Who are the two morons on the BBC paper review. They seem to have managed to misquote, misspeak and generally get every story they covered wrong. e.g apparently "exaggerating" means under-estimating etc.
ManofKent The sheer barbarism of ISIS makes intervention necessary in the form of airstrikes, but it should be coordinated with Kurdish and Iraqi groundforces
In Afghanistan, of course the Taliban were almost completely in control before the 2001 invasion and Bin Laden was able to launch 9/11 from there. An agreement has also finally been agreed by which Ghani becomes Afghan president (with Abdullah ceo) and he will now sign the agreement to keep 10,000 US troops in Afghanistan until 2016. By then Hillary will probably be just about ready to take over as president, and she is far more hawkish than Obama and will keep US troops in Afghanistan as long as necessary, if she is then followed by a Republican, unless it is Rand Paul, the US could have forces in Afghanistan for decades
Very amusing seeing the UKIP Scots MEP wearing a kilt today yet he couldn't vote last week because he doesn't live in Scotland!!
The SNP; UKIP in kilts...
There has been much talk this week of Westminster "honouring the promise of Devo Max" but less so of the SNP honouring the words of Alex Salmond "over for a generation"
When are they going to respect the 'settled will of the Scottish people" and shut up about separation?
The more I think about this military intervention the more I support it - and the more I'm feeling alienated from many Ukippers that seem to be knee jerk anti-war.
It can't be much of a surprise, Farage has been quite pro-Putin over the Ukraine. There seems to be a lot of Little Englander in their makeup, or at least non-interventionism. Although I did hear him interviewed and he seems to think the strategy is wrong - he seemed to say IS should be destroyed by the combined ground forces of neighbouring Arab states, and we could support that a bit if we liked.
You do wonder why Saudi has all that military hardware.
I was appalled at the pro-Putin line he took on Ukraine. It almost sent me back to the Tories.
Socrates: not sure you got my question last night. Are there *any* circumstances you could see yourself voting Conservative next year rather than UKIP? For instance, in a tight Conservative/Labour marginal?
The reason I ask, is that I've been struggling over a similar decision. However, I'm now sufficiently horrified by the prospect of what a Miliband government might mean that (if I had to pick) I'd pick the devil over the deep blue sea.
What I wouldn't do is re-join the party, campaign for them or give them any money, though.
No, I didn't get it. I'm confident I would vote Conservative if they did the following:
1) Commit to getting immigration, especially unskilled immigration, back down to 1990 levels once again, and to set out a credible plan to do that.
2) Spell out what Cameron will try to renegotiate from the European Union, and have substantial demands in that (CAP, CET, Free Movement)
3) Commit to a British civil liberties bill with an enforcement mechanism that can properly restrain the creeping power of the state.
If that doesn't happen, I'm going to want to vote for UKIP though. Even in a tight Conservative-Labour marginal my vote would probably still make a better difference to boost UKIP. The media would interpret it as "The Tories would have won this seat had they been better on these issues", which will get our Conservative Party back.
I suppose UKIP might not stand in my constituency, then I would also vote Tory.
The more I think about this military intervention the more I support it - and the more I'm feeling alienated from many Ukippers that seem to be knee jerk anti-war.
It can't be much of a surprise, Farage has been quite pro-Putin over the Ukraine. There seems to be a lot of Little Englander in their makeup, or at least non-interventionism. Although I did hear him interviewed and he seems to think the strategy is wrong - he seemed to say IS should be destroyed by the combined ground forces of neighbouring Arab states, and we could support that a bit if we liked.
You do wonder why Saudi has all that military hardware.
Perhaps it is that Farage like the many other people is looking at the previous interventions the West has made in the Middle East and North Africa and searching in vain for a single example that has ended in any way well.
Sierra Leone stands out pretty clearly. We saved that nation from hell.
No. Sierra Leone does not stand out at all in this case since it is not in North Africa or the Middle East and was not the victim of an Islamic civil war.
There are plenty of good post war examples of successful British/Western interventions that have installed or protected democratic governments. Unfortunately they are not in North African or Middle Eastern countries.
In fact probably the only successful intervention in the region was in Oman in the 1970s where the British Special Forces secretly helped protect the country against invasion from Yemen.
ManofKent The sheer barbarism of ISIS makes intervention necessary in the form of airstrikes, but it should be coordinated with Kurdish and Iraqi groundforces
In Afghanistan, of course the Taliban were almost completely in control before the 2001 invasion and Bin Laden was able to launch 9/11 from there. An agreement has also finally been agreed by which Ghani becomes Afghan president (with Abdullah ceo) and he will now sign the agreement to keep 10,000 US troops in Afghanistan until 2016. By then Hillary will probably be just about ready to take over as president, and she is far more hawkish than Obama and will keep US troops in Afghanistan as long as necessary, if she is then followed by a Republican, unless it is Rand Paul, the US could have forces in Afghanistan for decades
That's why I said I'm resigned to it. We cannot stand by while such atrocities are committed Other than that Iraq has invited us so we are honourbound to get involved because its partly our mess to sort out but none of that changes the fact that I personally am sick of the whole neocon liberal interventionism thing.
As for Afghanistan we shall see. Whatever happens the Taliban will outlast any foreign supporting forces barracked in Afghanistan. Personally I'm not convinced how keen the US electorate will be to keep troops out there in any large numbers. I get the feeling a large portion of the US electorate has had a stomach full of it too.
TFS The fight against Islamic terrorism will last for decades if not more, I may not be a fan of Israeli settlements, but they are willing to do whatever necessary to eliminate Hamas. Ultimately it is up to Middle Eastern governments to control the likes of ISIS but we will have to support them where necessary
The more I think about this military intervention the more I support it - and the more I'm feeling alienated from many Ukippers that seem to be knee jerk anti-war.
It can't be much of a surprise, Farage has been quite pro-Putin over the Ukraine. There seems to be a lot of Little Englander in their makeup, or at least non-interventionism. Although I did hear him interviewed and he seems to think the strategy is wrong - he seemed to say IS should be destroyed by the combined ground forces of neighbouring Arab states, and we could support that a bit if we liked.
You do wonder why Saudi has all that military hardware.
Perhaps it is that Farage like the many other people is looking at the previous interventions the West has made in the Middle East and North Africa and searching in vain for a single example that has ended in any way well.
Sierra Leone stands out pretty clearly. We saved that nation from hell.
No. Sierra Leone does not stand out at all in this case since it is not in North Africa or the Middle East and was not the victim of an Islamic civil war.
There are plenty of good post war examples of successful British/Western interventions that have installed or protected democratic governments. Unfortunately they are not in North African or Middle Eastern countries.
In fact probably the only successful intervention in the region was in Oman in the 1970s where the British Special Forces secretly helped protect the country against invasion from Yemen.
I scanned your post too quickly and read is as "Africa", apologies.
I think the problem with the MENA region is that the region is so beset with problems that even an intervention that improves things over the alternative still looks bad. I know how problematic the situation in Libya is right now, but I still think the casualties are far fewer than there would have been had Gaddafi's army "crushed" Benghazi as he planned.
The more I think about this military intervention the more I support it - and the more I'm feeling alienated from many Ukippers that seem to be knee jerk anti-war.
Probably something to do with not wanting to waste blood and treasure on bongo land and not wanting our troops to come back in bodybags or with limbs missing.
We're not putting in troops.
Do you seriously trust Cameron not to mission creep.
I was appalled at the pro-Putin line he took on Ukraine. It almost sent me back to the Tories.
No, I didn't get it. I'm confident I would vote Conservative if they did the following:
1) Commit to getting immigration, especially unskilled immigration, back down to 1990 levels once again, and to set out a credible plan to do that.
2) Spell out what Cameron will try to renegotiate from the European Union, and have substantial demands in that (CAP, CET, Free Movement)
3) Commit to a British civil liberties bill with an enforcement mechanism that can properly restrain the creeping power of the state.
If that doesn't happen, I'm going to want to vote for UKIP though. Even in a tight Conservative-Labour marginal my vote would probably still make a better difference to boost UKIP. The media would interpret it as "The Tories would have won this seat had they been better on these issues", which will get our Conservative Party back.
I suppose UKIP might not stand in my constituency, then I would also vote Tory.
Thanks. Totally understand where you are coming from (and agree fully with all of your points 1 - 3) and the media point to pressurise the Tories into reforming is a good one.
However, particularly following this week's events, I fear Milliband would be *such* an economic and social disaster, that I would on balance prefer Cameron and the Conservatives for the next 4 years. Personally, I would not gamble on that to make a point.
I think there will be some sort of referendum on the EU if there is a Conservative government, which will draw the poison and all the arguments into the open. Like the Scottish independence referendum for the SNP, even a narrow YES vote to remaining in the EU, will mean things cannot be the same ever again.
I could be wrong, but I also think the political realignment of which you speak is coming anyway; I see no pressing need to sacrifice ourselves to socialism in the meantime.
I'm convinced (like Sean Fear) that 2015 will be the last hurrah for the Tories, that they'll never win again alone after that, that we'll continue to see hung parliaments, and that we'll get serious political reform in the early 2020s.
The only argument that'll stop me voting Tory is this: "a-ha! I told you, these disillusioned Tories have nowhere else to go. They'll *always* come back to us - idiots! Let's continue our modernising strategy to position ourselves off away from them.."
The more I think about this military intervention the more I support it - and the more I'm feeling alienated from many Ukippers that seem to be knee jerk anti-war.
Probably something to do with not wanting to waste blood and treasure on bongo land and not wanting our troops to come back in bodybags or with limbs missing.
We're not putting in troops.
Do you seriously trust Cameron not to mission creep.
I think mission creep may happen, but not to the extent of ground troops.
And for all my issues with Cameron, I think he seems to be reasonable on non-EU foreign policy.
ManofKent Yes, it is difficult, but sadly as you say I believe we have no alternative and we have an obligation to the country having toppled Saddam in the first place
10,000 US troops is not large numbers, but the electoral cycle is such that we are moving from a President, elected at least, as an anti war Democrat, to a hawkish Democrat in all likelihood, followed by a Republican, who is also likely to be hawkish, so troops will be there for some time to come. Most Afghans do not want the Taliban back, they turned out in vast numbers in the recent presidential election despite Taliban threats, and again, having invaded we also have a responsibility to Afghanistan to to support the elected government
I can only imagine it's a combination of (a) seeing everything through the lens of the 2003 Iraq War and overgeneralising the lessons from that, (b) being so anti-establishment they take up every anti-establishment cause and (c) feeling that if something's difficult we should just not get involved, in the misbelief that it then won't affect us.
The more I think about this military intervention the more I support it - and the more I'm feeling alienated from many Ukippers that seem to be knee jerk anti-war.
It can't be much of a surprise, Farage has been quite pro-Putin over the Ukraine. There seems to be a lot of Little Englander in their makeup, or at least non-interventionism. Although I did hear him interviewed and he seems to think the strategy is wrong - he seemed to say IS should be destroyed by the combined ground forces of neighbouring Arab states, and we could support that a bit if we liked.
You do wonder why Saudi has all that military hardware.
I was appalled at the pro-Putin line he took on Ukraine. It almost sent me back to the Tories.
Where you seem to be struggling is in realising that there is a British interest and an American one, and that they are not permanently aligned.
I was appalled at the pro-Putin line he took on Ukraine. It almost sent me back to the Tories.
No, I didn't get it. I'm confident I would vote Conservative if they did the following:
1) Commit to getting immigration, especially unskilled immigration, back down to 1990 levels once again, and to set out a credible plan to do that.
2) Spell out what Cameron will try to renegotiate from the European Union, and have substantial demands in that (CAP, CET, Free Movement)
3) Commit to a British civil liberties bill with an enforcement mechanism that can properly restrain the creeping power of the state.
If that doesn't happen, I'm going to want to vote for UKIP though. Even in a tight Conservative-Labour marginal my vote would probably still make a better difference to boost UKIP. The media would interpret it as "The Tories would have won this seat had they been better on these issues", which will get our Conservative Party back.
I suppose UKIP might not stand in my constituency, then I would also vote Tory.
Thanks. Totally understand where you are coming from (and agree fully with all of your points 1 - 3) and the media point to pressurise the Tories into reforming is a good one.
However, particularly following this week's events, I fear Milliband would be *such* an economic and social disaster, that I would on balance prefer Cameron and the Conservatives for the next 4 years. Personally, I would not gamble on that to make a point.
I think there will be some sort of referendum on the EU if there is a Conservative government, which will draw the poison and all the arguments into the open. Like the Scottish independence referendum for the SNP, even a narrow YES vote to remaining in the EU, will mean things cannot be the same ever again.
I could be wrong, but I also think the political realignment of which you speak is coming anyway; I see no pressing need to sacrifice ourselves to socialism in the meantime.
I'm convinced (like Sean Fear) that 2015 will be the last hurrah for the Tories, that they'll never win again alone after that, that we'll continue to see hung parliaments, and that we'll get serious political reform in the early 2020s.
The only argument that'll stop me voting Tory is this: "a-ha! I told you, these disillusioned Tories have nowhere else to go. They'll *always* come back to us - idiots! Let's continue our modernising strategy to position ourselves off away from them.."
The more I think about this military intervention the more I support it - and the more I'm feeling alienated from many Ukippers that seem to be knee jerk anti-war.
Probably something to do with not wanting to waste blood and treasure on bongo land and not wanting our troops to come back in bodybags or with limbs missing.
We're not putting in troops.
Do you seriously trust Cameron not to mission creep.
I think mission creep may happen, but not to the extent of ground troops.
And for all my issues with Cameron, I think he seems to be reasonable on non-EU foreign policy.
That's fair enough, but I just can't see the job being done to completion (whatever that is) without significant boots on the ground. I'd like those boots to be on the feet of nationalities in the region, but still think we'll end up in there.
The more I think about this military intervention the more I support it - and the more I'm feeling alienated from many Ukippers that seem to be knee jerk anti-war.
It can't be much of a surprise, Farage has been quite pro-Putin over the Ukraine. There seems to be a lot of Little Englander in their makeup, or at least non-interventionism. Although I did hear him interviewed and he seems to think the strategy is wrong - he seemed to say IS should be destroyed by the combined ground forces of neighbouring Arab states, and we could support that a bit if we liked.
You do wonder why Saudi has all that military hardware.
I was appalled at the pro-Putin line he took on Ukraine. It almost sent me back to the Tories.
Where you seem to be struggling is in realising that there is a British interest and an American one, and that they are not permanently aligned.
Perhaps not, but an international order where countries can't freely invade their neighbours and annex chunks of their territory is in the interest of every democratic nation.
The best way to defeat ISIS is, and has always been, to swallow our pride, suck it up, and support Assad -the only person who has actually managed to make any headway against these people. He has after all been fighting (and beating) a foreign-backed insurgency in his country for two years. This is not some out there view -Malcolm Rifkind and a number of other senior MPs have said the same. Why won't we do this? -Principled opposition to his awful regime? -Hardly. We're in bed with far worse, and at any rate, the joint enemy is ten times more awful This is about geo-politics, about energy supply, and about a proxy war between Russia and the USA. Learn it. Believe it. Don't fumble around in the dark for silly superficial reasons.
The more I think about this military intervention the more I support it - and the more I'm feeling alienated from many Ukippers that seem to be knee jerk anti-war.
It can't be much of a surprise, Farage has been quite pro-Putin over the Ukraine. There seems to be a lot of Little Englander in their makeup, or at least non-interventionism. Although I did hear him interviewed and he seems to think the strategy is wrong - he seemed to say IS should be destroyed by the combined ground forces of neighbouring Arab states, and we could support that a bit if we liked.
You do wonder why Saudi has all that military hardware.
I was appalled at the pro-Putin line he took on Ukraine. It almost sent me back to the Tories.
Where you seem to be struggling is in realising that there is a British interest and an American one, and that they are not permanently aligned.
Not sure how our interests might be served by Russia moving its borders several hundred miles westward, and engaging in irredentism over parts of neighbouring countries where some of the inhabitants speak Russian (and some of which are EU countries).
I was pretty pro Gulf War Mk 1 and II - that the second one was based on lie rankles a lot, but I'm not too hung up on it.
I don't want to intervene again - AT ALL. We're clearly not the *right answer* whatever we do.
That's just the way it's panned out.
I paid a great deal of attention to GW Mk1 and II - now I can't be bothered to even listen to how many have died via sectarian violence. Let them slaughter each other is my motto now. We did our best, it didn't work.
The more I think about this military intervention the more I support it - and the more I'm feeling alienated from many Ukippers that seem to be knee jerk anti-war.
Whilst I'm resigned to another intervention I really don't think its surprising at all that people are becoming less and less willing for this country to involve itself in what seems a never-ending procession of wars. The reasons are numerous
1) People are war weary. It's been 45 years since this country was not facing a terrorist threat for any extended period.
2) Iraq was a watershed after which the British Government could no longer be trusted to lead the nation into 'righteous wars'. It humiliated this country.
3) This government's foreign policy is a mess. Libya is turning into a new Iraq, Syria was a farce and the interference in Ukraine is distinctly dubious.
4) After almost 15 years in Afghanistan the Taliban are likely to return when the UK and US move out
5) The decision to send in 6 jets only to bomb in Iraq sounds like a typical Cameron tokenist PR stunt. It is neither adequate nor reflective of prior UK responses. The proposal does not make sense and many have suggested it won't work.
6) Too much blood and treasure has already been spent in the middle east region by this country
7) People fear that there will be mission creep and we will become much heavily involved with further expending of blood and treasure
"It's complex, but, I'm edging towards not just bombing ISIL, but going for a full on, boots on the ground, kick ass, shock and awe kill fest. But, then, I'm not the one who's going to be at the sharp end. I know a lot of forces people, a few of the Stopper clan are in various branches, including two young nephews who would expect to be at the tip of the spear, if it does escalate, and a close friend who can shoot the balls off a gnat from a mile away, after having crawled on his belly for 5 days to get in position. These are the people who will be playing out the policy that Whitehall, and the voting public, demanding something, anything, want actioning. Other people's sons, brothers, husbands, and yes, now daughters, wives, sisters. It's easy to be an armchair general.
If we accept that we are at least partly responsible for the state of things in Iraq (cheers, Tony),what do we do about it? I think we have a duty to clear up the mess we made, and that is going to take a lot of blood and treasure. We also have to separate the crazy islamist psychopaths from the majority of muslims, but that is difficult, given that our actions tend to radicalise rather than create harmony. Maybe we have to accept that protecting ourselves will offend some people?
Make no bones about it, it is going to be bloody. It's going to have to be a full on war, it needs to be a full on war. What my friends and family don't want, is a hands-tied-behind-their-back- police action, where they end up stuck in theatre, a war of attrition, to be maimed and killed by IEDs and suicide bombers and then to withdraw ignominiously a decade later. If they're to fight a war, let them fight it.
It's the aftermath that will be the problem. Say we beat ISIL, what next? What Islamist group will spring up next, to take their place? Where wil we have to intervene next? But if we do nothing, what next? These things always always end in "next". "
Thank you for this very thoughtful post. I agree with everything you say here, but I think there are two factors that make the full on war a bad idea. The first is competence - I'm not convinced that we're good enough to win all the necessary objectives, and definitely not quickly. The second is that however pro-war the general public is, any enthusiasm would fizzle out as it dragged on and cost more and more lives and money. It would be like Iraq all over again, and would inevitably turn into your hands-tied-behind back war of attrition before long.
As unsatisfying as it may be, our best option could be to do just enough to show willing and support for the sake of wider international relations, but not commit too heavily. It's an enormous mess but it's not going to stop until the majority of people in the region get sick of the juvenile nonsense and force the development of their own societies beyond such things. That's not something that can be imposed from the West.
The more I think about this military intervention the more I support it - and the more I'm feeling alienated from many Ukippers that seem to be knee jerk anti-war.
It can't be much of a surprise, Farage has been quite pro-Putin over the Ukraine. There seems to be a lot of Little Englander in their makeup, or at least non-interventionism. Although I did hear him interviewed and he seems to think the strategy is wrong - he seemed to say IS should be destroyed by the combined ground forces of neighbouring Arab states, and we could support that a bit if we liked.
You do wonder why Saudi has all that military hardware.
I was appalled at the pro-Putin line he took on Ukraine. It almost sent me back to the Tories.
Where you seem to be struggling is in realising that there is a British interest and an American one, and that they are not permanently aligned.
Perhaps not, but an international order where countries can't freely invade their neighbours and annex chunks of their territory is in the interest of every democratic nation.
I quite agree. This is why we have the UN -a body whose rules the US is in flagrant violation of by bombing a member state without the permission of its Government. International law is meant to be universally applied, not ignored by a rapacious superpower yet thrown in the face of anyone who opposes it.
The more I think about this military intervention the more I support it - and the more I'm feeling alienated from many Ukippers that seem to be knee jerk anti-war.
Probably something to do with not wanting to waste blood and treasure on bongo land and not wanting our troops to come back in bodybags or with limbs missing.
We're not putting in troops.
Do you seriously trust Cameron not to mission creep.
I think mission creep may happen, but not to the extent of ground troops.
And for all my issues with Cameron, I think he seems to be reasonable on non-EU foreign policy.
That's fair enough, but I just can't see the job being done to completion (whatever that is) without significant boots on the ground. I'd like those boots to be on the feet of nationalities in the region, but still think we'll end up in there.
We could commemorate our 100th anniversary of invading Iraq/Mesopotamia on 6 November by invading again and prove that we have learnt nothing in a century.
6 planes is tokenism, not war. If we are serious about fighting IS we need a serious punitive expedition with fairly lax rules of engagement, so they can be hunted down like the vermin they are.
But if we are not willing to do that then we should keep out.
The best way to defeat ISIS is, and has always been, to swallow our pride, suck it up, and support Assad -the only person who has actually managed to make any headway against these people. He has after all been fighting (and beating) a foreign-backed insurgency in his country for two years. This is not some out there view -Malcolm Rifkind and a number of other senior MPs have said the same. Why won't we do this? -Principled opposition to his awful regime? -Hardly. We're in bed with far worse, and at any rate, the joint enemy is ten times more awful This is about geo-politics, about energy supply, and about a proxy war between Russia and the USA. Learn it. Believe it. Don't fumble around in the dark for silly superficial reasons.
I'm not sure the best person is Assad. Anyone who happened to command the Syrian armed forces would do, and someone who wasn't quite such a bastard might do better in keeping ordinary Syrians on their/our side.
Of course, in the spirit of Perfidious Albion, I would be in favour of allying ourselves with Assad to get rid of IS, and then stabbing him in the back, but I don't think we do that sort of thing any more, and the Americans would disapprove (they were too stupid to slip the shiv into the Shah's back when he became a liability).
The more I think about this military intervention the more I support it - and the more I'm feeling alienated from many Ukippers that seem to be knee jerk anti-war.
It can't be much of a surprise, Farage has been quite pro-Putin over the Ukraine. There seems to be a lot of Little Englander in their makeup, or at least non-interventionism. Although I did hear him interviewed and he seems to think the strategy is wrong - he seemed to say IS should be destroyed by the combined ground forces of neighbouring Arab states, and we could support that a bit if we liked.
You do wonder why Saudi has all that military hardware.
I was appalled at the pro-Putin line he took on Ukraine. It almost sent me back to the Tories.
Where you seem to be struggling is in realising that there is a British interest and an American one, and that they are not permanently aligned.
Perhaps not, but an international order where countries can't freely invade their neighbours and annex chunks of their territory is in the interest of every democratic nation.
I quite agree. This is why we have the UN -a body whose rules the US is in flagrant violation of by bombing a member state without the permission of its Government. International law is meant to be universally applied, not ignored by a rapacious superpower yet thrown in the face of anyone who opposes it.
Maybe we should recognise the IS, shortly before removing it from the map.
Given my close familial ties with SL - I think it was a great thing - but IIRC it was the local military officers who took the initiative and Tony just piggy-backed on the success afterwards.
Either way - I'm not carping.
Isn't there a Baltic state where thousands of kids are called Tonee in tribute? My knowledge here is vanishingly small so happy to be corrected as ever.
The more I think about this military intervention the more I support it - and the more I'm feeling alienated from many Ukippers that seem to be knee jerk anti-war.
It can't be much of a surprise, Farage has been quite pro-Putin over the Ukraine. There seems to be a lot of Little Englander in their makeup, or at least non-interventionism. Although I did hear him interviewed and he seems to think the strategy is wrong - he seemed to say IS should be destroyed by the combined ground forces of neighbouring Arab states, and we could support that a bit if we liked.
You do wonder why Saudi has all that military hardware.
Perhaps it is that Farage like the many other people is looking at the previous interventions the West has made in the Middle East and North Africa and searching in vain for a single example that has ended in any way well.
Sierra Leone stands out pretty clearly. We saved that nation from hell.
The more I think about this military intervention the more I support it - and the more I'm feeling alienated from many Ukippers that seem to be knee jerk anti-war.
It can't be much of a surprise, Farage has been quite pro-Putin over the Ukraine. There seems to be a lot of Little Englander in their makeup, or at least non-interventionism. Although I did hear him interviewed and he seems to think the strategy is wrong - he seemed to say IS should be destroyed by the combined ground forces of neighbouring Arab states, and we could support that a bit if we liked.
You do wonder why Saudi has all that military hardware.
I was appalled at the pro-Putin line he took on Ukraine. It almost sent me back to the Tories.
Where you seem to be struggling is in realising that there is a British interest and an American one, and that they are not permanently aligned.
Not sure how our interests might be served by Russia moving its borders several hundred miles westward, and engaging in irredentism over parts of neighbouring countries where some of the inhabitants speak Russian (and some of which are EU countries).
They are not served by it (nor particularly undermined by it). But they are not our actions. Our actions are either to antagonise Russia, or not. America seems hell bent in provoking Russia into conflict. It is utterly counter to our national interest to assist them in doing so. That fact that we are proves how unfit our leaders are.
The more I think about this military intervention the more I support it - and the more I'm feeling alienated from many Ukippers that seem to be knee jerk anti-war.
It can't be much of a surprise, Farage has been quite pro-Putin over the Ukraine. There seems to be a lot of Little Englander in their makeup, or at least non-interventionism. Although I did hear him interviewed and he seems to think the strategy is wrong - he seemed to say IS should be destroyed by the combined ground forces of neighbouring Arab states, and we could support that a bit if we liked.
You do wonder why Saudi has all that military hardware.
I was appalled at the pro-Putin line he took on Ukraine. It almost sent me back to the Tories.
Socrates: not sure you got my question last night. Are there *any* circumstances you could see yourself voting Conservative next year rather than UKIP? For instance, in a tight Conservative/Labour marginal?
The reason I ask, is that I've been struggling over a similar decision. However, I'm now sufficiently horrified by the prospect of what a Miliband government might mean that (if I had to pick) I'd pick the devil over the deep blue sea.
What I wouldn't do is re-join the party, campaign for them or give them any money, though.
No, I didn't get it. I'm confident I would vote Conservative if they did the following:
1) Commit to getting immigration, especially unskilled immigration, back down to 1990 levels once again, and to set out a credible plan to do that.
2) Spell out what Cameron will try to renegotiate from the European Union, and have substantial demands in that (CAP, CET, Free Movement)
3) Commit to a British civil liberties bill with an enforcement mechanism that can properly restrain the creeping power of the state.
If that doesn't happen, I'm going to want to vote for UKIP though. Even in a tight Conservative-Labour marginal my vote would probably still make a better difference to boost UKIP. The media would interpret it as "The Tories would have won this seat had they been better on these issues", which will get our Conservative Party back.
I suppose UKIP might not stand in my constituency, then I would also vote Tory.
The more I think about this military intervention the more I support it - and the more I'm feeling alienated from many Ukippers that seem to be knee jerk anti-war.
Probably something to do with not wanting to waste blood and treasure on bongo land and not wanting our troops to come back in bodybags or with limbs missing.
We're not putting in troops.
Do you seriously trust Cameron not to mission creep.
I think mission creep may happen, but not to the extent of ground troops.
And for all my issues with Cameron, I think he seems to be reasonable on non-EU foreign policy.
That's fair enough, but I just can't see the job being done to completion (whatever that is) without significant boots on the ground. I'd like those boots to be on the feet of nationalities in the region, but still think we'll end up in there.
We could commemorate our 100th anniversary of invading Iraq/Mesopotamia on 6 November by invading again and prove that we have learnt nothing in a century.
6 planes is tokenism, not war. If we are serious about fighting IS we need a serious punitive expedition with fairly lax rules of engagement, so they can be hunted down like the vermin they are.
But if we are not willing to do that then we should keep out.
I agree, but then I'm a brilliant armchair general!
The more I think about this military intervention the more I support it - and the more I'm feeling alienated from many Ukippers that seem to be knee jerk anti-war.
It can't be much of a surprise, Farage has been quite pro-Putin over the Ukraine. There seems to be a lot of Little Englander in their makeup, or at least non-interventionism. Although I did hear him interviewed and he seems to think the strategy is wrong - he seemed to say IS should be destroyed by the combined ground forces of neighbouring Arab states, and we could support that a bit if we liked.
You do wonder why Saudi has all that military hardware.
I was appalled at the pro-Putin line he took on Ukraine. It almost sent me back to the Tories.
Where you seem to be struggling is in realising that there is a British interest and an American one, and that they are not permanently aligned.
Not sure how our interests might be served by Russia moving its borders several hundred miles westward, and engaging in irredentism over parts of neighbouring countries where some of the inhabitants speak Russian (and some of which are EU countries).
They are not served by it (nor particularly undermined by it). But they are not our actions. Our actions are either to antagonise Russia, or not. America seems hell bent in provoking Russia into conflict. It is utterly counter to our national interest to assist them in doing so. That fact that we are proves how unfit our leaders are.
I guess your definition of "antagonising" Russia would be to do anything Putin doesn't like, however unreasonable his opinion is.
They are not served by it (nor particularly undermined by it). But they are not our actions. Our actions are either to antagonise Russia, or not. America seems hell bent in provoking Russia into conflict. It is utterly counter to our national interest to assist them in doing so. That fact that we are proves how unfit our leaders are.
Václav Klaus is interviewed in this week's Spectator:
"He doesn’t agree with the western elite’s current hostility towards Russia, which he believes is based on a false and outdated view of the country.
‘I remember one person in our country who at one moment was minister of foreign affairs, telling me that he hated communism so much that he was not even able to read Dostoevsky. I have remembered that statement for decades and I am afraid that the current propaganda against Russia is based on a similar argument and way of thinking.
I spent most of my life in a communist Czechoslovakia under Soviet domination. But I differentiate between the Soviet Union and Russia. Those who are not able to understand the difference are simply not looking with open eyes.
I always argue with my American and British friends that although the political system in Russia is different from the system in our countries and we wouldn’t be happy to live in such a system, to compare the current Russia with Leonid Brezhnev’s Soviet Union is stupid.’
He says, with finality: ‘The US/EU propaganda against Russia is really ridiculous and I can’t accept it.’"
Given my close familial ties with SL - I think it was a great thing - but IIRC it was the local military officers who took the initiative and Tony just piggy-backed on the success afterwards.
Either way - I'm not carping.
Isn't there a Baltic state where thousands of kids are called Tonee in tribute? My knowledge here is vanishingly small so happy to be corrected as ever.
The more I think about this military intervention the more I support it - and the more I'm feeling alienated from many Ukippers that seem to be knee jerk anti-war.
It can't be much of a surprise, Farage has been quite pro-Putin over the Ukraine. There seems to be a lot of Little Englander in their makeup, or at least non-interventionism. Although I did hear him interviewed and he seems to think the strategy is wrong - he seemed to say IS should be destroyed by the combined ground forces of neighbouring Arab states, and we could support that a bit if we liked.
You do wonder why Saudi has all that military hardware.
Perhaps it is that Farage like the many other people is looking at the previous interventions the West has made in the Middle East and North Africa and searching in vain for a single example that has ended in any way well.
Sierra Leone stands out pretty clearly. We saved that nation from hell.
That happens in both Bosnia and Kosovo, nations we saved from ethnic cleansing.
The more I think about this military intervention the more I support it - and the more I'm feeling alienated from many Ukippers that seem to be knee jerk anti-war.
It can't be much of a surprise, Farage has been quite pro-Putin over the Ukraine. There seems to be a lot of Little Englander in their makeup, or at least non-interventionism. Although I did hear him interviewed and he seems to think the strategy is wrong - he seemed to say IS should be destroyed by the combined ground forces of neighbouring Arab states, and we could support that a bit if we liked.
You do wonder why Saudi has all that military hardware.
I was appalled at the pro-Putin line he took on Ukraine. It almost sent me back to the Tories.
Where you seem to be struggling is in realising that there is a British interest and an American one, and that they are not permanently aligned.
Perhaps not, but an international order where countries can't freely invade their neighbours and annex chunks of their territory is in the interest of every democratic nation.
I quite agree. This is why we have the UN -a body whose rules the US is in flagrant violation of by bombing a member state without the permission of its Government. International law is meant to be universally applied, not ignored by a rapacious superpower yet thrown in the face of anyone who opposes it.
If you're talking about Iraq, they asked the American government for help.
The more I think about this military intervention the more I support it - and the more I'm feeling alienated from many Ukippers that seem to be knee jerk anti-war.
It can't be much of a surprise, Farage has been quite pro-Putin over the Ukraine. There seems to be a lot of Little Englander in their makeup, or at least non-interventionism. Although I did hear him interviewed and he seems to think the strategy is wrong - he seemed to say IS should be destroyed by the combined ground forces of neighbouring Arab states, and we could support that a bit if we liked.
You do wonder why Saudi has all that military hardware.
I was appalled at the pro-Putin line he took on Ukraine. It almost sent me back to the Tories.
Where you seem to be struggling is in realising that there is a British interest and an American one, and that they are not permanently aligned.
Not sure how our interests might be served by Russia moving its borders several hundred miles westward, and engaging in irredentism over parts of neighbouring countries where some of the inhabitants speak Russian (and some of which are EU countries).
They are not served by it (nor particularly undermined by it). But they are not our actions. Our actions are either to antagonise Russia, or not. America seems hell bent in provoking Russia into conflict. It is utterly counter to our national interest to assist them in doing so. That fact that we are proves how unfit our leaders are.
Ditto Czechoslovakia, 1938, presumably.
It is Putin who seems hell-bent on waging wars of territorial expansion whenever he thinks he can get away with it. Georgia, Ukraine - where next? There are plenty of other Russian minorities outside the motherland.
The more I think about this military intervention the more I support it - and the more I'm feeling alienated from many Ukippers that seem to be knee jerk anti-war.
It can't be much of a surprise, Farage has been quite pro-Putin over the Ukraine. There seems to be a lot of Little Englander in their makeup, or at least non-interventionism. Although I did hear him interviewed and he seems to think the strategy is wrong - he seemed to say IS should be destroyed by the combined ground forces of neighbouring Arab states, and we could support that a bit if we liked.
You do wonder why Saudi has all that military hardware.
I was appalled at the pro-Putin line he took on Ukraine. It almost sent me back to the Tories.
Where you seem to be struggling is in realising that there is a British interest and an American one, and that they are not permanently aligned.
Not sure how our interests might be served by Russia moving its borders several hundred miles westward, and engaging in irredentism over parts of neighbouring countries where some of the inhabitants speak Russian (and some of which are EU countries).
They are not served by it (nor particularly undermined by it). But they are not our actions. Our actions are either to antagonise Russia, or not. America seems hell bent in provoking Russia into conflict. It is utterly counter to our national interest to assist them in doing so. That fact that we are proves how unfit our leaders are.
I guess your definition of "antagonising" Russia would be to do anything Putin doesn't like, however unreasonable his opinion is.
Again you're being silly with your tin soldiers. What does this posture of 'not going along with Putin' actually *mean*? Russia is a world power, with huge significance for Europe's energy security and Britain's economy. It's moved further to the right than European sensibilities, but it's hardly Saudi Arabia (who David Cameron would frankly pole dance for if asked). For the moment, that would indicate that the best way forward lies in cultivating cordial relations, and hoping to positively influence the country in the right way -regardless of what we think of Putin. Anything else is just fluff.
The more I think about this military intervention the more I support it - and the more I'm feeling alienated from many Ukippers that seem to be knee jerk anti-war.
It can't be much of a surprise, Farage has been quite pro-Putin over the Ukraine. There seems to be a lot of Little Englander in their makeup, or at least non-interventionism. Although I did hear him interviewed and he seems to think the strategy is wrong - he seemed to say IS should be destroyed by the combined ground forces of neighbouring Arab states, and we could support that a bit if we liked.
You do wonder why Saudi has all that military hardware.
I was appalled at the pro-Putin line he took on Ukraine. It almost sent me back to the Tories.
Where you seem to be struggling is in realising that there is a British interest and an American one, and that they are not permanently aligned.
Perhaps not, but an international order where countries can't freely invade their neighbours and annex chunks of their territory is in the interest of every democratic nation.
I quite agree. This is why we have the UN -a body whose rules the US is in flagrant violation of by bombing a member state without the permission of its Government. International law is meant to be universally applied, not ignored by a rapacious superpower yet thrown in the face of anyone who opposes it.
If you're talking about Iraq, they asked the American government for help.
The more I think about this military intervention the more I support it - and the more I'm feeling alienated from many Ukippers that seem to be knee jerk anti-war.
It can't be much of a surprise, Farage has been quite pro-Putin over the Ukraine. There seems to be a lot of Little Englander in their makeup, or at least non-interventionism. Although I did hear him interviewed and he seems to think the strategy is wrong - he seemed to say IS should be destroyed by the combined ground forces of neighbouring Arab states, and we could support that a bit if we liked.
You do wonder why Saudi has all that military hardware.
I was appalled at the pro-Putin line he took on Ukraine. It almost sent me back to the Tories.
Where you seem to be struggling is in realising that there is a British interest and an American one, and that they are not permanently aligned.
Not sure how our interests might be served by Russia moving its borders several hundred miles westward, and engaging in irredentism over parts of neighbouring countries where some of the inhabitants speak Russian (and some of which are EU countries).
They are not served by it (nor particularly undermined by it). But they are not our actions. Our actions are either to antagonise Russia, or not. America seems hell bent in provoking Russia into conflict. It is utterly counter to our national interest to assist them in doing so. That fact that we are proves how unfit our leaders are.
Ditto Czechoslovakia, 1938, presumably.
It is Putin who seems hell-bent on waging wars of territorial expansion whenever he thinks he can get away with it. Georgia, Ukraine - where next? There are plenty of other Russian minorities outside the motherland.
Rubbish. Putin is not mad, whatever you may say about him -he is a pragmatist. The US-sponsored coup in Ukraine (toppling the elected President I might add) broke every convention and threatened first strike parity. Putin has acted as any responsible leader of Russia would.
As for your Hitler comparisons -they don't do your commentary any favours.
The USA, Arab countries, France & Denmark are already bombing ISIL... What difference does it make if we do or don't?
If there was no one else in the world stopping them, I'd be more inclined to support intervention, but that's not the case, and given the terrorist acts in the uk that follow our butting in to any Muslim country, why not try sitting on our hands for once?
They are not served by it (nor particularly undermined by it). But they are not our actions. Our actions are either to antagonise Russia, or not. America seems hell bent in provoking Russia into conflict. It is utterly counter to our national interest to assist them in doing so. That fact that we are proves how unfit our leaders are.
Václav Klaus is interviewed in this week's Spectator:
"He doesn’t agree with the western elite’s current hostility towards Russia, which he believes is based on a false and outdated view of the country.
‘I remember one person in our country who at one moment was minister of foreign affairs, telling me that he hated communism so much that he was not even able to read Dostoevsky. I have remembered that statement for decades and I am afraid that the current propaganda against Russia is based on a similar argument and way of thinking.
I spent most of my life in a communist Czechoslovakia under Soviet domination. But I differentiate between the Soviet Union and Russia. Those who are not able to understand the difference are simply not looking with open eyes.
I always argue with my American and British friends that although the political system in Russia is different from the system in our countries and we wouldn’t be happy to live in such a system, to compare the current Russia with Leonid Brezhnev’s Soviet Union is stupid.’
He says, with finality: ‘The US/EU propaganda against Russia is really ridiculous and I can’t accept it.’"
The USA, Arab countries, France & Denmark are already bombing ISIL... What difference does it make if we do or don't?
If there was no one else in the world stopping them, I'd be more inclined to support intervention, but that's not the case, and given the terrorist acts in the uk that follow our butting in to any Muslim country, why not try sitting on our hands for once?
I just think it's too late for that. There will be another terrorist atrocity in this country. We train for it with other agencies. It's not going to stop now, no matter what we do.
The best way to defeat ISIS is, and has always been, to swallow our pride, suck it up, and support Assad -the only person who has actually managed to make any headway against these people. He has after all been fighting (and beating) a foreign-backed insurgency in his country for two years. This is not some out there view -Malcolm Rifkind and a number of other senior MPs have said the same. Why won't we do this? -Principled opposition to his awful regime? -Hardly. We're in bed with far worse, and at any rate, the joint enemy is ten times more awful This is about geo-politics, about energy supply, and about a proxy war between Russia and the USA. Learn it. Believe it. Don't fumble around in the dark for silly superficial reasons.
I'm not sure the best person is Assad. Anyone who happened to command the Syrian armed forces would do, and someone who wasn't quite such a bastard might do better in keeping ordinary Syrians on their/our side.
Of course, in the spirit of Perfidious Albion, I would be in favour of allying ourselves with Assad to get rid of IS, and then stabbing him in the back, but I don't think we do that sort of thing any more, and the Americans would disapprove (they were too stupid to slip the shiv into the Shah's back when he became a liability).
You should use your common sense -how on earth do you think Assad has survived this without incredibly strong (and growing, in the face of the jihadist threat) domestic support? He can rally millions in seconds. Our media just never shows it. Syrians are very patriotic, and there is no way that a cobbled together Western government would ever have legitimacy there. They're well aware that the regime has its problems and needs reform (which it has been doing). Doesn't mean they want us to violently impose it at the barrel of a foreign islamist's gun.
The more I think about this military intervention the more I support it - and the more I'm feeling alienated from many Ukippers that seem to be knee jerk anti-war.
Probably something to do with not wanting to waste blood and treasure on bongo land and not wanting our troops to come back in bodybags or with limbs missing.
We're not putting in troops.
Do you seriously trust Cameron not to mission creep.
I think mission creep may happen, but not to the extent of ground troops.
And for all my issues with Cameron, I think he seems to be reasonable on non-EU foreign policy.
That's fair enough, but I just can't see the job being done to completion (whatever that is) without significant boots on the ground. I'd like those boots to be on the feet of nationalities in the region, but still think we'll end up in there.
We could commemorate our 100th anniversary of invading Iraq/Mesopotamia on 6 November by invading again and prove that we have learnt nothing in a century.
6 planes is tokenism, not war. If we are serious about fighting IS we need a serious punitive expedition with fairly lax rules of engagement, so they can be hunted down like the vermin they are.
But if we are not willing to do that then we should keep out.
I agree, but then I'm a brilliant armchair general!
Sounds familiar. At UHL we are £40 million in the hole again this year. Ed Millibands mansion tax will be gone in a flash just with the current shortfall:
They are not served by it (nor particularly undermined by it). But they are not our actions. Our actions are either to antagonise Russia, or not. America seems hell bent in provoking Russia into conflict. It is utterly counter to our national interest to assist them in doing so. That fact that we are proves how unfit our leaders are.
Václav Klaus is interviewed in this week's Spectator:
"He doesn’t agree with the western elite’s current hostility towards Russia, which he believes is based on a false and outdated view of the country.
‘I remember one person in our country who at one moment was minister of foreign affairs, telling me that he hated communism so much that he was not even able to read Dostoevsky. I have remembered that statement for decades and I am afraid that the current propaganda against Russia is based on a similar argument and way of thinking.
I spent most of my life in a communist Czechoslovakia under Soviet domination. But I differentiate between the Soviet Union and Russia. Those who are not able to understand the difference are simply not looking with open eyes.
I always argue with my American and British friends that although the political system in Russia is different from the system in our countries and we wouldn’t be happy to live in such a system, to compare the current Russia with Leonid Brezhnev’s Soviet Union is stupid.’
He says, with finality: ‘The US/EU propaganda against Russia is really ridiculous and I can’t accept it.’"
The more I think about this military intervention the more I support it - and the more I'm feeling alienated from many Ukippers that seem to be knee jerk anti-war.
It can't be much of a surprise, Farage has been quite pro-Putin over the Ukraine. There seems to be a lot of Little Englander in their makeup, or at least non-interventionism. Although I did hear him interviewed and he seems to think the strategy is wrong - he seemed to say IS should be destroyed by the combined ground forces of neighbouring Arab states, and we could support that a bit if we liked.
You do wonder why Saudi has all that military hardware.
Aha, found the root that has caused this degeneration of the discussion in to Hitler 1938 vs Putin Cold War.
In an effort to put a lid on it, it is not just Farage, its the entire right in the whole of the west that has gone "pro-Putin". Look at the Tea Party, look at Le Pen, look at Orban, they are also pro-Putin, you know why? Because Putin is a radical conservative, they actually like his policies on the economy, society and foreign policy, their are jealous and envy him of his success because he is a no nonsense man. The speed in how he turned Russia from what it was in 1998 into what it is today makes him the envy of the radical right world wide.
In a few short words, its like the cold war but the russians are the conservative capitalists. Here look for yourselves:
The more I think about this military intervention the more I support it - and the more I'm feeling alienated from many Ukippers that seem to be knee jerk anti-war.
It can't be much of a surprise, Farage has been quite pro-Putin over the Ukraine. There seems to be a lot of Little Englander in their makeup, or at least non-interventionism. Although I did hear him interviewed and he seems to think the strategy is wrong - he seemed to say IS should be destroyed by the combined ground forces of neighbouring Arab states, and we could support that a bit if we liked.
You do wonder why Saudi has all that military hardware.
I was appalled at the pro-Putin line he took on Ukraine. It almost sent me back to the Tories.
Where you seem to be struggling is in realising that there is a British interest and an American one, and that they are not permanently aligned.
Not sure how our interests might be served by Russia moving its borders several hundred miles westward, and engaging in irredentism over parts of neighbouring countries where some of the inhabitants speak Russian (and some of which are EU countries).
They are not served by it (nor particularly undermined by it). But they are not our actions. Our actions are either to antagonise Russia, or not. America seems hell bent in provoking Russia into conflict. It is utterly counter to our national interest to assist them in doing so. That fact that we are proves how unfit our leaders are.
Ditto Czechoslovakia, 1938, presumably.
It is Putin who seems hell-bent on waging wars of territorial expansion whenever he thinks he can get away with it. Georgia, Ukraine - where next? There are plenty of other Russian minorities outside the motherland.
Rubbish. Putin is not mad, whatever you may say about him -he is a pragmatist. The US-sponsored coup in Ukraine (toppling the elected President I might add) broke every convention and threatened first strike parity. Putin has acted as any responsible leader of Russia would.
Occupying and annexing part of a country, conniving at separatists, encouraging and arming insurgents, infiltrating his own troops in a combat role, shooting down airliners... responsible? Pull the other one. Just because he was pissed off that the Ukrainians overthrew his patsy.
Downing Street has said a small number of troops could be sent to Iraq within hours if the Commons backs action.
However, the prime minister's official spokesman emphasised the troops would not be in a combat role but would be used to guide air strikes by RAF fighters
Since when has forward air control been a non-combat role?
Not that I'm bothered, they can drop fuel-air bombs on them and bayonet what's left, as far as I'm concerned.
Got to love the HAC.
They are the most relaxed part-time soldiers I've ever come across. They are based in a small castle in the centre of London, converted their parade ground into the world's most valuable cricket pitch, and spend their weekends in Scotland shooting bazookas at old land rovers.
And then they go behind enemy lines and call in aircraft strikes.
The more I think about this military intervention the more I support it - and the more I'm feeling alienated from many Ukippers that seem to be knee jerk anti-war.
It can't be much of a surprise, Farage has been quite pro-Putin over the Ukraine. There seems to be a lot of Little Englander in their makeup, or at least non-interventionism. Although I did hear him interviewed and he seems to think the strategy is wrong - he seemed to say IS should be destroyed by the combined ground forces of neighbouring Arab states, and we could support that a bit if we liked.
You do wonder why Saudi has all that military hardware.
I was appalled at the pro-Putin line he took on Ukraine. It almost sent me back to the Tories.
interest and an American one, and that they are not permanently aligned.
Not sure how our interests might be served countries).
They are not served by it (nor particularly undermined by it). But they are not our actions. It is utterly counter to our national interest to assist them in doing so. That fact that we are proves how unfit our leaders are.
Ditto Czechoslovakia, 1938, presumably.
It is Putin who seems hell-bent on waging wars of territorial expansion whenever he thinks he can get away with it. Georgia, Ukraine - where next? There are plenty of other Russian minorities outside the motherland.
Rubbish. Putin is not mad, whatever you may say about him -he is a pragmatist. The US-sponsored coup in Ukraine (toppling the elected President I might add) broke every convention and threatened first strike parity. Putin has acted as any responsible leader of Russia would.
Occupying and annexing part of a country, conniving at separatists, encouraging and arming insurgents, infiltrating his own troops in a combat role, shooting down airliners... responsible? Pull the other one. Just because he was pissed off that the Ukrainians overthrew his patsy.
As I said before, todays Russia is like America pre-1989 (or pre-1889), and America did do all those things pre-1989. So that is normal behavior for a european or american leader from the beggining of time right up to the end of the cold war. It's better we get use to it, history didn't end in 1989.
The more I think about this military intervention the more I support it - and the more I'm feeling alienated from many Ukippers that seem to be knee jerk anti-war.
It can't be much of a surprise, Farage has been quite pro-Putin over the Ukraine. There seems to be a lot of Little Englander in their makeup, or at least non-interventionism. Although I did hear him interviewed and he seems to think the strategy is wrong - he seemed to say IS should be destroyed by the combined ground forces of neighbouring Arab states, and we could support that a bit if we liked.
You do wonder why Saudi has all that military hardware.
I was appalled at the pro-Putin line he took on Ukraine. It almost sent me back to the Tories.
Where you seem to be struggling is in realising that there is a British interest and an American one, and that they are not permanently aligned.
Not sure how our interests might be served by Russia moving its borders several hundred miles westward, and engaging in irredentism over parts of neighbouring countries where some of the inhabitants speak Russian (and some of which are EU countries).
They are not served by it (nor particularly undermined by it). But they are not our actions. Our actions are either to antagonise Russia, or not. America seems hell bent in provoking Russia into conflict. It is utterly counter to our national interest to assist them in doing so. That fact that we are proves how unfit our leaders are.
Ditto Czechoslovakia, 1938, presumably.
It is Putin who seems hell-bent on waging wars of territorial expansion whenever he thinks he can get away with it. Georgia, Ukraine - where next? There are plenty of other Russian minorities outside the motherland.
Rubbish. Putin is not mad, whatever you may say about him -he is a pragmatist. The US-sponsored coup in Ukraine (toppling the elected President I might add) broke every convention and threatened first strike parity. Putin has acted as any responsible leader of Russia would.
Occupying and annexing part of a country
I take it you were against Israel's unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan in 1981?
Iain Martin @iainmartin1 · 2h Can't believe Farage forgot the EU in his conference speech.
He didn't forget it, I saw the whole speech and I remember he did mention how better off Britain would be outside the EU by taking back the money from the subsidies.
I was appalled at the pro-Putin line he took on Ukraine. It almost sent me back to the Tories.
Where you seem to be struggling is in realising that there is a British interest and an American one, and that they are not permanently aligned.
Not sure how our interests might be served by Russia moving its borders several hundred miles westward, and engaging in irredentism over parts of neighbouring countries where some of the inhabitants speak Russian (and some of which are EU countries).
They are not served by it (nor particularly undermined by it). But they are not our actions. Our actions are either to antagonise Russia, or not. America seems hell bent in provoking Russia into conflict. It is utterly counter to our national interest to assist them in doing so. That fact that we are proves how unfit our leaders are.
Ditto Czechoslovakia, 1938, presumably.
It is Putin who seems hell-bent on waging wars of territorial expansion whenever he thinks he can get away with it. Georgia, Ukraine - where next? There are plenty of other Russian minorities outside the motherland.
Rubbish. Putin is not mad, whatever you may say about him -he is a pragmatist. The US-sponsored coup in Ukraine (toppling the elected President I might add) broke every convention and threatened first strike parity. Putin has acted as any responsible leader of Russia would.
As for your Hitler comparisons -they don't do your commentary any favours.
It's not just Ukraine though, is it? Putin has previous, in Georgia. Putin is indeed not mad, but then neither was Hitler in 1938, and the Sudentenland situation was very similar to that in Ukraine (which is one reason why the UK and France believed appeasement might work as they believed Hitler had a legitimate grievance based on the self-determination principle.
But both then and now, self-determination has to run hand-in-hand with sovereign rights. (I don't accept that the Ukrainian revolution was 'US-sponsored'; there's the wold of difference between sponsoring something and being approving of its outcome.) Putin has more than once ridden roughshod over neighbours that were part of the USSR and Russian empires but are now independent states. Do you seriously think he wouldn't do the same again given the opportunity?
Mr. Herdson would you please put a lid on it. You will wear out 1938.
1938 is so long ago and has been used in every foreign policy crisis since then, that it's not worth mentioning any more as an example in current foreign affairs as Napoleon is.
As I said before, todays Russia is like America pre-1989 (or pre-1889), and America did do all those things pre-1989. So that is normal behavior for a european or american leader from the beggining of time right up to the end of the cold war. It's better we get use to it, history didn't end in 1989.
The question is not whether Putin's actions are normal. Many things can be normal, in the sense of "widespread and expected". The point is whether his actions are ethical or desirable. He kills people and the only reason why he isn't in jail with the rest of the psycho killers is because he is a head of government/state and can nuke us. The very least we can do is point to him and say he is a bad man.
Putin is a murderous thug. He is not a capitalist, any more than Mussolini or Cromwell were. He has taken control, murders/imprisons the opposition, and entrusts power only to his allies.
Iain Martin @iainmartin1 · 2h Can't believe Farage forgot the EU in his conference speech.
He didn't forget it, I saw the whole speech and I remember he did mention how better off Britain would be outside the EU by taking back the money from the subsidies.
Indeed Farage made it very clear withdrawal is still the goal. Martin is one of those Tory commentators who has resorted to pure fantasism in their desperation to see off UKIP. His Blog posts are often so ridiculous they are funny. I'm sure he's close to losing it completely
As I said before, todays Russia is like America pre-1989 (or pre-1889), and America did do all those things pre-1989. So that is normal behavior for a european or american leader from the beggining of time right up to the end of the cold war. It's better we get use to it, history didn't end in 1989.
The question is not whether Putin's actions are normal. Many things can be normal, in the sense of "widespread and expected". The point is whether his actions are ethical or desirable. He kills people and the only reason why he isn't in jail with the rest of the psycho killers is because he is a head of government/state and can nuke us. The very least we can do is point to him and say he is a bad man.
Putin is a murderous thug. He is not a capitalist, any more than Mussolini or Cromwell were. He has taken control, murders/imprisons the opposition, and entrusts power only to his allies.
Politics is not ethical, especially foreign policy. To remind you, War is simply a continuation of foreign policy by other means. Yesterday the country entered into a war because it could no longer continue it's current policy in the middle east by peaceful means, the same applies to Russia or any other country in the world.
Aha, found the root that has caused this degeneration of the discussion in to Hitler 1938 vs Putin Cold War.
In an effort to put a lid on it, it is not just Farage, its the entire right in the whole of the west that has gone "pro-Putin". Look at the Tea Party, look at Le Pen, look at Orban, they are also pro-Putin, you know why? Because Putin is a radical conservative, they actually like his policies on the economy, society and foreign policy, their are jealous and envy him of his success because he is a no nonsense man. The speed in how he turned Russia from what it was in 1998 into what it is today makes him the envy of the radical right world wide.
In a few short words, its like the cold war but the russians are the conservative capitalists. Here look for yourselves:
(Sorry, I didn't know you'd written both points I'm replying to: I'm not getting at you)
It's misleading to use political words like "radical" or "conservative" to describe Putin. Putin is not a politician, in the same was that Typhoid Mary was not an epidemiologist. He uses violence to obtain power and patronage and corruption to keep it. We should use pre-political examples like, say, Henry VIII as analogies to describe Putin.
Because of their views on immigration/gay rights/divorce/abortion et al, the Western radical right admire Putin. But the Western radical right have grown up in a time of peace and misunderstand Putin's nature, which is cruel and violent. Putin would (metaphorically) eat them alive.
Politics is not ethical, especially foreign policy. To remind you, War is simply a continuation of foreign policy by other means. Yesterday the country entered into a war because it could no longer continue it's current policy in the middle east by peaceful means, the same applies to Russia or any other country in the world.
Are you saying that Putin's unethical actions are desirable or admiable or something we want to happen? Because they are undesirable, unadmirable, and something we don't want to happen.
It was very good. I'm watching Steven Woolfe at the moment. If you get the chance listen to him. He's really good and so was Jane Collins as well talking about Rotherham.
Politics is not ethical, especially foreign policy. To remind you, War is simply a continuation of foreign policy by other means. Yesterday the country entered into a war because it could no longer continue it's current policy in the middle east by peaceful means, the same applies to Russia or any other country in the world.
Are you saying that Putin's unethical actions are desirable or admiable or something we want to happen? Because they are undesirable, unadmirable, and something we don't want to happen.
It is highly debatable that his actions have been unethical. However, leaving that to one side what we must get away from is the idiotic swill presented by even supposedly high brow newspapers in this country about Putin being an ogre, invading countries motivated by pique, anger, megalomania or any of the above. *Nobody* does that. Putin has supported the uprising in the Donbass in order to secure his own border, after Nato (read the Americans) took the unprecedented step of parking themselves in Russia's back yard, threatening their only Mediterranean port, and totally unbalancing parity in first strike capability. Toppling Yanukovich (the elected President) simply because he chose Russia's money with no strings over Europe's money with strings, was a step of incalculable recklessness.
And to @DavidHerdson who doesn't accept that America unseated Yanukovich, thankfully you don't have to accept it, the evidence of them simply forming the Government of Ukraine is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5n8UbJ8jsk 'Have the UN help glue it and fuck the EU' Can you imagine the Russian diplomatic service casually discussing the formation of the new Canadian government they wanted to put in place? The yanks would have pressed the red button before they'd even put the receiver down. The fact we're not in World War 3 right now is thanks to Russian restraint.
Comments
In Afghanistan, of course the Taliban were almost completely in control before the 2001 invasion and Bin Laden was able to launch 9/11 from there. An agreement has also finally been agreed by which Ghani becomes Afghan president (with Abdullah ceo) and he will now sign the agreement to keep 10,000 US troops in Afghanistan until 2016. By then Hillary will probably be just about ready to take over as president, and she is far more hawkish than Obama and will keep US troops in Afghanistan as long as necessary, if she is then followed by a Republican, unless it is Rand Paul, the US could have forces in Afghanistan for decades
There has been much talk this week of Westminster "honouring the promise of Devo Max" but less so of the SNP honouring the words of Alex Salmond "over for a generation"
When are they going to respect the 'settled will of the Scottish people" and shut up about separation?
1) Commit to getting immigration, especially unskilled immigration, back down to 1990 levels once again, and to set out a credible plan to do that.
2) Spell out what Cameron will try to renegotiate from the European Union, and have substantial demands in that (CAP, CET, Free Movement)
3) Commit to a British civil liberties bill with an enforcement mechanism that can properly restrain the creeping power of the state.
If that doesn't happen, I'm going to want to vote for UKIP though. Even in a tight Conservative-Labour marginal my vote would probably still make a better difference to boost UKIP. The media would interpret it as "The Tories would have won this seat had they been better on these issues", which will get our Conservative Party back.
I suppose UKIP might not stand in my constituency, then I would also vote Tory.
There are plenty of good post war examples of successful British/Western interventions that have installed or protected democratic governments. Unfortunately they are not in North African or Middle Eastern countries.
In fact probably the only successful intervention in the region was in Oman in the 1970s where the British Special Forces secretly helped protect the country against invasion from Yemen.
As for Afghanistan we shall see. Whatever happens the Taliban will outlast any foreign supporting forces barracked in Afghanistan. Personally I'm not convinced how keen the US electorate will be to keep troops out there in any large numbers. I get the feeling a large portion of the US electorate has had a stomach full of it too.
I think the problem with the MENA region is that the region is so beset with problems that even an intervention that improves things over the alternative still looks bad. I know how problematic the situation in Libya is right now, but I still think the casualties are far fewer than there would have been had Gaddafi's army "crushed" Benghazi as he planned.
However, particularly following this week's events, I fear Milliband would be *such* an economic and social disaster, that I would on balance prefer Cameron and the Conservatives for the next 4 years. Personally, I would not gamble on that to make a point.
I think there will be some sort of referendum on the EU if there is a Conservative government, which will draw the poison and all the arguments into the open. Like the Scottish independence referendum for the SNP, even a narrow YES vote to remaining in the EU, will mean things cannot be the same ever again.
I could be wrong, but I also think the political realignment of which you speak is coming anyway; I see no pressing need to sacrifice ourselves to socialism in the meantime.
I'm convinced (like Sean Fear) that 2015 will be the last hurrah for the Tories, that they'll never win again alone after that, that we'll continue to see hung parliaments, and that we'll get serious political reform in the early 2020s.
The only argument that'll stop me voting Tory is this: "a-ha! I told you, these disillusioned Tories have nowhere else to go. They'll *always* come back to us - idiots! Let's continue our modernising strategy to position ourselves off away from them.."
And for all my issues with Cameron, I think he seems to be reasonable on non-EU foreign policy.
10,000 US troops is not large numbers, but the electoral cycle is such that we are moving from a President, elected at least, as an anti war Democrat, to a hawkish Democrat in all likelihood, followed by a Republican, who is also likely to be hawkish, so troops will be there for some time to come. Most Afghans do not want the Taliban back, they turned out in vast numbers in the recent presidential election despite Taliban threats, and again, having invaded we also have a responsibility to Afghanistan to to support the elected government
I can't see Miliband lasting four years.
When someone tries to pigeon-hole me, they get both barrels.
-Principled opposition to his awful regime? -Hardly. We're in bed with far worse, and at any rate, the joint enemy is ten times more awful
This is about geo-politics, about energy supply, and about a proxy war between Russia and the USA. Learn it. Believe it. Don't fumble around in the dark for silly superficial reasons.
I was pretty pro Gulf War Mk 1 and II - that the second one was based on lie rankles a lot, but I'm not too hung up on it.
I don't want to intervene again - AT ALL. We're clearly not the *right answer* whatever we do.
That's just the way it's panned out.
I paid a great deal of attention to GW Mk1 and II - now I can't be bothered to even listen to how many have died via sectarian violence. Let them slaughter each other is my motto now. We did our best, it didn't work.
"It's complex, but, I'm edging towards not just bombing ISIL, but going for a full on, boots on the ground, kick ass, shock and awe kill fest.
But, then, I'm not the one who's going to be at the sharp end.
I know a lot of forces people, a few of the Stopper clan are in various branches, including two young nephews who would expect to be at the tip of the spear, if it does escalate, and a close friend who can shoot the balls off a gnat from a mile away, after having crawled on his belly for 5 days to get in position. These are the people who will be playing out the policy that Whitehall, and the voting public, demanding something, anything, want actioning. Other people's sons, brothers, husbands, and yes, now daughters, wives, sisters. It's easy to be an armchair general.
If we accept that we are at least partly responsible for the state of things in Iraq (cheers, Tony),what do we do about it? I think we have a duty to clear up the mess we made, and that is going to take a lot of blood and treasure. We also have to separate the crazy islamist psychopaths from the majority of muslims, but that is difficult, given that our actions tend to radicalise rather than create harmony. Maybe we have to accept that protecting ourselves will offend some people?
Make no bones about it, it is going to be bloody. It's going to have to be a full on war, it needs to be a full on war. What my friends and family don't want, is a hands-tied-behind-their-back- police action, where they end up stuck in theatre, a war of attrition, to be maimed and killed by IEDs and suicide bombers and then to withdraw ignominiously a decade later. If they're to fight a war, let them fight it.
It's the aftermath that will be the problem. Say we beat ISIL, what next? What Islamist group will spring up next, to take their place? Where wil we have to intervene next?
But if we do nothing, what next?
These things always always end in "next". "
Thank you for this very thoughtful post. I agree with everything you say here, but I think there are two factors that make the full on war a bad idea. The first is competence - I'm not convinced that we're good enough to win all the necessary objectives, and definitely not quickly. The second is that however pro-war the general public is, any enthusiasm would fizzle out as it dragged on and cost more and more lives and money. It would be like Iraq all over again, and would inevitably turn into your hands-tied-behind back war of attrition before long.
As unsatisfying as it may be, our best option could be to do just enough to show willing and support for the sake of wider international relations, but not commit too heavily. It's an enormous mess but it's not going to stop until the majority of people in the region get sick of the juvenile nonsense and force the development of their own societies beyond such things. That's not something that can be imposed from the West.
6 planes is tokenism, not war. If we are serious about fighting IS we need a serious punitive expedition with fairly lax rules of engagement, so they can be hunted down like the vermin they are.
But if we are not willing to do that then we should keep out.
Of course, in the spirit of Perfidious Albion, I would be in favour of allying ourselves with Assad to get rid of IS, and then stabbing him in the back, but I don't think we do that sort of thing any more, and the Americans would disapprove (they were too stupid to slip the shiv into the Shah's back when he became a liability).
Either way - I'm not carping.
Isn't there a Baltic state where thousands of kids are called Tonee in tribute? My knowledge here is vanishingly small so happy to be corrected as ever.
Announcing all your Red Lines in advance would be daft, and akin to Gordon's gold sell-off.
Some bedtime reading for you.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-29360288
"He doesn’t agree with the western elite’s current hostility towards Russia, which he believes is based on a false and outdated view of the country.
‘I remember one person in our country who at one moment was minister of foreign affairs, telling me that he hated communism so much that he was not even able to read Dostoevsky. I have remembered that statement for decades and I am afraid that the current propaganda against Russia is based on a similar argument and way of thinking.
I spent most of my life in a communist Czechoslovakia under Soviet domination. But I differentiate between the Soviet Union and Russia. Those who are not able to understand the difference are simply not looking with open eyes.
I always argue with my American and British friends that although the political system in Russia is different from the system in our countries and we wouldn’t be happy to live in such a system, to compare the current Russia with Leonid Brezhnev’s Soviet Union is stupid.’
He says, with finality: ‘The US/EU propaganda against Russia is really ridiculous and I can’t accept it.’"
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9322652/europe-needs-systemic-change/
It is Putin who seems hell-bent on waging wars of territorial expansion whenever he thinks he can get away with it. Georgia, Ukraine - where next? There are plenty of other Russian minorities outside the motherland.
As for your Hitler comparisons -they don't do your commentary any favours.
If there was no one else in the world stopping them, I'd be more inclined to support intervention, but that's not the case, and given the terrorist acts in the uk that follow our butting in to any Muslim country, why not try sitting on our hands for once?
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-28028424
The truth is that either we need to ration care or to charge co-payments, but no party wants to admit it. Not in an election year.
We are stuffed.
In an effort to put a lid on it, it is not just Farage, its the entire right in the whole of the west that has gone "pro-Putin". Look at the Tea Party, look at Le Pen, look at Orban, they are also pro-Putin, you know why?
Because Putin is a radical conservative, they actually like his policies on the economy, society and foreign policy, their are jealous and envy him of his success because he is a no nonsense man.
The speed in how he turned Russia from what it was in 1998 into what it is today makes him the envy of the radical right world wide.
In a few short words, its like the cold war but the russians are the conservative capitalists.
Here look for yourselves:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-daily-show-proves-russias-a-right-wing-wonderland/
Not that I'm bothered, they can drop fuel-air bombs on them and bayonet what's left, as far as I'm concerned.
Got to love the HAC.
They are the most relaxed part-time soldiers I've ever come across. They are based in a small castle in the centre of London, converted their parade ground into the world's most valuable cricket pitch, and spend their weekends in Scotland shooting bazookas at old land rovers.
And then they go behind enemy lines and call in aircraft strikes.
That's old school.
It's better we get use to it, history didn't end in 1989.
Can't believe Farage forgot the EU in his conference speech.
As for your Hitler comparisons -they don't do your commentary any favours.
It's not just Ukraine though, is it? Putin has previous, in Georgia. Putin is indeed not mad, but then neither was Hitler in 1938, and the Sudentenland situation was very similar to that in Ukraine (which is one reason why the UK and France believed appeasement might work as they believed Hitler had a legitimate grievance based on the self-determination principle.
But both then and now, self-determination has to run hand-in-hand with sovereign rights. (I don't accept that the Ukrainian revolution was 'US-sponsored'; there's the wold of difference between sponsoring something and being approving of its outcome.) Putin has more than once ridden roughshod over neighbours that were part of the USSR and Russian empires but are now independent states. Do you seriously think he wouldn't do the same again given the opportunity?
Mr. Herdson would you please put a lid on it.
You will wear out 1938.
1938 is so long ago and has been used in every foreign policy crisis since then, that it's not worth mentioning any more as an example in current foreign affairs as Napoleon is.
Putin is a murderous thug. He is not a capitalist, any more than Mussolini or Cromwell were. He has taken control, murders/imprisons the opposition, and entrusts power only to his allies.
To remind you, War is simply a continuation of foreign policy by other means.
Yesterday the country entered into a war because it could no longer continue it's current policy in the middle east by peaceful means, the same applies to Russia or any other country in the world.
It's misleading to use political words like "radical" or "conservative" to describe Putin. Putin is not a politician, in the same was that Typhoid Mary was not an epidemiologist. He uses violence to obtain power and patronage and corruption to keep it. We should use pre-political examples like, say, Henry VIII as analogies to describe Putin.
Because of their views on immigration/gay rights/divorce/abortion et al, the Western radical right admire Putin. But the Western radical right have grown up in a time of peace and misunderstand Putin's nature, which is cruel and violent. Putin would (metaphorically) eat them alive.
http://www.ukip.org/nigel-live
And to @DavidHerdson who doesn't accept that America unseated Yanukovich, thankfully you don't have to accept it, the evidence of them simply forming the Government of Ukraine is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5n8UbJ8jsk 'Have the UN help glue it and fuck the EU' Can you imagine the Russian diplomatic service casually discussing the formation of the new Canadian government they wanted to put in place? The yanks would have pressed the red button before they'd even put the receiver down. The fact we're not in World War 3 right now is thanks to Russian restraint.