FlyTheNest

howsillyofme1 wrote:Good morning

So has the attack by the US on a sovereign state ( no matter how repugnant it is) brought any positives?

Our country seems diminished and the US seem to have no idea what to do next

An attack like this has to be really well thought through and likely consequences scenarioed

We now see Russia and Iran lining up clearly behind Syria....and almost issuing a 'come on then let's have it' comment

Seems to me to have been a shambles but then again our useless Government will get off untouched as the media will be interested more who is shagging who and significant parts of the opposition support them.

But 'doing something' and looking tough is always so much easier than trying to solve a phenomenally complex situation by diplomacy!

SpinningHugo wrote:

howsillyofme1 wrote:Good morning

So has the attack by the US on a sovereign state ( no matter how repugnant it is) brought any positives?

Our country seems diminished and the US seem to have no idea what to do next

An attack like this has to be really well thought through and likely consequences scenarioed

We now see Russia and Iran lining up clearly behind Syria....and almost issuing a 'come on then let's have it' comment

Seems to me to have been a shambles but then again our useless Government will get off untouched as the media will be interested more who is shagging who and significant parts of the opposition support them.

But 'doing something' and looking tough is always so much easier than trying to solve a phenomenally complex situation by diplomacy!

It entirely depends upon whether chemical weapons continue to be used.

If they are not, then yes, it achieved something.

Similarly, we can judge the earlier tactic of not taking military action against Assad, and relying upon the voluntary destruction through agreement with Russia, to have failed by the same measure.

As for "diplomacy", that doesn't help any more than Corbyn's arguing for a 'political' solution. It is just wishing for the peaceful ends, without specifying any means whereby that can be achieved. It would be laughable, were the issue not so serious.

howsillyofme1 wrote:
Well there seems to be a little less confidence that Assad was responsible but my assumption is still that he is

Oh and I have little confidence in the intelligence within theatre of our intelligence services

I have said before I see no great difference between 'toxic chemical weapons and 'explosive' chemical weapons......perhaps we should show some of the aftermath of bomb attacks as well...not a pretty sight I imagine.

As to your last point. I am not sure what your solution to Syria is if not a diplomatic one? Are you proposing a military one...where is your solution

And the US has just attacked a sovereign state - that is an escalation! An escalation with no plan

And can you tell me you **** what Corbyn has to do with it all?

Why do you never criticise the pathetic antics of our current Government who are making us look ridiculous.....oh I forgot they are Tories and you are one!

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Good Corbyn everybody!

SpinningHugo wrote:

howsillyofme1 wrote:
Well there seems to be a little less confidence that Assad was responsible but my assumption is still that he is

Oh and I have little confidence in the intelligence within theatre of our intelligence services

I have said before I see no great difference between 'toxic chemical weapons and 'explosive' chemical weapons......perhaps we should show some of the aftermath of bomb attacks as well...not a pretty sight I imagine.

As to your last point. I am not sure what your solution to Syria is if not a diplomatic one? Are you proposing a military one...where is your solution

And the US has just attacked a sovereign state - that is an escalation! An escalation with no plan

And can you tell me you **** what Corbyn has to do with it all?

Why do you never criticise the pathetic antics of our current Government who are making us look ridiculous.....oh I forgot they are Tories and you are one!

1. Really? What is the plausible story anybody has given that it was not Assad? None at all that I have heard.

2. One is prohibited by international law. The other is not.

3. I doubt that a good solution is possible now. It was possible that if the west had intervened militarily earlier, that Assad could have been removed and a stable alternative government taken power. As it is, it looks like Assad's butchers will remain in power. The best that can be hoped for is that Russia is persuaded to stop Assad using chemical weapons.

4. It has indeed. Attacking sovereign states is sometimes justifiable. If they commit grotesque war crimes, like using chemical weapons against their own populations, it is justifiable to use force to try and stop that. For other situations see also Kosovo and Rwanda.

5. I am English and it is important to know what the leader of the opposition thinks on central questions like this. Corbyn, the former chair of Stop the War (sic), unsurprisingly takes the same view on this as they do. He has always opposed all military action anywhere by the west. Like Stop the War, he is quick to condemn the US, but slow to criticise Putin. His suggested alternatives are always nice ends ("peace") without any means being specified.

