Jump to content

Recommended Posts

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I suspect you're right there Snorky.

> That and giving NATO some excuse to continue in

> the face of noises about an EU replacement or even

> a European Army.


Oooo yet another can of worms!

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> To stop genocide that is taking place. To defend a

> nation that is incapable of defending itself.


But in reality this will always read:


To stop genocide that is taking place. To defend a nation that is incapable of defending itself.. as long as it's economically or politically advantageous to do so, or you'll lose face if you don't, or because you've already promised someone else you will.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot where I defended that piece of foreign policy?! Ah, that's because I didn't.


Anyway, I would extend your list of two, to include:


to defend national security or the security of your allies

to protect the economic security of nation


And if I'm being facetious, MP, do you think Iraq would be better of now under Sadaam? The roots of the current problems go back to Britain's carve up of the middle-east a long-time before Blair. Kurd, Shias and Sunnis in one nation-state? Great idea! It took a dictator to stop the killing each other. Now it's truly up shit creek.

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And if I'm being facetious, MP, do you think Iraq

> would be better of now under Sadaam? The roots of

> the current problems go back to Britain's carve up

> of the middle-east a long-time before Blair. Kurd,

> Shias and Sunnis in one nation-state? Great idea!

> It took a dictator to stop the killing each other.

> Now it's truly up shit creek.


A bit like Tito managed to do with Yugoslavia for years, and looked what happened there.

"to defend national security or the security of your allies

to protect the economic security of nation"


you see I wouldn't. They amount to a carte blanche to basically do whatever you want. I'd categorically oppose both, but most particularly the latter.


"The roots of the current problems go back to Britain's carve up of the middle-east a long-time before Blair."

Indeed the roots were sown a long time ago, as every middle east expert told him before he ignored them all "because the man's uniquely evil isn't he".


Exactly Atila.

It takes a deft touch to steer a country through a transition like that (see post Franco Spain), not an invasion with no post invasion plan.

Exactly. And that's a fairly modern European country with a mixed economy. Transplant the whole thing to a mono-crop economy (oil) in a 2nd world country and the whole thing gets multiplied three-fold.


Should the UK/US/EU/NATO/West go around the world sorting out any regime it doesn't like or isn't democratic? I'd say no initially, but try telling that to a Zimbabwean economist an I'd hazard a guess he'd beg you to wipe out Mugabe and his thuggery of a govt. How long would that take? Best part of a week with Britain's armed forces.


But then that is Africa, so we just ignore it and hope it'll go away.

Valentines day is a plot by the capitalist hordes to subjugate the masses through cheap poetry and long queues to get into overpriced restaurants. First up against the wall come the revolution!!!!!


Err, or taking my lady out for a nice drink.....in Gdansk.

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "to defend national security or the security of

> your allies

> to protect the economic security of nation"

>

> you see I wouldn't. They amount to a carte blanche

> to basically do whatever you want. I'd

> categorically oppose both, but most particularly

> the latter.


Really? So, Israel isn't allowed to defend itself then? If France was the victim of an unwarranted attack you wouldn't spring to their defence? I'm not having you in my League of Nations. ;-)


And if an oil pipeline running through an unstable state into your own is threatening your economic security, you're not allowed to take military action to secure it. Bugger that. I'm sending in the troops rather than plunge my country into an energy crisis.


> "The roots of the current problems go back to

> Britain's carve up of the middle-east a long-time

> before Blair."

> Indeed the roots were sown a long time ago, as

> every middle east expert told him before he

> ignored them all "because the man's uniquely evil

> isn't he".

>

> Exactly Atila.

> It takes a deft touch to steer a country through a

> transition like that (see post Franco Spain), not

> an invasion with no post invasion plan.


Agreed. The lack of post invasion plans is a mistake of cataclysmic proportions. I'm not disagreeing with you there.

If I'm so dependent on that Oil, I wouldn't be trying to get hold of it from a pipeline in a dodgy state for starters, and if I was that stupid then that would explain why I'd be stupid enough to invade said state for my energy needs.

And why do my energy needs supersede the rights of the iffy state to run it's own affairs.


Israel does have a right to defend itself (lets just leave it there, we don't want to complicate this thread any more than it is) and does so without our intervention. Likewise France is big enough to look after itself, except when it depends stupidly on a big wall, and yes, that's my number 2 reason, defending a nation incapable of doing so alone.


The League of Nations *sighs nostalgically* ;-)

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If I'm so dependent on that Oil, I wouldn't be

> trying to get hold of it from a pipeline in a

> dodgy state for starters, and if I was that stupid

> then that would explain why I'd be stupid enough

> to invade said state for my energy needs.

> And why do my energy needs supersede the rights of

> the iffy state to run it's own affairs.


OK, not the best example. How about an economic blockade? Could the UK use military force to end one? I'd say yes. You will, no doubt, disagree. I have a feeling we may go round in circles to a degree. Perhaps my views are better encapsulted by the Henry Jackson Society.


> Israel does have a right to defend itself (lets

> just leave it there, we don't want to complicate

> this thread any more than it is) and does so

> without our intervention. Likewise France is big

> enough to look after itself, except when it

> depends stupidly on a big wall, and yes, that's my

> number 2 reason, defending a nation incapable of

> doing so alone.


How about a smaller ally? New Zealand? I'd not hesitate to help defend them using military power. France have nukes so they can probably look after themselves...for once in their lives!


> The League of Nations *sighs nostalgically* ;-)


There is a great quote from an episode of the West Wing that goes something like this:


"Democrats want a small military and want to use it everywhere; Republicans want a big military and never want to use it."


It's not quite a truism but I like it.

I dont think its sneering Anti americanism itself - I love the country/ environment and lived there for a while , but detest its foreign policy of late and am a bit critical of its cultural imperialism


And to be honest, the US does sorta line itself up for critisism and piss taking doesnt it ?

"I wonder how many Americans read this forum, apart from me?"


Well, there's Floating Onion for starters *runs for cover*.

Seriously though Gerry, how do you feel reading the forum, is it a hotbed of anti-americanism?

I for one really do like the US, culturally and socially, I just have serious issues with it politically (as I do with my own fair government as you may have spotted on occasion).



You're examples are getting closer to the mark there DC. I think breaking an economic blockade militarily is actually self-defence so not strictly speaking an intervention. And I'd be happy to help the lovely Kiwis out, though somewhat perversely, historically the reverse has generally been the case ;-)

I'm American and have been following this thread with much amusement. I moved to Canada when I was 10 and so, am very used to being on the receiving end of criticism for the place of my birth!! I was brought up a Quaker and was always fairly critical of US policy - in Central America and in lots of places. Most of my American friends are pretty critical of governement and policy decisions. I have to say I don't think it's racism really - I don't mind people criticising the governement, policy decision or being critical of ignorant behaviour when they see it. I just feel uncomfortable about me, my campaigning friends and family being lumped under one big banner!


What always amuses me though is how British people - who have a vast history of oppressing others and of being known for having flocks of irritating insular tourists (i.e. packing baked beans, stag do's in historic Prague, annoying the Weslsh etc. etc) go OTT about individual Americans without applying the same self-critical ness. An example is how I was once very piously lectured in the late 80's by a young British lefty about the short-comings of Americans - which I took with good grace as I do know that Americans like any once else can have faults and our support of a governement which was often an occuping force. I did then point out that as an Englishman he too was guilty of supporting an occupying power to which he looked blank. 'Northern Ireland?' He still looked blank. 'You know, why do you think the IRA is conducting a bombing campaign on the mainland?' 'Oh, but that's different - they are just terrorists.' Hmmmmm.....

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...