CallMeBernard

Bush can reasonably be held to account for the failure to stabilise Iraq post-invasion. Obama can be held to account for the final pullout. But neither are entirely to blame- there were other nations, notably the UK, there as well. We didn't have to leave, and am disappointed in the way that we did. As much as Obama's dithering may have failed the Arab Spring, Europe also dithered, waiting for US leadership that never arrived. Yes, the UK and France bombed Gaddafi, but our failure to then support the secular democrats in that country allowed the Muslim fascists into the void. I utterly reject the idea that any Western leader is responsible for ISIS. Evil men should held accountable for the evils that they do, and we should never let party politics ever blind us to that. Bush & Blair's foreign policy, or Obama's and Cameron's lack of one, is no excuse to cut the head off an aid worker.

You're right, I should be more accurate. It is in fact 23 years. In 1992 Netanyahu warned that Iran was 3-5 years away from getting the bomb (deadline passed in 1995 without Iran getting the bomb). In 1995 Netanyaho said once again Iran was 3-5 years away from getting the bomb (deadline passed in 2000 without Iran getting the bomb) In 1996 Netanyaho warned again.... In 2002 Netanyaho claimed Iran was operating centrifuges 'the size of washing machines' In 2012 Netanyaho stood in front of the UN and claimed Iran was 1 year from getting the bomb (deadline passed in 2013 without Iran getting the bomb). And, just to illustrate my point about the difference between what Mossad is saying and Netanyaho's rhetoric- in 2011 an ex-Mossad chief Meir Dagan said that Iran was not likely to get a nuclear bomb in the timeline that Bibi was stating; he has also emerged again in the past few days saying that Netanyaho is more likely to damage international efforts to stop Iran than help them. It wasn't Obama that destabilised the Middle East. It was the fact that Bush/ Blair did not properly think through the implementation of peace after the Iraq war and the filling of the void left by Saddam's goverment (I supported the war, by the way. Just thoroughly disappointed how Bush/ Blair mucked up the peace and seemed to throw away the sacrifices made many of our soldiers). Obama's (and Europe's, afraid to say) dithering over the Arab Spring (does the West help? Does it stand by so that local uprisings aren't seen as US proxies?) has wasted a potential golden moment for the Middle East (and by the way, genuinely democratic nations are much less of a threat to Israel than dictators). The majority view from Europe is not that the US leads, but rather that Israel talks and Republicans follow. It may not be what is happening, but it is how it appears. Which is important, because if the next president is Republican, and he (or she) asks the world to support further sanctions on Iran, people may not listen as they will assume it's just Israel talking. For the US to lead, it must be seen to lead, not to follow. Or to dither, which is how Obama has been seen.

My personal view from over here in the UK (and one shared with quite a few I've spoken to) is one of general bemusement at the whole US political system. US politicians (both sides) do not look good over here in the UK, not just because of this, but also because of a series of events- the habitual threat to shut down goverment, failure to compromise etc etc. Israel's (sorry, Bibi's) constant doom-mongering over Iran's nuclear ambitions have failed to become reality; Iran has been one year from getting a nuclear weopen for something like 20 years now. So when Bibi talks, many here ignore him (Just to clarify- I'm talking about Bibi in particular here, not necessairily the entire Israeli establishment. I'm prepared to bet large amounts of cash that Mossad don't give specifics in their briefings to him, but an intelligent estimate with an error margin. But as a politician, Bibi would rather be dramatic than accurate). So many here are staggered that Republicans would rather believe a foreign head of state than their own President over confidential talks. In the UK we'd wait and see until the deal has been reached and made public for our parliament to ratify (and see for ourselves what has been agreed) rather than listen to a man noted for hyperbole and hysteria. We're also vaguely bemused by why it is that loyalty to a foreign country (often over and above loyalty to the US) is seen as a politically positive thing; anybody here in the UK who is seen as too pro-Eu or too pro-US is shot down; we want our leaders to be pro-UK. And also; in all the military adventures that the US has had (with the exceptions of Vietnam, Panama and Grenada) the UK has been there, fighting and dieing alongside US troops. But I am hard pressed to think of a single conflict where we have fought alongside Israeli troops as well. Even the French have fought alongside the US more times than Israel.

From a British perspective.... 1. Obama's no show hasn't really been commented on. It was a bit impromptu, 'local' (i.e. in the main other European) leaders got there, others didn't. 2. France was the first country to join the US in bombing ISIS in Iraq. Seriously. They got there even before us Brits did, and we like a good war or two. Have absolutely no idea where the whole 'France isn't part of the anti-ISIS coalition' came from. 3. The slandering of Britain by a Fox News 'expert', one Steve Emerson, has got more hackles raised over here. You'd think he would have checked his facts before declaring that Britain's second biggest city is a no-go area to non-Muslims. The city that gave us Black Sabbath and has the largest St Patrick's Day parade in Europe outside of Dublin? Very Islamic, that. Just makes Fox News look stupid using that idiot and failing to question such a ridiculous statement. 4. The people who did go who had no right to be there. Why were the Russians there, given their clampdown on press freedoms? On a personal note, I don't think any politician (with the exception of Hollande, naturally) should have been there. All the nations should have sent their satirists instead. The likes of Bill Maher- who although his personal politics may not be everybody's cup of tea but is someone who has constantly said Islam is evil- and Salman Rushdie and others who face the same threats from Islamic extremists standing together would have been better than a few politicians getting some PR material.

Good shout. And a fault that lies with most of us in some way or another, sadly.

In as much as that RC church has been singing that particular tune for centuries.

Yet again the British Goverment is denying another outrage against the innocent civillians of Iraq. Only this time, it involves man-eating badgers. Link- BBC News "We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." said an Army spokesman. Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?

This is an excellent and well thought out response. ... and right on the mark. I agree with this statment, it is right on the mark. Indeed yes..... right on the mark.

If he is of a philosophical bent, then what about Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling, an exploration of faith and doubt? (Wikipedia Overview Here It's an old one- written in 1843- but Kierkegaard is an author I have time for. Although I have to admit I haven't read this one of his.

I think that's because we're supposed to show an empty cross because Christ has risen. Personally, I don't wear a cross. Neither do I think that christians who wear one are any 'better' thatn those who don't. It's jewellery. If you like it, wear it. If you don't, don't.

I have no problem with Al Gore's green message. But I'm not sure why he organised a pop concert, especially as it does open up all kinds of excuses to have a go at him for being a hypocrite, handily (for Al-baiters & the anti-Green brigade) turning attention away from his message. I'm also not entirely sure what the oncert is meant to achieve. Sure, Live Aid was good. It had a simple idea- big concert= people buy tickets= money raised= feed the poor. But pop concerts to raise awareness doesn't work. The Freddie Mercury concert in 1992 was for Aids awareness, but guess what, people still had unsafe sex. We had Live8 to raise awareness of Africa's debt problems, but guess what, no-one remembers now. In the UK, we had Diana's pop concert last week, but guess what, she's still dead. And now we have this one- but guess what, in aweek's time no one will remember.

France.

Never watched the View, or whatever it's called, being on the wrong side of the Pond, but it seems as though you have the same problem that annoys me here in the UK. Why do the media believe that celebrities, or famous colomnists (from either side of the debate) have opinions worth listening to? I'd much rather here the view of a left/right- wing local councillor from some little town no one has ever heard of, rather than the opinions of some famous media- friendly big mouth. Why? Because the local councillor has to actually put their beliefs into action; their political views are at least tempered by the reality of having to get things done. They have to live or die by what they belive & do: if they get it wrong, they get voted out (hopefully). But the celebrity? They're famous purely because they've got a good singing voice, or were a successful comedian/ actor. Certain colomists are only famous because they know how to right a contraversial article, not because they've successfully managed to put into practice their own political beliefs and, oh I don't know, turn around a failing school into a good one. The issue for me isn't whether people like Goldberg are right-wing or left-wing; it's why on Earth the media insist on telling us that a comdien's political view point is worth listening to.

We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give. If the destination is heaven, why do we scramble to be first in line for hell? If you were arrested for kindness, would there be enough evidence to convict you? Of a slightly more humorous sort: To err is human, to blame the next guy even more so. Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, and a dark side, and it holds the universe together.

War is always a regrettable step, but sometimes it is an unavoidable one. This week has also seen the anniversaries of the Six-Day War and the Falklands Conflict, both of which were also 'defensive' (if I can call them that) wars against territoraly- aggressive military dictators. In the modern world, a certain S. Hussein falls into that catergory (the Iraq-Iran War & Gulf War I). If we do not confont aggressors early enough and hard enough, the eventual end price we pay is far higher than anything we may have considered earlier on.

picture 1 picture 2 If we do not remember, we will be doomed to repeat it again. We cannot allow tyranny, we cannot appease dictators.

Jeremiah- I think it would be interesting to hear his story of trying warn Judah pre-exile, then his time during exile. And Caleb. Don't know why, I just think he'd be a good bloke to have a beer with.

I read an interesting article about terrorist groups about a year or so ago, detailing the expected life story of a a terrorist group. This is as much as I can remember: Terrorist group has a 'justifiable' grievance, and some local support Terrorist group has some early successes and gains popularity/ notoriety Gov't over-reacts and hurts local civilians. Support for terrorists grows. As terrorists grow in numbers, it becomes easier for Gov't to put intelligence operatives in, or to gain intelligence from disaffected members. Gov't starts to get some (minor) success against terrorists. Terrorists panic, and do something stupid Local support for terrorsits wane. More intelligence flows to Gov't Gov't gets bigger successes, and possibly captures/ eliminates some leaders from the terrorists. Terrorists group starts to splinter. Each splinter tries to outdo each other with 'spectaculars' and increasingly hardline stances to show how different they are to the other terrorist groups (think IRA/ INLA) 'Spectaculars' kill more civilians, make the Gov't look like they are losing- but support for the terrorists is actually at an all time low. They can no longer rely on the local population to help/ support them. Terrorist groups start to realise the joys of diplomacy. Ceasefire Happy ever after. Kind of. That's from what I remember. The Northern Irish situation, ETA in Spain and the Algerians all kind of fit this pattern. Note that towards the end the terrorists start to appear to get the upper hand even though they are losing all kinds of local support.

I read an interesting article about terrorist groups about a year or so ago, detailing the expected life story of a a terrorist group. This is as much as I can remember: Terrorist group has a 'justifiable' grievance, and some local support Terrorist group has some early successes and gains popularity/ notoriety Gov't over-reacts and hurts local civilians. Support for terrorists grows. As terrorists grow in numbers, it becomes easier for Gov't to put intelligence operatives in, or to gain intelligence from disaffected members. Gov't starts to get some (minor) success against terrorists. Terrorists panic, and do something stupid Local support for terrorsits wane. More intelligence flows to Gov't Gov't gets bigger successes, and possibly captures/ eliminates some leaders from the terrorists. Terrorists group starts to splinter. Each splinter tries to outdo each other with 'spectaculars' and increasingly hardline stances to show how different they are to the other terrorist groups (think IRA/ INLA) 'Spectaculars' kill more civilians, make the Gov't look like they are losing- but support for the terrorists is actually at an all time low. They can no longer rely on the local population to help/ support them. Terrorist groups start to realise the joys of diplomacy. Ceasefire Happy ever after. Kind of. That's from what I remember. The Northern Irish situation, ETA in Spain and the Algerians all kind of fit this pattern. Note that towards the end the terrorists start to appear to get the upper hand even though they are losing all kinds of local support.

I agree with the above: I also agree, generally speaking, with AK on a national level. Which is why, on a practical level, I vote Conservative at a national level in UK politics & Lib-Dem on a local one.

If the illegal migrant problem is the same in the US as it is here in the UK- and I am aware that it might not be the same- then surely the biggest problem is not the illegal migrants who are working, but rather those who aren't and yet still are somehow claiming gov't benefit & housing?

But also- what else are kids learning in school now they don't need to learn trig functions manually? Is there a gain to offset the loss? I do despare over the lack of basic 'survival' skills, though. I know people that can't cook if you can't warm it up in a micro. I also know someone who moved to London & bought a sat0nav to help him around. Only he has now lost the ability (or failed to ever learn it, I'm not sure which) to read a map and is now too scared about getting lost to ever drive somewhere he doesn't know. This is despite having bought a sat-nav device! Technology, as I believe another poster said, should be a tool- not a crutch.

I agree with much of this post. Being British, I only see the US from the 'outside', as it were, from newsreports, TV and the internet. But nothing I have seen makes me believe that the US is any more sinful than any other nation. Perhaps the one thing I would suggest is that the US, same as here in the UK, is an 'open' society and hence our society's sins are more open as well. As I posted earlier there are many countries & cultures that do things differently and don't necessairily consider sins stuff that we do- e.g. marital rape. Hidden sins are still sins.

Wars have not been fought there because your closest neighbours are a) Canada b) Various Caribbean countries c) Mexico. None of which have the military might to take you on. Or, in the case of Canada, no aggressive tendencies towards you.(Although I believe Mexico did have a crack at it a long time ago). Whereas, say Poland, has had both Germany to the West and Russia to the East. Two militarily strong and aggressive neighbours. If the US had been stuck between those two countries early in your history (say in the 17-1800's) you might have had a different history.

As opposed to the "I really, reallly like you" kind of crime?