6. That seems like whataboutery to me. On this question, was the limited military action against Assad right, the government is right. Corbyn disagrees. Most of the PLP don't agree with Corbyn of course, but then they don't represent Labour any longer. I consider that to be unfortunate, as you know.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:

howsillyofme1 wrote:
Well there seems to be a little less confidence that Assad was responsible but my assumption is still that he is

Oh and I have little confidence in the intelligence within theatre of our intelligence services

I have said before I see no great difference between 'toxic chemical weapons and 'explosive' chemical weapons......perhaps we should show some of the aftermath of bomb attacks as well...not a pretty sight I imagine.

As to your last point. I am not sure what your solution to Syria is if not a diplomatic one? Are you proposing a military one...where is your solution

And the US has just attacked a sovereign state - that is an escalation! An escalation with no plan

And can you tell me you **** what Corbyn has to do with it all?

Why do you never criticise the pathetic antics of our current Government who are making us look ridiculous.....oh I forgot they are Tories and you are one!

1. Really? What is the plausible story anybody has given that it was not Assad? None at all that I have heard.

2. One is prohibited by international law. The other is not.

3. I doubt that a good solution is possible now. It was possible that if the west had intervened militarily earlier, that Assad could have been removed and a stable alternative government taken power. As it is, it looks like Assad's butchers will remain in power. The best that can be hoped for is that Russia is persuaded to stop Assad using chemical weapons.

4. It has indeed. Attacking sovereign states is sometimes justifiable. If they commit grotesque war crimes, like using chemical weapons against their own populations, it is justifiable to use force to try and stop that. For other situations see also Kosovo and Rwanda.

5. I am English and it is important to know what the leader of the opposition thinks on central questions like this. Corbyn, the former chair of Stop the War (sic), unsurprisingly takes the same view on this as they do. He has always opposed all military action anywhere by the west. Like Stop the War, he is quick to condemn the US, but slow to criticise Putin. His suggested alternatives are always nice ends ("peace") without any means being specified.

6. That seems like whataboutery to me. On this question, was the limited military action against Assad right, the government is right. Corbyn disagrees. Most of the PLP don't agree with Corbyn of course, but then they don't represent Labour any longer. I consider that to be unfortunate, as you know.

My emphasis. This is clearly contestable. This is a Forum. Please discuss not assert.

A UK government source dismissed the criticism of Mr Johnson: “The important thing is that this is Britain helping to influence US policy on Syria and Russia, far from being a poodle.

“Three months ago Syria wasn't really an issue for them but our push and recent events have made a difference.”

The source did not explain that influence the UK has so far had on US policy.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 75776.html

syria-boris-johnson-poodle-missile-strikes-cruise-donald-trump-assad-chemical-weapons

SpinningHugo wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 75776.html

syria-boris-johnson-poodle-missile-strikes-cruise-donald-trump-assad-chemical-weapons

Yes. "poodle" is the insult the Russian government has used about the UK for its following the President of the US on its opposition to the use of chemical weapons.

lol, indeed.

Asked if he would seek to withdraw Unite’s support for Corbyn if he won, Coyne argued it was not his priority.

NonOxCol wrote:Morning.

Why we are where we are, part 94 in an ongoing series...

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

howsillyofme1 wrote:A pre-emptive attack on a sovereign nation is also against international law....good luck with that. How does Israel fit into this? Holds two types of WMD 'illegally'

War crimes......a lot of people could be said to be guilty of these

Who set the US up as the judge jury and executioner on this

I deplore the use of chemical weapons and also many other weapons as well.

There is no point arguing with you due to you lack of intellectual capability to understand complexity and to change your mind

I may not agree often with Tubby or TE but they are a class above you

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 75776.html

syria-boris-johnson-poodle-missile-strikes-cruise-donald-trump-assad-chemical-weapons

tinyclanger2 wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 75776.html

syria-boris-johnson-poodle-missile-strikes-cruise-donald-trump-assad-chemical-weapons

Trump's poodle.
The sweet smell of "freedom"

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... rard-coyne

len-mccluskey-has-lost-the-plot-over-unite-election-says-rival-gerard-coyne

Gerard Coyne has a "rant" in the Guardian about McCluskey.

Asked if he would seek to withdraw Unite’s support for Corbyn if he won, Coyne argued it was not his priority.

SpinningHugo wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:
1. Really? What is the plausible story anybody has given that it was not Assad? None at all that I have heard.

2. One is prohibited by international law. The other is not.

3. I doubt that a good solution is possible now. It was possible that if the west had intervened militarily earlier, that Assad could have been removed and a stable alternative government taken power. As it is, it looks like Assad's butchers will remain in power. The best that can be hoped for is that Russia is persuaded to stop Assad using chemical weapons.

4. It has indeed. Attacking sovereign states is sometimes justifiable. If they commit grotesque war crimes, like using chemical weapons against their own populations, it is justifiable to use force to try and stop that. For other situations see also Kosovo and Rwanda.

5. I am English and it is important to know what the leader of the opposition thinks on central questions like this. Corbyn, the former chair of Stop the War (sic), unsurprisingly takes the same view on this as they do. He has always opposed all military action anywhere by the west. Like Stop the War, he is quick to condemn the US, but slow to criticise Putin. His suggested alternatives are always nice ends ("peace") without any means being specified.

6. That seems like whataboutery to me. On this question, was the limited military action against Assad right, the government is right. Corbyn disagrees. Most of the PLP don't agree with Corbyn of course, but then they don't represent Labour any longer. I consider that to be unfortunate, as you know.

My emphasis. This is clearly contestable. This is a Forum. Please discuss not assert.

The reasons why I consider the government to be right are given above.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
So no harm in preceding "the government is right" with "in my view".

SpinningHugo wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
So no harm in preceding "the government is right" with "in my view".

Who else's view would you think I was expressing?

RogerOThornhill wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
So no harm in preceding "the government is right" with "in my view".

Who else's view would you think I was expressing?

"The government is right" is a statement of fact
"I think the government is right" or "In my view etc" is an opinion.

Different.

HindleA wrote:http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk ... il-service



Whitehall woes: why is no one talking about our crumbling civil service

Henry Mance‏Verified account
@henrymance

Follow
More
Great story - civil servants are so busy with Brexit that expiring outsourcing contracts are just being rolled over https://www.ft.com/content/fa80d526-1b7a-11e7-a266-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RogerOThornhill wrote:Staying with the civil service...

Henry Mance‏Verified account
@henrymance

Follow
More
Great story - civil servants are so busy with Brexit that expiring outsourcing contracts are just being rolled over https://www.ft.com/content/fa80d526-1b7a-11e7-a266-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The civil service was cut down so far that when they're faced with an enormous challenge like Brexit - everything else goes to pot.

SpinningHugo wrote:As for Israel, that is the usual whataboutery.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Reiterated £10 an hour minimum wage straight in 2020.

Haven't we got a slow down coming? Has anybody actually modelled the effects?

NonOxCol wrote:Fuck's SAKE.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So easy to believe as well.

Motorway bridge near Woodall Services (M1) northbound - last week there was a banner saying "BREXIT BRING IT ON". This week it says "BREXIT WE WANT IT HARD AND FAST".

Willow904 wrote: and energy monopolies.

Willow904 wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Reiterated £10 an hour minimum wage straight in 2020.

Haven't we got a slow down coming? Has anybody actually modelled the effects?

Labour aren't in a position to implement anything by "2020" so I doubt much thought has been given to the cost in terms of jobs and in terms of costs to councils trying to provide social care etc.

Besides, wages don't operate in a vacuum. It's the mismatch between incomes and essential outgoings that affects standard of living. I'd prefer more focus on housing costs and energy monopolies. But then Ed Miliband had proposals on rent reforms and energy reforms which I liked but others presumably didn't, so no doubt whacking up the minimum wage will prove "popular" despite the obvious problems and the fact being paid more doesn't help if house costs go straight up in reaction.

We will build over a million new homes in five years, with at least half a million council homes, through our public investment strategy.

We will end insecurity for private renters by introducing rent controls, secure tenancies and a charter of private tenants’ rights, and increase access to affordable home ownership.

We will act to protect the future of our planet, with social justice at the heart of our environmental policies, and take action to fulfil the Paris climate agreement.

We will ensure a fair transition to a low-carbon economy, and drive the expansion of the green industries and jobs of the future, using our National Investment Bank to invest in public and community-owned renewable energy.

We will deliver clean energy and curb energy bill rises for households – energy for the 60 million, not the Big Six energy companies. We will defend and extend EU environmental protections.

Willow904 wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Reiterated £10 an hour minimum wage straight in 2020.

Haven't we got a slow down coming? Has anybody actually modelled the effects?

Labour aren't in a position to implement anything by "2020" so I doubt much thought has been given to the cost in terms of jobs and in terms of costs to councils trying to provide social care etc.

Besides, wages don't operate in a vacuum. It's the mismatch between incomes and essential outgoings that affects standard of living. I'd prefer more focus on housing costs and energy monopolies. But then Ed Miliband had proposals on rent reforms and energy reforms which I liked but others presumably didn't, so no doubt whacking up the minimum wage will prove "popular" despite the obvious problems and the fact being paid more doesn't help if house costs go straight up in reaction.