While Corbyn may not make Labour electable, on Syria evidence is already emerging today of how he would have a detrimental impact on the national interest. The Telegraph this morning has a report that former Labour Ministers, military leaders and allies overseas have said it will be very difficult for Cameron to get sufficient consensus in Parliament to launch military strikes against ISIS after Corbyn has said that he could 'think of any circumstances in which he would back the deployment of UK forces abroad.' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11843949/Jeremy-Corbyns-views-on-Army-completely-irresponsible-former-Labour-minister-says.html
If even the Americans don't want to touch ISIS why should Corbyn be any different.
The Americans are actually bombing ISIS in Syria, indeed even the French are now bombing ISIS in Syria, while we stay on the sidelines, so yes Corbyn is different
How many bombs do the americans drop on ISIS? One per week?
That is called a fig leaf, or a symbolic gesture, not an actual action. I could use a water pistol on the Turkish-ISIS border and call it "military action" too.
While Corbyn may not make Labour electable, on Syria evidence is already emerging today of how he would have a detrimental impact on the national interest. The Telegraph this morning has a report that former Labour Ministers, military leaders and allies overseas have said it will be very difficult for Cameron to get sufficient consensus in Parliament to launch military strikes against ISIS after Corbyn has said that he could 'think of any circumstances in which he would back the deployment of UK forces abroad.' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11843949/Jeremy-Corbyns-views-on-Army-completely-irresponsible-former-Labour-minister-says.html
If even the Americans don't want to touch ISIS why should Corbyn be any different.
The Americans are actually bombing ISIS in Syria, indeed even the French are now bombing ISIS in Syria, while we stay on the sidelines, so yes Corbyn is different
Corbyn is Chair of the Stop the War campaign which is against bombing IS on the grounds that the US are doing it. Whether they would be in favour of bombing IS if someone else were doing the bombing is not clear.
I wonder whether, if he is elected Labour leader, he will continue to chair Stop the War.
I would expect so, Corbyn has said that he can foresee 'no circumstances' under which he would deploy UK forces overseas as PM, so in the unlikely event the Russians invaded western Europe and got through to Paris, Corbyn would do absolutely nothing about it (apart from perhaps set up a Vichy style regime)
And @Richard_Tyndall, since you clearly think there is something 'wrong' with me judging by the fact you still appear to have an issue with me, I'd suggest in future that you don't reply to my posts and vice-versa. I thought we'd moved past the earlier issues in this thread, but clearly they are still there.@MikeK may as well ignore my posts as well, given that he doesn't think I'm even real.
@Alanbrooke, I have an interest in politics but my brain doesn't revolve around it and I don't remember every single thing I see the news. I joined this website because I was interested in political debate, I didn't know that you had to know about everything and anything.
@Stodge No Stodge! Anything the UN does as a body usually ends up as a disaster. All the Arab states would say that Israel is to blame anyway - for existing. The Wahabis of Saudi hate the Clerics of Iran and will never agree, and with Russia in an expansionist mood and wanting Med bases, they will prop up Assad. Unless, that is, they dump him in a coup and put a more amiable puppet on the throne.
That's a non sequitur. In what way would a solution via the UN - at the right time, and I don't think this is the right time - make things worse. Everything you've said about Iran, Saudi, Russia and so on is true irrespective of the situation in Syria.
Either there is some kind of international involvement or no kind. If there is some kind, the world has to decide what, who and how. Is it a collective response or piecemeal? If collective, what is the collective policy and how do you put means in place to deliver those ends?
It is surely better to aim for a collective policy than for individual countries to do their own thing. That being so, then the UN is the most obvious organ through which it can be achieved, as well as being the one which has most legal standing for any action subsequently decided upon.
Blaming the UN for failures is usually the wrong conclusion. It has little power and its failures are really those of its member states.
As I said in an earlier reply to Stodge, I don't think there's the willingness on the part of the Syrian war participants to become involved in a peace negotiation and I very much doubt there's the will among the UN members to put sufficient force in place to impose a solution. What might be possible is for an international consensus to be reached as to which parties could be part of a future negotiation. To that end, I'd suggest ruling out ISIS. I take Stodge's point that you speak to power not to people but that's too relativist to me (as well as being inconsistent with his much more ambitious aim to impose a peace). The likes of ISIS will never come to a lasting agreement with regimes they hold in contempt and as illegitimate. They are a jihadist crusading ideology and expecting them to keep to their word would be as daft as expecting Hitler to have done after the start of WWII, and for the same reasons. They have to be ruled out of bounds as a threat to humanity. And once you accept that point, you have to develop a policy which aims at their destruction.
And @Richard_Tyndall, since you clearly think there is something 'wrong' with me judging by the fact you still appear to have an issue with me, I'd suggest in future that you don't reply to my posts and vice-versa. I thought we'd moved past the earlier issues in this thread, but clearly they are still there.@MikeK may as well ignore my posts as well, given that he doesn't think I'm even real.
@Alanbrooke, I have an interest in politics but my brain doesn't revolve around it and I don't remember every single thing I see the news. I joined this website because I was interested in political debate, I didn't know that you had to know about everything and anything.
Oh no. I am very happy to continue reply to any posts where you make a stupid comment. Whether you reciprocate is entirely up to you.
While Corbyn may not make Labour electable, on Syria evidence is already emerging today of how he would have a detrimental impact on the national interest. The Telegraph this morning has a report that former Labour Ministers, military leaders and allies overseas have said it will be very difficult for Cameron to get sufficient consensus in Parliament to launch military strikes against ISIS after Corbyn has said that he could 'think of any circumstances in which he would back the deployment of UK forces abroad.' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11843949/Jeremy-Corbyns-views-on-Army-completely-irresponsible-former-Labour-minister-says.html
If even the Americans don't want to touch ISIS why should Corbyn be any different.
The Americans are actually bombing ISIS in Syria, indeed even the French are now bombing ISIS in Syria, while we stay on the sidelines, so yes Corbyn is different
They are bombing ISIS, but the 'safe buffer zone' they have created along the Turkish border wherein any Assad forces are bombed, and Turkey is now even bombing the Kurds (who due to the exclusion of Assad forces were de facto the only resistance to ISIS in the area), means that ISIS can re-stock, re-arm, re-fuel, and repair their injured over the Turkish border with impunity. Of course this fits with US and Turkish aims in the region. Do you really think they could keep restoring themselves after all this time with no outside help? http://nsnbc.me/2015/09/01/how-the-us-can-stop-isis-without-setting-foot-in-syria/
I'd be very interested in what @SeanT makes of this article; it seems extremely damning to me.
Does emphasise the point that ultimately it will be Turkish ground forces which have to cut off those supply lines and restrain ISIS once it begins to threaten Turkish national security, as will probably occur. Turkey have now started air strikes on ISIS too, but it will be Turkish ground forces which would play the key role on the ground
And @Richard_Tyndall, since you clearly think there is something 'wrong' with me judging by the fact you still appear to have an issue with me, I'd suggest in future that you don't reply to my posts and vice-versa. I thought we'd moved past the earlier issues in this thread, but clearly they are still there.@MikeK may as well ignore my posts as well, given that he doesn't think I'm even real.
@Alanbrooke, I have an interest in politics but my brain doesn't revolve around it and I don't remember every single thing I see the news. I joined this website because I was interested in political debate, I didn't know that you had to know about everything and anything.
Oh no. I am very happy to continue reply to any posts where you make a stupid comment. Whether you reciprocate is entirely up to you.
Wow. You seriously have some major issues with someone who you don't even know.
While Corbyn may not make Labour electable, on Syria evidence is already emerging today of how he would have a detrimental impact on the national interest. The Telegraph this morning has a report that former Labour Ministers, military leaders and allies overseas have said it will be very difficult for Cameron to get sufficient consensus in Parliament to launch military strikes against ISIS after Corbyn has said that he could 'think of any circumstances in which he would back the deployment of UK forces abroad.' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11843949/Jeremy-Corbyns-views-on-Army-completely-irresponsible-former-Labour-minister-says.html
If even the Americans don't want to touch ISIS why should Corbyn be any different.
The Americans are actually bombing ISIS in Syria, indeed even the French are now bombing ISIS in Syria, while we stay on the sidelines, so yes Corbyn is different
How many bombs do the americans drop on ISIS? One per week?
That is called a fig leaf, or a symbolic gesture, not an actual action. I could use a water pistol on the Turkish-ISIS border and call it "military action" too.
And @Richard_Tyndall, since you clearly think there is something 'wrong' with me judging by the fact you still appear to have an issue with me, I'd suggest in future that you don't reply to my posts and vice-versa. I thought we'd moved past the earlier issues in this thread, but clearly they are still there.@MikeK may as well ignore my posts as well, given that he doesn't think I'm even real.
@Alanbrooke, I have an interest in politics but my brain doesn't revolve around it and I don't remember every single thing I see the news. I joined this website because I was interested in political debate, I didn't know that you had to know about everything and anything.
Oh no. I am very happy to continue reply to any posts where you make a stupid comment. Whether you reciprocate is entirely up to you.
Wow. You seriously have some major issues with someone who you don't even know.
Nope. I just don't like the sort of willful ignorance being displayed by you recently. Try learning something about a subject before posting on here about it and we might get along fine.
I hope everyone has been playing nice. This migrant stuff has brought back memories of scottish referendum debates, the scars of which can still be seen whenever it is brought up.
While Corbyn may not make Labour electable, on Syria evidence is already emerging today of how he would have a detrimental impact on the national interest. The Telegraph this morning has a report that former Labour Ministers, military leaders and allies overseas have said it will be very difficult for Cameron to get sufficient consensus in Parliament to launch military strikes against ISIS after Corbyn has said that he could 'think of any circumstances in which he would back the deployment of UK forces abroad.' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11843949/Jeremy-Corbyns-views-on-Army-completely-irresponsible-former-Labour-minister-says.html
Really a new all time low for The Telegraph. The previous being their 'Milliband a threat to enterprise' one - a shameless abandonment of any pretence of detachment.
While Corbyn may not make Labour electable, on Syria evidence is already emerging today of how he would have a detrimental impact on the national interest. The Telegraph this morning has a report that former Labour Ministers, military leaders and allies overseas have said it will be very difficult for Cameron to get sufficient consensus in Parliament to launch military strikes against ISIS after Corbyn has said that he could 'think of any circumstances in which he would back the deployment of UK forces abroad.' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11843949/Jeremy-Corbyns-views-on-Army-completely-irresponsible-former-Labour-minister-says.html
If even the Americans don't want to touch ISIS why should Corbyn be any different.
The Americans are actually bombing ISIS in Syria, indeed even the French are now bombing ISIS in Syria, while we stay on the sidelines, so yes Corbyn is different
How many bombs do the americans drop on ISIS? One per week?
That is called a fig leaf, or a symbolic gesture, not an actual action. I could use a water pistol on the Turkish-ISIS border and call it "military action" too.
And yet they manage to recruit, pay, feed, arm, train, and repair their men, with little to no grass roots support. How do you think they're managing?
Looting, taking treasures from the likes of Palmyra etc. As I said, ultimately it will be Turkish ground forces, perhaps supported by troops from the likes of Jordan, who will do the work on the ground when ISIS becomes a threat to their own national security
And @Richard_Tyndall, since you clearly think there is something 'wrong' with me judging by the fact you still appear to have an issue with me, I'd suggest in future that you don't reply to my posts and vice-versa. I thought we'd moved past the earlier issues in this thread, but clearly they are still there.@MikeK may as well ignore my posts as well, given that he doesn't think I'm even real.
@Alanbrooke, I have an interest in politics but my brain doesn't revolve around it and I don't remember every single thing I see the news. I joined this website because I was interested in political debate, I didn't know that you had to know about everything and anything.
Oh no. I am very happy to continue reply to any posts where you make a stupid comment. Whether you reciprocate is entirely up to you.
Wow. You seriously have some major issues with someone who you don't even know.
Nope. I just don't like the sort of willful ignorance being displayed by you recently. Try learning something about a subject before posting on here about it and we might get along fine.
Willful ignorance? Surely a part of growing as a person is getting things wrong, and learning as you go by. I've been posting on here since March 2015, and for most of that time I've not had people lecture me that I have to know xyz before expressing an opinion on something. Believe or not, people don't operate on your terms. I won't be reading every single book about the EU before I express an opinion on it. The fact that you seem rather annoyed by something so utterly trivial and almost inoffensive is strange.
I hope everyone has been playing nice. This migrant stuff has brought back memories of scottish referendum debates, the scars of which can still be seen whenever it is brought up.
Unfortunately, it's all turned rather bad again. I've committed the awful crime of not knowing some stuff.
And @Richard_Tyndall, since you clearly think there is something 'wrong' with me judging by the fact you still appear to have an issue with me, I'd suggest in future that you don't reply to my posts and vice-versa. I thought we'd moved past the earlier issues in this thread, but clearly they are still there.@MikeK may as well ignore my posts as well, given that he doesn't think I'm even real.
@Alanbrooke, I have an interest in politics but my brain doesn't revolve around it and I don't remember every single thing I see the news. I joined this website because I was interested in political debate, I didn't know that you had to know about everything and anything.
I didn't know that you had to know about everything and anything.
oddliyI'd say that is one of this site's strongpoints. I don't there's a day goes by when I don't learn something from the other posters.
Several people yesterday claimed asylum seekers don't move to other EU countries when they get EU passports. This is demonstrably untrue as more than 20,000 Somalis did this from the Netherlands to the UK, some 40% of the Dutch Somali population. If even a fraction of that rate of the new asylum seekers do that, we can expect a six figure sum of these migrants turning up in eight years time.
Some 7% of 'EU' immigrants to the UK are actually originally non-EU migrants now with EU passports. French Nigerians are another big group.
Ever wondered about the so called politically neutral ERS? "Five Liberal Democrats have been elected to the Electoral Reform Society’s Council. They are Crispin Allard, Paul Pettinger, Keith Sharp, Jon Walsh, who were re-elected, and new arrival Wera Hobhouse. There are also 4 Labour, 1 Green and 5 non politically aligned members." http://www.libdemvoice.org/five-liberal-democrats-elected-to-electoral-reform-society-council-47351.html
We are entering a Princess Diana period of mass hysteria and there is no way out of it. I was catching up on the tragic death of the little boy, on first glance it's a story about a syrian family fleeing for their lives, in an act of pure desperation they try to cross the med, and the rest we have seen on the front pages.
Some of this really does not add up. Ive read reports that the family had been living for between one year and three years in Turkey. The only remaining member of the family (who was fleeing for his life to leave turkey, not syria, to reach a greek island) the father went back to Syria (which he fled fearing for his life) to bury his family. That his last name was invented, and the UNHCR would not give them refugee status.
I understand the father is no longer speaking to the press.
While Corbyn may not make Labour electable, on Syria evidence is already emerging today of how he would have a detrimental impact on the national interest. The Telegraph this morning has a report that former Labour Ministers, military leaders and allies overseas have said it will be very difficult for Cameron to get sufficient consensus in Parliament to launch military strikes against ISIS after Corbyn has said that he could 'think of any circumstances in which he would back the deployment of UK forces abroad.' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11843949/Jeremy-Corbyns-views-on-Army-completely-irresponsible-former-Labour-minister-says.html
Really a new all time low for The Telegraph. The previous being their 'Milliband a threat to enterprise' one - a shameless abandonment of any pretence of detachment.
Corbyn has said 'there are no circumstances in which I would deploy UK forces overseas' so the Telegraph article was actually entirely correct!
And @Richard_Tyndall, since you clearly think there is something 'wrong' with me judging by the fact you still appear to have an issue with me, I'd suggest in future that you don't reply to my posts and vice-versa. I thought we'd moved past the earlier issues in this thread, but clearly they are still there.@MikeK may as well ignore my posts as well, given that he doesn't think I'm even real.
@Alanbrooke, I have an interest in politics but my brain doesn't revolve around it and I don't remember every single thing I see the news. I joined this website because I was interested in political debate, I didn't know that you had to know about everything and anything.
I didn't know that you had to know about everything and anything.
oddliyI'd say that is one of this site's strongpoints. I don't there's a day goes by when I don't learn something from the other posters.
Indeed - the classics, property law, great vacation spots in Greenland and the world's best ham. I don't take it all in, but very diverse knowledge, schizophrenically mashed together between and during multiple debates on matters serious and non-serious occurring simultaneously with varying civility.
And @Richard_Tyndall, since you clearly think there is something 'wrong' with me judging by the fact you still appear to have an issue with me, I'd suggest in future that you don't reply to my posts and vice-versa. I thought we'd moved past the earlier issues in this thread, but clearly they are still there.@MikeK may as well ignore my posts as well, given that he doesn't think I'm even real.
@Alanbrooke, I have an interest in politics but my brain doesn't revolve around it and I don't remember every single thing I see the news. I joined this website because I was interested in political debate, I didn't know that you had to know about everything and anything.
I didn't know that you had to know about everything and anything.
oddliyI'd say that is one of this site's strongpoints. I don't there's a day goes by when I don't learn something from the other posters.
Well yes, I'd agree. And I was more than happy to as well as read up on things when I have the time, to learn from others on this site as well. I'm more than happy to make mistakes, and in that process learn from it. And that was going reasonably well. Until today.
Looting, taking treasures from the likes of Palmyra etc. As I said, ultimately it will be Turkish ground forces, perhaps supported by troops from the likes of Jordan, who will do the work on the ground when ISIS becomes a threat to their own national security
All this on looting? Come on now.
'While the United States has assisted Turkey in erecting missile defenses along its border with Syria in order to create a defacto no-fly-zone providing Al Nusra and ISIS with an invaluable sanctuary, little to no effort has been spent in increasing border security – specifically the searching for and interdiction of terrorist fighters, weapons, and other supplies. As German DW’s report illustrated, it appears Turkey’s borders are not only dangerously wide open, but intentionally so, with little or no effort at all by Turkey to stem the torrent of obvious ISIS supply convoys from passing through.' http://nsnbc.me/2015/09/01/how-the-us-can-stop-isis-without-setting-foot-in-syria/
Erdogan aims to recreate the Ottoman Empire. The US wants Assad's Syria gone as part of the long march to take down Iran and Russia. Saudi Arabia wants to dominate the region. All of these ambitions need ISIS to continue.
And @Richard_Tyndall, since you clearly think there is something 'wrong' with me judging by the fact you still appear to have an issue with me, I'd suggest in future that you don't reply to my posts and vice-versa. I thought we'd moved past the earlier issues in this thread, but clearly they are still there.@MikeK may as well ignore my posts as well, given that he doesn't think I'm even real.
@Alanbrooke, I have an interest in politics but my brain doesn't revolve around it and I don't remember every single thing I see the news. I joined this website because I was interested in political debate, I didn't know that you had to know about everything and anything.
I didn't know that you had to know about everything and anything.
oddliyI'd say that is one of this site's strongpoints. I don't there's a day goes by when I don't learn something from the other posters.
Well yes, I'd agree. And I was more than happy to as well as read up on things when I have the time, to learn from others on this site as well. I'm more than happy to make mistakes, and in that process learn from it. And that was going reasonably well. Until today.
wouldn't worry about it, we all get days like that.
Ever wondered about the so called politically neutral ERS? "Five Liberal Democrats have been elected to the Electoral Reform Society’s Council. They are Crispin Allard, Paul Pettinger, Keith Sharp, Jon Walsh, who were re-elected, and new arrival Wera Hobhouse. There are also 4 Labour, 1 Green and 5 non politically aligned members." http://www.libdemvoice.org/five-liberal-democrats-elected-to-electoral-reform-society-council-47351.html
Unbalanced, to be sure, but most Tories don't want to reform (in a significant way) our electoral system (not all they lobby for or even do, I am sure, but a driving force for many I should think), so they probably aren't interested in applying in the first place.
And @Richard_Tyndall, since you clearly think there is something 'wrong' with me judging by the fact you still appear to have an issue with me, I'd suggest in future that you don't reply to my posts and vice-versa. I thought we'd moved past the earlier issues in this thread, but clearly they are still there.@MikeK may as well ignore my posts as well, given that he doesn't think I'm even real.
@Alanbrooke, I have an interest in politics but my brain doesn't revolve around it and I don't remember every single thing I see the news. I joined this website because I was interested in political debate, I didn't know that you had to know about everything and anything.
I didn't know that you had to know about everything and anything.
oddliyI'd say that is one of this site's strongpoints. I don't there's a day goes by when I don't learn something from the other posters.
Well yes, I'd agree. And I was more than happy to as well as read up on things when I have the time, to learn from others on this site as well. I'm more than happy to make mistakes, and in that process learn from it. And that was going reasonably well. Until today.
wouldn't worry about it, we all get days like that.
Thanks. I'm also sorry about earlier, I overreacted.
people have simply pointed out to you that your assertion was wrong and why.
I'm not being touchy, I've responded perfectly reasonably to other PBers on this thread. But then again, they did not patronise me.
To be fair, the comments are not patronising compared to much that goes on here - or much of what my tutors at University chucked at me. You should have been here during the Scottish indy ref...
No-one doubts, I'm sure, your intentions or your emotional reaction to this crisis. I'm only a little older than 21 myself; but my world is framed differently; I've seen the Balkans crisis, for which you were probably too young. The Srebrenica massacre was probably the first time I really thought about the horrible difficulties on the margins of international relations and human rights. For others, it will have been events in the eighties (Berlin?), seventies, sixties, and fifties. This gives different people different perspective. Sometimes this helps; sometimes it hinders. In all, however, the fact that we're coming at this from different angles and with different backgrounds and then converging on PB makes it a great place to learn, and debate. I gather more about what is going on in the world politically from PB than any other single source.
It is also a useful gauge for public reaction too; despite what some say, it is pretty balanced, and when there is a real split in opinion on matters it tends to reflect the wider community. I was not convinced Ed Miliband would ever be PM because several known Labour-supporters/swing voters on here were really not engaged by him. Similarly, they feared his naivity would be taken advantage of by a separatist party in the shape of the SNP.
As today's populus poll suggests, the public, rather than buying totally into the media line (which is, after all, intended only to sell papers - I bet it has worked this week), are cautious - with 51% supporting Cameron's line on helping Syrians at source, and not talking in Merkelian grand gestures. But that is not to dismiss the alternative opinion; others want more involvement.
If I can venture to give anyone some advice, and please take it in that collegial spirit, I'd say that you've admitted several times this morning to not knowing detail on something, which is fine, and claimed to still be learning, which is great - the road to a good education starts with listening, and being humble in what you know and then knowing better when to defend one's assertions, and when to question one's most hitherto unwavering assumptions.
And @Richard_Tyndall, since you clearly think there is something 'wrong' with me judging by the fact you still appear to have an issue with me, I'd suggest in future that you don't reply to my posts and vice-versa. I thought we'd moved past the earlier issues in this thread, but clearly they are still there.@MikeK may as well ignore my posts as well, given that he doesn't think I'm even real.
@Alanbrooke, I have an interest in politics but my brain doesn't revolve around it and I don't remember every single thing I see the news. I joined this website because I was interested in political debate, I didn't know that you had to know about everything and anything.
I didn't know that you had to know about everything and anything.
oddliyI'd say that is one of this site's strongpoints. I don't there's a day goes by when I don't learn something from the other posters.
Well yes, I'd agree. And I was more than happy to as well as read up on things when I have the time, to learn from others on this site as well. I'm more than happy to make mistakes, and in that process learn from it. And that was going reasonably well. Until today.
wouldn't worry about it, we all get days like that.
Thanks. I'm also sorry about earlier, I overreacted.
Looting, taking treasures from the likes of Palmyra etc. As I said, ultimately it will be Turkish ground forces, perhaps supported by troops from the likes of Jordan, who will do the work on the ground when ISIS becomes a threat to their own national security
All this on looting? Come on now.
'While the United States has assisted Turkey in erecting missile defenses along its border with Syria in order to create a defacto no-fly-zone providing Al Nusra and ISIS with an invaluable sanctuary, little to no effort has been spent in increasing border security – specifically the searching for and interdiction of terrorist fighters, weapons, and other supplies. As German DW’s report illustrated, it appears Turkey’s borders are not only dangerously wide open, but intentionally so, with little or no effort at all by Turkey to stem the torrent of obvious ISIS supply convoys from passing through.' http://nsnbc.me/2015/09/01/how-the-us-can-stop-isis-without-setting-foot-in-syria/
Erdogan aims to recreate the Ottoman Empire. The US wants Assad's Syria gone as part of the long march to take down Iran and Russia. Saudi Arabia wants to dominate the region. All of these ambitions need ISIS to continue.
Yes and as I said once Turkey faces a threat to national security from ISIS, as will be likely to become the case if ISIS grows further in strength, it will face no option but to deploy ground forces beyond the token airstrikes it has begun to launch. ISIS wants to reestablish a caliphate stretching from India and through Pakistan, encompassing the entire Middle East and North Africa, ie overthrowing the Saudi and Turkish governments, and reaching right into the Balkans and Spain. So regardless of what you allege are their ambitions they will eventually have to take on ISIS if it gets too big on the ground or face a threat to their own security http://d3dyqb2m69ozbp.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/The-new-map-of-ISIS.jpg
The Egyptian government has now toughened its stance others will have to follow suit
I hope the next thread is nothing but a punny title, followed by thinly disguised music references from the 80s and analogies to the Peloponnesian wars.
To be fair, the comments are not patronising compared to much that goes on here - or much of what my tutors at University chucked at me. You should have been here during the Scottish indy ref...
No-one doubts, I'm sure, your intentions or your emotional reaction to this crisis. I'm only a little older than 21 myself; but my world is framed differently; I've seen the Balkans crisis, for which you were probably too young. The Srebrenica massacre was probably the first time I really thought about the horrible difficulties on the margins of international relations and human rights. For others, it will have been events in the eighties (Berlin?), seventies, sixties, and fifties. This gives different people different perspective. Sometimes this helps; sometimes it hinders. In all, however, the fact that we're coming at this from different angles and with different backgrounds and then converging on PB makes it a great place to learn, and debate. I gather more about what is going on in the world politically from PB than any other single source.
It is also a useful gauge for public reaction too; despite what some say, it is pretty balanced, and when there is a real split in opinion on matters it tends to reflect the wider community. I was not convinced Ed Miliband would ever be PM because several known Labour-supporters/swing voters on here were really not engaged by him. Similarly, they feared his naivity would be taken advantage of by a separatist party in the shape of the SNP.
As today's populus poll suggests, the public, rather than buying totally into the media line (which is, after all, intended only to sell papers - I bet it has worked this week), are cautious - with 51% supporting Cameron's line on helping Syrians at source, and not talking in Merkelian grand gestures. But that is not to dismiss the alternative opinion; others want more involvement.
If I can venture to give anyone some advice, and please take it in that collegial spirit, I'd say that you've admitted several times this morning to not knowing detail on something, which is fine, and claimed to still be learning, which is great - the road to a good education starts with listening, and being humble in what you know and then knowing better when to defend one's assertions, and when to question one's most hitherto unwavering assumptions.
Thanks for your response.
Usually I do read up a bit about things, to clear up any misconceptions (that I may have had) - but over the past week or so I've been very busy, and some things have also happened in my own personal life which has meant I'm not in the greatest of places. Although by PB standards a quick Goggle on a subject may not be that much reading!
I don't remember the Balkan crisis at all. I'm also not surprised that the public is cautious on Syrian crisis either. Still, is there room for welcoming refugees, which I am glad about.
While Corbyn may not make Labour electable, on Syria evidence is already emerging today of how he would have a detrimental impact on the national interest. The Telegraph this morning has a report that former Labour Ministers, military leaders and allies overseas have said it will be very difficult for Cameron to get sufficient consensus in Parliament to launch military strikes against ISIS after Corbyn has said that he could 'think of any circumstances in which he would back the deployment of UK forces abroad.' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11843949/Jeremy-Corbyns-views-on-Army-completely-irresponsible-former-Labour-minister-says.html
Really a new all time low for The Telegraph. The previous being their 'Milliband a threat to enterprise' one - a shameless abandonment of any pretence of detachment.
Corbyn has said 'there are no circumstances in which I would deploy UK forces overseas' so the Telegraph article was actually entirely correct!
While Corbyn may not make Labour electable, on Syria evidence is already emerging today of how he would have a detrimental impact on the national interest. The Telegraph this morning has a report that former Labour Ministers, military leaders and allies overseas have said it will be very difficult for Cameron to get sufficient consensus in Parliament to launch military strikes against ISIS after Corbyn has said that he could 'think of any circumstances in which he would back the deployment of UK forces abroad.' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11843949/Jeremy-Corbyns-views-on-Army-completely-irresponsible-former-Labour-minister-says.html
Really a new all time low for The Telegraph. The previous being their 'Milliband a threat to enterprise' one - a shameless abandonment of any pretence of detachment.
Corbyn has said 'there are no circumstances in which I would deploy UK forces overseas' so the Telegraph article was actually entirely correct!
Your statement is a distortion, as Corbyn has said he can't 'think of any circumstances' - a small but significant difference. Even if you think the cause is just there's no excuse for doing that.
But I was really talking about The Telegraph's front page headline this morning.
While Corbyn may not make Labour electable, on Syria evidence is already emerging today of how he would have a detrimental impact on the national interest. The Telegraph this morning has a report that former Labour Ministers, military leaders and allies overseas have said it will be very difficult for Cameron to get sufficient consensus in Parliament to launch military strikes against ISIS after Corbyn has said that he could 'think of any circumstances in which he would back the deployment of UK forces abroad.' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11843949/Jeremy-Corbyns-views-on-Army-completely-irresponsible-former-Labour-minister-says.html
Really a new all time low for The Telegraph. The previous being their 'Milliband a threat to enterprise' one - a shameless abandonment of any pretence of detachment.
Corbyn has said 'there are no circumstances in which I would deploy UK forces overseas' so the Telegraph article was actually entirely correct!
While Corbyn may not make Labour electable, on Syria evidence is already emerging today of how he would have a detrimental impact on the national interest. The Telegraph this morning has a report that former Labour Ministers, military leaders and allies overseas have said it will be very difficult for Cameron to get sufficient consensus in Parliament to launch military strikes against ISIS after Corbyn has said that he could 'think of any circumstances in which he would back the deployment of UK forces abroad.' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11843949/Jeremy-Corbyns-views-on-Army-completely-irresponsible-former-Labour-minister-says.html
Really a new all time low for The Telegraph. The previous being their 'Milliband a threat to enterprise' one - a shameless abandonment of any pretence of detachment.
Corbyn has said 'there are no circumstances in which I would deploy UK forces overseas' so the Telegraph article was actually entirely correct!
Your statement is a distortion, as Corbyn has said he can't 'think of any circumstances' - a small but significant difference. Even if you think the cause is just there's no excuse for doing that.
But I was really talking about The Telegraph's front page headline this morning.
So on Corbyn's basis he would not even have deployed UK forces to western Europe against the Nazis. The Telegraph's headline 'Corbyn will block action to help Syria' was entirely consistent with his statements
I wouldn't take it too personally. A couple of years ago, I responded to another poster along the lines of ... "Ah, I think you may have spotted the slight flaw in my argument."
Every argument will have flaws anyway, and most of them are subjective. The old saying ... "A man convinced against his will, retains his old opinion still." is still correct.
I wouldn't take it too personally. A couple of years ago, I responded to another poster along the lines of ... "Ah, I think you may have spotted the slight flaw in my argument."
Every argument will have flaws anyway, and most of them are subjective. The old saying ... "A man convinced against his will, retains his old opinion still." is still correct.
Your honesty does you credit.
Thanks
I'm a sensitive person, so unfortunately I probably do end up taking things personally even when they are not intended that way. It's something I'm working on.
Looting, taking treasures from the likes of Palmyra etc. As I said, ultimately it will be Turkish ground forces, perhaps supported by troops from the likes of Jordan, who will do the work on the ground when ISIS becomes a threat to their own national security
All this on looting? Come on now.
