On another note i think Boris just made a gaffe of the highest order on his LBC phone in. When asked about the 3rd Runway decision he said " I think Dave(cameron) was wrong on this. Note the word WAS..making out the decision has already been announced which it hasnt. Potentially huge story although we knew it was coming and we will see what Zac makes of it.
For people that live or work in or close to London, would you say bombing Syria will make you feel safer in the capital over the next month or so?
You think we were safe before?
Also do you think it's right that our actions or otherwise are dictated by fear?
I don't think we were safe before, no
But the question is "will we be safer or less safe if we bomb Syria"?
It's not about fear, the governments job is to protect it's population, and so if bombing Syria increases the risk of an attack here, even if we were at risk before, then they are not doing their job
Maybe it will make us safer, I am not closed minded about it, but it makes me feel less safe
The problem with that argument is that is results in constant appeasement and inaction. When would we have stood up the Nazis? Warsaw, Paris or Watford Gap Service Station?
A bigger problem with bombing Syria must be that - on its own - it will do little more than convert a few more of the local population into true Jihadis and kill a bunch of civilians.
Just as ISIS bombing us doesn't make us think "You know what! Let's get out of the Middle East", I suspect us bombing ISIS won't make them think "You know what! Let's stop our war on the West."
Bombing on its own is an irritant. It couldn't topple Nazi Germany. It couldn't win the war in Vietnam. I doubt it will be particularly effective here. Destroying ISIS probably requires boots o the ground, and a commitment from a wide range of countries to spend 25 years building up secular civil society in the region post an invasion. Are we up for that? Probably not. Yet, that is what is realistically required. Otherwise, we're beating our chest and making a big noise, but doing relatively little to stop ISIS.
For people that live or work in or close to London, would you say bombing Syria will make you feel safer in the capital over the next month or so?
You think we were safe before?
Also do you think it's right that our actions or otherwise are dictated by fear?
I don't think we were safe before, no
But the question is "will we be safer or less safe if we bomb Syria"?
It's not about fear, the governments job is to protect it's population, and so if bombing Syria increases the risk of an attack here, even if we were at risk before, then they are not doing their job
Maybe it will make us safer, I am not closed minded about it, but it makes me feel less safe
But droning Jihadi John has arguably made us safer.
I wonder if he was on his way back to do a Paris in London?
For people that live or work in or close to London, would you say bombing Syria will make you feel safer in the capital over the next month or so?
You think we were safe before?
Also do you think it's right that our actions or otherwise are dictated by fear?
I don't think we were safe before, no
But the question is "will we be safer or less safe if we bomb Syria"?
It's not about fear, the governments job is to protect it's population, and so if bombing Syria increases the risk of an attack here, even if we were at risk before, then they are not doing their job
Maybe it will make us safer, I am not closed minded about it, but it makes me feel less safe
But droning Jihadi John has arguably made us safer.
I wonder if he was on his way back to do a Paris in London?
We just don't know to be honest - he could have been a mastermind or a loudmouth who liked the fame.
I do think the Cameron comment has to be seen in context; yes, he knew it would probably leak, but it was something he said to Tory MPs not to Newsnight. If you are not able to paint your political opponents in the blackest terms when talking to your political allies then when can you? He was trying to convince his doubters; as a tactic it seems mild compared to sending photos of dead babies through the post.
I'm interested in this idea that we should only enter the war if it makes us safer. The fundamental isolationism and abdication of responsibility of this bystander position seems rarely to be challenged. Does entering a war make us safer tomorrow or the day after - absolutely not; does it make us safer in a decade, that's the question. And as the Korean war memorial in Washington so rightly says "Freedom is not free" - as Hilary Benn so neatly put it, inaction has a cost in lives too.
Mr. 1000, bombing may help the Kurds and other anti-Daesh groups, however.
Daesh got a lot of hardware when the Iraqi Army decided to impersonate brave Sir Robin (and ran away). Some of that's been destroyed, and whilst they can hide it (under bridges, say), if they try moving it there's the opportunity for an air strike.
That sort of thing *may* make an important difference for those fighting Daesh.
I know they fly to an awful lot of destinations, but Ethiopian Airways (to pick one example) has more than 100 planes flying in and out of Addis Ababa every day. I can't imagine Turkey has more than 100 flights per day to Africa.
I do think the Cameron comment has to be seen in context; yes, he knew it would probably leak, but it was something he said to Tory MPs not to Newsnight. If you are not able to paint your political opponents in the blackest terms when talking to your political allies then when can you? He was trying to convince his doubters; as a tactic it seems mild compared to sending photos of dead babies through the post.
I'm interested in this idea that we should only enter the war if it makes us safer. The fundamental isolationism and abdication of responsibility of this bystander position seems rarely to be challenged. Does entering a war make us safer tomorrow or the day after - absolutely not; does it make us safer in a decade, that's the question. And as the Korean war memorial in Washington so rightly says "Freedom is not free" - as Hilary Benn so neatly put it, inaction has a cost in lives too.
Corbo and his Shadow Chancellor are terrorist sympathisers - they have a long and proud history of it with numerous examples out there.
I'm interested in this idea that we should only enter the war if it makes us safer. The fundamental isolationism and abdication of responsibility of this bystander position seems rarely to be challenged. Does entering a war make us safer tomorrow or the day after - absolutely not; does it make us safer in a decade, that's the question. And as the Korean war memorial in Washington so rightly says "Freedom is not free" - as Hilary Benn so neatly put it, inaction has a cost in lives too.
For people that live or work in or close to London, would you say bombing Syria will make you feel safer in the capital over the next month or so?
You think we were safe before?
Also do you think it's right that our actions or otherwise are dictated by fear?
I don't think we were safe before, no
But the question is "will we be safer or less safe if we bomb Syria"?
It's not about fear, the governments job is to protect it's population, and so if bombing Syria increases the risk of an attack here, even if we were at risk before, then they are not doing their job
Maybe it will make us safer, I am not closed minded about it, but it makes me feel less safe
The problem with that argument is that is results in constant appeasement and inaction. When would we have stood up the Nazis? Warsaw, Paris or Watford Gap Service Station?
A bigger problem with bombing Syria must be that - on its own - it will do little more than convert a few more of the local population into true Jihadis and kill a bunch of civilians.
Just as ISIS bombing us doesn't make us think "You know what! Let's get out of the Middle East", I suspect us bombing ISIS won't make them think "You know what! Let's stop our war on the West."
Bombing on its own is an irritant. It couldn't topple Nazi Germany. It couldn't win the war in Vietnam. I doubt it will be particularly effective here. Destroying ISIS probably requires boots o the ground, and a commitment from a wide range of countries to spend 25 years building up secular civil society in the region post an invasion. Are we up for that? Probably not. Yet, that is what is realistically required. Otherwise, we're beating our chest and making a big noise, but doing relatively little to stop ISIS.
If there were as many Germans in England in 1939 as there are Muslims now, I think it would have been more difficult
I am just asking questions that give me pause for thought... instinctively I think we should wipe them out.. but I don't trust my instincts!
I get a feeling of our bombing being akin to pressing a switch that detonates a load of bombs that have been planted over here, but that's prob just being melodramatic
For people that live or work in or close to London, would you say bombing Syria will make you feel safer in the capital over the next month or so?
You think we were safe before?
Also do you think it's right that our actions or otherwise are dictated by fear?
I don't think we were safe before, no
But the question is "will we be safer or less safe if we bomb Syria"?
It's not about fear, the governments job is to protect it's population, and so if bombing Syria increases the risk of an attack here, even if we were at risk before, then they are not doing their job
Maybe it will make us safer, I am not closed minded about it, but it makes me feel less safe
The problem with that argument is that is results in constant appeasement and inaction. When would we have stood up the Nazis? Warsaw, Paris or Watford Gap Service Station?
A bigger problem with bombing Syria must be that - on its own - it will do little more than convert a few more of the local population into true Jihadis and kill a bunch of civilians.
Just as ISIS bombing us doesn't make us think "You know what! Let's get out of the Middle East", I suspect us bombing ISIS won't make them think "You know what! Let's stop our war on the West."
Bombing on its own is an irritant. It couldn't topple Nazi Germany. It couldn't win the war in Vietnam. I doubt it will be particularly effective here. Destroying ISIS probably requires boots o the ground, and a commitment from a wide range of countries to spend 25 years building up secular civil society in the region post an invasion. Are we up for that? Probably not. Yet, that is what is realistically required. Otherwise, we're beating our chest and making a big noise, but doing relatively little to stop ISIS.
Once again I agree entirely. The question is not one of bombing or appeasement as some like to claim but one of taking action which is effective.
The two ways in which IS will be defeated is by isolation - cutting off their support from the surrounding countries if necessary by taking direct economic action against those countries - and by direct confrontation on the ground using troops who can seize and hold territory.
Bombing alone will achieve neither of these aims and should not be indulged in just to show we are 'doing something'. It is the ultimate virtue signalling.
Harry Cole Mark Serwotka said of targeting MPs homes: "We would like to see more of this kind of community campaigning, linking up with unions"
To me this marks the beginning of a new party, with the lovely Stella, Chuka and the rest deciding to let JC and his cohorts fester in what remains of a once great party.
Maybe they join the Lib Dems or form a new party entirely, but they cannot continue within Labour as it is.
I do think the Cameron comment has to be seen in context; yes, he knew it would probably leak, but it was something he said to Tory MPs not to Newsnight. If you are not able to paint your political opponents in the blackest terms when talking to your political allies then when can you? He was trying to convince his doubters; as a tactic it seems mild compared to sending photos of dead babies through the post.
I'm interested in this idea that we should only enter the war if it makes us safer. The fundamental isolationism and abdication of responsibility of this bystander position seems rarely to be challenged. Does entering a war make us safer tomorrow or the day after - absolutely not; does it make us safer in a decade, that's the question. And as the Korean war memorial in Washington so rightly says "Freedom is not free" - as Hilary Benn so neatly put it, inaction has a cost in lives too.
Yes the question is will it make us safer in the long term?
I do think the Cameron comment has to be seen in context; yes, he knew it would probably leak, but it was something he said to Tory MPs not to Newsnight. If you are not able to paint your political opponents in the blackest terms when talking to your political allies then when can you? He was trying to convince his doubters; as a tactic it seems mild compared to sending photos of dead babies through the post.
