Egyptian revolution gathers pace.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

You can't compare the likes of Egypt and Libya to Saudi Arabia in terms of the ability of the regimes to suppress revolt. Gaddafi would be close to toppling once a no-fly zone was introduced, but to shift the Saudi government is a whole different proposition. What is your criticism of Cameron over this exactly? do you really think it is a valid criticism when your idea is to bomb the fuck out of Saudi Arabia?

 

Hague is performing horribly btw; as bad a pick for his role as Osbourne was for Chancellor

Edited March 15, 2011 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[spongebob toonpants 3642]

You can't compare the likes of Egypt and Libya to Saudi Arabia in terms of the ability of the regimes to suppress revolt. Gaddafi would be close to toppling once a no-fly zone was introduced, but to shift the Saudi government is a whole different proposition. What is your criticism of Cameron over this exactly? do you really think it is a valid criticism when your idea is to bomb the fuck out of Saudi Arabia?

 

Hague is performing horribly btw; as bad a pick for his role as Osbourne was for Chancellor

 

To be fair I didn't mean to just bomb Saudi, I meant to bomb the lot of them. My position is at least consistent, whereas Cameron is on the one hand backing pro democracy protestors in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, on the same trip attempting to sell weapons to the dictators of Saudi et al.

 

My criticism is valid, my position is, whilst admittedly non mainstream, at least logically coherent

[LeazesMag 0]

Hmmmm... interesting

 

So 'we' go in 'there' to stop 'them' from coming 'here.'

 

Presumably some soldiers' lives will be lost. Just help me out with the equation here, what's the acceptable ratio of soldier's lives lost to potential immigrants halted. Am curious. Is 1 person's life worth stopping 1000 immigrants coming here? 100 immigrants? 10 immigrants? 1 poppy-burning immigrant? Am not an expert in life:immigration trading, so apologies if I've got the numbers all wrong.

 

Given your issues with the poppy burning, I'm surprised that you would put British soldiers' lives on the line to stop immigrants. Pah, why bother going to the hassle of putting troops on hostile ground, why not just get our troops on the border (pick a border, any border), arm them up real nice, and let them halt the immigrants. Almost like, to you, its more important that a stupid muslim is punished for burning a poppy, than the life lost that the poppy stands for.

 

 

it ?

 

Revolution/counter revolution, uprising/surpression etc etc

 

Arab problem, let them work it out themselves, unless it looks like the fundamentalist crazies are going to win, then we'd have to protect self interest.

 

on the other hand, we can allow the general population to escape to the west instead of being murdered where they will be forever grateful and seek to integrate into our societies...

 

oh, wait

 

You haven't answered my PM from a few weeks ago, when I answered what you asked me.

 

Nobody wants to put our Armed Forces in the front line and be killed. My comment is a consequence of not dealing with the situation and creating a situation whereby people will want to come to Britain to get away from their homeland [but pine for it later] - and Britain it will be in most cases, because we look after "them" at our own expense and detriment.

 

How long exactly do you think that we, can continue to provide shelter and a home for anybody who wants to come here, both economically and culturally, given that increasing numbers are showing an increasing unwillingness to integrate ?

 

Or do you put your faith in the UN ? Or Human nature ? Or are you happy to see Libya continue murdering its own people, maybe even one day shooting dead a policewoman on the streets of London ? Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see Servicemen or security services killed anywhere, but what in YOUR opinion can be done to deal with it, rather than either use hindsight or live in a fools world where you think we can educate these cavemen ?

[LeazesMag 0]

You can't compare the likes of Egypt and Libya to Saudi Arabia in terms of the ability of the regimes to suppress revolt. Gaddafi would be close to toppling once a no-fly zone was introduced, but to shift the Saudi government is a whole different proposition. What is your criticism of Cameron over this exactly? do you really think it is a valid criticism when your idea is to bomb the fuck out of Saudi Arabia?

 

Hague is performing horribly btw; as bad a pick for his role as Osbourne was for Chancellor

 

To be fair I didn't mean to just bomb Saudi, I meant to bomb the lot of them. My position is at least consistent, whereas Cameron is on the one hand backing pro democracy protestors in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, on the same trip attempting to sell weapons to the dictators of Saudi et al.

 

My criticism is valid, my position is, whilst admittedly non mainstream, at least logically coherent

 

I agree that there is no real easy solution. My comments in this thread for the most part have been directed at those who thought that we should have allowed Saddam to continue to rule Iraq, rather than invade "illegally" - I'm curious as to what they therefore think we should do about Gaddafi ?

 

Bombing the fuck out of all of them is an option mind, and if we nuke them from a distance, none of our Serviceman die.

Edited March 16, 2011 by LeazesMag

[Renton 18016]

You can't compare the likes of Egypt and Libya to Saudi Arabia in terms of the ability of the regimes to suppress revolt. Gaddafi would be close to toppling once a no-fly zone was introduced, but to shift the Saudi government is a whole different proposition. What is your criticism of Cameron over this exactly? do you really think it is a valid criticism when your idea is to bomb the fuck out of Saudi Arabia?