'While the United States has assisted Turkey in erecting missile defenses along its border with Syria in order to create a defacto no-fly-zone providing Al Nusra and ISIS with an invaluable sanctuary, little to no effort has been spent in increasing border security – specifically the searching for and interdiction of terrorist fighters, weapons, and other supplies. As German DW’s report illustrated, it appears Turkey’s borders are not only dangerously wide open, but intentionally so, with little or no effort at all by Turkey to stem the torrent of obvious ISIS supply convoys from passing through.' http://nsnbc.me/2015/09/01/how-the-us-can-stop-isis-without-setting-foot-in-syria/
Erdogan aims to recreate the Ottoman Empire. The US wants Assad's Syria gone as part of the long march to take down Iran and Russia. Saudi Arabia wants to dominate the region. All of these ambitions need ISIS to continue.
Yes and as I said once Turkey faces a threat to national security from ISIS, as will be likely to become the case if ISIS grows further in strength, it will face no option but to deploy ground forces beyond the token airstrikes it has begun to launch. ISIS wants to reestablish a caliphate stretching from India and through Pakistan, encompassing the entire Middle East and North Africa, ie overthrowing the Saudi and Turkish governments, and reaching right into the Balkans and Spain. So regardless of what you allege are their ambitions they will eventually have to take on ISIS if it gets too big on the ground or face a threat to their own security http://d3dyqb2m69ozbp.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/The-new-map-of-ISIS.jpg
The Egyptian government has now toughened its stance others will have to follow suit
But all these allies follow the lead of the US, and it could influence the situation on the ground right now, and have ISIS eliminated in months. Perhaps they will awaken when ISIS proves a threat to them (though personally I doubt ISIS will bite the hand that feeds) are you not concerned that the Syrian and Iraqi people are being brutalised, sites of international importance are being destroyed, and pure evil is being incubated in the mean time?
While Corbyn may not make Labour electable, on Syria evidence is already emerging today of how he would have a detrimental impact on the national interest. The Telegraph this morning has a report that former Labour Ministers, military leaders and allies overseas have said it will be very difficult for Cameron to get sufficient consensus in Parliament to launch military strikes against ISIS after Corbyn has said that he could 'think of any circumstances in which he would back the deployment of UK forces abroad.' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11843949/Jeremy-Corbyns-views-on-Army-completely-irresponsible-former-Labour-minister-says.html
Really a new all time low for The Telegraph. The previous being their 'Milliband a threat to enterprise' one - a shameless abandonment of any pretence of detachment.
Corbyn has said 'there are no circumstances in which I would deploy UK forces overseas' so the Telegraph article was actually entirely correct!
While Corbyn may not make Labour electable, on Syria evidence is already emerging today of how he would have a detrimental impact on the national interest. The Telegraph this morning has a report that former Labour Ministers, military leaders and allies overseas have said it will be very difficult for Cameron to get sufficient consensus in Parliament to launch military strikes against ISIS after Corbyn has said that he could 'think of any circumstances in which he would back the deployment of UK forces abroad.' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11843949/Jeremy-Corbyns-views-on-Army-completely-irresponsible-former-Labour-minister-says.html
Really a new all time low for The Telegraph. The previous being their 'Milliband a threat to enterprise' one - a shameless abandonment of any pretence of detachment.
Corbyn has said 'there are no circumstances in which I would deploy UK forces overseas' so the Telegraph article was actually entirely correct!
Your statement is a distortion, as Corbyn has said he can't 'think of any circumstances' - a small but significant difference. Even if you think the cause is just there's no excuse for doing that.
But I was really talking about The Telegraph's front page headline this morning.
So on Corbyn's basis he would not even have deployed UK forces to western Europe against the Nazis. The Telegraph's headline 'Corbyn will block action to help Syria' was entirely consistent with his statements
That rather depends on what is understood by "action to help Syria".
Looting, taking treasures from the likes of Palmyra etc. As I said, ultimately it will be Turkish ground forces, perhaps supported by troops from the likes of Jordan, who will do the work on the ground when ISIS becomes a threat to their own national security
All this on looting? Come on now.
'While the United States has assisted Turkey in erecting missile defenses along its border with Syria in order to create a defacto no-fly-zone providing Al Nusra and ISIS with an invaluable sanctuary, little to no effort has been spent in increasing border security – specifically the searching for and interdiction of terrorist fighters, weapons, and other supplies. As German DW’s report illustrated, it appears Turkey’s borders are not only dangerously wide open, but intentionally so, with little or no effort at all by Turkey to stem the torrent of obvious ISIS supply convoys from passing through.' http://nsnbc.me/2015/09/01/how-the-us-can-stop-isis-without-setting-foot-in-syria/
Erdogan aims to recreate the Ottoman Empire. The US wants Assad's Syria gone as part of the long march to take down Iran and Russia. Saudi Arabia wants to dominate the region. All of these ambitions need ISIS to continue.
Yes and as I said once Turkey faces a threat to national security from ISIS, as will be likely to become the case if ISIS grows further in strength, it will face no option but to deploy ground forces beyond the token airstrikes it has begun to launch. ISIS wants to reestablish a caliphate stretching from India and through Pakistan, encompassing the entire Middle East and North Africa, ie overthrowing the Saudi and Turkish governments, and reaching right into the Balkans and Spain. So regardless of what you allege are their ambitions they will eventually have to take on ISIS if it gets too big on the ground or face a threat to their own security http://d3dyqb2m69ozbp.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/The-new-map-of-ISIS.jpg
The Egyptian government has now toughened its stance others will have to follow suit
But all these allies follow the lead of the US, and it could influence the situation on the ground right now, and have ISIS eliminated in months. Perhaps they will awaken when ISIS proves a threat to them (though personally I doubt ISIS will bite the hand that feeds) are you not concerned that the Syrian and Iraqi people are being brutalised, sites of international importance are being destroyed, and pure evil is being incubated in the mean time?
Obama will not commit US ground troops so there is no prospect in the short to medium term of any ground troops being committed beyond those from the Turkey and the Gulf States if they foresee a sufficient threat
While Corbyn may not make Labour electable, on Syria evidence is already emerging today of how he would have a detrimental impact on the national interest. The Telegraph this morning has a report that former Labour Ministers, military leaders and allies overseas have said it will be very difficult for Cameron to get sufficient consensus in Parliament to launch military strikes against ISIS after Corbyn has said that he could 'think of any circumstances in which he would back the deployment of UK forces abroad.' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11843949/Jeremy-Corbyns-views-on-Army-completely-irresponsible-former-Labour-minister-says.html
Really a new all time low for The Telegraph. The previous being their 'Milliband a threat to enterprise' one - a shameless abandonment of any pretence of detachment.
Corbyn has said 'there are no circumstances in which I would deploy UK forces overseas' so the Telegraph article was actually entirely correct!
While Corbyn may not make Labour electable, on Syria evidence is already emerging today of how he would have a detrimental impact on the national interest. The Telegraph this morning has a report that former Labour Ministers, military leaders and allies overseas have said it will be very difficult for Cameron to get sufficient consensus in Parliament to launch military strikes against ISIS after Corbyn has said that he could 'think of any circumstances in which he would back the deployment of UK forces abroad.' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11843949/Jeremy-Corbyns-views-on-Army-completely-irresponsible-former-Labour-minister-says.html
Really a new all time low for The Telegraph. The previous being their 'Milliband a threat to enterprise' one - a shameless abandonment of any pretence of detachment.
Corbyn has said 'there are no circumstances in which I would deploy UK forces overseas' so the Telegraph article was actually entirely correct!
But I was really talking about The Telegraph's front page headline this morning.
So on Corbyn's basis he would not even have deployed UK forces to western Europe against the Nazis. The Telegraph's headline 'Corbyn will block action to help Syria' was entirely consistent with his statements
That rather depends on what is understood by "action to help Syria".
Well in this context any action against ISIS in Syria
83% had seen the drowned boy photos. 36% said it made them more in favour of taking additional Syrian refugees, 17% said less in favour, 47% said made no difference. Half thought Cameron's actions meant we were filling our moral obligations and 51% that we should go no further.
The bleeding hearts that are suddenly desperate to take refugees because of the photo of the poor boy... Who did they think the thousands dying in the med these last 6 months were?
Kippers? Bankers?!
Their virtue signalling exposes their previous lack of empathy with the Syrians
Anyway, the outcry reminds me somewhat of this short story by ursula le guin; those who walk away from omelas.
It's not 100% analogous, but seems relevant somehow
Does anyone know anything about the Populus poll referred to in the Times?
The article say the Populus poll shows the country is divided. "Half believe the move to increase the numbers offered resettlement in Britain means that the country is meeting its moral obligations. A narrow majority, 51%, do nor want Mr Cameron to go further"
It quotes full results on two further questions:
Did the photo of the Syrian boy make you more in favour of accepting more refugees? In favour 36%, Opposed 17%, No difference 47%.
Would you support military action in Syria? Support 41%, Oppose 38%, Don't know 21%
83% of people had seen the photo of the child washed up on the beach.
While Corbyn may not make Labour electable, on Syria evidence is already emerging today of how he would have a detrimental impact on the national interest. The Telegraph this morning has a report that former Labour Ministers, military leaders and allies overseas have said it will be very difficult for Cameron to get sufficient consensus in Parliament to launch military strikes against ISIS after Corbyn has said that he could 'think of any circumstances in which he would back the deployment of UK forces abroad.' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11843949/Jeremy-Corbyns-views-on-Army-completely-irresponsible-former-Labour-minister-says.html
any pretence of detachment.
Corbyn has said 'there are no circumstances in which I would deploy UK forces overseas' so the Telegraph article was actually entirely correct!
While Corbyn may not make Labour electable, on Syria evidence is already emerging today of how he would have a detrimental impact on the national interest. The Telegraph this morning has a report that former Labour Ministers, military leaders and allies overseas have said it will be very difficult for Cameron to get sufficient consensus in Parliament to launch military strikes against ISIS after Corbyn has said that he could 'think of any circumstances in which he would back the deployment of UK forces abroad.' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11843949/Jeremy-Corbyns-views-on-Army-completely-irresponsible-former-Labour-minister-says.html
Really a new all time low for The Telegraph. The previous being their 'Milliband a threat to enterprise' one - a shameless abandonment of any pretence of detachment.
Corbyn has said 'there are no circumstances in which I would deploy UK forces overseas' so the Telegraph article was actually entirely correct!
Your statement is a distortion, as Corbyn has said he can't 'think of any circumstances' - a small but significant difference. Even if you think the cause is just there's no excuse for doing that.
But I was really talking about The Telegraph's front page headline this morning.
So on Corbyn's basis he would not even have deployed UK forces to western Europe against the Nazis. The Telegraph's headline 'Corbyn will block action to help Syria' was entirely consistent with his statements
I'm sure that after Germany had invaded the USSR that Corbyn would have been in favour of sending troops to fight the nazis.
The bleeding hearts that are suddenly desperate to take refugees because of the photo of the poor boy... Who did they think the thousands dying in the med these last 6 months were?
Kippers? Bankers?!
Their virtue signalling exposes their previous lack of empathy with the Syrians
Anyway, the outcry reminds me somewhat of this short story by ursula le guin; those who walk away from omelas.
It's not 100% analogous, but seems relevant somehow
It is alarming how we can be emotionally manipulated by one picture of one boy. Recently sixty or so migrants watched each other die locked in the back of a lorry. Dying of dehydration, asphyxiation starvation one by one the perished, and as they weren't children or photographed we heard said platitudes and carried on.
The shame is on its for our selective use of emotions.
So on Corbyn's basis he would not even have deployed UK forces to western Europe against the Nazis. The Telegraph's headline 'Corbyn will block action to help Syria' was entirely consistent with his statements
Any newspaper (especially after what happened Iraq) pretending to any degree of detachment would use 'military action in' or a similar neutral phase, not 'action to help'. Doing otherwise in the context of recent emotive imagery and events is a flagrant attempt to manipulate people's emotions in favour of British military action -propaganda in short.
As for Corbyn's statements, since he has left himself plenty of room for manoeuvre, we must see what he may block and what he may not. The rest is speculation.
1 poll, PPP just 2 days ago had both Hillary and Biden beating Trump. However, he has to be taken seriously and is likely to be nominee and has the money and populist appeal to be a contendor next year, I would still expect Hillary or Biden to beat him, but after 8 years of the Democrats in the White House Trump would inevitably have a chance on 'time for change' if nothing else
Really a new all time low for The Telegraph. The previous being their 'Milliband a threat to enterprise' one - a shameless abandonment of any pretence of detachment.
Corbyn has said 'there are no circumstances in which I would deploy UK forces overseas' so the Telegraph article was actually entirely correct!
While Corbyn may not make Labour electable, on Syria evidence is already emerging today of how he would have a detrimental impact on the national interest. The Telegraph this morning has a report that former Labour Ministers, military leaders and allies overseas have said it will be very difficult for Cameron to get sufficient consensus in Parliament to launch military strikes against ISIS after Corbyn has said that he could 'think of any circumstances in which he would back the deployment of UK forces abroad.' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11843949/Jeremy-Corbyns-views-on-Army-completely-irresponsible-former-Labour-minister-says.html
Really a new all time low for The Telegraph. The previous being their 'Milliband a threat to enterprise' one - a shameless abandonment of any pretence of detachment.
Corbyn has said 'there are no circumstances in which I would deploy UK forces overseas' so the Telegraph article was actually entirely correct!
Your statement is a distortion, as Corbyn has said he can't 'think of any circumstances' - a small but significant difference. Even if you think the cause is just there's no excuse for doing that.
But I was really talking about The Telegraph's front page headline this morning.
So on Corbyn's basis he would not even have deployed UK forces to western Europe against the Nazis. The Telegraph's headline 'Corbyn will block action to help Syria' was entirely consistent with his statements
I think that the delusions of Corbyn would eventually be destroyed by reality coming closer to home, as were the delusions of the Peace Pledge Union in the 1930s.
Obama will not commit US ground troops so there is no prospect in the short to medium term of any ground troops being committed beyond those from the Turkey and the Gulf States if they foresee a sufficient threat
There would be no need to commit grounds troops, simply a need to apply diplomatic pressure to Turkey, Jordan, and Israel to do all possible to secure their borders with Syria against ISIS, and furthermore to work with the Syrian army (rather than bombing them) in eliminating ISIS. It really is that simple. Since we're not doing this, as David rightly argues, it's somewhat pointless wringing our hands over the result.
While Corbyn may not make Labour electable, on Syria evidence is already emerging today of how he would have a detrimental impact on the national interest. The Telegraph this morning has a report that former Labour Ministers, military leaders and allies overseas have said it will be very difficult for Cameron to get sufficient consensus in Parliament to launch military strikes against ISIS after Corbyn has said that he could 'think of any circumstances in which he would back the deployment of UK forces abroad.' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11843949/Jeremy-Corbyns-views-on-Army-completely-irresponsible-former-Labour-minister-says.html
any pretence of detachment.
Corbyn has said 'there are no circumstances in which I would deploy UK forces overseas' so the Telegraph article was actually entirely correct!
Really a new all time low for The Telegraph. The previous being their 'Milliband a threat to enterprise' one - a shameless abandonment of any pretence of detachment.
Corbyn has said 'there are no circumstances in which I would deploy UK forces overseas' so the Telegraph article was actually entirely correct!
Your statement is a distortion, as Corbyn has said he can't 'think of any circumstances' - a small but significant difference. Even if you think the cause is just there's no excuse for doing that.
But I was really talking about The Telegraph's front page headline this morning.
So on Corbyn's basis he would not even have deployed UK forces to western Europe against the Nazis.
I'm sure that after Germany had invaded the USSR that Corbyn would have been in favour of sending troops to fight the nazis.
Yes, but he would probably have then invited the Soviet army over here
The bleeding hearts that are suddenly desperate to take refugees because of the photo of the poor boy... Who did they think the thousands dying in the med these last 6 months were?
Kippers? Bankers?!
Their virtue signalling exposes their previous lack of empathy with the Syrians
Anyway, the outcry reminds me somewhat of this short story by ursula le guin; those who walk away from omelas.
It's not 100% analogous, but seems relevant somehow
It is alarming how we can be emotionally manipulated by one picture of one boy. Recently sixty or so migrants watched each other die locked in the back of a lorry. Dying of dehydration, asphyxiation starvation one by one the perished, and as they weren't children or photographed we heard said platitudes and carried on.
The shame is on its for our selective use of emotions.
Peter Hitchens summed it up last week
"News isn't just what happens, it's what a fairly small group of people decide is news"
How susceptible must virtue signallers be to other forms of advertising I wonder?
Interestingly, looking through Hitchens' blog for that quote, I see Anthony Seldon's book claims Tony Blair tried to talk Cameron out of deposing Gaddafi, but an "emotional spasm" got the better of DC... maybe the one time he doesn't listen to the master is the one time he should have?
I wouldn't take it too personally. A couple of years ago, I responded to another poster along the lines of ... "Ah, I think you may have spotted the slight flaw in my argument."
Every argument will have flaws anyway, and most of them are subjective. The old saying ... "A man convinced against his will, retains his old opinion still." is still correct.
Your honesty does you credit.
Thanks
I'm a sensitive person, so unfortunately I probably do end up taking things personally even when they are not intended that way. It's something I'm working on.
Look on the bright side - you haven't been called a turnip (yet) !
On the 'generational' thing some of us are old enough to remember Russia as a real and present danger (Czech neighbours weeping on the doorstep, German friends in West Germany saying an invasion was 'not a matter of 'if' but 'when') so are understandably less sanguine about Putin's Russia than those who don't share such experiences. Similarly a 1970s Labour is not an intriguing historical novelty, but a life experience (some of us) hoped we'd left behind!
So on Corbyn's basis he would not even have deployed UK forces to western Europe against the Nazis. The Telegraph's headline 'Corbyn will block action to help Syria' was entirely consistent with his statements
Any newspaper (especially after what happened Iraq) pretending to any degree of detachment would use 'military action in' or a similar neutral phase, not 'action to help'. Doing otherwise in the context of recent emotive imagery and events is a flagrant attempt to manipulate people's emotions in favour of British military action -propaganda in short.
As for Corbyn's statements, since he has left himself plenty of room for manoeuvre, we must see what he may block and what he may not. The rest is speculation.
Action to stop ISIS is not the same as action to stop Saddam on the dubious basis of WMD. Corbyn has left himself virtually no room for manoeuvre he has made quite clear he will not deploy UK forces overseas
Really a new all time low for The Telegraph. The previous being their 'Milliband a threat to enterprise' one - a shameless abandonment of any pretence of detachment.
Corbyn has said 'there are no circumstances in which I would deploy UK forces overseas' so the Telegraph article was actually entirely correct!
While Corbyn may not make Labour electable, on Syria evidence is already emerging today of how he would have a detrimental impact on the national interest. The Telegraph this morning has a report that former Labour Ministers, military leaders and allies overseas have said it will be very difficult for Cameron to get sufficient consensus in Parliament to launch military strikes against ISIS after Corbyn has said that he could 'think of any circumstances in which he would back the deployment of UK forces abroad.' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11843949/Jeremy-Corbyns-views-on-Army-completely-irresponsible-former-Labour-minister-says.html
Really a new all time low for The Telegraph. The previous being their 'Milliband a threat to enterprise' one - a shameless abandonment of any pretence of detachment.
Corbyn has said 'there are no circumstances in which I would deploy UK forces overseas' so the Telegraph article was actually entirely correct!
Your statement is a distortion, as Corbyn has said he can't 'think of any circumstances' - a small but significant difference. Even if you think the cause is just there's no excuse for doing that.
But I was really talking about The Telegraph's front page headline this morning.
So on Corbyn's basis he would not even have deployed UK forces to western Europe against the Nazis. The Telegraph's headline 'Corbyn will block action to help Syria' was entirely consistent with his statements
I think that the delusions of Corbyn would eventually be destroyed by reality coming closer to home, as were the delusions of the Peace Pledge Union in the 1930s.
We would hope so, but given he has refused to change his mind on virtually anything I would not guarantee it
Obama will not commit US ground troops so there is no prospect in the short to medium term of any ground troops being committed beyond those from the Turkey and the Gulf States if they foresee a sufficient threat
There would be no need to commit grounds troops, simply a need to apply diplomatic pressure to Turkey, Jordan, and Israel to do all possible to secure their borders with Syria against ISIS, and furthermore to work with the Syrian army (rather than bombing them) in eliminating ISIS. It really is that simple. Since we're not doing this, as David rightly argues, it's somewhat pointless wringing our hands over the result.
Obama will not commit US ground troops so there is no prospect in the short to medium term of any ground troops being committed beyond those from the Turkey and the Gulf States if they foresee a sufficient threat
There would be no need to commit grounds troops, simply a need to apply diplomatic pressure to Turkey, Jordan, and Israel to do all possible to secure their borders with Syria against ISIS, and furthermore to work with the Syrian army (rather than bombing them) in eliminating ISIS. It really is that simple. Since we're not doing this, as David rightly argues, it's somewhat pointless wringing our hands over the result.
As I said, only when those 3 nations perceive ISIS as a threat to their national security is action likely to occur on that front
Another excellent thread header, David, many thanks. We do get some really first-rate articles on here - far better than anywhere else I know of - so many thanks to all who contribute.
Really a new all time low for The Telegraph. The previous being their 'Milliband a threat to enterprise' one - a shameless abandonment of any pretence of detachment.
Corbyn has said 'there are no circumstances in which I would deploy UK forces overseas' so the Telegraph article was actually entirely correct!
While Corbyn may not make Labour electable, on Syria evidence is already emerging today of how he would have a detrimental impact on the national interest. The Telegraph this morning has a report that former Labour Ministers, military leaders and allies overseas have said it will be very difficult for Cameron to get sufficient consensus in Parliament to launch military strikes against ISIS after Corbyn has said that he could 'think of any circumstances in which he would back the deployment of UK forces abroad.' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11843949/Jeremy-Corbyns-views-on-Army-completely-irresponsible-former-Labour-minister-says.html
Really a new all time low for The Telegraph. The previous being their 'Milliband a threat to enterprise' one - a shameless abandonment of any pretence of detachment.