I'm interested in this idea that we should only enter the war if it makes us safer. The fundamental isolationism and abdication of responsibility of this bystander position seems rarely to be challenged. Does entering a war make us safer tomorrow or the day after - absolutely not; does it make us safer in a decade, that's the question. And as the Korean war memorial in Washington so rightly says "Freedom is not free" - as Hilary Benn so neatly put it, inaction has a cost in lives too.
Indeed, short-term safety is not long-term safety. The biggest danger from IS is long-term, if we let them consolidate. (There are those - Simon Jenkins is one - who have argued their state will fall apart if left alone. No idea why.)
I do think the Cameron comment has to be seen in context; yes, he knew it would probably leak, but it was something he said to Tory MPs not to Newsnight. If you are not able to paint your political opponents in the blackest terms when talking to your political allies then when can you? He was trying to convince his doubters; as a tactic it seems mild compared to sending photos of dead babies through the post.
I'm interested in this idea that we should only enter the war if it makes us safer. The fundamental isolationism and abdication of responsibility of this bystander position seems rarely to be challenged. Does entering a war make us safer tomorrow or the day after - absolutely not; does it make us safer in a decade, that's the question. And as the Korean war memorial in Washington so rightly says "Freedom is not free" - as Hilary Benn so neatly put it, inaction has a cost in lives too.
Yes the question is will it make us safer in the long term?
I pose the question because I think it's the right question - I'm not sure I know the answer. But then I'm not in any way qualified to know, so I have to trust our leaders. We voted for them after all.
I know they fly to an awful lot of destinations, but Ethiopian Airways (to pick one example) has more than 100 planes flying in and out of Addis Ababa every day. I can't imagine Turkey has more than 100 flights per day to Africa.
No - but Turkish does have the biggest network of a non-African carrier - but since they are running 737s on many of them (up to 7 hours) I suspect passenger numbers will lag African carriers - and is behind Emirates & Air France for foreign ones in terms of seats:
I do think the Cameron comment has to be seen in context; yes, he knew it would probably leak, but it was something he said to Tory MPs not to Newsnight. If you are not able to paint your political opponents in the blackest terms when talking to your political allies then when can you? He was trying to convince his doubters; as a tactic it seems mild compared to sending photos of dead babies through the post.
I'm interested in this idea that we should only enter the war if it makes us safer. The fundamental isolationism and abdication of responsibility of this bystander position seems rarely to be challenged. Does entering a war make us safer tomorrow or the day after - absolutely not; does it make us safer in a decade, that's the question. And as the Korean war memorial in Washington so rightly says "Freedom is not free" - as Hilary Benn so neatly put it, inaction has a cost in lives too.
Indeed, short-term safety is not long-term safety. The biggest danger from IS is long-term, if we let them consolidate. (There are those - Simon Jenkins is one - who have argued their state will fall apart if left alone. No idea why.)
Of course he could be right IS could disappear, reshape, morph as Al-Qaeda did/has. But the ideas that underpin IS have to be destroyed, else there will always be a new IS.
For people that live or work in or close to London, would you say bombing Syria will make you feel safer in the capital over the next month or so?
You think we were safe before?
Also do you think it's right that our actions or otherwise are dictated by fear?
I don't think we were safe before, no
But the question is "will we be safer or less safe if we bomb Syria"?
It's not about fear, the governments job is to protect it's population, and so if bombing Syria increases the risk of an attack here, even if we were at risk before, then they are not doing their job
Maybe it will make us safer, I am not closed minded about it, but it makes me feel less safe
The problem with that argument is that is results in constant appeasement and inaction. When would we have stood up the Nazis? Warsaw, Paris or Watford Gap Service Station?
A bigger problem with bombing Syria must be that - on its own - it will do little more than convert a few more of the local population into true Jihadis and kill a bunch of civilians.
Just as ISIS bombing us doesn't make us think "You know what! Let's get out of the Middle East", I suspect us bombing ISIS won't make them think "You know what! Let's stop our war on the West."
Bombing on its own is an irritant. It couldn't topple Nazi Germany. It couldn't win the war in Vietnam. I doubt it will be particularly effective here. Destroying ISIS probably requires boots o the ground, and a commitment from a wide range of countries to spend 25 years building up secular civil society in the region post an invasion. Are we up for that? Probably not. Yet, that is what is realistically required. Otherwise, we're beating our chest and making a big noise, but doing relatively little to stop ISIS.
If there were as many Germans in England in 1939 as there are Muslims now, I think it would have been more difficult
I am just asking questions that give me pause for thought... instinctively I think we should wipe them out.. but I don't trust my instincts!
I get a feeling of our bombing being akin to pressing a switch that detonates a load of bombs that have been planted over here, but that's prob just being melodramatic
There are 50 million Muslims living in Europe and North America.
Over the last 15 years of Islamic terrorism (assuming we start with 9/11), there have been maybe a dozen individuals from those countries that have successfully initiated terrorist attacks.
For people that live or work in or close to London, would you say bombing Syria will make you feel safer in the capital over the next month or so?
You think we were safe before?
Also do you think it's right that our actions or otherwise are dictated by fear?
I don't think we were safe before, no
But the question is "will we be safer or less safe if we bomb Syria"?
It's not about fear, the governments job is to protect it's population, and so if bombing Syria increases the risk of an attack here, even if we were at risk before, then they are not doing their job
Maybe it will make us safer, I am not closed minded about it, but it makes me feel less safe
The problem with that argument is that is results in constant appeasement and inaction. When would we have stood up the Nazis? Warsaw, Paris or Watford Gap Service Station?
A bigger problem with bombing Syria must be that - on its own - it will do little more than convert a few more of the local population into true Jihadis and kill a bunch of civilians.
Just as ISIS bombing us doesn't make us think "You know what! Let's get out of the Middle East", I suspect us bombing ISIS won't make them think "You know what! Let's stop our war on the West."
Bombing on its own is an irritant. It couldn't topple Nazi Germany. It couldn't win the war in Vietnam. I doubt it will be particularly effective here. Destroying ISIS probably requires boots o the ground, and a commitment from a wide range of countries to spend 25 years building up secular civil society in the region post an invasion. Are we up for that? Probably not. Yet, that is what is realistically required. Otherwise, we're beating our chest and making a big noise, but doing relatively little to stop ISIS.
Once again I agree entirely. The question is not one of bombing or appeasement as some like to claim but one of taking action which is effective.
The two ways in which IS will be defeated is by isolation - cutting off their support from the surrounding countries if necessary by taking direct economic action against those countries - and by direct confrontation on the ground using troops who can seize and hold territory.
Bombing alone will achieve neither of these aims and should not be indulged in just to show we are 'doing something'. It is the ultimate virtue signalling.
I think you're right that we'll have to commit troops eventually. We are not capable of reaching that decision though. The bombing-plus-local-allies strategy is a holding operation, doing IS some damage without destroying it (I don't think it's mere virtue signalling - it will have some effect). In time we'll be motivated to do something more direct.
I do think the Cameron comment has to be seen in context; yes, he knew it would probably leak, but it was something he said to Tory MPs not to Newsnight. If you are not able to paint your political opponents in the blackest terms when talking to your political allies then when can you? He was trying to convince his doubters; as a tactic it seems mild compared to sending photos of dead babies through the post.
I'm interested in this idea that we should only enter the war if it makes us safer. The fundamental isolationism and abdication of responsibility of this bystander position seems rarely to be challenged. Does entering a war make us safer tomorrow or the day after - absolutely not; does it make us safer in a decade, that's the question. And as the Korean war memorial in Washington so rightly says "Freedom is not free" - as Hilary Benn so neatly put it, inaction has a cost in lives too.
Indeed, short-term safety is not long-term safety. The biggest danger from IS is long-term, if we let them consolidate. (There are those - Simon Jenkins is one - who have argued their state will fall apart if left alone. No idea why.)
Of course he could be right IS could disappear, reshape, morph as Al-Qaeda did/has. But the ideas that underpin IS have to be destroyed, else there will always be a new IS.
Harry Cole Mark Serwotka said of targeting MPs homes: "We would like to see more of this kind of community campaigning, linking up with unions"
Nice. Intimidation is the new 'Democracy', in the world of Corbyn & Co. Welcome to the future of the Labour Party.
Would Serwotka be happy to have activists in his front garden, shouting 'advice' through his letterbox?
I think desertion and moving away from politics is more likely than a split.
I think this is right - were I a moderate Laour MP, I wouldn't be thinking of other parties, I'd be working out how best to make a difference outside Westminster come 2020 (or before). Surely the more talented must be looking at David Miliband and assessing the good he's done in the world as Chief Exec of IRC and comparing it to what they can achieve in the face of "community campaigning".
Once again I agree entirely. The question is not one of bombing or appeasement as some like to claim but one of taking action which is effective.
The two ways in which IS will be defeated is by isolation - cutting off their support from the surrounding countries if necessary by taking direct economic action against those countries - and by direct confrontation on the ground using troops who can seize and hold territory.
Bombing alone will achieve neither of these aims and should not be indulged in just to show we are 'doing something'. It is the ultimate virtue signalling.
No-one is claiming that bombing ISIS will, by itself, 'defeat' them. If only life were as simple as that - it's not a choice between 'defeating' them and doing nothing.
What it is about is containing, degrading, and disrupting them. And the reason for wanting to do that is very clear indeed: there is no prospect of a diplomatic or military solution to the chaos of Syria anytime soon, but in the meantime, without intervention by the international coalition, ISIS was expanding and consolidating its quasi-state, with all the disagreeable consequences which that implies, for us, our closest allies, and of course for the local populations. This is about reversing that expansion; if nothing had been done so far by the West, ISIS would be dug-in over an even bigger swathe of Syrian and Iraqi territory. The bombing is, therefore, already working, but more needs to be done.
Of course we could shrug our shoulders and leave it to the US, France, Germany, and our other allies, ignoring their very specific requests for more help. They want our assistance, but could manage without it. We could let them get on with it. However, that is not an honourable approach.
As I said last night this vote is being ridiculously oversold. We are already bombing Daesh, have been for over a year. We are talking about extending the field of our very modest operations across a boundary our enemy does not recognise. Our proposal to do so is backed by a unanimous UN resolution and is already being done by our allies. If this was the scope of the proposal it is barely worth talking about.
The reality is that Corbyn's opposition is not to this utterly trivial step but to our armed intervention in total. He thinks we can negotiate and reason with these people and that this is a better solution than trying to destroy them. Events have not moved in his favour in recent times. ...
We really need to get over ourselves. The world is not waiting with bated breath on our deliberations on this. We are making ourselves look more than just a bit silly.
It is clearly the next step on a slippery
We are doing the same thing in Iraq right now, and have been for quite a while. No ground element apart from some members of the Hereford Hunting club. Incidentally, did you know that McIRA wanted to abolish the SAS as well as MI5?
Yes I do know that, but this is a significant escalation and expansion of our role in the conflict.
If we are serious about defeating IS and fellow travellers like Boko Haram and
We should be resolute and forceful in our defence of liberal democracy against Islamo-facists, but we should not delude ourselves that it will be easy or cheap.
Can you refer to me when Cameron or any other minister said the action would be easy or cheap?
I would suggest the evidence was in the autumn statement. A bit of money for spies and special forces. If the government was serious it would be expanding the army and RAF, buying ground attack helicopters and ground attack aircraft. I would like a 100 drones over IsIS land with a missle attack on every IS checkpoint or mobile vehicle, night and day. Make their lives a misery, and short.
So you can't. Glad we cleared that up.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Bombs and planes are not cheap. The Autumn statement does not give the RAF what they need to do more than a token effort. Symbolic acts matter, but are only symbols, and that is what is being debated today.
We have more than necessary to play our part. The Russians of course are bombing in Syria anyway and so are the French and USA. Pretending that this is a comparison with Iraq is facile.
For people that live or work in or close to London, would you say bombing Syria will make you feel safer in the capital over the next month or so?
You think we were safe before?
Also do you think it's right that our actions or otherwise are dictated by fear?
I don't think we were safe before, no
But the question is "will we be safer or less safe if we bomb Syria"?
It's not about fear, the governments job is to protect it's population, and so if bombing Syria increases the risk of an attack here, even if we were at risk before, then they are not doing their job
Maybe it will make us safer, I am not closed minded about it, but it makes me feel less safe
The problem with that argument is that is results in constant appeasement and inaction. When would we have stood up the Nazis? Warsaw, Paris or Watford Gap Service Station?
A bigger problem with bombing Syria must be that - on its own - it will do little more than convert a few more of the local population into true Jihadis and kill a bunch of civilians.
Just as ISIS bombing us doesn't make us think "You know what! Let's get out of the Middle East", I suspect us bombing ISIS won't make them think "You know what! Let's stop our war on the West."
Bombing on its own is an irritant. It couldn't topple Nazi Germany. It couldn't win the war in Vietnam. I doubt it will be particularly effective here. Destroying ISIS probably requires boots o the ground, and a commitment from a wide range of countries to spend 25 years building up secular civil society in the region post an invasion. Are we up for that? Probably not. Yet, that is what is realistically required. Otherwise, we're beating our chest and making a big noise, but doing relatively little to stop ISIS.
If there were as many Germans in England in 1939 as there are Muslims now, I think it would have been more difficult
I am just asking questions that give me pause for thought... instinctively I think we should wipe them out.. but I don't trust my instincts!
I get a feeling of our bombing being akin to pressing a switch that detonates a load of bombs that have been planted over here, but that's prob just being melodramatic
There are 50 million Muslims living in Europe and North America.
Over the last 15 years of Islamic terrorism (assuming we start with 9/11), there have been maybe a dozen individuals from those countries that have successfully initiated terrorist attacks.
For people that live or work in or close to London, would you say bombing Syria will make you feel safer in the capital over the next month or so?
You think we were safe before?
Also do you think it's right that our actions or otherwise are dictated by fear?
I don't think we were safe before, no
But the question is "will we be safer or less safe if we bomb Syria"?
It's not about fear, the governments job is to protect it's population, and so if bombing Syria increases the risk of an attack here, even if we were at risk before, then they are not doing their job
Maybe it will make us safer, I am not closed minded about it, but it makes me feel less safe
The problem with that argument is that is results in constant appeasement and inaction. When would we have stood up the Nazis? Warsaw, Paris or Watford Gap Service Station?
A bigger problem with bombing Syria must be that - on its own - it will do little more than convert a few more of the local population into true Jihadis and kill a bunch of civilians.
Just as ISIS bombing us doesn't make us think "You know what! Let's get out of the Middle East", I suspect us bombing ISIS won't make them think "You know what! Let's stop our war on the West."
Bombing on its own is an irritant. It couldn't topple Nazi Germany. It couldn't win the war in Vietnam. I doubt it will be particularly effective here. Destroying ISIS probably requires boots o the ground, and a commitment from a wide range of countries to spend 25 years building up secular civil society in the region post an invasion. Are we up for that? Probably not. Yet, that is what is realistically required. Otherwise, we're beating our chest and making a big noise, but doing relatively little to stop ISIS.
If there were as many Germans in England in 1939 as there are Muslims now, I think it would have been more difficult
I am just asking questions that give me pause for thought... instinctively I think we should wipe them out.. but I don't trust my instincts!
I get a feeling of our bombing being akin to pressing a switch that detonates a load of bombs that have been planted over here, but that's prob just being melodramatic
There are 50 million Muslims living in Europe and North America.
Over the last 15 years of Islamic terrorism (assuming we start with 9/11), there have been maybe a dozen individuals from those countries that have successfully initiated terrorist attacks.
There will be plenty more if we keep bombing Muslim countries
What was the Muslim population / number of individuals that successfully initiated terrorist attacks in the previous 15 years?
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 5m5 minutes ago We're fast reaching the point where it will be not only be politically but morally indefensible to be a supporter of the Labour party.
Turkey now demanding £2.1 billion each year as well as visa-free access to the EU and eventually full membership.
By demanding more money & threatening to flood the EU with more migrants, Erdogan is trying to hold us to ransom.
================================================
But who'd of thunk it ?...a gang of Turkish rug merchants trying to take advantage of us ?
THIS was just SOOOOOOOOOO predictable ; indeed , this is just a modern day Turkish DANEGELD whereby the ransom / protection racket is increased each year as the crises worsens
The Turks will turn down/ turn up the flow of migrants/refugees opportunistically as they see fit
We are in the midst of a major historical event ; the greatest mass migration since WW2 and it's clearly going to get worse in the spring as word has gotten out that the EU is a ''soft touch'' that lacks the will to enforce its' borders ; that idiot Angela Merkel has triggered an avalanche !
The developing world has many disadvantages but have one clear decisive advantage ; they have the POPULATION BOMB b and are certain to use it against us when they sense weakness !
Where does Farage's view above stand with the fact that Turkey's been keeping up to two million refugees within its borders for about four years, with virtually no thanks and very little help from the international community?
How long do you expect them to keep it up for, especially without help?
Thus speaks #JosiasFezJessop who is now morphing into a Turkey himself. Will be prime and ready for Christmas.
An unusually pathetic comment even by your standards
"There are 50 million Muslims living in Europe and North America.
Over the last 15 years of Islamic terrorism (assuming we start with 9/11), there have been maybe a dozen individuals from those countries that have successfully initiated terrorist attacks."
I read a comment by Southam Observer yesterday about the mood in Brussels. I can say that here near Nice (Only France's 7th city) it's similar. Much tighter security with bag searches everywhere museums and galleries not allowing people in wth backpacks police on street corners etc. It's difficult seeing things returning to normal anytime soon -or maybe anytime. Remembering what happened to air travel.
What happens when there's another outrage in London? I wonder whether the reaction to Charlie Hebdo hasn't turned various local issues into something approaching all out war. Was it wise to have the march in Paris with all world leaders (including Netanyahu hated in the Middle East as much as Saddam would have been in London) declaring WAR against ISIS?
Many countries have now faced terrorist outrages and all civilized people want to show solidarity but when you declare WAR this becomes something far more far reaching and with very unpredictable consequences.
When Mary Riddell says that a Labour leader is in trouble you know that things are really bad. The party under Corbyn has some particularly vile elements in it as we are seeing with the threats to MPs. What I find difficult to see yet is the end game.If the men in grey vests are not prepared to pay him a visit and hand him the revolver how do they escape from the nightmare of his leadership? In the end I suspect that we may see a medical certificate indicating physical and mental exhaustion. It cannot be easy for a man of his age and background to be confronted by this level of hostility and contempt. He will then be St Jeremy of the Left forever.
As an LD member, I was pleased to see that my views on the Syrian imbroglio were pretty much reflective of the majority based on Stephen Tall's survey but I was initially astonished when news of the decision of the MP's to support airstrikes reached me.
Tim's justification for support obviously made me think and, to be honest, today's vote isn't about Syria, it's about us and our place in the world. This isn't Iraq in 2003 - there is a UN resolution and there is a coalition (of sorts) of nations though more akin perhaps to the USA and USSR fighting a common enemy from 1941-45 than the coming together of nations to eject Saddam's forces from Kuwait in 1990.
Like many others, I'd like to hear a lot less about planes dropping bombs and a lot more about the efforts to bring a comprehensive political settlement and an end to all fighting in Syria and a lot more about measures to deal with the Syrian Diaspora but the fixation with bombs and some notion of "revenge" clouds the argument.
In truth, what is decided today doesn't matter very much - we will be as much of an enemy to IS whether we bomb them or not. Joining three other Permanent members of the UN Security Council in taking action, however, signals that Britain wants to be an active and engaged member of the global community and that means getting our hands dirty and getting involved.
I'm an internationalist and believe in nations working together. I do worry IS use the violence perpetrated against them as a weapon (just as they use the violence they perpetrate as a weapon) and invite death and destruction upon themselves and others but their belief system is totally alien to me. History tells me hiding your head in the sand and hoping it will all go away doesn't end well.
History also tells me the endgame won't be from the air but will require the physical conquest of the lands currently under IS control - someone will have to do that and just as American and Russian soldiers once met on the River Elbe to divide Germany, perhaps we will see two arms of the coalition of nations meet on the Iraq-Syria border one day to witness the end of IS but there has to be a plan to fill the vacuum of fear with something better. I don't see that plan at present and that has to be as much the focus of our efforts as the military side.
"Bombing on its own is an irritant". Tell that to the citizens of Hiroshima.
Two bombs dropped on Japan ended the entire war in the Pacific (and probably saved several million lives)
And anyone who has read the military history of WW2 knows that the allied bombing campaign in Germany was brilliantly successful. By the end we had virtually destroyed their industrial capacity. Indeed it's arguable we didn't even need our troops to cross the Rhine, we could have sat back and let bomber Harris turn what remained of Germany into dust. But that would have meant many more Dresdens, which is the problem.
To defeat an enemy with air power you need overwhelming force and a total disregard for casualties. Only the first applies in Syria.
I still think, on balance (and it's a fine call) that we should attack Isis in Syria. We're already doing it in Iraq. They are already coming for us in London. We need to deal with them at home AND abroad.
You clearly know very little about Nazi Germany.
German industrial capacity continued to grow throughout the bombing of Germany. Look at the aircraft production figures by month, you'll see they peaked after D-Day. It was only when the Germans began losing significant territory that production began to fall. (Read Adam Toze's excellent The Wages of Destruction for a look at the economy of Nazi Germany.)
Turkey now demanding £2.1 billion each year as well as visa-free access to the EU and eventually full membership.
By demanding more money & threatening to flood the EU with more migrants, Erdogan is trying to hold us to ransom.
================================================
But who'd of thunk it ?...a gang of Turkish rug merchants trying to take advantage of us ?
THIS was just SOOOOOOOOOO predictable ; indeed , this is just a modern day Turkish DANEGELD whereby the ransom / protection racket is increased each year as the crises worsens
The Turks will turn down/ turn up the flow of migrants/refugees opportunistically as they see fit
We are in the midst of a major historical event ; the greatest mass migration since WW2 and it's clearly going to get worse in the spring as word has gotten out that the EU is a ''soft touch'' that lacks the will to enforce its' borders ; that idiot Angela Merkel has triggered an avalanche !
The developing world has many disadvantages but have one clear decisive advantage ; they have the POPULATION BOMB b and are certain to use it against us when they sense weakness !
Mr Cromwell I had a discussion on here recently after pointing out that Cameron wants Turkey to join the EU, he says Turkey is "vital" to our economy.
Unsurprisingly some tories on here defended his ridiculous stance.
Cameron has previously said that Turkey should be admitted to the EU. I have assumed that he said it, some time ago, just to appease Turkey for God-knows-what reason. But he will have known that France would oppose it vigorously. Futhermore, Cam has said that any new nation joining the EU should have a GDP equal to a significant percentage of the EU average. Therefore all smoke and mirrors. I would be surprised if he actually said that Turkey is vital to the UK economy. If he actually believes that, time to get a new leader.
Mr Perdix, this link clearly states Cameron's position, including the use of "vital". Pieces like this will ensure we LEAVE, if we stay IN that's what Cameron and his Europhiles want.
I read a comment by Southam Observer yesterday about the mood in Brussels. I can say that here near Nice (Only France's 7th city) it's similar. Much tighter security with bag searches everywhere museums and galleries not allowing people in wth backpacks police on street corners etc. It's difficult seeing things returning to normal anytime soon -or maybe anytime. Remembering what happened to air travel.
What happens when there's another outrage in London? I wonder whether the reaction to Charlie Hebdo hasn't turned various local issues into something approaching all out war. Was it wise to have the march in Paris with all world leaders (including Netanyahu hated in the Middle East as much as Saddam would have been in London) declaring WAR against ISIS?
Many countries have now faced terrorist outrages and all civilized people want to show solidarity but when you declare WAR this becomes something far more far reaching and with very unpredictable consequences.
Dear god, you and Corbyn deserve each other.
Poor old Roger, inconvenienced by a bag search at some chi-chi gallery in the south of France. Life is hard.
Meanwhile, with threats of intimidation from activists, Labour move ever closer to becoming a fully fledged terrorist organisation in their own right.
For people that live or work in or close to London, would you say bombing Syria will make you feel safer in the capital over the next month or so?
You think we were safe before?
Also do you think it's right that our actions or otherwise are dictated by fear?
I don't think we were safe before, no
But the question is "will we be safer or less safe if we bomb Syria"?
It's not about fear, the governments job is to protect it's population, and so if bombing Syria increases the risk of an attack here, even if we were at risk before, then they are not doing their job
Maybe it will make us safer, I am not closed minded about it, but it makes me feel less safe
The problem with that argument is that is results in constant appeasement and inaction. When would we have stood up the Nazis? Warsaw, Paris or Watford Gap Service Station?
A bigger problem with bombing Syria must be that - on its own - it will do little more than convert a few more of the local population into true Jihadis and kill a bunch of civilians.
Just as ISIS bombing us doesn't make us think "You know what! Let's get out of the Middle East", I suspect us bombing ISIS won't make them think "You know what! Let's stop our war on the West."
Bombing on its own is an irritant. It couldn't topple Nazi Germany. It couldn't win the war in Vietnam. I doubt it will be particularly effective here. Destroying ISIS probably requires boots o the ground, and a commitment from a wide range of countries to spend 25 years building up secular civil society in the region post an invasion. Are we up for that? Probably not. Yet, that is what is realistically required. Otherwise, we're beating our chest and making a big noise, but doing relatively little to stop ISIS.
If there were as many Germans in England in 1939 as there are Muslims now, I think it would have been more difficult
I am just asking questions that give me pause for thought... instinctively I think we should wipe them out.. but I don't trust my instincts!
I get a feeling of our bombing being akin to pressing a switch that detonates a load of bombs that have been planted over here, but that's prob just being melodramatic
There are 50 million Muslims living in Europe and North America.
Over the last 15 years of Islamic terrorism (assuming we start with 9/11), there have been maybe a dozen individuals from those countries that have successfully initiated terrorist attacks.
Only a dozen?
That's alright then, what on earth are we worried about?
"Bombing on its own is an irritant". Tell that to the citizens of Hiroshima.
Two bombs dropped on Japan ended the entire war in the Pacific (and probably saved several million lives)
And anyone who has read the military history of WW2 knows that the allied bombing campaign in Germany was brilliantly successful. By the end we had virtually destroyed their industrial capacity. Indeed it's arguable we didn't even need our troops to cross the Rhine, we could have sat back and let bomber Harris turn what remained of Germany into dust. But that would have meant many more Dresdens, which is the problem.
To defeat an enemy with air power you need overwhelming force and a total disregard for casualties. Only the first applies in Syria.
I still think, on balance (and it's a fine call) that we should attack Isis in Syria. We're already doing it in Iraq. They are already coming for us in London. We need to deal with them at home AND abroad.
You clearly know very little about Nazi Germany.
German industrial capacity continued to grow throughout the bombing of Germany. Look at the aircraft production figures by month, you'll see they peaked after D-Day. It was only when the Germans began losing significant territory that production began to fall. (Read Adam Toze's excellent The Wages of Destruction for a look at the economy of Nazi Germany.)
Ridiculous. Without the bombing campaign Germany's industrial production would have reached far greater heights.
"Bombing on its own is an irritant". Tell that to the citizens of Hiroshima.
Two bombs dropped on Japan ended the entire war in the Pacific (and probably saved several million lives)
And anyone who has read the military history of WW2 knows that the allied bombing campaign in Germany was brilliantly successful. By the end we had virtually destroyed their industrial capacity. Indeed it's arguable we didn't even need our troops to cross the Rhine, we could have sat back and let bomber Harris turn what remained of Germany into dust. But that would have meant many more Dresdens, which is the problem.
To defeat an enemy with air power you need overwhelming force and a total disregard for casualties. Only the first applies in Syria.
I still think, on balance (and it's a fine call) that we should attack Isis in Syria. We're already doing it in Iraq. They are already coming for us in London. We need to deal with them at home AND abroad.
You clearly know very little about Nazi Germany.
German industrial capacity continued to grow throughout the bombing of Germany. Look at the aircraft production figures by month, you'll see they peaked after D-Day. It was only when the Germans began losing significant territory that production began to fall. (Read Adam Toze's excellent The Wages of Destruction for a look at the economy of Nazi Germany.)
The fact that production continued to grow while Germany was being bombed doesn't mean that the bombing didn't severely retard that growth.
I see your point but I think it's true to say that the places in the world that see the least Islamic terrorism are those with the fewest muslims living there
Specious. How many Catholics lived in the British Isles in 1970? Many millions? How many of them successfully initiated terror attacks on the UK in the following decades? A few dozen?
Yet they killed thousands, provoked intense civil strife, and turned a part of the U.K. into a police state. That's because the few dozen hardcore killers were surrounded by many thousands of supporters, who were in turn were protected by, and could draw upon, a significant proportion of the Irish Catholic population who extended them a level of sympathy and tolerance.
The analogy with Islamism is precise. Except Islamism is much more dangerous because the Muslim population is so much larger and the Islamists have no political goal that can be negotiated, they want us dead.
According to Wikipedia, there were 10,000 bomb attacks during the Troubles.
10,000.
As an aside, have you looked into the amount of people killed by terrorist incidents in the 1970s and 1980s in Europe by the Action Directe, Baader Meinhof gangs, and the like.
They are an order of magnitude greater than the number of people killed in Europe by Islamic terrorists, and over a similar time horizon.
My point is this: there will always be nutters (whether Islamic, Communist, Anarchist or Nationalistic) who commit atrocities and kill thousands of people. We should fight these people with all the resources we have, up to and including invasion of countries. But we should not claim that "this time is different", when there is - in fact - massively lower levels of terrorist activity in Europe than there was say 30 years ago.
"Bombing on its own is an irritant". Tell that to the citizens of Hiroshima.
Two bombs dropped on Japan ended the entire war in the Pacific (and probably saved several million lives)
And anyone who has read the military history of WW2 knows that the allied bombing campaign in Germany was brilliantly successful. By the end we had virtually destroyed their industrial capacity. Indeed it's arguable we didn't even need our troops to cross the Rhine, we could have sat back and let bomber Harris turn what remained of Germany into dust. But that would have meant many more Dresdens, which is the problem.
To defeat an enemy with air power you need overwhelming force and a total disregard for casualties. Only the first applies in Syria.
I still think, on balance (and it's a fine call) that we should attack Isis in Syria. We're already doing it in Iraq. They are already coming for us in London. We need to deal with them at home AND abroad.
You clearly know very little about Nazi Germany.
German industrial capacity continued to grow throughout the bombing of Germany. Look at the aircraft production figures by month, you'll see they peaked after D-Day. It was only when the Germans began losing significant territory that production began to fall. (Read Adam Toze's excellent The Wages of Destruction for a look at the economy of Nazi Germany.)
The fact that production continued to grow while Germany was being bombed doesn't mean that the bombing didn't severely retard that growth.
Yes: but then you're drifting into counter-factuals. And German't big problem, late in the war, was not lack of industrial capacity, it was that it lost the Poletsi oil fields and therefore had no oil for its tanks or its aircraft.
IMHO there was a significant opportunity cost to the Germans from allied bombing. Resources had to be devoted to defence against bombing that could have been better used elsewhere.
I remember one of the German interviewees on the World at War describing the bombing as "a third front."
"Bombing on its own is an irritant". Tell that to the citizens of Hiroshima.
