Join the Labour Party and save your country!

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

What a surprise...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39525952

Perhaps in the Trump or the old Syrian thread?

but what good did the bombing do? do you think Syria would be helped with more destruction?

1000's of women an children have died horrific deaths using conventional weapons and the west has done xxxx all, only the Russians have bought about the beginning of the end to this war by ensuring the the so called rebels (isis or similar cut throats) are defeated and cities can be rebuilt, people return from abroad.

in almost any war, there has to be a victor and unless you want Syria to be run by Islamists (and given we dont want to put troops on the ground) then supporting the Russians is the only way to stop this bl00dy war.

bombing a Russian run airbase is a quick way to, at the very least lengthen the conflict.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

What a surprise...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39525952

Perhaps in the Trump or the old Syrian thread?

but what good did the bombing do? do you think Syria would be helped with more destruction?

1000's of women an children have died horrific deaths using conventional weapons and the west has done xxxx all, only the Russians have bought about the beginning of the end to this war by ensuring the the so called rebels (isis or similar cut throats) are defeated and cities can be rebuilt, people return from abroad.

in almost any war, there has to be a victor and unless you want Syria to be run by Islamists (and given we dont want to put troops on the ground) then supporting the Russians is the only way to stop this bl00dy war.

bombing a Russian run airbase is a quick way to, at the very least lengthen the conflict.

So you were surprised he said that?

Corbyn hates the US. He would have objected to almost anything they did.

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

I hope they never get into power again. How far from your viewpoint is that? I just want a Labour party that looks like it could get into power but doesn't. One that can act as a functioning opposition party (for the rest of their existence).

I think Bally and I prefer a Labour party we can have a good laugh at for now.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

What a surprise...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39525952

Perhaps in the Trump or the old Syrian thread?

but what good did the bombing do? do you think Syria would be helped with more destruction?

1000's of women an children have died horrific deaths using conventional weapons and the west has done xxxx all, only the Russians have bought about the beginning of the end to this war by ensuring the the so called rebels (isis or similar cut throats) are defeated and cities can be rebuilt, people return from abroad.

in almost any war, there has to be a victor and unless you want Syria to be run by Islamists (and given we dont want to put troops on the ground) then supporting the Russians is the only way to stop this bl00dy war.

bombing a Russian run airbase is a quick way to, at the very least lengthen the conflict.

So you were surprised he said that?

Corbyn hates the US. He would have objected to almost anything they did.

Did you listen to what Corbyn said? no i wasnt surprised - you hate almost anything Corbyn does or says! lol!

The west needs to work with Russia over this issue, as i understand, that is pretty much what JC was calling for - these missile attacks wont stop a single barrel bomb or targeted airstrikes on a hospital.

cycleclinic

A jewish friend and history teacher disagrees with view you are are taking thigh burn. I remember askng him and he did say in one way there was support for zionism but it require a certain intreptation of history. History is about interpretaption and how you argue the meaning of events. I dont think opinon on this is all one way. Yes there are holes in ken arguement big one's but that makes it ill thought trough statement not an anti semitic one. And many people not just polticians are guilty of that. To me there is a big difference.

Acting like a anti semite i.e digging the hole deeper by coming up with justification after justification of discriminatory statements or actions against people that identify as jewish, does however not make ken an anti semitie. It makes him stubborn and pig headed and some one who probably should not be asked to comment by journalists. The haarava agreement happened and something like 60,000 jewish folk moved to the palastine mandate under it. Ken made an very unwise comment that has offended many. The responce from labour is also unwise. Stating objections is fine and proper but the way this has got inflamed and the accustions that have followed are no longer in my view at least in keeping with the stupidty of the orignial comment. Ken could have been debated on it by journalists and people who took issue with what he said and his argument would have even easily exposed as ill thought through as i have pointed out hilter supoorted the haarava agreement because he did not want jews in Germany. I.e supporting zionism (which at the time meant supportjng the creation of jewish homeland in what was the the palastinian mandate) not for zionism sake but for his own poltical ends as laid out in 1925. Ken however has he dug the hole deeper which labour mp's and various jewish suportors have fallen into. He could have been left to dig this hole by himself. No one in the party who has got involved comes out of this with dignity and there is a general loss of respect from current non labour voters. This debacle is further turn of and that is labours problem. This crisis is as much of kens making as it is the rightous labour party.

And by not supporting the dominant line that ken made anti semmitic remarks it now feels like i am an anti semmite which could not not be further from the truth. If people cannot debate and and be corrected without the anti semmitie label being banded anout then we are are in very deep trouble unless you tow the line and keep quiet that is. Predujice will never dealt with by scilencing people. The labour movement is full of people of what to no platform and scilence views they dont like, agree with or oppose in the strongest terms. This is an ideology i really don't like and cannot understand either.

Ken should probably go skmply because of his hole digging but it will be seen as a victory for those who helped dig the hole and a vindication of the rightousness. That is a problem i dont have an answer to.

The other problem with taking offense it tries to back the offender into making an appology they dont often mean. I am mot sure how that advances debate in any way. Isn't it better that ken views and his pig headedness has been laid bare. Has that not damaged him more than an explusion which is symbolic but achieves little in changing his mind and the minds of those who are anti semitic and think isreal through its policies forefits it right to support and exist. Those people exist and are just as dangerous as the isreali's who support the perpetution of the staus quo with isreals neighbours. I have heard the deputy pm of isreal say on newsnight those that oppose any of isreal's policies towards the palistians are anti semitic.

So how can progress be made when both sides just want to take chuncks out of each other and shut the other side up.

cycleclinic

On syria manyabove seem to be arguing for us to sit back oppose all military action and let the slaughter continue of work with russia in the policy in concentrating armed oppostion into iblib provence so they can be presumbly squahed out of existance. Russia and iran will therefore have a freehand to what they want and there will be no peace uutill the opposition groups have all capitulated by drowning in blood.

I am not sure how the principled approach of opposing more bombing wont help actually saves anyone. Working with russia supports more russian and syrian bombing with devestating consquences.

The us by getting involved in repsonding to the chemical weapons attacks (and sarin is a difficult substance to make and due to it sjort shelf life is often stored in the form of two precursor chemicals which wont make sarin by being destroyed in an explosion) is to say to the russians these weapons will not be used. It also demonstrqtes the russia cannot act with impunity and all it takes is an extension of this policy (20% of syria's aircraft where destroyed in the US responce) to target military installations when mass cilivan deaths are caused might help bring about the conditions for a peace deal. It might not. What is for sure the current set of policies have failed. A proper plan is needed (and setting precondions like assad must go are symbolic and prevent a proper negociated settlement) but at least there is possibility for one out the ruins of a failed one. In war people die horribly. By saying we dont want the blood on our hands means we get the blood onmour hands by default.

rick_chasey

thecycleclinic wrote:

. By saying we dont want the blood on our hands means we get the blood onmour hands by default.

Why?

mamba80

thecycleclinic wrote:

On syria manyabove seem to be arguing for us to sit back oppose all military action and let the slaughter continue of work with russia in the policy in concentrating armed oppostion into iblib provence so they can be presumbly squahed out of existance. Russia and iran will therefore have a freehand to what they want and there will be no peace uutill the opposition groups have all capitulated by drowning in blood.

I am not sure how the principled approach of opposing more bombing wont help actually saves anyone. Working with russia supports more russian and syrian bombing with devestating consquences.

The us by getting involved in repsonding to the chemical weapons attacks (and sarin is a difficult substance to make and due to it sjort shelf life is often stored in the form of two precursor chemicals which wont make sarin by being destroyed in an explosion) is to say to the russians these weapons will not be used. It also demonstrqtes the russia cannot act with impunity and all it takes is an extension of this policy (20% of syria's aircraft where destroyed in the US responce) to target military installations when mass cilivan deaths are caused might help bring about the conditions for a peace deal. It might not. What is for sure the current set of policies have failed. A proper plan is needed (and setting precondions like assad must go are symbolic and prevent a proper negociated settlement) but at least there is possibility for one out the ruins of a failed one. In war people die horribly. By saying we dont want the blood on our hands means we get the blood onmour hands by default.

yep maybe the US did destroy 20% of syrian planes... but history teaches us that these sort of claims are rubbish - esp as the US told the Russkis first who would have told the Syrians.....

the point here is that we ve stood by and done nothing to assist in any sort of peace process, hospitals have been bombed, women and children murdered but the moment we see a gas attack, it is somehow helpful to launch 58 cruise missiles - how many ground crew, cooks or mtce staff were blown to bits in this strike?

if this were part of a plan to establish a UN peace keeping force and safe havens then yes but its not, its Trump having a temper tantrum - what is sad (but predictable) is that the UK Gov, you know the strong independent country we voted to become! just supports Trump regardless of right or wrong, not an utterance of caution.

until one side or another has an absolute victory, there will be no peace in Syria and the longer this takes, the more innocents will be killed - there is no moderate Mandela figure waiting to take over, so if Assad goes and the opposition step in, then the killing will continue as Syria turns into another Iraq and that has gone exceptionally well.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

thecycleclinic wrote:

. By saying we dont want the blood on our hands means we get the blood onmour hands by default.

Why?

I don't think there's any great value in saying "well, at least we didn't make it any worse". It's also not automatic that no military action = not making things worse.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

thecycleclinic wrote:

. By saying we dont want the blood on our hands means we get the blood onmour hands by default.

Why?

I don't think there's any great value in saying "well, at least we didn't make it any worse". It's also not automatic that no military action = not making things worse.

I don't follow why, necessarily, not doing something means blood on British hands.

Does the same apply for the Dutch? Or Japanese?

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

thecycleclinic wrote:

. By saying we dont want the blood on our hands means we get the blood onmour hands by default.

Why?

I don't think there's any great value in saying "well, at least we didn't make it any worse". It's also not automatic that no military action = not making things worse.

I don't follow why, necessarily, not doing something means blood on British hands.

Does the same apply for the Dutch? Or Japanese?

It doesn't necessarily mean blood on our hands, but by the same token it doesn't necessarily absolve us of responsibility either. The decision to take no action is not morally neutral.

rick_chasey

Why is there some responsibility even if nothing is done?

It's a question - not loaded.

There is an assumption that the Uk has global policeman responsibility, but a patchy one that only applies to the Middle East.

I wonder why it is.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why is there some responsibility even if nothing is done?

It's a question - not loaded.

There is an assumption that the Uk has global policeman responsibility, but a patchy one that only applies to the Middle East.

I wonder why it is.

No, I don't mean that the UK alone has some special responsibility. Firstly, chemical weapons were considered sufficiently horrific after their use in WWI that they were prohibited by the Geneva Protocol, which has been followed by other international treaties, most recently in the 1990s. If there is no response to breaches of these treaties, then those who do not respond share a responsibility for the lack of enforcement. This doesn't specifically apply to the Middle East, although that is where recent breaches have happened in Syria and Iraq.
The more general point was that not getting involved in a conflict is not a morally neutral act. You don't assume responsibility for the agressor's act, but you are responsible for your own (in)action in not assisting the victims where such assistance was possible. I don't think any of us here are qualified to say whether targeting an airfield assisted the Syrian civilians but there seems to be an assumption that there is some automatic virtue in piously not getting our hands dirty.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

The more general point was that not getting involved in a conflict is not a morally neutral act. You don't assume responsibility for the agressor's act, but you are responsible for your own (in)action in not assisting the victims where such assistance was possible. I don't think any of us here are qualified to say whether targeting an airfield assisted the Syrian civilians but there seems to be an assumption that there is some automatic virtue in piously not getting our hands dirty.

It's not that, I just see a lot of cognitive dissonance with this line of argument versus a sh!t tonne of other equally horrendous civil war/humanitarian issues across the world where no-one in the UK feels particularly obliged to help. Nor is there any chat about 'blood on hands' about those instances.

It seems exclusive to the Middle East.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

The more general point was that not getting involved in a conflict is not a morally neutral act. You don't assume responsibility for the agressor's act, but you are responsible for your own (in)action in not assisting the victims where such assistance was possible. I don't think any of us here are qualified to say whether targeting an airfield assisted the Syrian civilians but there seems to be an assumption that there is some automatic virtue in piously not getting our hands dirty.

It's not that, I just see a lot of cognitive dissonance with this line of argument versus a sh!t tonne of other equally horrendous civil war/humanitarian issues across the world where no-one in the UK feels particularly obliged to help. Nor is there any chat about 'blood on hands' about those instances.

It seems exclusive to the Middle East.

The middle East has always been a basket case but Britain, along with a few others, must have some culpability for deciding which tribes should get along with each other whilst drawing up the borders.

rick_chasey

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

The more general point was that not getting involved in a conflict is not a morally neutral act. You don't assume responsibility for the agressor's act, but you are responsible for your own (in)action in not assisting the victims where such assistance was possible. I don't think any of us here are qualified to say whether targeting an airfield assisted the Syrian civilians but there seems to be an assumption that there is some automatic virtue in piously not getting our hands dirty.

It's not that, I just see a lot of cognitive dissonance with this line of argument versus a sh!t tonne of other equally horrendous civil war/humanitarian issues across the world where no-one in the UK feels particularly obliged to help. Nor is there any chat about 'blood on hands' about those instances.

It seems exclusive to the Middle East.