Corbyn has said 'there are no circumstances in which I would deploy UK forces overseas' so the Telegraph article was actually entirely correct!
Your statement is a distortion, as Corbyn has said he can't 'think of any circumstances' - a small but significant difference. Even if you think the cause is just there's no excuse for doing that.
But I was really talking about The Telegraph's front page headline this morning.
So on Corbyn's basis he would not even have deployed UK forces to western Europe against the Nazis. The Telegraph's headline 'Corbyn will block action to help Syria' was entirely consistent with his statements
I think that the delusions of Corbyn would eventually be destroyed by reality coming closer to home, as were the delusions of the Peace Pledge Union in the 1930s.
We would hope so, but given he has refused to change his mind on virtually anything I would not guarantee it
By that stage his rather less delusional faction of supporters would have him overwhelmed. I hope.
Another excellent thread header, David, many thanks. We do get some really first-rate articles on here - far better than anywhere else I know of - so many thanks to all who contribute.
Yes great header David, the best on here for some time
Really a new all time low for The Telegraph. The previous being their 'Milliband a threat to enterprise' one - a shameless abandonment of any pretence of detachment.
Corbyn has said 'there are no circumstances in which I would deploy UK forces overseas' so the Telegraph article was actually entirely correct!
While Corbyn may not make Labour electable, on Syria evidence is already emerging today of how he would have a detrimental impact on the national interest. The Telegraph this morning has a report that former Labour Ministers, military leaders and allies overseas have said it will be very difficult for Cameron to get sufficient consensus in Parliament to launch military strikes against ISIS after Corbyn has said that he could 'think of any circumstances in which he would back the deployment of UK forces abroad.' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11843949/Jeremy-Corbyns-views-on-Army-completely-irresponsible-former-Labour-minister-says.html
Really a new all time low for The Telegraph. The previous being their 'Milliband a threat to enterprise' one - a shameless abandonment of any pretence of detachment.
Corbyn has said 'there are no circumstances in which I would deploy UK forces overseas' so the Telegraph article was actually entirely correct!
Your statement is a distortion, as Corbyn has said he can't 'think of any circumstances' - a small but significant difference. Even if you think the cause is just there's no excuse for doing that.
But I was really talking about The Telegraph's front page headline this morning.
So on Corbyn's basis he would not even have deployed UK forces to western Europe against the Nazis. The Telegraph's headline 'Corbyn will block action to help Syria' was entirely consistent with his statements
I think that the delusions of Corbyn would eventually be destroyed by reality coming closer to home, as were the delusions of the Peace Pledge Union in the 1930s.
We would hope so, but given he has refused to change his mind on virtually anything I would not guarantee it
By that stage his rather less delusional faction of supporters would have him overwhelmed. I hope.
I mentioned elephant tracking via mobile phone earlier. Here's some info: it's more complex than that, but basically GSM (i.e. mobile phone signals) are used most of the time:
"Confronted with Europe’s largest postwar migration crisis, the public mood over British military intervention is shifting, the poll suggests. In contrast to 2013, when a poll found that 60 per cent were opposed to action and 24 per cent in favour, yesterday’s survey found 41 per cent in support and 38 per cent against intervention."
It is unfortunate that we live in a time where the main power, USA, is led by people that lack a grasp of how to achieve a more stable solution in the middle east. Where is the leadership to understand that a solution for Syria and Iraq does involve Turkey and the kurdish issue? Maybe now that the Iran matter is now settled , albeit not stabilised, the USA foreign policy efforts should have one main priority.
Haven't read the thread yet so apols if I'm repeating what's already been said.
Seems to me there's a dilemma.
The would-be immigrants want and expect to bring their own culture with them, and Europe agrees that they should. Europe wants to accommodate as many refugees/migrants as possible. They want to maintain their own culture and gradually their culture will replace ours, all nice & diverse, until the point where our democracy enables them to replace democracy with theocracy. Then it won't be multicultural at all, and the conditions they've fled will take over here. (Incidentally, PR will make it easier for theocratic parties to gain a foothold.)
OTOH, if we try to set up safe havens (Free Cities?) in their own localities, aren't we in great danger of saying, effectively, 'These people aren't capable of running their own affairs, we Europeans have to do it for them' ? What else is that but imperialism? And we will only be able to enforce it by military means.
Frankly, I doubt if democracy is strong enough to withstand an influx of people that's really, really massive. Democracy listens to the people; so the people with the firmest convictions drive their convictions through. We've seen it written small in the Labour leadership election.
Its interesting looking at the statement from the sister of the father whose family drowned and the 'pull' factor that Germany exerts on those already living in relative safety. Some extracts.
"We began a formal process to bring over all of my siblings and their families early in 2015. ...
The first of the applications was done on behalf of our older brother Mohammad and his family, as his children are of school age. Abdullah’s application was to be submitted upon approval of the first. .... Without the documents above, the Canadian application was formally declined. The same week, in despair, my older brother, Mohammad, left for Germany as they had opened their borders to the refugees.
When Abdullah learned about our brother’s rejected Canadian application, it became clear he also had to find a way to reach Western Europe."
The UK woman who tried to leg it to Syria will probably have her kids taken in to care.
The Syrians who put their families through the mill won't.
One is trying to flee terror and poverty to start a better life for their family. One is trying to flee a better life for their family to bring terror and poverty to her and others families.
Why would they not be treated differently?
That's wrong, if only because you are judging 'better' from your perspective. From the perspective of an ultra-devout Muslim, an Islamic State (or the views of it they get through propaganda) might offer a 'better life'.
Such moral relativism is meaningless and I am not wrong. I make absolutely no apology for judging better from my perspective. This is my nation and I will vote for laws according to my perspective.
If someone wants to leave to go to an Islamic State then they're welcome to f*** off as far as I'm concerned, though they shouldn't bring children IMO. If they want to return to the UK after committing atrocities or subjecting their children to them then they should be subject to UK laws.
CV They are obviously feeling left out..Be interesting to see how many Muslim Syrians take refuge in Scotland..and the Catholic lad there is on very thin ice..wonder how many migrants are set up in his palace..his boss wants more poor people to have more kids so they get even more poor and create the economic migrants of the future.
Quite surprised how well the Ferraris did. Hmm. Hulkenberg's misfortune continues. Doubt the markets have warmed up, but I'll write the pre-race piece and then check them.
It is unfortunate that we live in a time where the main power, USA, is led by people that lack a grasp of how to achieve a more stable solution in the middle east. Where is the leadership to understand that a solution for Syria and Iraq does involve Turkey and the kurdish issue? Maybe now that the Iran matter is now settled , albeit not stabilised, the USA foreign policy efforts should have one main priority.
It's almost unbelievable that the US has gone backwards in terms of foreign policy since Bush. Obama has been an unmitigated disaster for US foreign policy.
Read the first couple of chapters of Christopher Caldwell's "Reflections on the Revolution in Europe" this morning.. got it from ebay for about £2 and turns out its a signed copy!
Written in 2009, it is spookily accurate. Has anyone read "Camp of the Saints?"
Haven't read the thread yet so apols if I'm repeating what's already been said.
Seems to me there's a dilemma.
The would-be immigrants want and expect to bring their own culture with them, and Europe agrees that they should. Europe wants to accommodate as many refugees/migrants as possible. They want to maintain their own culture and gradually their culture will replace ours, all nice & diverse, until the point where our democracy enables them to replace democracy with theocracy. Then it won't be multicultural at all, and the conditions they've fled will take over here. (Incidentally, PR will make it easier for theocratic parties to gain a foothold.)
OTOH, if we try to set up safe havens (Free Cities?) in their own localities, aren't we in great danger of saying, effectively, 'These people aren't capable of running their own affairs, we Europeans have to do it for them' ? What else is that but imperialism? And we will only be able to enforce it by military means.
Frankly, I doubt if democracy is strong enough to withstand an influx of people that's really, really massive. Democracy listens to the people; so the people with the firmest convictions drive their convictions through. We've seen it written small in the Labour leadership election.
Edited to add: back to reading the thread!
Read "Reflections on the Revolution in Europe" by Christopher Caldwell
I haven't said it yet, but I am actually impressed with how the PM has handled the criticism. It may not be fashionable or trendy to propose solving the problem at source and making the temporary refugee camps in Turkey and Jordan bearable, but that is the right way to do it. The German way is disastrous. Instead of spending billions of Euros on housing, educating and integrating a few hundred thousand refugees and a million or more economic migrants who tag along for the ride, it would surely be better to spend the same money on fixing Syria and cutting a deal with Assad. As unpalatable as it may seem, he is part of the solution in all of this. There is now little to no evidence that he used chemical weapons and it is becoming increasingly clear that Sunni nations like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been funding al-Nusra and ISIS in Syria to destabilise Assad the Alawate to try and establish Sunni domination over mostly Shia and Alawite Syria.
This migrants shambles convinces me more than ever that Turkey should never be a member of the EU..
Why? Germany, Hungary and Syria are not Turkey. Turkey is en-route to the problem like Hungary is. Closer to the source but its neither the source nor the destination.
Does anyone know anything about the Populus poll referred to in the Times?
The article say the Populus poll shows the country is divided. "Half believe the move to increase the numbers offered resettlement in Britain means that the country is meeting its moral obligations. A narrow majority, 51%, do nor want Mr Cameron to go further"
It quotes full results on two further questions:
Did the photo of the Syrian boy make you more in favour of accepting more refugees? In favour 36%, Opposed 17%, No difference 47%.
Would you support military action in Syria? Support 41%, Oppose 38%, Don't know 21%
83% of people had seen the photo of the child washed up on the beach.
I haven't said it yet, but I am actually impressed with how the PM has handled the criticism. It may not be fashionable or trendy to propose solving the problem at source and making the temporary refugee camps in Turkey and Jordan bearable, but that is the right way to do it. The German way is disastrous. Instead of spending billions of Euros on housing, educating and integrating a few hundred thousand refugees and a million or more economic migrants who tag along for the ride, it would surely be better to spend the same money on fixing Syria and cutting a deal with Assad. As unpalatable as it may seem, he is part of the solution in all of this. There is now little to no evidence that he used chemical weapons and it is becoming increasingly clear that Sunni nations like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been funding al-Nusra and ISIS in Syria to destabilise Assad the Alawate to try and establish Sunni domination over mostly Shia and Alawite Syria.
"There is now little to no evidence that he (Assad) used chemical weapons"
Although I daresay someone'll be along to say these are just lies and distortions by the US-led western media, whilst pointing to Russian sources stating that Assad was actually dropping bouquets of flowers on civilians.
If the migrants are actually refugees who just want to escape persecution and have no knowledge of how the EU systems work, why am I seeing thousands of them refusing to be processed in Hungary, refusing food and water and having to be restrained by tear gas because they only want to go to Germany?