 

Hague is performing horribly btw; as bad a pick for his role as Osbourne was for Chancellor

 

To be fair I didn't mean to just bomb Saudi, I meant to bomb the lot of them. My position is at least consistent, whereas Cameron is on the one hand backing pro democracy protestors in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, on the same trip attempting to sell weapons to the dictators of Saudi et al.

 

My criticism is valid, my position is, whilst admittedly non mainstream, at least logically coherent

 

I agree that there is no real easy solution. My comments in this thread for the most part have been directed at those who thought that we should have allowed Saddam to continue to rule Iraq, rather than invade "illegally" - I'm curious as to what they therefore think we should do about Gaddafi ?

 

Bombing the fuck out of all of them is an option mind, and if we nuke them from a distance, none of our Serviceman die.

 

Leazes harking on about long past arguments concerning old regimes, now where have I heard this before again?

 

I take it Leazes that the implication of what you're saying is we should intervene militarily in Libya then? Just to be clear.

[LeazesMag 0]

You can't compare the likes of Egypt and Libya to Saudi Arabia in terms of the ability of the regimes to suppress revolt. Gaddafi would be close to toppling once a no-fly zone was introduced, but to shift the Saudi government is a whole different proposition. What is your criticism of Cameron over this exactly? do you really think it is a valid criticism when your idea is to bomb the fuck out of Saudi Arabia?

 

Hague is performing horribly btw; as bad a pick for his role as Osbourne was for Chancellor

 

To be fair I didn't mean to just bomb Saudi, I meant to bomb the lot of them. My position is at least consistent, whereas Cameron is on the one hand backing pro democracy protestors in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, on the same trip attempting to sell weapons to the dictators of Saudi et al.

 

My criticism is valid, my position is, whilst admittedly non mainstream, at least logically coherent

 

I agree that there is no real easy solution. My comments in this thread for the most part have been directed at those who thought that we should have allowed Saddam to continue to rule Iraq, rather than invade "illegally" - I'm curious as to what they therefore think we should do about Gaddafi ?

 

Bombing the fuck out of all of them is an option mind, and if we nuke them from a distance, none of our Serviceman die.

 

Leazes harking on about long past arguments concerning old regimes, now where have I heard this before again?

 

I take it Leazes that the implication of what you're saying is we should intervene militarily in Libya then? Just to be clear.

 

Put it another way Renton, I don't necessarily mean "we" and don't particularly want to see that, but he isn't going to go quietly like some people who think you can talk or reason with these people. They take it as a sign of weakness . I don't understand why people think doing nothing is an option.

[Renton 18016]

You can't compare the likes of Egypt and Libya to Saudi Arabia in terms of the ability of the regimes to suppress revolt. Gaddafi would be close to toppling once a no-fly zone was introduced, but to shift the Saudi government is a whole different proposition. What is your criticism of Cameron over this exactly? do you really think it is a valid criticism when your idea is to bomb the fuck out of Saudi Arabia?

 

Hague is performing horribly btw; as bad a pick for his role as Osbourne was for Chancellor

 

To be fair I didn't mean to just bomb Saudi, I meant to bomb the lot of them. My position is at least consistent, whereas Cameron is on the one hand backing pro democracy protestors in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, on the same trip attempting to sell weapons to the dictators of Saudi et al.

 

My criticism is valid, my position is, whilst admittedly non mainstream, at least logically coherent

 

I agree that there is no real easy solution. My comments in this thread for the most part have been directed at those who thought that we should have allowed Saddam to continue to rule Iraq, rather than invade "illegally" - I'm curious as to what they therefore think we should do about Gaddafi ?

 

Bombing the fuck out of all of them is an option mind, and if we nuke them from a distance, none of our Serviceman die.

 

Leazes harking on about long past arguments concerning old regimes, now where have I heard this before again?

 

I take it Leazes that the implication of what you're saying is we should intervene militarily in Libya then? Just to be clear.

 

Put it another way Renton, I don't necessarily mean "we" and don't particularly want to see that, but he isn't going to go quietly like some people who think you can talk or reason with these people. They take it as a sign of weakness . I don't understand why people think doing nothing is an option.

 

How about because it doesn't really directly affect us?

 

A no fly zone seems sensible to me along with trade embargoes but I'd be against any ground intervention.

 

What any of this has to do with Iraq though is all in your head and yours alone I suspect. It's very reminescent of your football posts regarding the old board imo, you seem to want to be proved 'right' all the time.

[LeazesMag 0]

You can't compare the likes of Egypt and Libya to Saudi Arabia in terms of the ability of the regimes to suppress revolt. Gaddafi would be close to toppling once a no-fly zone was introduced, but to shift the Saudi government is a whole different proposition. What is your criticism of Cameron over this exactly? do you really think it is a valid criticism when your idea is to bomb the fuck out of Saudi Arabia?

 

Hague is performing horribly btw; as bad a pick for his role as Osbourne was for Chancellor

 

To be fair I didn't mean to just bomb Saudi, I meant to bomb the lot of them. My position is at least consistent, whereas Cameron is on the one hand backing pro democracy protestors in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, on the same trip attempting to sell weapons to the dictators of Saudi et al.

