The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[TightEnd]

does a UN resolution calling for it and France requesting our support in action count for nothing?

[AlunB]

does a UN resolution calling for it and France requesting our support in action count for nothing?

UN? Yes.
France. No.

[MintTrav]

The graph quoted above by titaniumbean is interesting.

Click to see full-size image.

The red section for Nigeria has grown from negligible to massive in a short time. Boko Haram was actually more deadly than Isil last year, accounting for 6,664 deaths versus 6,073 by Isil. Between them, they were responsible for half of the world's deaths by terror groups.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/19/world/africa/boko-haram-ranked-ahead-of-isis-for-deadliest-terror-group.html?_r=0

Next stop Nigeria?

[titaniumbean]

Indeed. Moral relativism is an ugly beast. Is one way of life worth less than another?

I find it incredibly hard to hear a convincing argument on why bombing Syria makes British people or indeed any people more safe. Cameron seemed to be saying it was up to us to do "our bit" but our bit of what exactly? What is the end goal here?

That said you can't do nothing here. Or at least it feels like you can't or shouldn't. But what, exactly, do you do? I admit I have no idea, and I suspect neither does anyone else really.

Yes our way of life is always better than others.....


Bombing uses up current arms supplies, and allows us to order more with imaginary borrowed money, funding the industries that lobby the government and enriching the people who used to be in government, are family members of government etc.  End goal is new reports saying how strong Cameron is for taking such a tough decision lel.  At no point have I seen an argument from ANY country about how to stop terrorism just how to strengthen each nations interests.


Call me cynical, but Turkey, Russia, France, US, UK are all out for themselves here.

It would seem best for one of the leaders to stand up and point out that we need to tackle extremist ideology, tackle the governmental and regional decisions that are playing into the hands of those trying to stir up religious extremism and to have an actual world view not this bullshit "I gotta defend ma countries freedoms mayyyn".  But everyone follows the American way because they know best, not because they are the most violent and have economically pressured their way to having the most control over foreign countries. Yet when we look at their politics, we see Trump being an inconceivably racist and ignorant turd and going down swimmingly with the Republican voter base and many other politicians calling out anything and everything for being dangerous because they are different. Syrians, refugees, foreigns, blacks, whatever it is that is different we must be scared and we must give up liberties so that global corporations can benefit 'for democracy and freedom'. Yet we seem desperate for them to 'like us' and so we just follow them down whatever bigoted short sighted and US centric policy they decide upon.

does a UN resolution calling for it and France requesting our support in action count for nothing?

Does the fact the US don't follow international law say anything to you?  Human rights.... what even is that for murica. Torture nah it's ok even though our own internal reports say it's bullshit. guantanamo... that works well. and so on and so forth. they use their 'aid budget' to fund countries to buy arms from them in a circle jerk of violence and death.. murica fuk yeh! the aggressive economic policies they use to influence foreign countries is an absolute disgrace but it's ok cos freedom and democracy for all right....  Saudi Arabia are a good country of good people though right ? we should sell them arms and champion their virtues ?

Click to see full-size image.

I honestly cant see how the middle east will ever not be in a cycle of moronic and self serving violence until there can be secular minded decision making governing the basics. World politics, no all politics, is a self serving joke.

[neeko]

Either the UK is in favour of bombing daesh or not, so the vote before parliament should be RAF can bomb IS in Iraq and Syria or neither, there cannot be a logical reason that is legal on one side of a line drawn in the sand a century ago but not the other.

Meanwhile in America radical Christian terrorist kills 3 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34950261

[titaniumbean]

agreed we should be consistent and have reasons.

why though do we still need to bomb Iraq??

Click to see full-size image.

[DaveShoelace]

Q of the day

What are we doing well in Britain that other countries should replicate?

Politically speaking, I don't mean tea and stuff.

[The Camel]

According to the Sunday Times, Cameron's air strikes are going to used to kill the ISIS leadership.

So, why hasn't this been done already by one of the countries who is currently bombing Syria?

Do we have super duper intelligence that tell us exactly where there are which we haven't shared with the USA and France?

Or is it just another sound bite in attempt to to justify this ridiculous escapade?

[MANTIS01]

I remember being strongly opposed to the war in Iraq but in this situation I feel totally different. When we have folk bowling round European cities spraying bullets into families eating their dinner it's a clear attack on our way of life and needs to be dealt with. Sure thing a plan for the future is ideal, contemplating how the infrastructure in Syria can be re-generated would be cool. However after being attacked we should be more concerned about repelling the immediate threat.

A leader's first job is to protect their people and to that end see how Putin roles here? Unleashed an holy mother of god backlash costing IS millions. Don't think they will be downing another Russian holiday jet anytime soon. It's times like these where Corbyn is highlighted at his most ineffectual. There are good ideas, there are valid points and then there's the real world where idealism often doesn't fit. I think Maggie would have been supreme in this situation.

[titaniumbean]

According to the Sunday Times, Cameron's air strikes are going to used to kill the ISIS leadership.

So, why hasn't this been done already by one of the countries who is currently bombing Syria?

Do we have super duper intelligence that tell us exactly where there are which we haven't shared with the USA and France?

Or is it just another sound bite in attempt to to justify this ridiculous escapade?

hot air towards an uniformed public to make him sound like he has a plan when he's just taking the easy option and following everyone else. except everyone is following everyone else who are all following the US who are serving their own national interest. sweet. thanks D Cam.

Amazing that in thousands of US airstrikes, France suddenly dropping 60 bombs in a day was some incredible new strategy with a complete plan not just random bombing of civilians just to perpetuate the problem.

Then the Russians bomb a completely different set of people to be self serving, the Turks use that as an excuse to bitch slap Russia. The concept that they then pretend to not know who it was, yet were happy to instantly shoot is just so inane it's beyond belief they would say it. Does ISIL really have bombers in the sky?? the only people who are capable of putting that in the air are people they shouldn't be willing to shoot out of the sky, so they clearly just wanted to stick two fingers up to Russia thinking that Nato would come out in their defence.

Bet ISIL are fucking loving our inept set of global responses. We couldn't be playing more into their hands if we all just took turns shitting on the Quran.


Mantis, how does bombing a haystack to hit a couple of needles with no thought of the response from the haystack and their families and friends work as a viable 'protection'? Bush helped forge ISIL by invading Iraq extolling the virtues of the US while pillaging the country and releasing their whole army to the dole queue and at the same time insulting their respective religions, shock that created more religious extremists.


How is bombing Syria going to stop people from Belgium and France and the US and the UK attacking people in the countries in which they reside?

How is staying quiet about who funds the terrorists whilst selling those same countries more weapons and sucking up to them in public going to make us safer?


It's just the same as the issues we are facing over online security. We say we do something for a specific reason. Yet our actions have only negative effects in that regard. Why is that the best strategy?


simple analogy specific to this forum....
if a guy never folds a pair and we have bluffed him hundreds of times with the nut low and he's called everytime. Why are we continuing to bluff him? Why can we not adjust?

ignorance/arrogance/we are trying to lose/we have an ulterior motive??

[The Camel]

I remember being strongly opposed to the war in Iraq but in this situation I feel totally different. When we have folk bowling round European cities spraying bullets into families eating their dinner it's a clear attack on our way of life and needs to be dealt with. Sure thing a plan for the future is ideal, contemplating how the infrastructure in Syria can be re-generated would be cool. However after being attacked we should be more concerned about repelling the immediate threat.

A leader's first job is to protect their people and to that end see how Putin roles here? Unleashed an holy mother of god backlash costing IS millions. Don't think they will be downing another Russian holiday jet anytime soon. It's times like these where Corbyn is highlighted at his most ineffectual. There are good ideas, there are valid points and then there's the real world where idealism often doesn't fit. I think Maggie would have been supreme in this situation.

How is bombing Syria going to stop these ***** who want to machine gun down 100s of innocents though?

1. Without checking I believe 7 of the 9 Paris terrorists were home grown. Bombing Syria *might* have have meant there were only 7 of them.

2. These people WANT to die so they can fuck off to paradise and start working through their 72 virgins. Every bomb that kills 1 jihadist will cause 10 new eager young recruits to take their place.

If I saw one piece of credible evidence that bombing Syria might rid the world of the cancer that is ISIS I wouldn't be opposed so vehemently. But such evidence simply does not exist,

[titaniumbean]

I remember being strongly opposed to the war in Iraq but in this situation I feel totally different. When we have folk bowling round European cities spraying bullets into families eating their dinner it's a clear attack on our way of life and needs to be dealt with. Sure thing a plan for the future is ideal, contemplating how the infrastructure in Syria can be re-generated would be cool. However after being attacked we should be more concerned about repelling the immediate threat.

A leader's first job is to protect their people and to that end see how Putin roles here? Unleashed an holy mother of god backlash costing IS millions. Don't think they will be downing another Russian holiday jet anytime soon. It's times like these where Corbyn is highlighted at his most ineffectual. There are good ideas, there are valid points and then there's the real world where idealism often doesn't fit. I think Maggie would have been supreme in this situation.

How is bombing Syria going to stop these ***** who want to machine gun down 100s of innocents though?

1. Without checking I believe 7 of the 9 Paris terrorists were home grown. Bombing Syria *might* have have meant there were only 7 of them.

2. These people WANT to die so they can fuck off to paradise and start working through their 72 virgins. Every bomb that kills 1 jihadist will cause 10 new eager young recruits to take their place.

If I saw one piece of credible evidence that bombing Syria might rid the world of the cancer that is ISIS I wouldn't be opposed so vehemently. But such evidence simply does not exist,

Some of them may have travelled to Syria to train, they could also travel to any number of a selection of shit hole countries that we know are fucked up but dont care about because they are along way away. So bombing will hardly help. Why is it that people on the watch list ALREADY can turn their whole life upside down, cross borders willy nilly and not even bother to use operational security measures that the guy who sells weed on the street corner thinks is drug dealing 101 and get away with it?!?

we are so slow to criticise the people whose fault it is, and so fucking quick to bomb people who are already being oppressed by this depravity.


It's so unhelpful that Corybn is managing to come across as such a colossal bell end. Frustrating is an understatement.

[doubleup]

A leader's first job is to protect their people and to that end see how Putin roles here? Unleashed an holy mother of god backlash costing IS millions. Don't think they will be downing another Russian holiday jet anytime soon.

The Russian plane was bombed after Putin's airstrikes started and apparently in response to them. 

[MANTIS01]

Hmmm....there are valuable oil reserves in ISIS controlled territory which fund the infrastructure of this terrorist organisation.

That is one good reason to bomb Syria.

[titaniumbean]

Hmmm....there are valuable oil reserves in ISIS controlled territory which fund the infrastructure of this terrorist organisation.

That is one good reason to bomb Syria.

or the turks could fuck off and stop buying the oil and directly funding them... they are an "ally" right?

if there is oil, let's go put boots on the ground and take it and profit and not just bomb civilians? at least that has a point and isn't quite literally violently counter productive.