Today's HOC Vote

Bombing suits Cameron's agenda. It may even work in reducing the Isis capacity to hold territory (something they're not geared up to do anyway) the idea of the caliphate is metaphorical not literal & it won't be destroyed by bombing.

Ethan got shouted down for stating we don't learn from history, he's 100% correct. Iraq was a mistake, afganistan had no end game and this intervention has similarities.

I do think we're responsible for the situation in Syria. Namely through Iraq, encouragement of the Arab Spring & our inability to remove Assad. Were obliged to act, but that action shouldn't be to blindly stumble into a conflict with Russia and every hormonal Islamic teenager in the world.
 
therod said:
Bombing suits Cameron's agenda. It may even work in reducing the Isis capacity to hold territory (something they're not geared up to do anyway) the idea of the caliphate is metaphorical not literal & it won't be destroyed by bombing.

Ethan got shouted down for stating we don't learn from history, he's 100% correct. Iraq was a mistake, afganistan had no end game and this intervention has similarities.

I do think we're responsible for the situation in Syria. Namely through Iraq, encouragement of the Arab Spring & our inability to remove Assad. Were obliged to act, but that action shouldn't be to blindly stumble into a conflict with Russia and every hormonal Islamic teenager in the world.
Click to expand...
It's ok saying he's a 100% correct historically, that's easy, I've also said I agree 100% with the way forward he suggested, what he keeps avoiding or won't answer is, how long do we try these diplomatic efforts and risk allowing IS to carry on with their agenda?
 
therod said:
Bombing suits Cameron's agenda. It may even work in reducing the Isis capacity to hold territory (something they're not geared up to do anyway) the idea of the caliphate is metaphorical not literal & it won't be destroyed by bombing.

Ethan got shouted down for stating we don't learn from history, he's 100% correct. Iraq was a mistake, afganistan had no end game and this intervention has similarities.

I do think we're responsible for the situation in Syria. Namely through Iraq, encouragement of the Arab Spring & our inability to remove Assad. Were obliged to act, but that action shouldn't be to blindly stumble into a conflict with Russia and every hormonal Islamic teenager in the world.
Click to expand...

So Nick - what do the UK do ?

Because mistakes have been made in the past - again the situation in Iraq for a good deal amount of people is better as it also is in Afghan so maybe they aren't the failures everyone paints - do we sit back and do nothing in fear of mistakes ?
 
Liverpoolphil said:
So Nick - what do the UK do ?

Because mistakes have been made in the past - again the situation in Iraq for a good deal amount of people is better as it also is in Afghan so maybe they aren't the failures everyone paints - do we sit back and do nothing in fear of mistakes ?
Click to expand...

The U.K. must act. 100% agree with that. Isis are a side show. It's Assad that needs to be removed, but we can't do that as Russia won't have it.

Without Assad Isis don't exist. Is it a coincidence that they came to prominence when it looked like he was losing? He created a bigger bogeyman to take the heat off himself.

Bombing serves a political purpose, it makes us look decisive. A braver course of action would be, not get sucked into a regional conflict that could explode. Spend resources on combating radicalisation at home. Stop those who've been to Syria returning.

The biggest threat to us is a uk national with a backpack full of Semtex. Stop radicalisation and you reduce the threat, IMO of course.

But the above doesn't make Cameron look like a hardman capable of standing up to Putin, who is a threat that dwarfs isil.
 
therod said:
The U.K. must act. 100% agree with that. Isis are a side show. It's Assad that needs to be removed, but we can't do that as Russia won't have it.

Without Assad Isis don't exist. Is it a coincidence that they came to prominence when it looked like he was losing? He created a bigger bogeyman to take the heat off himself.

Bombing serves a political purpose, it makes us look decisive. A braver course of action would be, not get sucked into a regional conflict that could explode. Spend resources on combating radicalisation at home. Stop those who've been to Syria returning.

The biggest threat to us is a uk national with a backpack full of Semtex. Stop radicalisation and you reduce the threat, IMO of course.

But the above doesn't make Cameron look like a hardman capable of standing up to Putin, who is a threat that dwarfs isil.
Click to expand...

So the UK must act - by doing what exactly ?

Combating radicalisation in this country doesn't stop ISIS - that doesn't stop thousands of innocent people getting killed - that just focuses on the smallest issue possible and only effects us.

If someone wants to leave the country and join a fight then no amount of money spent trying to stop that will work.

We as a country are already tackling issues within our own borders - they just won't be published in the public domain - security forces will be working behind the scenes.

Bombing IMO isn't just a political purpose - it's also a humanity purpose by trying make steps towards innocent people being killed
 
pauldj42 said:
It's ok saying he's a 100% correct historically, that's easy, I've also said I agree 100% with the way forward he suggested, what he keeps avoiding or won't answer is, how long do we try these diplomatic efforts and risk allowing IS to carry on with their agenda?
Click to expand...

Well, usually you start these efforts and see how they do rather than set a hard stop and a date to fuel the planes up.
 
Liverpoolphil said:
So the UK must act - by doing what exactly ?

Combating radicalisation in this country doesn't stop ISIS - that doesn't stop thousands of innocent people getting killed - that just focuses on the smallest issue possible and only effects us.

If someone wants to leave the country and join a fight then no amount of money spent trying to stop that will work.

We as a country are already tackling issues within our own borders - they just won't be published in the public domain - security forces will be working behind the scenes.

Bombing IMO isn't just a political purpose - it's also a humanity purpose by trying make steps towards innocent people being killed
Click to expand...

Mate it's a mess, if I had the answers I'd be boutros boutros ghali, but you can't really make the argument that bombing is humanitarian.
 
Ethan said:
Well, usually you start these efforts and see how they do rather than set a hard stop and a date to fuel the planes up.
Click to expand...

I agree Ethan, that's why I quoted 1-2 years, might take less probably take longer, IS worry me more than the plan, especially in the short term while we go down that route.
Either route is going to cost innocent lives.
 
therod said:
Mate it's a mess, if I had the answers I'd be boutros boutros ghali, but you can't really make the argument that bombing is humanitarian.
Click to expand...

You can if it helps save innocent people's lives
 
Ethan said:
Well, usually you start these efforts and see how they do rather than set a hard stop and a date to fuel the planes up.
Click to expand...

Do you have this evidence to hand in regards your post about the CIA and Cheney etc
 
Old Skier said:
LP has contacts in the CIA, I thought he was just a crab. Impressed.
Click to expand...

It has been well publicised over the years.

Cheney and Rumsfeld had been supporters of Saddam in the 80s, including supporting him going to war with Iran in 1990 and supplied much of the weaponry he used to kill many Iraqi civilians. The US didn't care about those people at the time. After relations soured, and 9/11, Cheney started to build a case for action to remove Iran, including getting Bush to call Blair on Sep 14th to get his support, although Blair was against it. Cheney made allegations in public about links between Saddam and Al Qaeda, as well as Saddam and Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers. Cheney even worked around the CIA who told him there were no such links, and leaked to selected media outlets. This was all building a premise for war.
 
Ethan said:
It has been well publicised over the years.

Cheney and Rumsfeld had been supporters of Saddam in the 80s, including supporting him going to war with Iran in 1990 and supplied much of the weaponry he used to kill many Iraqi civilians. The US didn't care about those people at the time. After relations soured, and 9/11, Cheney started to build a case for action to remove Iran, including getting Bush to call Blair on Sep 14th to get his support, although Blair was against it. Cheney made allegations in public about links between Saddam and Al Qaeda, as well as Saddam and Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers. Cheney even worked around the CIA who told him there were no such links, and leaked to selected media outlets. This was all building a premise for war.
Click to expand...

There has been loads of "speculation" over the years

But that's what it has been - speculation as opposed to proven factual evidence

Hence why if you link anything for people to read it's from websites full of conjecture and speculation - especially more so since 9/11
 
I see that The Times reported today that Isis had invaded Afghanistan. Looks like the bombing campaign is going well then....
 
Liverpoolphil said:
There has been loads of "speculation" over the years

But that's what it has been - speculation as opposed to proven factual evidence

Hence why if you link anything for people to read it's from websites full of conjecture and speculation - especially more so since 9/11
Click to expand...

It is not a matter of conjecture that Cheney appeared on US political TV shows and made allegations, all couched in qualifiers, and that the recollection of others confirm his obsession with Saddam and a link to Al Qaeda. His opinion was based on something rather less than even speculation, but it had an effect on political policy. I guess you already knew Cheney was a canny and machiavellian politician.

The facts, since you prefer hard facts (except the evidence that this bombing campaign will succeed), is that there were no WMDs in Iraq. that a bloody war which turned into a quagmire was fought, and that it destabilised the delicate balance between Iraq and Iran, and drove the development of radical Islam in the area, leading, in part, to IS today.

Don't tell me you disagree with that basic sequence?
 
Ethan said:
As you know well, the CIA knew there were no WMD and the politicians had to concoct the false evidence to that effect.

They also knew that Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda but Cheney wasn't having any of it.
Click to expand...
Shame you didn't tell Mr. Blair that at the time. I don't know why, but I get the strong impression you voted for him
 
Ethan said:
It is not a matter of conjecture that Cheney appeared on US political TV shows and made allegations, all couched in qualifiers, and that the recollection of others confirm his obsession with Saddam and a link to Al Qaeda. His opinion was based on something rather less than even speculation, but it had an effect on political policy. I guess you already knew Cheney was a canny and machiavellian politician.
Click to expand...

Key words - allegations and opinion but that still doesn't mean his personal opinion confirms all the speculation


The facts, since you prefer hard facts (except the evidence that this bombing campaign will succeed), is that there were no WMDs in Iraq. that a bloody war which turned into a quagmire was fought, and that it destabilised the delicate balance between Iraq and Iran, and drove the development of radical Islam in the area, leading, in part, to IS today.

Don't tell me you disagree with that basic sequence?
Click to expand...

There were no WMD when they got to the sites

That doesn't mean when the intelligence was gathered they weren't there - could and maybe we're moved or destroyed.

You suggested or stated that the CIA knew there were none - proven fact or speculation ?

ISIS did take advantage of a situation in Iraq -

But then there is no way to suggest that they could have happened anyway even if we didn't go in

Again all speculation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top