Mr. Divvie, pish. The patricians were patricians and plebeians were plebeians. If a party calls itself the Lefty Workers Socialist Unions Party that's a pretty indicator it's lefty.
MG .. So you are quite happy to let the nutter go on gassing his citizens then.. as long as we dont spend any money etc .. stay comfy in Scotland you old humanist you..
MG .. So you are quite happy to let the nutter go on gassing his citizens then.. as long as we dont spend any money etc .. stay comfy in Scotland you old humanist you..
Oh dear, Richard is about to go off the rails again. More dried frog pills nurse.
UKIP. The party which wants to increase spending on the armed forces by 40% in order to opt out of its international military obligations.
That conundrum is realling tying Mike K up in knots.
Not in the least. What he is expressing is a general acceptance that the UK is now woefully under-equipped and under manned to even defend its own interests let alone get involved in ill considered adventures in the Middle East separating two sides that will both hate us for it.
It is now considered doubtful in military circles whether we could retake the Falklands or fulfil out NATO obligations should the Syrians choose to attack Turkey - something which even many of us in UKIP believe would then justify our intervention.
So to claim that we need a larger military spend whilst at the same time believing we should not be acting as the World's deputy sheriff is entirely consistent.
What is not consistent is the Tory line that we should be sticking our noses into every fight around the world whilst cutting our armed forces so much that we are incapable of actually doing anything other than stirring up anger against us without actually doing any good.
I accept in part the argument that much of the dire state of our armed forces is due to previous administrations but in that case you do something to change that and until such times as you have done that you cut your cloth according to your means.
I am confident the Chief of Defence Staff will have advised the Prime Minister, Cabinet and Security Council that the UK military had adequate capabilities and resources to fulfill any obligation that might have arisen as a result of participation in a limited military strike on Syria.
Simply bleating that the UK needs to spend more on its military is pub talk. Even if we set aside the issues of balancing military capabilities (here I defer to Fluffy Thoughts), there remains the question of now to fund the additional expenditure. Or put another way, what would UKIP cut in order to provide the additional funding?
And you need to explain why the UK would be right to honour NATO treaty obligations but ignore breaches of other international treaties, laws and norms on war crimes.
Hitler believed in the power of the state ,for the state to be glorious and all controlling-pretty much end of. True communists believe in the absolute equality of people as an end result but need that state power (or think they do) to achieve it. The problem is that too many communist states never get past grabbing state power and then start to think how to establish a family heirachy with theirs at the top -ie Cuba (Castro to Castro),north korea etc. In short many communist states end up being like Hitlers Germany because they cannot get (or do not want to anymore) from state power to people power.
RT.. I will go on about Labours deceitful behaviour that has led our nation into going along with homicidal maniacs killing thousands and just standing by.. Sorry if that offends you .. mustn't disturb your comfy zone must we.... Thanks Ed
I always thought John Major would make a good UKIP leader (if UKIP toned down its immigration policy) . UKIP goes for the common man who is not socialist. Plenty around and John Major got a lot of votes in 1992 from them
UKIP. The party which wants to increase spending on the armed forces by 40% in order to opt out of its international military obligations.
That conundrum is realling tying Mike K up in knots.
You can read UKIP's defence policy yourself.
"The UK defence budget will be restored to 2010 levels.
Savings
Saving will be made as follows:
Disestablishing the MOD over a parliament;
Cancelling the Trident replacement;
and, of course, leaving the European Union with the consequential reduction in direct and indirect costs.
The 2016 defence budget, excluding foreign military aid, will be £50bn in 2012 terms. "
I am confident the Chief of Defence Staff will have advised the Prime Minister, Cabinet and Security Council that the UK military had adequate capabilities and resources to fulfill any obligation that might have arisen as a result of participation in a limited military strike on Syria.
Simply bleating that the UK needs to spend more on its military is pub talk. Even if we set aside the issues of balancing military capabilities (here I defer to Fluffy Thoughts), there remains the question of now to fund the additional expenditure. Or put another way, what would UKIP cut in order to provide the additional funding?
And you need to explain why the UK would be right to honour NATO treaty obligations but ignore breaches of other international treaties, laws and norms on war crimes.
No, you need to explain how killing more civilians will improve either our safety or that of the rest of the Syrian population.
And when it comes to upholding international law I wonder where you were when Israel were breaking those same laws by using white phosphor weapons against civilians. I don't remember you jumping up and down insisting we should fire missiles at Tel Aviv.
There is nothing in international law that says we have to play the world's policeman. Interestingly there is nothing in international law that sets out in any way the sanctions to be taken against those who break the CW treaty. There is no treaty that says that we have to punish those who breach these treaties. There is however a treaty obligation for us to defend other NATO members. That is a very different matter.
I always thought John Major would make a good UKIP leader (if UKIP toned down its immigration policy) . UKIP goes for the common man who is not socialist. Plenty around and John Major got a lot of votes in 1992 from them
UKIP. The party which wants to increase spending on the armed forces by 40% in order to opt out of its international military obligations.
That conundrum is realling tying Mike K up in knots.
You can read UKIP's defence policy yourself.
"The UK defence budget will be restored to 2010 levels.
Savings
Saving will be made as follows:
Disestablishing the MOD over a parliament;
Cancelling the Trident replacement;
and, of course, leaving the European Union with the consequential reduction in direct and indirect costs.
The 2016 defence budget, excluding foreign military aid, will be £50bn in 2012 terms. "
I am confident the Chief of Defence Staff will have advised the Prime Minister, Cabinet and Security Council that the UK military had adequate capabilities and resources to fulfill any obligation that might have arisen as a result of participation in a limited military strike on Syria.
Simply bleating that the UK needs to spend more on its military is pub talk. Even if we set aside the issues of balancing military capabilities (here I defer to Fluffy Thoughts), there remains the question of now to fund the additional expenditure. Or put another way, what would UKIP cut in order to provide the additional funding?
And you need to explain why the UK would be right to honour NATO treaty obligations but ignore breaches of other international treaties, laws and norms on war crimes.
By the way, since you raised the issue, the former head of the army was on raio 4 this morning saying that whilst he understood the desire to punish Assad, it was more important to consider what any action would do to the civil war in Syria. He was firmly of the opinion that intervention might fulfil the desire to punish the Syrian regime but it would have a very adverse effect on any chance of resolving the civil war.
Big loss for the Tories IMO. Dave is running a very narrow strategy which appeals to very few people. He has alienated liberals with the internet filters and surveillance state, he has alienated fiscal conservatives with massive increases in spending on benefits and bumper rises for pensioners, he has alienated right wingers with gay marriage and such, he has alienated second generation immigrants like myself with the disgusting nationality checks (for that matter I don't see myself voting Conservative come 2015, it will make no difference as I live in an ultra-safe seat). I'm not ready to say I'll join UKIP because I have lingering fears that the rank and file party is not ready to accept members such as myself (though the leadership definitely would) but I have flirted with the idea recently, especially after all of the disappointing policy decisions from team Dave.
Honestly I wish there was a party that represented people like me, I pay my taxes, I don't want an overbearing state that tells me how to live my life and whether or not I can watch porn with my girlfriend, I don't want a state that isn't welcoming to people of colour, I don't want a state that wastes money on £70bn train lines or buries its head in the sand over infrastructure and energy. I would like a party that has common sense, and while Farrage has it, I don't think the rest of UKIP and the rank and file members definitely don't. I've been told by plenty of Tories that I need to join the party and change it from within, that they could use a young Asian member who calls a spade a spade from a working class background, but like antifrank, I fear that to rise through the ranks of the party my character will change and the suit will become the man.
