Commons vote on Syria airstrikes (round 2).
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
War with Russia would be even more catastrophic and imho wholly unnecessary. We were allies in 1945 and I think that we would be better to engage in a discussion with them than fight a lot of proxy wars which will do even more damage. They may have done things which cause us to be suspicious of them, sure they have, but the West has done plenty of things to make them suspicious of us.
Fighting Assad, and Russia, and IS isn't going to work. It will turn the area into a very hostile wasteland.
V6Pushfit said:
^ exactly.
I haven't seen anything convincing enough in the last 2 years to come anywhere near even considering action against Assad.
He is part of the solution.
Assad has been a dead duck ever since he turned on his on people. He has the support of a minority faction of the Syrian population and without Russian support he's be gone. He emptied his prisons of the maddest and baddest Islamic extremists and set them on his enemies whilst stating "look at what I have been keeping the lid on all these years". Neither the Assad forces or the Russians have proportionately engaged ISIS who in turn rather than attacking Damascus charged full pelt at Bagdad the seat of a Western backed government. We could have and should have finished Assad when we had the chance. The reason we didn't was we couldn't get UN support due to a Russian veto. Without it Labour wouldn't vote for bombing Assad and the USA backed down too.I haven't seen anything convincing enough in the last 2 years to come anywhere near even considering action against Assad.
He is part of the solution.
What we should have done and should be doing is looking at the Russian world view then ignoring it. Basically trample over their interests everywhere, all the time. Belittle them, ignore them, humiliate them. Ukraine and Gorgia should be supported and big carrots should be dangled to tempt the rest of the old ex-Soviet nations to place within our sphere of influence. Russia is a lot poorer and weaker than we think. If the Russian people see Russia's nose rubbed in it for a while they will soon lose there love for Putin and the world will be one dangerous and unpredictable leader less.
I find that last post extraordinary. Just remember that we set out in 1914 to rub Germany's nose in it. Once they were involved in a World War which they could see that they were not going to win in weeks, all they wanted was out of it. By that time of course tens of thousands of Germans had been killed so they had to have something to show for it, so the price of peace at that time was the retention by Germany of the land they held in France.
In all these situations rather than sitting on our side of the fence trying to anticipate and react to events we would have been far better to enter discussions and tell them where our lines in the sand are and what we will do if they cross them. In both 1914 and 1939 Germany's initial aim was to keep Britain out of it. If they had known in 1914 that the British Empire was going to throw everything it had at them for four years they would not have done it. Likewise if in 1982 Peter Carrington had told the Argentinians clearly that we would defend the Falklands by force, there would never have been a Falklands War as even Galtieri was not so stupid as not to see that if we were so minded we could blow him out of the water. The problem we now have is that if Cam sets out what our lines in the sand are, the British public are going to see that they have nothing to do with defending Britain's interests.
It is depressing to read the papers and listen to the radio. Those papers whose headlines don't relate to TOWIE or Strictly suggest 'cautious' approval of bombing. As if there is any such thing. It is totally incautious. The radio has interviews with a range of taxi drivers and pig ignorant muttonheads pulled out of English pubs who think that we can't do nothing so we'd better let Syria have it.
As for Assad, he might not be our kind of guy, and he is a friend of the Russians because Russia have supported him and his father over the years, but it seems to me that he reacted to the West's ill judged financing of 'freedom fighters' who were committed to removing him, which in retrospect seems all to predictable. As usual the freedom fighters we supported are for the most part anything but. The support we have given to undemocratic but supposedly friendly regimes, and the chaos which the West created in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya were fundamental to the creation of ISIL, and please note are fundamental to its continuation.
The most important points are that if we bomb Syria, we are going to a. kill innocent people b. give a boost to ISIL and c. achieve nothing positive. No politician has said anything beyond bland patriotic nonsense ('we must stand with our allies' whatever that means), there is no reasoned detailed discussion at all, so imho there is some agenda here which we are not being told about.