APOCALYPSE ..Only the very dim can go on thinking that modern day refugees , particularly from a country such as Syria, which, until a few years ago ,was a sophisticated ME society., have no access to the internet...Go and watch some of the numerous news casts and see how many of them are clicking away on smart phones... DUH
Having a smart-phone in itself doesn't mean internet access. It depends on wi-fi, and whether you have 3G, or 4G network etc.
Right at this moment I am sitting on the front porch of a little concrete house half a mile outside a rural town on a small island in the Philippines. You can only get one TV channel with a long aerial and a booster, most people here live on less than $5 per day. I have a 4G LTE signal, funny old world.
If the migrants are actually refugees who just want to escape persecution and have no knowledge of how the EU systems work, why am I seeing thousands of them refusing to be processed in Hungary, refusing food and water and having to be restrained by tear gas because they only want to go to Germany?
Because they are more united, organised and determined than us spineless wretches?
I haven't said it yet, but I am actually impressed with how the PM has handled the criticism. It may not be fashionable or trendy to propose solving the problem at source and making the temporary refugee camps in Turkey and Jordan bearable, but that is the right way to do it. The German way is disastrous. Instead of spending billions of Euros on housing, educating and integrating a few hundred thousand refugees and a million or more economic migrants who tag along for the ride, it would surely be better to spend the same money on fixing Syria and cutting a deal with Assad. As unpalatable as it may seem, he is part of the solution in all of this. There is now little to no evidence that he used chemical weapons and it is becoming increasingly clear that Sunni nations like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been funding al-Nusra and ISIS in Syria to destabilise Assad the Alawate to try and establish Sunni domination over mostly Shia and Alawite Syria.
"There is now little to no evidence that he (Assad) used chemical weapons"
Although I daresay someone'll be along to say these are just lies and distortions by the US-led western media, whilst pointing to Russian sources stating that Assad was actually dropping bouquets of flowers on civilians.
There is evidence that weapons were used, but very little as to who used them. Shia and Alawite towns have been the targets of these weapons, I find it unlikely that it was the Syrian government who used them. The Russians have it right on this one, Assad is the lesser of the many evils in Syria. We can't ally ourselves with al-Nusra as some in the US have suggested. Assad presents us with a much more agreeable long term solution.
You keep banging on about how awful Assad is and how wonderful the opposition are, and yet it is ISIS and al-Nusra who are the primary belligerents causing such an upheaval in Syria. It is the Sunni nations that have continued to back the al-Nusra. This is a 600 year old Islamic civil war being played out in Syria and for some reason we have chosen to sit back and let the Sunnis cause mayhem while simultaneously attacking previously stable governments or rulers in the Shia camp.
This is Sectarian violence and instead of condemning both sides and trying to keep the peace, we treat with the Sunnis and appease them while they burn down Shia and Alawaite towns displacing millions of people in the process.
Is it really necessary that refugees/migrants that we accept into the UK should go to the head of the queue for any services or facilities? Their basic needs will be taken care of anyway; and even joining the back of the queue means they are a great deal better off than where they came from, so what reason is there to anger our own needy people by shoving them aside?
APOCALYPSE ..Only the very dim can go on thinking that modern day refugees , particularly from a country such as Syria, which, until a few years ago ,was a sophisticated ME society., have no access to the internet...Go and watch some of the numerous news casts and see how many of them are clicking away on smart phones... DUH
Having a smart-phone in itself doesn't mean internet access. It depends on wi-fi, and whether you have 3G, or 4G network etc.
Right at this moment I am sitting on the front porch of a little concrete house half a mile outside a rural town on a small island in the Philippines. You can only get one TV channel with a long aerial and a booster, most people here live on less than $5 per day. I have a 4G LTE signal, funny old world.
It is. I live in a fairly nice house in a fairly expensive part of the UK (Sevenoaks), not too far from the M25. I don't have a smartphone, just an old-fashioned "brick". Mobile reception at my house is absolutely rubbish.
I "get" why some people see the possession of smartphones (especially iphones) as a symbol of wealth and I understand why some are surprised to see so-called refugees brandishing them.
Is it really necessary that refugees/migrants that we accept into the UK should go to the head of the queue for any services or facilities? Their basic needs will be taken care of anyway; and even joining the back of the queue means they are a great deal better off than where they came from, so what reason is there to anger our own needy people by shoving them aside?
Edited to add: which is most fair?
That's the common sense view, yes. But it would offend the sensibilities of the political elite to put them at the back of the queue.
APOCALYPSE ..Only the very dim can go on thinking that modern day refugees , particularly from a country such as Syria, which, until a few years ago ,was a sophisticated ME society., have no access to the internet...Go and watch some of the numerous news casts and see how many of them are clicking away on smart phones... DUH
Having a smart-phone in itself doesn't mean internet access. It depends on wi-fi, and whether you have 3G, or 4G network etc.
Right at this moment I am sitting on the front porch of a little concrete house half a mile outside a rural town on a small island in the Philippines. You can only get one TV channel with a long aerial and a booster, most people here live on less than $5 per day. I have a 4G LTE signal, funny old world.
It is. I live in a fairly nice house in a fairly expensive part of the UK (Sevenoaks), not too far from the M25. I don't have a smartphone, just an old-fashioned "brick". Mobile reception at my house is absolutely rubbish.
I "get" why some people see the possession of smartphones (especially iphones) as a symbol of wealth and I understand why some are surprised to see so-called refugees brandishing them.
When I first came here 15 years ago there was one landline on the island, no cell phone at all, and you had to wait in a queue to make a call. If there was an incoming call for you the owner would send his son to knock on your door and tell you. All the cell infrastructure is new so its all up to date kit, hence 4G.
Interesting alternate look at life in the Islamic State
"“While no one is predicting that the Islamic State will become the steward of an accountable, functioning state anytime soon, the group is putting in place the kinds of measures associated with governing: issuing identification cards for residents, promulgating fishing guidelines to preserve stocks, requiring that cars carry tool kits for emergencies. That transition may demand that the West rethink its military-first approach to combating the group...
Honestly, both are dirty, the regime and Daesh,” said Ahmed, owner of an antiques shop who recently fled to Raqqa to avoid airstrikes in outlying areas. But the Islamic State, he said, “is more acceptable here in Raqqa.”
Ahmed, who gave only his first name for fear of reprisals, has also lived under the Free Syrian Army, or F.S.A., the rebel group that rose up in 2011 to fight the Syrian government. The F.S.A., he said, is “like the regime. They are thieves.”
Under the Islamic State, he said, life can be brutal, but at least it seems more stable for those who can avoid crossing the group’s leaders. “Here they are implementing God’s regulations,” he said. “The killer is killed. The adulterer is stoned. The thief’s hands are cut.”
@CD13 Saw this and thought of your comment - on tonight, The Power of Political Forgetting - Radio 4, 8pm
Resonances matter and ignorance of them hinders. However, as David Aaronovitch argues here, a little ignorance can sometimes help. Thatcher, for example, had no personal memory of the General Strike and so didn’t share Heath, Wilson and Callahan’s terror of mass unemployment. Did this allow her to pursue policies that others would have baulked at? Aaronovitch investigates with the help of Juliet Gardiner, Andy Beckett and Daniel Finkelstein.
If the migrants are actually refugees who just want to escape persecution and have no knowledge of how the EU systems work, why am I seeing thousands of them refusing to be processed in Hungary, refusing food and water and having to be restrained by tear gas because they only want to go to Germany?
Because they are more united, organised and determined than us spineless wretches?
Interesting alternate look at life in the Islamic State
"“While no one is predicting that the Islamic State will become the steward of an accountable, functioning state anytime soon, the group is putting in place the kinds of measures associated with governing: issuing identification cards for residents, promulgating fishing guidelines to preserve stocks, requiring that cars carry tool kits for emergencies. That transition may demand that the West rethink its military-first approach to combating the group...
Honestly, both are dirty, the regime and Daesh,” said Ahmed, owner of an antiques shop who recently fled to Raqqa to avoid airstrikes in outlying areas. But the Islamic State, he said, “is more acceptable here in Raqqa.”
Ahmed, who gave only his first name for fear of reprisals, has also lived under the Free Syrian Army, or F.S.A., the rebel group that rose up in 2011 to fight the Syrian government. The F.S.A., he said, is “like the regime. They are thieves.”
Under the Islamic State, he said, life can be brutal, but at least it seems more stable for those who can avoid crossing the group’s leaders. “Here they are implementing God’s regulations,” he said. “The killer is killed. The adulterer is stoned. The thief’s hands are cut.”
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Iraq_(2014–present)
So hardly insignificant
Why Israel is the scapegoat for everything that is happening, re Middle East, Refugees, etc,.
@Alanbrooke, I have an interest in politics but my brain doesn't revolve around it and I don't remember every single thing I see the news. I joined this website because I was interested in political debate, I didn't know that you had to know about everything and anything.
Either there is some kind of international involvement or no kind. If there is some kind, the world has to decide what, who and how. Is it a collective response or piecemeal? If collective, what is the collective policy and how do you put means in place to deliver those ends?
It is surely better to aim for a collective policy than for individual countries to do their own thing. That being so, then the UN is the most obvious organ through which it can be achieved, as well as being the one which has most legal standing for any action subsequently decided upon.
Blaming the UN for failures is usually the wrong conclusion. It has little power and its failures are really those of its member states.
As I said in an earlier reply to Stodge, I don't think there's the willingness on the part of the Syrian war participants to become involved in a peace negotiation and I very much doubt there's the will among the UN members to put sufficient force in place to impose a solution. What might be possible is for an international consensus to be reached as to which parties could be part of a future negotiation. To that end, I'd suggest ruling out ISIS. I take Stodge's point that you speak to power not to people but that's too relativist to me (as well as being inconsistent with his much more ambitious aim to impose a peace). The likes of ISIS will never come to a lasting agreement with regimes they hold in contempt and as illegitimate. They are a jihadist crusading ideology and expecting them to keep to their word would be as daft as expecting Hitler to have done after the start of WWII, and for the same reasons. They have to be ruled out of bounds as a threat to humanity. And once you accept that point, you have to develop a policy which aims at their destruction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_naval_facility_in_Tartus#History
oddliyI'd say that is one of this site's strongpoints. I don't there's a day goes by when I don't learn something from the other posters.
Some 7% of 'EU' immigrants to the UK are actually originally non-EU migrants now with EU passports. French Nigerians are another big group.
"Five Liberal Democrats have been elected to the Electoral Reform Society’s Council. They are Crispin Allard, Paul Pettinger, Keith Sharp, Jon Walsh, who were re-elected, and new arrival Wera Hobhouse. There are also 4 Labour, 1 Green and 5 non politically aligned members."
http://www.libdemvoice.org/five-liberal-democrats-elected-to-electoral-reform-society-council-47351.html
Some of this really does not add up. Ive read reports that the family had been living for between one year and three years in Turkey. The only remaining member of the family (who was fleeing for his life to leave turkey, not syria, to reach a greek island) the father went back to Syria (which he fled fearing for his life) to bury his family. That his last name was invented, and the UNHCR would not give them refugee status.