Anyway, congratulations to UKIP and Sean Fear, I think the Tories have lost a valuable member and voice, and sadly I don't think Dave's Tories feel would feel that way about it and say good riddance to members like Sean Fear.
Mr. Divvie, pish. The patricians were patricians and plebeians were plebeians. If a party calls itself the Lefty Workers Socialist Unions Party that's a pretty indicator it's lefty.
Yeah, I can see why someone who clings to the fig leaf of being a 'non Tory' would hold to that literal view. I'm sure you can provide lots of links to Hitler describing himself and the Nazi party as of the Left or left wing?
There's intervening and there's cheer-leading for intervention. One makes things worse half the time but at least involves some balls. The second is just pathetic and embarrassing.
Its getting to the stage with Syria that Obama will ring up Assad and agree between them which sites can be hit - Obama can then say he acted on his red line and Assad can carry on with the civil war
tbf uniondivvie Hitler did rage about capitalism and capitalists (although usually associating them with Jews). As I said before he and commies are alike in that they crave and need state power. His true intention was not for the people though but for the state . Some communists also secretly just want the power and unfortunately they usually are ruthless enough to get to the top to exercise it in a all controlling powerful state
genuine question - does international law ban the use of nuclear weapons as well as chemical ? If not it seems strange to ban a less destructive and arguably less indiscriminate form of weaponry if you allow nuclear weapons
Mr. Divvie, pish. The patricians were patricians and plebeians were plebeians. If a party calls itself the Lefty Workers Socialist Unions Party that's a pretty indicator it's lefty.
Yeah, I can see why someone who clings to the fig leaf of being a 'non Tory' would hold to that literal view. I'm sure you can provide lots of links to Hitler describing himself and the Nazi party as of the Left or left wing?
Wiki:
Hitler, when asked whether he supported the "bourgeois right-wing", claimed that Nazism was not exclusively for any class, and indicated that it favoured neither the left nor the right, but preserved "pure" elements from both "camps", stating: "From the camp of bourgeois tradition, it takes national resolve, and from the materialism of the Marxist dogma, living, creative Socialism".[7]
It's simply national socialism as opposed to international socialism.
AveryLP/Roger Churchill was at the Opening Ceremony, played by Timothy Spall, and I have told Mr Roberts so underneath his article. In any case, Churchill himself was not immune to considering gassing Kurds and would certainly have put the national interest first, human rights are one thing, supporting Al Qaeda backed rebels another
I hope no one finds this in bad taste but David Frost's death reminds me of this line from Alan Bennett which he wrote on the death of Peter Cook........
"Peter (Cook) never had any regrets in his life. I never heard him voice any regrets. He didn't regret the fact that he lost his early facility, he didn't regret the fact that he lost his looks, which he did quite spectacularly, he didn't regret the fact that Dudley had gone on to fame and fortune in Hollywood. The only regret he regularly voiced was that, at the house we all shared in Fairfield, Connecticut in 1963, he'd saved David Frost from drowning."
stategoaway - Major was far too pro European for UKIP, and also supports gay marriage, although he would support some of their policies like more grammar schools
'The 2016 defence budget, excluding foreign military aid, will be £50bn in 2012 terms. "
I think it was one of the policies UKIP bought 'off the shelf'
'Ukip in chaos over policy on eve of key poll, emails ... - The Guardian www.theguardian.com › News › Politics › UK Independence party (Ukip) 27 Apr 2013 - Nigel Farage, leader of Ukip, on the campaign trail last week. .... Why not buy policy 'off the shelf', where it is close to our own small government ...
Thanks for the kind words. Quite often, when people leave a party, they'll denounce it for all sorts of wickedness, which they seemed quite happy with, when they were part of it. That's not the case here. I just think that I (and other detectors from the Conservatives) have quite different ideas about how, and where, the British right should go about finding a Parliamentary majority, to those of the leaders of the Conservative Party. To me, UKIP resembles the party I joined at university more than the modern Conservative Party does.
Big loss for the Tories IMO. Dave is running a very narrow strategy which appeals to very few people. He has alienated liberals with the internet filters and surveillance state, he has alienated fiscal conservatives with massive increases in spending on benefits and bumper rises for pensioners, he has alienated right wingers with gay marriage and such, he has alienated second generation immigrants like myself with the disgusting nationality checks (for that matter I don't see myself voting Conservative come 2015, it will make no difference as I live in an ultra-safe seat). I'm not ready to say I'll join UKIP because I have lingering fears that the rank and file party is not ready to accept members such as myself (though the leadership definitely would) but I have flirted with the idea recently, especially after all of the disappointing policy decisions from team Dave.
Honestly I wish there was a party that represented people like me, I pay my taxes, I don't want an overbearing state that tells me how to live my life and whether or not I can watch porn with my girlfriend, I don't want a state that isn't welcoming to people of colour, I don't want a state that wastes money on £70bn train lines or buries its head in the sand over infrastructure and energy. I would like a party that has common sense, and while Farrage has it, I don't think the rest of UKIP and the rank and file members definitely don't. I've been told by plenty of Tories that I need to join the party and change it from within, that they could use a young Asian member who calls a spade a spade from a working class background, but like antifrank, I fear that to rise through the ranks of the party my character will change and the suit will become the man.
Anyway, congratulations to UKIP and Sean Fear, I think the Tories have lost a valuable member and voice, and sadly I don't think Dave's Tories feel would feel that way about it and say good riddance to members like Sean Fear.
Max, I definitely think you have more chance of changing UKIP from within and helping to create the sort of party you are looking for than you do with the Tories. There is truth in the claim that UKIP is currently the party of protest but it also has the potential to be much more than that if the right people with the right anti-statist, pro-individual ideas make their voices heard.
tbf uniondivvie Hitler did rage about capitalism and capitalists (although usually associating them with Jews). As I said before he and commies are alike in that they crave and need state power. His true intention was not for the people though but for the state . Some communists also secretly just want the power and unfortunately they usually are ruthless enough to get to the top to exercise it in a all controlling powerful state
Hitler may have raged about (as you note mainly Jewish) capitalism, but he did bugger all about dismantling 'good' German capitalism after 1933. I'm not denying totalitarian left and right share many characteristics, I'm just noting that the contemporary Right will jump through any amount of hoops to avoid taking any responsibility for AH and Nazism. There are plenty of apologists on the Left but most of its best critics were also on the Left.
@eljmayes: The BBC has just announced Ed Miliband's tribute on Twitter to Sir David Frost as being from his brother David
This is not an anti-BBC in general dig but this sort of continual lack of attention to detail is a very poor show from the national broadcaster. At the start we might have found it amusing but Ed has been party leader long enough now and has a high enough profile that the BBC has absolutely no excuse for this sort of mistake.
the uniiondvvie - If you mean the right (as in say tories or UKIP) should take any responsibility for Nazism then I disagree. I would say Hitler wasn't right wing like tories or UKIP are at all. They have nothing in common. Its fair to say Hitler wasn't left wing (as his aims were not compatable with left wing ideology) but he dis believe in state power if only for the sake of state power. A (true) communist would not believe this however as he would use state power to then further a obviously noble(if impractical) cause
I'm sure you can provide lots of links to Hitler describing himself and the Nazi party as of the Left or left wing?
