Military industrial complex example: each Brimstone missile costs £100,000 and someone is growing very wealthy through their increased demand and manufacture
There was no easy decision with this, though I'm surprised so many MPs seemed to have their mind made up long ago.
NLA is right that we have a duty to stand by our allies. Imagine if what happened in Paris had happened in London, and the French had refused to help...
Then again....I also fear that the chances of some sort of London based retaliation from ISIS just went up drastically. I was worried before but even more so now. Something will happen.
No, not at all. The Terrorist threat level in the UK has been at Severe since Aug 2014; defined as 'an attack is highly likely'. This is based on exhaustive int work. The UK was always on their radar, irrespective of this decision. Countless attacks have been repelled this year and they will continue to target us. The decision to go in to Syria is an irrelevance as far as the threat to this country is concerned.
Re. The terrorist sympathisers comment; I ain't one of DC's biggest fans, but I personally like the fact that a politician hasn't apologised for saying something he really thinks, instead of pathetically backtracking with a wishy washy apology and not meaning a word of it (I think they call it lip service).
Also, if you look at the two top blokes running the shadow cabinet, with a proven track record of rubbing shoulders and sympathising with known terrorists and their organisations (Corbyn and McDonnell with Hamas and the IRA), you can start to see where the comment was aimed at
C'mon Rob. Corbyn sticks by his principles. Within one post you commend one for it and condemn another, with a clever UK media style twist. Sympathy and a receptive attitude to negotiation are not the same. Negotiation worked ( more or less ) in NI.
It seems that we are still feeling the effects of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire one hundred years on.
As many have said, the key is to win "hearts and minds" but as shown by Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Northern Ireland, this is very difficult. I can't see the "hearts and minds" being won any time soon for the following reasons.
1) Foreign invaders - The West will always be seen as meddlers and invaders. Why trust the West when it has, rightly or wrongly, played such a large role meddling in middle eastern politics over the past 150 years?
2) Nation states - The partitioning of the Middle East between various powers and into nation states following WW1. The Sykes-Picot Agreement split ethnic groups and communities down the middle whilst other groups were pushed together. These people were told that they were now Syrian or Iraqi, local identities and religious affiliations were ignored. This lack of understanding created a pressure cooker that was contained by the various monarchies and dictators that took over. The release of this pressure has caused serious instability as every group has its own interests and goals. The diversity and sheer volume of ethnic and religious groups in the area is staggering. Sunni Kurds, Sunni Arabs, Shia minorities, Alawites, Druze, Assyrians, Armenians, Turkmen, Yazidis and Mandaeans all live in the area and that's just to name a few. Even if there are 70,000 "moderate" rebels as the government claims, there is no way that they have the ability or the willingness to combine, they are simply too different. These people do not see themselves as Syrian and therefore will remain divided. This lack of nationalism can be seen across the Eastern Muslim world as many believe they are part of the Ummah rather than any nation state.
The only example I can think of where nation-building has been successful is Turkey, but then it could be argued that this was down to the extraordinary efforts of Mustafa Ataturk and the removal of any groups that didn't fit this ideology (Greeks, Armenians etc). Maybe the answer to the Syrian question is to devolve power further? The Kurds are already semi-autonomous, as are the Druze, but this solution would depend on the major powers agreeing to respect and defend each group's independence which I can't see happening.
No Western country can win the hearts and minds, if it is to be solved for the long run it has to be internal, but like I've said I can't see it happening. Bombing won't cause further damage to Britain because it was already a target but nor will it solve the long term problems. However, if I was to defend those in support briefly, this is a war of ideologies and in order to be a legitimate Caliph, al-Baghdidi needs to associate himself with the great Caliphs. At the height of the Islamic golden age, the court was moved to Raqqa where it became a centre of culture, art, literature and music. If he can't even hold the heartlands of the Caliphate how is he going to convince anyone he can lead the faithful to victory? His group risks splintering into obscurity, to avoid this he needs to hold and take other symbolic locations like Baghdad, the largest city in the world at one point and home to the House of Wisdom. The poster created by ISIS propagandists showing their targets: Rome, North Africa, Spain and Eastern Europe makes me think that he takes the earlier Caliphates very seriously and emulates them. If he had no interest in them he would have prioritised nearer targets like the Caucuses.
It seems like the best the West can hope for is a "benevolent" monarch/dictator like in Jordan, but is that what the people of the region want? The people of Syria seem to be stuck with either a dictator that will crush all freedoms but will keep a tight lid on extremist actions, a weak democracy headed by a western puppet or a semi-democracy that has values that are unpalatable to Western tastes.
So I didn't support us joining the bombing of Syria because I don't think bombing solves any problems.
I didn't understand how the majority in parliament was so large given the weakness of the Cameron justification and the support Corbyn had won back for the need for a real end game here.
I did watch the Hilary Benn speech, and now I understand why our democracy has given qualified support to an international coalition aimed at crushing the fascist daesh.
Re. The terrorist sympathisers comment; I ain't one of DC's biggest fans, but I personally like the fact that a politician hasn't apologised for saying something he really thinks, instead of pathetically backtracking with a wishy washy apology and not meaning a word of it (I think they call it lip service).
Also, if you look at the two top blokes running the shadow cabinet, with a proven track record of rubbing shoulders and sympathising with known terrorists and their organisations (Corbyn and McDonnell with Hamas and the IRA), you can start to see where the comment was aimed at
C'mon Rob. Corbyn sticks by his principles. Within one post you commend one for it and condemn another, with a clever UK media style twist. Sympathy and a receptive attitude to negotiation are not the same. Negotiation worked ( more or less ) in NI.
Sorry, are you saying that Corbyn's own sympathy and negotiations led to peace in NI? Or just in general?
Re. The terrorist sympathisers comment; I ain't one of DC's biggest fans, but I personally like the fact that a politician hasn't apologised for saying something he really thinks, instead of pathetically backtracking with a wishy washy apology and not meaning a word of it (I think they call it lip service).
Also, if you look at the two top blokes running the shadow cabinet, with a proven track record of rubbing shoulders and sympathising with known terrorists and their organisations (Corbyn and McDonnell with Hamas and the IRA), you can start to see where the comment was aimed at
C'mon Rob. Corbyn sticks by his principles. Within one post you commend one for it and condemn another, with a clever UK media style twist. Sympathy and a receptive attitude to negotiation are not the same. Negotiation worked ( more or less ) in NI.
Sorry, are you saying that Corbyn's own sympathy and negotiations led to peace in NI? Or just in general?
No Rob, I don't think Corbyn had much influence at the time. But his willingness to engage the protagonists was a good idea, and proved right in the end, in my opinion. I am pleased we have the current peace in NI. I appreciate Corbyn's mantra at the time may have been ceeding soverignty, which I don't agree with, but he seems more willing to concede to a democratically realised decision that he does not necessarily agree with than any other leading politician in my lifetime.
I fully support action against Daesh but bombing them isn't the answer as far as I'm concerned. If Cameron or whoever really want to fight/defeat I.S. then FIGHT them, that means soldiers and tanks and direct military action as well as firing some missiles and patting ourselves on the backs. A missile killed Jihadi John and there was a much rejoicing but I.S. now had a new martyr to idolise and no doubt a new 'executioner' in as much time as it took for another lunatic to pick up a sword. It didn't actually make any practical difference strategically.
That bit is what I thought was meant by it. If anyone thinks that MBDA are capable of lobbying government to go to war to sell missiles they are sadly mistaken. The defence lobby in this country is good at sipping drinks abroad at ambassadors houses, they are not in and out of Downing Street, nor do they have the ear of the top military commanders. the US, perhaps, but not here or in Europe. Sorry chaps.
They do more than "sip drinks" though. In my personal experience, they go round a party at the British Embassy openly boasting about the local politicians that they have bribed into buying expensive fighter jets. This person is not criticised at that party for what he has done. On the contrary, he is feted. He's a bit of a card and maybe what he's done is a bit naughty, but he represents a British Company of Strategic Importance. So that's alright then.
That is not of course the same as suggesting they persuade politicians to go to war. But it is heinously disgusting and demonstrates the hypocrisy that pervades the British establishment. It explains why we continue to sell military hardware to Saudi, knowing full well that Saudi money and ideology fuels Daesh.
That bit is what I thought was meant by it. If anyone thinks that MBDA are capable of lobbying government to go to war to sell missiles they are sadly mistaken. The defence lobby in this country is good at sipping drinks abroad at ambassadors houses, they are not in and out of Downing Street, nor do they have the ear of the top military commanders. the US, perhaps, but not here or in Europe. Sorry chaps.
They do more than "sip drinks" though. In my personal experience, they go round a party at the British Embassy openly boasting about the local politicians that they have bribed into buying expensive fighter jets. This person is not criticised at that party for what he has done. On the contrary, he is feted. He's a bit of a card and maybe what he's done is a bit naughty, but he represents a British Company of Strategic Importance. So that's alright then.
That is not of course the same as suggesting they persuade politicians to go to war. But it is heinously disgusting and demonstrates the hypocrisy that pervades the British establishment. It explains why we continue to sell military hardware to Saudi, knowing full well that Saudi money and ideology fuels Daesh.
Crikey, I've been to a lot of UK export events and I've never seen that, must have been pre 2010 bribery act surely? Be interested to hear more about that, however it does move away from the thread significantly.
There is still a huge difference to companies like MBDA lobbying for war though and that was my point, that I stand by. While it may not be bad for the economy (though you'd have to sell a huge number of missiles to have any genuine impact, as MBDA are a European conglomerate - as was panavia and as is eurofighter) it would not be enough to make he country go to war or, I believe in this case even to be a contributing factor.
That bit is what I thought was meant by it. If anyone thinks that MBDA are capable of lobbying government to go to war to sell missiles they are sadly mistaken. The defence lobby in this country is good at sipping drinks abroad at ambassadors houses, they are not in and out of Downing Street, nor do they have the ear of the top military commanders. the US, perhaps, but not here or in Europe. Sorry chaps.
They do more than "sip drinks" though. In my personal experience, they go round a party at the British Embassy openly boasting about the local politicians that they have bribed into buying expensive fighter jets. This person is not criticised at that party for what he has done. On the contrary, he is feted. He's a bit of a card and maybe what he's done is a bit naughty, but he represents a British Company of Strategic Importance. So that's alright then.
That is not of course the same as suggesting they persuade politicians to go to war. But it is heinously disgusting and demonstrates the hypocrisy that pervades the British establishment. It explains why we continue to sell military hardware to Saudi, knowing full well that Saudi money and ideology fuels Daesh.
Crikey, I've been to a lot of UK export events and I've never seen that, must have been pre 2010 bribery act surely? Be interested to hear more about that, however it does move away from the thread significantly.
There is still a huge difference to companies like MBDA lobbying for war though and that was my point, that I stand by. While it may not be bad for the economy (though you'd have to sell a huge number of missiles to have any genuine impact, as MBDA are a European conglomerate - as was panavia and as is eurofighter) it would not be enough to make he country go to war or, I believe in this case even to be a contributing factor.
Yes I think it was probably pre-2010. But I am sure you've already worked out which company he worked for (best not to mention it here).
The relevance to this thread is this: if we really want to deal with Daesh then we have to get to the root causes of it. One of those root causes is the UAE. Are we addressing it? Is it right to flog them arms, toady up to them at the mere sight of their money? I don't pretend it is black and white,, and I also understand that you have to be a bit subtle on such matters. But I didn't hear so much as a smidgin of a mention of the issue from Hilary Benn in his much lauded speech yesterday. Regardless of the right and wrongs of bombings, @micks1950 has shown Hilary Benn to be a stinking hypocrite, just like our diplomats who fete arms salesmen who bribe foreign politicians.
That bit is what I thought was meant by it. If anyone thinks that MBDA are capable of lobbying government to go to war to sell missiles they are sadly mistaken. The defence lobby in this country is good at sipping drinks abroad at ambassadors houses, they are not in and out of Downing Street, nor do they have the ear of the top military commanders. the US, perhaps, but not here or in Europe. Sorry chaps.
They do more than "sip drinks" though. In my personal experience, they go round a party at the British Embassy openly boasting about the local politicians that they have bribed into buying expensive fighter jets. This person is not criticised at that party for what he has done. On the contrary, he is feted. He's a bit of a card and maybe what he's done is a bit naughty, but he represents a British Company of Strategic Importance. So that's alright then.
That is not of course the same as suggesting they persuade politicians to go to war. But it is heinously disgusting and demonstrates the hypocrisy that pervades the British establishment. It explains why we continue to sell military hardware to Saudi, knowing full well that Saudi money and ideology fuels Daesh.
Crikey, I've been to a lot of UK export events and I've never seen that, must have been pre 2010 bribery act surely? Be interested to hear more about that, however it does move away from the thread significantly.
There is still a huge difference to companies like MBDA lobbying for war though and that was my point, that I stand by. While it may not be bad for the economy (though you'd have to sell a huge number of missiles to have any genuine impact, as MBDA are a European conglomerate - as was panavia and as is eurofighter) it would not be enough to make he country go to war or, I believe in this case even to be a contributing factor.
Yes I think it was probably pre-2010. But I am sure you've already worked out which company he worked for (best not to mention it here).
The relevance to this thread is this: if we really want to deal with Daesh then we have to get to the root causes of it. One of those root causes is the UAE. Are we addressing it? Is it right to flog them arms, toady up to them at the mere sight of their money? I don't pretend it is black and white,, and I also understand that you have to be a bit subtle on such matters. But I didn't hear so much as a smidgin of a mention of the issue from Hilary Benn in his much lauded speech yesterday. Regardless of the right and wrongs of bombings, @micks1950 has shown Hilary Benn to be a stinking hypocrite, just like our diplomats who fete arms salesmen who bribe foreign politicians.
Yeah, get em when they're young, open up a few youth centres on the Amin al-Hafiz council estate, take em to the Raqa Zoo and show them there is a way without joining ISIS and wanting the rest of mankind dead...
Prague, isn't the root cause that ISIS/DAESH believe in their version of Iskam and want to impose it on the rest of the World. Look at what's happening in most African countries. IMO nothing will change their view, but being at war with them will increase their numbers eventually
Prague, isn't the root cause that ISIS/DAESH believe in their version of Iskam and want to impose it on the rest of the World. Look at what's happening in most African countries. IMO nothing will change their view, but being at war with them will increase their numbers eventually
Interesting snippet here of a documentary set in the US command centre Al Udeid, Qatar. Big numbers … 10 million dollars a day to run, 60 - 70 bombs dropped each day, 17-5 ton payload on B1 bomber. Puts the UK contribution into perspective and also the level and size of the opposition.
That bit is what I thought was meant by it. If anyone thinks that MBDA are capable of lobbying government to go to war to sell missiles they are sadly mistaken. The defence lobby in this country is good at sipping drinks abroad at ambassadors houses, they are not in and out of Downing Street, nor do they have the ear of the top military commanders. the US, perhaps, but not here or in Europe. Sorry chaps.
They do more than "sip drinks" though. In my personal experience, they go round a party at the British Embassy openly boasting about the local politicians that they have bribed into buying expensive fighter jets. This person is not criticised at that party for what he has done. On the contrary, he is feted. He's a bit of a card and maybe what he's done is a bit naughty, but he represents a British Company of Strategic Importance. So that's alright then.
That is not of course the same as suggesting they persuade politicians to go to war. But it is heinously disgusting and demonstrates the hypocrisy that pervades the British establishment. It explains why we continue to sell military hardware to Saudi, knowing full well that Saudi money and ideology fuels Daesh.
Crikey, I've been to a lot of UK export events and I've never seen that, must have been pre 2010 bribery act surely? Be interested to hear more about that, however it does move away from the thread significantly.
There is still a huge difference to companies like MBDA lobbying for war though and that was my point, that I stand by. While it may not be bad for the economy (though you'd have to sell a huge number of missiles to have any genuine impact, as MBDA are a European conglomerate - as was panavia and as is eurofighter) it would not be enough to make he country go to war or, I believe in this case even to be a contributing factor.
Yes I think it was probably pre-2010. But I am sure you've already worked out which company he worked for (best not to mention it here).
The relevance to this thread is this: if we really want to deal with Daesh then we have to get to the root causes of it. One of those root causes is the UAE. Are we addressing it? Is it right to flog them arms, toady up to them at the mere sight of their money? I don't pretend it is black and white,, and I also understand that you have to be a bit subtle on such matters. But I didn't hear so much as a smidgin of a mention of the issue from Hilary Benn in his much lauded speech yesterday. Regardless of the right and wrongs of bombings, @micks1950 has shown Hilary Benn to be a stinking hypocrite, just like our diplomats who fete arms salesmen who bribe foreign politicians.
The UAE the root cause? Worse than Saudi and Qatar? I'd suggest probably not. Though I'm sure rich donors exist from the whole of the Middle East.
Interesting snippet here of a documentary set in the US command centre Al Udeid, Qatar. Big numbers … 10 million dollars a day to run, 60 - 70 bombs dropped each day, 17-5 ton payload on B1 bomber. Puts the UK contribution into perspective and also the level and size of the opposition.
Comments
As many have said, the key is to win "hearts and minds" but as shown by Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Northern Ireland, this is very difficult. I can't see the "hearts and minds" being won any time soon for the following reasons.
1) Foreign invaders - The West will always be seen as meddlers and invaders. Why trust the West when it has, rightly or wrongly, played such a large role meddling in middle eastern politics over the past 150 years?
2) Nation states - The partitioning of the Middle East between various powers and into nation states following WW1. The Sykes-Picot Agreement split ethnic groups and communities down the middle whilst other groups were pushed together. These people were told that they were now Syrian or Iraqi, local identities and religious affiliations were ignored. This lack of understanding created a pressure cooker that was contained by the various monarchies and dictators that took over. The release of this pressure has caused serious instability as every group has its own interests and goals. The diversity and sheer volume of ethnic and religious groups in the area is staggering. Sunni Kurds, Sunni Arabs, Shia minorities, Alawites, Druze, Assyrians, Armenians, Turkmen, Yazidis and Mandaeans all live in the area and that's just to name a few. Even if there are 70,000 "moderate" rebels as the government claims, there is no way that they have the ability or the willingness to combine, they are simply too different. These people do not see themselves as Syrian and therefore will remain divided. This lack of nationalism can be seen across the Eastern Muslim world as many believe they are part of the Ummah rather than any nation state.
The only example I can think of where nation-building has been successful is Turkey, but then it could be argued that this was down to the extraordinary efforts of Mustafa Ataturk and the removal of any groups that didn't fit this ideology (Greeks, Armenians etc). Maybe the answer to the Syrian question is to devolve power further? The Kurds are already semi-autonomous, as are the Druze, but this solution would depend on the major powers agreeing to respect and defend each group's independence which I can't see happening.
No Western country can win the hearts and minds, if it is to be solved for the long run it has to be internal, but like I've said I can't see it happening. Bombing won't cause further damage to Britain because it was already a target but nor will it solve the long term problems.
However, if I was to defend those in support briefly, this is a war of ideologies and in order to be a legitimate Caliph, al-Baghdidi needs to associate himself with the great Caliphs. At the height of the Islamic golden age, the court was moved to Raqqa where it became a centre of culture, art, literature and music. If he can't even hold the heartlands of the Caliphate how is he going to convince anyone he can lead the faithful to victory? His group risks splintering into obscurity, to avoid this he needs to hold and take other symbolic locations like Baghdad, the largest city in the world at one point and home to the House of Wisdom. The poster created by ISIS propagandists showing their targets: Rome, North Africa, Spain and Eastern Europe makes me think that he takes the earlier Caliphates very seriously and emulates them. If he had no interest in them he would have prioritised nearer targets like the Caucuses.
It seems like the best the West can hope for is a "benevolent" monarch/dictator like in Jordan, but is that what the people of the region want? The people of Syria seem to be stuck with either a dictator that will crush all freedoms but will keep a tight lid on extremist actions, a weak democracy headed by a western puppet or a semi-democracy that has values that are unpalatable to Western tastes.
I didn't understand how the majority in parliament was so large given the weakness of the Cameron justification and the support Corbyn had won back for the need for a real end game here.
I did watch the Hilary Benn speech, and now I understand why our democracy has given qualified support to an international coalition aimed at crushing the fascist daesh.
That is not of course the same as suggesting they persuade politicians to go to war. But it is heinously disgusting and demonstrates the hypocrisy that pervades the British establishment. It explains why we continue to sell military hardware to Saudi, knowing full well that Saudi money and ideology fuels Daesh.
There is still a huge difference to companies like MBDA lobbying for war though and that was my point, that I stand by. While it may not be bad for the economy (though you'd have to sell a huge number of missiles to have any genuine impact, as MBDA are a European conglomerate - as was panavia and as is eurofighter) it would not be enough to make he country go to war or, I believe in this case even to be a contributing factor.
The relevance to this thread is this: if we really want to deal with Daesh then we have to get to the root causes of it. One of those root causes is the UAE. Are we addressing it? Is it right to flog them arms, toady up to them at the mere sight of their money? I don't pretend it is black and white,, and I also understand that you have to be a bit subtle on such matters. But I didn't hear so much as a smidgin of a mention of the issue from Hilary Benn in his much lauded speech yesterday. Regardless of the right and wrongs of bombings, @micks1950 has shown Hilary Benn to be a stinking hypocrite, just like our diplomats who fete arms salesmen who bribe foreign politicians.
Three discs on as many different size bombs That can fit on a bomber jet
; )
Fave song must be Bomber by Motorhead?
Jesus. What would they do/spend if they found themselves up against a decent army??