 

My criticism is valid, my position is, whilst admittedly non mainstream, at least logically coherent

 

I agree that there is no real easy solution. My comments in this thread for the most part have been directed at those who thought that we should have allowed Saddam to continue to rule Iraq, rather than invade "illegally" - I'm curious as to what they therefore think we should do about Gaddafi ?

 

Bombing the fuck out of all of them is an option mind, and if we nuke them from a distance, none of our Serviceman die.

 

Leazes harking on about long past arguments concerning old regimes, now where have I heard this before again?

 

I take it Leazes that the implication of what you're saying is we should intervene militarily in Libya then? Just to be clear.

 

Put it another way Renton, I don't necessarily mean "we" and don't particularly want to see that, but he isn't going to go quietly like some people who think you can talk or reason with these people. They take it as a sign of weakness . I don't understand why people think doing nothing is an option.

 

How about because it doesn't really directly affect us?

 

A no fly zone seems sensible to me along with trade embargoes but I'd be against any ground intervention.

 

What any of this has to do with Iraq though is all in your head and yours alone I suspect. It's very reminescent of your football posts regarding the old board imo, you seem to want to be proved 'right' all the time.

 

"Want" to be proved right about the old board and Mike Ashley ? I AM right, and I WAS right, and I KNEW that I was right. Which is why I stuck to my guns. If I had been wrong, I'd have had enough about me to admit it unlike some on here.

 

What happened in Iraq isn't in my head at all, most people said we needed UN approval to go into Iraq and without it had no "right" ie if we hadn't gone in he would still be in power killing his own civilians. So the point is, how long does Gaddafi continue ? In the end, going into Iraq would have been a necessity, the same as going into Libya will happen eventually [but hopefully not although I don't know what will happen to prevent it], despite the protests of the idealists who think you can have a cup of tea with people like this and explain to them how naughty they are being.

 

Edit...and....if Saddam HAD continued to remain in power in Iraq, its a racing certainty that he would have acquired WMD's and/or chemical weapons too, having used them before on his own people, you'd be mad to think he wouldn't do the same again given time. Prevention is the name of the game........

Edited March 16, 2011 by LeazesMag

[Happy Face 29]

if we hadn't gone in he would still be in power killing his own civilians.

 

Has the number of civilian deaths dropped since Saddam was deposed?

[Renton 18016]

You can't compare the likes of Egypt and Libya to Saudi Arabia in terms of the ability of the regimes to suppress revolt. Gaddafi would be close to toppling once a no-fly zone was introduced, but to shift the Saudi government is a whole different proposition. What is your criticism of Cameron over this exactly? do you really think it is a valid criticism when your idea is to bomb the fuck out of Saudi Arabia?

 

Hague is performing horribly btw; as bad a pick for his role as Osbourne was for Chancellor

 

To be fair I didn't mean to just bomb Saudi, I meant to bomb the lot of them. My position is at least consistent, whereas Cameron is on the one hand backing pro democracy protestors in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, on the same trip attempting to sell weapons to the dictators of Saudi et al.

 

My criticism is valid, my position is, whilst admittedly non mainstream, at least logically coherent

 

I agree that there is no real easy solution. My comments in this thread for the most part have been directed at those who thought that we should have allowed Saddam to continue to rule Iraq, rather than invade "illegally" - I'm curious as to what they therefore think we should do about Gaddafi ?

 

Bombing the fuck out of all of them is an option mind, and if we nuke them from a distance, none of our Serviceman die.

 

Leazes harking on about long past arguments concerning old regimes, now where have I heard this before again?

 

I take it Leazes that the implication of what you're saying is we should intervene militarily in Libya then? Just to be clear.

 

Put it another way Renton, I don't necessarily mean "we" and don't particularly want to see that, but he isn't going to go quietly like some people who think you can talk or reason with these people. They take it as a sign of weakness . I don't understand why people think doing nothing is an option.

 

How about because it doesn't really directly affect us?

 

A no fly zone seems sensible to me along with trade embargoes but I'd be against any ground intervention.

 

What any of this has to do with Iraq though is all in your head and yours alone I suspect. It's very reminescent of your football posts regarding the old board imo, you seem to want to be proved 'right' all the time.

 

"Want" to be proved right about the old board and Mike Ashley ? I AM right, and I WAS right, and I KNEW that I was right. Which is why I stuck to my guns. If I had been wrong, I'd have had enough about me to admit it unlike some on here.

 

What happened in Iraq isn't in my head at all, most people said we needed UN approval to go into Iraq and without it had no "right" ie if we hadn't gone in he would still be in power killing his own civilians. So the point is, how long does Gaddafi continue ? In the end, going into Iraq would have been a necessity, the same as going into Libya will happen eventually [but hopefully not although I don't know what will happen to prevent it], despite the protests of the idealists who think you can have a cup of tea with people like this and explain to them how naughty they are being.

 

Lines like this are why it's pointless having a serious discussion with you. Your ridiculous stereotyping and infantile name calling I mean.