"There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communists always will."
Another quote:
"Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings."
Hitler Speaks, London, T. Butterworth, 1940, Hermann Rauschning, also called The Voice of Destruction
I always thought John Major would make a good UKIP leader (if UKIP toned down its immigration policy) . UKIP goes for the common man who is not socialist. Plenty around and John Major got a lot of votes in 1992 from them
UKIP. The party which wants to increase spending on the armed forces by 40% in order to opt out of its international military obligations.
That conundrum is realling tying Mike K up in knots.
I find that proposition quite attractive, Avery. What your conundrum conveys to me is Talk softly & carry a big stick.
I always thought John Major would make a good UKIP leader (if UKIP toned down its immigration policy) . UKIP goes for the common man who is not socialist. Plenty around and John Major got a lot of votes in 1992 from them
UKIP. The party which wants to increase spending on the armed forces by 40% in order to opt out of its international military obligations.
As opposed to cutting defence spending while demanding to bomb 'ragheads' ?
Although I don't recall Britain having an 'international military obligation' to support Al Qaeda.
By the way, since you raised the issue, the former head of the army was on raio 4 this morning ...
I don't disagree with the retired general.
But with some qualification. Even the most aware of generals find it difficult to see the actions asked of the military in a political and diplomatic context. They like simple missions with a clear enemy and a easily defined victory. They always want sufficient resources to secure that victory.
Matt sums up what military commanders don't like in his cartoon for today's ST. As always it is the caption rather than the cartoon which makes Matt's point: A pilot is receiving a pre mission briefing from his commander:
We want you to fly low over Syria, wag your finger at Assad, and then come back.
The problem for Obama and his allies is that Chemical Weapons treaties cannot be enforced simply by wagging a diplomatic or even military finger at those who continually breach them. Something more needs to be done.
But what?
Obama has made a clever decision to announce his authorisation of military intervention but make it subject to approval of Congress (or possibly ratification if Assad uses CW again in the interim).
It gives Obama a last chance to push for a diplomatic resolution in St Petersburg with the world's press only interested in the G20's and Russia's position on Syria. The American people and those of the US's more robust allies will see that their President is trying, right to the last, to secure a peaceful resolution without the need for military intervention.
Secondly it also gives time for the military voices in Washington to plead their case for an intervention which "makes military sense". In other words, the idea of flying over Syria and wagging a finger at Assad will lose credibility over time.
With the UNSC ruled out as a route, and that decision vindicated by a fruitless G20, Congress will seek to expand the proposed mission to make the military deliverables more credible. Stand by to hear much more about degrading Assad's military and political capabilities over the next two weeks. The Generals will want their "victory".
As for the chances of Congress voting against the President, these are minimal. The US Commander-in-Chief has drawn a red line and it has been crossed. The precedent of not responding with military intervention (whatever one's views on the individual merits of Syria) are unthinkable and would amount to the US passing up its role as superpower and global policeman.
The reason I think Obama has been right to delay action and bring in Congress is that it raises the chances of forcing a last minute diplomatic solution, and, in the event that is not achieved, will justify a more robust military intervention with goals which goal well beyond finger wagging.
O/T talking of great losses, good old Spurs have a hat-trick achieved today:
1. To the injury-ravaged Gooners. The hope that kills you. 2. A long-term injury to Capoue by the looks of it 3. Bale finally going.
The years come and go, but I can always rely on Spurs to let me down.
Thank goodness for Yvette still looking strong to replace Ed M.
The game came far too early for us, so we were always going to struggle against a good side whose players know each other backwards. We had Arsenal on the back foot for most of the game, but we struggled to find the final ball. As the team learns to work together that should change. I feel strangely and unnervingly hopeful about this season and nothing I saw today in either game today has changed that. It's a worry and probably means Spurs will be in full crisis mode by November. Real shame about Capoue, but Sandro isn't a bad alternative.
'The 2016 defence budget, excluding foreign military aid, will be £50bn in 2012 terms. "
I think it was one of the policies UKIP bought 'off the shelf'
'Ukip in chaos over policy on eve of key poll, emails ... - The Guardian www.theguardian.com › News › Politics › UK Independence party (Ukip) 27 Apr 2013 - Nigel Farage, leader of Ukip, on the campaign trail last week. .... Why not buy policy 'off the shelf', where it is close to our own small government ...
I see no paradox. Our armed forces need both to strengthened, and to avoid major foreign commitments for the time being.
Even if we had all the might of the British Empire behind us, I don't think we could do much good in Syria.
I just think that I (and other detectors from the Conservatives) have quite different ideas about how, and where, the British right should go about finding a Parliamentary majority, to those of the leaders of the Conservative Party.
Are there any Arsenal fans here (antifrank perhaps?) ?
There seems to be numerous Spurs fans always bewailing their fortunes.
And when did Arsenal fans start being referred to as Gooners - I can't remember them so being before 2000 and Nick Hornby never does so in Fever Pitch.
The "Was Hitler left or right wing?" is one of those things you argue through as an undergraduate but you never really reach a useful result. The Nazis were not remotely like any left- or right-wing party with seats in the UK Parliament, and we waste our time trying to draw connections.
But with some qualification. Even the most aware of generals find it difficult to see the actions asked of the military in a political and diplomatic context. They like simple missions with a clear enemy and a easily defined victory. They always want sufficient resources to secure that victory.
Matt sums up what military commanders don't like in his cartoon for today's ST. As always it is the caption rather than the cartoon which makes Matt's point: A pilot is receiving a pre mission briefing from his commander:
We want you to fly low over Syria, wag your finger at Assad, and then come back.
The problem for Obama and his allies is that Chemical Weapons treaties cannot be enforced simply by wagging a diplomatic or even military finger at those who continually breach them. Something more needs to be done.
But what?
I think that is the crux of the problem. In effect what we are doing by firing a few missiles into Syria and killing some civilians is the military equivalent of wagging the finger.
The calculation has to be whether or not we want to actually take sufficient action to effect the course of the civil war. I believe that only should we not do so but we could not do so without a massive intervention that even you probably would not support as it would include putting western troops on the ground. Moreover by doing so we would be allying ourselves with people who we would not want in power in Syria in a million years.
So in the end what Obama and Cameron are asking the military to do is exactly what Matt refers to - wag a metaphorical finger at Assad in the form of a limited and entirely ineffective missile, the only practical result of which will be to kill more innocent civilians.
By the way, Dannatt was very clear this morning that the only real answer to this crisis was a negotiated diplomatic and political solution, not a military one. He was also clear that he believe the military intervention would make the diplomatic solution far more difficult.
the uniiondvvie - If you mean the right (as in say tories or UKIP) should take any responsibility for Nazism then I disagree. I would say Hitler wasn't right wing like tories or UKIP are at all. They have nothing in common. Its fair to say Hitler wasn't left wing (as his aims were not compatable with left wing ideology) but he dis believe in state power if only for the sake of state power. A (true) communist would not believe this however as he would use state power to then further a obviously noble(if impractical) cause
I mean the Right in about as precise a way as those who talk about 'lefties' or equate Ed Miliband with Stalinist mass murderers.
First and foremost I am very glad to see Sean join UKIP. But funnily enough it is because I fear UKIP is not the party it could be or should be and that having someone like Sea involved makes it just that little bit more likely it will develop into the party I would like it to be.
I have to admit I can't remember where Sean stands on many policies - but I do have that basic feeling of knowing that generally when I see him post on something my instinctive first reaction is that I agree with him and that he is one of the allies rather than one of the opponents. We all have differing opinions on things even when we are in the same party or at least on the same political alignment and but I don't remember seeing a Sean post that I couldn't basically agree with.
I can't help but feel that Sean might be joining the party he would like to be rather than the party that is (if you will excuse my tortuous use of the English language).
There are a lot of things wrong with UKIP, both organisationally and politically and I can't quite get myself away from the feeling that it is the best of a bad lot which is hardly a ringing endorsement. It is, to my mind, far too small 'c' conservative and reactionary. It could be a positive anti-statist party and certainly there is a wing that wishes it to be that way - a wing that I believe includes quite a few senior members. But it does appear to me that UKIP membership swells most when it takes a reactionary position rather than a positive reform position on things. For me as a Libertarian this is not a good thing.
Hopefully if we get more new members of Sean's calibre and outlook this might change but I am by no means certain that this will be the case.
Thanks. As you say, no party's perfect. The fact that the party comprises a fair number of people who've moved over from the left of the political spectrum, does mean that on economic subjects at least, you and I won't get our way on everything.
Are there any Arsenal fans here (antifrank perhaps?) ?
There seems to be numerous Spurs fans always bewailing their fortunes.
And when did Arsenal fans start being referred to as Gooners - I can't remember them so being before 2000 and Nick Hornby never does so in Fever Pitch.
I am an Arsenal fan... I have never really liked the term "Gooner" but it was used as far back as the the 80s... the main Arsenal fanzine is called The Gooner and that's been going since 1987... the song the fans sang (when they used to sing!) was "ooh to be a gooner"
Great result today, an even match in my opinion and any result would have been fair.
What I like best about it is the triumph of careful team building over spending money for the sake of it... look at the ridiculous stick Wenger has got for not making wholesale changes to a side that was only put together over the last season and a half...
Not that I am criticizing Spurs for their spending, it had to be done if they lost Bale, more the media and Arsenal fans really.
@another_richard I'm not an Arsenal fan, though I do have an Arsenal season ticket. I prefer to see them win than lose, but I would prefer them to lose entertainingly than win boringly.
I do not attend the Emirates when Norwich come to play because I wish to keep my season ticket.
I'm sure you can provide lots of links to Hitler describing himself and the Nazi party as of the Left or left wing?
"There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communists always will."
Another quote:
"Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings."
Hitler Speaks, London, T. Butterworth, 1940, Hermann Rauschning, also called The Voice of Destruction
So that's a 'no' then. I daresay there are fundamentalists from most of the world religions who see much to admire in their fellow zealots, and would even welcome them as converts. Doesn't mean they all exist in some ecumenical sludge of happy-clappy, mutual tolerance.
I think that is the crux of the problem. In effect what we are doing by firing a few missiles into Syria and killing some civilians is the military equivalent of wagging the finger.
The calculation has to be whether or not we want to actually take sufficient action to effect the course of the civil war. I believe that only should we not do so but we could not do so without a massive intervention that even you probably would not support as it would include putting western troops on the ground. Moreover by doing so we would be allying ourselves with people who we would not want in power in Syria in a million years.
So in the end what Obama and Cameron are asking the military to do is exactly what Matt refers to - wag a metaphorical finger at Assad in the form of a limited and entirely ineffective missile, the only practical result of which will be to kill more innocent civilians.
By the way, Dannatt was very clear this morning that the only real answer to this crisis was a negotiated diplomatic and political solution, not a military one. He was also clear that he believe the military intervention would make the diplomatic solution far more difficult.
Chamberlain believed that the only real answer to the Nazi threat was "a negotiated diplomatic and political solution, not a military one", but unless a country or alliance of allies is prepared to take military action, the opportunity to resolve conflicts by negotiation often never arises.
TimT posted an article by Anthony Cordesman for the US Center for Strategic and International Studies. What Cordesman does effectively is to explore the options for US military intervention in Syria. As Cordesman himself explains:
If the U.S. is to intervene in Syria, its options must have some strategic meaning and a chance of producing lasting success. They must have a reasonable chance of bringing stability to Syria, of limiting the growth of Iranian and Hezbollah influence, of halting the spillover of the Syrian struggle into nearby states, and helping to deal with the broader humanitarian crisis
I recommend you read the article to see how 'mission creep' is the logical response to rejecting a finger-wagging exercise as a meaningless gesture.
Nope. 'I'm sure you can provide lots of links to Hitler describing himself and the Nazi party as of the Left or left wing?'
Even a tedious bore such as yourself should recognise that a challenge to provide "lots" would prove rather thread-clogging. Two random samples as provided are quite sufficient to prove the point.
Nope. 'I'm sure you can provide lots of links to Hitler describing himself and the Nazi party as of the Left or left wing?'
Even a tedious bore such as yourself should recognise that a challenge to provide "lots" would prove rather thread-clogging. Two random samples as provided are quite sufficient to prove the point.
nazis rejected both left and right and saw themselves as a third way - a bit like clinton and blair.
I used to post occasionally as lancashiretory then had problems with Vanilla but the news that Sean Fear has decamped to UKIP has prompted me to re-register.
Mike is correct. He is the sort of person, grounded in the reality of the real world who is a catch for UKIP. Sean is also a long standing supporter of The Freedom Association as am I.
Sean's views are similar to mine and only the opportunity to put Conservative ideas into practice locally and a refusal to give Cameron the satisfaction of resigning is keeping me from following Sean. I still think I will have the satisfaction of seeing Cameron out before he forces me to go.
Wenger has achieved 16 consecutive Champions League years while overseeing the move to the Emirates and balanced the books. The antis remind me of the most stupid thing I've ever heard In football Charlton fan - "We've gone as far as we can under Alan Curbishley"
Labour have certainly gone as far they can under this bloke:
Wenger has achieved 16 consecutive Champions League years while overseeing the move to the Emirates and balanced the books. The antis remind me of the most stupid thing I've ever heard In football Charlton fan - "We've gone as far as we can under Alan Curbishley"
Labour have certainly gone as far they can under this bloke:
I used to post occasionally as lancashiretory then had problems with Vanilla but the news that Sean Fear has decamped to UKIP has prompted me to re-register.
Mike is correct. He is the sort of person, grounded in the reality of the real world who is a catch for UKIP. Sean is also a long standing supporter of The Freedom Association as am I.
Sean's views are similar to mine and only the opportunity to put Conservative ideas into practice locally and a refusal to give Cameron the satisfaction of resigning is keeping me from following Sean. I still think I will have the satisfaction of seeing Cameron out before he forces me to go.
I fear - no pun intended - that you will have to wait until 2015 and after thr GE to see the back of Cammo. Meanwhile in that 20 odd months remaining you could join us in UKIP and do good work.
Jordan (Kingdom of) says it will not allow its airspace to be used for any strikes on Syria. This is a re-emphasis of statements they have already made and not unexpected.
Apparently Hashemi Rafsanjani in Iran said that the Syrian people were attacked with chemical weapons by their own government. That should have him under house arrest again if isn't already.
Insurgent offensive reportedly launched North East of Damascus. No idea of size & whether it'll get traction but looks like it aims to seize the artery road between Damascus and Homs.
Wenger has achieved 16 consecutive Champions League years while overseeing the move to the Emirates and balanced the books. The antis remind me of the most stupid thing I've ever heard In football Charlton fan - "We've gone as far as we can under Alan Curbishley"
Labour have certainly gone as far they can under this bloke:
I fear - no pun intended - that you will have to wait until 2015 and after thr GE to see the back of Cammo. Meanwhile in that 20 odd months remaining you could join us in UKIP and do good work.
Sorry - with the amateurs your party has in my neck of the woods and a Conservative council pursuing Conservative policies - no thanks.
nazis rejected both left and right and saw themselves as a third way - a bit like clinton and blair.
Indeed, I agree, although that was not divvie's request.
'I'm sure you can provide lots of links to Hitler describing himself and the Nazi party as of the Left or left wing?'
..which was delivered. Except for the thread-hogging "lots" part.
Well it's sort of an impossible task he's set you, you have to define something on his terms. What was Mussolini and Fascism if not a let down socialist. It's simply the difference between nation focused socialists and so called internationalists. Either way people end up dead.
Andrew Roberts in his Mail on Sunday article (linked on previous thread) has provided the best commentary of the day on the HoC shambles last week:
The Britain we must now look forward to is the one exemplified by Danny Boyle’s Olympics opening ceremony, where everything socialistic, feel-goody, hipster and ‘progressive’ was glorified, whereas the things we should really be proud about Britain for – such as her place in the front lines of the struggles against Fascism, Communism, Islamofascism and other totalitarian ideologies – were entirely ignored.
As I recall, some of the brighter PB Tories predicted this would happen at the time of the Olympics opening ceremony.
Rubbish. Avery! Rubbish!
Last year during the Olympics, the world LOVED us! Really absolutely loved us! Another Mid-East war will give the world the perfect excuse to HATE us again, as during Iraq (remember Jemini's "Nul Points" at Eurovision 2003?).
Andrew Roberts in his Mail on Sunday article (linked on previous thread) has provided the best commentary of the day on the HoC shambles last week:
The Britain we must now look forward to is the one exemplified by Danny Boyle’s Olympics opening ceremony, where everything socialistic, feel-goody, hipster and ‘progressive’ was glorified, whereas the things we should really be proud about Britain for – such as her place in the front lines of the struggles against Fascism, Communism, Islamofascism and other totalitarian ideologies – were entirely ignored.
As I recall, some of the brighter PB Tories predicted this would happen at the time of the Olympics opening ceremony.
Another Mid-East war will give the world the perfect excuse to HATE us again, as during Iraq (remember Jemini's "Nul Points" at Eurovision 2003?).
Mr. Charles, in addition the NSDAP stood for National Socialist Democratic Workers Party, which is hardly a rightwing sort of name.
I'm sure it will come as a massive shock to you to be told that East Germany and North Korea were and are not democratic republics.
Please tell me why you think the Nazis are right wing (beyond "that's what everyone says")?
If you actually look at their programme it is really rather left wing.
I'm genuinely interested in this question - it is one of the most effective pieces of calumny that the left (largely originating from Stalin's declaration - post Barbarossa - that Nazism was opposed to Communist Russia and therefore *must* be rightwing) has used against conservatives in the last 50 years
Bale finally gone. Levy makes it clear how unchuffed he was that only 1 year in to a new contract that Bale's advisers got him to push for this move.
Loadsamoney but as we see it's about a team and as AVB moaned today, it's going to take time for our new faces to know each other, let alone get used to the PL itself.
Onwards and upwards I hope .... until we draw 0-0 with Norwich next time out.
Andrew Roberts in his Mail on Sunday article (linked on previous thread) has provided the best commentary of the day on the HoC shambles last week:
The Britain we must now look forward to is the one exemplified by Danny Boyle’s Olympics opening ceremony, where everything socialistic, feel-goody, hipster and ‘progressive’ was glorified, whereas the things we should really be proud about Britain for – such as her place in the front lines of the struggles against Fascism, Communism, Islamofascism and other totalitarian ideologies – were entirely ignored.
As I recall, some of the brighter PB Tories predicted this would happen at the time of the Olympics opening ceremony.
Another Mid-East war will give the world the perfect excuse to HATE us again, as during Iraq (remember Jemini's "Nul Points" at Eurovision 2003?).
Correlation is not causation, Dr Prasannan.
Note: The subject Avery responds to the stimulus as predicted.
Hitler believed in the power of the state ,for the state to be glorious and all controlling-pretty much end of. True communists believe in the absolute equality of people as an end result but need that state power (or think they do) to achieve it. The problem is that too many communist states never get past grabbing state power and then start to think how to establish a family heirachy with theirs at the top -ie Cuba (Castro to Castro),north korea etc. In short many communist states end up being like Hitlers Germany because they cannot get (or do not want to anymore) from state power to people power.
That's one of the key themes - they are both 'totalitarian' states in the sense that there is no part of life which is not within the remit of the state. Fascism/Communism/Nazism are all directly opposed to libertarianism.
Andrew Roberts in his Mail on Sunday article (linked on previous thread) has provided the best commentary of the day on the HoC shambles last week:
The Britain we must now look forward to is the one exemplified by Danny Boyle’s Olympics opening ceremony, where everything socialistic, feel-goody, hipster and ‘progressive’ was glorified, whereas the things we should really be proud about Britain for – such as her place in the front lines of the struggles against Fascism, Communism, Islamofascism and other totalitarian ideologies – were entirely ignored.
As I recall, some of the brighter PB Tories predicted this would happen at the time of the Olympics opening ceremony.
Rubbish. Avery! Rubbish!
Last year during the Olympics, the world LOVED us! Really absolutely loved us! Another Mid-East war will give the world the perfect excuse to HATE us again, as during Iraq (remember Jemini's "Nul Points" at Eurovision 2003?).
Roberts seems confused . He claims to be an opponent of " Islamofascism " but wants the UK to assist the islamofascist Al-Nusra Front in its campaign of butchery and cannibalism.
Mr. Charles, in addition the NSDAP stood for National Socialist Democratic Workers Party, which is hardly a rightwing sort of name.
I'm sure it will come as a massive shock to you to be told that East Germany and North Korea were and are not democratic republics.
Please tell me why you think the Nazis are right wing (beyond "that's what everyone says")?
If you actually look at their programme it is really rather left wing.
I'm genuinely interested in this question - it is one of the most effective pieces of calumny that the left (largely originating from Stalin's declaration - post Barbarossa - that Nazism was opposed to Communist Russia and therefore *must* be rightwing) has used against conservatives in the last 50 years
How about policies towards women? Minorities? Gay people? The disabled?
I didn't realise that preventing a mass murderer from killing more of his people was part of a global popularity contest..you learn something new everyday..
nazis rejected both left and right and saw themselves as a third way - a bit like clinton and blair.
Indeed, I agree, although that was not divvie's request.
'I'm sure you can provide lots of links to Hitler describing himself and the Nazi party as of the Left or left wing?'
..which was delivered. Except for the thread-hogging "lots" part.
Well it's sort of an impossible task he's set you, you have to define something on his terms. What was Mussolini and Fascism if not a let down socialist. It's simply the difference between nation focused socialists and so called internationalists. Either way people end up dead.
"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini
nazis rejected both left and right and saw themselves as a third way - a bit like clinton and blair.
Indeed, I agree, although that was not divvie's request.
'I'm sure you can provide lots of links to Hitler describing himself and the Nazi party as of the Left or left wing?'
..which was delivered. Except for the thread-hogging "lots" part.
Well it's sort of an impossible task he's set you, you have to define something on his terms. What was Mussolini and Fascism if not a let down socialist. It's simply the difference between nation focused socialists and so called internationalists. Either way people end up dead.
"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini
Come off it Sunil, deep down we all know UKIP want to make the trains run on time. ;-)
I didn't realise that preventing a mass murderer from killing more of his people was part of a global popularity contest..you learn something new everday..
Didn't realise you were an apologist for the Islamofascists among the Syrian Rebels.
Mr. Divvie, pish. The patricians were patricians and plebeians were plebeians. If a party calls itself the Lefty Workers Socialist Unions Party that's a pretty indicator it's lefty.
Yeah, I can see why someone who clings to the fig leaf of being a 'non Tory' would hold to that literal view. I'm sure you can provide lots of links to Hitler describing himself and the Nazi party as of the Left or left wing?
It's not Hitler, but since I happen to have Mussolini's Fascist Manifesto to hand, here are some extracts:
- Lowering the minimum voting age to 18 and universal suffrage including for women (not left or right in modern terms, but quite radical in 1919) - Repeal of title of nobility - A foreign policy aimed at expanding Italy's will and power - A legal workday of 8 hours of work for all workers - A minimum wage - The creation of various government bodies run by worker's representatives - Forcing landowners to cultivate their land or have them expropriated and given to veterens and farmers cooperatives - The obligation of the state to build "rigidly secular" schools - a large progressive tax on capital that would amount to a one-time partial exproportion of all riches - The seizure of all goods belonging to religious congregations - The nationalisation of all arms and explosives industries
The difference between Nazism and Fascism, of course, is that Nazism included a strain of racialism that fascism didn't.
In my view, though, that's a pretty left-wing/progressive agenda: secular, equality, workers rights, forcing people to use their assets or have them confiscated for the national good etc.
nazis rejected both left and right and saw themselves as a third way - a bit like clinton and blair.
Indeed, I agree, although that was not divvie's request.
'I'm sure you can provide lots of links to Hitler describing himself and the Nazi party as of the Left or left wing?'
..which was delivered. Except for the thread-hogging "lots" part.
Well it's sort of an impossible task he's set you, you have to define something on his terms. What was Mussolini and Fascism if not a let down socialist. It's simply the difference between nation focused socialists and so called internationalists. Either way people end up dead.
"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini
Come off it Sunil, deep down we all know UKIP want to make the trains run on time. ;-)
During Mrs. Gandhi's "Emergency", ie. her brief suspension of India's democratic constitution (1975-77), most commentators reckon the trains on Indian Railways ran on time! I was too young to remember, though, having been born in 1975!
Sunny, I am not, neither am I a coward who is turning away from atrocities in Syria carried out by Assad.. because it is inconvenient and difficult. The bad fellas on both sides should know that they will be called to account.. The vote on Thursday stops the UK from being involved in that. Feel proud .Has your mummy allowed you to stay up late to talk with the big boys..nice
Am I right in postulating that most right-wing Tories who are itching, nay begging, for war with Assad are "Turnip Taliban" who essentially share much of the backward social attitudes of their Mid-east namesakes? And are therefore happy to see Syria taken over by Al Qaeda and their allies?
Good luck to SeanF. I hope his purple adventure goes well. It must be hard to stand against a party you have supported all your life. Takes courage. I hope friends are kind.
Clearly there is something in the water at the moment. Even Plato moved on from her legendary position of neutral objectivity.
Personally, I'm glad that Clegg is still in post and Clarke is still nowhere near becoming Tory in chief.
Mr. Charles, in addition the NSDAP stood for National Socialist Democratic Workers Party, which is hardly a rightwing sort of name.
I'm sure it will come as a massive shock to you to be told that East Germany and North Korea were and are not democratic republics.
Please tell me why you think the Nazis are right wing (beyond "that's what everyone says")?
If you actually look at their programme it is really rather left wing.
I'm genuinely interested in this question - it is one of the most effective pieces of calumny that the left (largely originating from Stalin's declaration - post Barbarossa - that Nazism was opposed to Communist Russia and therefore *must* be rightwing) has used against conservatives in the last 50 years
How about policies towards women? Minorities? Gay people? The disabled?
Some far left governments have treated such groups barbarously.
IMHO, totalitarian governments tend to have a good deal more in common, ideologically, than the things that divide them.
I have already read the article half a dozen times and it effectively agrees with what I have said all along - strikes against Assad to punish him for his claimed use of chemical weapons are pointless.
But the article itself is confused in its aims and the reason for my rereading it so many times is to make sure I have not missed something vital that he has apparently not taken into consideration.
If we accept his premise that we are going to effectively support the rebels in their attempts to overthrow Assad then we are choosing to side with forces who are a complete anathema to our way of life and values. I simply do not believe it is in our interests to see the rebels, who have a track record of attacking Christian settlements - and indeed any other religious minority they do not agree with - overthrowing Assad.
I am not saying that he should remain in power but as it stands we are simply going to end up with another failed state which threatens our own security far more directly and far more seriously than Assad does now.
I don't know if the rebels or Assad will win the civil war. I don't know if one is better than the other for us although I fear unfortunately that Assad might be the lesser of two evils. What I do know is that it is certainly not in our interests to see a well armed rebel force, supplied by the Saudis - and indirectly by the West - which is fundamentally opposed to our best interests - taking control of such a strategic country as Syria.
Sunny, I am not, neither am I a coward who is turning away from atrocities in Syria carried out by Assad.. because it is inconvenient and difficult. The bad fellas on both sides should know that they will be called to account.. The vote on Thursday stops the UK from being involved in that. Feel proud .Has your mummy allowed you to stay up late to talk with the big boys..nice
Well as Syria appears to be a free-for-all you could always go over there and sort things out yourself.
I'm sure that Dan Hodges, Toby Young and Michael Gove would be up for putting their lives where their mouths are.
Paddy Ashdown could take military command while Tony Blair could provide the funding.
Hitler ran a pretty left wing campaign as we'd understand the term today.
One that featured many of Germany's poor, working families and promised them work and bread. The manifesto is more mixed, with a considerable focus on lowering immigration and if necessary expelling foreigners, and a commitment to a middle class, but also the "abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.", the " the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries", a "a division of profits of all heavy industries", and a " an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare".
I have already read the article half a dozen times and it effectively agrees with what I have said all along - strikes against Assad to punish him for his claimed use of chemical weapons are pointless.
But the article itself is confused in its aims and the reason for my rereading it so many times is to make sure I have not missed something vital that he has apparently not taken into consideration.
If we accept his premise that we are going to effectively support the rebels in their attempts to overthrow Assad then we are choosing to side with forces who are a complete anathema to our way of life and values. I simply do not believe it is in our interests to see the rebels, who have a track record of attacking Christian settlements - and indeed any other religious minority they do not agree with - overthrowing Assad.
I am not saying that he should remain in power but as it stands we are simply going to end up with another failed state which threatens our own security far more directly and far more seriously than Assad does now.
I don't know if the rebels or Assad will win the civil war. I don't know if one is better than the other for us although I fear unfortunately that Assad might be the lesser of two evils. What I do know is that it is certainly not in our interests to see a well armed rebel force, supplied by the Saudis - and indirectly by the West - which is fundamentally opposed to our best interests - taking control of such a strategic country as Syria.
It's a shit fight - lots of shits fighting among themselves - avoid.
I didn't realise that preventing a mass murderer from killing more of his people was part of a global popularity contest..you learn something new everyday..
You won't stop him killing them. At least not with anything short of full scale invasion. All you will do is kill a few of them for him. Kind of help him along.
Comments
Simply bleating that the UK needs to spend more on its military is pub talk. Even if we set aside the issues of balancing military capabilities (here I defer to Fluffy Thoughts), there remains the question of now to fund the additional expenditure. Or put another way, what would UKIP cut in order to provide the additional funding?
And you need to explain why the UK would be right to honour NATO treaty obligations but ignore breaches of other international treaties, laws and norms on war crimes.
In short many communist states end up being like Hitlers Germany because they cannot get (or do not want to anymore) from state power to people power.
Thanks Ed
"The UK defence budget will be restored to 2010 levels.
Savings
Saving will be made as follows:
Disestablishing the MOD over a parliament;
Cancelling the Trident replacement;
and, of course, leaving the European Union with the consequential reduction in direct and indirect costs.
The 2016 defence budget, excluding foreign military aid, will be £50bn in 2012 terms. "
http://www.ukip.org/issues/policy-pages/defence
http://youtu.be/QdT0drUghio
All his own work-I think......
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-dark-side-of-andrew-roberts-1765229.html
And when it comes to upholding international law I wonder where you were when Israel were breaking those same laws by using white phosphor weapons against civilians. I don't remember you jumping up and down insisting we should fire missiles at Tel Aviv.
There is nothing in international law that says we have to play the world's policeman. Interestingly there is nothing in international law that sets out in any way the sanctions to be taken against those who break the CW treaty. There is no treaty that says that we have to punish those who breach these treaties. There is however a treaty obligation for us to defend other NATO members. That is a very different matter.
I was mistaking Roberts for Alistair Horne.
All other points not related to daughters stand.
Boo for Ukip
Honestly I wish there was a party that represented people like me, I pay my taxes, I don't want an overbearing state that tells me how to live my life and whether or not I can watch porn with my girlfriend, I don't want a state that isn't welcoming to people of colour, I don't want a state that wastes money on £70bn train lines or buries its head in the sand over infrastructure and energy. I would like a party that has common sense, and while Farrage has it, I don't think the rest of UKIP and the rank and file members definitely don't. I've been told by plenty of Tories that I need to join the party and change it from within, that they could use a young Asian member who calls a spade a spade from a working class background, but like antifrank, I fear that to rise through the ranks of the party my character will change and the suit will become the man.
Anyway, congratulations to UKIP and Sean Fear, I think the Tories have lost a valuable member and voice, and sadly I don't think Dave's Tories feel would feel that way about it and say good riddance to members like Sean Fear.
Yeah, I can see why someone who clings to the fig leaf of being a 'non Tory' would hold to that literal view.
I'm sure you can provide lots of links to Hitler describing himself and the Nazi party as of the Left or left wing?
Hitler, when asked whether he supported the "bourgeois right-wing", claimed that Nazism was not exclusively for any class, and indicated that it favoured neither the left nor the right, but preserved "pure" elements from both "camps", stating: "From the camp of bourgeois tradition, it takes national resolve, and from the materialism of the Marxist dogma, living, creative Socialism".[7]
It's simply national socialism as opposed to international socialism.
"Peter (Cook) never had any regrets in his life. I never heard him voice any regrets. He didn't regret the fact that he lost his early facility, he didn't regret the fact that he lost his looks, which he did quite spectacularly, he didn't regret the fact that Dudley had gone on to fame and fortune in Hollywood. The only regret he regularly voiced was that, at the house we all shared in Fairfield, Connecticut in 1963, he'd saved David Frost from drowning."
- Alan Bennett"
'Cancelling the Trident replacement;'
No intervention in foreign wars.
'The 2016 defence budget, excluding foreign military aid, will be £50bn in 2012 terms. "
I think it was one of the policies UKIP bought 'off the shelf'
'Ukip in chaos over policy on eve of key poll, emails ... - The Guardian
www.theguardian.com › News › Politics › UK Independence party (Ukip)
27 Apr 2013 - Nigel Farage, leader of Ukip, on the campaign trail last week. .... Why not buy policy 'off the shelf', where it is close to our own small government ...
Max, I definitely think you have more chance of changing UKIP from within and helping to create the sort of party you are looking for than you do with the Tories. There is truth in the claim that UKIP is currently the party of protest but it also has the potential to be much more than that if the right people with the right anti-statist, pro-individual ideas make their voices heard.
I'm not denying totalitarian left and right share many characteristics, I'm just noting that the contemporary Right will jump through any amount of hoops to avoid taking any responsibility for AH and Nazism. There are plenty of apologists on the Left but most of its best critics were also on the Left.
1. To the injury-ravaged Gooners. The hope that kills you.
2. A long-term injury to Capoue by the looks of it
3. Bale finally going.
The years come and go, but I can always rely on Spurs to let me down.
Thank goodness for Yvette still looking strong to replace Ed M.
Another quote:
"Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings."
Hitler Speaks , London, T. Butterworth, 1940, Hermann Rauschning, also called The Voice of Destruction
Although I don't recall Britain having an 'international military obligation' to support Al Qaeda.
But with some qualification. Even the most aware of generals find it difficult to see the actions asked of the military in a political and diplomatic context. They like simple missions with a clear enemy and a easily defined victory. They always want sufficient resources to secure that victory.
Matt sums up what military commanders don't like in his cartoon for today's ST. As always it is the caption rather than the cartoon which makes Matt's point: A pilot is receiving a pre mission briefing from his commander:
We want you to fly low over Syria, wag your finger at Assad, and then come back.
The problem for Obama and his allies is that Chemical Weapons treaties cannot be enforced simply by wagging a diplomatic or even military finger at those who continually breach them. Something more needs to be done.
But what?
Obama has made a clever decision to announce his authorisation of military intervention but make it subject to approval of Congress (or possibly ratification if Assad uses CW again in the interim).
It gives Obama a last chance to push for a diplomatic resolution in St Petersburg with the world's press only interested in the G20's and Russia's position on Syria. The American people and those of the US's more robust allies will see that their President is trying, right to the last, to secure a peaceful resolution without the need for military intervention.
Secondly it also gives time for the military voices in Washington to plead their case for an intervention which "makes military sense". In other words, the idea of flying over Syria and wagging a finger at Assad will lose credibility over time.
With the UNSC ruled out as a route, and that decision vindicated by a fruitless G20, Congress will seek to expand the proposed mission to make the military deliverables more credible. Stand by to hear much more about degrading Assad's military and political capabilities over the next two weeks. The Generals will want their "victory".
[to be continued]
[...continued]
As for the chances of Congress voting against the President, these are minimal. The US Commander-in-Chief has drawn a red line and it has been crossed. The precedent of not responding with military intervention (whatever one's views on the individual merits of Syria) are unthinkable and would amount to the US passing up its role as superpower and global policeman.
The reason I think Obama has been right to delay action and bring in Congress is that it raises the chances of forcing a last minute diplomatic solution, and, in the event that is not achieved, will justify a more robust military intervention with goals which goal well beyond finger wagging.
Even if we had all the might of the British Empire behind us, I don't think we could do much good in Syria.
There seems to be numerous Spurs fans always bewailing their fortunes.
