In the news

Love letter?

Since you asked-
NATO can close turkeys border with Syria
Start asking questions about which gulf states are channeling money to Isis and which banking institutions are enabling them.

Suspect most people that are crowing for bombing have never seen war and are happy to have other people wage it on their behalf.

Bleak day.

You appreciate the complexity and then simplify it to country border lines...

Suspect most people that are crowing for bombing have never seen war and are happy to have other people wage it on their behalf.

This is how I feel. We are so far removed from the horrors of war we don't think twice about sending other people's children into conflict.

It's their narrative, it's clearly laid out in their magazine and the majority consensus, on both sides, is that they're continuing with this narrative because it works. Why do you think it doesn't?

I did not say I didn't think it worked. It does work, it is working very well, and it will continue to work whether or not we extend our RAF campaign across the now non-existant Syrian border. Do you think if we stopped the campaign in Iraq, they would stop trying to bomb London?

We are so far removed from the horrors of war we don't think twice about sending other people's children into conflict.

Word... Until that moment we find a bomb under our seat on the bus...

A little glib but this whole situation is completely ridiculous to me...

and now i find myself agreeing with metric-thundercunts like max fucking hastings.

I imagine that he would be solidly Imperial, rather than that foreign metric nonsense.

My point was that the border isn't really relevant..

We are already bombing ISIS. ISIS operate in and hold territory in both Iraq and Syria.

I sit next to the same cunt at work. He says the same woman was crying on her phone in Paris and at the Boston Bombings. Fuckwit.

his explanation of the banking system is crackers, he had 40 properties at one stage

I see, you made a point about an irrelevant point.

Do you think if we stopped the campaign in Iraq, they would stop trying to bomb London?

I don't recall any middle eastern terrorists bombing London before the Iraq campaign. I don't recall any Irish bombs since the talks.

Obviously the answer to your question is no. Do you think if we continue bombing Iraq and Syria they will stop?

The Nato allies do need a proper exit strategy for sure
saw a docu about how the US fucked up in Iraq, they never fed the defeated army, who then joined the insurgents, whose attacks then became more militarily professional

Are you trying to be clever?

Why should we treat bombing Syria any differently to Iraq?

I just did a training course with a bloke who reckons the people on that Malaysian plane are living on an island somewhere.

i reckon Isle of Sheppey

A good speech from Benn and a good result in the commons imo.

It's worth remembering that Hilary Benn supported the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. He was wrong on all three and will be again.

Agreed he was wrong about Iraq. Disagree about Afghanistan.

Saudi Arabia is fucked up enough. If Daesh controlled Syria and Iraq, would that be a good outcome? I mean, at least the Gulfis being fucking corrupt means they don't actually want to start a world war.

I really don't get the 'leave Daesh alone' argument.

If the argument is 'intervene better', what's the better? Why is so much of the argument phrased in terms of don't intervene at all? Because that's what it sounds a lot like to me.

I agree the propaganda war is where most of it has to happen. I think hurting their income is also important, though, which is why I'm in favour of destroying their oil smuggling operation as much as is possible without harming civilians. I don't think bombing cities is wise or useful at all.

Just as a general point. As I've said before, I marched against the Iraq invasion. I don't like war and would rather we did less bombing of anyone. But for Daesh I think maybe we should do something. With a heavy heart. I think inaction scares me more than action on this one.

I dunno, maybe realise Britain is a small island on the edge of Europe, not the empire any more, and doesn't need continue trying to be world policeman (in Syria, Iraq or elsewhere). Let the UN deal with it. That's what it's meant to be there for.

Maybe negotiate with IS, and let them have their Islamic Caliphate if that's what they want, but be willing to take in those who don't want to be part of it. Bad regimes have a habit of falling in the long run.

But either way don't start bombing people, because killing someone's family is not the best way to make friends.

Just listened to Hillary Benn's speech. He said it better than I can.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2015/dec/03/hilary-benn-airstrikes-vote-speech-full-must-confront-isis-evil-video

As for the idea of allowing Daesh to have a caliphate. As I said just before, at least knowing the Gulfis are corrupt means we know they're not going to spend their oil wealth starting a war. They've done enough damage spreading their extreme interpretation of Islam. You want Daesh to get that kind of power?

EDIT to add - I now realise why I had such a problem with some of what @Oliver Schick said over on the ISIS/ISIL/etc thread. I think this theory of neocolonialism - while it has some analytical utility still - has blinded a lot of the left to the fact that some of these other countries that we once oppressed now have quite a lot of leverage. The West's relationship with the GCC states is a story as much about our weakness because of our dependence on their oil as it it as about how we created them in our colonial past.Yes, your average poor Saudi doesn't necessarily get much out of it, although their government does its best to buy them off. But the GCC states wield immense power, not least Saudi, because of their swing oil production. When OPEC meets, the populous states who need the money spend the days beforehand talking about production cuts to prop up the price. And when they get into the negotiating chamber, they shut the fuck up and do what the Saudis tell them because the Saudis are 30pc of OPEC output and can ruin them. This is a dynamic in which Western governments figure out how to deal with the Saudis to keep them onside and the Gulf stable, not a situation in which neo-imperial masters tell their puppets what to do. It's really fucking important to see that.

DOUBLE EDIT: Just to add to that, if you want to understand Western foreign policy towards Iran and Iraq from 1979 onwards, think about fucking OPEC. Yeah, we fucked it up - completely - but at least recognise that it wasn't just about money. It was about not ceding control to people who didn't like us very much. We should have done a far better job in not being cunts in the first place, I fully agree. But now we have what we have.

No. But it's not my choice to make.