 

Iraq has cost us trillions of dollars and countless lives, and it's a massive moot point if the war was justified or not. Personally I think the answer with foresight sight and in retrospect is absolutely it wasn't and I suspect most people actually see it that way (with the benefit of hindsight - no WMDs etc - anyway). I know we'll never agree about this so let's leave it there. Libya is of course a completely different situation. If you advocate military intervention here, do you also advocate it in Bahrain? Or how about Saudi if there was an uprising there? Why did we stay out of Rwnada and half a dozen other African nations who are in civil war? What's your criteria for military intervention?

[LeazesMag 0]

if we hadn't gone in he would still be in power killing his own civilians.

 

Has the number of civilian deaths dropped since Saddam was deposed?

 

I don't know, what would have happened if he hadn't been deposed. Don't you think the world is a better place for him being deposed ? Do you think it would be a better place if Gaddafi was deposed, what will it take for you to think otherwise or the pathetic UN to sanction action ? Will he have to attack Israel , how many lives will be lost there if that happens ? Do you want more jets blown up ? Do you want his embassy staff shooting more civilians ?

[LeazesMag 0]

You can't compare the likes of Egypt and Libya to Saudi Arabia in terms of the ability of the regimes to suppress revolt. Gaddafi would be close to toppling once a no-fly zone was introduced, but to shift the Saudi government is a whole different proposition. What is your criticism of Cameron over this exactly? do you really think it is a valid criticism when your idea is to bomb the fuck out of Saudi Arabia?

 

Hague is performing horribly btw; as bad a pick for his role as Osbourne was for Chancellor

 

To be fair I didn't mean to just bomb Saudi, I meant to bomb the lot of them. My position is at least consistent, whereas Cameron is on the one hand backing pro democracy protestors in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, on the same trip attempting to sell weapons to the dictators of Saudi et al.

 

My criticism is valid, my position is, whilst admittedly non mainstream, at least logically coherent

 

I agree that there is no real easy solution. My comments in this thread for the most part have been directed at those who thought that we should have allowed Saddam to continue to rule Iraq, rather than invade "illegally" - I'm curious as to what they therefore think we should do about Gaddafi ?

 

Bombing the fuck out of all of them is an option mind, and if we nuke them from a distance, none of our Serviceman die.

 

Leazes harking on about long past arguments concerning old regimes, now where have I heard this before again?

 

I take it Leazes that the implication of what you're saying is we should intervene militarily in Libya then? Just to be clear.

 

Put it another way Renton, I don't necessarily mean "we" and don't particularly want to see that, but he isn't going to go quietly like some people who think you can talk or reason with these people. They take it as a sign of weakness . I don't understand why people think doing nothing is an option.

 

How about because it doesn't really directly affect us?

 

A no fly zone seems sensible to me along with trade embargoes but I'd be against any ground intervention.

 

What any of this has to do with Iraq though is all in your head and yours alone I suspect. It's very reminescent of your football posts regarding the old board imo, you seem to want to be proved 'right' all the time.

 

"Want" to be proved right about the old board and Mike Ashley ? I AM right, and I WAS right, and I KNEW that I was right. Which is why I stuck to my guns. If I had been wrong, I'd have had enough about me to admit it unlike some on here.

 

What happened in Iraq isn't in my head at all, most people said we needed UN approval to go into Iraq and without it had no "right" ie if we hadn't gone in he would still be in power killing his own civilians. So the point is, how long does Gaddafi continue ? In the end, going into Iraq would have been a necessity, the same as going into Libya will happen eventually [but hopefully not although I don't know what will happen to prevent it], despite the protests of the idealists who think you can have a cup of tea with people like this and explain to them how naughty they are being.

 

Lines like this are why it's pointless having a serious discussion with you. Your ridiculous stereotyping and infantile name calling I mean.

 

 

I stopped there at your pathetic irony. Look at your previous post.

[NJS 3993]

if we hadn't gone in he would still be in power killing his own civilians.

 

Has the number of civilian deaths dropped since Saddam was deposed?

 

I don't know, what would have happened if he hadn't been deposed. Don't you think the world is a better place for him being deposed ? Do you think it would be a better place if Gaddafi was deposed, what will it take for you to think otherwise or the pathetic UN to sanction action ? Will he have to attack Israel , how many lives will be lost there if that happens ? Do you want more jets blown up ? Do you want his embassy staff shooting more civilians ?

 

Why don't you stop pretending for one second that you give a fuck about any deaths of Muslims anywhere?

[Guest alex]

Got very little to do with what's right and wrong imo. In terms of whether we take any action, that is. It's all about self interest, which I don't have a particular problem with, rather it's the rank hypocrisy at play which I can't stand.

[Renton 18016]

You can't compare the likes of Egypt and Libya to Saudi Arabia in terms of the ability of the regimes to suppress revolt. Gaddafi would be close to toppling once a no-fly zone was introduced, but to shift the Saudi government is a whole different proposition. What is your criticism of Cameron over this exactly? do you really think it is a valid criticism when your idea is to bomb the fuck out of Saudi Arabia?

 

Hague is performing horribly btw; as bad a pick for his role as Osbourne was for Chancellor

 

To be fair I didn't mean to just bomb Saudi, I meant to bomb the lot of them. My position is at least consistent, whereas Cameron is on the one hand backing pro democracy protestors in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, on the same trip attempting to sell weapons to the dictators of Saudi et al.

 

My criticism is valid, my position is, whilst admittedly non mainstream, at least logically coherent

 

I agree that there is no real easy solution. My comments in this thread for the most part have been directed at those who thought that we should have allowed Saddam to continue to rule Iraq, rather than invade "illegally" - I'm curious as to what they therefore think we should do about Gaddafi ?

 

Bombing the fuck out of all of them is an option mind, and if we nuke them from a distance, none of our Serviceman die.

 

Leazes harking on about long past arguments concerning old regimes, now where have I heard this before again?

 

I take it Leazes that the implication of what you're saying is we should intervene militarily in Libya then? Just to be clear.

 

Put it another way Renton, I don't necessarily mean "we" and don't particularly want to see that, but he isn't going to go quietly like some people who think you can talk or reason with these people. They take it as a sign of weakness . I don't understand why people think doing nothing is an option.

 

How about because it doesn't really directly affect us?

 

A no fly zone seems sensible to me along with trade embargoes but I'd be against any ground intervention.

 

What any of this has to do with Iraq though is all in your head and yours alone I suspect. It's very reminescent of your football posts regarding the old board imo, you seem to want to be proved 'right' all the time.

 

"Want" to be proved right about the old board and Mike Ashley ? I AM right, and I WAS right, and I KNEW that I was right. Which is why I stuck to my guns. If I had been wrong, I'd have had enough about me to admit it unlike some on here.

 

What happened in Iraq isn't in my head at all, most people said we needed UN approval to go into Iraq and without it had no "right" ie if we hadn't gone in he would still be in power killing his own civilians. So the point is, how long does Gaddafi continue ? In the end, going into Iraq would have been a necessity, the same as going into Libya will happen eventually [but hopefully not although I don't know what will happen to prevent it], despite the protests of the idealists who think you can have a cup of tea with people like this and explain to them how naughty they are being.

 

Lines like this are why it's pointless having a serious discussion with you. Your ridiculous stereotyping and infantile name calling I mean.

 

 

I stopped there at your pathetic irony. Look at your previous post.

 

What irony? Where have I stereotyped people who have a different viewpoint to me? You do it all the time, I generally don't. I don't think what I said was name calling either, just my honest opinion of you based on years of observation.

 

Still, if this means I can avoid another futile argument I'm quite relieved.

[Happy Face 29]

if we hadn't gone in he would still be in power killing his own civilians.

 

Has the number of civilian deaths dropped since Saddam was deposed?

 

I don't know,

 

It hasn't. It's gone up a great deal...

 

Civilian deaths have gone up a reported 50% on pre-invasion numbers. In Falluja 150% over pre-invasion rates.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_survey..._War_casualties

 

what would have happened if he hadn't been deposed. Don't you think the world is a better place for him being deposed ?

 

I'll not try to imagine an alternative reality, but the realituy is that Iraq is in a worse situation now than it was before....our forces (and those of the US) are in a worse situation...as are our finances.

 

The fact Saddam was a bad man and is best brought to justice needs to be weighed against that overall cost. By all accounts that Stalin fella wasn't very nice...but we didn't try to topple him when he posed us no danger and it wasn't in our interests.....Churchill had a cup of tea with him.

 

Do you think it would be a better place if Gaddafi was deposed, what will it take for you to think otherwise or the pathetic UN to sanction action ? Will he have to attack Israel , how many lives will be lost there if that happens ? Do you want more jets blown up ? Do you want his embassy staff shooting more civilians ?

 

I'd love to see the libyan uprising succeed and would facillitate that in whatever way we can without breaking international law ourselves.

[snakehips 0]

I wonder how many UK workers who were in Libya will get their jobs back, once Gaddafi Duck is in full charge of his country again, following our support of the rebs.

[LeazesMag 0]

You can't compare the likes of Egypt and Libya to Saudi Arabia in terms of the ability of the regimes to suppress revolt. Gaddafi would be close to toppling once a no-fly zone was introduced, but to shift the Saudi government is a whole different proposition. What is your criticism of Cameron over this exactly? do you really think it is a valid criticism when your idea is to bomb the fuck out of Saudi Arabia?

 

Hague is performing horribly btw; as bad a pick for his role as Osbourne was for Chancellor

 

To be fair I didn't mean to just bomb Saudi, I meant to bomb the lot of them. My position is at least consistent, whereas Cameron is on the one hand backing pro democracy protestors in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, on the same trip attempting to sell weapons to the dictators of Saudi et al.

 

My criticism is valid, my position is, whilst admittedly non mainstream, at least logically coherent

 

I agree that there is no real easy solution. My comments in this thread for the most part have been directed at those who thought that we should have allowed Saddam to continue to rule Iraq, rather than invade "illegally" - I'm curious as to what they therefore think we should do about Gaddafi ?

 

Bombing the fuck out of all of them is an option mind, and if we nuke them from a distance, none of our Serviceman die.

 

Leazes harking on about long past arguments concerning old regimes, now where have I heard this before again?

 

I take it Leazes that the implication of what you're saying is we should intervene militarily in Libya then? Just to be clear.

