Mirror scary front page

mkpdavies · 03-08-2006, 12:36 AM

That's one scary looking front page.

Independent UKIP · 03-08-2006, 01:06 AM

He's a pretty scary guy with or without the scary photo. I don't know the background to the headline but I & I hope UKIP as a whole will oppose any UK deployment to Lebanon regardless of UN decisions. Simply because UK forces are overstretched already beyond any acceptable level - and dying as a result. If the UK armed forces weren't overstretched I would probably support some small deployment, even in a French led force if I thought it would be valuable for both Lebanon & Israel. Knowing what Blair is like he'll still probably agree to send a few hundred troops - just back from Iraq but far enough in time before they are scheduled to go back to Afghanistan.

kernow · 03-08-2006, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Independent UKIP

I would probably support some small deployment, even in a French led force if I thought it would be valuable for both Lebanon & Israel.

French leading the British! No thank you!

John Carter · 03-08-2006, 02:44 AM

It's not like we* weren't warned.

(* by "we" I mean "you guys who voted for them". I've never voted Labour in my life)

Independent UKIP · 03-08-2006, 02:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kernow

Quote:

Originally Posted by Independent UKIP

I would probably support some small deployment, even in a French led force if I thought it would be valuable for both Lebanon & Israel.

French leading the British! No thank you!

I wrote that because I think the French government have far more regard for protecting all troops under their control than Blair has for protecting any British forces.

jim h · 03-08-2006, 06:54 AM

No way do we want to get involved in any UN force in Lebanon.
a) We dont have the troops
b) If the Force is given authority to take a hard line to stop military attacks by either side then it will rapidly become a target of both
c) If it is put there simply to keep both sides apart then it will rapidly become irrelevant as is the present UN force
d) If any European or Arab nation contributes to the force its motives will be suspect and it will not be trusted.

However the reality is that by the time agreement is reached on what the force can do and who will contribute to it either one side will have been victorious or a temporary stalemate will have been reached. If the latter then hostilities will recommence when both sides are rearmed.

I regret I am a total pessimist about the israeli/palestinian/arab question as I can see it easily outlasting the 100 years war we had with France. It has already been going for 50 years.

John Page · 03-08-2006, 07:13 AM

Hezbollah, Hamas and their Iranian paymasters don't want peace and any ceasefire would be strictly temporary. That's why Hezbollah stoke the conflict by firing their rockets from civilian areas.

(I'm not saying the Israelis are angels by the way, but at least they'd prefer peace to war.)

What's the range of these rockets? That's the size of the buffer zone there would have to be in Lebanon.

I'm afraid it's gesture politics.

John Youles · 03-08-2006, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

That's one scary looking front page.

Reminds me of the evil character in Batman known as "The Joker" !

Aardvark · 03-08-2006, 09:36 AM

jim h - the 'war' has been going on since 1948, the creation of the state of Israel. This makes it 58 years old. If, however, we go back to the Mandate period then they've been killing each other for nearer 80 years!!!!!!! Sometimes one hankers for the days of the Ottoman Empire.

Chip · 03-08-2006, 09:49 AM

We can not afford to fight any more wars. The RAF, The Army & The Navy are underfunded, badly equiped and short staffed. To rectify this the Socialists would have to increase tax even more and they know that is not good publicity. They are not bothered about our troops being killed but they do worry about their image and of course Mr Blair's image.Let the other "Europeans" sort the mess out. They have lots of money to waste.

03-08-2006, 12:36 AM	#1 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 32,070 Party: Libertarian Party	Mirror scary front page That's one scary looking front page. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-08-2006, 01:06 AM	#2 (permalink)
Independent UKIP Uber Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: London Posts: 2,492	He's a pretty scary guy with or without the scary photo. I don't know the background to the headline but I & I hope UKIP as a whole will oppose any UK deployment to Lebanon regardless of UN decisions. Simply because UK forces are overstretched already beyond any acceptable level - and dying as a result. If the UK armed forces weren't overstretched I would probably support some small deployment, even in a French led force if I thought it would be valuable for both Lebanon & Israel. Knowing what Blair is like he'll still probably agree to send a few hundred troops - just back from Iraq but far enough in time before they are scheduled to go back to Afghanistan.

03-08-2006, 02:44 AM	#4 (permalink)
John Carter Uber Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: On Sabbatical Posts: 5,110	It's not like we* weren't warned. (* by "we" I mean "you guys who voted for them". I've never voted Labour in my life)

03-08-2006, 06:54 AM	#6 (permalink)
jim h Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 361	No way do we want to get involved in any UN force in Lebanon. a) We dont have the troops b) If the Force is given authority to take a hard line to stop military attacks by either side then it will rapidly become a target of both c) If it is put there simply to keep both sides apart then it will rapidly become irrelevant as is the present UN force d) If any European or Arab nation contributes to the force its motives will be suspect and it will not be trusted. However the reality is that by the time agreement is reached on what the force can do and who will contribute to it either one side will have been victorious or a temporary stalemate will have been reached. If the latter then hostilities will recommence when both sides are rearmed. I regret I am a total pessimist about the israeli/palestinian/arab question as I can see it easily outlasting the 100 years war we had with France. It has already been going for 50 years.

03-08-2006, 07:13 AM	#7 (permalink)
John Page Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Welwyn Hatfield (Herts.) Posts: 1,878	Hezbollah, Hamas and their Iranian paymasters don't want peace and any ceasefire would be strictly temporary. That's why Hezbollah stoke the conflict by firing their rockets from civilian areas. (I'm not saying the Israelis are angels by the way, but at least they'd prefer peace to war.) What's the range of these rockets? That's the size of the buffer zone there would have to be in Lebanon. I'm afraid it's gesture politics.

03-08-2006, 09:36 AM	#9 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 4,256	jim h - the 'war' has been going on since 1948, the creation of the state of Israel. This makes it 58 years old. If, however, we go back to the Mandate period then they've been killing each other for nearer 80 years!!!!!!! Sometimes one hankers for the days of the Ottoman Empire.

03-08-2006, 09:49 AM	#10 (permalink)
Chip Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: North West UK Posts: 618	We can not afford to fight any more wars. The RAF, The Army & The Navy are underfunded, badly equiped and short staffed. To rectify this the Socialists would have to increase tax even more and they know that is not good publicity. They are not bothered about our troops being killed but they do worry about their image and of course Mr Blair's image.Let the other "Europeans" sort the mess out. They have lots of money to waste.