And when did Arsenal fans start being referred to as Gooners - I can't remember them so being before 2000 and Nick Hornby never does so in Fever Pitch.
The calculation has to be whether or not we want to actually take sufficient action to effect the course of the civil war. I believe that only should we not do so but we could not do so without a massive intervention that even you probably would not support as it would include putting western troops on the ground. Moreover by doing so we would be allying ourselves with people who we would not want in power in Syria in a million years.
So in the end what Obama and Cameron are asking the military to do is exactly what Matt refers to - wag a metaphorical finger at Assad in the form of a limited and entirely ineffective missile, the only practical result of which will be to kill more innocent civilians.
By the way, Dannatt was very clear this morning that the only real answer to this crisis was a negotiated diplomatic and political solution, not a military one. He was also clear that he believe the military intervention would make the diplomatic solution far more difficult.
Great result today, an even match in my opinion and any result would have been fair.
What I like best about it is the triumph of careful team building over spending money for the sake of it... look at the ridiculous stick Wenger has got for not making wholesale changes to a side that was only put together over the last season and a half...
Not that I am criticizing Spurs for their spending, it had to be done if they lost Bale, more the media and Arsenal fans really.
Daily Mash sum it up well here
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sport-headlines/football-matches-ruining-magic-of-transfer-market-2013082878965
I do not attend the Emirates when Norwich come to play because I wish to keep my season ticket.
I daresay there are fundamentalists from most of the world religions who see much to admire in their fellow zealots, and would even welcome them as converts. Doesn't mean they all exist in some ecumenical sludge of happy-clappy, mutual tolerance.
TimT posted an article by Anthony Cordesman for the US Center for Strategic and International Studies. What Cordesman does effectively is to explore the options for US military intervention in Syria. As Cordesman himself explains:
If the U.S. is to intervene in Syria, its options must have some strategic meaning and a chance of producing lasting success. They must have a reasonable chance of bringing stability to Syria, of limiting the growth of Iranian and Hezbollah influence, of halting the spillover of the Syrian struggle into nearby states, and helping to deal with the broader humanitarian crisis
I recommend you read the article to see how 'mission creep' is the logical response to rejecting a finger-wagging exercise as a meaningless gesture.
Here is the link again: http://csis.org/publication/choosing-right-options-syria
'I'm sure you can provide lots of links to Hitler describing himself and the Nazi party as of the Left or left wing?'
Mike is correct. He is the sort of person, grounded in the reality of the real world who is a catch for UKIP. Sean is also a long standing supporter of The Freedom Association as am I.
Sean's views are similar to mine and only the opportunity to put Conservative ideas into practice locally and a refusal to give Cameron the satisfaction of resigning is keeping me from following Sean. I still think I will have the satisfaction of seeing Cameron out before he forces me to go.
http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/01799/Milliband_1799265a.jpg
Well, at least I can say I met Sean F at a PB bash a couple of years ago
'I'm sure you can provide lots of links to Hitler describing himself and the Nazi party as of the Left or left wing?'
..which was delivered. Except for the thread-hogging "lots" part.
Jordan (Kingdom of) says it will not allow its airspace to be used for any strikes on Syria. This is a re-emphasis of statements they have already made and not unexpected.
Apparently Hashemi Rafsanjani in Iran said that the Syrian people were attacked with chemical weapons by their own government. That should have him under house arrest again if isn't already.
Insurgent offensive reportedly launched North East of Damascus. No idea of size & whether it'll get traction but looks like it aims to seize the artery road between Damascus and Homs.
You want me to find a Sun mockup of two tits?
I think Roger has already done that today.
Although I am not sure his version bears any resemblance to either Ed Miliband or Jim Fitzpatrick!
Last year during the Olympics, the world LOVED us! Really absolutely loved us! Another Mid-East war will give the world the perfect excuse to HATE us again, as during Iraq (remember Jemini's "Nul Points" at Eurovision 2003?).
If you actually look at their programme it is really rather left wing.
I'm genuinely interested in this question - it is one of the most effective pieces of calumny that the left (largely originating from Stalin's declaration - post Barbarossa - that Nazism was opposed to Communist Russia and therefore *must* be rightwing) has used against conservatives in the last 50 years
Like
Loadsamoney but as we see it's about a team and as AVB moaned today, it's going to take time for our new faces to know each other, let alone get used to the PL itself.
Onwards and upwards I hope .... until we draw 0-0 with Norwich next time out.
- Lowering the minimum voting age to 18 and universal suffrage including for women (not left or right in modern terms, but quite radical in 1919)
- Repeal of title of nobility
- A foreign policy aimed at expanding Italy's will and power
- A legal workday of 8 hours of work for all workers
- A minimum wage
- The creation of various government bodies run by worker's representatives
- Forcing landowners to cultivate their land or have them expropriated and given to veterens and farmers cooperatives
- The obligation of the state to build "rigidly secular" schools
- a large progressive tax on capital that would amount to a one-time partial exproportion of all riches
- The seizure of all goods belonging to religious congregations
- The nationalisation of all arms and explosives industries
The difference between Nazism and Fascism, of course, is that Nazism included a strain of racialism that fascism didn't.
In my view, though, that's a pretty left-wing/progressive agenda: secular, equality, workers rights, forcing people to use their assets or have them confiscated for the national good etc.
Even Ian Kershaw fails to achieve this in his titanic biography.
Kershaw's a bit like Milton trying to portray the devil in Paradise Lost.
How could such a nasty little c8nt have inspired so many and created such a stir?
The bad fellas on both sides should know that they will be called to account.. The vote on Thursday stops the UK from being involved in that. Feel proud
.Has your mummy allowed you to stay up late to talk with the big boys..nice
Clearly there is something in the water at the moment. Even Plato moved on from her legendary position of neutral objectivity.
Personally, I'm glad that Clegg is still in post and Clarke is still nowhere near becoming Tory in chief.
Hitler was a reaction to the Bolsheviks.
IMHO, totalitarian governments tend to have a good deal more in common, ideologically, than the things that divide them.
But the article itself is confused in its aims and the reason for my rereading it so many times is to make sure I have not missed something vital that he has apparently not taken into consideration.
If we accept his premise that we are going to effectively support the rebels in their attempts to overthrow Assad then we are choosing to side with forces who are a complete anathema to our way of life and values. I simply do not believe it is in our interests to see the rebels, who have a track record of attacking Christian settlements - and indeed any other religious minority they do not agree with - overthrowing Assad.
I am not saying that he should remain in power but as it stands we are simply going to end up with another failed state which threatens our own security far more directly and far more seriously than Assad does now.
I don't know if the rebels or Assad will win the civil war. I don't know if one is better than the other for us although I fear unfortunately that Assad might be the lesser of two evils. What I do know is that it is certainly not in our interests to see a well armed rebel force, supplied by the Saudis - and indirectly by the West - which is fundamentally opposed to our best interests - taking control of such a strategic country as Syria.
I'm sure that Dan Hodges, Toby Young and Michael Gove would be up for putting their lives where their mouths are.
Paddy Ashdown could take military command while Tony Blair could provide the funding.
One that featured many of Germany's poor, working families and promised them work and bread. The manifesto is more mixed, with a considerable focus on lowering immigration and if necessary expelling foreigners, and a commitment to a middle class, but also the "abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.", the " the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries", a "a division of profits of all heavy industries", and a " an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare".