Hi Pete,

Perhaps David is right - all he needs to do is tell all those people carrying out wars to stop, it's so destructive and nasty.

Once David has done this, he can explain to governments and would-be rebels, and even Putin, that wars are bad, and that everybody should sign an agreement never to go to war again. Armies could be disbanded, armaments destroyed and everybody could join hands and intone 'I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony'.

You know, Pete, I think it could work :)

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Joe

Yes David G. Cretin is SPECIAL that way.

Cheers

Pete

Yes, Pete, you may criticise, but I would contribute a few dollars to David's going amongst the various fighters, even tomorrow, in, say, Syria, telling them to lay down their weapons and join hands:

* the jihadis could re-consult the Koran and with a bit of luck, realise that there are sections in it that might justify getting on with other people, that the sword is not the be-all an end-all, well not always anyway;

* the various anti-Assad forces would realise that there is much more to be gained by campaigning peacefully against Assad;

* the various persecuted minorities might even forgive their persecutors, after all many of them are Christians who have a long history of forgiving, perhaps a bit longer at any rate than the jihadists'.

While he is at it, he could campaign amongst all those groups for gay rights and gay marriage; that should go down well.

David is, of course, only one person (well, with Jeremy Corbyn, two), albeit one with enormous passion and talents, but he may need some help across the twenty million people still left in Syria, especially if he wants to bring peace and love in, say, the next couple of years. I, for one, wish him good luck.

Joe

Yes you're right Joe

David G. Cretin would do well as jihadi for Peace in sunny Syria or maybe bottle washer for al Qaeda in irascible Iraq.

David G, after all, is a Kumbaya kinda guy https://youtu.be/QKAolQ0yxIo

Yours

Poida

//10,000 years of war have achieved nothing but death and destruction//

And us not speaking Deutsch.

Not that I have anything against Deutsch; I regard it as a more efficient and logical tongue than English. But I prefer to make that decision for myself rather than have had it decided for me by the Krautish high command.

Now for something which will probably make David Gimp's tiny little head explode: I think there is an argument to be made in favour of nuking ISIS. Now, I know nukes have been unpopular since the end of WWII, but they certainly stopped the Japanese in their tracks. As far as I know, ISIS have no nukes so we don't have to worry about retaliation. A few well-placed thermonuclear devices might be the way to go.

Hi Toni,

Well no, I don't think so - and my reasons might make David's head spin even faster - because this war against ISIS has to be taken fairly slowly and carefully.

Why ? Partly, because even if ISIS could be overthrown soon, there is no remotely-democratic force to take its place, and Assad would be in total control. Which means the Russians would have a strong beach-head in Syria, inland from the coast, so also naval bases at Tartus.

The danger of going in like a bull at a gate is that Assad and Russia simply sit back, every so often butcher a few anti-Assad/anti-jihadist forces, while the West does all the heavy lifting. In the meantime, the Western forces have to pull together elements of a vaguely-democratic opposition to Assad, otherwise what is the point, why not just leave ISIS to Assad and the Russians ?

Maybe this is why Obama is moving so slowly: there is no point getting involved unless 'our boys' can build up their numbers and strength, to take on not just ISIS now, but Assad later. In fact, if I were Obama, I would be using any democratic and Kurdish forces very sparingly, using the air forces instead, and leaving it to the Russians, but in a very carefully calibrated way - and of course, to make sure the b@stards don't abuse their positions to get stuck into the anti-Assad and Kurdish forces.

To be honest, I suspect that we don't have a clue how complex this situation is. And using such an immoral weapon as nuclear bombs on ISIS might spike a lot of sympathy for them, and they're already getting plenty of that from the pseudo-Left anti-Gramscians, who think they are using the Jihadists as 'useful idiots' on THEIR way to power. HMMM ..... who are the useful idiots in this Byzantine scenario ?

Cheers,

Joe