Two bombs dropped on Japan ended the entire war in the Pacific (and probably saved several million lives)
And anyone who has read the military history of WW2 knows that the allied bombing campaign in Germany was brilliantly successful. By the end we had virtually destroyed their industrial capacity. Indeed it's arguable we didn't even need our troops to cross the Rhine, we could have sat back and let bomber Harris turn what remained of Germany into dust. But that would have meant many more Dresdens, which is the problem.
To defeat an enemy with air power you need overwhelming force and a total disregard for casualties. Only the first applies in Syria.
I still think, on balance (and it's a fine call) that we should attack Isis in Syria. We're already doing it in Iraq. They are already coming for us in London. We need to deal with them at home AND abroad.
Actually anyone who knows the history of WW2 knows that the effect of the bombing of Germany was very limited and made very little difference to the final outcome.
By 1944 Harris was using reports that claimed 90% of the bomb loads were falling within 3 miles of their target but the The United States Strategic Bombing Survey Report (USSBS) which reported on all sides of the bombing campaign after the end of the war found that at the height of the US and UK bombing of Germany the country was actually increasing its armaments production.
Normal bombing targeting in WW2 was a circle of 1000ft around the nominal target. By early 1945 the estimate is that at very best around 20% of the bombs dropped on each raid weer making that target.
Once again I agree entirely. The question is not one of bombing or appeasement as some like to claim but one of taking action which is effective.
The two ways in which IS will be defeated is by isolation - cutting off their support from the surrounding countries if necessary by taking direct economic action against those countries - and by direct confrontation on the ground using troops who can seize and hold territory.
Bombing alone will achieve neither of these aims and should not be indulged in just to show we are 'doing something'. It is the ultimate virtue signalling.
No-one is claiming that bombing ISIS will, by itself, 'defeat' them. If only life were as simple as that - it's not a choice between 'defeating' them and doing nothing.
What it is about is containing, degrading, and disrupting them. And the reason for wanting to do that is very clear indeed: there is no prospect of a diplomatic or military solution to the chaos of Syria anytime soon, but in the meantime, without intervention by the international coalition, ISIS was expanding and consolidating its quasi-state, with all the disagreeable consequences which that implies, for us, our closest allies, and of course for the local populations. This is about reversing that expansion; if nothing had been done so far by the West, ISIS would be dug-in over an even bigger swathe of Syrian and Iraqi territory. The bombing is, therefore, already working, but more needs to be done.
Of course we could shrug our shoulders and leave it to the US, France, Germany, and our other allies, ignoring their very specific requests for more help. They want our assistance, but could manage without it. We could let them get on with it. However, that is not an honourable approach.
Sorry but that is exactly the kind of argument that causes these problems in the first place and leads to yet more Libyas and Iraqs.
No one is suggesting we do nothing. The problem is that we are choosing to do the one thing that is the easiest and simplest and will have the least chance of making any real difference.
I wonder if DD was at the backbencher meeting with Cammo...
anyway still an error of wording by DC, I'd assume first thing in the debate he'll be making it abundantly clear today who he was referring to as a terrorist sympathiser and those who he absolutely wasn't referring to.. this clarification has many 'attractions' for him doing so and could be akin to the trade union / leaders distinction.
I see your point but I think it's true to say that the places in the world that see the least Islamic terrorism are those with the fewest muslims living there
For people that live or work in or close to London, would you say bombing Syria will make you feel safer in the capital over the next month or so?
You think we were safe before?
Also do you think it's right that our actions or otherwise are dictated by fear?
I don't think we were safe before, no
But the question is "will we be safer or less safe if we bomb Syria"?
It's not about fear, the governments job is to protect it's population, and so if bombing Syria increases the risk of an attack here, even if we were at risk before, then they are not doing their job
Maybe it will make us safer, I am not closed minded about it, but it makes me feel less safe
The problem with that argument is that is results in constant appeasement and inaction. When would we have stood up the Nazis? Warsaw, Paris or Watford Gap Service Station?
A bigger problem with bombing Syria must be that - on its own - it will do little more than convert a few more of the local population into true Jihadis and kill a bunch of civilians.
Just as ISIS bombing us doesn't make us think "You know what! Let's get out of the Middle East", I suspect us bombing ISIS won't make them think "You know what! Let's stop our war on the West."
Bombing on its own is an irritant. It couldn't topple Nazi Germany. It couldn't win the war in Vietnam. ...
If there were as many Germans in England in 1939 as there are Muslims now, I think it would have been more difficult
I am just asking questions that give me pause for thought...
There are 50 million Muslims living in Europe and North America.
Over the last 15 years of Islamic terrorism (assuming we start with 9/11), there have been maybe a dozen individuals from those countries that have successfully initiated terrorist attacks.
IMHO there was a significant opportunity cost to the Germans from allied bombing. Resources had to be devoted to defence against bombing that could have been better used elsewhere.
I remember one of the German interviewees on the World at War describing the bombing as "a third front."
How would have World War II panned out if Hitler hadn't launched Barbarossa?
As I said last night this vote is being ridiculously oversold. We are already bombing Daesh, have been for over a year. We are talking about extending the field of our very modest operations across a boundary our enemy does not recognise. Our proposal to do so is backed by a unanimous UN resolution and is already being done by our allies. If this was the scope of the proposal it is barely worth talking about.
The reality is that Corbyn's opposition is not to this utterly trivial step but to our armed intervention in total. He thinks we can negotiate and reason with these people and that this is a better solution than trying to destroy them. Events have not moved in his favour in recent times. ...
It is clearly the next step on a slippery
We are doing the same thing in Iraq right now, and have been for quite a while. No ground element apart from some members of the Hereford Hunting club. Incidentally, did you know that McIRA wanted to abolish the SAS as well as MI5?
Yes I do know that, but this is a significant escalation and expansion of our role in the conflict.
If we are serious about defeating IS and fellow travellers like Boko Haram and Al Shabaab then we need to accept that it is going to be costly in terms of both lives and money, and that there is likely to be a lot of civillian casualties. There always are in assymetric warfare. A few bombs from 2 extra Tornados is neither here nor there. You don't tackle a rabid dog with a peashooter.
We should be resolute and forceful in our defence of liberal democracy against Islamo-facists, but we should not delude ourselves that it will be easy or cheap.
Can you refer to me when Cameron or any other minister said the action would be easy or cheap?
I would suggest the evidence was in the autumn statement. A bit of money for spies and special forces. If the government was serious it would be expanding the army and RAF, buying ground attack helicopters and ground attack aircraft. I would like a 100 drones over IsIS land with a missle attack on every IS checkpoint or mobile vehicle, night and day. Make their lives a misery, and short.
It is buying more drones and it is spending money on special forces equipment. It is in fact doing the right thing. It is expanding the army's ability to operate overseas. It is committing to buy the F35. We do not need 100 drones, we have enough. In fact the govts announcements show it is spending money in the right areas. I'd like to think were spending money on satellites and command and control as well but that might be top secret.
"Bombing on its own is an irritant". Tell that to the citizens of Hiroshima.
Two bombs dropped on Japan ended the entire war in the Pacific (and probably saved several million lives)
And anyone who has read the military history of WW2 knows that the allied bombing campaign in Germany was brilliantly successful. By the end we had virtually destroyed their industrial capacity. Indeed it's arguable we didn't even need our troops to cross the Rhine, we could have sat back and let bomber Harris turn what remained of Germany into dust. But that would have meant many more Dresdens, which is the problem.
To defeat an enemy with air power you need overwhelming force and a total disregard for casualties. Only the first applies in Syria.
I still think, on balance (and it's a fine call) that we should attack Isis in Syria. We're already doing it in Iraq. They are already coming for us in London. We need to deal with them at home AND abroad.
You clearly know very little about Nazi Germany.
German industrial capacity continued to grow throughout the bombing of Germany. Look at the aircraft production figures by month, you'll see they peaked after D-Day. It was only when the Germans began losing significant territory that production began to fall. (Read Adam Toze's excellent The Wages of Destruction for a look at the economy of Nazi Germany.)
You clearly know very little about anything. Read about the effect of allied bombing on supplies of oil for the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe.
A typical "I'm wrong, but I'm going to try and change the terms of debate so as not to admit my ignorance" gambit by you, I'm afraid.
Germany got the vast bulk of its oil from the Poletsi oil fields in Romania. It was when they were recaptured in late 1944 that Germany's oil supplies were severely disrupted.
No one is suggesting we do nothing. The problem is that we are choosing to do the one thing that is the easiest and simplest and will have the least chance of making any real difference.
Yes, doing nothing is exactly what people are proposing. Well, to be fair, Jeremy Corbyn is suggesting we should negotiate with ISIS. It's a view, I suppose.
Harry Cole Mark Serwotka said of targeting MPs homes: "We would like to see more of this kind of community campaigning, linking up with unions"
Nice. Intimidation is the new 'Democracy', in the world of Corbyn & Co. Welcome to the future of the Labour Party.
Would Serwotka be happy to have activists in his front garden, shouting 'advice' through his letterbox?
I think desertion and moving away from politics is more likely than a split.
I think this is right - were I a moderate Laour MP, I wouldn't be thinking of other parties, I'd be working out how best to make a difference outside Westminster come 2020 (or before). Surely the more talented must be looking at David Miliband and assessing the good he's done in the world as Chief Exec of IRC and comparing it to what they can achieve in the face of "community campaigning".
They must look at James Purnell and be envious of his >£200,000 salary package.
"Bombing on its own is an irritant". Tell that to the citizens of Hiroshima.
Two bombs dropped on Japan ended the entire war in the Pacific (and probably saved several million lives)
And anyone who has read the military history of WW2 knows that the allied bombing campaign in Germany was brilliantly successful. By the end we had virtually destroyed their industrial capacity. Indeed it's arguable we didn't even need our troops to cross the Rhine, we could have sat back and let bomber Harris turn what remained of Germany into dust. But that would have meant many more Dresdens, which is the problem.
To defeat an enemy with air power you need overwhelming force and a total disregard for casualties. Only the first applies in Syria.
I still think, on balance (and it's a fine call) that we should attack Isis in Syria. We're already doing it in Iraq. They are already coming for us in London. We need to deal with them at home AND abroad.
You clearly know very little about Nazi Germany.
German industrial capacity continued to grow throughout the bombing of Germany. Look at the aircraft production figures by month, you'll see they peaked after D-Day. It was only when the Germans began losing significant territory that production began to fall. (Read Adam Toze's excellent The Wages of Destruction for a look at the economy of Nazi Germany.)
