The Politics Thread

[Worthy4England]

So the only reason there's a vote, is because Cameron won't bite the bullet and say "we're going in" - which does rather raise the question how compelling the need to go in actually is.

To me he's said "we need to", so he should order it using his executive power. He's clearly trying to ensure that no sh*t sticks to him either way at the minute, so in reality us bombing ISIL in Syria seems to be less important than whether any shit attaches itself to Cameron because he ordered us to do so. Hardly very compelling and not very good in terms of leadership.

indeed... but then who wants the kind of shit that stuck itself to Blair following his decisions? that will haunt PMs for a while to come - they are not stupid to distance and insulate themselves personally from the decision...

for Cameron it's about looking tough - but taking no blame should it go south...

I AM a bit fed up by Fallon telling us..

1) there could be a Paris-style attack on the streets of London
therefore
2) we should bomb Syria

when quite clearly..

1) if it is a paris-style attack - the bombers and shooters will be already living in the UK
2) after bombing syria - there is STILL every chancwe of a paris style attack on London.

unless he is promising us that in bombing Syria there WON'T be a paris-style attack on London - which would be a very bold thing to say! the very least thing he could outline is WHY bombing syria makes a paris-style attack on London less likely...

But he doesn't have to do that either!

Either they believe that bombing ISIL will make us much safer in which case they should use their executive power and do so, or they should stop blagging it and not do, because quite frankly they haven't got a fcking clue.

All the attention is on Corbyn, but the people in power today can't decide whether to shit or get off the pot. That's way more worrying to me than what Corbyn may or may not do in the unlikely event he ever sees number 10 other than on the evening news.

[Hoboh]

So the only reason there's a vote, is because Cameron won't bite the bullet and say "we're going in" - which does rather raise the question how compelling the need to go in actually is.

To me he's said "we need to", so he should order it using his executive power. He's clearly trying to ensure that no sh*t sticks to him either way at the minute, so in reality us bombing ISIL in Syria seems to be less important than whether any shit attaches itself to Cameron because he ordered us to do so. Hardly very compelling and not very good in terms of leadership.

indeed... but then who wants the kind of shit that stuck itself to Blair following his decisions? that will haunt PMs for a while to come - they are not stupid to distance and insulate themselves personally from the decision...

for Cameron it's about looking tough - but taking no blame should it go south...

I AM a bit fed up by Fallon telling us..

1) there could be a Paris-style attack on the streets of London
therefore
2) we should bomb Syria

when quite clearly..

1) if it is a paris-style attack - the bombers and shooters will be already living in the UK
2) after bombing syria - there is STILL every chancwe of a paris style attack on London.

unless he is promising us that in bombing Syria there WON'T be a paris-style attack on London - which would be a very bold thing to say! the very least thing he could outline is WHY bombing syria makes a paris-style attack on London less likely...

Bomb Bradford or Daubhill then?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

And meanwhile Labour spiral into a dive to emulate Ronaldo...
An internal report headlines "Labour is the party for down and outs not people like me" [Labour Party quote, not mine], but the report commissioned by Labour is repressed...
And, in the Oldham by election, a rally organised by Labour's Friends of Bangladesh Group segregated its audience by gender...
Modern politics eh!

[Hoboh]

And meanwhile Labour spiral into a dive to emulate Ronaldo...
An internal report headlines "Labour is the party for down and outs not people like me" [Labour Party quote, not mine], but the report commissioned by Labour is repressed...
And, in the Oldham by election, a rally organised by Labour's Friends of Bangladesh Group segregated its audience by gender...
Modern politics eh!

Well the pigs separated from the rest of the animals and hid their dodgy dealings, so why should we be surprised at that?

[Lord Kangana]

I wonder whether they'll be debating whether to bomb South Carolina to help protect us from religious extremists?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I wonder whether they'll be debating whether to bomb South Carolina to help protect us from religious extremists?

Why, are there many residents of Leytonstone legging it over to South Carolina to join the Lord's Army and slice the living heads off of aid workers and journalists whilst producing slick videos threatening to blow up the number 65 tram? I must have missed that news story.

[Lord Kangana]

Yes, you must have missed that news story. Perhaps you can google a little harder. And see how the religious right in America also disassociated itself by suggesting that poisonous, inflammatory rhetoric has nothing to do with the violent outcome. Its almost as if you couldn't make this hypocritical shit up.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Yes, you must have missed that news story. Perhaps you can google a little harder. And see how the religious right in America also disassociated itself by suggesting that poisonous, inflammatory rhetoric has nothing to do with the violent outcome. Its almost as if you couldn't make this hypocritical shit up.

Well I've bashed the keys and I'm not seeing any recruited 'Brits' in South Carolina (or any other state for that matter) slicing off heads whilst simultaneously threatening my bus route. Found lots of stuff where the pious of many religions are slaughtering the non pious and talking shit, but I don't believe Parliament are talking about bombing them either.

[Lord Kangana]

Terrorist atrocities committed in other countries are fair game aren't they? That's what we're debating, isn't it? Whether to respond with airstrikes on targets in far off lands because of something that happened in another country? Isn't it?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Terrorist atrocities committed in other countries are fair game aren't they? That's what we're debating, isn't it? Whether to respond with airstrikes on targets in far off lands because of something that happened in another country? Isn't it?

Well no, actually, that is a mere subset of it.

(The bombing is being debated as a response to stop an almost-state from becoming a state. A state that not only defies all international laws but commits horrific war crimes as a planned matter of course, a state whose main avowed aim is to expand and rule the world. Their long term strategy is to bring about the apocalypse, and from what I’ve seen the fxckers have the potential to achieve that goal if they’re not bombed into oblivion.)

[Prufrock]

Historically going to war has been a royal prerogative power exercised on Queenie's behalf by the Govt. However after there was a vote on Iraq, and a vote on Syria the first time it's arguable there is now a convention that the Govt will go to Parliament before going to war.

The joys of an unwritten constitution!

Surely not a convention, Pru, and even as a precedent it is rather horrible. We couldn't make an agreement with any sort of teeth. Can you imagine a treaty term that says we will defend the territorial integrity of Poland or Belgium if the vote in Parliament goes the right way? Or we will defend the people of the Falklands to the end, provided we still have a majority?

I don't know how many it takes to make it a convention! It certainly *feels* like it would be unthinkable now for us to go to war without having a vote in parliament.

Treaties are different, we have a dualist constitution, meaning for a treaty to becoming law in the UK it has be made law by Parliament, so any treaty that says we'll defend Poland are Belgium has already been voted on by Parliament.

[Prufrock]

^^ Not that this will stop "certain types" from claiming, should an attack later occur, that this was BECAUSE of any bombing. It will, of course, be nothing of the sort.

I'm not sure it's that simple. Almost every position you read says it's ALL because of ONE things.

Whilst I don't deny subconscious motives play a part, I always think a good starting point for figuring out why somebody does something is to listen to why they say they are. Unless there's an obvious motive to lie, I think that might well be at least a factor. It seems as ridiculous to me to say that the west's foreign policy has nothing to do with these attacks as it does to say Islam has nothing to do with them.

However, and this is the important bit, that ^ is utterly irrelevant as to whether bombing is the right thing to do. I've no doubt we'd suffer fewer attacks if we required women to wear burkas. It's not an argument for doing so.

I think it's unlikely that bombing will lead to not a single person being tipped over the edge from hating the west to doing something about it, but if it magically fixed Syria over night it would be the right thing to do.

I'm for someone bombing, and someone intervening, I'm just not sure the case has been made that we need to. We're having an existential crisis while the rest of the world is getting on with it.

[Worthy4England]

Historically going to war has been a royal prerogative power exercised on Queenie's behalf by the Govt. However after there was a vote on Iraq, and a vote on Syria the first time it's arguable there is now a convention that the Govt will go to Parliament before going to war.

The joys of an unwritten constitution!

Surely not a convention, Pru, and even as a precedent it is rather horrible. We couldn't make an agreement with any sort of teeth. Can you imagine a treaty term that says we will defend the territorial integrity of Poland or Belgium if the vote in Parliament goes the right way? Or we will defend the people of the Falklands to the end, provided we still have a majority?

I don't know how many it takes to make it a convention! It certainly *feels* like it would be unthinkable now for us to go to war without having a vote in parliament.

Treaties are different, we have a dualist constitution, meaning for a treaty to becoming law in the UK it has be made law by Parliament, so any treaty that says we'll defend Poland are Belgium has already been voted on by Parliament.

I don't feel like it would be unthinkable. But less likely for non-immediate interventions.

[bobo the clown]

^^ Not that this will stop "certain types" from claiming, should an attack later occur, that this was BECAUSE of any bombing. It will, of course, be nothing of the sort.

I'm not sure it's that simple. Almost every position you read says it's ALL because of ONE things.

Whilst I don't deny subconscious motives play a part, I always think a good starting point for figuring out why somebody does something is to listen to why they say they are. Unless there's an obvious motive to lie, I think that might well be at least a factor. It seems as ridiculous to me to say that the west's foreign policy has nothing to do with these attacks as it does to say Islam has nothing to do with them.

However, and this is the important bit, that ^ is utterly irrelevant as to whether bombing is the right thing to do. I've no doubt we'd suffer fewer attacks if we required women to wear burkas. It's not an argument for doing so.

I think it's unlikely that bombing will lead to not a single person being tipped over the edge from hating the west to doing something about it, but if it magically fixed Syria over night it would be the right thing to do.

I'm for someone bombing, and someone intervening, I'm just not sure the case has been made that we need to. We're having an existential crisis while the rest of the world is getting on with it.

The people likely to plan & instigate an atrocity over here are possibly going to justify an attack on any number of things but it'll just be an excuse. They are committed and waiting their chance. You may get more "noise", but won't convert a non-supporter to an action taker. The b@stards are intent on doing it.

Will it make people 10% more vile .... & for some will that 10% tip them over an edge
I suppose that's an argument. Can't be proven either way really but it's feasible. What's for sure is that this will be wheeled out by those keen to make capital out of it.

I suppose it's a bit like the vile way the antis are going about intimidating those who don't agree with them is more likely to have me harden my stance.

[BWFC_Insane]

^^ Not that this will stop "certain types" from claiming, should an attack later occur, that this was BECAUSE of any bombing. It will, of course, be nothing of the sort.

I'm not sure it's that simple. Almost every position you read says it's ALL because of ONE things.

Whilst I don't deny subconscious motives play a part, I always think a good starting point for figuring out why somebody does something is to listen to why they say they are. Unless there's an obvious motive to lie, I think that might well be at least a factor. It seems as ridiculous to me to say that the west's foreign policy has nothing to do with these attacks as it does to say Islam has nothing to do with them.

However, and this is the important bit, that ^ is utterly irrelevant as to whether bombing is the right thing to do. I've no doubt we'd suffer fewer attacks if we required women to wear burkas. It's not an argument for doing so.

I think it's unlikely that bombing will lead to not a single person being tipped over the edge from hating the west to doing something about it, but if it magically fixed Syria over night it would be the right thing to do.

I'm for someone bombing, and someone intervening, I'm just not sure the case has been made that we need to. We're having an existential crisis while the rest of the world is getting on with it.

The people likely to plan & instigate an atrocity over here are possibly going to justify an attack on any number of things but it'll just be an excuse. They are committed and waiting their chance. You may get more "noise", but won't convert a non-supporter to an action taker. The b@stards are intent on doing it.

Will it make people 10% more vile .... & for some will that 10% tip them over an edge
I suppose that's an argument. Can't be proven either way really but it's feasible. What's for sure is that this will be wheeled out by those keen to make capital out of it.

I suppose it's a bit like the vile way the antis are going about intimidating those who don't agree with them is more likely to have me harden my stance.

The problem isn't those already committed. It is how many more you commit in the process of bombing. It is much easier to convert someone to become a suicide bomber if they've just seen their family, property and loved ones blown apart by a bomb from a plane from a Western nation.

I don't think bombing Syria makes us any safer. The only way we can be safer is to round up the ISIS lot or as many as we can and lock em all up or shoot them. To do that requires a large scale military campaign with lots of troops on the ground. I'd not be against that. It would be long and messy and need sacrifice. But ultimately would have a greater chance of success than trying to bomb people from afar.

[bobo the clown]

^^ I'm up for "round up ISIS & shooting them all".

Regrettably my age probably precludes me .... but I'm right behind you young 'uns and I'm happy to look after your stuff while you go.

[Worthy4England]

^^ I'm up for "round up ISIS & shooting them all".

Regrettably my age probably precludes me .... but I'm right behind you young 'uns and I'm happy to look after your stuff while you go.

I do see a flaw in the no vote "it'll just create more terrorists" line...surely that'll just make the target bigger?

[bobo the clown]

^^ I'm up for "round up ISIS & shooting them all".

Regrettably my age probably precludes me .... but I'm right behind you young 'uns and I'm happy to look after your stuff while you go.

I do see a flaw in the no vote "it'll just create more terrorists" line...surely that'll just make the target bigger?

Immutable logic as usual, from another coat minder.

Just don't get too close to the target Pru'.

[Lord Kangana]

I'm afraid, and I'm going to be very candid and honest here, that you have to be not very bright not to understand the causality of action.

The never ending loop of them bombing us and us bombing them isn't going to be brought to a conclusion by us trying to bomb them to zero. It cannot, and will not, happen, despite some Daily-Mail-alongs wishing ISIS to be some sort of nation state, they are not. You can't bomb a f*cking idea. The only evidence of history is that you have to have more than that.

But yeah, meet you all back here for more stupidity in a few weeks after another "shock" attack. I suggest more killing as a remedy in advance, just to get it in first.

[Prufrock]

Wait, we've got drones and shit for this, right?

Anyway, my Facebooke cho chamber is full of people telling moving stories about their nans who died in WWII and the human cost of chucking bombs on things. Well, yes, but that's not an argument. There's a human cost to not chucking bombs on things too. Weighing up the difference between those two costs (which even still is massively to simplifiy) is the trick, for which you need something apporaching nuance!

I'm astounded by the number of people who absolutely know what they think on this (and yet agan this place does itself proud by having v little of it). Are there folk out there with links to the MoD that only I don't know about?