The middle East has always been a basket case but Britain, along with a few others, must have some culpability for deciding which tribes should get along with each other whilst drawing up the borders.

http://www.tolerance.org/magazine/numbe ... uble-tribe

And the UK has no history in Sudan, presumably, for example?

pblakeney

Jeezo! Pick a term of your choosing to describe groups of people without borders.
And, yes.

rick_chasey

PBlakeney wrote:

Jeezo! Pick a term of your choosing to describe groups of people without borders.
And, yes.

If in doubt "locals" usually works.

But it's nice to think Britain chooses who gets on with who in another country.

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why is there some responsibility even if nothing is done?

It's a question - not loaded.

There is an assumption that the Uk has global policeman responsibility, but a patchy one that only applies to the Middle East.

I wonder why it is.

It is a weird obsession with "punching above our weight" . Personally I think it is a refusal to accept our status in the world. Not sure it is Mid East related as we find the money to buy two aircraft carriers and sub launched nukes.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

But it's nice to think Britain chooses who gets on with who in another country.

Pedantry aside, that was my point.
We are culpable.

rick_chasey

I can see the case for nukes, since i believe in deterrents, and Britain can afford them (despite all the hot air to say otherwise). It's Britain's role as world police (but only in the middle east and a few rocks scattered across the globe, but certainly not Africa, the far east or South America) that I don't get.

If you want to do it to project power then I can see that, but then I don't see the value in getting involved in Syria and Iraq.

If you want to do it for humanitarian reasons, I don't see why it's exclusive to Syria and Iraq.

See what I mean?

pblakeney

Same reasons as for the Americans.
Resources. It is not humanitarian.

rick_chasey

Because Syria has a lot of oil?

Iraqi pipes go through Jordan rather than Syria don't they?

And the US is self sufficient in oil, and although it imports a lot still (because its refineries are set up to refine Middle Eastern oil, not US fracked oil), the refineries are adjusting surprisingly quickly.

Does the UK really buy that much oil that comes through Syria?

And again, Sudan is both a former colony and an area which has some natural resources to exploit, so why isn't Britain going there?

rick_chasey

It would make more sense to project power more regionally, say, towards the collection of other equally rich nations that are within a 2 hour flight away, but the UK public, in their infinite wisdom (after all, "it is not clear whether intelligence has any long-term survival value – bacteria multiply and flourish without it") has opted to not do that.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why is there some responsibility even if nothing is done?

It's a question - not loaded.

There is an assumption that the Uk has global policeman responsibility, but a patchy one that only applies to the Middle East.

I wonder why it is.

It is a weird obsession with "punching above our weight" . Personally I think it is a refusal to accept our status in the world. Not sure it is Mid East related as we find the money to buy two aircraft carriers and sub launched nukes.

Why is it "above our weight"? We are one of 5 permanent members of the UN security council and one of the G7. Certainly we are not the biggest, but I don't think it's claiming too much to suggest that we play a significant part in world affairs.

I'm not sure that we are ignoring Sudan any more or less than Syria, although Syria has a rather more direct link to European terrorist activity, so there is some self interest there.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

I'm not sure that we are ignoring Sudan any more or less than Syria, although Syria has a rather more direct link to European terrorist activity, so there is some self interest there.

Cause or effect?

I don't see much long term joined up thinking when it comes to the UK and geopolitics.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

I can see the case for nukes, since i believe in deterrents, and Britain can afford them (despite all the hot air to say otherwise). It's Britain's role as world police (but only in the middle east and a few rocks scattered across the globe, but certainly not Africa, the far east or South America) that I don't get.

If you want to do it to project power then I can see that, but then I don't see the value in getting involved in Syria and Iraq.

If you want to do it for humanitarian reasons, I don't see why it's exclusive to Syria and Iraq.

See what I mean?

Sierra Leone? Libya? The French intervened in Mali. I haven't suggested that it should be a UK only thing.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I'm not sure that we are ignoring Sudan any more or less than Syria, although Syria has a rather more direct link to European terrorist activity, so there is some self interest there.

Cause or effect?

I don't see much long term joined up thinking when it comes to the UK and geopolitics.

Maybe. If Iraq is partly our mess and Iraq led to IS, that sounds like a very good reason to do our bit, militarily or otherwise, to clean up that mess.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

It would make more sense to project power more regionally, say, towards the collection of other equally rich nations that are within a 2 hour flight away, but the UK public, in their infinite wisdom (after all, "it is not clear whether intelligence has any long-term survival value – bacteria multiply and flourish without it") has opted to not do that.

Here have a shoehorn.

rick_chasey

Thanks