Nice dodge benty, avoided the question like a boss, I suppose it's a step up from your normal sarcastic nonsense.
Not dodging anything so spare me the pathetic insult.
I think our foreign policy in the Middle East has been a disaster - I could write chapter and verse on it. Jack Straw has just written a book on Iran 'The English Job' which I've read excerpts from and as an ex foreign secretary he might have some knowledge of the region. You might not agree with him but he has some interesting things to say.
I'm not clear if the US and UK wants a stable Middle East or what the end game is? Is it simply about our economic self interest?
Does anybody on here think our strategy in the Middle East has been a success?
It's interesting that you can write 'chapter and verse' yet won't answer Addickted's two questions.
I think I've made it abundantly clear that I don't think we've had a coherent foreign policy in the Middle East in the recent past that worked in answer to the first question. Bush and Blair seemed to have failed in their policy with incursions within the region.
Destabilising governments without an exit strategy such as Iraq and Libya and supporting Saudi Arabia which has helped fund ISIS has coincided with a growth in extremism in the reguon. As far as I can see Western goverments have to take some responsibility.
Iran and Iraq were at war as recently as 1988 and relations between the two can easily be fuelled rightly or wrongly by Western support or withdrawal of support.
I go back to the point I made about establishing what our goal is?
How about in the distant past? The point I believe Addickted was trying to make is that these problems go a lot further back and a lot deeper than our involvement.
The Shah of Iran was put on the throne in 1953 by a coup organised by the British and The Americans.
Iran was an absolute monarchy, ruled by an emperor, almost without interruption from 1501 until the 1979 revolution.
Nice dodge benty, avoided the question like a boss, I suppose it's a step up from your normal sarcastic nonsense.
Not dodging anything so spare me the pathetic insult.
I think our foreign policy in the Middle East has been a disaster - I could write chapter and verse on it. Jack Straw has just written a book on Iran 'The English Job' which I've read excerpts from and as an ex foreign secretary he might have some knowledge of the region. You might not agree with him but he has some interesting things to say.
I'm not clear if the US and UK wants a stable Middle East or what the end game is? Is it simply about our economic self interest?
Does anybody on here think our strategy in the Middle East has been a success?
It's interesting that you can write 'chapter and verse' yet won't answer Addickted's two questions.
I think I've made it abundantly clear that I don't think we've had a coherent foreign policy in the Middle East in the recent past that worked in answer to the first question. Bush and Blair seemed to have failed in their policy with incursions within the region.
Destabilising governments without an exit strategy such as Iraq and Libya and supporting Saudi Arabia which has helped fund ISIS has coincided with a growth in extremism in the reguon. As far as I can see Western goverments have to take some responsibility.
Iran and Iraq were at war as recently as 1988 and relations between the two can easily be fuelled rightly or wrongly by Western support or withdrawal of support.
I go back to the point I made about establishing what our goal is?
How about in the distant past? The point I believe Addickted was trying to make is that these problems go a lot further back and a lot deeper than our involvement.
The Shah of Iran was put on the throne in 1953 by a coup organised by the British and The Americans.
Iran was an absolute monarchy, ruled by an emperor, almost without interruption from 1501 until the 1979 revolution.
Nice dodge benty, avoided the question like a boss, I suppose it's a step up from your normal sarcastic nonsense.
Not dodging anything so spare me the pathetic insult.
I think our foreign policy in the Middle East has been a disaster - I could write chapter and verse on it. Jack Straw has just written a book on Iran 'The English Job' which I've read excerpts from and as an ex foreign secretary he might have some knowledge of the region. You might not agree with him but he has some interesting things to say.
I'm not clear if the US and UK wants a stable Middle East or what the end game is? Is it simply about our economic self interest?
Does anybody on here think our strategy in the Middle East has been a success?
It's interesting that you can write 'chapter and verse' yet won't answer Addickted's two questions.
I think I've made it abundantly clear that I don't think we've had a coherent foreign policy in the Middle East in the recent past that worked in answer to the first question. Bush and Blair seemed to have failed in their policy with incursions within the region.
Destabilising governments without an exit strategy such as Iraq and Libya and supporting Saudi Arabia which has helped fund ISIS has coincided with a growth in extremism in the reguon. As far as I can see Western goverments have to take some responsibility.
Iran and Iraq were at war as recently as 1988 and relations between the two can easily be fuelled rightly or wrongly by Western support or withdrawal of support.
I go back to the point I made about establishing what our goal is?
How about in the distant past? The point I believe Addickted was trying to make is that these problems go a lot further back and a lot deeper than our involvement.
Perhaps Addickted can speak for himself? Neither of us can read his mind.
A message board is perhaps not the best place to have a really in depth discussion re the history of the Middle East? I'm not sure how far we should go back regarding British influence / involvement but for better or worse we've undoubtedly helped shape the politics of the region. We were one of the dominant powers in the region post 1914 and influenced much of the region's future - many countries were affected.
Some of the problems in the region were exacerbated by colonial powers - I'm sure most historians would agree with this.
It will be interesting to see Trump's stance given Iran's nuclear capability. Trump seems at odds with the hawkish Bolton and the more interventionist stance taken by Obama.
A highly complex set of problems to deal with - a big challenge for Bojo as the next PM.
Nice dodge benty, avoided the question like a boss, I suppose it's a step up from your normal sarcastic nonsense.
Not dodging anything so spare me the pathetic insult.
I think our foreign policy in the Middle East has been a disaster - I could write chapter and verse on it. Jack Straw has just written a book on Iran 'The English Job' which I've read excerpts from and as an ex foreign secretary he might have some knowledge of the region. You might not agree with him but he has some interesting things to say.
I'm not clear if the US and UK wants a stable Middle East or what the end game is? Is it simply about our economic self interest?
Does anybody on here think our strategy in the Middle East has been a success?
It's interesting that you can write 'chapter and verse' yet won't answer Addickted's two questions.
I think I've made it abundantly clear that I don't think we've had a coherent foreign policy in the Middle East in the recent past that worked in answer to the first question. Bush and Blair seemed to have failed in their policy with incursions within the region.
Destabilising governments without an exit strategy such as Iraq and Libya and supporting Saudi Arabia which has helped fund ISIS has coincided with a growth in extremism in the reguon. As far as I can see Western goverments have to take some responsibility.
Iran and Iraq were at war as recently as 1988 and relations between the two can easily be fuelled rightly or wrongly by Western support or withdrawal of support.
I go back to the point I made about establishing what our goal is?
How about in the distant past? The point I believe Addickted was trying to make is that these problems go a lot further back and a lot deeper than our involvement.
The Shah of Iran was put on the throne in 1953 by a coup organised by the British and The Americans.
Iran was an absolute monarchy, ruled by an emperor, almost without interruption from 1501 until the 1979 revolution.
It was monarchy certainly before the last Shah but it was not absolutist. There was a democratically elected prime minister. It was the because the previous monarch wouldn’t rein in the prime minister who wanted to control western oil interests in his country, that the1953 coup was organised and a new monarch was put in place.
Nice dodge benty, avoided the question like a boss, I suppose it's a step up from your normal sarcastic nonsense.
Not dodging anything so spare me the pathetic insult.
I think our foreign policy in the Middle East has been a disaster - I could write chapter and verse on it. Jack Straw has just written a book on Iran 'The English Job' which I've read excerpts from and as an ex foreign secretary he might have some knowledge of the region. You might not agree with him but he has some interesting things to say.
I'm not clear if the US and UK wants a stable Middle East or what the end game is? Is it simply about our economic self interest?
Does anybody on here think our strategy in the Middle East has been a success?
It's interesting that you can write 'chapter and verse' yet won't answer Addickted's two questions.
I think I've made it abundantly clear that I don't think we've had a coherent foreign policy in the Middle East in the recent past that worked in answer to the first question. Bush and Blair seemed to have failed in their policy with incursions within the region.
Destabilising governments without an exit strategy such as Iraq and Libya and supporting Saudi Arabia which has helped fund ISIS has coincided with a growth in extremism in the reguon. As far as I can see Western goverments have to take some responsibility.
Iran and Iraq were at war as recently as 1988 and relations between the two can easily be fuelled rightly or wrongly by Western support or withdrawal of support.
I go back to the point I made about establishing what our goal is?
How about in the distant past? The point I believe Addickted was trying to make is that these problems go a lot further back and a lot deeper than our involvement.
The Shah of Iran was put on the throne in 1953 by a coup organised by the British and The Americans.
Iran was an absolute monarchy, ruled by an emperor, almost without interruption from 1501 until the 1979 revolution.
Blimey how old was he.
Don't know, but Roland appears to want to outdo him for longevity in running a football club, never mind an empire!
Hilarious how people tallkng about democracy in the Middle East, highlight issues with Boris before anyone else
Don’t think democracy comes into it. Think we shouldn’t be drawn into a war because Trump welshes on a deal with Iran.
The only thing I've seen Trump do regarding war, since he's been in, is avoid one with the Russians
From what I have seen and heard from Trump he talks in political sound bites and plays the percentage game to please the populous. He talks the talk but certainly doesn’t walk the walk when it comes to military action .........least ways he hasn’t thus far.
Hilarious how people tallkng about democracy in the Middle East, highlight issues with Boris before anyone else
Don’t think democracy comes into it. Think we shouldn’t be drawn into a war because Trump welshes on a deal with Iran.
The only thing I've seen Trump do regarding war, since he's been in, is avoid one with the Russians
From what I have seen and heard from Trump he talks in political sound bites and plays the percentage game to please the populous. He talks the talk but certainly doesn’t walk the walk when it comes to military action .........least ways he hasn’t thus far.
He did apparently pull out of a strike on Iran after they allegedly shot down a drone. It seems he was told that someone might get killed. Cruise missiles are a health hazard - no shit Sherlock!
Hilarious how people tallkng about democracy in the Middle East, highlight issues with Boris before anyone else
Don’t think democracy comes into it. Think we shouldn’t be drawn into a war because Trump welshes on a deal with Iran.
The only thing I've seen Trump do regarding war, since he's been in, is avoid one with the Russians
From what I have seen and heard from Trump he talks in political sound bites and plays the percentage game to please the populous. He talks the talk but certainly doesn’t walk the walk when it comes to military action .........least ways he hasn’t thus far.
"You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all the people all of the time”
Hilarious how people tallkng about democracy in the Middle East, highlight issues with Boris before anyone else
Don’t think democracy comes into it. Think we shouldn’t be drawn into a war because Trump welshes on a deal with Iran.
The only thing I've seen Trump do regarding war, since he's been in, is avoid one with the Russians
From what I have seen and heard from Trump he talks in political sound bites and plays the percentage game to please the populous. He talks the talk but certainly doesn’t walk the walk when it comes to military action .........least ways he hasn’t thus far.
"You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please an Arsenal fan at any time”
Making a statement to MPs in the Commons, the foreign secretary announced plans for the UK to help to develop a maritime protection mission in the Gulf.
Mr Hunt said he spoke with a "heavy heart" but if Iran continued to act as it had, it would have to accept a "larger Western military presence" along its coastline.
The protection force to be created by European countries would not include the US because, Mr Hunt insisted, Britain was not part of President Trump's policy of "maximum pressure" on Tehran.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Fox News the "responsibility" fell to the UK "to take care of their ships".
Making a statement to MPs in the Commons, the foreign secretary announced plans for the UK to help to develop a maritime protection mission in the Gulf.
Mr Hunt said he spoke with a "heavy heart" but if Iran continued to act as it had, it would have to accept a "larger Western military presence" along its coastline.
The protection force to be created by European countries would not include the US because, Mr Hunt insisted, Britain was not part of President Trump's policy of "maximum pressure" on Tehran.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Fox News the "responsibility" fell to the UK "to take care of their ships".
All seems pretty straightforward and acceptable to me.
Making a statement to MPs in the Commons, the foreign secretary announced plans for the UK to help to develop a maritime protection mission in the Gulf.
Mr Hunt said he spoke with a "heavy heart" but if Iran continued to act as it had, it would have to accept a "larger Western military presence" along its coastline.
The protection force to be created by European countries would not include the US because, Mr Hunt insisted, Britain was not part of President Trump's policy of "maximum pressure" on Tehran.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Fox News the "responsibility" fell to the UK "to take care of their ships".
All seems pretty straightforward and acceptable to me.
It will be interesting to see what the new Foreign Secretary says on Wednesday.
Comments
A message board is perhaps not the best place to have a really in depth discussion re the history of the Middle East? I'm not sure how far we should go back regarding British influence / involvement but for better or worse we've undoubtedly helped shape the politics of the region. We were one of the dominant powers in the region post 1914 and influenced much of the region's future - many countries were affected.
Some of the problems in the region were exacerbated by colonial powers - I'm sure most historians would agree with this.
It will be interesting to see Trump's stance given Iran's nuclear capability. Trump seems at odds with the hawkish Bolton and the more interventionist stance taken by Obama.
A highly complex set of problems to deal with - a big challenge for Bojo as the next PM.
Don't know, but Roland appears to want to outdo him for longevity in running a football club, never mind an empire!
He talks the talk but certainly doesn’t walk the walk when it comes to military action .........least ways he hasn’t thus far.
"You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all the people all of the time”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49074032
Making a statement to MPs in the Commons, the foreign secretary announced plans for the UK to help to develop a maritime protection mission in the Gulf.
Mr Hunt said he spoke with a "heavy heart" but if Iran continued to act as it had, it would have to accept a "larger Western military presence" along its coastline.
The protection force to be created by European countries would not include the US because, Mr Hunt insisted, Britain was not part of President Trump's policy of "maximum pressure" on Tehran.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Fox News the "responsibility" fell to the UK "to take care of their ships".