external internet sites.