You clearly know very little about anything. Read about the effect of allied bombing on supplies of oil for the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe.
Production rose as they found a new source of "labour" - better Jews were sent to factories rather than liquidation.
I wonder if DD was at the backbencher meeting with Cammo...
anyway still an error of wording by DC, I'd assume first thing in the debate he'll be making it abundantly clear today who he was referring to as a terrorist sympathiser and those who he absolutely wasn't referring to.. this clarification has many 'attractions' for him doing so and could be akin to the trade union / leaders distinction.
Help, I sort of agree with Bad Al but I also think there's a chance to make the point too of who we was referring to...
Alastair Campbell @campbellclaret 24 mins24 minutes ago I imagine @David_Cameron had Livingstone in mind with 'terrorist sympathisers' jibe. It was ill-advised and he should apologise at start
IMHO there was a significant opportunity cost to the Germans from allied bombing. Resources had to be devoted to defence against bombing that could have been better used elsewhere.
I remember one of the German interviewees on the World at War describing the bombing as "a third front."
How would have World War II panned out if Hitler hadn't launched Barbarossa?
Well, at some point, a showdown between the Soviet Union and Germany was inevitable, but not in 1941.
Hitler would presumably have concentrated his efforts in the Middle East in the meantime. It's hard to see how we could have stopped him, had he put sufficient resources in. Egypt must have fallen, followed by Palestine/Transjordan and Iraq. Persia would have become a German satellite state.
That's when I see the showdown with the Soviet Union, with the Soviets attacking. There's surely no way that Stalin would have tolerated the Germans flanking Russia to the South as well as to the West.
@BBCNormanS: I understand PM will stress in Commons debate that he respects sincere views of those who oppose airstrikes #terroristsympathiser #syriavote
Jeremy Corbyn is adamant that he is not a pacifist. But he has never, not even in the Falklands, Kosovo or Sierra Leone, supported or acknowledged the legitimacy of military intervention. Yet for 80 years Labour has been an internationalist party. We developed the nuclear deterrent and helped found Nato. Most important of all we have a long and proud history of fighting fascism.
I wonder if DD was at the backbencher meeting with Cammo...
anyway still an error of wording by DC, I'd assume first thing in the debate he'll be making it abundantly clear today who he was referring to as a terrorist sympathiser and those who he absolutely wasn't referring to.. this clarification has many 'attractions' for him doing so and could be akin to the trade union / leaders distinction.
Help, I sort of agree with Bad Al but I also think there's a chance to make the point too of who we was referring to...
Alastair Campbell @campbellclaret 24 mins24 minutes ago I imagine @David_Cameron had Livingstone in mind with 'terrorist sympathisers' jibe. It was ill-advised and he should apologise at start
Agreeing with Alastair Campbell? Why don't you go and join Labour you Red Tory.
A bombing campaign ended the war in KOSOVO ...NATO troops only entered after the Serbs had thrown in the towel
I suspect that it will be much more likely that Russian troops are on the ground in Syria ; after all , it's becoming clear that the feminized West are a group of ''hand wringing Hamlets '' who cannot ''take a punch '' and will not risk the lives of their citizens
Putin senses weakness in the West and will opportunistically make the most of it ...those grim and bloody minded Russians will have no trouble killing the guys who need killing ...they are the real deal , not the hysterical drama queens in the West
@BBCNormanS: I understand PM will stress in Commons debate that he respects sincere views of those who oppose airstrikes #terroristsympathiser #syriavote
If Cam has a bet I reckon he is an arber or someone who backs 5 20/1 shots in a race and when one wins says "I backed a 20/1 winner!"
I blame Tony for this mess. I was against the Iraq war because Saddam being one dictator out of many didn't seem enough reason to start a war. He wasn't an Islamist as such.
But I sort of hoped that Tony knew more than he was saying, perhaps being inhibited by security issues to say too much. In fact, he knew less than he was saying, and that was unforgivable.
In Syria, there's no obvious end-game but there is a definite threat. It's completely different.
I completely agree. It is the lies Blair told about Iraq (along with the cowardice that would not let the British army do its job in the aftermath) that has made people so cautious and unsure of anything our government says and does. It is a shameful legacy.
Dave "heir to Blair" Cameron is a manifestation of that shameful legacy. If anything I find Cameron more egregious than Blair.
What a shedful of baseless lies and prejudice - well done - you can have Stella's seat when she gets booted out.
Agreed, but it is typical of the blind crass stupidity of Corbyn's followers and the isolationist nutjobs.
IMHO there was a significant opportunity cost to the Germans from allied bombing. Resources had to be devoted to defence against bombing that could have been better used elsewhere.
I remember one of the German interviewees on the World at War describing the bombing as "a third front."
How would have World War II panned out if Hitler hadn't launched Barbarossa?
Well, at some point, a showdown between the Soviet Union and Germany was inevitable, but not in 1941.
Hitler would presumably have concentrated his efforts in the Middle East in the meantime. It's hard to see how we could have stopped him, had he put sufficient resources in. Egypt must have fallen, followed by Palestine/Transjordan and Iraq. Persia would have become a German satellite state.
That's when I see the showdown with the Soviet Union, with the Soviets attacking. There's surely no way that Stalin would have tolerated the Germans flanking Russia to the South as well as to the West.
Thanks. Getting the oil in Middle East was key.
the Anglo Soviet invasion of Iran happened because of Barbarossa didn't it ?
No one is suggesting we do nothing. The problem is that we are choosing to do the one thing that is the easiest and simplest and will have the least chance of making any real difference.
Yes, doing nothing is exactly what people are proposing. Well, to be fair, Jeremy Corbyn is suggesting we should negotiate with ISIS. It's a view, I suppose.
No that is what some people are proposing and you latch onto that as if it is the be all and end all of opposition. It is a thoroughly dishonest position to adopt. There are plenty of people who have highlighted the need to deal with Saudi support for IS and others such as myself who have long advocated working in cooperation with the Iranians for ground forces or putting our own troops on the ground.
This is not a 'do nothing' position, but it is also not a 'do anything' position either.
Bombing alone will not work. To pretend it will is to simply add to the problem.
It is extraordinary that the stand-out female Labour MP of her generation should be top of the hit-list. Nick Cohen's What's Left is very illuminating on the sexism of the hard left.
An utter disgrace. Stella Creasey is a very fine campaigning MP who has tried to make a difference to the sorts of people Labour ought to be trying to help. If people like her are targets for deselection, Labour really does deserve to die. It's little wonder that they have no problem with gender segregation if this is what they think acceptable.
IMHO there was a significant opportunity cost to the Germans from allied bombing. Resources had to be devoted to defence against bombing that could have been better used elsewhere.
I remember one of the German interviewees on the World at War describing the bombing as "a third front."
How would have World War II panned out if Hitler hadn't launched Barbarossa?
Well, at some point, a showdown between the Soviet Union and Germany was inevitable, but not in 1941.
Hitler would presumably have concentrated his efforts in the Middle East in the meantime. It's hard to see how we could have stopped him, had he put sufficient resources in. Egypt must have fallen, followed by Palestine/Transjordan and Iraq. Persia would have become a German satellite state.
That's when I see the showdown with the Soviet Union, with the Soviets attacking. There's surely no way that Stalin would have tolerated the Germans flanking Russia to the South as well as to the West.
Hitler could have avoided war by dividing Persia as he divided Poland. So Russia won more territory without firing a shot.
We might have ended up with Europe controlled by Germany and Russia, N Africa by Germany and the ME split Germany /Russia with Japan mopping up the Far East with ME oil.. thus removing the impact of US oil sanctions..
(My father was injured fighting in Persia/Burma with an Indian Sikh battalion...)
I'll add this to the list of topics in which I won't engage with you.
If your engagement consists of misrepresenting people's positions - something that seems to be your normal way of dealing with those who disagree with you - then it is probably better if you do not engage. You only make yourself look stupid.
IMHO there was a significant opportunity cost to the Germans from allied bombing. Resources had to be devoted to defence against bombing that could have been better used elsewhere.
I remember one of the German interviewees on the World at War describing the bombing as "a third front."
How would have World War II panned out if Hitler hadn't launched Barbarossa?
Well, at some point, a showdown between the Soviet Union and Germany was inevitable, but not in 1941.
Hitler would presumably have concentrated his efforts in the Middle East in the meantime. It's hard to see how we could have stopped him, had he put sufficient resources in. Egypt must have fallen, followed by Palestine/Transjordan and Iraq. Persia would have become a German satellite state.
That's when I see the showdown with the Soviet Union, with the Soviets attacking. There's surely no way that Stalin would have tolerated the Germans flanking Russia to the South as well as to the West.
Thanks. Getting the oil in Middle East was key.
the Anglo Soviet invasion of Iran happened because of Barbarossa didn't it ?
I honestly don't know enough. How big were Iraq, Iran, and the Gulf as oil producers at this stage?
Specious. How many Catholics lived in the British Isles in 1970? Many millions? How many of them successfully initiated terror attacks on the UK in the following decades? A few dozen?
Yet they killed thousands, provoked intense civil strife, and turned a part of the U.K. into a police state. That's because the few dozen hardcore killers were surrounded by many thousands of supporters, who were in turn were protected by, and could draw upon, a significant proportion of the Irish Catholic population who extended them a level of sympathy and tolerance.
The analogy with Islamism is precise. Except Islamism is much more dangerous because the Muslim population is so much larger and the Islamists have no political goal that can be negotiated, they want us dead.
According to Wikipedia, there were 10,000 bomb attacks during the Troubles.
10,000.
As an aside, have you looked into the amount of people killed by terrorist incidents in the 1970s and 1980s in Europe by the Action Directe, Baader Meinhof gangs, and the like.
They are an order of magnitude greater than the number of people killed in Europe by Islamic terrorists, and over a similar time horizon.
My point is this: there will always be nutters (whether Islamic, Communist, Anarchist or Nationalistic) who commit atrocities and kill thousands of people. We should fight these people with all the resources we have, up to and including invasion of countries. But we should not claim that "this time is different", when there is - in fact - massively lower levels of terrorist activity in Europe than there was say 30 years ago.
"Massively lower levels of terrorist activity in Europe now"
I am starting to wonder if you are actively, significantly stupid. In the way some clearly intelligent people often are (think Oliver Letwin). The idea we are now enjoying unusually lower levels of terror in Europe is of an accord with your notion that bombing the shit out of Germany increased their tank production and made them yodel with happiness in the streets of Berlin
IMHO there was a significant opportunity cost to the Germans from allied bombing. Resources had to be devoted to defence against bombing that could have been better used elsewhere.
I remember one of the German interviewees on the World at War describing the bombing as "a third front."
How would have World War II panned out if Hitler hadn't launched Barbarossa?
Well, at some point, a showdown between the Soviet Union and Germany was inevitable, but not in 1941.
Hitler would presumably have concentrated his efforts in the Middle East in the meantime. It's hard to see how we could have stopped him, had he put sufficient resources in. Egypt must have fallen, followed by Palestine/Transjordan and Iraq. Persia would have become a German satellite state.
That's when I see the showdown with the Soviet Union, with the Soviets attacking. There's surely no way that Stalin would have tolerated the Germans flanking Russia to the South as well as to the West.
Thanks. Getting the oil in Middle East was key.
the Anglo Soviet invasion of Iran happened because of Barbarossa didn't it ?
I honestly don't know enough. How big were Iraq, Iran, and the Gulf as oil producers at this stage?
I haven't got the stats to hand, but it was enough to give us a real advantage over Germany.
Jeremy Corbyn is adamant that he is not a pacifist. But he has never, not even in the Falklands, Kosovo or Sierra Leone, supported or acknowledged the legitimacy of military intervention. Yet for 80 years Labour has been an internationalist party. We developed the nuclear deterrent and helped found Nato. Most important of all we have a long and proud history of fighting fascism.
I see Dan Jarvis is now prevaricating - will only support the govt if a convincing case is made. I have one question who took all the cojones off the Labour party? surely Ed B wasn't it!
IMHO there was a significant opportunity cost to the Germans from allied bombing. Resources had to be devoted to defence against bombing that could have been better used elsewhere.
I remember one of the German interviewees on the World at War describing the bombing as "a third front."
How would have World War II panned out if Hitler hadn't launched Barbarossa?
Well, at some point, a showdown between the Soviet Union and Germany was inevitable, but not in 1941.
Hitler would presumably have concentrated his efforts in the Middle East in the meantime. It's hard to see how we could have stopped him, had he put sufficient resources in. Egypt must have fallen, followed by Palestine/Transjordan and Iraq. Persia would have become a German satellite state.
That's when I see the showdown with the Soviet Union, with the Soviets attacking. There's surely no way that Stalin would have tolerated the Germans flanking Russia to the South as well as to the West.
Thanks. Getting the oil in Middle East was key.
the Anglo Soviet invasion of Iran happened because of Barbarossa didn't it ?
I honestly don't know enough. How big were Iraq, Iran, and the Gulf as oil producers at this stage?
he oil production of Middle East was not exceptional, but would have been of great help for the Axis (that was mostly based on Rumanian oil: 7,153,000 t in 1937 and 6,603,000 in 1938). Instead for the Allies it was pretty irrilevant (USA oil production of 1937: 172,866,000 t). This was the oil production in metric tons of Middle East countries in 1937, 1938 and 1946: Iran: 10,331,000 10,359,000 19,189,000 Iraq: 4,255,000 4,272,000 4,476,000 Bahrein: 1,062,000 n.a. n.a. Kuwait: oil has been found by an American company, but production had not yet started in 1939. Production of 1946: 800,000 t. Saudi Arabia: first drillings in the Hasa region; a port was under construction in 1939 in Ras Tanura (N-W of Bahrein) for the transport of the oil production of Hasa. Probable presence of oil in the Red Sea in front of Tihama (in Asir), islands Farsan, El Daba and Hueigh (both in Hejaz). Production of 1946: 8,200,000 t. Qatar: none. Oman: none. Coast of Pirates (United Arab Emirates): none. Syria and Lebanon: none. Palestina: none. Transjordania: none. (sources: "Calendario Atlante De Agostini. 1940 XVIII" and "Calendario Atlante De Agostini. XX Secolo") http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=59630
I see Dan Jarvis is now prevaricating - will only support the govt if a convincing case is made. I have one question who took all the cojones off the Labour party? surely Ed B wasn't it!
Specious. How many Catholics lived in the British Isles in 1970? Many millions? How many of them successfully initiated terror attacks on the UK in the following decades? A few dozen?
Yet they killed thousands, provoked intense civil strife, and turned a part of the U.K. into a police state. That's because the few dozen hardcore killers were surrounded by many thousands of supporters, who were in turn were protected by, and could draw upon, a significant proportion of the Irish Catholic population who extended them a level of sympathy and tolerance.
The analogy with Islamism is precise. Except Islamism is much more dangerous because the Muslim population is so much larger and the Islamists have no political goal that can be negotiated, they want us dead.
According to Wikipedia, there were 10,000 bomb attacks during the Troubles.
10,000.
As an aside, have you looked into the amount of people killed by terrorist incidents in the 1970s and 1980s in Europe by the Action Directe, Baader Meinhof gangs, and the like.
They are an order of magnitude greater than the number of people killed in Europe by Islamic terrorists, and over a similar time horizon.
My point is this: there will always be nutters (whether Islamic, Communist, Anarchist or Nationalistic) who commit atrocities and kill thousands of people. We should fight these people with all the resources we have, up to and including invasion of countries. But we should not claim that "this time is different", when there is - in fact - massively lower levels of terrorist activity in Europe than there was say 30 years ago.
"Massively lower levels of terrorist activity in Europe now"
I am starting to wonder if you are actively, significantly stupid. In the way some clearly intelligent people often are (think Oliver Letwin). The idea we are now enjoying unusually lower levels of terror in Europe is of an accord with your notion that bombing the shit out of Germany increased their tank production and made them yodel with happiness in the streets of Berlin
Specious. How many Catholics lived in the British Isles in 1970? Many millions? How many of them successfully initiated terror attacks on the UK in the following decades? A few dozen?
Yet they killed thousands, provoked intense civil strife, and turned a part of the U.K. into a police state. That's because the few dozen hardcore killers were surrounded by many thousands of supporters, who were in turn were protected by, and could draw upon, a significant proportion of the Irish Catholic population who extended them a level of sympathy and tolerance.
The analogy with Islamism is precise. Except Islamism is much more dangerous because the Muslim population is so much larger and the Islamists have no political goal that can be negotiated, they want us dead.
According to Wikipedia, there were 10,000 bomb attacks during the Troubles.
10,000.
As an aside, have you looked into the amount of people killed by terrorist incidents in the 1970s and 1980s in Europe by the Action Directe, Baader Meinhof gangs, and the like.
They are an order of magnitude greater than the number of people killed in Europe by Islamic terrorists, and over a similar time horizon.
My point is this: there will always be nutters (whether Islamic, Communist, Anarchist or Nationalistic) who commit atrocities and kill thousands of people. We should fight these people with all the resources we have, up to and including invasion of countries. But we should not claim that "this time is different", when there is - in fact - massively lower levels of terrorist activity in Europe than there was say 30 years ago.
"Massively lower levels of terrorist activity in Europe now"
I am starting to wonder if you are actively, significantly stupid. In the way some clearly intelligent people often are (think Oliver Letwin). The idea we are now enjoying unusually lower levels of terror in Europe is of an accord with your notion that bombing the shit out of Germany increased their tank production and made them yodel with happiness in the streets of Berlin
Again, you are ignorant.
Forget about "national liberation movements" (like ETA or the IRA, etc), and go and look up the number of people killed by the Red Brigades, Red Army Faction, etc. I was shocked when I read up about them a few years ago. Between the various Left Wing groups in Europe, thousands of people were killed, including the former Italian prime minister.
Twenty years of terrorism, and thousands of people killed. By a crazy ideology.
Are you noticing the similarities, or are you too thick?
If your engagement consists of misrepresenting people's positions - something that seems to be your normal way of dealing with those who disagree with you - then it is probably better if you do not engage. You only make yourself look stupid.
As I pointed out in my original, polite and substantive post, you were misrepresenting the argument in favour of extending the bombing by saying it by itself wouldn't work to 'defeat' ISIS, a claim which no-one has made.
The difference is that I argue my points without automatically falling back of barmy accusations of dishonesty in those who disagree with me, something you don't seem to be able to manage.
Comments
Potentially huge story although we knew it was coming and we will see what Zac makes of it.
A bigger problem with bombing Syria must be that - on its own - it will do little more than convert a few more of the local population into true Jihadis and kill a bunch of civilians.
Just as ISIS bombing us doesn't make us think "You know what! Let's get out of the Middle East", I suspect us bombing ISIS won't make them think "You know what! Let's stop our war on the West."
Bombing on its own is an irritant. It couldn't topple Nazi Germany. It couldn't win the war in Vietnam. I doubt it will be particularly effective here. Destroying ISIS probably requires boots o the ground, and a commitment from a wide range of countries to spend 25 years building up secular civil society in the region post an invasion. Are we up for that? Probably not. Yet, that is what is realistically required. Otherwise, we're beating our chest and making a big noise, but doing relatively little to stop ISIS.
Find out in 30 years time..
I'm interested in this idea that we should only enter the war if it makes us safer. The fundamental isolationism and abdication of responsibility of this bystander position seems rarely to be challenged. Does entering a war make us safer tomorrow or the day after - absolutely not; does it make us safer in a decade, that's the question. And as the Korean war memorial in Washington so rightly says "Freedom is not free" - as Hilary Benn so neatly put it, inaction has a cost in lives too.
Daesh got a lot of hardware when the Iraqi Army decided to impersonate brave Sir Robin (and ran away). Some of that's been destroyed, and whilst they can hide it (under bridges, say), if they try moving it there's the opportunity for an air strike.
That sort of thing *may* make an important difference for those fighting Daesh.
I know they fly to an awful lot of destinations, but Ethiopian Airways (to pick one example) has more than 100 planes flying in and out of Addis Ababa every day. I can't imagine Turkey has more than 100 flights per day to Africa.
Harry Cole
Mark Serwotka said of targeting MPs homes: "We would like to see more of this kind of community campaigning, linking up with unions"
Nice. Intimidation is the new 'Democracy', in the world of Corbyn & Co. Welcome to the future of the Labour Party.
Would Serwotka be happy to have activists in his front garden, shouting 'advice' through his letterbox?
He's an utter ****.
I am just asking questions that give me pause for thought... instinctively I think we should wipe them out.. but I don't trust my instincts!
I get a feeling of our bombing being akin to pressing a switch that detonates a load of bombs that have been planted over here, but that's prob just being melodramatic
You know these Labour types will eventually start intimidating Tories.
