Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Nighthawks is now open
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Nighthawks is now open
If you’ve always been a lurker, and have The Reflex not to post, Nighthawks gives you an opportunity to delurk, don’t worry, you won’t become Wild Boys or Wild Girls after posting.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Nick Sutton ✔ @suttonnick
Thursday's i front page "Cameron plans tax cuts for the middle classes" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers via @olyduff pic.twitter.com/gXr6UzB2Z8
According to a pack from a few years ago I had from the electoral commission.
Perhaps explains why we haven't had the recording of MH17 and Kiev Air Traffic control communications released.
At the time the Labour party had lost 4 elections in a row and was wondering if ever it could retake power. The pendulum swings...
We will see another Blair/Thatcher/Wilson who dominates politics for a generation, but it is hard to see them in the present motley crew of all the main parties.
This site is called politicalbetting.com so you'd expect most of the comment to be about politics and betting. It simply can't be all things to all men.
Hospitals, schools, beaches, these Hamas swines seem to hide behind "innocents" all over the place.
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead up one to two points: CON 35%, LAB 37%, LD 8%, UKIP 12%
As SeanT points out, it means Hamas is "winning" the PR war, but at what price?
Ed is crap is PM 9 Months and 8 days to GE 2015
Like Syria, Iraq, Libya etc. I see very little way that Western countries can help, and more than likely any intervention is likely to backfire. We can try to broker peace, but this is truly a dialogue of the deaf where neither party recognises that the other should exist.
* I was running a teaching course for Palestinian Doctors including clinics across the West Bank. Places like Hebron are fascinating to visit, but visiting there did not provide the easy solutions. The comforts of a Camden armchair and a Twitter account no doubt provide a much better perspective.
An already weak argument sinks further with the bizarre claim that '[h]uman rights are not something that can be repealed or taken away'. The convention is not the word of God. Nor was it written under the aegis of the Holy Spirit. It is inconsistent with a number of other international instruments which give effect to human rights. Human rights are a human invention that may be added to or taken away. The convention may contain useful protections, or it may not, but to pretend it is some sort of divine ordinance, immune from human censure, is as disingenuous as it is absurd.
People who are popular because they have good looks (but hairspray for brains).
Only after they destroy their countries the public become averse to the Blair types, those who lived under them will never vote for them again but they don't live forever.
Were you as persistent about us not "provoking" the extremists?
Not a trick question I wasn't around PB during those conflicts.
Does PB expect us not to jump to conclusions?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine
The current 14 year war is going nicely for Israel, it doesn't affect their economy, government ratings go sky high, right wing jingo parties get all the votes and all at the cost of a few dosen israeli lives every year or so, everyone is happy.
Israel can be at war forever as long as the average israeli likes it and so far they do.
Perhaps to give Hamas more land and power and so they can join the Islamic State?
Or perhaps to stand up to them until they realise that their fanatacism is the cause of their problems?
YouGov average Lab lead - last 14 weeks (oldest first):
4.4
3.0
1.8 = Euros
2.0 = Euros
4.0
5.0
4.0
4.2
4.2
2.4 = Random blip?
4.4
4.4
3.0
3.0 - This week - after 3 out of 5 polls
So since the Euros the lead has been very steady at between 4 and 5 every single week - except for the blip down to 2.4 four weeks ago - which now looks random.
But now we have a week and a half - ie 8 polls - averaging 3.0. It could be random again but Con supporters will hope it just might be a genuine marginal tightening.
Got to stand up to those bullies in their wretched third world refugee camp by bombing their school.
Do you remember any of Blair's accomplishments?
When you look at the record, Blair must be somewhere at the top 3 of worse prime ministers in history.
(And I wont mention the God talks to him part)
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100281944/mitt-romney-was-right-about-everything-in-2012-so-why-not-romney-2016/
Hillary will crush him.
If he has any sense he wont run for president ever again, his last 2 campaigns proved that he is rubbish at politics, instead he should wait for a republican to win sometime in the next 10 years and get a cabinet position.
Hello? Why am I being ignored? I made my own contribution to the thread on this topic, was rather vociferous about it actually.
Clinton was fortunate that he became president when america's worst crisis was "where did the president put his cigar".
JFK was overrated, as we have found over the years, the best thing he for did for america was he got shot.
Reagan was very old when he became president and he just read the script written by others.
The West has presented NO evidence of Russia's complicity in this tragedy. Not no credible evidence, just NO evidence. No recordings from Ukrainian ATC explaining the plane's route/altitude change. No records of where Ukrainian BUK systems were deployed. And on that basis, we've already imposed sanctions that will damage our own economy, and are ratcheting up tensions that could turn into the next world conflict. It's mad.
1: Because Cameron and Salmond agreed that only the electorate in Scotland can vote.
5: Please stop believing the Engerlish media, most people in Scotland have already decided how they will vote. The consensus has agreed not to talk about their decision because it will cause disharmony, not just between friends, colleagues at work but also in families. Life is more important.
At my last job, there were in my team, a Labour, SNP, Tory and LibDem activists. There was an unwritten and spoken agreement not to get into any political discussion at work. However, and I must admit a certain illicit pleasure, when a jobsworth or similar came to a team meeting to give the latest company BS, they would be taken to pieces.
Those who become jihadists seem to have no end of reasons for their actions: Israel, the West, what the West did, what the West didn't do, etc. But in the end if you're an adult you are responsible for your actions, no-one else. There are plenty of Israelis who condemn what their own government is doing (the news showed just such a peace rally tonight) and plenty of Palestinians and Arabs who do not kill others because of what someone else does.
So why the continuing support? I can't see the geopolitical advantages to the UK any more. I don't buy conspiracy theories.
So why aren't we crippling Israel with sanctions, never mind withdrawing support? Strange.
The russians probably shot down the plane thinking it was a fighter jet, that was my first and only reaction when I heard the news.
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/7/gaza-tunnels-hamasisraelidf.html
And also why the Israeli military bodycount is high. The Hamas tunnels are not just for smuggling, they are attack saps, known to warfare for generations as Russian saps.
It solves all the political, military and economic problems and issues in one stroke (like Alexander the Great and the Gordian Knot).
That is what the "United Nations" was supposed to be for, to settle disputes fairly and without war. Unfortunately we can't even make our own country function properly, and as for the EU?.
We just have to rely on the old methods, longer "pointier" sticks.
Do they Israelis have any tunnels into Gaza, or do they just come across the border in tanks when they feel like it?
I can't speak for the Palestinians, but if I did offer a guess, I'd say there was a similar lack of confidence in the outcome that then pervades the means.
If a Ukrainian fighter jet had been close to MH17, it would have been able to identify it clearly enough. So is the argument really that Ukraine chose to deliberately blow up a civilian plane merely to attract Western attention?
-We know that Ukraine's BUK system was deployed in the area -why. when the rebels have no aircraft?
-We have manifold evidence from many different sources of a military aircraft accompanying the plane. Now no mention of it.
-Ukraine's risible youtube 'evidence' has been widely debunked
-We know that it's a practical impossibility for the rebel's BUK system, which if they do have one, has no radar support, to have hit that plane from where we say their system was situated.
-We know that the plane's route was highly irregular from previous days, and that it was prevented by Ukrainian ATC from flying as high as it wanted to.
Where does that leave you? It leaves me thinking that at the LEAST we need to wait for the results of any enquiry before we put our porcelain delicate economic 'recovery' on the line by lashing out at Russia. America are big enough to fight their own battles.
Are you accusing posters here of racism?
Because that accusation is surely not acceptable on PB.
The UN is rubbish, mainly because most governments can comprehend "Nations", but fail at the "United" bit.
It's why we keep having wars to end all wars. (as our PB history experts can probably attest.)
The UN is not there to prevent wars or settle disputes, its there so that the great powers of 1945 can prevent a direct attack on their interests diplomatically.
The UN veto and nuclear weapons are the only way to stop a 1945 power from directly attacking the others sphere of influence.
Apart from that it's just a hot air forum that periodically releases large quantities of it, although it has it's perks like the WHO and the fact that it prevents countries from conquering each other (special excemption for permanent members of the UN Sec. Council), this is also why we have so many countries around the world (as countries are encouraged to split but not unite).
Do you stand by that?
I would very much like both sides to repent of their violent ways and embrace peace, but cannot see it happening soon.
Ten years ago Israel removed its settlements in Gaza and military. I think that far from bringing peace, it allowed the Hamas putsch to bring about the current situation.
I also think it racist to expect Israelis to operate at higher civilisation levels than the Palestinians. If one does not believe that Palestinians are the moral equal of other humans, with the same duties and responsibilities, then it is very demeaning of their culture. The alternative of considering them as barbarians outside the law sounds very much like the worst sort of attitude of Israeli settlers.
Why stop there? The British Army alone has never stopped being in conflict somewhere, the "war on drugs"?.......on and on we advanced hominids go, repeating the same shite over and over (but usually with more efficiency).
How would you deal with states or movements within states (Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah etc) whose stated objective/ideology is the complete elimination of a neighbouring state and the annihilation of that state's people?
Would you not agree that the leaders of armed movements are cowards when they use other people to be suicide bombers on their behalf and they use schools, hospitals etc as human shields?
We have seen how ISIS eliminates all people who do not subject themselves to the wishes/culture/beliefs of ISIS and so like totalitarian regimes eliminate both freedom of movement and thought. How would you deal with them and their backers?
BTW I have travelled probably as widely than you and have spoken with both the leaders and the people of the countries under discussion.
This conflict is also more longstanding than most, people have a longer history of having opinions on it and being emotionally invested in it.
But no, racism it is.
As for the "Hamas putsch" it was a recognised fair and free election and it was inevitable once Arafat was dead the PLO became politically dead with him and was replaced with Hamas.
Nuclear bombs, hah! We've got tunnels! Apparently. They're dead good ones, though. Better than the ones in the Great Escape, much more deadly.
The continuing carnage (genocide) in Gaza IS the news....
I would disagree, all the conflicts in the world should be looked at equally.
Unfortunately, we can only concentrate on one "Coliseum" at a time. ;-)
As for JFK, forget about Nixon, what would have happened if JFK lived?
No civil rights act, no medicare, no vietnam war, bigger space race, a huge presidential sex scandal, unstable foreign policy.
It would have been like combining the worst qualities and issues of Clinton and Obama.
And as for the exception from the rule, there was no rule before national TV, plus american politics is much more personality dependant that british politics.
Er, no, I've never been among a terrorist organisation. Not even the Israeli Government!
The only existential threat Israel faces is its own behaviour. And they just can't go on like this.
And for those who cry for sanctions, do you agree that the sanctions should apply to both sides? Perhaps a ban on weapons and parts for weapons would be a good place to start. The Enforcement would require destruction or closing of the Hamas tunnels.
Sanctions killed about a million Iraqis between the Gulf wars, they are not bloodless, just make for fewer pictures. In 1919 the Allied blockade of Germany killed hundreds of thousands after the armastice http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/starvation1919.html
Economic sanctions are war by other means, and war on civilians to boot.
Funding islamic terrorists to get rid of political leaders and governments you don't like will result in much of the islamic world ruled by islamic terrorists in the end.