Ironically, I think that we are more likely to be attacked if we stay out of it, specifically because there are a number of powerful groups whose interests are furthered by our involvement, not least ISIL. Their perception may well be that if the Paris attacks almost worked, an attack on London will do the trick. Maybe it only needs the CIA to withhold a key piece of intelligence to make it possible.
Can we please stop creating hell and risking killing people indiscriminately in the Middle East because however much we think it will solve the problem it only comes back to haunt us? One last thing - bombing did not defeat Germany. It made it more determined to resist, more industrially efficient, and every square foot still had to be fought for the hard way.
In all these situations rather than sitting on our side of the fence trying to anticipate and react to events we would have been far better to enter discussions and tell them where our lines in the sand are and what we will do if they cross them. In both 1914 and 1939 Germany's initial aim was to keep Britain out of it. If they had known in 1914 that the British Empire was going to throw everything it had at them for four years they would not have done it. Likewise if in 1982 Peter Carrington had told the Argentinians clearly that we would defend the Falklands by force, there would never have been a Falklands War as even Galtieri was not so stupid as not to see that if we were so minded we could blow him out of the water. The problem we now have is that if Cam sets out what our lines in the sand are, the British public are going to see that they have nothing to do with defending Britain's interests.
It is depressing to read the papers and listen to the radio. Those papers whose headlines don't relate to TOWIE or Strictly suggest 'cautious' approval of bombing. As if there is any such thing. It is totally incautious. The radio has interviews with a range of taxi drivers and pig ignorant muttonheads pulled out of English pubs who think that we can't do nothing so we'd better let Syria have it.
As for Assad, he might not be our kind of guy, and he is a friend of the Russians because Russia have supported him and his father over the years, but it seems to me that he reacted to the West's ill judged financing of 'freedom fighters' who were committed to removing him, which in retrospect seems all to predictable. As usual the freedom fighters we supported are for the most part anything but. The support we have given to undemocratic but supposedly friendly regimes, and the chaos which the West created in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya were fundamental to the creation of ISIL, and please note are fundamental to its continuation.
The most important points are that if we bomb Syria, we are going to a. kill innocent people b. give a boost to ISIL and c. achieve nothing positive. No politician has said anything beyond bland patriotic nonsense ('we must stand with our allies' whatever that means), there is no reasoned detailed discussion at all, so imho there is some agenda here which we are not being told about.
Ironically, I think that we are more likely to be attacked if we stay out of it, specifically because there are a number of powerful groups whose interests are furthered by our involvement, not least ISIL. Their perception may well be that if the Paris attacks almost worked, an attack on London will do the trick. Maybe it only needs the CIA to withhold a key piece of intelligence to make it possible.
Can we please stop creating hell and risking killing people indiscriminately in the Middle East because however much we think it will solve the problem it only comes back to haunt us? One last thing - bombing did not defeat Germany. It made it more determined to resist, more industrially efficient, and every square foot still had to be fought for the hard way.
Cardigankid - good posts. I'm of the same opinion as you on this.
I tried to stay open-minded over the weekend and listened to some people on the pro-bombing side as well as reading a number of pro-bombing articles. I'm still a long way from being convinced.
Michael Fallon was on Andrew Marr telling us that we needed to act because the security services foiled 7 attacks last year that were 'caused by, related to or influenced by ISIL' (not an exact quote but almost). That is a reason to be grateful of effective security services but not a reason to bomb Syria.
He also stressed that France has asked us to help so we really should get the ordnance loaded ASAP. I couldn't care less whether France, America or whoever has asked us to help. That is not a reason for bombing Syria.
Finally, he went out of his way to refer to ISIL as a 'Death Cult'. This terminology was also used in David Cameron's response to the foreign affairs committee. Personally, I think this is patronising language primarily aimed at the tabloid press and anyone who is keen to have an easily identified enemy. We already know that ISIL are a devastatingly horrible group but calling them a Death Cult is just a cheap way to get support for this futile bombing campaign.
I mentioned it before but I'll say it again - If you're against air strikes in Syria please write to your MP and tell them. I get the feeling that MPs think there is general support for this in the country but I'm not sure that's the truth.
I tried to stay open-minded over the weekend and listened to some people on the pro-bombing side as well as reading a number of pro-bombing articles. I'm still a long way from being convinced.
