The US and the UK haven't had a coherent strategy in the Middle East for decades and have helped create the instability in the region and the rise of extremism. In the interim something needs to be done to protect shipping as it passes through the Strait.
It was inevitable some retaliation was going to take place after the Iranian tanker was seized but it seems that we were underprepared.
Mindless military action with no exit strategy won't further matters.
The US and UK are relatively minor players. Repressive regimes, tribal politics and violently inflexible religions/sects are the primary causes of instability.
Good to see people are so willing to suffer the inevitable terrorist atrocities from sleeper cells in the UK after we start bombing innocent civilians back to the stone age as part of John Bolton's proxy ideological war in the Middle East...
So tell me Benty, when has there ever been a coherent middle eastern strategy and how have the UK caused the rise in extremism in Tehran?
Read a few history books about the Middle East. How did our incursions in Iraq and Libya go? You could write reams of stuff about how we've f***ed up in the Middle East yet people will still ignore it.
The whole 'weapons of mass destruction' guff achieved zilch.
Perhaps we should just bomb the f*** out of Iran, topple the Government and then walk away.
So tell me Benty, when has there ever been a coherent middle eastern strategy and how have the UK caused the rise in extremism in Tehran?
Blah, blah, blah, I refuse to answer the questions, blah, blah, blah, make up some bollocks, blah, blah, bastard western imperialists, blah, blah, ignore the fact people are exiting Iraq in droves because of oppression, blah, blah, blah.
Nice dodge benty, avoided the question like a boss, I suppose it's a step up from your normal sarcastic nonsense.
Not dodging anything so spare me the pathetic insult.
I think our foreign policy in the Middle East has been a disaster - I could write chapter and verse on it. Jack Straw has just written a book on Iran 'The English Job' which I've read excerpts from and as an ex foreign secretary he might have some knowledge of the region. You might not agree with him but he has some interesting things to say.
I'm not clear if the US and UK wants a stable Middle East or what the end game is? Is it simply about our economic self interest?
Does anybody on here think our strategy in the Middle East has been a success?
Nice dodge benty, avoided the question like a boss, I suppose it's a step up from your normal sarcastic nonsense.
Not dodging anything so spare me the pathetic insult.
I think our foreign policy in the Middle East has been a disaster - I could write chapter and verse on it. Jack Straw has just written a book on Iran 'The English Job' which I've read excerpts from and as an ex foreign secretary he might have some knowledge of the region. You might not agree with him but he has some interesting things to say.
I'm not clear if the US and UK wants a stable Middle East or what the end game is? Is it simply about our economic self interest?
Does anybody on here think our strategy in the Middle East has been a success?
It's interesting that you can write 'chapter and verse' yet won't answer Addickted's two questions.
The US and the UK haven't had a coherent strategy in the Middle East for decades and have helped create the instability in the region and the rise of extremism. In the interim something needs to be done to protect shipping as it passes through the Strait.
It was inevitable some retaliation was going to take place after the Iranian tanker was seized but it seems that we were underprepared.
Mindless military action with no exit strategy won't further matters.
The US and UK are relatively minor players. Repressive regimes, tribal politics and violently inflexible religions/sects are the primary causes of instability.
Luckily I deferred a trip to Iran this year but head to Israel instead. This happened when I wanted to visit Syria but thought I’d wait for the scuffles (uprising) to calm down. And now Syria is virtually flattened. I just hope bombs don’t rain down on Iran. And on the point, is there an agreement not to bomb the tourist sites?
Luckily I deferred a trip to Iran this year but head to Israel instead. This happened when I wanted to visit Syria but thought I’d wait for the scuffles (uprising) to calm down. And now Syria is virtually flattened. I just hope bombs don’t rain down on Iraq. And on the point, is there an agreement not to bomb the tourist sites?
Nice dodge benty, avoided the question like a boss, I suppose it's a step up from your normal sarcastic nonsense.
Not dodging anything so spare me the pathetic insult.
I think our foreign policy in the Middle East has been a disaster - I could write chapter and verse on it. Jack Straw has just written a book on Iran 'The English Job' which I've read excerpts from and as an ex foreign secretary he might have some knowledge of the region. You might not agree with him but he has some interesting things to say.
I'm not clear if the US and UK wants a stable Middle East or what the end game is? Is it simply about our economic self interest?
Does anybody on here think our strategy in the Middle East has been a success?
It's interesting that you can write 'chapter and verse' yet won't answer Addickted's two questions.
I think I've made it abundantly clear that I don't think we've had a coherent foreign policy in the Middle East in the recent past that worked in answer to the first question. Bush and Blair seemed to have failed in their policy with incursions within the region.
Destabilising governments without an exit strategy such as Iraq and Libya and supporting Saudi Arabia which has helped fund ISIS has coincided with a growth in extremism in the reguon. As far as I can see Western goverments have to take some responsibility.
Iran and Iraq were at war as recently as 1988 and relations between the two can easily be fuelled rightly or wrongly by Western support or withdrawal of support.
I go back to the point I made about establishing what our goal is?
Nice dodge benty, avoided the question like a boss, I suppose it's a step up from your normal sarcastic nonsense.
Not dodging anything so spare me the pathetic insult.
I think our foreign policy in the Middle East has been a disaster - I could write chapter and verse on it. Jack Straw has just written a book on Iran 'The English Job' which I've read excerpts from and as an ex foreign secretary he might have some knowledge of the region. You might not agree with him but he has some interesting things to say.
I'm not clear if the US and UK wants a stable Middle East or what the end game is? Is it simply about our economic self interest?
Does anybody on here think our strategy in the Middle East has been a success?
It's interesting that you can write 'chapter and verse' yet won't answer Addickted's two questions.
I think I've made it abundantly clear that I don't think we've had a coherent foreign policy in the Middle East in the recent past that worked in answer to the first question. Bush and Blair seemed to have failed in their policy with incursions within the region.
Destabilising governments without an exit strategy such as Iraq and Libya and supporting Saudi Arabia which has helped fund ISIS has coincided with a growth in extremism in the reguon. As far as I can see Western goverments have to take some responsibility.
Iran and Iraq were at war as recently as 1988 and relations between the two can easily be fuelled rightly or wrongly by Western support or withdrawal of support.
I go back to the point I made about establishing what our goal is?
How about in the distant past? The point I believe Addickted was trying to make is that these problems go a lot further back and a lot deeper than our involvement.
Nice dodge benty, avoided the question like a boss, I suppose it's a step up from your normal sarcastic nonsense.
Not dodging anything so spare me the pathetic insult.
I think our foreign policy in the Middle East has been a disaster - I could write chapter and verse on it. Jack Straw has just written a book on Iran 'The English Job' which I've read excerpts from and as an ex foreign secretary he might have some knowledge of the region. You might not agree with him but he has some interesting things to say.
I'm not clear if the US and UK wants a stable Middle East or what the end game is? Is it simply about our economic self interest?
Does anybody on here think our strategy in the Middle East has been a success?
It's interesting that you can write 'chapter and verse' yet won't answer Addickted's two questions.
I think I've made it abundantly clear that I don't think we've had a coherent foreign policy in the Middle East in the recent past that worked in answer to the first question. Bush and Blair seemed to have failed in their policy with incursions within the region.
Destabilising governments without an exit strategy such as Iraq and Libya and supporting Saudi Arabia which has helped fund ISIS has coincided with a growth in extremism in the reguon. As far as I can see Western goverments have to take some responsibility.
Iran and Iraq were at war as recently as 1988 and relations between the two can easily be fuelled rightly or wrongly by Western support or withdrawal of support.
I go back to the point I made about establishing what our goal is?
How about in the distant past? The point I believe Addickted was trying to make is that these problems go a lot further back and a lot deeper than our involvement.
Well, Iraq was a state constructed and established by the British in the aftermath of WW1. The Shah of Iran was put on the throne in 1953 by a coup organised by the British and The Americans.
Nice dodge benty, avoided the question like a boss, I suppose it's a step up from your normal sarcastic nonsense.
Not dodging anything so spare me the pathetic insult.
I think our foreign policy in the Middle East has been a disaster - I could write chapter and verse on it. Jack Straw has just written a book on Iran 'The English Job' which I've read excerpts from and as an ex foreign secretary he might have some knowledge of the region. You might not agree with him but he has some interesting things to say.
I'm not clear if the US and UK wants a stable Middle East or what the end game is? Is it simply about our economic self interest?
Does anybody on here think our strategy in the Middle East has been a success?
It's interesting that you can write 'chapter and verse' yet won't answer Addickted's two questions.
I think I've made it abundantly clear that I don't think we've had a coherent foreign policy in the Middle East in the recent past that worked in answer to the first question. Bush and Blair seemed to have failed in their policy with incursions within the region.
Destabilising governments without an exit strategy such as Iraq and Libya and supporting Saudi Arabia which has helped fund ISIS has coincided with a growth in extremism in the reguon. As far as I can see Western goverments have to take some responsibility.
Iran and Iraq were at war as recently as 1988 and relations between the two can easily be fuelled rightly or wrongly by Western support or withdrawal of support.
I go back to the point I made about establishing what our goal is?
How about in the distant past? The point I believe Addickted was trying to make is that these problems go a lot further back and a lot deeper than our involvement.
Well, Iraq was a state constructed and established by the British in the aftermath of WW1. The Shah of Iran was put on the throne in 1953 by a coup organised by the British and The Americans.
So are we saying that, without any outside influences, the region would be peaceful and harmonious?
Nice dodge benty, avoided the question like a boss, I suppose it's a step up from your normal sarcastic nonsense.
Not dodging anything so spare me the pathetic insult.
I think our foreign policy in the Middle East has been a disaster - I could write chapter and verse on it. Jack Straw has just written a book on Iran 'The English Job' which I've read excerpts from and as an ex foreign secretary he might have some knowledge of the region. You might not agree with him but he has some interesting things to say.
I'm not clear if the US and UK wants a stable Middle East or what the end game is? Is it simply about our economic self interest?
Does anybody on here think our strategy in the Middle East has been a success?
It's interesting that you can write 'chapter and verse' yet won't answer Addickted's two questions.
I think I've made it abundantly clear that I don't think we've had a coherent foreign policy in the Middle East in the recent past that worked in answer to the first question. Bush and Blair seemed to have failed in their policy with incursions within the region.
Destabilising governments without an exit strategy such as Iraq and Libya and supporting Saudi Arabia which has helped fund ISIS has coincided with a growth in extremism in the reguon. As far as I can see Western goverments have to take some responsibility.
Iran and Iraq were at war as recently as 1988 and relations between the two can easily be fuelled rightly or wrongly by Western support or withdrawal of support.
I go back to the point I made about establishing what our goal is?
How about in the distant past? The point I believe Addickted was trying to make is that these problems go a lot further back and a lot deeper than our involvement.
Well, Iraq was a state constructed and established by the British in the aftermath of WW1. The Shah of Iran was put on the throne in 1953 by a coup organised by the British and The Americans.
How stable was the region before that? 1800's? 1700's?
It's all well and good cherry picking certain things in history where we poked our noses in, opening a can of worms, but jesus wept, I don't think they need any encouragement to kill each other down that way, life seems very cheap
Nice dodge benty, avoided the question like a boss, I suppose it's a step up from your normal sarcastic nonsense.
Not dodging anything so spare me the pathetic insult.
I think our foreign policy in the Middle East has been a disaster - I could write chapter and verse on it. Jack Straw has just written a book on Iran 'The English Job' which I've read excerpts from and as an ex foreign secretary he might have some knowledge of the region. You might not agree with him but he has some interesting things to say.
I'm not clear if the US and UK wants a stable Middle East or what the end game is? Is it simply about our economic self interest?
Does anybody on here think our strategy in the Middle East has been a success?
It's interesting that you can write 'chapter and verse' yet won't answer Addickted's two questions.
I think I've made it abundantly clear that I don't think we've had a coherent foreign policy in the Middle East in the recent past that worked in answer to the first question. Bush and Blair seemed to have failed in their policy with incursions within the region.
Destabilising governments without an exit strategy such as Iraq and Libya and supporting Saudi Arabia which has helped fund ISIS has coincided with a growth in extremism in the reguon. As far as I can see Western goverments have to take some responsibility.
Iran and Iraq were at war as recently as 1988 and relations between the two can easily be fuelled rightly or wrongly by Western support or withdrawal of support.
I go back to the point I made about establishing what our goal is?
How about in the distant past? The point I believe Addickted was trying to make is that these problems go a lot further back and a lot deeper than our involvement.
Well, Iraq was a state constructed and established by the British in the aftermath of WW1. The Shah of Iran was put on the throne in 1953 by a coup organised by the British and The Americans.
So are we saying that, without any outside influences, the region would be peaceful and harmonious?
No, I don’t think we can say that with any certainty at all.
However, we can’t say that we haven’t been part of the problem of the outside influences.
Nice dodge benty, avoided the question like a boss, I suppose it's a step up from your normal sarcastic nonsense.
Not dodging anything so spare me the pathetic insult.
I think our foreign policy in the Middle East has been a disaster - I could write chapter and verse on it. Jack Straw has just written a book on Iran 'The English Job' which I've read excerpts from and as an ex foreign secretary he might have some knowledge of the region. You might not agree with him but he has some interesting things to say.
I'm not clear if the US and UK wants a stable Middle East or what the end game is? Is it simply about our economic self interest?
Does anybody on here think our strategy in the Middle East has been a success?
It's interesting that you can write 'chapter and verse' yet won't answer Addickted's two questions.
I think I've made it abundantly clear that I don't think we've had a coherent foreign policy in the Middle East in the recent past that worked in answer to the first question. Bush and Blair seemed to have failed in their policy with incursions within the region.
Destabilising governments without an exit strategy such as Iraq and Libya and supporting Saudi Arabia which has helped fund ISIS has coincided with a growth in extremism in the reguon. As far as I can see Western goverments have to take some responsibility.
Iran and Iraq were at war as recently as 1988 and relations between the two can easily be fuelled rightly or wrongly by Western support or withdrawal of support.
I go back to the point I made about establishing what our goal is?
How about in the distant past? The point I believe Addickted was trying to make is that these problems go a lot further back and a lot deeper than our involvement.
Well, Iraq was a state constructed and established by the British in the aftermath of WW1. The Shah of Iran was put on the throne in 1953 by a coup organised by the British and The Americans.
How stable was the region before that? 1800's? 1700's?
I don’t think anybody took any notice until the world needed oil.
Comments
hopefully BoJo has listened to my voicemail and is going to drop the pain on them
The US and UK are relatively minor players. Repressive regimes, tribal politics and violently inflexible religions/sects are the primary causes of instability.
The whole 'weapons of mass destruction' guff achieved zilch.
Perhaps we should just bomb the f*** out of Iran, topple the Government and then walk away.
I think our foreign policy in the Middle East has been a disaster - I could write chapter and verse on it. Jack Straw has just written a book on Iran 'The English Job' which I've read excerpts from and as an ex foreign secretary he might have some knowledge of the region. You might not agree with him but he has some interesting things to say.
I'm not clear if the US and UK wants a stable Middle East or what the end game is? Is it simply about our economic self interest?
Does anybody on here think our strategy in the Middle East has been a success?
This will end well.
This happened when I wanted to visit Syria but thought I’d wait for the scuffles (uprising) to calm down. And now Syria is virtually flattened. I just hope bombs don’t rain down on Iran. And on the point, is there an agreement not to bomb the tourist sites?
Destabilising governments without an exit strategy such as Iraq and Libya and supporting Saudi Arabia which has helped fund ISIS has coincided with a growth in extremism in the reguon. As far as I can see Western goverments have to take some responsibility.
Iran and Iraq were at war as recently as 1988 and relations between the two can easily be fuelled rightly or wrongly by Western support or withdrawal of support.
I go back to the point I made about establishing what our goal is?
It might be an idea to build a new big pipe line to anywhere that cuts out the Straits of Hormus.
Probably cheaper than a war in the middle east.
I know I've mentioned it before, but Power Wars is also a fantastic book.
Let's not pretend the Trump White House is the first one to be run by blood thirsty maniacs.
However, we can’t say that we haven’t been part of the problem of the outside influences.