I am not loooking to start another major argument, but as human beings irrespective of whatever side of the Syria debate you sit, I urge you to hear the speech by Hilary Benn yesterday. To hear the House of Commons 'clap' on both sides tells you that the content is uncontentious (regarding our domestic agendas) but relevant in the wider debate. It is a classic moment and one that I recommend.
A very good speech indeed. I still completely disagree with the bombing in Syria but you can see the reasoning behind it.
I have to agree and whilst I don't see any negotiated solution to IS (or whatever name the operate under!!), I feel it will take 'boots on the ground' to resolve. Yes, Hilary Benn's speech was brilliant and I can see him as Corbyn's successor.
He certainly came over with conviction, credibility and integrity. The look he got from Corbyn when he sat down would have melted steel though !
Benn spoke well, don't get me wrong, but did anyone else feel it was more style over substance, much like most of the supposed "highlights" of the parliamentary debate? If you strip back the rhetoric, his main argument for the motion was that the UN says its OK, and that air strikes worked well in Iraq. But the counter argument there is firstly why can't our contribution to the coalition be to take a bigger chunk of the workload in Iraq? Secondly, in Iraq we were supporting one group on the ground with the firepower and numbers to benefit. Is that the case in Syria? It also fails to address why it has to be us in Syria, what military hardware or capabilities do we have that the coalition currently lack? I thought the speech was good because it set a higher standard for debate than the PR-centric, question dodging, catchphrase heavy bile that Cameron and other senior Tory's seem to spew, but it still failed to answer key questions with fact. The references to Hitler and WW2 were OTT too. I rarely agree with Peter Hitchens, but I think he said that every politician wants to come over as the new Churchill in every war debate. This isn't a declaration of total war, this is a comparatively minor decision on whether we have the legal and moral justification to extend limited military action across a border. Drawing comparisons to the significantly tougher decisions made by politicians in the past cheapens their actions, rather than make yours seem more special.
Thought its delivery was far better than its content. The guy loves a war. In his defence, I feel he is one of those that voted for because it's genuinely what he believes is the right course of action, and that I can't hugely argue with - whereas you could've guessed certain names in the for list, well before the debate. The Ummuna's, the Kendall's, the Hunt's. Find it terribly sad that some of those MPs, to my mind at least, have used a bombing campaign in Syria to try and upstage the leader.
Anyone remember Tony Blair's chest-thumping speech before he took us into an illiegal war in Iraq that went a long way to creating the problems we are facing today? That was equally stirring, uplifting and inspirational and I'm sure there were as many hairs on the back of necks that day as there were on Wednesday. And such inspiration led us down an awful path, one that surely the vast majority recognise as being a dreadful mistake in history with hundreds of thousands of innocent lives lost in a country fractured by western intervention allowing the likes of IS (or whatever we're calling them this week) to get their **** together and grow in strength, ready to take retribution against the 'infidels' that bombed their cities for the best part of a decade, killing their brothers and sisters. Great oratory does not necessarily lead to great decision making, in fact it can often mask misinformation hidden within the actual content so whilst the words of Benn were indeed inspirational, let's just see how the actions they have helped to make reality pan out shall we? Still too many unanswered questions for me - all this stuff about 70,000 moderates and even the seven supposed attacks stopped this year by our security services are being over-hyped I reckon. And how about these?
I heard an interview on Radio 4 with a spokesman for the Free Syrian Army this morning who said they had in excess of 70k troops available so maybe the PM is not too far off the mark. However that may also be complete tosh as frankly he would say that wouldn't he? I don't think that there is one simple solution to the problem - the point TMC makes above is hugely important as it seems obvious to me that for IS to run any form of army they require cash and weapons. How it is beyond the collective intelligence services of the West to track down both the funders and the arms dealers involved is beyond me. Even if we have no jurisdiction to act against them they can certainly be publically named and shamed. Tactically it should be really straightforward to take out any convoys of fuel tankers whichever way they are heading - they are slow moving and pretty obvious and easy to spot..That has to be one of the major advantages of controlling the air. I am not displeased that we have bombed their oil refineries - it seems to be tactically correct to both reduce their operational capacity in terms of moving their heavy weaponry and also draining their resources financially. I do take the opinion that if we deem it OK to attack IS targets in Iraq then with the new backing of a UN resolution to make such action legal it seems pointless to recognise a line in the sand to allow IS to scuttle off into safety in Syria. I do find it a little frustrating when people think that just because we have decided to act militarily over Syria that we will not act to denude IS financially and try to investigate who their backers are and who is supplying the weaponry. For me military action to stop the growth of IS in the region has to be the right decision.and for all the pelters he has received from the left Hillary Benn got it spot on when he said that they are modern day fascists. I genuinely don't see how they can be negotiated with so we either accept their growth and the spread of their ideology or we do something about it. For me that something is a combination of diplomacy, financial action and military action as well as trying to act to stop them poisoning the minds of the young and disenfranchised in the West..
I have no objection to bombing ISIS but it cannot be the only part of any stratergy. Boots on the ground coupled with the airstrikes is the only way to really puch toward any resolution in that area. Then I would say what else? Do we try to wipe out disidents in Pakistan, Boko harem, find any others around north africa? What about our own home grown nut jobs? It won't end in a hurry because they can hide within the general populous. Part of me thinks we should make some sort of Israel like decision. Here you go boys, you can have this bit of desert and we'll stop killing you, if you then stop killing us we will buy your oil while you return to the dark ages. Everyone happy? Bah!
I thought the speech was disgusting, self promoting, dodgy use of evidence (successful IRAQ airstrikes my arse). Eloquent maybe, but so what, i'd prefer inarticulate mumblings that argued the case on an objective level- no hope of that though is there. I thought Gerald Kaufman (aka Yoda) point about most of this being political gesture was more on the money.
The elephant in the room (that I've not otherwise read anywhere else) is what impact did the lobbyists working for arms and construction companies who get the contracts to rebuild Syria after we've bombed the sh1t out of them have on the pro-bombing campaign? Have you seen all those lovely Brimstone missiles we're got sat ready and waiting to be launched? Hundred grand each they cost, and what good are they doing anyone sat gathering dust in a warehouse somewhere, we need WAR so they can be put to use and make some scumbags somewhere lots and lots of money
Close this thread now.Political topics on here are slowly demolishing the viability, and harmony of this FOOTBALL board. i am sick and tired of the political rantings of posters of any persuasion who will never admit that they, or the party they support, can ever be wrong.
I must confess when I first saw this thread this morning I groaned, but mainly because I knew I wasn't going to be able to resist getting involved
While religion exists wars persecution and horrendous acts if barbarity will be carried out in its name It's all about control you can never reason with people who base their whole lives on a lie
Whilst I agree with that to an extent, a far bigger driver than religion is money and power. If religion were ever to finally be eradicated wars would still be fought over greed. The problem is power hungry people whether they dress it up as religion or not! Bah!