I understand the father is no longer speaking to the press.
'While the United States has assisted Turkey in erecting missile defenses along its border with Syria in order to create a defacto no-fly-zone providing Al Nusra and ISIS with an invaluable sanctuary, little to no effort has been spent in increasing border security – specifically the searching for and interdiction of terrorist fighters, weapons, and other supplies. As German DW’s report illustrated, it appears Turkey’s borders are not only dangerously wide open, but intentionally so, with little or no effort at all by Turkey to stem the torrent of obvious ISIS supply convoys from passing through.'
http://nsnbc.me/2015/09/01/how-the-us-can-stop-isis-without-setting-foot-in-syria/
Erdogan aims to recreate the Ottoman Empire. The US wants Assad's Syria gone as part of the long march to take down Iran and Russia. Saudi Arabia wants to dominate the region. All of these ambitions need ISIS to continue.
No-one doubts, I'm sure, your intentions or your emotional reaction to this crisis. I'm only a little older than 21 myself; but my world is framed differently; I've seen the Balkans crisis, for which you were probably too young. The Srebrenica massacre was probably the first time I really thought about the horrible difficulties on the margins of international relations and human rights. For others, it will have been events in the eighties (Berlin?), seventies, sixties, and fifties. This gives different people different perspective. Sometimes this helps; sometimes it hinders. In all, however, the fact that we're coming at this from different angles and with different backgrounds and then converging on PB makes it a great place to learn, and debate. I gather more about what is going on in the world politically from PB than any other single source.
It is also a useful gauge for public reaction too; despite what some say, it is pretty balanced, and when there is a real split in opinion on matters it tends to reflect the wider community. I was not convinced Ed Miliband would ever be PM because several known Labour-supporters/swing voters on here were really not engaged by him. Similarly, they feared his naivity would be taken advantage of by a separatist party in the shape of the SNP.
As today's populus poll suggests, the public, rather than buying totally into the media line (which is, after all, intended only to sell papers - I bet it has worked this week), are cautious - with 51% supporting Cameron's line on helping Syrians at source, and not talking in Merkelian grand gestures. But that is not to dismiss the alternative opinion; others want more involvement.
If I can venture to give anyone some advice, and please take it in that collegial spirit, I'd say that you've admitted several times this morning to not knowing detail on something, which is fine, and claimed to still be learning, which is great - the road to a good education starts with listening, and being humble in what you know and then knowing better when to defend one's assertions, and when to question one's most hitherto unwavering assumptions.
http://d3dyqb2m69ozbp.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/The-new-map-of-ISIS.jpg
The Egyptian government has now toughened its stance others will have to follow suit
Usually I do read up a bit about things, to clear up any misconceptions (that I may have had) - but over the past week or so I've been very busy, and some things have also happened in my own personal life which has meant I'm not in the greatest of places. Although by PB standards a quick Goggle on a subject may not be that much reading!
I don't remember the Balkan crisis at all. I'm also not surprised that the public is cautious on Syrian crisis either. Still, is there room for welcoming refugees, which I am glad about.
But I was really talking about The Telegraph's front page headline this morning.
I wouldn't take it too personally. A couple of years ago, I responded to another poster along the lines of ... "Ah, I think you may have spotted the slight flaw in my argument."
Every argument will have flaws anyway, and most of them are subjective. The old saying ... "A man convinced against his will, retains his old opinion still." is still correct.
Your honesty does you credit.
I'm a sensitive person, so unfortunately I probably do end up taking things personally even when they are not intended that way. It's something I'm working on.
83% had seen the drowned boy photos. 36% said it made them more in favour of taking additional Syrian refugees, 17% said less in favour, 47% said made no difference. Half thought Cameron's actions meant we were filling our moral obligations and 51% that we should go no further.
Kippers? Bankers?!
Their virtue signalling exposes their previous lack of empathy with the Syrians
Anyway, the outcry reminds me somewhat of this short story by ursula le guin; those who walk away from omelas.
It's not 100% analogous, but seems relevant somehow
http://www.kareyperkins.com/classes/445/omelas.pdf
I don't know if you've seen this but it finally happened:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/252825-poll-trump-beats-hillary-head-to-head
Trump 45%
Hillary 40%
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=d950cadf-05ce-4148-a125-35c0cdab26c6
It quotes full results on two further questions:
Did the photo of the Syrian boy make you more in favour of accepting more refugees?
In favour 36%, Opposed 17%, No difference 47%.
Would you support military action in Syria?
Support 41%, Oppose 38%, Don't know 21%
83% of people had seen the photo of the child washed up on the beach.
The poll was conducted on 4th September.
The shame is on its for our selective use of emotions.
As for Corbyn's statements, since he has left himself plenty of room for manoeuvre, we must see what he may block and what he may not. The rest is speculation.
"News isn't just what happens, it's what a fairly small group of people decide is news"
How susceptible must virtue signallers be to other forms of advertising I wonder?
Interestingly, looking through Hitchens' blog for that quote, I see Anthony Seldon's book claims Tony Blair tried to talk Cameron out of deposing Gaddafi, but an "emotional spasm" got the better of DC... maybe the one time he doesn't listen to the master is the one time he should have?
On the 'generational' thing some of us are old enough to remember Russia as a real and present danger (Czech neighbours weeping on the doorstep, German friends in West Germany saying an invasion was 'not a matter of 'if' but 'when') so are understandably less sanguine about Putin's Russia than those who don't share such experiences. Similarly a 1970s Labour is not an intriguing historical novelty, but a life experience (some of us) hoped we'd left behind!
@Mortimer 12:49PM. - Well said, that was a jolly fine reply.
I mentioned elephant tracking via mobile phone earlier. Here's some info: it's more complex than that, but basically GSM (i.e. mobile phone signals) are used most of the time:
http://savetheelephants.org/research/tracking-real-time-monitoring/
And an obligatory video (sorry it's not cats, Plato):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Buwhkv-omFQ
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34157266
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4548366.ece
Seems to me there's a dilemma.
The would-be immigrants want and expect to bring their own culture with them, and Europe agrees that they should. Europe wants to accommodate as many refugees/migrants as possible. They want to maintain their own culture and gradually their culture will replace ours, all nice & diverse, until the point where our democracy enables them to replace democracy with theocracy. Then it won't be multicultural at all, and the conditions they've fled will take over here. (Incidentally, PR will make it easier for theocratic parties to gain a foothold.)
OTOH, if we try to set up safe havens (Free Cities?) in their own localities, aren't we in great danger of saying, effectively, 'These people aren't capable of running their own affairs, we Europeans have to do it for them' ? What else is that but imperialism? And we will only be able to enforce it by military means.
Frankly, I doubt if democracy is strong enough to withstand an influx of people that's really, really massive. Democracy listens to the people; so the people with the firmest convictions drive their convictions through. We've seen it written small in the Labour leadership election.
Edited to add: back to reading the thread!
If someone wants to leave to go to an Islamic State then they're welcome to f*** off as far as I'm concerned, though they shouldn't bring children IMO. If they want to return to the UK after committing atrocities or subjecting their children to them then they should be subject to UK laws.
Quite surprised how well the Ferraris did. Hmm. Hulkenberg's misfortune continues. Doubt the markets have warmed up, but I'll write the pre-race piece and then check them.
Written in 2009, it is spookily accurate. Has anyone read "Camp of the Saints?"
64% were not made more willing to take refugees as a result of seeing the photo.
Not only did he use them, he's still using them:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/16/syria-assad-regime-is-weaponising-chlorine-us-congress-to-hear
http://www.wsj.com/articles/assad-chemical-threat-mounts-1435535977
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/world/middleeast/syria-chemical-weapons.html
+more
Although I daresay someone'll be along to say these are just lies and distortions by the US-led western media, whilst pointing to Russian sources stating that Assad was actually dropping bouquets of flowers on civilians.
You keep banging on about how awful Assad is and how wonderful the opposition are, and yet it is ISIS and al-Nusra who are the primary belligerents causing such an upheaval in Syria. It is the Sunni nations that have continued to back the al-Nusra. This is a 600 year old Islamic civil war being played out in Syria and for some reason we have chosen to sit back and let the Sunnis cause mayhem while simultaneously attacking previously stable governments or rulers in the Shia camp.
This is Sectarian violence and instead of condemning both sides and trying to keep the peace, we treat with the Sunnis and appease them while they burn down Shia and Alawaite towns displacing millions of people in the process.
Is it really necessary that refugees/migrants that we accept into the UK should go to the head of the queue for any services or facilities? Their basic needs will be taken care of anyway; and even joining the back of the queue means they are a great deal better off than where they came from, so what reason is there to anger our own needy people by shoving them aside?
Edited to add: which is most fair?
It is. I live in a fairly nice house in a fairly expensive part of the UK (Sevenoaks), not too far from the M25. I don't have a smartphone, just an old-fashioned "brick". Mobile reception at my house is absolutely rubbish.
I "get" why some people see the possession of smartphones (especially iphones) as a symbol of wealth and I understand why some are surprised to see so-called refugees brandishing them.
"“While no one is predicting that the Islamic State will become the steward of an accountable, functioning state anytime soon, the group is putting in place the kinds of measures associated with governing: issuing identification cards for residents, promulgating fishing guidelines to preserve stocks, requiring that cars carry tool kits for emergencies. That transition may demand that the West rethink its military-first approach to combating the group...
Honestly, both are dirty, the regime and Daesh,” said Ahmed, owner of an antiques shop who recently fled to Raqqa to avoid airstrikes in outlying areas. But the Islamic State, he said, “is more acceptable here in Raqqa.”
Ahmed, who gave only his first name for fear of reprisals, has also lived under the Free Syrian Army, or F.S.A., the rebel group that rose up in 2011 to fight the Syrian government. The F.S.A., he said, is “like the regime. They are thieves.”
Under the Islamic State, he said, life can be brutal, but at least it seems more stable for those who can avoid crossing the group’s leaders. “Here they are implementing God’s regulations,” he said. “The killer is killed. The adulterer is stoned. The thief’s hands are cut.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/22/world/middleeast/isis-transforming-into-functioning-state-that-uses-terror-as-tool.html?_r=0
Resonances matter and ignorance of them hinders. However, as David Aaronovitch argues here, a little ignorance can sometimes help. Thatcher, for example, had no personal memory of the General Strike and so didn’t share Heath, Wilson and Callahan’s terror of mass unemployment. Did this allow her to pursue policies that others would have baulked at? Aaronovitch investigates with the help of Juliet Gardiner, Andy Beckett and Daniel Finkelstein.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/smuggling-refugees-into-europe-is-a-new-growth-industry/2015/09/03/398c72c4-517f-11e5-b225-90edbd49f362_story.html