Iraq - where is the rest of the Muslim world now?

Like I said - ignorant. State and private for balance.

http://www.rcn.org.uk/development/practice/nutrition/key_challenges

http://www.bupacouk.nft.bupa.co.uk/.../mb-healthy-living/mb-nutrition/stay-hydrated

http://www.nutrition.org.uk/attachments/448_Lee Hooper dehydration.pdf

 

Such religious conflicts have been going on for thousands of years, capitalism has got a lot to answer for.

 

And where did I say that I was wanting to make a strong case against capitalism? I wanted to point out to you that inequality is a contributor and that unrestricted capitalism has encouraged vast inequality.

You seem to have just argued whatever point you felt like arguing regardless of what I had written.

 

Well we certainly don't have "unrestricted capitalism" in this country.

 

The thrust of these is either analysis of people in care homes, or people who have been admitted to care homes. If someone is in a care home and isn't getting enough water it isn't that they aren't thirsty it is because of incompetence by care home staff. If someone at home physcally can't make their own drink then it is the responsibility of the carer to provide it.

Also - much of one of the articles is about the impact of illness in causing dehydration.

Precisely NONE of this is relevant to a council spending money publishing hectoring patronising nanny state codswallop to remind their able bodied taxpayers to remember to drink water if they are thirsty in hot weather.

Let's face it Moose - you can't bring yourself to be critical of any aspect of government spending even if it is nonsensical, because the State always knows best and you want control.

 

You need to relax a bit. That's verging on the hysterical even for this forum.

 

If this country has too many state controls on industry for you then I don't know what your ideal country would look like. Perhaps there would be no government? A tribal, survival-of-the-fittest, Lord of the Flies scenario. :]]

Regardless, we are going off topic. My point was that socio-economic factors contribute to our beloved homegrown ISIS defectors as it does all other varieties of disaffection and disconnection, and I've said that so I'm all done.

 

I just want councils to stop wasting money on gibberish and self enrichment, and actually manage to carry out a core activity like emptying the bins on a regular basis.

Anyhow - I apologise for my outburt as I fear none of this is relevant to Iraq.

 

Can we have a red flag for threads which all end up in this cul de sac?

 

I reckon with the rise in technology and living standards and education we will continue to see a decline of religion in the west.

 

We are indeed going off topic so my final word on the subject will be to observe that in this country:

Debt is 100% of GDP
The deficit is £100 billion
Government spending is 40% of GDP

This cannot be described as capitalism.

As you say the thread has been derailed so I will leave it at that.

 

You can do one too m8.

 

https://news.vice.com/video/the-islamic-state-full-length

Very frightening. They seem to take a leaf out of the mother teresa book in that the more you suffer the closer you are to God.

 

Tacit approval for gulags and Chinese death squads.

You do 1!

 

That chap interviewed by the BBC about young British muslims. He was on the channel 4 news just now, he has 4 kids and wants the government to not arrest suspected terrorists heading to syria. He's been arrested himself multiple times but never charged.

I feel sorry for his children being indoctrinated.

 

There wouldn't be this problem in Iraq if we hadn't "intervened" in 2003, so blaming any country other than the US and the UK for this situation shows a lack of understanding of the problem.

 

Humanitarian my arse

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28831578

 

Along with getting involved in Syria - can't help but think if he we hadn't of helped the Syrian rebels then ISIS wouldn't have had the opportunity to develop a foothold in Syria.

 

But it's not war you understand! .... what's a few bombs and missiles between friends? Yes I suppose if they could defend themselves it's war but they can't - Isn't that jolly!

 

I am not one for intervention, especially in today's post-Iraq environment (which I protested against at the time), but we should have done more in Syria, not less.

Everyone knew that this was a country that was being gassed by its leader in the thousands, and there was a strong rebel army who could have taken them on. If this was done in a decisive way with full international cooperation, then the rebels (who were in the right) could have taken control.

Because half-measures were taken, a year long stalemate and political instability has lead to an influx of IS(IS) militants with little or no resistance. Now the world has to make the much more difficult decision of backing a government which has gassed its own people, or an extremist group which wants blood.

 

Why do you think that setting up new artificial states as you prescribe will be any more successful than those created 60 odd years ago by the UN or the UK 90 years ago.

It seems a pretty constant line that the West's intervention has apparently caused all this, (whilst ignoring the tribal and religious conflicts that have existed across the region for centuries) yet any current solutions require the West's involvement now.

As it stands, I can see the west trying to sort it out, trying to forge some sort of alliances, whilst the regions nations, play a bit part, then, when it all goes wrong (and it will - horrendously) everybody blaming the west again.

It stinks.

 

I agree with this - not that I've got any great expertise. "We" seem to be vey keen on specific groupings having self determination when it comes to Europe - I'm thinking particularly of Kosovo breaking from Serbia, but the whole Balkan region in general, what's happening in Crimea not being stopped (Scottish independence even?) yet making people further afield live together when they simply don't seem to want to / be able to. Why not let them break apart? If they continue to fight afterwards, well then it's a war between two countries rather than a civil war, should be easier to sort out who is in the wrong.

I agree in this case about the problem of Turkish Kurds, but Turkey can't be very happy about the situation on their borders as it stands anyway.

 

There is no happy ending, at least not for the foreseeable future. It's a choice between two horrible options. The West can leave the Middle East to tear itself apart and possibly grow out of the chaos, like Europe once did. The alternative is they continue to intervene to differing degrees.

The second seems like the 'right' thing to do, morally, but we make no progress from it. Each time we artificially shape the Middle East, the region gains more nationalists. Each individual killed in a strategic airstrike leads to a family of mourners. The resentment grows and grows.

It's one of the 21st century's most awkward dilemmas.

 

I am glad to see that the Muslim world is taking notice of my OP rather than some of the rubbish that followed on this thread.

Despite what others have said on here, Muslim leaders are now coming out with some very anti ISIL statements and the Sunni Muslim states are now also overtly getting involved in the military action against ISIL and aid. It seems that they are realising that they have been supporting what has become a monster and that squabbling over the past is futile, and seem to be changing sides.

I am glad that I have been instrumental in this change of strategy by the Muslim world leading to eventual world peace!:naughty:

 

I know you are being a bit tongue in cheek, but that's not you at your best. I don't think anyone was against a broad coalition against IS.

 

Maybe not against it, but many excuses why they couldn't form one.

 

Maybe people were saying that we shouldn't rely on one, since many of the governments the US is allying itself with are pretty horrible in their own ways.

 

Personally, I dont really class it as "allying". There is just no fully acceptable solution, it is all horrible.

In my view, the best solution would always heavily involve the Muslim nations, rather than just the western ones. I asked where they were. You, Moose and others said that my point was redundant or not supportable, or that I was "Muslim baiting" Squibba said that Muslim leaders coming out with statements, etc, was a waste of time and called me a fool!

The Saudi's have seen that that ISIL leader is trying to get everyone to accept them as the centre of Islam, instead of Saudi Arabia. They are now bombing ISIL alongside the West. It is remarkable.

It may still end in total s**t though. :doom:

 

I think that I said that the point was redundant because you were separating a Muslim problem from a world problem, but I haven't reread my comments and I might have changed my mind.