Michael Fallon was on Andrew Marr telling us that we needed to act because the security services foiled 7 attacks last year that were 'caused by, related to or influenced by ISIL' (not an exact quote but almost). That is a reason to be grateful of effective security services but not a reason to bomb Syria.
He also stressed that France has asked us to help so we really should get the ordnance loaded ASAP. I couldn't care less whether France, America or whoever has asked us to help. That is not a reason for bombing Syria.
Finally, he went out of his way to refer to ISIL as a 'Death Cult'. This terminology was also used in David Cameron's response to the foreign affairs committee. Personally, I think this is patronising language primarily aimed at the tabloid press and anyone who is keen to have an easily identified enemy. We already know that ISIL are a devastatingly horrible group but calling them a Death Cult is just a cheap way to get support for this futile bombing campaign.
I mentioned it before but I'll say it again - If you're against air strikes in Syria please write to your MP and tell them. I get the feeling that MPs think there is general support for this in the country but I'm not sure that's the truth.
cardigankid said:
Can we please stop creating hell and risking killing people indiscriminately in the Middle East because however much we think it will solve the problem it only comes back to haunt us? One last thing - bombing did not defeat Germany. It made it more determined to resist, more industrially efficient, and every square foot still had to be fought for the hard way.
Broadly, these are my thoughts exactly. Indeed, from the very origins of the (nicely straight) borders of Syria and Iraq, our interference is stamped all over the region.I seldom find myself in agreement with George Galloway, but his appearance on the Politics Show yesterday morning was one such exception. He was broadly in support of air strikes against ISIS, but only where it was in co-ordination with the governments on the ground; it is them who have to pick up the pieces. Bombing merely to create a temporary geographic vacuum would not guarantee any longer lasting freedom from extrimists.
Shock, horror - those 70,000 'moderate' opposition rebels we were told about do not exist.
Cameron at the time of the Syria vote said:
Last week I told the House that we believe there are around 70,000 Syrian opposition fighters… who do not belong to extremist groups… and with whom we can co-ordinate attacks on Daesh
Cameron today said:
…yes, some of the opposition forces are Islamist, some of them are relatively hardline Islamist, and some of them are more what we would describe as more secular democrats.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/syria-air-strikes-david-cameron-admits-there-aren-t-enough-moderate-fighters-on-the-ground-and-some-a6808021.htmlBlackLabel said:
Perhaps they all left and are currently seeking asylum in Europe?Corbyn is muck-raking, stirring the pot. He's got nothing else to do while facing irrelevance and retirement as his cronies get on with momentum's dirty work. As Leader of HM's Opposition he will have been briefed so knows what the score is and appreciates the decision-making process at such times, yet still feels compelled to generate noise in a parochial attempt to pop one at May using an inapplicable due process figleaf. May is already fatally wounded (self-inflicted) so it's not necessary anyway. JC obviously doesn't cope well with the impotence of his position.
ferrisbueller said:
OK.
Put it another way. Why is it always us? Plenty of UN members have the tools but it's always our people and money.
It's probably because of the success rate the USA, French and British involvement in the Middle East over the years. We've sorted most of it out. Everything is now fine, apart from one or two little pockets of resistance to civilisation. Put it another way. Why is it always us? Plenty of UN members have the tools but it's always our people and money.
That and the fact that Putin is sabre rattling and needs a signal to show that 'we', ie the USA, won't be pushed around. Syria is a convenient place to do it all in as it is far enough away from anywhere important. A few bombs, a few deaths and we await Putin's response, which, it is hoped, will not jeopardise the peace the other bombings and interventions have secured.
ferrisbueller said:
turbobloke said:
ferrisbueller said:
Why aren't more countries involved in the air strikes?
Of such a limited nature? Not needed.Put it another way. Why is it always us? Plenty of UN members have the tools but it's always our people and money.
The parliamentary motion that Cameron lost in 2013 said “the House of Commons deplores the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime and agrees that a strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783
Is there really much of a difference here?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783
Is there really much of a difference here?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff