I would lock him up in solitary and once a year tie him to the front of the biggest float at the gay pride festival and let them dance in front of him laughing.

"We only intervene when it suits our needs remember. We should keep our noses out."

So you believe that peace will prevail in these countries with no involvement?

comment by Mancblueloz (U6305)




posted 13 minutes ago



I would lock him up in solitary and once a year tie him to the front of the biggest float at the gay pride festival and let them dance in front of him laughing.

............

And feed him some pork.

How about killing him in the name of Allah for the sins he has committed?

That way, all Muslims are happy, he has broken Sharia Law after all, and we are happy, he is dead.

comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Mancblueloz (U6305)




posted 13 minutes ago



I would lock him up in solitary and once a year tie him to the front of the biggest float at the gay pride festival and let them dance in front of him laughing.

............

And feed him some pork.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then drown him in a sea of sémen.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

A pig in a bacon blanket!

"the shi-ites in Iran."

That's no way to speak of the good people of Iran

So you believe that peace will prevail in these countries with no involvement?

Maybe, maybe not. Why do we have to be the world's police anyway? Can't we just provide humanitarian aid, and help with the peace process financially? Nope, they need to have our democracy bombs dropped on them

comment by Galv: DJ Mango Shakes and the Stinky Plates (U10415)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 10 minutes ago
"We only intervene when it suits our needs remember. We should keep our noses out."

So you believe that peace will prevail in these countries with no involvement?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't matter if there's nothing in it for us
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it does, I do think we should intervene in such scenarios.

Unfortunately, (and I know as well as you do) many of these wars aren't started with humanity as the sole driving force.

Sri Lanka is the perfect example, what happened there should not have been allowed and I don't think saying, "leave them to it" is any better than saying "they have oil, lets throw the dictator and take our share whilst we are at it".

Yet you can't see that.

The best way to handle JJ is to capture him and hand him over to Jordan to be executed by them.

That way he is killed by muslims and that might bring about a sense of cathartism in the area.

Galv

comment by Nemanja's Body Count (U17355)
posted 1 minute ago
Galv
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you think dictators ordering the genocidal murder of thousands is something we should just "leave them to"?

And that's any better what the British and American government do?

Pot kettle mate.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

I'm not saying we should just leave them to it, I'm just not in favour of military action.

Bulldozing in as the self-appointed world saviours that we are, 'sorting it out', then claiming their resources as our own, isn't going to endear us to the locals is it?

There's probably a better way, but we won't pursue that when we can make some major £££ doing it the other way

There's probably a better way

..................

Very easy to sit on ones couch and say that.

I am sure your German would be exceptionally fluent, had the rest of the world just sat on their collective anuses and let Hitler run around unchecked.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

I'm not one for stooping to their levels but in thus case, I'd make an exception.

Hunt him down and take him out.

Vidicschin -

Well yeah, I don't have tactical blueprints for intervention in the Middle East, granted, all I'm saying is that there's probably a better way to do everything, that hasn't been explored because our leaders are corrupt, greedy, power-crazed maniacs. Are you really confident that these leaders are taking the right course of action?

As for Hitler, he was motivated by a feeling of injustice left over from the fallout of WWI and the sanctions we imposed (+ his own delusions/prejudices). Not dissimilar to 'Jihadi John' you could say. Which was my original point

comment by Galv: DJ Mango Shakes and the Stinky Plates (U10415)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by Galv: DJ Mango Shakes and the Stinky Plates (U10415)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 10 minutes ago
"We only intervene when it suits our needs remember. We should keep our noses out."

So you believe that peace will prevail in these countries with no involvement?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't matter if there's nothing in it for us
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it does, I do think we should intervene in such scenarios.

Unfortunately, (and I know as well as you do) many of these wars aren't started with humanity as the sole driving force.

Sri Lanka is the perfect example, what happened there should not have been allowed and I don't think saying, "leave them to it" is any better than saying "they have oil, lets throw the dictator and take our share whilst we are at it".

Yet you can't see that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The third option is Help them properly...without stealing anything off them...but you can't see that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So exactly what I said?

Overthrow the dictatorship, and try to help sort out the countries issues.

The problem is, what do we do once the genocidal regimes have been irradiated?

Comment deleted by Site Moderator