The Politics Thread

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Tony Blair and his govt weren't making any decisions in 1988. When they did come to power, they intervened in Kosovo, to stop a massacre, invaded Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden, and, I beleive, invaded Iraq to get rid of Saddam who was also a massive cock.

Whenever Tony Blair gives interviews on foreign policy, he talks like a man who thought he was on a moral mission to 'heal' the places mentuioned above. It may be hubristic and misguided, but I think it's genuine.

I think 'politician overreaches himself in attempt to do 'good' is more likely than 'oil cabal controls the world'. Particularly when I still can't see how a war was in the interest of the 'oil industry' anyway.

Nothing like a few thousand (million?) tons of high explosive to heal a place... And he was so 'genuine' he indulged himself in blatant fabrication to ensure 'our' participation in bush's act of vengeance...

But even bad acts can have unexpectedly good consequences - his hying and dissembling was certainly a significant factor in the commons rejecting the latest proposed adventure of using bombs to protect people...

So the way we'll look to protect people now is to sit and watch how it unfolds whilst they gas each other.

Who are we to do anything else?

[Worthy4England]

Tony Blair and his govt weren't making any decisions in 1988. When they did come to power, they intervened in Kosovo, to stop a massacre, invaded Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden, and, I beleive, invaded Iraq to get rid of Saddam who was also a massive cock.

Whenever Tony Blair gives interviews on foreign policy, he talks like a man who thought he was on a moral mission to 'heal' the places mentuioned above. It may be hubristic and misguided, but I think it's genuine.

I think 'politician overreaches himself in attempt to do 'good' is more likely than 'oil cabal controls the world'. Particularly when I still can't see how a war was in the interest of the 'oil industry' anyway.

Nothing like a few thousand (million?) tons of high explosive to heal a place... And he was so 'genuine' he indulged himself in blatant fabrication to ensure 'our' participation in bush's act of vengeance...

But even bad acts can have unexpectedly good consequences - his hying and dissembling was certainly a significant factor in the commons rejecting the latest proposed adventure of using bombs to protect people...

So the way we'll look to protect people now is to sit and watch how it unfolds whilst they gas each other.

Who are we to do anything else?

Just normal human beings?

[Harry Genshaw]

Who are we to do anything else?

Good point this. In amongst all the hand wringing yesterday "Parliament has just sanctioned the murder of children" etc etc were the same debates going on in Japan, Australia, Denmark, Luxembourg wherever about what they were doing to resolve the issues in Syria?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Who are we to do anything else?

Good point this. In amongst all the hand wringing yesterday "Parliament has just sanctioned the murder of children" etc etc were the same debates going on in Japan, Australia, Denmark, Luxembourg wherever about what they were doing to resolve the issues in Syria?

Well, quite!

[William the White]

There are things we can and should do. Most fundamentally, and urgently, we should get on with adequate humanitarian aid, food, shelter and medical treatment. There may well be other things that can be done in this area. Secondly - we should seek to bring a case against Assad and other central figures in the international criminal court. Precedent suggests that this kind of action is one that Russia might not obstruct (or even support) once the threat of military intervention is lifted. Thirdly we should examine all the diplomatic channels we can to persuade Russia, China and Iran to support a cease fire without preconditions brokered by the United Nations. again, this is much more likely to get the support of the 'veto-minded' powers if they are central to the process - and diplomacy has much more chance when sabre rattling has stopped. Iran is a key player and has a new president whose campaign advocated a frresh relationship with the West. It is simply stupid not to test this by bringing them into the equation.

Bombs don't bring peace. They bring death. They don't protect, They kill and mutilate.

[thebish]

1) What does the policy in 1988 have to do with the motives of the govt in 2003

it's quite simple. he was a cock in 1988 - we didn't get rid of him - in fact we cheered him on, gave him weapons and supported him. he was a cock in 2003 and all the years in between.

so - we did not get rid of him because he was a cock (as you suggested). we got rid of him because something else changed. that's all.

It's not simple though is it?

Over the 15 years, a lot changed. A new generation and a different political stripe were in government - i.e. it was different people in power and there was no continuity of decision-making.

well - actually, I think it is. Pru suggested we got rid of Saddam "because he was a cock".

1) Saddam was always a cock - but sometimes he was OUR cock
2) There are a number of deposable cocks in power around the world - but we took/take no action

so - it must be something other than simply Saddam "being a cock".

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I thought Pru was suggesting that different administrations could react to the same cock in different ways?

[thebish]

I thought Pru was suggesting that different administrations could react to the same cock in different ways?

it is manifestly the case that we don't - under any administration you care to think of - remove deposable cocks from office simply because they are cocks. if this was the case there would be fewer cocks in power around the world.

[Worthy4England]

There are things we can and should do. Most fundamentally, and urgently, we should get on with adequate humanitarian aid, food, shelter and medical treatment. There may well be other things that can be done in this area. Secondly - we should seek to bring a case against Assad and other central figures in the international criminal court. Precedent suggests that this kind of action is one that Russia might not obstruct (or even support) once the threat of military intervention is lifted. Thirdly we should examine all the diplomatic channels we can to persuade Russia, China and Iran to support a cease fire without preconditions brokered by the United Nations. again, this is much more likely to get the support of the 'veto-minded' powers if they are central to the process - and diplomacy has much more chance when sabre rattling has stopped. Iran is a key player and has a new president whose campaign advocated a frresh relationship with the West. It is simply stupid not to test this by bringing them into the equation.

Bombs don't bring peace. They bring death. They don't protect, They kill and mutilate.

I dont fundamentally disagree with trying all of the above. I can't see how we serve him a summons and ensure he turns up on time...

Bombs don't bring peace. They bring death. Which would sort of be the reason for trying to stop them launching them at each other...

[thebish]

There are things we can and should do. Most fundamentally, and urgently, we should get on with adequate humanitarian aid, food, shelter and medical treatment. There may well be other things that can be done in this area. Secondly - we should seek to bring a case against Assad and other central figures in the international criminal court. Precedent suggests that this kind of action is one that Russia might not obstruct (or even support) once the threat of military intervention is lifted. Thirdly we should examine all the diplomatic channels we can to persuade Russia, China and Iran to support a cease fire without preconditions brokered by the United Nations. again, this is much more likely to get the support of the 'veto-minded' powers if they are central to the process - and diplomacy has much more chance when sabre rattling has stopped. Iran is a key player and has a new president whose campaign advocated a frresh relationship with the West. It is simply stupid not to test this by bringing them into the equation.

Bombs don't bring peace. They bring death. They don't protect, They kill and mutilate.

I dont fundamentally disagree with trying all of the above. I can't see how we serve him a summons and ensure he turns up on time...

Bombs don't bring peace. They bring death. Which would sort of be the reason for trying to stop them launching them at each other...

hmmm... but that was specifically and oft-statedly NOT the aim or scope of the intervention being discussed by the US or by us...

[Montreal Wanderer]

It seems to me it is currently impossible to tell who used chemical weapons, who is good (probably no one), on which side we should intervene to bring peace, etc., etc. We should be very careful about which side to favour in our minds, let alone with military intervention. Perhaps it is good China did not invade the UK to end sectarian violence a few decades ago.

[Worthy4England]

There are things we can and should do. Most fundamentally, and urgently, we should get on with adequate humanitarian aid, food, shelter and medical treatment. There may well be other things that can be done in this area. Secondly - we should seek to bring a case against Assad and other central figures in the international criminal court. Precedent suggests that this kind of action is one that Russia might not obstruct (or even support) once the threat of military intervention is lifted. Thirdly we should examine all the diplomatic channels we can to persuade Russia, China and Iran to support a cease fire without preconditions brokered by the United Nations. again, this is much more likely to get the support of the 'veto-minded' powers if they are central to the process - and diplomacy has much more chance when sabre rattling has stopped. Iran is a key player and has a new president whose campaign advocated a frresh relationship with the West. It is simply stupid not to test this by bringing them into the equation.

Bombs don't bring peace. They bring death. They don't protect, They kill and mutilate.

I dont fundamentally disagree with trying all of the above. I can't see how we serve him a summons and ensure he turns up on time...

Bombs don't bring peace. They bring death. Which would sort of be the reason for trying to stop them launching them at each other...

hmmm... but that was specifically and oft-statedly NOT the aim or scope of the intervention being discussed by the US or by us...

Us, not being me then who suggested putting 'em both on the naughty step - as you will undoubtedly recall...

[thebish]

Us, not being me then who suggested putting 'em both on the naughty step - as you will undoubtedly recall...

you did suggest putting them on the naughty step - but you never gave any hints as to what that actually might mean in this context!

and that's assuming there is a simple "both" - when in reality there are dozens of players in Syria - probably more - some of whom the US will deal with - some of whom they won't...

so - who goes on the naughty step - and what does that involve and how do you put them there?

[Worthy4England]

Us, not being me then who suggested putting 'em both on the naughty step - as you will undoubtedly recall...

you did suggest putting them on the naughty step - but you never gave any hints as to what that actually might mean in this context!

and that's assuming there is a simple "both" - when in reality there are dozens of players in Syria - probably more - some of whom the US will deal with - some of whom they won't...

so - who goes on the naughty step - and what does that involve and how do you put them there?

It generally involves taking out anything to do with munitions. Launchers, C&C, Larger caches, embargo on re-supply routes, etc. Etc. Then whoever they belonged to is irrelevant then. Saves thes trouble of asking whose they were....

[thebish]

Us, not being me then who suggested putting 'em both on the naughty step - as you will undoubtedly recall...

you did suggest putting them on the naughty step - but you never gave any hints as to what that actually might mean in this context!

and that's assuming there is a simple "both" - when in reality there are dozens of players in Syria - probably more - some of whom the US will deal with - some of whom they won't...

so - who goes on the naughty step - and what does that involve and how do you put them there?

It generally involves taking out anything to do with munitions. Launchers, C&C, Larger caches, embargo on re-supply routes, etc. Etc. Then whoever they belonged to is irrelevant then. Saves thes trouble of asking whose they were....

not at all sure how you'd do that for all the sides without basically flattening the entire country...

[Worthy4England]

Us, not being me then who suggested putting 'em both on the naughty step - as you will undoubtedly recall...

you did suggest putting them on the naughty step - but you never gave any hints as to what that actually might mean in this context!

and that's assuming there is a simple "both" - when in reality there are dozens of players in Syria - probably more - some of whom the US will deal with - some of whom they won't...

so - who goes on the naughty step - and what does that involve and how do you put them there?

It generally involves taking out anything to do with munitions. Launchers, C&C, Larger caches, embargo on re-supply routes, etc. Etc. Then whoever they belonged to is irrelevant then. Saves thes trouble of asking whose they were....

not at all sure how you'd do that for all the sides without basically flattening the entire country...

That'll put a stop to it.

Arms caches don't tend to be as wide as Damascus.

[thebish]

That'll put a stop to it.

Arms caches don't tend to be as wide as Damascus.

hmmm... but i'll wager that huge swathes of densely populated areas are riddled with arms caches from all flavours of protagonist...

[Hoboh]

Well done Ed Milliband on some good political calculation... will be interesting next time Cameron tries to depict him as 'weak, weak, weak)...

So you think Miliband is 'playing politics' on this in a way that is separate from the substance of the issues?

I have to say that it is still a substance I don't understand. I thought tonight's motion was quite tightly defined so that Britain's involvement would be limited to a humanitarian attempt to prevent the use of chemical weapons on Syrians - once we find out for sure who was responsible.

I'm happy that Britain is staying out of it, but cannot see why you seem to be clear that this is a good result for the Syrian people.

Syrian person interviewed today who has a husband over there, was in agreement with you Mummy. She wanted military intervention.

My feeling is that I'm not sure on such matters that the "will of the British people" should be taken into account in the way it has. I realise that people are going to be outraged at that, but Syria is such a complex situation that I think such a decision needs to be based on something more definitive and informed than that.

I nearly missed this further revelation of just how undemocratic socialists can be when they know best!

First 'the people have no idea' about Europe and now about heading possibly toward WW3!

Stunning.

(And before you start, Millipede was merely playing politics to save his ass, it should have been a 'free vote’, and I suspect the winning margin would have been higher)

[William the White]

Obama's pause for thought, and decision to consult congress, clearly indicates, once more the importance of the commons rejection of intervention in Syria.

And nothing is quite as cheering politically as the sulks of Ashdown and others about the prospects of no longer being America's best friends. France, it seems, is now the 'oldest ally'. Oh good. May it never be us again!

[Worthy4England]

Obama's pause for thought, and decision to consult congress, clearly indicates, once more the importance of the commons rejection of intervention in Syria.

And nothing is quite as cheering politically as the sulks of Ashdown and others about the prospects of no longer being America's best friends. France, it seems, is now the 'oldest ally'. Oh good. May it never be us again!

What's the problem with us being Allies?

Don't get me wrong, I've no major desire to go there or live there, but I have no major problem with us being allies...