Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Owlswing on November 09, 2015, 12:02:55 PM
-
Jeremy Corbyn has accused the chief of the defence staff of political bias when he stated that the stated policy of Mr Corbyn, that he would refuse to authorise the use of nuclear weapons if he were Prime Minister, would seriously undermine Britain's defenses by removing the nuclear deterrant.
What experience of military matters does Mr Corbyn have that he can criticise a comment made by someone who has spent thier entire working life in the military on a military view of a statement by a politician who has never been employed in anything but political groups of one sort or another?
As Chief of the Defence Staff General Houghton was, in making his comment, doing the job he is paid to do.
Surely Mr Corbyn's complaints and demands for disciplinary action against the general, are political interference in military matters which he cearly has no understanding of beyond political philosophy.
-
I hope Corbyn never becomes Prime Minister, our country would be in terrible danger if that idiot was in charge! >:(
-
I hope Corbyn never becomes Prime Minister, our country would be in terrible danger if that idiot was in charge! >:(
Unfortunately history has shown that all too often we have found ourselves with an idiot in charge.
Chamberlain springs instantly to mind.
-
Corbyn's commentary isn't on whether the claim is correct or not, his comments are on the fact that someone appearing as a military spokesman shouldn't be seen to be endorsing a particular political party or candidate, or advocating against them.
Personally, I don't think any of the current political party leaders - with the possible exception of that Farage dingbat - are stupid enough to actually resort to firing nuclear weapons, regardless of the situation. I don't expect that many foreign sources looking in see it as any different, likewise with the current American administration, although a Republican president is a scary concept.
Given that, I don't see that Corbyn being open about it is any different to everyone understanding that Cameron wouldn't be that idiotic either - Britain's nuclear arsenal is still just advanced sabre-rattling.
O.
-
Corbyn's commentary isn't on whether the claim is correct or not, his comments are on the fact that someone appearing as a military spokesman shouldn't be seen to be endorsing a particular political party or candidate, or advocating against them.
Personally, I don't think any of the current political party leaders - with the possible exception of that Farage dingbat - are stupid enough to actually resort to firing nuclear weapons, regardless of the situation. I don't expect that many foreign sources looking in see it as any different, likewise with the current American administration, although a Republican president is a scary concept.
Given that, I don't see that Corbyn being open about it is any different to everyone understanding that Cameron wouldn't be that idiotic either - Britain's nuclear arsenal is still just advanced sabre-rattling.
O.
Most likely, but it is still crazy to tell a potential enemy you would never use it in anger!
-
Corbyn's commentary isn't on whether the claim is correct or not, his comments are on the fact that someone appearing as a military spokesman shouldn't be seen to be endorsing a particular political party or candidate, or advocating against them.
Personally, I don't think any of the current political party leaders - with the possible exception of that Farage dingbat - are stupid enough to actually resort to firing nuclear weapons, regardless of the situation. I don't expect that many foreign sources looking in see it as any different, likewise with the current American administration, although a Republican president is a scary concept.
Given that, I don't see that Corbyn being open about it is any different to everyone understanding that Cameron wouldn't be that idiotic either - Britain's nuclear arsenal is still just advanced sabre-rattling.
O.
Most likely, but it is still crazy to tell a potential enemy you would never use it in anger!
Not if you understand that they already know it.
O.
-
Jeremy Corbyn has accused the chief of the defence staff of political bias when he stated that the stated policy of Mr Corbyn, that he would refuse to authorise the use of nuclear weapons if he were Prime Minister, would seriously undermine Britain's defenses by removing the nuclear deterrant.
What experience of military matters does Mr Corbyn have that he can criticise a comment made by someone who has spent thier entire working life in the military on a military view of a statement by a politician who has never been employed in anything but political groups of one sort or another?
As Chief of the Defence Staff General Houghton was, in making his comment, doing the job he is paid to do.
Surely Mr Corbyn's complaints and demands for disciplinary action against the general, are political interference in military matters which he cearly has no understanding of beyond political philosophy.
Now I'm no fan of Corbyn (I voted in the election and voted for everyone but him), but I think his point is that the military must not get involved in politics. Effectively that the people vote in a government through a democratic process and the military is required to serve that government, whatever its political colour and policies.
And on this I think he is right - a line has been crossed if the military start being seen not to be neutral in relation to the democratic process.
-
I think the general was well out of order. Soldiers do what politicians tell them to do, not the other way round.
-
Unfortunately history has shown that all too often we have found ourselves with an idiot in charge.
Chamberlain springs instantly to mind.
Blair sprung to my mind
-
I think the general was well out of order. Soldiers do what politicians tell them to do, not the other way round.
Generals - or at least Cheifs of staff can advise, but the final decison is effectively ours.
-
I think the general was well out of order. Soldiers do what politicians tell them to do, not the other way round.
Generals - or at least Cheifs of staff can advise, but the final decison is effectively ours.
I think it is dangerous when this 'advice' is given in public. I see no problem with there being high level private meetings between top military personnel and government or the opposition, but in public the military need to be seen to be neutral and ready to serve whichever flavour of government we chose to elect.
-
Well, the right-wing press will use stuff like this to increase their vilification of Corbyn, which has now reached insane levels. I find it scary really, it's a kind of totalitarian thinking - he didn't bow enough! FFS.
-
It's ironic that Corbyn stayed behind after the ceremonies, to talk to veterans, while all the VIPs disappeared, no doubt for their G and Ts and lunches. It's the first time I've seen a politician actually go up to the veterans marching and talk to them. Yes, but his tie wasn't right and he didn't bow enough!
-
I think it is dangerous when this 'advice' is given in public. I see no problem with there being high level private meetings between top military personnel and government or the opposition, but in public the military need to be seen to be neutral and ready to serve whichever flavour of government we chose to elect.
C.A.M. PD. (couldn't agree more)
-
I think the general was well out of order. Soldiers do what politicians tell them to do, not the other way round.
Generals - or at least Cheifs of staff can advise, but the final decison is effectively ours.
I think it is dangerous when this 'advice' is given in public. I see no problem with there being high level private meetings between top military personnel and government or the opposition, but in public the military need to be seen to be neutral and ready to serve whichever flavour of government we chose to elect.
And what do you think the reactions would have been had he refused to answer the question put to him on that basis?
-
And what do you think the reactions would have been had he refused to answer the question put to him on that basis?
Matt, I've never heard the actual questio nhe was asked, but bhe could just as easily have responded with something alone these lines - 'that is a good question, but not one I'm at liberty to discuss in public'.
-
And what do you think the reactions would have been had he refused to answer the question put to him on that basis?
Matt, I've never heard the actual questio nhe was asked, but bhe could just as easily have responded with something alone these lines - 'that is a good question, but not one I'm at liberty to discuss in public'.
And we'd have had every lefty in the country demanding to know what he was hiding! Or trying to hide!
-
And what do you think the reactions would have been had he refused to answer the question put to him on that basis?
Matt, I've never heard the actual questio nhe was asked, but bhe could just as easily have responded with something alone these lines - 'that is a good question, but not one I'm at liberty to discuss in public'.
And we'd have had every lefty in the country demanding to know what he was hiding! Or trying to hide!
I think it would have been more appropriate for him to simply confirm that government policy on defence is a matter for the democratically elected government and that the role of the military is to serve that government, and by inference the people of the country.
-
Unfortunately history has shown that all too often we have found ourselves with an idiot in charge.
Chamberlain springs instantly to mind.
Blair sprung to my mind
Blair wasn't an idiot - that was the subject of his crush in Washington.
Blair was a fool.
-
Corbyn is in the wrong here as Houghton's statement was not political but just common sense or logical.
-
Corbyn is in the wrong here as Houghton's statement was not political but just common sense or logical.
Whether you think the content was correct or not isn't the point - it's not his place to comment, as a military spokesman, on the political status of the discussion, it's his place to explain what the military is doing to complete the instructions of the government of the day and to prepare for any future instructions that might come from future governments.
O.
-
Corbyn is in the wrong here as Houghton's statement was not political but just common sense or logical.
Whether you think the content was correct or not isn't the point - it's not his place to comment, as a military spokesman, on the political status of the discussion, it's his place to explain what the military is doing to complete the instructions of the government of the day and to prepare for any future instructions that might come from future governments.
O.
In a nutshell, that is the whole point.
-
Corbyn is in the wrong here as Houghton's statement was not political but just common sense or logical.
Whether you think the content was correct or not isn't the point - it's not his place to comment, as a military spokesman, on the political status of the discussion, it's his place to explain what the military is doing to complete the instructions of the government of the day and to prepare for any future instructions that might come from future governments.
Its place is surely to comment on the implications of the politics from a military point of view?
I admire Corbyn for sticking to his principles but the circus over Labours indieicsion on this policy makes them look inept.
-
Corbyn is in the wrong here as Houghton's statement was not political but just common sense or logical.
Whether you think the content was correct or not isn't the point - it's not his place to comment, as a military spokesman, on the political status of the discussion, it's his place to explain what the military is doing to complete the instructions of the government of the day and to prepare for any future instructions that might come from future governments.
O.
He explained the purpose and utilisation of a deterrent. That seemed to be within his remit.
-
Corbyn is in the wrong here as Houghton's statement was not political but just common sense or logical.
Whether you think the content was correct or not isn't the point - it's not his place to comment, as a military spokesman, on the political status of the discussion, it's his place to explain what the military is doing to complete the instructions of the government of the day and to prepare for any future instructions that might come from future governments.
Its place is surely to comment on the implications of the politics from a military point of view?
I admire Corbyn for sticking to his principles but the circus over Labours indieicsion on this policy makes them look inept.
Corbyn's response to this made him look like a bit of an idiot as seem to fail to see the stupidity of his position; based of course on his ideology.
-
So if Corbyn is an idiot, then you support Iran having nuclear weapons, JK? If not, then their leaders would be idiots.
-
Corbyn is in the wrong here as Houghton's statement was not political but just common sense or logical.
Whether you think the content was correct or not isn't the point - it's not his place to comment, as a military spokesman, on the political status of the discussion, it's his place to explain what the military is doing to complete the instructions of the government of the day and to prepare for any future instructions that might come from future governments.
O.
He explained the purpose and utilisation of a deterrent. That seemed to be within his remit.
The remit of a general is to run the army, not to comment on the politics of its purpose.
-
So if Corbyn is an idiot, then you support Iran having nuclear weapons, JK? If not, then their leaders would be idiots.
Read my post and the context in which it was put in. Nothing about Iran there!!!
-
Corbyn is in the wrong here as Houghton's statement was not political but just common sense or logical.
Whether you think the content was correct or not isn't the point - it's not his place to comment, as a military spokesman, on the political status of the discussion, it's his place to explain what the military is doing to complete the instructions of the government of the day and to prepare for any future instructions that might come from future governments.
O.
He explained the purpose and utilisation of a deterrent. That seemed to be within his remit.
The remit of a general is to run the army, not to comment on the politics of its purpose.
From what I heard he didn't do that. What do you think he said that was as you claim.
-
So if Corbyn is an idiot, then you support Iran having nuclear weapons, JK? If not, then their leaders would be idiots.
Read my post and the context in which it was put in. Nothing about Iran there!!!
It's the logical implication for an Iranian general.
-
Corbyn is in the wrong here as Houghton's statement was not political but just common sense or logical.
Whether you think the content was correct or not isn't the point - it's not his place to comment, as a military spokesman, on the political status of the discussion, it's his place to explain what the military is doing to complete the instructions of the government of the day and to prepare for any future instructions that might come from future governments.
O.
He explained the purpose and utilisation of a deterrent. That seemed to be within his remit.
The remit of a general is to run the army, not to comment on the politics of its purpose.
From what I heard he didn't do that. What do you think he said that was as you claim.
He said that " he would be worried by any prospect of the Labour leader’s views being “translated into power” because Corbyn has said he would never be willing to approve the use of nuclear weapons. Corbyn’s stance defeated the point of having a nuclear deterrent." It is not his remit to make such pronouncements. He was in the wrong. It matters not whether I, or you, agree, it is not within Houghton's authority to make such comments. When we allow the generals to interfere in the politics of it, we are on a slippery slope.
-
Corbyn is in the wrong here as Houghton's statement was not political but just common sense or logical.
Whether you think the content was correct or not isn't the point - it's not his place to comment, as a military spokesman, on the political status of the discussion, it's his place to explain what the military is doing to complete the instructions of the government of the day and to prepare for any future instructions that might come from future governments.
Its place is surely to comment on the implications of the politics from a military point of view?
I admire Corbyn for sticking to his principles but the circus over Labours indieicsion on this policy makes them look inept.
Corbyn's response to this made him look like a bit of an idiot as seem to fail to see the stupidity of his position; based of course on his ideology.
I think Corbyn was entitled to comment as he did, he's a very principled politician, unelectable but stubborn.
-
Corbyn's response to this made him look like a bit of an idiot as seem to fail to see the stupidity of his position; based of course on his ideology.
I suspect how this makes Corbyn look is almost entirely predicated on how you already saw him - people that thought he was an idiot have had their suspicions confirmed, and people who thought he was a principled pacifist have had that confirmed. There don't appear to be many people in the middle on this one.
O.
-
I don't think Corbyn is a pacifist, actually. It would be interesting to see if he thinks that the UK was wrong to fight in WWII. He is certainly anti-nuclear weapons.
But these issues are normally misrepresented by the right-wing media, and presumably those who are hostile to Corbyn will feel yeah, he's a crazy lefty, and others will try to find out what he is actually saying, which often sounds quite moderate to me.
-
The Labour party have a leader opposed to Trident renewal but a policy in favour of it but their Scottish branch office is opposed with a leader in favour of it
-
author=Nearly Sane link=topic=11135.msg568069#msg568069 date=1447247388]
The Labour party have a leader opposed to Trident renewal but a policy in favour of it but their Scottish branch office is opposed with a l...
And the Tories have a Party which is split between pro- and anti-EU. So what? That's politics.
-
I don't think Corbyn is a pacifist, actually. It would be interesting to see if he thinks that the UK was wrong to fight in WWII. He is certainly anti-nuclear weapons.
But these issues are normally misrepresented by the right-wing media, and presumably those who are hostile to Corbyn will feel yeah, he's a crazy lefty, and others will try to find out what he is actually saying, which often sounds quite moderate to me.
I don't read or watch anything other than BBC for news. He comes across as being quite a nice bloke but too left for my taste.
Was chatting my wife the other day, in every election that she has voted for the party that ended up in government, if you use her as a barometer Corbyn has no chance.
I don't thinks it the media its just that the electorate are not that left wing.
-
I don't think Corbyn is a pacifist, actually. It would be interesting to see if he thinks that the UK was wrong to fight in WWII. He is certainly anti-nuclear weapons.
But these issues are normally misrepresented by the right-wing media, and presumably those who are hostile to Corbyn will feel yeah, he's a crazy lefty, and others will try to find out what he is actually saying, which often sounds quite moderate to me.
I don't read or watch anything other than BBC for news. He comes across as being quite a nice bloke but too left for my taste.
Was chatting my wife the other day, in every election that she has voted for the party that ended up in government, if you use her as a barometer Corbyn has no chance.
I don't thinks it the media its just that the electorate are not that left wing.
Yes, I think that's right, at the moment, anyway. But the right-wing vilification of Corbyn is bizarre really, for example, that he didn't bow enough at the Cenotaph, or he stole sandwiches from veterans at St Paul's. Actually, it's quite scary really, kind of thoughtcrime stuff.
I like him, and he is actually raising issues, which are normally dormant, and not questioned. But I agree that he can't win if conditions stay the same.
-
Corbyn is in the wrong here as Houghton's statement was not political but just common sense or logical.
Whether you think the content was correct or not isn't the point - it's not his place to comment, as a military spokesman, on the political status of the discussion, it's his place to explain what the military is doing to complete the instructions of the government of the day and to prepare for any future instructions that might come from future governments.
O.
He explained the purpose and utilisation of a deterrent. That seemed to be within his remit.
The remit of a general is to run the army, not to comment on the politics of its purpose.
From what I heard he didn't do that. What do you think he said that was as you claim.
He said that " he would be worried by any prospect of the Labour leader’s views being “translated into power” because Corbyn has said he would never be willing to approve the use of nuclear weapons. Corbyn’s stance defeated the point of having a nuclear deterrent." It is not his remit to make such pronouncements. He was in the wrong. It matters not whether I, or you, agree, it is not within Houghton's authority to make such comments. When we allow the generals to interfere in the politics of it, we are on a slippery slope.
So you are saying that if our leader, or potential leader, puts the UK in a dangerous position, and refuses to change course, then people like Houghton still shouldn't say anything? I think he did the British people a favour. If Corbyn can't see the stupidity of his position then he needs to be shot down.
-
Corbyn is in the wrong here as Houghton's statement was not political but just common sense or logical.
Whether you think the content was correct or not isn't the point - it's not his place to comment, as a military spokesman, on the political status of the discussion, it's his place to explain what the military is doing to complete the instructions of the government of the day and to prepare for any future instructions that might come from future governments.
O.
He explained the purpose and utilisation of a deterrent. That seemed to be within his remit.
The remit of a general is to run the army, not to comment on the politics of its purpose.
From what I heard he didn't do that. What do you think he said that was as you claim.
He said that " he would be worried by any prospect of the Labour leader’s views being “translated into power” because Corbyn has said he would never be willing to approve the use of nuclear weapons. Corbyn’s stance defeated the point of having a nuclear deterrent." It is not his remit to make such pronouncements. He was in the wrong. It matters not whether I, or you, agree, it is not within Houghton's authority to make such comments. When we allow the generals to interfere in the politics of it, we are on a slippery slope.
So you are saying that if our leader, or potential leader, puts the UK in a dangerous position, and refuses to change course, then people like Houghton still shouldn't say anything? I think he did the British people a favour. If Corbyn can't see the stupidity of his position then he needs to be shot down.
Whether you agree with what he said - if he's right, or not - is not the issue. We have a Parliament and a free Press to make the argument. He is a soldier, not a politician, and should stick to that
-
From the perspective of someone sitting at the southern tip of Africa, I have always been scared stiff every time a presidential election is looming in the USA and I look at the list of potential candidates.
For the first time that I can remember, I now have similar feelings about the UK and it's potential future prime minister. I can only trust that the view that he is unelectable holds true.
-
From the perspective of someone sitting at the southern tip of Africa, I have always been scared stiff every time a presidential election is looming in the USA and I look at the list of potential candidates.
For the first time that I can remember, I now have similar feelings about the UK and it's potential future prime minister. I can only trust that the view that he is unelectable holds true.
That's if everything being equal, or as it is today. But if the global situation really shifts and people have to endure even more hardships then it could change (Also, the Tories seem to be shooting themselves in their foot with the elixir of power). Corbyn is also trying to change the rules about how a Labour leader is dethroned, and he is playing nice (i.e. compromising with the moderates) whilst he builds his power base in the various structures of the Labour party. If all this is true then it would look like he is planning to stand for the 2020 elections.
-
I don't think Corbyn is a pacifist, actually. It would be interesting to see if he thinks that the UK was wrong to fight in WWII. He is certainly anti-nuclear weapons.
But these issues are normally misrepresented by the right-wing media, and presumably those who are hostile to Corbyn will feel yeah, he's a crazy lefty, and others will try to find out what he is actually saying, which often sounds quite moderate to me.
I can help you there, courtesy of Private Eye:
http://i.imgur.com/UZlDEuP.jpg
-
Corbyn Is the best thing to have happen to English politics for a long time.
For too long we have had Maggie TORY, followed by grey tory then jumbled tory, then Tony Tory and a short spell of Red Tory..
Then the disaster that was yellow Tory.. but now we have TORY TORY TORY..
Now there is an echo of the workers questioning the land owners right to suppress them, and the plantation owners don't like it...
-
Corbyn Is the best thing to have happen to English politics for a long time.
For too long we have had Maggie TORY, followed by grey tory then jumbled tory, then Tony Tory and a short spell of Red Tory..
Then the disaster that was yellow Tory.. but now we have TORY TORY TORY..
Now there is an echo of the workers questioning the land owners right to suppress them, and the plantation owners don't like it...
We'll keep the Red Flag flying here - just to make sure that Labour continues to be unelectable. Well done, Jeremy!
-
Corbyn Is the best thing to have happen to English politics for a long time.
For too long we have had Maggie TORY, followed by grey tory then jumbled tory, then Tony Tory and a short spell of Red Tory..
Then the disaster that was yellow Tory.. but now we have TORY TORY TORY..
Now there is an echo of the workers questioning the land owners right to suppress them, and the plantation owners don't like it...
That's a tall Tory!!!
-
My problem with Corbyn's comments and their target is that, regardless of Corbyn's credentials in politics he is NOT a soldier or even an ex-soldier and he most certainly is not a ex-high ranking soldier.
General Houghton is all these things that Jeremy Corbyn is not and therefore he is doing the right thing in pointing out to a potential Prime Minister and possible flaw in his political agenda!
-
My problem with Corbyn's comments and their target is that, regardless of Corbyn's credentials in politics he is NOT a soldier or even an ex-soldier and he most certainly is not a ex-high ranking soldier.
General Houghton is all these things that Jeremy Corbyn is not and therefore he is doing the right thing in pointing out to a potential Prime Minister and possible flaw in his political agenda!
I agree with you. But someone on TV pointed out that because Labour are in the process of discussing and debating this issue for their party, right now, Houghton's comments could be viewed as political as they would be impacting those debates.
-
Except this was politics.
-
My problem with Corbyn's comments and their target is that, regardless of Corbyn's credentials in politics he is NOT a soldier or even an ex-soldier and he most certainly is not a ex-high ranking soldier.
General Houghton is all these things that Jeremy Corbyn is not and therefore he is doing the right thing in pointing out to a potential Prime Minister and possible flaw in his political agenda!
I agree with you. But someone on TV pointed out that because Labour are in the process of discussing and debating this issue for their party, right now, Houghton's comments could be viewed as political as they would be impacting those debates.
As per my above - the debate would be incomplete and ill-informed for the reason stated above.
-
The Prime Minister, any Prime Minister, has abundant advice from experts in all fields. He does not need serving generals to over-step the mark with out-of-order comments. It is a dangerous precedent to allow serving officers to take political stances.
-
My problem with Corbyn's comments and their target is that, regardless of Corbyn's credentials in politics he is NOT a soldier or even an ex-soldier and he most certainly is not a ex-high ranking soldier.
General Houghton is all these things that Jeremy Corbyn is not and therefore he is doing the right thing in pointing out to a potential Prime Minister and possible flaw in his political agenda!
The job of a soldier is to implement the defence policy of the government, not to decide it. And just because someone is a very good soldier (i.e. very good at implementing policy) doesn't mean they are any better at deciding the policy than anyone else.
The issue here is, effectively, whether we should have an independent nuclear deterrent or not. I'm struggling to see why a soldier, even a very senior one, has a unique angle on that debate due to their profession.
-
The job of a soldier is to implement the defence policy of the government, not to decide it. And just because someone is a very good soldier (i.e. very good at implementing policy) doesn't mean they are any better at deciding the policy than anyone else.
The issue here is, effectively, whether we should have an independent nuclear deterrent or not. I'm struggling to see why a soldier, even a very senior one, has a unique angle on that debate due to their profession.
Hear hear to all that. The fact that Jeremy Corbyn is five years away from even being in with a whisper of a chance of being PM (and thus capable of deciding defence policy) means that Houghton was clearly playing politics - not his field - and was doubtless looking for any opportunity to have a pop at Corbyn in public.
-
The Prime Minister, any Prime Minister, has abundant advice from experts in all fields. He does not need serving generals to over-step the mark with out-of-order comments. It is a dangerous precedent to allow serving officers to take political stances.
I think Owlswing was referring to the public domain not just to specific potential leaders.
-
Corbyn would play hardball with any terrorist attack in uk water pistols, shoot to lightly wet.
-
Corbyn would play hardball with any terrorist attack in uk water pistols, shoot to lightly wet.
Not very wet of course that would be cruel to the poor terrorist! Corbyn is an idiot! >:( The sooner there is a Labour leadership challenge the better!
-
Feel free to disagree with his political stances if you will, preferably with reasons, but the one thing Corbyn is very far from is an idiot.
-
Actually, if Corbyn had been leader, there would have been no invasion of Iraq. He has the sense to see the repetition going on now - let's invade Syria. And then what? For me, he is the voice of sanity.
-
It illustrates the problems in being a politician that Corbyn's attempts at looking at the nuances of policy are immediately caricatured in this way. Let's remember that for many years the Tory govt denied that there was any such thing as a shoot to kill policy.
-
Actually, if Corbyn had been leader, there would have been no invasion of Iraq. He has the sense to see the repetition going on now - let's invade Syria. And then what? For me, he is the voice of sanity.
I don't think he is an idiot, he is true to his principles. If Corbyn had been leader no Afghanistan either.
Who wants to invade Syria?
-
Actually, if Corbyn had been leader, there would have been no invasion of Iraq. He has the sense to see the repetition going on now - let's invade Syria. And then what? For me, he is the voice of sanity.
A voice that asserted in interview yesterday, that even faced with murderous terrorists it i s wrong to shoot to kill. If you saw the footage of the murderers firing at the French police on Friday, what would ypu instruct the police to do: throw stones?
-
A voice that asserted in interview yesterday, that even faced with murderous terrorists it i s wrong to shoot to kill. If you saw the footage of the murderers firing at the French police on Friday, what would ypu instruct the police to do: throw stones?
No, one that questioned having a shoot to kill policy understanding the whole range of what that means. Note this is not this is the very reason why in relation to tragedies in NI, the Tory govt denied having any such thing as a shoot to kill policy.
-
I don't think he is an idiot, he is true to his principles. If Corbyn had been leader no Afghanistan either.
Who wants to invade Syria?
Obama is under massive pressure to go to war. IS know this, so they are now baiting the West, as they would love a Western invasion. Thankfully, Obama is also sane, but there are plenty of voices urging invasion, and if IS mount another atrocity, he may have to give in.
Cameron is just being an idiot, when he says that killing Jihadi John struck a blow at the heart of IS. Wow, and this guy is making the decisions? Help.
Hopefully, in the background the intelligence people are actually thinking about the Sunni revivalism going on - how do you deal with it? If it isn't dealt with, IS will flourish. The Sunni arc stretches from Iraq through Syria, into Turkey, and of course, the Saudis. Where else do IS get money and supplies?
-
No, one that questioned having a shoot to kill policy understanding the whole range of what that means. Note this is not this is the very reason why in relation to tragedies in NI, the Tory govt denied having any such thing as a shoot to kill policy...
When under murderous attack by homicidal maniacs, what can you do but fire back, and it is virtually impossible to guarantee that you can be sure to simply wound, and not kill. It does not even have to come under a shoot to kill directive, but just a shoot to defend yourself.
-
When under murderous attack by homicidal maniacs, what can you do but fire back, and it is virtually impossible to guarantee that you can be sure to simply wound, and not kill. It does not even have to come under a shoot to kill directive, but just a shoot to defend yourself.
Again, that isn't what a shoot to kill policy means in the broad sense. It doesn't need you to be being shot at, hence Jean Charles de Menezes, or the shootings of the IRA members in Gibraltar. It's not about aiming to kill as opposed to wound, it's about the circumstances when you would shoot.
-
Again, that isn't what a shoot to kill policy means in the broad sense. It doesn't need you to be being shot at, hence Jean Charles de Menezes, or the shootings of the IRA members in Gibraltar. It's not about aiming to kill as opposed to wound, it's about the circumstances when you would shoot.
I agree. So no more to say.
-
I agree. So no more to say.
Good of you to admit that you were wrong about what Corbyn said.
-
Good of you to admit that you were wrong about what Corbyn said.
I think you had to see the interview with Laura Koenssberg of the BBC, to appreciate what he was actually advocating, the nuances of his very defensive attitude. He kept quoting Iraq, and suggests that we Talk to ISIS.. Perhaps he would go to Syria and speak to them personally. If he did, would you be thoughtful enough to buy the first bunch of flowers. It's commendable to have principles, but you also have to deal with the real world.
..
-
I did watch it. That's the point. In relation to shoot to kill he was talking about the policy of when you shoot to kill and not about shooting to wound if you are being shot at which is where you started.
As for negotiation, that is part of the real world, see NI.
-
Actually, if Corbyn had been leader, there would have been no invasion of Iraq.
Yes there would. It would have been just the Americans by themselves though.
He has the sense to see the repetition going on now - let's invade Syria. And then what? For me, he is the voice of sanity.
Is anybody advocating invading Syria?
-
I think you had to see the interview with Laura Koenssberg of the BBC, to appreciate what he was actually advocating, the nuances of his very defensive attitude. He kept quoting Iraq, and suggests that we Talk to ISIS.. Perhaps he would go to Syria and speak to them personally. If he did, would you be thoughtful enough to buy the first bunch of flowers. It's commendable to have principles, but you also have to deal with the real world.
..
. . . and, if he went to Syria, either as Leader of the Labour Party or as Prime Minister of the U K, just what kind of odds would you give on his being allowed to leave Syria with his head still attached to his shoulders?
-
Again, that isn't what a shoot to kill policy means in the broad sense. It doesn't need you to be being shot at, hence Jean Charles de Menezes, or the shootings of the IRA members in Gibraltar. It's not about aiming to kill as opposed to wound, it's about the circumstances when you would shoot.
Arguably neither of those were the result of a "shoot to kill" policy. In both cases, the point men with guns were not in possession of all the facts.
-
Arguably neither of those were the result of a "shoot to kill" policy. In both cases, the point men with guns were not in possession of all the facts.
Agreed, the point I was trying to make there is shooting to kill is not dependent on people shooting at you. You don't shoot to wound in any such circumstances, but the times you shoot are what is at question
-
Agreed, the point I was trying to make there is shooting to kill is not dependent on people shooting at you. You don't shoot to wound in any such circumstances, but the times you shoot are what is at question
The rules, at the time of Gibraltar, were that you shot if you considered that, by not shooting you placed yourself or others in mortal danger.
It is a truism that "shooting to wound" is almost impossible; a shot at a moving target that would, at the time the trigger is pulled, be a "shot to wound", could very well be, by the time the bullet hit the target, be a "shot to kill"!
-
Agreed, the point I was trying to make there is shooting to kill is not dependent on people shooting at you. You don't shoot to wound in any such circumstances, but the times you shoot are what is at question
I agree with you there. There is no such thing IRL as "shoot to wound", that's just for the movies and the alleged "shoot to kill" policy had nothing to do with that.
My understanding of the alleged "shoot to kill" policy was that there was an alleged secret order not to try to arrest terrorists even if there was no immediate danger to life and limb but to kill them to avoid tedious things like trials.
-
I agree with you there. There is no such thing IRL as "shoot to wound", that's just for the movies and the alleged "shoot to kill" policy had nothing to do with that.
My understanding of the alleged "shoot to kill" policy was that there was an alleged secret order not to try to arrest terrorists even if there was no immediate danger to life and limb but to kill them to avoid tedious things like trials.
The large problem with this is the little word "Alledged".
-
The rules, at the time of Gibraltar, were that you shot if you considered that, by not shooting you placed yourself or others in mortal danger.
It is a truism that "shooting to wound" is almost impossible; a shot at a moving target that would, at the time the trigger is pulled, be a "shot to wound", could very well be, by the time the bullet hit the target, be a "shot to kill"!
Or worse a miss.
In the case of Gibraltar, the security forces believed that the terrorists had planted a car bomb in a busy part of town and had a detonator. They also believed the terrorists to be armed. Neither of those was true (the car bomb was still in Malaga), but they didn't know that, so they shot and killed the terrorists.
In the case of de Menezes... well, I'm not sure what went on there, it was a fuck up* from start to finish.
*Note to BA: strong language intentional and justified in this instance.
-
I think you had to see the interview with Laura Koenssberg of the BBC, to appreciate what he was actually advocating, the nuances of his very defensive attitude. He kept quoting Iraq, and suggests that we Talk to ISIS.. Perhaps he would go to Syria and speak to them personally. If he did, would you be thoughtful enough to buy the first bunch of flowers. It's commendable to have principles, but you also have to deal with the real world.
..
But in the real world, eventually there will be negotations between the Sunni factions and the Shia. At the moment, IS represent the extreme end of the Sunni revivalism which has been going on, partly in defence against the rise of Shia power (in Iraq), and partly to defeat Assad, and partly to neutralize Iran.
Maybe it's too early for negotiations, but I think calling for them is pretty real, as it was in N. Ireland. And it is very likely that they are going on in the background, not with IS, but with their backers. For example, in Iraq some Sunni tribes have been working with IS, so one task is to peel them away, and it can be done.
Obama knows that the drift to war is remorseless, and he is holding the line at the moment, under severe pressure. But war is a drug. IS want war, some Republicans in the US also, and various right-wing people. So we need sane voices.
-
In the case of de Menezes... well, I'm not sure what went on there, it was a fuck up* from start to finish.
*Note to BA: strong language intentional and justified in this instance.
And Cressida Dick came out of it smelling of roses!
How the Hell that happened is beyond me!
-
The large problem with this is the little word "Alledged".
Nope. No problem there at all. It has been alleged but not shown to be true.
-
Nope. No problem there at all. It has been alleged but not shown to be true.
My point exactly - it seems, from some posts here, to have been accepted as fact despite it being trumpeted by those who killed innocents indiscriminately but didn't like the possibility of getting killed themselves.
-
The problem as always with any policy is that often what isn't in it is as important as what is. Arguably knowing, or sincerely believing anyone to be a terrorist means that if they do anything at that is not immediately giving themselves up and even then if they make any such moves they might be suspected of be being a danger to others.
The tragic case of de Menezes illustrates that if you think someone is a terrorist then any action you don't think is giving themselves up can lead to killing. The case was an utter tragedy for his family and indeed the officers involved. There is no easy line but we have to be careful that we do not make such mistakes too easy by simply saying 'these things happen'
The Gibraltar shootings are messier in terms of the claims about the events. Again though part of the question was whether official policy was somehow subverted. I have no sympathy for those shot that day, but I am sure it was still tragic for many members of their family. That I have no sympathy for them dies not effect my belief that we need to follow due process in.all such things.
-
My point exactly - it seems, from some posts here, to have been accepted as fact despite it being trumpeted by those who killed innocents indiscriminately but didn't like the possibility of getting killed themselves.
I haven't seen any posts where a shoot to kill policy in this sense has been taken as fact. Can you point me to them?
-
Obama is under massive pressure to go to war. IS know this, so they are now baiting the West, as they would love a Western invasion. Thankfully, Obama is also sane, but there are plenty of voices urging invasion, and if IS mount another atrocity, he may have to give in.
I thought you meant the UK.
Cameron is just being an idiot, when he says that killing Jihadi John struck a blow at the heart of IS. Wow, and this guy is making the decisions? Help.
Wasn't he at the forefront of a lot of Islamic State's propaganda?
Hopefully, in the background the intelligence people are actually thinking about the Sunni revivalism going on - how do you deal with it? If it isn't dealt with, IS will flourish. The Sunni arc stretches from Iraq through Syria, into Turkey, and of course, the Saudis. Where else do IS get money and supplies?
Don't know, I think we should get out and stay out.
-
I haven't seen any posts where a shoot to kill policy in this sense has been taken as fact. Can you point me to them?
http://www.lbc.co.uk/met-police-chief-dismisses-corbyns-shoot-to-kill-issue-119914
There is no shoot to kill but reasonable force, possibly the wrong question fielded by the BBC.
-
http://www.lbc.co.uk/met-police-chief-dismisses-corbyns-shoot-to-kill-issue-119914
There is no shoot to kill but reasonable force, possibly the wrong question fielded by the BBC.
Sorry, how is this relevant to Owlswing'sclaim that there are posters on here trumpeting that there was a shoot to kill policy in NI that was about shooting believed terrorists even if they were not thought to be a danger?
-
But in the real world, eventually there will be negotations between the Sunni factions and the Shia. At the moment, IS represent the extreme end of the Sunni revivalism which has been going on, partly in defence against the rise of Shia power (in Iraq), and partly to defeat Assad, and partly to neutralize Iran.
Maybe it's too early for negotiations, but I think calling for them is pretty real, as it was in N. Ireland. And it is very likely that they are going on in the background, not with IS, but with their backers. For example, in Iraq some Sunni tribes have been working with IS, so one task is to peel them away, and it can be done.
Obama knows that the drift to war is remorseless, and he is holding the line at the moment, under severe pressure. But war is a drug. IS want war, some Republicans in the US also, and various right-wing people. So we need sane voices.
The Sunni and Shia are so far apart they make the Catholics and Protestants in NI look like best buddies. Horrid prospect as it is, the Daesh (I use that because, apparently, they hate it. ) must be destroyed. The longer they exist, the more powerful they become, and then they are less and less likely to talk; rather they will feel they can use force to gain their objectives, In the mean-time, they are continuing to behead, crucify, steal, kill and rape. We ought to learn the lesson of history: we thought we could talk to Hitler, and he just took it as weakness. Had we been prepared and acted earlier, unknown numbers of lives cuild have been saved.
-
Meet violence with violence? Not sure Jesus would have approved ;)
While I can see why you would say what you do BA like the taliban I suspect IS isn't going anywhere no matter what we do in the west and these people they tend to hide in plain sight amongst civilians and when you start bombing them.. more recruits to the cause.. :-\
I don't have any answers though.. doing nothing isn't really an option but we have to be a smarter than bombing the crap out of them indiscriminately...
-
Meet violence with violence? Not sure Jesus would have approved ;)
While I can see why you would say what you do BA like the taliban I suspect IS isn't going anywhere no matter what we do in the west and these people they tend to hide in plain sight amongst civilians and when you start bombing them.. more recruits to the cause.. :-\
I don't have any answers though.. doing nothing isn't really an option but we have to be a smarter than bombing the crap out of them indiscriminately...
He wouldn't approved of Daesh, as He wouldn't have approved of Hitler. But what is the alternative? To allow them to carry on killing indiscriminately? Or to destroy them; and the only way, unfortunately, will be by boots on the ground. Unless something dramatic happens to alter the situation.
-
Yeah because the boots on the ground worked so well last time.
-
Sorry BA but boots on the ground just drives them underground (or into the hills in the case of the taliban)..
It may curb them initially but it won't stop there terrorist activities which will increase 10 fold i'm sure.
-
I suggest boots on the ground, as I can't think of another solution. Maybe it would work, maybe not. Perhaps somebody can think of something better?
-
So you want to send young people to kill and be killed because you are out of solutions. And you really think Jesus would be behind that.
Both wigginhall (in line with much of what Cornyn has said) and Jamaican have indicated different alternatives in this thread, but no you want boots on the ground, a phrase which hides in the reality of real people killing and being killed in a lazy metonymy.
We had boots, people, on the ground in Iraq and it has contributed to the problem we now face. We had people on the ground in Afghanistan and still we have the shocking aspects of a nine year girl being beheaded.
It needs a bigger picture and we could start by not indulging the obscenity that is Saudi Arabia.
-
Actually, if Corbyn had been leader, there would have been no invasion of Iraq. He has the sense to see the repetition going on now - let's invade Syria. And then what? For me, he is the voice of sanity.
It's not his ideas that are wrong in anyway it is the conclusions he comes to which are off their trolley.
-
Jeremy Corbyn comments - yes, all too 'off the trolley'
'Tonight, I will be going to the England vs France match at Wembley stadium. It is important we show solidarity with all those affected by the tragic events that took place in Paris on Friday.
It is right that we are reflecting on the appalling attacks in Paris and how we agree an effective international response. That needs to focus on negotiating a comprehensive settlement of the Syrian civil war through the United Nations, which is the only way to end the threat from ISIS.
That is the serious challenge facing us all. I am therefore disappointed that comments I made yesterday in regard to a "shoot to kill" policy have been taken out of context and have distracted from this discussion.
Nonetheless, I would like to clarify my position. As we have seen in the recent past, there are clear dangers to us all in any kind of shoot to kill policy. And we must ensure that terrorist attacks are not used to undermine the very freedoms and legal protections we are determined to defend.
But of course I support the use of whatever proportionate and strictly necessary force is required to save life in response to attacks of the kind we saw in Paris.'
-
Jeremy Corbyn comments - yes, all too 'off the trolley'
'Tonight, I will be going to the England vs France match at Wembley stadium. It is important we show solidarity with all those affected by the tragic events that took place in Paris on Friday.
It is right that we are reflecting on the appalling attacks in Paris and how we agree an effective international response. That needs to focus on negotiating a comprehensive settlement of the Syrian civil war through the United Nations, which is the only way to end the threat from ISIS.
That is the serious challenge facing us all. I am therefore disappointed that comments I made yesterday in regard to a "shoot to kill" policy have been taken out of context and have distracted from this discussion.
Nonetheless, I would like to clarify my position. As we have seen in the recent past, there are clear dangers to us all in any kind of shoot to kill policy. And we must ensure that terrorist attacks are not used to undermine the very freedoms and legal protections we are determined to defend.
But of course I support the use of whatever proportionate and strictly necessary force is required to save life in response to attacks of the kind we saw in Paris.'
Mr Corbyn fell victim to Kuntsberger syndrome i.e. Fusing shite news coverage of a situation outside Britain in the context of the BBC heavy handedly questioning people other than malleable british interviewees who fall in with the BBC drill.....with added anti labour bias.
-
Obama is under massive pressure to go to war. IS know this, so they are now baiting the West, as they would love a Western invasion. Thankfully, Obama is also sane, but there are plenty of voices urging invasion, and if IS mount another atrocity, he may have to give in.
Cameron is just being an idiot, when he says that killing Jihadi John struck a blow at the heart of IS. Wow, and this guy is making the decisions? Help.
Hopefully, in the background the intelligence people are actually thinking about the Sunni revivalism going on - how do you deal with it? If it isn't dealt with, IS will flourish. The Sunni arc stretches from Iraq through Syria, into Turkey, and of course, the Saudis. Where else do IS get money and supplies?
ISIS have lost quite a bit of territory, I gather, and Paris may have been a desperate move to keep up the offensive. But they are sure not short of cash. So baiting the allies into Syria won't actually help them as it seems they don't have enough manpower to fight back. What they do have is guerrilla tactic which is hard to defend against and I reckon they are going hit random targets from now on, especially in Europe as the situation there is getting to chaotic proportions with the migrants and this would have Brussels running round in circles.
Cameron, yes, wanker!!!
The problem seems to be that both the Sunni and the Shia are gathering a pace, and where and how the US and Russia line themselves up in this growing conflict.
-
Would post the link but struggling to pick it up for some reason - try googling ISIS is weak and watching the Australian anchor cover the issues.
-
But in the real world, eventually there will be negotations between the Sunni factions and the Shia. At the moment, IS represent the extreme end of the Sunni revivalism which has been going on, partly in defence against the rise of Shia power (in Iraq), and partly to defeat Assad, and partly to neutralize Iran.
Maybe it's too early for negotiations, but I think calling for them is pretty real, as it was in N. Ireland. And it is very likely that they are going on in the background, not with IS, but with their backers. For example, in Iraq some Sunni tribes have been working with IS, so one task is to peel them away, and it can be done.
Obama knows that the drift to war is remorseless, and he is holding the line at the moment, under severe pressure. But war is a drug. IS want war, some Republicans in the US also, and various right-wing people. So we need sane voices.
NI was political the ME is a religious war and will go on for years. Negotiations will achieve nothing in the short to medium term because it is not an agreement in the intellectual sense but one of hearts and minds, and of emotions, and words have no sway against such odds.
-
NI was political and religious, the ME is the same.
-
Jeremy Corbyn has accused the chief of the defence staff of political bias when he stated that the stated policy of Mr Corbyn, that he would refuse to authorise the use of nuclear weapons if he were Prime Minister, would seriously undermine Britain's defenses by removing the nuclear deterrant.
What experience of military matters does Mr Corbyn have that he can criticise a comment made by someone who has spent thier entire working life in the military on a military view of a statement by a politician who has never been employed in anything but political groups of one sort or another?
As Chief of the Defence Staff General Houghton was, in making his comment, doing the job he is paid to do.
Surely Mr Corbyn's complaints and demands for disciplinary action against the general, are political interference in military matters which he cearly has no understanding of beyond political philosophy.
Does Jeremy Corbyn believe that our allies and our defence system is capable sustaining a strong defence against our enemies without the use of nuclear weapons? We both know that the Queen has the last say when going to war and has to sign the papers.
There is no one more eager to do a job than those trained to do it. But the knowing when is the all important question.
What is our current position defence wise. Anyone know....
-
Sorry, how is this relevant to Owlswing'sclaim that there are posters on here trumpeting that there was a shoot to kill policy in NI that was about shooting believed terrorists even if they were not thought to be a danger?
Its relevant to Corbyn being asked about a 'shoot to kill policy'.
-
We both know that the Queen has the last say when going to war and has to sign the papers.
The Queen does what she is told.
-
Its relevant to Corbyn being asked about a 'shoot to kill policy'.
NS and Jaks
My original answer to NS post did not post - don't know exactly why but would suggect terminal techological incompetance in the poster!
My comment about "posters" trumpeting the innocence of those killed on Bloody Sunday due to the "shoot-to-kill" policy was made referringto poster who ius no longerposting, who was vehemently anti-British (on the subject of NI and the IRA) and refused to believe that any shots were fired at the British soldiers involved - this provacation has since been confirmed as the reason the British opened fire by a member of the IRA.
As the poster is no longer here to answer the comment I withdraw it unconditionally.
-
The problem as always with any policy is that often what isn't in it is as important as what is. Arguably knowing, or sincerely believing anyone to be a terrorist means that if they do anything at that is not immediately giving themselves up and even then if they make any such moves they might be suspected of be being a danger to others.
The tragic case of de Menezes illustrates that if you think someone is a terrorist then any action you don't think is giving themselves up can lead to killing. The case was an utter tragedy for his family and indeed the officers involved. There is no easy line but we have to be careful that we do not make such mistakes too easy by simply saying 'these things happen'
The Gibraltar shootings are messier in terms of the claims about the events. Again though part of the question was whether official policy was somehow subverted. I have no sympathy for those shot that day, but I am sure it was still tragic for many members of their family. That I have no sympathy for them dies not effect my belief that we need to follow due process in.all such things.
You try following due process when under extreme pressure. One of the problems here is the quality of the intelligence for the man/women on the frontline, and that depends on resources besides other things.
The other thing here is if someone is trained to use a gun they tend to follow that mandate like an unthinking well trained dog. Their judgement is in a particular mode and that is hard for someone to override and not automatically carry out. It becomes their normal.
-
The Sunni and Shia are so far apart they make the Catholics and Protestants in NI look like best buddies. Horrid prospect as it is, the Daesh (I use that because, apparently, they hate it. ) must be destroyed. The longer they exist, the more powerful they become, and then they are less and less likely to talk; rather they will feel they can use force to gain their objectives, In the mean-time, they are continuing to behead, crucify, steal, kill and rape. We ought to learn the lesson of history: we thought we could talk to Hitler, and he just took it as weakness. Had we been prepared and acted earlier, unknown numbers of lives cuild have been saved.
Getting rid of ISIS won't change anything. It is the narrative and the feeling that people have been treated terribly by the West, in supporting dictators etc. in the ME, that allows these groups to grow up and flourish. ISIS came from al Qaeda and if ISIS dies then another group will spring up, especially if they are getting support from rich people in the Gulf States and the like.
-
Jeremy Corbyn comments - yes, all too 'off the trolley'
'Tonight, I will be going to the England vs France match at Wembley stadium. It is important we show solidarity with all those affected by the tragic events that took place in Paris on Friday.
It is right that we are reflecting on the appalling attacks in Paris and how we agree an effective international response. That needs to focus on negotiating a comprehensive settlement of the Syrian civil war through the United Nations, which is the only way to end the threat from ISIS.
That is the serious challenge facing us all. I am therefore disappointed that comments I made yesterday in regard to a "shoot to kill" policy have been taken out of context and have distracted from this discussion.
Nonetheless, I would like to clarify my position. As we have seen in the recent past, there are clear dangers to us all in any kind of shoot to kill policy. And we must ensure that terrorist attacks are not used to undermine the very freedoms and legal protections we are determined to defend.
But of course I support the use of whatever proportionate and strictly necessary force is required to save life in response to attacks of the kind we saw in Paris.'
And what does that mean in practical terms? Words are cheap!!!
-
What else is he supposed to do?
-
NI was political and religious, the ME is the same.
Not by the same degree. NI was more political than religious because of the history behind it. ME is more religious than political because of the history and roots of it.
-
What else is he supposed to do?
These vague and meaningless words and rhetoric provide nothing. He could firstly state that these issues are near impossible to deal with and are fraught with endless grey areas.
And, how negotiations through the UN is going to change anything beats me. The people that need to be 'dealt with' won't give a toss about these proceedings, just as the Taliban won't give a toss about the democratic process in Afghanistan. They will play ball whilst they are in a weak position and need it but once up to strength will bring back what was there before. Just as Corbyn is playing ball with the parliamentary Labour party until he can get his guys into positions of power.
-
These vague and meaningless words and rhetoric provide nothing. He could firstly state that these issues are near impossible to deal with
Perhaps he doesn't believe that.
and are fraught with endless grey areas.
Pretty sure he knows that already. Corbyn seems to be a man who can deal with subtlety and nuance; pity that the media can't.
And, how negotiations through the UN is going to change anything beats me. The people that need to be 'dealt with' won't give a toss about these proceedings, just as the Taliban won't give a toss about the democratic process in Afghanistan. They will play ball whilst they are in a weak position and need it but once up to strength will bring back what was there before. Just as Corbyn is playing ball with the parliamentary Labour party until he can get his guys into positions of power.
Good :)
-
Another point about intervention in Syria, is that many of the terrorists are homegrown. I would guess that they have fused Islamist apocalyptic, a N. African hatred of the French state, and the general anger bred in the banlieues, out of poverty and racism. I would think that invading Syria might make this worse, but then nobody knows, do they?
-
Perhaps he doesn't believe that. Pretty sure he knows that already. Corbyn seems to be a man who can deal with subtlety and nuance; pity that the media can't.
The system has messed up, my parts are in your post but not here?
If he doesn't believe that then he isn't as clever and precise as some here think he is, as in being able to deal with the subtleties and nuances.
-
Throwing up your hands in the air and simply saying that these issues are "nearly impossible" to deal with sounds like sheer defeatism of the kind usually found amongst those who prefer to do other things with their hands, such as sit on them.
-
Another point about intervention in Syria, is that many of the terrorists are homegrown. I would guess that they have fused Islamist apocalyptic, a N. African hatred of the French state, and the general anger bred in the banlieues, out of poverty and racism. I would think that invading Syria might make this worse, but then nobody knows, do they?
I think we all already know that whatever we do to ISIL in Syria/Iraq will not solve anything. The ideology will just spring up everywhere else. Anyone who has looked at it has already stated that the battle is only around 25% military and 75% propaganda. It is the propaganda war that we are losing badly. Though now, following the terror attacks in Paris, looks like we are going to fall into our usual crap response:
Silences, marches, loads of fine words and brave speeches
Reassure everyone they will be safe as long as they give up more of their rights
Treat the conflict as if it were WWII and bomb the place to bits
Declare that we have won and come home leaving Noddy in charge
Watch multiple offshoot groups spring up and cause more chaos
... repeat
-
The system has messed up, my parts are in your post but not here?
Nope, new system which only has what you are replying to in order to avoid the long mosaics
-
I think we all already know that whatever we do to ISIL in Syria/Iraq will not solve anything. The ideology will just spring up everywhere else. Anyone who has looked at it has already stated that the battle is only around 25% military and 75% propaganda. It is the propaganda war that we are losing badly. Though now, following the terror attacks in Paris, looks like we are going to fall into our usual crap response:
Silences, marches, loads of fine words and brave speeches
Reassure everyone they will be safe as long as they give up more of their rights
Treat the conflict as if it were WWII and bomb the place to bits
Declare that we have won and come home leaving Noddy in charge
Watch multiple offshoot groups spring up and cause more chaos
... repeat
This is a war, but it's not a war for territory or access to resources, it's a war for adherents to ideologies. Shooting or bombing people doesn't change their ideology to ours, it makes no gains, it at best is just wasteful of lives and at worst it actively encourages people to adopt the opposition's mentality.
We need to be convincing, not shooting: no-one accepts a message that's delivered at gun-point, they might or might follow orders and instructions.
We need to be educating, nurturing, building and developing. We have a culture that's worthy, that they oppose from a combination of ignorance and fear, and those are both combatted by exposure.
We need to export our culture, export better ways of life than primitive tribalism and a 'might-makes-right' barbarism so that there is no suppressed, depressed, repressed pool of recruits waiting for something to enthuse them that glorious combat will bring rewards in the next life at the expense of our freedoms and wellbeing in this one.
O.
-
I think we all already know that whatever we do to ISIL in Syria/Iraq will not solve anything. The ideology will just spring up everywhere else. Anyone who has looked at it has already stated that the battle is only around 25% military and 75% propaganda. It is the propaganda war that we are losing badly. Though now, following the terror attacks in Paris, looks like we are going to fall into our usual crap response:
Silences, marches, loads of fine words and brave speeches
Reassure everyone they will be safe as long as they give up more of their rights
Treat the conflict as if it were WWII and bomb the place to bits
Declare that we have won and come home leaving Noddy in charge
Watch multiple offshoot groups spring up and cause more chaos
... repeat
Sounds accurate. One of the aims of war is the peace settlement which follows, but with Iraq, the West seemed to stumble along, kind of hoping that everything would work out.
But I assume that Obama has wised up, and knows that invading Syria would work militarily, but then what? What would be the political settlement? I don't know if anybody knows, except hoping that militants and insurgencies would somehow melt away - rather unlikely. I suppose that you could kill and imprison a lot of them - results in more insurgency.
Of course, you can talk to the Sunni tribes, find out about their dissatisfaction, and try to find a middle ground. It can be done, and was done in Iraq to an extent, when some tribes fought against Al Quaeda.
The homegrown nature of the terrorists presents other problems - the French state can't really bomb a suburb of Paris.
-
...
We need to be educating, nurturing, building and developing. We have a culture that's worthy, that they oppose from a combination of ignorance and fear, and those are both combatted by exposure.
We need to export our culture, export better ways of life than primitive tribalism and a 'might-makes-right' barbarism so that there is no suppressed, depressed, repressed pool of recruits waiting for something to enthuse them that glorious combat will bring rewards in the next life at the expense of our freedoms and wellbeing in this one.
O.
We must recognize that many of those supporting ISIS/ISIL and/or planning terror in their home countries have actually been born and brought up in "our"culture. Many of the Jihadists in Pakistan, Iran, Yemen and so on are actually fighting against our culture, which they see as an imposition, even though they often take advantage of it.
They understand what a secular liberal culture is but see it as degenerate.
-
Sounds accurate. One of the aims of war is the peace settlement which follows, but with Iraq, the West seemed to stumble along, kind of hoping that everything would work out.
But I assume that Obama has wised up, and knows that invading Syria would work militarily, but then what? What would be the political settlement? I don't know if anybody knows, except hoping that militants and insurgencies would somehow melt away - rather unlikely. I suppose that you could kill and imprison a lot of them - results in more insurgency.
...
Yes, no one has a vision of what a settlement would look like. Can't imagine that an allied France and Russia would achieve anything stable either.
-
Yes, no one has a vision of what a settlement would look like. Can't imagine that an allied France and Russia would achieve anything stable either.
There is another big problem. IS want an invasion of Syria (and Iraq), and they probably know how to get one.
-
We must recognize that many of those supporting ISIS/ISIL and/or planning terror in their home countries have actually been born and brought up in "our"culture. Many of the Jihadists in Pakistan, Iran, Yemen and so on are actually fighting against our culture, which they see as an imposition, even though they often take advantage of it.
They understand what a secular liberal culture is but see it as degenerate.
I was reading interviews with some youth in Saint Denis (rather run down area of Paris), and they seemed indifferent to the Paris atrocity, and said, 'that happens every day in Syria, and nobody cares'. I suppose this shows a strong disengagment from the French state, I don't know how the hell you remedy that.
-
Getting rid of ISIS won't change anything. It is the narrative and the feeling that people have been treated terribly by the West, in supporting dictators etc. in the ME, that allows these groups to grow up and flourish. ISIS came from al Qaeda and if ISIS dies then another group will spring up, especially if they are getting support from rich people in the Gulf States and the like.
[/b]
Yes, it's about time we addressed the perfidious role the Gulf States play in all this.
-
[/b]
Yes, it's about time we addressed the perfidious role the Gulf States play in all this.
That would be one's we sell arms to and support their getting to chair Human Rights Committees at the UN, I take it?
I am not a fan of it's all the West's fault, but we have been complicit and supportive in a lot of this.
-
That would be one's we sell arms to and support their getting to chair Human Rights Committees at the UN, I take it?
I am not a fan of it's all the West's fault, but we have been complicit and supportive in a lot of this.
Exactly; this has been ignored for long enough.
-
Throwing up your hands in the air and simply saying that these issues are "nearly impossible" to deal with sounds like sheer defeatism of the kind usually found amongst those who prefer to do other things with their hands, such as sit on them.
So what do you suggest?
If something is nearly impossible, and that being the truth of the matter, then saying it's not and that one is being defeatist is as delusional as a theist. One has to face the facts of the situation else one ends up in all manner of dung, like the Iraqi war and so on. This belief that we can do anything is usually the preserve of the Left, and the gung-ho Right.
The fact of the matter with Syria is that it is so convoluted that it is beyond the wit of man to deal with directly.
-
So what do you suggest?
If something is nearly impossible, and that being the truth of the matter, then saying it's not and that one is being defeatist is as delusional as a theist. One has to face the facts of the situation else one ends up in all manner of dung, like the Iraqi war and so on. This belief that we can do anything is usually the preserve of the Left, and the gung-ho Right.
The fact of the matter with Syria is that it is so convoluted that it is beyond the wit of man to deal with directly.
Difficult as this is, no political situation is beyond the wit of man to resolve.
-
I think we all already know that whatever we do to ISIL in Syria/Iraq will not solve anything. The ideology will just spring up everywhere else. Anyone who has looked at it has already stated that the battle is only around 25% military and 75% propaganda. It is the propaganda war that we are losing badly. Though now, following the terror attacks in Paris, looks like we are going to fall into our usual crap response:
Silences, marches, loads of fine words and brave speeches
Reassure everyone they will be safe as long as they give up more of their rights
Treat the conflict as if it were WWII and bomb the place to bits
Declare that we have won and come home leaving Noddy in charge
Watch multiple offshoot groups spring up and cause more chaos
... repeat
That reminds of Blackadder goes Forth when he tells his boss what the secret plan is that no one is suppose to know.......yes, you're right, more bull squirt rhetoric is on its way......they never learn.
-
This is a war, but it's not a war for territory or access to resources, it's a war for adherents to ideologies. Shooting or bombing people doesn't change their ideology to ours, it makes no gains, it at best is just wasteful of lives and at worst it actively encourages people to adopt the opposition's mentality.
We need to be convincing, not shooting: no-one accepts a message that's delivered at gun-point, they might or might follow orders and instructions.
We need to be educating, nurturing, building and developing. We have a culture that's worthy, that they oppose from a combination of ignorance and fear, and those are both combatted by exposure.
We need to export our culture, export better ways of life than primitive tribalism and a 'might-makes-right' barbarism so that there is no suppressed, depressed, repressed pool of recruits waiting for something to enthuse them that glorious combat will bring rewards in the next life at the expense of our freedoms and wellbeing in this one.
O.
Our culture? What right have we to impose our ways on them? This is one of the things they hate is our two faced culture!!!
-
Yes, no one has a vision of what a settlement would look like. Can't imagine that an allied France and Russia would achieve anything stable either.
What about splitting Syria up. Assad seems to be only interested in the western sector of Syria so the democratic others can have the other half?
-
Difficult as this is, no political situation is beyond the wit of man to resolve.
Well, yes there are, and this is more than politics. Often things resolve themselves not because of the great planning of man but just the way they sometimes fizzle out over the generations after much pain and grief.
-
Well, yes there are, and this is more than politics. Often things resolve themselves not because of the great planning of man but just the way they sometimes fizzle out over the generations after much pain and grief.
I think these differences between Sunni and Shia are pretty deep-rooted, going back I think to the days of Muhammad; but the presence of the maniac Daesh makes the situation incredibly complex.
-
Well, yes there are, and this is more than politics. Often things resolve themselves not because of the great planning of man but just the way they sometimes fizzle out over the generations after much pain and grief.
I agree that it isn't necessarily achieved by huge plans but that doesn't mean that small changes cannot be made and achieved.
-
I think these differences between Sunni and Shia are pretty deep-rooted, going back I think to the days of Muhammad; but the presence of the maniac Daesh makes the situation incredibly complex.
So you are agreeing with me.....?
-
So you are agreeing with me.....?
Up to a point, yes. The situation in Syria was not urgent until the so-called Arab Spring. Things seem to have settled down as you suggested they do; but the civil war that developed, and the advent of Daesh, has brought it all back to the surface.
-
Up to a point, yes. The situation in Syria was not urgent until the so-called Arab Spring. Things seem to have settled down as you suggested they do; but the civil war that developed, and the advent of Daesh, has brought it all back to the surface.
See, this is why not including the other back posts, or at least a couple few back, results in people replying to things one didn't say.
Highlighted bit: I think someone else implied this not me.
-
See, this is why not including the other back posts, or at least a couple few back, results in people replying to things one didn't say.
Highlighted bit: I think someone else implied this not me.
Actually, I was referring to when you said "sometimes things fizzle out," which I agreed with, until the Arab Spring erupted and brought all the old enmities back to the surface.
-
I agree that it isn't necessarily achieved by huge plans but that doesn't mean that small changes cannot be made and achieved.
It is a fact that one day this will all blow over and become part of history but having a solution that takes 10, 20 years can't be considered as a solution. That is my point. The solution, that can be named as such, that is required is one that can be achieved in say a year or two or even less. Anything less than this isn't acceptable as a bona fide resolution of the situation for the desperate Syrian people, the self serving trade deals of the West that have impoverished these MENA countries and the way the West has supported dictators in these regions, and the mayhem that is swarming the European shores. This is why I say that there is no real solution.
A 10,20 plus year solution will only leave the residue of the bitterness that is in these countries towards the West to fester further and as we have seen in Europe's history deep wounds take many generations to subside to mere rhetorical gesturing.
-
Actually, I was referring to when you said "sometimes things fizzle out," which I agreed with, until the Arab Spring erupted and brought all the old enmities back to the surface.
I was referring to the future when all this becomes part of history.
-
I suggest boots on the ground, as I can't think of another solution. Maybe it would work, maybe not. Perhaps somebody can think of something better?
Boots on the ground is not a solution, it's an escalation.
Not doing anything at all would be better than meeting violence with violence.
You may think killing a few ISIS members evens up the score but, if you do, you have got the sides wrong. It wouldn't be Isis 1, The West 1, but violence 2, reason 0.
-
Our culture? What right have we to impose our ways on them? This is one of the things they hate is our two faced culture!!!
What right? The fact that our's is better - people are happier, they are more free, they live longer, healthier lives, the basic standard of living is significantly better by cultural design.
There's a reason the ISIS/fundamentalist Islamic culture is viewed as barbaric - because it's barbaric.
Western culture has a long tradition of absorbing and recycling aesthetic elements from different cultures, the history of these places wouldn't be eradicated, necessarily, unless everyone decided that they no longer cared.
O.
-
What about splitting Syria up. Assad seems to be only interested in the western sector of Syria so the democratic others can have the other half?
And who do you condemn, in that process, to live under Assad? Have you not seen what partitioning post-war Palestine has resulted in? Or, to a lesser extent, colonial-era India?
O.
-
It is a fact that one day this will all blow over and become part of history but having a solution that takes 10, 20 years can't be considered as a solution. That is my point. The solution, that can be named as such, that is required is one that can be achieved in say a year or two or even less.
You aren't going to be able to resolve those sorts of issues in that sort of time-frame - that's just not realistic. Look at the Northern Ireland situation - relatively peaceful since the late 1990's, but still simmering resentments and long-festering mistrust mean that it's a fragile arrangement. Children growing up now, though, who've only known that broad peace, will foster a more stable future, and their children raised without the overt hostility will be a little more peaceful. This is how cultural change works, you can't 'enforce' it.
Anything less than this isn't acceptable as a bona fide resolution of the situation for the desperate Syrian people, the self serving trade deals of the West that have impoverished these MENA countries and the way the West has supported dictators in these regions, and the mayhem that is swarming the European shores. This is why I say that there is no real solution.
There are solutions, but they will always involve compromise and time. The first step has to involve isolating terrorists - whether state-operated like the Assad regime, or independent like ISIS - from their funding and support mechanisms to drive them to the negotiating table, and then build something rather than sending in bombs to destroy.
A 10,20 plus year solution will only leave the residue of the bitterness that is in these countries towards the West to fester further and as we have seen in Europe's history deep wounds take many generations to subside to mere rhetorical gesturing.
Whereas people who hate the West now aren't going to forget just because they've been under the threat of Western bombs for three years. How did that work in Afghanistan, or Iraq?
O.
-
This is a war, but it's not a war for territory or access to resources, it's a war for adherents to ideologies. Shooting or bombing people doesn't change their ideology to ours, it makes no gains, it at best is just wasteful of lives and at worst it actively encourages people to adopt the opposition's mentality.
We need to be convincing, not shooting: no-one accepts a message that's delivered at gun-point, they might or might follow orders and instructions.
We need to be educating, nurturing, building and developing. We have a culture that's worthy, that they oppose from a combination of ignorance and fear, and those are both combatted by exposure.
We need to export our culture, export better ways of life than primitive tribalism and a 'might-makes-right' barbarism so that there is no suppressed, depressed, repressed pool of recruits waiting for something to enthuse them that glorious combat will bring rewards in the next life at the expense of our freedoms and wellbeing in this one.
O.
I fear that the only way to defeat Islamic extremism in the West is for our atheistic society to convert back to Christianity.
-
I fear that the only way to defeat Islamic extremism in the West is for our atheistic society to convert back to Christianity.
This week Marty and the Doc use the DeLorean to go Back to the Crusades
-
I suggest this because at a service at the local war memorial on Remembrance Day, you had not just Christians but non-Christians, saying the Lord's Prayer, singing hymns etc, and one got the feeling of an unequalled strength in that.
-
I suggest this because at a service at the local war memorial on Remembrance Day, you had not just Christians but non-Christians, saying the Lord's Prayer, singing hymns etc, and one got the feeling of an unequalled strength in that.
You know what at mine, we even had Muslims!
-
I suggest this because at a service at the local war memorial on Remembrance Day, you had not just Christians but non-Christians, saying the Lord's Prayer, singing hymns etc, and one got the feeling of an unequalled strength in that.
That's done for the sake of form, for the collective ritual, not because the non-believers believe in any of it (otherwise they wouldn't be non-believers).
Aided and abetted by the fact that explicitly non-religious organisations/groups are actively prohibited from taking part in Remembrance Day, of course.
-
Muslim extremists will never respect atheists.
-
Muslim extremists will never respect atheists.
Yes. And? Do you think they respect Christians more?
-
And as posted previously, obviously Hitler and Germany was totally controlled by the Grand Mufti. There were, in fact, no Christians in Germany during either of the World Wars, the Germans all being some form of pagans or Muslims who liked incense. As for the Italians, well they're Catholics and are working with the Muslims to bring in the New World Order on behalf of the Illuminati.
(think I am past Irony, and even coppery here, at the very least think now zincy)
-
Muslim extremists will never respect atheists.
I was reading elsewhere a quote from a lovely Christian chappie saying that there was Team Jesus and team Satan, and that all of those who weren't Christian were on Team Satan. Are you the nice thug, offering protection, as opposed to his nasty thug?
-
Muslim extremists will never respect atheists.
They don't even respect other Muslims, please stop with your protection scheme posts.
-
I fear that the only way to defeat Islamic extremism in the West is for our atheistic society to convert back to Christianity.
How is it that you think reverting to an equally baseless superstition will 'defeat' their baseless superstition?
If you'd said converting them you might have had a slight point - not a snowflake in hell's chance, but a point.
Rather than lowering ourselves to their level, why not maintain our more civilised and cultured position and try to raise them up to it?
O.
-
I suggest this because at a service at the local war memorial on Remembrance Day, you had not just Christians but non-Christians, saying the Lord's Prayer, singing hymns etc, and one got the feeling of an unequalled strength in that.
Ah, song-warfare... Good grief.
Firstly, did anyone else get this sense of unparalleled strength or just you? Just other believers?
Second, what would you do with that 'unequalled strength'? We don't need any more strength, we could nuke the entire Arab world the required three feet necessary to take ISIS back to the Dark Ages their philosophy comes from. A lack of strength isn't our problem.
Thirdly, why would more Christians make a difference? Do you honestly think the bulk of the poorly educated adherents of Islamic Fundamentalism differentiate between the various non-Islamic faith positions? They don't even appreciate common ground with other adherents of Islam.
O.
-
And as posted previously, obviously Hitler and Germany was totally controlled by the Grand Mufti. There were, in fact, no Christians in Germany during either of the World Wars, the Germans all being some form of pagans or Muslims who liked incense. As for the Italians, well they're Catholics and are working with the Muslims to bring in the New World Order on behalf of the Illuminati.
(think I am past Irony, and even coppery here, at the very least think now zincy)
I think 'Berylliumy' (pronounced 'barmy')...
O.
-
Boots on the ground is not a solution, it's an escalation.
Not doing anything at all would be better than meeting violence with violence.
You may think killing a few ISIS members evens up the score but, if you do, you have got the sides wrong. It wouldn't be Isis 1, The West 1, but violence 2, reason 0.
We should learn from history. We thought Hitler would "go away" if we left him to it. That appeasement caused thousands more lives than might have been the case if we had acted sooner. Nobody wants violence (except Daesh), but how else are their deprivations to be halted? Leave them, and they will multiply. Talk to them? That is pure pie in the sky.
-
We should learn from history. We thought Hitler would "go away" if we left him to it. That appeasement caused thousands more lives than might have been the case if we had acted sooner. Nobody wants violence (except Daesh), but how else are their deprivations to be halted? Leave them, and they will multiply. Talk to them? That is pure pie in the sky.
and we thought invading Iraq would reduce terrorism. History is a teeny tiny tad more complex in its lessons.
-
and we thought invading Iraq would reduce terrorism. History is a teeny tiny tad more complex in its lessons.
Even Blair admitted that we had not thought through what would happen in Iraq once Saddam was gone. It is surely not beyond the wit of the combined brains of all the Western Powers to come up with something viable.
-
Even Blair admitted that we had not thought through what would happen in Iraq once Saddam was gone. It is surely not beyond the wit of the combined brains of all the Western Powers to come up with something viable.
Has admitted but not at the time? So tell me how you know that bombing, invasion works given the failure admitted? You were the one talking about learning from history but now you are saying that the actions you are proposing have been admitted to not working but that's ok because you will do something different. Good, what is it? Tell me how you will justify the deaths involved in what you propose?
-
Has admitted but not at the time? So tell me how you know that bombing, invasion works given the failure admitted? You were the one talking about learning from history but now you are saying that the actions you are proposing have been admitted to not working but that's ok because you will do something different. Good, what is it? Tell me how you will justify the deaths involved in what you propose?
I am not actually proposing anything; I said it ought not to be beyond the wit of the combined brains of the Western Powers to come up with something. I'm a real clever fella: but I'm not amongst the great brains of the West. Seriously, it is difficult to see how bloodshed can be avoided, and sure as heck, sitting doing nothing and hoping it will go away, won't achieve anything.
-
I am not actually proposing anything; I said it ought not to be beyond the wit of the combined brains of the Western Powers to come up with something. I'm a real clever fella: but I'm not amongst the great brains of the West. Seriously, it is difficult to see how bloodshed can be avoided, and sure as heck, sitting doing nothing and hoping it will go away, won't achieve anything.
you proposed boots on the ground
-
you proposed boots on the ground
I was suggesting that was probably the inevitable course: I did not say I thought it was something to be happy about.
-
We should learn from history. We thought Hitler would "go away" if we left him to it. That appeasement caused thousands more lives than might have been the case if we had acted sooner. Nobody wants violence (except Daesh), but how else are their deprivations to be halted? Leave them, and they will multiply. Talk to them? That is pure pie in the sky.
We should, indeed, learn from history: we sent troops into Iraq and Afghanistan, and look how that turned out.
One of the things we should learn from history is that different conflicts and different times have different goals. Hitler's Germany called for racial purity, but worked for European territory to secure itself from military intervention.
ISIS/Al Quaeda's call is for a world-wide Islamic state, but it is working to secure oil for financing, people as a human shield and ideological security by information isolation.
Their methodologies are dictated by their goals, which means the way to counter them is different as well.
O.
-
I am not actually proposing anything; I said it ought not to be beyond the wit of the combined brains of the Western Powers to come up with something. I'm a real clever fella: but I'm not amongst the great brains of the West. Seriously, it is difficult to see how bloodshed can be avoided, and sure as heck, sitting doing nothing and hoping it will go away, won't achieve anything.
It certainly seems to be beyond the "combined brains of the Western Powers", as they have been addled by an addiction to oil and weapons sales. Anyway, they've all been snookered by Putin acting for Assad.
-
They don't even respect other Muslims, please stop with your protection scheme posts.
Well apparently the people they have least respect for are young non-muslim people attending a heavy metal concert.
-
and we thought invading Iraq would reduce terrorism.
It did until we pulled out, leaving a weak Iraqi army in charge of a shed load of weapons, which ISIS pounced on. Isn't that the lesson we should be learning?
-
We should learn from history. We thought Hitler would "go away" if we left him to it.
It should be bleeding obvious to you that Hitler and ISIS represent very different challenges.
That appeasement caused thousands more lives than might have been the case if we had acted sooner. Nobody wants violence (except Daesh), but how else are their deprivations to be halted? Leave them, and they will multiply. Talk to them? That is pure pie in the sky.
Actually, we have been doing violence against them for years now. It's pretty obviously not working.
-
For as long as I can remember, the West has thought of 'solutions' to the Arab and Middle East world. And the solutions have often become disasters - for example, Suez, or the overthrow of the Iranian govt (1953), replaced by the Shah.
It's some kind of addiction, although I suppose it stems from colonial times.
Thus, we had a solution to Iraq, but the solution turned out to be a disaster. Now, we are looking for solutions to Syria, and jihadists are licking their lips.
-
I think there is a solution. If we want to trade with the middle east, we need to have permanent military bases out there.
-
I think there is a solution. If we want to trade with the middle east, we need to have permanent military bases out there.
Unfortunately we need their oil more than they need our military bases...
O.
-
Unfortunately we need their oil more than they need our military bases...
O.
We do pay them for their oil, though? Do they not need money- you know, to buy stuff ?
-
What right? The fact that our's is better - people are happier, they are more free, they live longer, healthier lives, the basic standard of living is significantly better by cultural design.
There's a reason the ISIS/fundamentalist Islamic culture is viewed as barbaric - because it's barbaric.
Western culture has a long tradition of absorbing and recycling aesthetic elements from different cultures, the history of these places wouldn't be eradicated, necessarily, unless everyone decided that they no longer cared.
O.
But people don't think like that about their lives and culture it is more of an emotional, intuitive response to things. And even so you have no right to impose what you think is right in cultural terms on others.
-
And who do you condemn, in that process, to live under Assad? Have you not seen what partitioning post-war Palestine has resulted in? Or, to a lesser extent, colonial-era India?
O.
Tricky....
What's your solution?
-
You aren't going to be able to resolve those sorts of issues in that sort of time-frame - that's just not realistic. Look at the Northern Ireland situation - relatively peaceful since the late 1990's, but still simmering resentments and long-festering mistrust mean that it's a fragile arrangement. Children growing up now, though, who've only known that broad peace, will foster a more stable future, and their children raised without the overt hostility will be a little more peaceful. This is how cultural change works, you can't 'enforce' it.
So you agree with me on another post we have engaged on?!!
These people have a different mindset. NI came to ahead because both sides saw neither could win. ISIS etc. blow themselves up for their cause. I can't see them coming to the point where they acknowledge their endeavours are futile any decade soon. And the longer the West mess things up with their arrogance the more this will fuel things and with guns and what not freely available throughout the MENA there is not a lot that is going to stop them.
There are solutions, but they will always involve compromise and time. The first step has to involve isolating terrorists - whether state-operated like the Assad regime, or independent like ISIS - from their funding and support mechanisms to drive them to the negotiating table, and then build something rather than sending in bombs to destroy.
Frustrate their funding? How? There are some very rich and powerful people behind that funding. And Assad has Russia behind him and/or this Syrian regime. Not easy to stop that.
Whereas people who hate the West now aren't going to forget just because they've been under the threat of Western bombs for three years. How did that work in Afghanistan, or Iraq?
Not too sure how that addresses my point or what you are actually saying. It vaguely seems to be agreeing with me?
-
It should be bleeding obvious to you that Hitler and ISIS represent very different challenges.
Actually, we have been doing violence against them for years now. It's pretty obviously not working.
There is one, patently obvious similarity in the challenges: they both want/wanted to kill us.
-
So you agree with me on another post we have engaged on?!!
Miracles happen! :)
These people have a different mindset. NI came to ahead because both sides saw neither could win. ISIS etc. blow themselves up for their cause. I can't see them coming to the point where they acknowledge their endeavours are futile any decade soon. And the longer the West mess things up with their arrogance the more this will fuel things and with guns and what not freely available throughout the MENA there is not a lot that is going to stop them.
We aren't going to convince the current leadership or incumbents to change; if they are capable of these atrocities they aren't amenable to discourse. What we can do is ensure that the people they are trying to recruit are making an informed choice, that they are aware of what the alternatives are. Even that's not going to stop their recruitment entirely, we see that by the fact some particularly dejected, devout or demented idiots travel from modern western countries to join, but it will limit the numbers.
Frustrate their funding? How? There are some very rich and powerful people behind that funding. And Assad has Russia behind him and/or this Syrian regime. Not easy to stop that.
Not easy, no, but we don't know if it's possible because if anyone's trying it they're not doing it overtly.
Not too sure how that addresses my point or what you are actually saying. It vaguely seems to be agreeing with me?
Basically it's saying that whilst there's tactical uses for the application of force in localised instances to repel assaults, disrupt activities and the like, as a strategy military intervention is not going to be successful.
O.
[/quote]
-
There is one, patently obvious similarity in the challenges: they both want/wanted to kill us.
Well that is where you are wrong (unless you are Jewish). Hitler did not want to kill the majority of people, he wanted to rule them.
Hitler was the leader of an aggressive expansionist nation state. ISIS is a terrorist organisation. You can't deal with them in the same way and it should be obvious to you that trying to do so is causing a huge mess.
-
We aren't going to convince the current leadership or incumbents to change; if they are capable of these atrocities they aren't amenable to discourse. What we can do is ensure that the people they are trying to recruit are making an informed choice, that they are aware of what the alternatives are. Even that's not going to stop their recruitment entirely, we see that by the fact some particularly dejected, devout or demented idiots travel from modern western countries to join, but it will limit the numbers.
There are always things that can be tried but whether they are sufficient to even start to make a difference is another thing. I have no faith in our leaders to even do this as they never both to truly understand what is actually going on with the people concerned - inside their heads. And what is the point of alternatives if they are out of reach for them and are just nice words. They are out of reach for many of us in the western world.
Basically it's saying that whilst there's tactical uses for the application of force in localised instances to repel assaults, disrupt activities and the like, as a strategy military intervention is not going to be successful.
Well, no, military action on its own won't do it, and as we can't or shouldn't put boots on the ground it has no hope in hell; and it is hell.
-
I am curious to see what arguments Cameron makes for bombing Syria - as many military experts argue that without ground troops it is useless. So does he have a ground war at the back of his mind? Or maybe bombing is a kind of symbolic act, which you have to be seen to be doing.
-
Well that is where you are wrong (unless you are Jewish). Hitler did not want to kill the majority of people, he wanted to rule them.
Hitler was the leader of an aggressive expansionist nation state. ISIS is a terrorist organisation. You can't deal with them in the same way and it should be obvious to you that trying to do so is causing a huge mess.
Hitler killed not only Jews, but gypsies, the sick, mentally and physically disabled, his political enemies; and Bolsheviks, by the million: read some history. He killed because he viewed Germans as the Master Race, and all others as inferior, and was quite prepared to annihilate them; and he did not merely wish to rule others, he specifically sought lebensraum for Germany. Interested to hear your response to that.
The current move is towards taking on Daesh militarily, not merely by bombing, but with an increasing leaning towards boots on the ground. Only this morning General Dannatt specifically advocated this, and he is better qualified to assess the situation than you, despite your huge knowledge in all subjects!! I'm not saying I think this anything but a frightening prospect: but it is the reality of the situation.
-
I don't think a ground war in Syria is 'the reality of the situation' at all. It would be a huge gamble, which could have terrible consequences, for example, large numbers of civilian deaths, the radicalization of people across the Middle East, the growth of extremist groups. It would be a gift for the recruiters of IS and Al Quaeda - the crusaders are here.
It also requires a plan, the thing that was lacking in Iraq. OK, Western troops could take IS-controlled towns easily, but what then? The jihadists would presumably melt away in classic guerrilla fashion. What do Western troops do then, pursue every rebel group in Syria? What would the cost be - in trillions?
-
I don't think a ground war in Syria is 'the reality of the situation' at all. It would be a huge gamble, which could have terrible consequences, for example, large numbers of civilian deaths, the radicalization of people across the Middle East, the growth of extremist groups. It would be a gift for the recruiters of IS and Al Quaeda - the crusaders are here.
It also requires a plan, the thing that was lacking in Iraq. OK, Western troops could take IS-controlled towns easily, but what then? The jihadists would presumably melt away in classic guerrilla fashion. What do Western troops do then, pursue every rebel group in Syria? What would the cost be - in trillions?
The reality is that bombing is not going to work; so whatever plan they eventually come up with, including what to do after defeating them, then it will almost certainly involve boots on the ground. What other way will they be defeated?
-
The reality is that bombing is not going to work; so whatever plan they eventually come up with, including what to do after defeating them, then it will almost certainly involve boots on the ground. What other way will they be defeated?
The same argument was used in Iraq - all we have to do is remove Saddam, sack some Ba'athists, and Iraq will settle down. Well, yes.
-
The same argument was used in Iraq - all we have to do is remove Saddam, sack some Ba'athists, and Iraq will settle down. Well, yes.
But then we had no plan for Iraq without Saddam; and even Blair admitted that! This time one would hope those in charge would have learned from that.
-
I agree with Corbyn on this (there is a sentence I never thought I'd say), bombing Syria will be used as a recruiting tool.
Where needed tighten up security. If any UK citizen wants to join Islamic State then I think we should exchange their passport for a plane ticket.
-
I agree with Corbyn on this (there is a sentence I never thought I'd say), bombing Syria will be used as a recruiting tool.
Where needed tighten up security. If any UK citizen wants to join Islamic State then I think we should exchange their passport for a plane ticket.
It's already too late for that. Hundreds have been there and are now back, and free to roam as they will: ticking time-bombs!
-
But then we had no plan for Iraq without Saddam; and even Blair admitted that! This time one would hope those in charge would have learned from that.
There are lots of possible plans. For example, you could link up with Russia, who favour an Assad-Iranian-Hezbollah axis, but then many anti-Assad rebel groups who are not IS, would have to be destroyed. The cost in lives would be massive, and really, you are now taking part in a civil war, which aims to control the Sunni tribes.
Another idea is for safe zones in parts of Syria, where Sunni tribes (as an example) would be free from IS infiltration. Again, it sounds a security nightmare, and the cost astronomic.
-
There are lots of possible plans. For example, you could link up with Russia, who favour an Assad-Iranian-Hezbollah axis, but then many anti-Assad rebel groups who are not IS, would have to be destroyed. The cost in lives would be massive, and really, you are now taking part in a civil war, which aims to control the Sunni tribes.
Another idea is for safe zones in parts of Syria, where Sunni tribes (as an example) would be free from IS infiltration. Again, it sounds a security nightmare, and the cost astronomic.
I agree with what you say; but none of these can work without destroying the military capabilities of Daesh. They are never going to agree to any plan proposed without being forced.
-
I agree with what you say; but none of these can work without destroying the military capabilities of Daesh. They are never going to agree to any plan proposed without being forced.
One big problem in Iraq is that IS are embedded within some Sunni tribes, who see them as protection against Shia militias and the Iraqui govt. In Syria it's more confused, but I think there is a partial link-up between Sunni areas and IS recruitment, partly as protection against Assad and Hezbollah (and Iran).
Of course, western intelligence know all this, and probably the politicians, but they are not going to broadcast it, as it makes any military intervention very risky. You risk being dragged into a civil war, against the Sunni tribes, and on the side of Hezbollah and Iran, not really an ideal solution. And of course, the Sunni are aligned with the Saudis, Qatar, and Turkey, so you are heading for a regional conflagration.
-
One big problem in Iraq is that IS are embedded within some Sunni tribes, who see them as protection against Shia militias and the Iraqui govt. In Syria it's more confused, but I think there is a partial link-up between Sunni areas and IS recruitment, partly as protection against Assad and Hezbollah (and Iran).
Of course, western intelligence know all this, and probably the politicians, but they are not going to broadcast it, as it makes any military intervention very risky. You risk being dragged into a civil war, against the Sunni tribes, and on the side of Hezbollah and Iran, not really an ideal solution. And of course, the Sunni are aligned with the Saudis, Qatar, and Turkey, so you are heading for a regional conflagration.
And yet, even as we speak, the horror beings of Daesh are beheading, crucifying, cutting off limbs, raping, planning more outrages, etc. Something has to be done to stop them.
-
Yet in the wars in Congo, 4 million have been killed, with rapes, atrocities, mutilations, famine. Why didn't we intervene there?
-
Yet in the wars in Congo, 4 million have been killed, with rapes, atrocities, mutilations, famine. Why didn't we intervene...
I have no idea, though it would certainly be a logistical nightmare. But in all honesty, they are not a threat to us: Daesh is. After all, we, the UK at any rate, cannot solve all the world's conflicts.
-
I have no idea, though it would certainly be a logistical nightmare. But in all honesty, they are not a threat to us: Daesh is. After all, we, the UK at any rate, cannot solve all the world's conflicts.
No, that's America's job.
-
No, that's America's job.
They're not dong a whole lot about Daesh, with all their power, are they?
-
They're not dong much about Daesh, are they?
No. They're probably aware of how difficult such action would be and how many ways there are to make the awful even worse.
-
No. They're probably aware of how difficult such action would be and how many ways there are to make the awful even worse.
It remains to be seen, however, as Obama has said today that they intend to destroy Daesh.
-
Promising start ::)
-
The key to defeating IS lies with the Sunni tribes who give them support, in both Iraq and Syria. Neutralizing this support is not impossible actually, as they fought against Al Qaeda previously.
But this means giving these tribes assurances that they will not be over-run by Shia militias (Iraq), or the Syrian army and Hezbollah (Syria). If you can do that, you can get a peace deal. Not easy, of course. But I'm sure that it is being worked on by various people.
-
I am curious to see what arguments Cameron makes for bombing Syria - as many military experts argue that without ground troops it is useless. So does he have a ground war at the back of his mind? Or maybe bombing is a kind of symbolic act, which you have to be seen to be doing.
He has the UN Resolution. Not sure what it actually stipulates but it is not a Chapter 7 which gives permission for full scale attack. The only troops on the ground are the Syrian, Iranian and Hezbollah lot....? Not too sure about the moderate rebels either...?
The other thing with all this is that these lot would need to be armed to the teeth to do the job and we all know what happens when you flood an unstable country with weapons.....Iraq, Libya etc.....
-
Well, over the week-end, the drive for war intensified. Some of the arguments being used seem weird to me. Osborne stated on TV that Britain should not stand aside - well, that's what Blair said, isn't it? Cameron was doing his Churchillian stuff, which makes him look daft, I think.
But it's probably unstoppable now, as the media are gung-ho, mainly. The problem is, after bombing Syria, what next? The drive for a ground war may become also unstoppable.
-
We could sit and do nothing, which would probably make the UK less of a target for terrorists. But supposing the US had done that. What about the Yazidis, some of whom they helped escape from IS? What about Baghdad? How many other defenseless people would be slaughtered by them?
-
Sure, we could sit and do nothing, which would probably make the UK less of a target for terrorists. But lets say the US had done that. What about the Yazidis whom they helped escape from IS? How many other defenseless people would be slaughtered by them?
Creating safe-zones by deploying military assets is strategically and tactically a massively different thing to commencing a military offensive - how will a military assault create a change of mindset in the fundamentalist population? How is that comparable to securing readily identifiable areas in order to keep people safe from attack?
One is a not a military task, the other is - trying to win an ideological war with bombs is worse than useless, it feeds into the recruitment rhetoric if the opposition.
O.
-
We could sit and do nothing, which would probably make the UK less of a target for terrorists. But supposing the US had done that. What about the Yazidis, some of whom they helped escape from IS? What about Baghdad? How many other defenseless people would be slaughtered by them?
Well, presumably you have some plan in mind about attacking IS in Syria, and presumably, Cameron does also. Do you think we should go into Syria and link up with Assad (and Hezbollah)? Or what about the other rebel groups - kill them, or help them? What about the Sunni tribes, who have been partly supporting IS - how do we relate to them? The political problems in Syria are massive, so I'm interested in the solutions you have in mind.
-
I don't think a ground war in Syria is 'the reality of the situation' at all. It would be a huge gamble, which could have terrible consequences, for example, large numbers of civilian deaths, the radicalization of people across the Middle East, the growth of extremist groups. It would be a gift for the recruiters of IS and Al Quaeda - the crusaders are here.
It also requires a plan, the thing that was lacking in Iraq. OK, Western troops could take IS-controlled towns easily, but what then? The jihadists would presumably melt away in classic guerrilla fashion. What do Western troops do then, pursue every rebel group in Syria? What would the cost be - in trillions?
As it has already been said this is mostly about ideas and ideology not how powerful one is militarily - which would ,as you say, just create more jihadist and so propagate the conflict even more. My personal take on the ideas thing is that it will take ages to deal with and the human crisis in all this can't wait that long, and will ultimately result in absolute chaos.
-
But then we had no plan for Iraq without Saddam; and even Blair admitted that! This time one would hope those in charge would have learned from that.
This is different to Iraq, it is a lot more complicated because there are other players in the mix who want certain things like Russia, and Iran and the Saudis have a finger in the pie as well. And who's side is Turkey really on?
-
This is different to Iraq, it is a lot more complicated because there are other players in the mix who want certain things like Russia, and Iran and the Saudis have a finger in the pie as well. And who's side is Turkey really on?
I quite agree.. But with half the world putting their minds to it, maybe, just maybe, they will come up with something.
As for Turkey: they hanker after joining the EU (silly people!); so they won't want to antagonise the West too much. Plus their need to keep on the right side of the US as well.
-
It's already too late for that. Hundreds have been there and are now back, and free to roam as they will: ticking time-bombs!
Yeah, I've heard about 450 have returned...
-
Yeah, I've heard about 450 have returned...
It's a frightening prospect, if any of them get themselves organised. It only takes two or three to cause mayhem.
-
One big problem in Iraq is that IS are embedded within some Sunni tribes, who see them as protection against Shia militias and the Iraqui govt. In Syria it's more confused, but I think there is a partial link-up between Sunni areas and IS recruitment, partly as protection against Assad and Hezbollah (and Iran).
Of course, western intelligence know all this, and probably the politicians, but they are not going to broadcast it, as it makes any military intervention very risky. You risk being dragged into a civil war, against the Sunni tribes, and on the side of Hezbollah and Iran, not really an ideal solution. And of course, the Sunni are aligned with the Saudis, Qatar, and Turkey, so you are heading for a regional conflagration.
And there's the nub of the problem : the ideas in this mess are essentially religious and not political for the region* and that mix is extremely volatile, as we have seen in Europe in the past.
* This is not so much so for those going to ISIS from the west who have their own grievances.
-
Yet in the wars in Congo, 4 million have been killed, with rapes, atrocities, mutilations, famine. Why didn't we intervene there?
No oil!!! No rich 'friends'.
-
I have no idea, though it would certainly be a logistical nightmare. But in all honesty, they are not a threat to us: Daesh is. After all, we, the UK at any rate, cannot solve all the world's conflicts.
Why is ISIS a threat to us? - I've never understood this.
-
Why is ISIS a threat to us? - I've never understood this.
I think they are a threat to any Western country, in terms of being able to produce a horror, like Paris, anywhere. Apparently, our excellent Security Service, has thwarted some seven plots so far this year.
-
It remains to be seen, however, as Obama has said today that they intend to destroy Daesh.
Reminds me of the stupidity of Bush and Blair.
-
Reminds me of the stupidity of Bush and Blair.
They made our bed for us, and now we have to lie on it.
-
The key to defeating IS lies with the Sunni tribes who give them support, in both Iraq and Syria. Neutralizing this support is not impossible actually, as they fought against Al Qaeda previously.
But this means giving these tribes assurances that they will not be over-run by Shia militias (Iraq), or the Syrian army and Hezbollah (Syria). If you can do that, you can get a peace deal. Not easy, of course. But I'm sure that it is being worked on by various people.
But they have had that very same deal once before and it didn't work out - once bitten twice shy. What about splitting Iraq up and giving them a portion of it?
-
Well, presumably you have some plan in mind about attacking IS in Syria, and presumably, Cameron does also. Do you think we should go into Syria and link up with Assad (and Hezbollah)? Or what about the other rebel groups - kill them, or help them? What about the Sunni tribes, who have been partly supporting IS - how do we relate to them? The political problems in Syria are massive, so I'm interested in the solutions you have in mind.
So far my thinking is that what we do about the Assad/Rebel problem rather depends on Russia. We should focus for now on Isis and decide whether we want the presence of a caliphate. If we don't mind one, we should create safe havens for the potential victims, and contain it (the caliphate). However, it seems there will never be agreement between sunnis and shias on how the caliph (leader) should be elected. So it would probably be better for them to have their own territories, eg Sunnis in Saudi Arabia, Shia in Iran, both living together where possible, and no caliphate. That means getting involved militarily to re-establish the recognized borders and territories of Iraq and Syria.
-
We could sit and do nothing, which would probably make the UK less of a target for terrorists. But supposing the US had done that. What about the Yazidis, some of whom they helped escape from IS? What about Baghdad? How many other defenseless people would be slaughtered by them?
Well then it is long over due to put Bush and Blair, and their cronies, on trial for causing this mess in the first place.
-
Well then it is long over due to put Bush and Blair, and their cronies, on trial for causing this mess in the first place.
Well, similar arguments are being used now as were used by Blair, that's what I find amazing. We have used violence in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, with pretty awful results. So this time it will be different?
-
I quite agree.. But with half the world putting their minds to it, maybe, just maybe, they will come up with something.
As for Turkey: they hanker after joining the EU (silly people!); so they won't want to antagonise the West too much. Plus their need to keep on the right side of the US as well.
Turkey have the migrants as a bargaining chip, which they have used so far to get €billions from the EU.
-
Turkey have the migrants as a bargaining chip, which they have used so far to get €billions from the EU.
Right; and they must be happy to go on doing so. They won't want to get on the wrong end of the US or EU.
-
It's a frightening prospect, if any of them get themselves organised. It only takes two or three to cause mayhem.
If they are battle hardened then getting themselves organised isn't going to be too hard.
-
I think they are a threat to any Western country, in terms of being able to produce a horror, like Paris, anywhere. Apparently, our excellent Security Service, has thwarted some seven plots so far this year.
But that doesn't answer why they do it, and the historical background to all this.
-
They made our bed for is, and now we have to lie on it.
No, the rule of law should be applied to them. The problem with these people is that they have given themselves the divine right of 'kings' and set themselves above the law.
-
So far my thinking is that what we do about the Assad/Rebel problem rather depends on Russia. We should focus for now on Isis and decide whether we want the presence of a caliphate. If we don't mind one, we should create safe havens for the potential victims, and contain it (the caliphate). However, it seems there will never be agreement between sunnis and shias on how the caliph (leader) should be elected. So it would probably be better for them to have their own territories, eg Sunnis in Saudi Arabia, Shia in Iran, both living together where possible, and no caliphate. That means getting involved militarily to re-establish the recognized borders and territories of Iraq and Syria.
Where does Lebanon fit in into all this, if it needs to?
-
Well, similar arguments are being used now as were used by Blair, that's what I find amazing. We have used violence in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, with pretty awful results. So this time it will be different?
It's Groundhog Day......."I've got you baby..."
-
Right; and they must be happy to go on doing so. They won't want to get on the wrong end of the US or EU.
And we need them to fight this war, so should we allow them to bomb the Kurds? - who are fighting ISIS.
-
Jack, I don't know much about Lebanon. Regarding the question of the Islamic State, ie caliphate, it would be interesting to compare its system of justice with places like Saudi Arabia, because from what I have read you can't get much worse than there. Maybe there would be a case for letting Isis exist, if the governments of Iraq and of Syria were not asking for help.
-
And we need them to fight this war, so should we allow them to bomb the Kurds? - who are fighting ISIS.
No. Perhaps the new, burgeoning, "coalition" might address that at last.
-
Jack, I don't know much about Lebanon. Regarding the question of the Islamic State, ie caliphate, it would be interesting to compare its system of justice with places like Saudi Arabia, because from what I have read you can't get much worse than there. Maybe there would be a case for letting Isis exist, if the governments of Iraq and of Syria were not asking for help.
From what I can tell the basic attitude of the Saudis and ISIS is pretty much the same and comes from a similar foundational perspective. The difference being is that the Saudis do it with a little more aplomb and justification (spin) with regards to its image to the outside world.
From what I know of Lebanon they have a fractious divide of the Sunni/Shia problem and would be susceptible to any high level of polarisation of this issue stemming from the troubles of Syria and the ME.
-
No. Perhaps the new, burgeoning, "coalition" might address that at last.
But again, who side are the Turks on? After shooting down a Russian plane today this may upset the cooperation of the Russians with NATO allies, and we know the Turks don't like Assad and have not resisted ISIS's movements and trade in the recent past. This seems to put the situation on the ground to be more influential than the round the table agreements etc.
-
So does all this mean we have to abandon our Chrimble shopping in case a bad Muslim shouts at us for ruining his christmas??
-
Overwhelmed by the number of Labour MPs who voted against Trident renewal, stunned and amazed, except about the counting bit, that was easy!
-
Overwhelmed by the number of Labour MPs who voted against Trident renewal, stunned and amazed, except about the counting bit, that was easy!
Labours policy is clear on Trident, grab a coin, heads for, tails against. As a side note got a bit fruity yesterday on Daily Politics, never seen Alan Johnson go bright red before!
-
Labours policy is clear on Trident, grab a coin, heads for, tails against. As a side note got a bit fruity yesterday on Daily Politics, never seen Alan Johnson go bright red before!
Yeah! Someone rattled his cage. He usually comes across a really cool and chilled out, mild mannered and considerate...