The Politics Thread

[MooseBreath]

what kind of a country have we become when we turn a blind eye to a group of people who behead children because they are the wrong religion? I think the vast majority of rational people believe something has to be done about ISIS, just wandering around with a placard saying "bread not bombs" isn't going to defeat them or make us safer.

To be fair I think we've always been quite selective about which atrocities we deem worthy of our attention. We'd never dream of bombing the likes of North Korea despite what goes on there, and there are many more examples of countries where bad things have happened and we haven't considered getting involved.

But more than that I think people just don't have any faith that bombing the region is going to do any good, and might actually make things a lot worse, both over there but more importantly here at home where more bombing will certainly give home grown extremists more effective propaganda for recruitment campaigns.

I think what we need to know is what kind of power ISIS are likely to achieve if they are left alone. If they are potentially a beast that could one day threaten the West directly then maybe they need to be nipped in the bud. But if they would realistically struggle to gain any territory outside of the Syria/Iraq power vacuum then personally I could probably accept it and concentrate on eradicating home going terrorism, because that's the only way they would be a threat to us.

[leicsmac]

I've already said I don't know whether bombing is a good idea or not but the arguments that the Russians/French/US are doing it already is a crap 1. What you're basically saying is let them risk their service men, spend their money on our behalf and we'll just accept the benefits.

That's cowardly and immoral imo.

 

If you follow that argument to its logical conclusion then practically every country in the world should be bombing ISIS as they are a threat to practically every one of them. Which is a mite impractical. If those countries are happy to be the representatives of every sane person on Earth (because let's face it, anyone who sympathises with ISIS is insane) then we should be happy to let them unless they really want us there too.

 

I know you think differently, but I honestly don't think the UK needs to be a big mover and shaker on the world stage any more from a military perspective. There's other ways to maintain our international relevance.

[leicsmac]

To be fair I think we've always been quite selective about which atrocities we deem worthy of our attention. We'd never dream of bombing the likes of North Korea despite what goes on there, and there are many more examples of countries where bad things have happened and we haven't considered getting involved.

But more than that I think people just don't have any faith that bombing the region is going to do any good, and might actually make things a lot worse, both over there but more importantly here at home where more bombing will certainly give home grown extremists more effective propaganda for recruitment campaigns.

I think what we need to know is what kind of power ISIS are likely to achieve if they are left alone. If they are potentially a beast that could one day threaten the West directly then maybe they need to be nipped in the bud. But if they would realistically struggle to gain any territory outside of the Syria/Iraq power vacuum then personally I could probably accept it and concentrate on eradicating home going terrorism, because that's the only way they would be a threat to us.

 

Can't disagree with anything you've said there Moose. Glad we can be of accord on at least one thing.

[Guest]

To be fair I think we've always been quite selective about which atrocities we deem worthy of our attention. We'd never dream of bombing the likes of North Korea despite what goes on there, and there are many more examples of countries where bad things have happened and we haven't considered getting involved.

But more than that I think people just don't have any faith that bombing the region is going to do any good, and might actually make things a lot worse, both over there but more importantly here at home where more bombing will certainly give home grown extremists more effective propaganda for recruitment campaigns.

I think what we need to know is what kind of power ISIS are likely to achieve if they are left alone. If they are potentially a beast that could one day threaten the West directly then maybe they need to be nipped in the bud. But if they would realistically struggle to gain any territory outside of the Syria/Iraq power vacuum then personally I could probably accept it and concentrate on eradicating home going terrorism, because that's the only way they would be a threat to us.

 

you are speaking more and more commonsense since your return. Did the real moosebreath die and you took his place?

 

how many atrocities in Africa have we watched and done nothing without mentioning others closer to home?

 

Power in Syria/Iraq is always going to be a mess. ISIS will probably be no worse to the west than the present govt or any other. We will put our noses in and then we will get blamed for the mess that follows - by someone. Will the kurds be given their own homeland?

 

We should be better now at deciding where to interfere and where not to interfere. Our home problems are solely down to our previous interference in this region. Are our politicians voted in to protect us or "protect" some other population in some other area of the world? what right do we have to decide who rules and how they rule in any other country? And if we do why didn't we attack communist china? Communist russia? Extremist America?

[hackneyfox]

MattP

I had read it and I've read read it again.

Still can't work out why you told fuchsntf to read what he'd said.

 

He's basically called anyone that doesn't agree with him a 'terrorist sympathiser'.

That's many military experts, people in his own party, The Daily hate and about 50% of the population.

 

Is this really the standard of debate we want in this country?

[Guest MattP]

To be fair I think we've always been quite selective about which atrocities we deem worthy of our attention. We'd never dream of bombing the likes of North Korea despite what goes on there, and there are many more examples of countries where bad things have happened and we haven't considered getting involved.

But more than that I think people just don't have any faith that bombing the region is going to do any good, and might actually make things a lot worse, both over there but more importantly here at home where more bombing will certainly give home grown extremists more effective propaganda for recruitment campaigns.

I think what we need to know is what kind of power ISIS are likely to achieve if they are left alone. If they are potentially a beast that could one day threaten the West directly then maybe they need to be nipped in the bud. But if they would realistically struggle to gain any territory outside of the Syria/Iraq power vacuum then personally I could probably accept it and concentrate on eradicating home going terrorism, because that's the only way they would be a threat to us.

 

I agree with much of this, but it's a false comparison with North Korea, ISIS has already killed British citizens, they killed them in Paris and they killed them in Tunisia,

 

MattP

I had read it and I've read read it again.

Still can't work out why you told fuchsntf to read what he'd said.

 

He's basically called anyone that doesn't agree with him a 'terrorist sympathiser'.

That's many military experts, people in his own party, The Daily hate and about 50% of the population.

 

Is this really the standard of debate we want in this country?

 

No he hasn't, last time I'll say this but he (allegedly) said "Don't walk into the lobby with Corbyn and those terrorist sympathisers" - That isn't calling anyone who disagrees with airstrikes a terrorist sympathiser.

 

If you want more clarity he's just said in the house again....

 

"I have made it very clear that this is about how we fight terrorism and there is honour in any vote that honourable members make"

[Guest MattP]

Jon Woodcock is easily my favourite Labour MP these days, I think I'd even vote for him if he was my local one.

 

Will he be reassured that nobody on this side of the House will make a decision based on any such remarks or will we be threatened from doing what we believe is the right thing. Whether those threats come from online activists or indeed from our own dispatch box.

[Guest MattP]

Because JC wasn't the labour leader; igniting the normal person to take an interest in politics and the things done in their name. JC is the difference.

 

 

I do like you FIF.

[leicsmac]

I agree with much of this, but it's a false comparison with North Korea, ISIS has already killed British citizens, they killed them in Paris and they killed them in Tunisia,

 

 

 

So the reason we should confront ISIS but not the other doers of evil around the world is specifically because they've taken British lives, then? If they weren't to do that but instead practice their brand of death-worshipping fascism on citizens of other nations, should we give them a pass - as is the case with a fair few deplorable regimes and organisations around the world?

 

Moose is right - we are selective in what nastiness we choose to tolerate.

[Guest MattP]

So the reason we should confront ISIS but not the other doers of evil around the world is specifically because they've taken British lives, then? If they weren't to do that but instead practice their brand of death-worshipping fascism on citizens of other nations, should we give them a pass - as is the case with a fair few deplorable regimes and organisations around the world?

 

Not at all, we should always be pro-active if innocent people are being slaughtered by fascists, islamists, communists whatever. We also have to be realistic though as well about what we can and can't do.

 

But we are obviously going to be even more pro-active against groups that directly threaten and kill us, people speak like the UK isn't already a target for ISIS, we are, they are recruiting on these lands, as far as I'm aware The North Korean communist party isn't.

I will reply to anything else later but I'm going to sit down and watch this debate now.

[Webbo]

The reason we didn't attack the USSR,China or N Korea is because it would have led to nuclear war. We do what we can and do as little damage as possible.

The outcomes aren't always great but we'll never know what would have happened if we hadn't acted.

[Guest]

I agree with much of this, but it's a false comparison with North Korea, ISIS has already killed British citizens, they killed them in Paris and they killed them in Tunisia,

 

 

No he hasn't, last time I'll say this but he (allegedly) said "Don't walk into the lobby with Corbyn and those terrorist sympathisers" - That isn't calling anyone who disagrees with airstrikes a terrorist sympathiser.

 

If you want more clarity he's just said in the house again....

 

Or is that a cowardly u-turn trying to cover up his true feelings?

[Guest]

 

I do like you FIF.

 

If you met me you'd love me! I'll try and make an effort next spring.

[Guest]

Not at all, we should always be pro-active if innocent people are being slaughtered by fascists, islamists, communists whatever. We also have to be realistic though as well about what we can and can't do.

 

But we are obviously going to be even more pro-active against groups that directly threaten and kill us, people speak like the UK isn't already a target for ISIS, we are, they are recruiting on these lands, as far as I'm aware The North Korean communist party isn't.

I will reply to anything else later but I'm going to sit down and watch this debate now.

 

what about capitalists?

[Guest]

The reason we didn't attack the USSR,China or N Korea is because it would have led to nuclear war. We do what we can and do as little damage as possible.

The outcomes aren't always great but we'll never know what would have happened if we hadn't acted.

 

You mean we pick on weak powers who can't hurt us too much and then get indignant when they dare to actually attack us in the only way they can hurt us?

 

Wrong is wrong wherever it is. Our politicians should be more mindful of the people they represent and less eager to get involved in other sovereign states that have nothing to do with us. We could still buy oil from the ghaddafian pigs as easily as from whichever tinpot general is in charge of the oilfields now. better still we could invest in our own country in renewable energy, tide, wind, solar ... and then not need to deal with governments that do not hold the high moral standrads we ourselves hold.

[ramboacdc]

the £ is plummeting now. so far its hit mostly the Turkish Lira.......interesting. 

[Guest MattP]

This debate is already descending into farce.

[Jon the Hat]

I do not think people are saying do nothing, they are saying airstrikes will not make things better. Innocent  people will suffer. In the recent attacks by France a school was hit with casualties. They will just do random strikes hoping to take a few of the ISIS  out. This will more refugees the area and likely to turn more against the West resulting in more terrorism not less.

Something has to be done but airstrikes is not the way.

 

Oh come on Ken, give the armed forces a little bit of respect wont you?

[Jon the Hat]

what about capitalists?

 

Where are capitalists decapitating people and throwing Homosexuals off buildings?  Bomb those ones.

[Darkon84]

I'm not his biggest fan, but let Corbyn speak. The interruptions and shouting is getting pretty damn tedious now. Let him get on with it and we can get the debate moving. It's only delaying the whole thing

 

EDIT: Unfortunately I was helping a colleague while Cameron was taking most of his heckling, so was unaware of his interruptions, but yea, as Matt says below, both of them getting a lot of it and could have helped themselves to move things along a lot smoother.

[Guest MattP]

Cameron and Corbyn both having a pretty tough time of it at the minute, we've had nearly two hours of this so far and we have gone barely anywhere.

 

In hindsight Cameron should have just apologised and Corbyn should have answered the question on Iraq, the result of not doing both has cost about 45 minutes in shouting time.

[Guest MattP]

The Mogg getting up to the correct the speaker has been the highlight so far.

[Alf Bentley]

Where are capitalists decapitating people and throwing Homosexuals off buildings?  Bomb those ones.

 

 

Saudi Arabia? Russia? (OK, maybe not decapitating or throwing people off buildings, but plenty of bigotry & judicial/extra-judicial killing)

[Webbo]

Saudi Arabia? Russia? (OK, maybe not decapitating or throwing people off buildings, but plenty of bigotry & judicial/extra-judicial killing)

Stretching it a bit calling Saudi capitalist.

[Webbo]

You mean we pick on weak powers who can't hurt us too much and then get indignant when they dare to actually attack us in the only way they can hurt us?

 

Wrong is wrong wherever it is. Our politicians should be more mindful of the people they represent and less eager to get involved in other sovereign states that have nothing to do with us. We could still buy oil from the ghaddafian pigs as easily as from whichever tinpot general is in charge of the oilfields now. better still we could invest in our own country in renewable energy, tide, wind, solar ... and then not need to deal with governments that do not hold the high moral standrads we ourselves hold.

Bit silly? There are plenty of weak countries out there that we don't attack. What Isis are doing is beyond " not holding the moral standards we hold".