Latest post of the previous page:
I wonder how many of those who voted for war have interests in these arms dealers?thundril wrote:Some good will come of the Syria bombing!!!
https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/3 ... ia-bombing
Latest post of the previous page:
I wonder how many of those who voted for war have interests in these arms dealers?thundril wrote:Some good will come of the Syria bombing!!!
https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/3 ... ia-bombing
Though the headline is a step too far, the article does illustrate the catastrophe Corbyn has made of the Labour Party.Alan H wrote:The Telegraph, of course: Jeremy Corbyn could have stopped this war. Now it will be his epitaph
Yup. It's all Labour's fault again. If only we had a Prime Minister who could step in and save us from war...
Very accurate, I'd say.he has pulled off the considerable feat of alienating both those colleagues who favour air strikes and the activists who elected Mr Corbyn for his anti-war credentials. Too weak to impose the whipped vote that would have provoked resignations from his shadow cabinet, he now presides over open revolt.
Nick wrote:Though the headline is a step too far, the article does illustrate the catastrophe Corbyn has made of the Labour Party.Alan H wrote:The Telegraph, of course: Jeremy Corbyn could have stopped this war. Now it will be his epitaph
Yup. It's all Labour's fault again. If only we had a Prime Minister who could step in and save us from war...
Very accurate, I'd say.he has pulled off the considerable feat of alienating both those colleagues who favour air strikes and the activists who elected Mr Corbyn for his anti-war credentials. Too weak to impose the whipped vote that would have provoked resignations from his shadow cabinet, he now presides over open revolt.
have to say this astounds me. Hilary was able to tap into the rhetoric of Tony, but actually neither was really justified in appealing to history, like the rise of fascism in the 1930s, to judge a particular policy which inevitably has only faint resonances of older ones. Daesh does not really threaten us in the way that Nazism did - actually, to repeat something I said to Dave earlier, it was not Nazism which threatened us (ie the West) but German expansionism. You can or cannot call Daesh fascist according to choice; actually I would prefer to leave "fascism" in its historical context of reaction against Communism. Opposition to violent regimes (which is a far more universal and useful way to regard Daesh) is of value only if it has a reasonable chance of success, net of collateral damage to civilians. The air campaign has I think challenged Daesh, at almost certainly the cost of civilian lives. British involvement against Isis in Syria (actually what is the drama, given we Brits are already involved in action against Isis in Iraq?) is probably not going to make much difference. IMO there is a case for ground troops to be used against Daesh, cos the only real reason against this is that it will lead to Western casualties; maybe this opposition is racist, I don't know, since it seems to value the lives of Westerners (albeit soldiers who have chosen to risk their lives) over Asian civilians, including kids. At any rate, the choice about intervention of varying kinds should not be decided on the basis of effective Commons speechesthundril wrote:I think I've changed my mind on this, after listening to Hilary Benn. Violence against fascists is something I understand, and endorse. If a truly international agreement can be reached to obliterate Dae3sh completely, I must support it.
very unfair and badly argued, I would say. If JC had imposed a whip then the pro-bombing Labour frontbench faction would presumably have voted as they in fact did, put up with the minor inconvenience of being sacked from a fragile Opposition front bench, and be freer to try removing JC. Anyway, Cameron would have won, so how can JC have made a difference? This is appalling journalism, but whatever can one expect from a paper which still allows that scoundrel, Christopher Booker, to lie about global warming? Calling the "Telegraph" the "Torygraph" actually insults decent Tories, of whom there are manyNick wrote:Though the headline is a step too far, the article does illustrate the catastrophe Corbyn has made of the Labour Party.Alan H wrote:The Telegraph, of course: Jeremy Corbyn could have stopped this war. Now it will be his epitaph
Yup. It's all Labour's fault again. If only we had a Prime Minister who could step in and save us from war...
Very accurate, I'd say.he has pulled off the considerable feat of alienating both those colleagues who favour air strikes and the activists who elected Mr Corbyn for his anti-war credentials. Too weak to impose the whipped vote that would have provoked resignations from his shadow cabinet, he now presides over open revolt.
I think the Telegraph's point, is not so much whether he should or shouldn't have imposed a whip, but that he couldn't. That surely is the basis for claiming he is not fit to be PM, as he can't even lead his party on such an important issue as the use of lethal force. Corbyn represents around 15% of the PLP. It's hard to see how he can ever succeed. And every concession he makes will anger and disillusion his new best friends, for whom even Ed Miliband was "too Tory".animist wrote:very unfair and badly argued, I would say. If JC had imposed a whip then the pro-bombing Labour frontbench faction would presumably have voted as they in fact did, put up with the minor inconvenience of being sacked from a fragile Opposition front bench, and be freer to try removing JC. Anyway, Cameron would have won, so how can JC have made a difference?Nick wrote:
Very accurate, I'd say.he has pulled off the considerable feat of alienating both those colleagues who favour air strikes and the activists who elected Mr Corbyn for his anti-war credentials. Too weak to impose the whipped vote that would have provoked resignations from his shadow cabinet, he now presides over open revolt.
I'm not familiar with Christopher Booker, but I'll take a look. However, if we judge every paper by the loons they sometimes publish, we'd be rather short of newspapers, wouldn't we....?This is appalling journalism, but whatever can one expect from a paper which still allows that scoundrel, Christopher Booker, to lie about global warming? Calling the "Telegraph" the "Torygraph" actually insults decent Tories, of whom there are many
Looks like they have started, by bombing the oil infrastructure. Which, ironically, answers Corbyn's appeal to deprive daesh of funds.Dave B wrote:If the bombing can be used to take out Daesh's military and "commercial" infrastruture then that will be a good outcome.
If the alternative is a fully secure islamic state, based on the 6th century, then the cost of rebuilding will be worth it.But the bill for rebuilding whatever future Syria has gets larger every day, who is going to pay it?
No, it's obviously far better for a 'leader' to impose his iron will (presumably using whatever coercion and threats are necessary) on his unquestioning automatons than allow them to actually think for themselves and do the job they were elected by their constituents to do, particularly on such an important issue as the use of lethal force.Nick wrote:I think the Telegraph's point, is not so much whether he should or shouldn't have imposed a whip, but that he couldn't. That surely is the basis for claiming he is not fit to be PM, as he can't even lead his party on such an important issue as the use of lethal force.animist wrote:very unfair and badly argued, I would say. If JC had imposed a whip then the pro-bombing Labour frontbench faction would presumably have voted as they in fact did, put up with the minor inconvenience of being sacked from a fragile Opposition front bench, and be freer to try removing JC. Anyway, Cameron would have won, so how can JC have made a difference?Nick wrote:Very accurate, I'd say.
My god. Did you actually say that?However, if we judge every paper by the loons they sometimes publish, we'd be rather short of newspapers, wouldn't we....?
Erm, if it is an Islamic country fully based on 6thC values the rebuilding will be cheap. They will have no truck with modern, unholy stuff like oil, electricity etc. Allah will provide - and if he does not it must be haram.Nick wrote:Looks like they have started, by bombing the oil infrastructure. Which, ironically, answers Corbyn's appeal to deprive daesh of funds.Dave B wrote:If the bombing can be used to take out Daesh's military and "commercial" infrastruture then that will be a good outcome.
If the alternative is a fully secure islamic state, based on the 6th century, then the cost of rebuilding will be worth it.But the bill for rebuilding whatever future Syria has gets larger every day, who is going to pay it?
FFS Dave, that is the least of our worries. In fact it should be a hope for all, viz to be paying something to reconstruct Syria. Do you seriously think that Syria is some sort of building or society hit by a hurricane which is capable, funds available, of being rebuilt?Dave B wrote:
But the bill for rebuilding whatever future Syria has gets larger every day, who is going to pay it?
the Assad regime should IMO (frequently stated) now be regarded as legitimate on the ground that it is the only one capable of governing, with outside help, the countryNick wrote: So where abouts does that the Assad regime sit? Yes, it's appalling, but would any realistic alternative be much less appalling? Is it feasible to think of alternatives given the support from Russia? Should we think of limited accommodation instead....? Or is there even a chance of UN administration...? (Probably not, but maybe....)
You are taking "rebuilding" rather literally, animist. It is in common usage to also mean the "rebuilding of a nstion". Yes, there are immediate concerhs but every bomb that falls on industrial areas, e.g. oilfields, means more that more resources (and therefore cost) will be required to "rebuild" the Syrian nation - or at leastvenough to ensure a viable life for those left over.animist wrote:FFS Dave, that is the least of our worries. In fact it should be a hope for all, viz to be paying something to reconstruct Syria. Do you seriously think that Syria is some sort of building or society hit by a hurricane which is capable, funds available, of being rebuilt?Dave B wrote:
But the bill for rebuilding whatever future Syria has gets larger every day, who is going to pay it?
With the number of different rebel groups, many with their own agendas it seems, you could be right, animist, but one might also say something similar about Daesh. The two at least have one agenda each, even if they do use barbaric tactics to achieve it. Then, I doubt that the rebels are saintsanimist wrote:the Assad regime should IMO (frequently stated) now be regarded as legitimate on the ground that it is the only one capable of governing, with outside help, the countryNick wrote: So where abouts does that the Assad regime sit? Yes, it's appalling, but would any realistic alternative be much less appalling? Is it feasible to think of alternatives given the support from Russia? Should we think of limited accommodation instead....? Or is there even a chance of UN administration...? (Probably not, but maybe....)
I think you have missed my point, which was that rebuilding a nation like Syria is not only not just a question of bricks and mortar but of restoring institutions or assets which have been damaged in a conflict which is now over. Right now there is not the slightest prospect of a peaceful settlement, which is why politicians in the West infuriate me - they are either stupid or callous (and Cameron must surely go into the latter category)Dave B wrote:You are taking "rebuilding" rather literally, animist. It is in common usage to also mean the "rebuilding of a nstion". Yes, there are immediate concerhs but every bomb that falls on industrial areas, e.g. oilfields, means more that more resources (and therefore cost) will be required to "rebuild" the Syrian nation - or at leastvenough to ensure a viable life for those left over.animist wrote:FFS Dave, that is the least of our worries. In fact it should be a hope for all, viz to be paying something to reconstruct Syria. Do you seriously think that Syria is some sort of building or society hit by a hurricane which is capable, funds available, of being rebuilt?Dave B wrote:
But the bill for rebuilding whatever future Syria has gets larger every day, who is going to pay it?
The West's record in this task in Iraq and Afghanistan do not inspire me with confidence. This poor legacy is, perhaps, part of the repeating circles of violence in the area.
so can I take that as a basic agreement with me?- Not that reducing Russia's influence should be a major motive in supporting AssadDave B wrote:With the number of different rebel groups, many with their own agendas it seems, you could be right, animist, but one might also say something similar about Daesh. The two at least have one agenda each, even if they do use barbaric tactics to achieve it. Then, I doubt that the rebels are saintsanimist wrote:the Assad regime should IMO (frequently stated) now be regarded as legitimate on the ground that it is the only one capable of governing, with outside help, the countryNick wrote: So where abouts does that the Assad regime sit? Yes, it's appalling, but would any realistic alternative be much less appalling? Is it feasible to think of alternatives given the support from Russia? Should we think of limited accommodation instead....? Or is there even a chance of UN administration...? (Probably not, but maybe....)
But, what about the democracy you usually support, are not the people of Syria voting with their AK47s?
Saddam, Ghadafi etc. were all strong men who held their countries (more or less) together and, like Assad, they both used what we would consider criminal tactics to weild their power. Assad, however, should now be attractive to tge West perhaps. So far as I can remember he has never been accused of sponsoring ihternational terrorism and we should reduce Russia's influences.
I have read the article again and no, surely the writer's point was what she said - I think you may be spinning it in order to state for the umpteenth time that Corbyn is a weak leader. If she is sincere then I retract a teeny bit from my previous post, since I think she makes good points about Cameron's slimy logic. But this does not really alter the fact that Cameron has the power in parliament, not Corbyn; the Tories would win whatever Corbyn's tactics had been, since they were under the whip themselves and just 7 of them defied itNick wrote: I think the Telegraph's point, is not so much whether he should or shouldn't have imposed a whip, but that he couldn't. That surely is the basis for claiming he is not fit to be PM, as he can't even lead his party on such an important issue as the use of lethal force. Corbyn represents around 15% of the PLP. It's hard to see how he can ever succeed. And every concession he makes will anger and disillusion his new best friends, for whom even Ed Miliband was "too Tory".
I think you have missed my point, which was that rebuilding a nation like Syria is not only not just a question of bricks and mortar but of restoring institutions or assets which have been damaged in a conflict which is now over. Right now there is not the slightest prospect of a peaceful settlement, which is why politicians in the West infuriate me - they are either stupid or callous (and Cameron must surely go into the latter category)
I had said:so can I take that as a basic agreement with me?
Thus it might seem that we share similar opinions on this, ignoring your misinterpretation of my use of "rebuilding" in the above quote. "Rebuilding Syria's future" will certainly involve bricks and mortar but a whole lot more besides - which I thought was implicit in my usage.But the bill for rebuilding whatever future Syria has gets larger every day, who is going to pay it?