Paid Members LaGoosh Posted December 2, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted December 2, 2015 (edited) I think bombing ISIS targets and infrastructure is the right move as long as it's supporting a strong diplomatic strategy. Which it sadly isn't. The US are currently bombing ISIS oil wells to cut off their finances and supply lines which sounds like a smart idea. Â I don't think bombings will make the UK a larger target for terrorism. We are already a fucking massive target. Nothing would make us a bigger target than we already are. Edited December 2, 2015 by LaGoosh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Kookoocachu Posted December 2, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted December 2, 2015 We should be pointing all of our fingers heavily at Saudi Arabia for their role in creating and sustaining Daesh. Also we need to hear clarification from Cameron on how we can fight alongside anti-Assad fighters without getting into conflict with Russia which I haven't heard anyone mention yet on the coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members LaGoosh Posted December 2, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted December 2, 2015 Oh yeah definitely. Saudi Arabia's breed of Islam, Wahhabism, is essentially the origin of Islamic terrorism and partly to blame for all the troubles in the Middle East. If you actually look at ISIS ideology and usage of Sharia law there's not actually a massive difference between ISIS and Saudi Arabia. The fact that Saudi Arabia is currently bombing the shit out of Yemen and not ISIS shows you what they care about. Very few of the Arab states are really putting any real effort into combating ISIS. They're just relying on the West to do it for them while they basically concentrate on trying to fuck over Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Tommy! Posted December 2, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted December 2, 2015 (edited) We should be pointing all of our fingers heavily at Saudi Arabia for their role in creating and sustaining Daesh. Also we need to hear clarification from Cameron on how we can fight alongside anti-Assad fighters without getting into conflict with Russia which I haven't heard anyone mention yet on the coverage. Â I've heard a couple of reports raise this, but no clear answer. Its seems a really tricky one, am I right in saying the UK/US/France don't like ISIS, the rebels don't like Assad, Assad's not to keen on any of them, the rebels don't like pressure from the west to push on ISIS and Russia are bombing the rebels? Â Â What ever happened in the end with that Ukraine stand off a year or so back out of interest? Edited December 2, 2015 by Tommy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The King Of Swing Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 The bombing is happening no matter what the peasants think or what. I'm more interested in seeing how Corbyn handles the fallout. Â He needs to man up and get his house in order or fuck off back to backbenches. Being the better man isn't going to cut it when it is pretty clear that a large chunk of his own MP's have no intention of ever supporting him. Â The whole political scene in this country is fucking depressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d-d-d-dAz Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 I'm not convinced by the argument for extending the air strikes, but fuck if Hilary Benn didn't just give one of the greatest speeches I've ever heard. It sounded like it was from a film or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members SpursRiot2012 Posted December 2, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted December 2, 2015 (edited) Yep. It was an excellent speech. Hammond is Triple H and Orton to Benn's Taker and Shawn. Edited December 2, 2015 by SpursRiot2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted December 2, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted December 2, 2015 The bombing is happening no matter what the peasants think or what. I'm more interested in seeing how Corbyn handles the fallout. Â He needs to man up and get his house in order or fuck off back to backbenches. Being the better man isn't going to cut it when it is pretty clear that a large chunk of his own MP's have no intention of ever supporting him. Â The whole political scene in this country is fucking depressing. I've a lot of respect for Corbyn's principles but he's just unelectable. It's no wonder Tory's were joining the Labour party to vote for him. He's such an easy target. He's been treated shabbily by the right side press but its so fucking easy to have the hard of thinking up in arms about national security and national al pride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members SpursRiot2012 Posted December 2, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted December 2, 2015 I was all for Corbyn as Labour leader. But I think maybe I wasn't thinking about just how much members of his own party would undercut him. He will never get elected. Which means you're looking at five years of Osborne or Johnson next time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d-d-d-dAz Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 The problem with party politics is that you can't have an unbridled idealist in charge. It doesn't work. You can have it in pressure groups, or protest organisations, sure, but not in top level politics; mainly because compromise is the name of the game. You need to first, unite your party behind you. You then need to unite the country behind your vision and you finally need to get down to governing a country full of people with different perspectives. Corbyn would be a great PM of socialists, he'd be fucked trying to run a country full of bankers, solicitors, estate agents and whatever. Â You need to strike a balance between idealism and pragmatism. Go too far either way, and you're fucked. Corbyn's ideological purity is the ying to Tony Blair's ideologically empty yang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hallicks Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Right, except we're going to have had 10 years of unbridled Cameron economic policy with absolutely zero compromise or pragmatism by 2020. The PLP can go fuck themselves. They're determined to oust Corbyn, regardless of how much it's going to fuck the party up, and they did it at the first chance, despite significant public opposition to further military action. Wankers, the lot of them. Â Corbyn is electable, by the way. That's why he's been elected for the past 30 years in his constituency. The frenzied media campaign against him has been frightening. God forbid a democratic socialist gets anywhere near the corridors of power. Â "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
METAL ON METAL Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Corbyn is electable, by the way. That's why he's been elected for the past 30 years in his constituency. Â Just because someone's the top scorer of a Sunday league team doesn't mean they're getting a call-up for the World Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hallicks Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Well, look, I know it's not the same thing. I don't think we'll every know for sure, though. I wonder if he gets ousted soon, there'll be a few people asking for their £3 back.  It'd be interesting if Bernie Sanders wins the democratic nomination in the States as they're both "old school" local politicians who have been thrust into the national spotlight. If Corbyn can hang on that long and Sanders is able to effect his social democratic vision on a country with a perceived conservative leaning, maybe it'd be a good omen.  Oh well, there's always the Greens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d-d-d-dAz Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 'Zero compromise or pragmatism' by Cameron's government?! Â I mean, this government can all go fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned but they pretty much always bow to the centre ground when they have to. Â Gay marriage, the living wage, rising of the tax threshold and even the tax credit retreat; these aren't unbridled, right win policy they are examples of Cameron/Osborne making sops to all sides of the spectrum in the name of, mostly, self-interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted December 3, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted December 3, 2015 I think that's true. They do bow to the truly unpopular sometimes. They are occasionally pretty smart. The credit for that in the most part is due to the coilaition government but they have continued to make them since they won the majority. They know what is populist. Take the recent spending review when they countered days of negative press about potential Police cuts by using their "windfall" to protect policing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts