https://www.facebook.com/330250343871/videos/10153786888378872/?pnref=story well it looks like its going to be on, My bet is that russia takes turkey too, and then NATO has to deal with the fall out. But at least the jeering of PMQ was absent from this debate.
I thought it was one of David Cameron's best speeches. He showed that the government understands the complexity of the situation on the ground and that bombing IS wont make them go away. As for Turkey - 3 million Russians visit Turkey every year. They may have just bitten the hand that feeds their tourism industry,
I think it was also Cameron's best clear response to plain questions, something he avoids doing normally. Kudos for treating the subject suitably seriously. I still don't agree with going to war again, not without clearly sorting out our goals and partnerships. and gaining full UN approval. Also how come there's away's money for war. I know its a very jaded view, but I honestly believe the government is doing this for its own political ends, just as Blair and Thatcher did. Dennis Skinner boils this down in his own inimitable way - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ner-syria-military-intervention-a6750156.html
Setting up impossible criteria for action is no different from Corbyn just saying 'no' without thinking. We know what our goal is - the destruction of IS. We know who are partners are: The US, Russia, France, Germany, Turkey, Iraq, The Syrian Government, the moderate Syrian militias. Every so often, true evil raises its head. This time, it is IS. I don't care why we do it. It's still the right thing to do.
WHY we do things is very important, terms like EVIL dont help rational debate. So partners.... apart from the fact our partners are not all partners with each other. from memory - The US, hate Russia, Turkey, hates The Syrian Government, and the moderate Syrian militias. The Syrian Government, are at war with the moderate Syrian militias. The US is at war with The Syrian Government. Russia, is at war with the moderate Syrian militias, and now maybe Turkey. Also the EVIL argument doesnt explain HOW we should act, only the WHY we should act. Power vacums (like we left in afghan, Iraq, and libya) are exactly the reason why ISIS was created. Its only be inaction the last time around, that we didnt aide ISIS. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/29/cameron-british-attack-syria-mps
Actually setting clear criteria for political and military action is very important. Sometimes I think its too easy to suggest bombing cures all, debate and talking of all parties (obviously ISIS will not be willing) is the only clear way forward. We need the Removal of the Assad family, reorganise the syrian national and free armies together, destroy ISIS's military and economic capability (someone is buying their oil), cut off their saudi funding (again one of our 'EVIL' economic friends). Really the first stage is getting russia to agree to the removal of the Assad family.
That's never going to happen. I think Dennis Skinner is right, whether you believe we should go in regardless or stay out of it. It's a web we'll be tangled in for years to come.
Ive just started to listen to this, and excellent intelligent analysis. starts 7 minutes ish in. good analysis at 34 minutes in http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06pz2mg#play
then we'll be led into a proxy war. not a good place to be, at least our nuclear weapons will hold dem ruskies off.... wont they?
The Syrian government has launched chemical weapon attacks against it's own people, it's troops have waged a campaign of rape, torture and murder against the populace and created a mass humanitarian crisis. How exactly is partnering with them combating evil? Indeed the rise of ISIS in Syria is an almost direct result of our not waging war on the Syrian government in the first place.
just a few months ago, russia conveniently accidentally showed plans for a system that will out do our nukes, on national tv. The people buying the oil ISIS has are Assad's government (Bozza posted a link to IS finances in another thread) i think we'll flip flop over our nato allegiances (maybe the end of nato?) and maybe side with russia. we've peeved the americans on several occasions in the past year. one of them was a deal with russia to work together tackling ISIS. another was endorsing the PRC in the most official way possible. But there is definitely a proxy war on the horizon
Because its all a broken window fallacy to temporarily stimulate our economy while destroying another economy. [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG3AKoL0vEs"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG3AKoL0vEs[/ame]
https://www.rt.com/news/323538-turkey-convoy-syria-attack/ So Russia and turkey are now firing on each other. It's almost as if they haven't realised theyre the UKs partners.
No one has said that bombing is a cure all - in fact that's the exact opposite of what the government has been saying. Are we going to debate what has actually been said or are we going to talk about life in Corbynite fantasy land? And that could take years. ISIS are killing people right now. And they don't need Saudi money. They have $100m cash on hand. Are we just going to sit on our hands until they spend it all? They could have won the civil war by then. No it's not. The next step is stopping IS spreading further. You can't look to political solutions whilst the second biggest party in the civil war is someone we absolutely cannot deal with politically.
We're already tangled in it. Are we just going to sit back and be passive? Will it take a major terrorist attack on British soil to wake us up to the simple reality that these people already want to kill us and no amount of hugs are going to change that.
The Syrian government is killing people now. The Russian military action is in many ways aids ISIS by targeting the rebel ground troops. Spread to where? Unless they have a mass influx of recruits (Say because people keep being killed as collateral damage from bombing raids) it's doubtful that they have the manpower to cause a major shift in the status quo. While they may take towns they often lose them too.
The Syrian government aren't sending suicide bombers into European restaurants or gunmen into concert halls. The idea that we can't deal with ISIS until we deal with the Syrian Government is a fallacy that misses the point. ISIS are a threat to the entire region and they have carried out dozens of terrorist attacks against many countries around the world, including one that explicitly targeted British civilians. They have already destabilised Iraq and Syria and could spread further. When Russia, the USA and Iran are all on the same side - maybe the issue really is black and white. The spread of ISIS has been checked in part by the airstrikes. They are working. They're not enough, but for the moment that's all that's on the table.
So it only matters if white people are killed? Military action against ISIS will likely result in more domestic terror. Taking military action without appreciating the root problems and tolerating human rights abuses by people with broadly similar aims is how we got here.
