• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Lesser of 2 evils?

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Lesser of 2 evils?

    So the UK won't work with Assad...

    BBC News - Hammond: UK won't work with Assad in Islamic State battle

    ... even though the alternative is a bunch of rabid tw@ts who should be wiped from the face of the earth. Talk about backing the wrong horse. Yes Assad (and our old mates Saddam and Gaddaffi) were evil despots, but you get rid of them and you end up with ISIS (especially in the basket case that is the middle east), truly you reap what you sow...

    #2
    What? We're picking neither of those sides. The "Enemy of my enemy" stuff only holds so long - we aren't suddenly going to start backing the Taliban if they declare war on IS are we? (Though, actually, I'm curious now as to where the Taliban stand - on one hand they should agree with much of the theory, but it would probably mean giving up their own control over Afghanistan)

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by kal View Post
      So the UK won't work with Assad...

      BBC News - Hammond: UK won't work with Assad in Islamic State battle

      ... even though the alternative is a bunch of rabid tw@ts who should be wiped from the face of the earth. Talk about backing the wrong horse. Yes Assad (and our old mates Saddam and Gaddaffi) were evil despots, but you get rid of them and you end up with ISIS (especially in the basket case that is the middle east), truly you reap what you sow...
      It would be embarrassing. It might remind people of that time when they questioned whether they really should be supporting and arming rebels that cut their enemies hearts out and eat them

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by vwdan View Post
        What? We're picking neither of those sides. The "Enemy of my enemy" stuff only holds so long - we aren't suddenly going to start backing the Taliban if they declare war on IS are we? (Though, actually, I'm curious now as to where the Taliban stand - on one hand they should agree with much of the theory, but it would probably mean giving up their own control over Afghanistan)
        'we' allied ourselves with the northern alliance in order to combat the taliban. So there's your point disproven right off the bat

        Comment

        Working...
        X