The two ways in which IS will be defeated is by isolation - cutting off their support from the surrounding countries if necessary by taking direct economic action against those countries - and by direct confrontation on the ground using troops who can seize and hold territory.
Bombing alone will achieve neither of these aims and should not be indulged in just to show we are 'doing something'. It is the ultimate virtue signalling.
Maybe they join the Lib Dems or form a new party entirely, but they cannot continue within Labour as it is.
For many reasons....
http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/turkish-airlines-will-add-six-new-destinations-for-2015-in-africa-for-a-total-of-48-cities-202922
Over the last 15 years of Islamic terrorism (assuming we start with 9/11), there have been maybe a dozen individuals from those countries that have successfully initiated terrorist attacks.
What it is about is containing, degrading, and disrupting them. And the reason for wanting to do that is very clear indeed: there is no prospect of a diplomatic or military solution to the chaos of Syria anytime soon, but in the meantime, without intervention by the international coalition, ISIS was expanding and consolidating its quasi-state, with all the disagreeable consequences which that implies, for us, our closest allies, and of course for the local populations. This is about reversing that expansion; if nothing had been done so far by the West, ISIS would be dug-in over an even bigger swathe of Syrian and Iraqi territory. The bombing is, therefore, already working, but more needs to be done.
Of course we could shrug our shoulders and leave it to the US, France, Germany, and our other allies, ignoring their very specific requests for more help. They want our assistance, but could manage without it. We could let them get on with it. However, that is not an honourable approach.
http://news.sky.com/story/1598353/four-arrested-in-luton-terrorism-raids
What was the Muslim population / number of individuals that successfully initiated terrorist attacks in the previous 15 years?
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 5m5 minutes ago
We're fast reaching the point where it will be not only be politically but morally indefensible to be a supporter of the Labour party.
"There are 50 million Muslims living in Europe and North America.
Over the last 15 years of Islamic terrorism (assuming we start with 9/11), there have been maybe a dozen individuals from those countries that have successfully initiated terrorist attacks."
Excellent answer
As an LD member, I was pleased to see that my views on the Syrian imbroglio were pretty much reflective of the majority based on Stephen Tall's survey but I was initially astonished when news of the decision of the MP's to support airstrikes reached me.
http://www.libdems.org.uk/position_on_syria
Tim's justification for support obviously made me think and, to be honest, today's vote isn't about Syria, it's about us and our place in the world. This isn't Iraq in 2003 - there is a UN resolution and there is a coalition (of sorts) of nations though more akin perhaps to the USA and USSR fighting a common enemy from 1941-45 than the coming together of nations to eject Saddam's forces from Kuwait in 1990.
Like many others, I'd like to hear a lot less about planes dropping bombs and a lot more about the efforts to bring a comprehensive political settlement and an end to all fighting in Syria and a lot more about measures to deal with the Syrian Diaspora but the fixation with bombs and some notion of "revenge" clouds the argument.
In truth, what is decided today doesn't matter very much - we will be as much of an enemy to IS whether we bomb them or not. Joining three other Permanent members of the UN Security Council in taking action, however, signals that Britain wants to be an active and engaged member of the global community and that means getting our hands dirty and getting involved.
I'm an internationalist and believe in nations working together. I do worry IS use the violence perpetrated against them as a weapon (just as they use the violence they perpetrate as a weapon) and invite death and destruction upon themselves and others but their belief system is totally alien to me. History tells me hiding your head in the sand and hoping it will all go away doesn't end well.
History also tells me the endgame won't be from the air but will require the physical conquest of the lands currently under IS control - someone will have to do that and just as American and Russian soldiers once met on the River Elbe to divide Germany, perhaps we will see two arms of the coalition of nations meet on the Iraq-Syria border one day to witness the end of IS but there has to be a plan to fill the vacuum of fear with something better. I don't see that plan at present and that has to be as much the focus of our efforts as the military side.
German industrial capacity continued to grow throughout the bombing of Germany. Look at the aircraft production figures by month, you'll see they peaked after D-Day. It was only when the Germans began losing significant territory that production began to fall. (Read Adam Toze's excellent The Wages of Destruction for a look at the economy of Nazi Germany.)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11283924/David-Cameron-I-still-want-Turkey-to-join-EU-despite-migrant-fears.html
Meanwhile, with threats of intimidation from activists, Labour move ever closer to becoming a fully fledged terrorist organisation in their own right.
That's alright then, what on earth are we worried about?
10,000.
As an aside, have you looked into the amount of people killed by terrorist incidents in the 1970s and 1980s in Europe by the Action Directe, Baader Meinhof gangs, and the like.
They are an order of magnitude greater than the number of people killed in Europe by Islamic terrorists, and over a similar time horizon.
My point is this: there will always be nutters (whether Islamic, Communist, Anarchist or Nationalistic) who commit atrocities and kill thousands of people. We should fight these people with all the resources we have, up to and including invasion of countries. But we should not claim that "this time is different", when there is - in fact - massively lower levels of terrorist activity in Europe than there was say 30 years ago.
And German't big problem, late in the war, was not lack of industrial capacity, it was that it lost the Poletsi oil fields and therefore had no oil for its tanks or its aircraft.
I remember one of the German interviewees on the World at War describing the bombing as "a third front."
By 1944 Harris was using reports that claimed 90% of the bomb loads were falling within 3 miles of their target but the The United States Strategic Bombing Survey Report (USSBS) which reported on all sides of the bombing campaign after the end of the war found that at the height of the US and UK bombing of Germany the country was actually increasing its armaments production.
Normal bombing targeting in WW2 was a circle of 1000ft around the nominal target. By early 1945 the estimate is that at very best around 20% of the bombs dropped on each raid weer making that target.
Next you'll be suggesting the global warming coverage is one-sided.
No one is suggesting we do nothing. The problem is that we are choosing to do the one thing that is the easiest and simplest and will have the least chance of making any real difference.
anyway still an error of wording by DC, I'd assume first thing in the debate he'll be making it abundantly clear today who he was referring to as a terrorist sympathiser and those who he absolutely wasn't referring to.. this clarification has many 'attractions' for him doing so and could be akin to the trade union / leaders distinction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_European_Union#List_of_incidents
Since 2001, muslim terrorists are responsible for >90% of the lethal terrorist deaths in Europe.
We do not need 100 drones, we have enough. In fact the govts announcements show it is spending money in the right areas.
I'd like to think were spending money on satellites and command and control as well but that might be top secret.
All this 'were declaring war' stuff - I thought we were already attacking ISIL in Iraq and have been for ages?
Does that not count in the 'it'll make us a target' concerns?
Germany got the vast bulk of its oil from the Poletsi oil fields in Romania. It was when they were recaptured in late 1944 that Germany's oil supplies were severely disrupted.
But the entrist's will no doubt try there next.
Is the tobacco health risk coverage one sided?
Alastair Campbell @campbellclaret 24 mins24 minutes ago
I imagine @David_Cameron had Livingstone in mind with 'terrorist sympathisers' jibe. It was ill-advised and he should apologise at start
Hitler would presumably have concentrated his efforts in the Middle East in the meantime. It's hard to see how we could have stopped him, had he put sufficient resources in. Egypt must have fallen, followed by Palestine/Transjordan and Iraq. Persia would have become a German satellite state.
That's when I see the showdown with the Soviet Union, with the Soviets attacking. There's surely no way that Stalin would have tolerated the Germans flanking Russia to the South as well as to the West.
http://order-order.com/2015/12/02/feldmans-record-breaking-dis-approval-swing/
"The Tory chairman has suffered a record-breaking 53 point drop in his net satisfaction rating among ConHome readers"
Jeremy Corbyn is adamant that he is not a pacifist. But he has never, not even in the Falklands, Kosovo or Sierra Leone, supported or acknowledged the legitimacy of military intervention. Yet for 80 years Labour has been an internationalist party. We developed the nuclear deterrent and helped found Nato. Most important of all we have a long and proud history of fighting fascism.
I suspect that it will be much more likely that Russian troops are on the ground in Syria ; after all , it's becoming clear that the feminized West are a group of ''hand wringing Hamlets '' who cannot ''take a punch '' and will not risk the lives of their citizens
Putin senses weakness in the West and will opportunistically make the most of it ...those grim and bloody minded Russians will have no trouble killing the guys who need killing ...they are the real deal , not the hysterical drama queens in the West
the Anglo Soviet invasion of Iran happened because of Barbarossa didn't it ?
The key problem with comparing WW2 bombing with today, is the precision with which modern munitions hit their target.
They still sometimes miss, but it is a world away from the 1940s. That makes the practicalities of bombing completely different.
This is not a 'do nothing' position, but it is also not a 'do anything' position either.
Bombing alone will not work. To pretend it will is to simply add to the problem.
We might have ended up with Europe controlled by Germany and Russia, N Africa by Germany and the ME split Germany /Russia with Japan mopping up the Far East with ME oil.. thus removing the impact of US oil sanctions..
(My father was injured fighting in Persia/Burma with an Indian Sikh battalion...)
This was the oil production in metric tons of Middle East countries in 1937, 1938 and 1946:
Iran: 10,331,000 10,359,000 19,189,000
Iraq: 4,255,000 4,272,000 4,476,000
Bahrein: 1,062,000 n.a. n.a.
Kuwait: oil has been found by an American company, but production had not yet started in 1939. Production of 1946: 800,000 t.
Saudi Arabia: first drillings in the Hasa region; a port was under construction in 1939 in Ras Tanura (N-W of Bahrein) for the transport of the oil production of Hasa. Probable presence of oil in the Red Sea in front of Tihama (in Asir), islands Farsan, El Daba and Hueigh (both in Hejaz). Production of 1946: 8,200,000 t.
Qatar: none.
Oman: none.
Coast of Pirates (United Arab Emirates): none.
Syria and Lebanon: none.
Palestina: none.
Transjordania: none.
(sources: "Calendario Atlante De Agostini. 1940 XVIII" and "Calendario Atlante De Agostini. XX Secolo")
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=59630
Forget about "national liberation movements" (like ETA or the IRA, etc), and go and look up the number of people killed by the Red Brigades, Red Army Faction, etc. I was shocked when I read up about them a few years ago. Between the various Left Wing groups in Europe, thousands of people were killed, including the former Italian prime minister.
Twenty years of terrorism, and thousands of people killed. By a crazy ideology.
Are you noticing the similarities, or are you too thick?
The difference is that I argue my points without automatically falling back of barmy accusations of dishonesty in those who disagree with me, something you don't seem to be able to manage.