 

Put it another way Renton, I don't necessarily mean "we" and don't particularly want to see that, but he isn't going to go quietly like some people who think you can talk or reason with these people. They take it as a sign of weakness . I don't understand why people think doing nothing is an option.

 

How about because it doesn't really directly affect us?

 

A no fly zone seems sensible to me along with trade embargoes but I'd be against any ground intervention.

 

What any of this has to do with Iraq though is all in your head and yours alone I suspect. It's very reminescent of your football posts regarding the old board imo, you seem to want to be proved 'right' all the time.

 

"Want" to be proved right about the old board and Mike Ashley ? I AM right, and I WAS right, and I KNEW that I was right. Which is why I stuck to my guns. If I had been wrong, I'd have had enough about me to admit it unlike some on here.

 

What happened in Iraq isn't in my head at all, most people said we needed UN approval to go into Iraq and without it had no "right" ie if we hadn't gone in he would still be in power killing his own civilians. So the point is, how long does Gaddafi continue ? In the end, going into Iraq would have been a necessity, the same as going into Libya will happen eventually [but hopefully not although I don't know what will happen to prevent it], despite the protests of the idealists who think you can have a cup of tea with people like this and explain to them how naughty they are being.

 

Lines like this are why it's pointless having a serious discussion with you. Your ridiculous stereotyping and infantile name calling I mean.

 

 

I stopped there at your pathetic irony. Look at your previous post.

 

What irony? Where have I stereotyped people who have a different viewpoint to me? You do it all the time, I generally don't. I don't think what I said was name calling either, just my honest opinion of you based on years of observation.

 

Still, if this means I can avoid another futile argument I'm quite relieved.

 

you're quite right, you can't have a debate with people who resort to stereotyping and infantile name calling. Look at it again. If you like.

[Renton 18016]

You can't compare the likes of Egypt and Libya to Saudi Arabia in terms of the ability of the regimes to suppress revolt. Gaddafi would be close to toppling once a no-fly zone was introduced, but to shift the Saudi government is a whole different proposition. What is your criticism of Cameron over this exactly? do you really think it is a valid criticism when your idea is to bomb the fuck out of Saudi Arabia?

 

Hague is performing horribly btw; as bad a pick for his role as Osbourne was for Chancellor

 

To be fair I didn't mean to just bomb Saudi, I meant to bomb the lot of them. My position is at least consistent, whereas Cameron is on the one hand backing pro democracy protestors in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, on the same trip attempting to sell weapons to the dictators of Saudi et al.

 

My criticism is valid, my position is, whilst admittedly non mainstream, at least logically coherent

 

I agree that there is no real easy solution. My comments in this thread for the most part have been directed at those who thought that we should have allowed Saddam to continue to rule Iraq, rather than invade "illegally" - I'm curious as to what they therefore think we should do about Gaddafi ?

 

Bombing the fuck out of all of them is an option mind, and if we nuke them from a distance, none of our Serviceman die.

 

Leazes harking on about long past arguments concerning old regimes, now where have I heard this before again?

 

I take it Leazes that the implication of what you're saying is we should intervene militarily in Libya then? Just to be clear.

 

Put it another way Renton, I don't necessarily mean "we" and don't particularly want to see that, but he isn't going to go quietly like some people who think you can talk or reason with these people. They take it as a sign of weakness . I don't understand why people think doing nothing is an option.

 

How about because it doesn't really directly affect us?

 

A no fly zone seems sensible to me along with trade embargoes but I'd be against any ground intervention.

 

What any of this has to do with Iraq though is all in your head and yours alone I suspect. It's very reminescent of your football posts regarding the old board imo, you seem to want to be proved 'right' all the time.

 

"Want" to be proved right about the old board and Mike Ashley ? I AM right, and I WAS right, and I KNEW that I was right. Which is why I stuck to my guns. If I had been wrong, I'd have had enough about me to admit it unlike some on here.

 

What happened in Iraq isn't in my head at all, most people said we needed UN approval to go into Iraq and without it had no "right" ie if we hadn't gone in he would still be in power killing his own civilians. So the point is, how long does Gaddafi continue ? In the end, going into Iraq would have been a necessity, the same as going into Libya will happen eventually [but hopefully not although I don't know what will happen to prevent it], despite the protests of the idealists who think you can have a cup of tea with people like this and explain to them how naughty they are being.

 

Lines like this are why it's pointless having a serious discussion with you. Your ridiculous stereotyping and infantile name calling I mean.

 

 

I stopped there at your pathetic irony. Look at your previous post.

 

What irony? Where have I stereotyped people who have a different viewpoint to me? You do it all the time, I generally don't. I don't think what I said was name calling either, just my honest opinion of you based on years of observation.

 

Still, if this means I can avoid another futile argument I'm quite relieved.

 

you're quite right, you can't have a debate with people who resort to stereotyping and infantile name calling. Look at it again. If you like.

 

I have, and can't see how I have done this. You're going to have to highlight it for me.

[LeazesMag 0]

You can't compare the likes of Egypt and Libya to Saudi Arabia in terms of the ability of the regimes to suppress revolt. Gaddafi would be close to toppling once a no-fly zone was introduced, but to shift the Saudi government is a whole different proposition. What is your criticism of Cameron over this exactly? do you really think it is a valid criticism when your idea is to bomb the fuck out of Saudi Arabia?

 

Hague is performing horribly btw; as bad a pick for his role as Osbourne was for Chancellor

 

To be fair I didn't mean to just bomb Saudi, I meant to bomb the lot of them. My position is at least consistent, whereas Cameron is on the one hand backing pro democracy protestors in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, on the same trip attempting to sell weapons to the dictators of Saudi et al.

 

My criticism is valid, my position is, whilst admittedly non mainstream, at least logically coherent

 

I agree that there is no real easy solution. My comments in this thread for the most part have been directed at those who thought that we should have allowed Saddam to continue to rule Iraq, rather than invade "illegally" - I'm curious as to what they therefore think we should do about Gaddafi ?

 

Bombing the fuck out of all of them is an option mind, and if we nuke them from a distance, none of our Serviceman die.

 

Leazes harking on about long past arguments concerning old regimes, now where have I heard this before again?

 

I take it Leazes that the implication of what you're saying is we should intervene militarily in Libya then? Just to be clear.

 

Put it another way Renton, I don't necessarily mean "we" and don't particularly want to see that, but he isn't going to go quietly like some people who think you can talk or reason with these people. They take it as a sign of weakness . I don't understand why people think doing nothing is an option.

 

How about because it doesn't really directly affect us?

 

A no fly zone seems sensible to me along with trade embargoes but I'd be against any ground intervention.

 

What any of this has to do with Iraq though is all in your head and yours alone I suspect. It's very reminescent of your football posts regarding the old board imo, you seem to want to be proved 'right' all the time.

 

"Want" to be proved right about the old board and Mike Ashley ? I AM right, and I WAS right, and I KNEW that I was right. Which is why I stuck to my guns. If I had been wrong, I'd have had enough about me to admit it unlike some on here.

 

What happened in Iraq isn't in my head at all, most people said we needed UN approval to go into Iraq and without it had no "right" ie if we hadn't gone in he would still be in power killing his own civilians. So the point is, how long does Gaddafi continue ? In the end, going into Iraq would have been a necessity, the same as going into Libya will happen eventually [but hopefully not although I don't know what will happen to prevent it], despite the protests of the idealists who think you can have a cup of tea with people like this and explain to them how naughty they are being.

 

Lines like this are why it's pointless having a serious discussion with you. Your ridiculous stereotyping and infantile name calling I mean.

 

 

I stopped there at your pathetic irony. Look at your previous post.

 

What irony? Where have I stereotyped people who have a different viewpoint to me? You do it all the time, I generally don't. I don't think what I said was name calling either, just my honest opinion of you based on years of observation.

 

Still, if this means I can avoid another futile argument I'm quite relieved.

 

you're quite right, you can't have a debate with people who resort to stereotyping and infantile name calling. Look at it again. If you like.

 

I have, and can't see how I have done this. You're going to have to highlight it for me.

 

learn to read.

[Renton 18016]

You can't compare the likes of Egypt and Libya to Saudi Arabia in terms of the ability of the regimes to suppress revolt. Gaddafi would be close to toppling once a no-fly zone was introduced, but to shift the Saudi government is a whole different proposition. What is your criticism of Cameron over this exactly? do you really think it is a valid criticism when your idea is to bomb the fuck out of Saudi Arabia?

 

Hague is performing horribly btw; as bad a pick for his role as Osbourne was for Chancellor

 

To be fair I didn't mean to just bomb Saudi, I meant to bomb the lot of them. My position is at least consistent, whereas Cameron is on the one hand backing pro democracy protestors in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, on the same trip attempting to sell weapons to the dictators of Saudi et al.

 

My criticism is valid, my position is, whilst admittedly non mainstream, at least logically coherent

 

I agree that there is no real easy solution. My comments in this thread for the most part have been directed at those who thought that we should have allowed Saddam to continue to rule Iraq, rather than invade "illegally" - I'm curious as to what they therefore think we should do about Gaddafi ?

 

Bombing the fuck out of all of them is an option mind, and if we nuke them from a distance, none of our Serviceman die.

 

Leazes harking on about long past arguments concerning old regimes, now where have I heard this before again?

 

I take it Leazes that the implication of what you're saying is we should intervene militarily in Libya then? Just to be clear.

 

Put it another way Renton, I don't necessarily mean "we" and don't particularly want to see that, but he isn't going to go quietly like some people who think you can talk or reason with these people. They take it as a sign of weakness . I don't understand why people think doing nothing is an option.

 

How about because it doesn't really directly affect us?

 

A no fly zone seems sensible to me along with trade embargoes but I'd be against any ground intervention.

 

What any of this has to do with Iraq though is all in your head and yours alone I suspect. It's very reminescent of your football posts regarding the old board imo, you seem to want to be proved 'right' all the time.

 

"Want" to be proved right about the old board and Mike Ashley ? I AM right, and I WAS right, and I KNEW that I was right. Which is why I stuck to my guns. If I had been wrong, I'd have had enough about me to admit it unlike some on here.

 

What happened in Iraq isn't in my head at all, most people said we needed UN approval to go into Iraq and without it had no "right" ie if we hadn't gone in he would still be in power killing his own civilians. So the point is, how long does Gaddafi continue ? In the end, going into Iraq would have been a necessity, the same as going into Libya will happen eventually [but hopefully not although I don't know what will happen to prevent it], despite the protests of the idealists who think you can have a cup of tea with people like this and explain to them how naughty they are being.

 

Lines like this are why it's pointless having a serious discussion with you. Your ridiculous stereotyping and infantile name calling I mean.

 

 

I stopped there at your pathetic irony. Look at your previous post.

 

What irony? Where have I stereotyped people who have a different viewpoint to me? You do it all the time, I generally don't. I don't think what I said was name calling either, just my honest opinion of you based on years of observation.

 

Still, if this means I can avoid another futile argument I'm quite relieved.

 

you're quite right, you can't have a debate with people who resort to stereotyping and infantile name calling. Look at it again. If you like.

 

I have, and can't see how I have done this. You're going to have to highlight it for me.

 

learn to read.

 

Learn to comprehend.

[LeazesMag 0]

You can't compare the likes of Egypt and Libya to Saudi Arabia in terms of the ability of the regimes to suppress revolt. Gaddafi would be close to toppling once a no-fly zone was introduced, but to shift the Saudi government is a whole different proposition. What is your criticism of Cameron over this exactly? do you really think it is a valid criticism when your idea is to bomb the fuck out of Saudi Arabia?

 

Hague is performing horribly btw; as bad a pick for his role as Osbourne was for Chancellor

 

To be fair I didn't mean to just bomb Saudi, I meant to bomb the lot of them. My position is at least consistent, whereas Cameron is on the one hand backing pro democracy protestors in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, on the same trip attempting to sell weapons to the dictators of Saudi et al.

 

My criticism is valid, my position is, whilst admittedly non mainstream, at least logically coherent

 

I agree that there is no real easy solution. My comments in this thread for the most part have been directed at those who thought that we should have allowed Saddam to continue to rule Iraq, rather than invade "illegally" - I'm curious as to what they therefore think we should do about Gaddafi ?

 

Bombing the fuck out of all of them is an option mind, and if we nuke them from a distance, none of our Serviceman die.

 

Leazes harking on about long past arguments concerning old regimes, now where have I heard this before again?

 

I take it Leazes that the implication of what you're saying is we should intervene militarily in Libya then? Just to be clear.

 

Put it another way Renton, I don't necessarily mean "we" and don't particularly want to see that, but he isn't going to go quietly like some people who think you can talk or reason with these people. They take it as a sign of weakness . I don't understand why people think doing nothing is an option.

 

How about because it doesn't really directly affect us?

 

A no fly zone seems sensible to me along with trade embargoes but I'd be against any ground intervention.

 

What any of this has to do with Iraq though is all in your head and yours alone I suspect. It's very reminescent of your football posts regarding the old board imo, you seem to want to be proved 'right' all the time.

 

"Want" to be proved right about the old board and Mike Ashley ? I AM right, and I WAS right, and I KNEW that I was right. Which is why I stuck to my guns. If I had been wrong, I'd have had enough about me to admit it unlike some on here.

 

What happened in Iraq isn't in my head at all, most people said we needed UN approval to go into Iraq and without it had no "right" ie if we hadn't gone in he would still be in power killing his own civilians. So the point is, how long does Gaddafi continue ? In the end, going into Iraq would have been a necessity, the same as going into Libya will happen eventually [but hopefully not although I don't know what will happen to prevent it], despite the protests of the idealists who think you can have a cup of tea with people like this and explain to them how naughty they are being.

 

Lines like this are why it's pointless having a serious discussion with you. Your ridiculous stereotyping and infantile name calling I mean.

 

 

I stopped there at your pathetic irony. Look at your previous post.

 

What irony? Where have I stereotyped people who have a different viewpoint to me? You do it all the time, I generally don't. I don't think what I said was name calling either, just my honest opinion of you based on years of observation.

 

Still, if this means I can avoid another futile argument I'm quite relieved.

 

you're quite right, you can't have a debate with people who resort to stereotyping and infantile name calling. Look at it again. If you like.

 

I have, and can't see how I have done this. You're going to have to highlight it for me.

 

learn to read.

 

Learn to comprehend.

 

of course Renton, nobody comprehends like you do, you're never infantile, and you're never hypocritical......

 

Don't bother commenting. You're probably spouting bollocks anyway.

[ChezGiven 0]

Leazes reminds me of General Cheeseburger from the Kenny Everett show.

 

"Round them up in a field... and bomb the bastards!!"

 

[trophyshy 6441]

Leazes reminds me of General Cheeseburger from the Kenny Everett show.

 

"Round them up in a field... and bomb the bastards!!"

 

 

 

Used to love him.

 

A bit un-pc these days like.

 

[Dr Gloom 20115]

Whether it's general chat or the newcastle board, leasezmag is by far the most tedious poster on here. He contributes absolutely nothing of interest other than his tired old attempts at point scoring and proving he was right. Comes across like a lonely, bitter and hateful old man.