Now you might argue, with justice, that there he doesn't say he's a pacifist. However, if he's gone from not being sure whether he's a pacifist, to not being a pacifist, he's clearly evolved his views.
Incidentally he's perfectly at liberty to do that. Just as, for the matter of that, I have no objection to principled pacifists. Indeed his current views on war and warfare seem pretty close to my own.
But it's a bit rich for him to then say he's a man of iron principle who stick rigidly to his views. even though many of his opponents and supporters seem to believe that.
No time to watch it, but my recollection of what he says personally is that he thinks the Sierra Leone intervention was sensible and successful, and that he would have very strongly supported the effort against Hitler. Essentially he feels that war should be a last resort, and that the West has too often treated it as a good early option.
I used to disagree, which is why I voted for the Iraq war, but I've come to feel he's right. I think it'd be a fair criticism to say that he'd tend to be slow off the mark if swift intervention was required (as it was in Sierra Leone) - his instinct is to say "Hang on a minute, let's look all around the issue and consider the options", and occasionally that can be the wrong policy. It is, however, safer than a policy of shooting from the hip, or blindly following another power's interventions.
I don’t think war was a last resort in Sierra Leone as it was against Hitler.
The only difference is success: Sierra Leone was, and Afghanistan wasn’t. But both had equally good cases for intervening.
We could extend the analysis to Bosnia (we were too late), Rwanda (didn’t bother at all), and Kosovo (on time).
We tend to retrofit the right/wrong afterwards, once we know it’s cost and can assess that against the gains/or risks we avoided.
And advocating the effective abolition of some of the few effective weapons treaties we have is certainly not a good place to find yourself.
We should be building on those treaties, not demolishing them.
And so we are back to where we were. What effective action do you advocate to enforce those treaties? Because bombing Syria sure as hell won't do it. The only way to militarily enforce those treaties is to have a full scale escalation and go to war in Syria, putting us into a direct shooting war with Russia and Iran. Nothing else militarily will work.
So what exactly are you advocating from your armchair? If you say 'Something must be done' it is incumbent upon you to say what you think that 'something' should be, otherwise all you are doing is repeating exactly the same mistakes we have made time and time again.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has spent his life campaigning for peace and speaking out against military action. He was one of the UK's leading campaigners against the 2003 Iraq war - and also voted against British involvement in military action in Afghanistan and Libya.
In fact, he has voted against every military action proposed by the UK government during his 35 years in Parliament. He is also firmly opposed to air strikes in Syria in response to chemical attacks, arguing that it will escalate tensions, although it looks increasingly likely that MPs will not be given a say on that. Before entering Parliament, he spoke out against the Falklands War and cut his political teeth campaigning against the war in Vietnam, a conflict Britain supported without committing troops. Yet Mr Corbyn insists he is not a pacifist - and there is at least one example of him backing British troops in a foreign war in the past.
Wandering off-topic I know but the BBC reporter must have had his fingers crossed when typing the war in Vietnam, a conflict Britain supported without committing troops.
No time to watch it, but my recollection of what he says personally is that he thinks the Sierra Leone intervention was sensible and successful, and that he would have very strongly supported the effort against Hitler. Essentially he feels that war should be a last resort, and that the West has too often treated it as a good early option.
I used to disagree, which is why I voted for the Iraq war, but I've come to feel he's right. I think it'd be a fair criticism to say that he'd tend to be slow off the mark if swift intervention was required (as it was in Sierra Leone) - his instinct is to say "Hang on a minute, let's look all around the issue and consider the options", and occasionally that can be the wrong policy. It is, however, safer than a policy of shooting from the hip, or blindly following another power's interventions.
"and that he would have very strongly supported the effort against Hitler."
I fear that's rubbish. Go back eighty years and Corbyn would have been a British Communist whilst it was still fashionable, and large numbers of them did not support the war until the Blitz or Hitler launched Barbarossa. Corbyn is not a Pollitt or Gallagher.
2 questions: (1) How do you determine such responsibility? (2) Do you think those who have gone to join ISIS and have had British citizenship removed, including women,should have it restored? And if not, what distinguishes their case from that of Mrs Assad?
She's not gone to join a proscribed terrorist organisation has she?
One is taking action against someone for their own actions, the other for the actions of their spouse.
The Assad is a proscribed regime. That needs to mean practical consequences for those who are part of that regime.
But she isn't. Or do you feel that marrying someone automatically signs you up to whatever they're doing?
I know an animal welfare rep who was based in Syria into the early days of the civil war and who met the Assads from time to time. Her (obviously anecdotal) view was that Assad was an opportunist, his brother was a psychopath, but Mrs Assad was extremely unpolitical and more interested in shopping than national affairs,
Oh, for Pete's sake (*), not everything is about Brexit ...
(*) Who's Pete?
Saint Peter.
It was a polite way and less blasphemous way of saying 'For God's sake'
Nonsense. It is just more polite than using Pete's brother's name: the unfortunately titled 'Fuck'. Luckily the rise of social media and the term FFS means his legacy has been revitalised.
What about their other sibling Pity? Barely gets a mention these days.
Whilst Mercy has been airbrushed from history.....
Oh, for Pete's sake (*), not everything is about Brexit ...
(*) Who's Pete?
Saint Peter.
It was a polite way and less blasphemous way of saying 'For God's sake'
Nonsense. It is just more polite than using Pete's brother's name: the unfortunately titled 'Fuck'. Luckily the rise of social media and the term FFS means his legacy has been revitalised.
What about their other sibling Pity? Barely gets a mention these days.
Whilst Mercy has been airbrushed from history.....
I have always assumed that 'pity' was a corruption of 'Peter'.
And advocating the effective abolition of some of the few effective weapons treaties we have is certainly not a good place to find yourself.
We should be building on those treaties, not demolishing them.
And so we are back to where we were. What effective action do you advocate to enforce those treaties? Because bombing Syria sure as hell won't do it. The only way to militarily enforce those treaties is to have a full scale escalation and go to war in Syria, putting us into a direct shooting war with Russia and Iran. Nothing else militarily will work.
So what exactly are you advocating from your armchair? If you say 'Something must be done' it is incumbent upon you to say what you think that 'something' should be, otherwise all you are doing is repeating exactly the same mistakes we have made time and time again.
" from your armchair?"
Oh, don't be silly. You too are in full armchair pontificating mode.
I've already expressed what I think should be done: enough to send a message that the use of chemical weapons will not gain you any military or financial advantage. A good start (in two ways) might be attack the helicopter fleet that he is using to drop the bombs, the airfields and similar infrastructure. Try to discover where his munitions dumps are and attack them.
As I said earlier, unlike Saddam, Assad is not using these weapons because he is mad. He is using them because they are advantageous. We need to make it not advantageous, and also to show other countries such usage would not help them.
2 questions: (1) How do you determine such responsibility? (2) Do you think those who have gone to join ISIS and have had British citizenship removed, including women,should have it restored? And if not, what distinguishes their case from that of Mrs Assad?
She's not gone to join a proscribed terrorist organisation has she?
One is taking action against someone for their own actions, the other for the actions of their spouse.
The Assad is a proscribed regime. That needs to mean practical consequences for those who are part of that regime.
But she isn't. Or do you feel that marrying someone automatically signs you up to whatever they're doing?
I know an animal welfare rep who was based in Syria into the early days of the civil war and who met the Assads from time to time. Her (obviously anecdotal) view was that Assad was an opportunist, his brother was a psychopath, but Mrs Assad was extremely unpolitical and more interested in shopping than national affairs,
She likes shopping. With her husband’s money. And how does he earn his money? She may personally be apolitical but she is benefiting from his actions. That is why I think sanctions should apply to the whole family so that she cannot shop for, ooh I don’t know, a nice piece of London property.
She has also tried to humanise and defend her husband by giving soft soap interviews.
The Assad regime is a family regime. They are sanctioned. That must mean consequences for them and I think Britain should think carefully about allowing people in such a regime to have an easy out from the effect of sanctions by allowing their wives to carry on as normal.
She is not that different to those girls marrying IS fighters and having their babies. They may not commit any crimes themselves but there is a level of passive complicity there and, possibly, much more active support.
Making it clear to the likes of Assad and Putin and others that those who are closest to them, those who benefit financially from their close association with them will also suffer may be one relatively easy way of putting some pressure on them. And it may have less bad consequences than bombing innocents just to send a message. The likes of Assad don’t care about those innocents. He might care when those nearest to him are affected. Stopping wives shop for clothes in Knightsbridge boutiques is hardly on a par with waterboarding.
She likes shopping. With her husband’s money. And how does he earn his money? She may personally be apolitical but she is benefiting from his actions. That is why I think sanctions should apply to the whole family so that she cannot shop for, ooh I don’t know, a nice piece of London property.
She has also tried to humanise and defend her husband by giving soft soap interviews.
The Assad regime is a family regime. They are sanctioned. That must mean consequences for them and I think Britain should think carefully about allowing people in such a regime to have an easy out from the effect of sanctions by allowing their wives to carry on as normal.
She is not that different to those girls marrying IS fighters and having their babies. They may not commit any crimes themselves but there is a level of passive complicity there and, possibly, much more active support.
Making it clear to the likes of Assad and Putin and others that those who are closest to them, those who benefit financially from their close association with them will also suffer may be one relatively easy way of putting some pressure on them. And it may have less bad consequences than bombing innocents just to send a message. The likes of Assad don’t care about those innocents. He might care when those nearest to him are affected. Stopping wives shop for clothes in Knightsbridge boutiques is hardly on a par with waterboarding.
"Also in February 2012, she sent an email to The Times stating: "The President is the President of Syria, not a faction of Syrians, and the First Lady supports him in that role."" wikipedia
I am not hugely given to the detection and denunciation of sexism, but the defence of her is all quite close to saying that her adorable little head is so stuffed with Harvey Nicks catalogues there's no room for anything else; women, eh?
I see the OPCW report confirms the (not specifically identified as) Novichok was "of high purity".
So not knocked up in a kitchen by person or persons unknown then, Jeremy.
And no doubt the full, classified report will have been released to the government and available on Privy Council terms to those suitably cleared - which may or may not include Jeremy.
My assumption from that might be that he's had word his personal palaces and bunkers are targeted.
I was thinking earlier that these dictators generally embezzle a fortune and build themselves grand luxury palaces and mansions across the country.
When we do targeted air strikes against a dictator how about instead of blowing up some token tanks we simply target all known residences and palaces belonging to the dictator? Hit their own pocket. That will piss them off more and be more likely to send a message.
Not without precedent, in the war of 1812 we burnt down the White House.
Re the earlier comment on Uber - yes young people use Uber a lot. But it’s not the only form of transport we use. A lot of us still get buses and the tube (I don’t know where his idea young people don’t use buses comes from).
Because getting on the bus means having to deal with bus people.
When I was in London, I'd regularly take the bus.
(Disclaimer: some ignorant people may not think I am young.)
Re the earlier comment on Uber - yes young people use Uber a lot. But it’s not the only form of transport we use. A lot of us still get buses and the tube (I don’t know where his idea young people don’t use buses comes from).
Because getting on the bus means having to deal with bus people.
When I was in London, I'd regularly take the bus.
Only until you were 29 and three quarters, I trust.
Re the earlier comment on Uber - yes young people use Uber a lot. But it’s not the only form of transport we use. A lot of us still get buses and the tube (I don’t know where his idea young people don’t use buses comes from).
Because getting on the bus means having to deal with bus people.
Not really. When I’ve been on the bus I just put on my headphones and stare out the windows. Most of the other people of my generation that I see are also glued to their phones in some way or another and just ignore everyone else. It’s basically what we do on the tube except it’s on a bus.
Indeed, the bus is better because you get a mobile signal and can write pithy comments on PB.
Listening to the five o'clock news it seems Trump has had a change of mind. Instead of attacking Assad he now wants to move on and be credited with getting rid of ISIS.
Hopefully this will be a lifetime lesson for Mrs May. If you hitch your wagon to an incontinent horse don't be surprised if you get covered in shit. More importantly now you've decided to ditch your closest allies you better get used to standing on your own two feet.
Our closest ally is America. Ask that arch Europhile Tony Blair and see who he allied with over Iraq.
My assumption from that might be that he's had word his personal palaces and bunkers are targeted.
I was thinking earlier that these dictators generally embezzle a fortune and build themselves grand luxury palaces and mansions across the country.
When we do targeted air strikes against a dictator how about instead of blowing up some token tanks we simply target all known residences and palaces belonging to the dictator? Hit their own pocket. That will piss them off more and be more likely to send a message.
Not without precedent, in the war of 1812 we burnt down the White House.
Well done, Donald. As you said in 2013, surprise is so important in these cases.
To be fair to the Donald (why?) the leaks might not be coming from the US, but from elsewhere. If the US are giving Russia hints due to the need to deconflict, the hints may be coming from that side.
Or this is some form of deconfliction message "keep out of those areas". Or even misinformation.
The best thing for Assad would not be death, but for him to be brought before an international court and tried for crimes against humanity.
Sadly, I cannot see a realistic or safe way of getting there from where we are now.
I'm not sure Morris Dancer's view earlier in the thread is not better: forget justice and go back to the old days of giving dictators a sack of cash to go into exile. At least that way we got rid of them; now the prospect of The Hague means they cling on forever.
She likes shopping. With her husband’s money. And how does he earn his money? She may personally be apolitical but she is benefiting from his actions. That is why I think sanctions should apply to the whole family so that she cannot shop for, ooh I don’t know, a nice piece of London property.
She has also tried to humanise and defend her husband by giving soft soap interviews.
The Assad regime is a family regime. They are sanctioned. That must mean consequences for them and I think Britain should think carefully about allowing people in such a regime to have an easy out from the effect of sanctions by allowing their wives to carry on as normal.
She is not that different to those girls marrying IS fighters and having their babies. They may not commit any crimes themselves but there is a level of passive complicity there and, possibly, much more active support.
Making it clear to the likes of Assad and Putin and others that those who are closest to them, those who benefit financially from their close association with them will also suffer may be one relatively easy way of putting some pressure on them. And it may have less bad consequences than bombing innocents just to send a message. The likes of Assad don’t care about those innocents. He might care when those nearest to him are affected. Stopping wives shop for clothes in Knightsbridge boutiques is hardly on a par with waterboarding.
I don't see an issue in including spouses on lists of those subject to sanctions, but I am very wary when people talk about removing citizenship
Well done, Donald. As you said in 2013, surprise is so important in these cases.
To be fair to the Donald (why?) the leaks might not be coming from the US, but from elsewhere. If the US are giving Russia hints due to the need to deconflict, the hints may be coming from that side.
Or this is some form of deconfliction message "keep out of those areas". Or even misinformation.
Or he wants to know if S-400 works or not, and wants to give it a decent trial.
Listening to the five o'clock news it seems Trump has had a change of mind. Instead of attacking Assad he now wants to move on and be credited with getting rid of ISIS.
Hopefully this will be a lifetime lesson for Mrs May. If you hitch your wagon to an incontinent horse don't be surprised if you get covered in shit. More importantly now you've decided to ditch your closest allies you better get used to standing on your own two feet.
Our closest ally is America. Ask that arch Europhile Tony Blair and see who he allied with over Iraq.
Nations don't have friends, they have interests.
That's a truism which simply means that you don't have to like the people you're allied with, not ally with the people you like. It may even be the case that you best serve your interests by forming a permanent alliance with countries who aren't your 'true friends'.
My assumption from that might be that he's had word his personal palaces and bunkers are targeted.
I was thinking earlier that these dictators generally embezzle a fortune and build themselves grand luxury palaces and mansions across the country.
When we do targeted air strikes against a dictator how about instead of blowing up some token tanks we simply target all known residences and palaces belonging to the dictator? Hit their own pocket. That will piss them off more and be more likely to send a message.
Not without precedent, in the war of 1812 we burnt down the White House.
And we had the Summer Palace in 1860.
Didn't we burn it a second time around the time of the Boxer rebellion as well?
And advocating the effective abolition of some of the few effective weapons treaties we have is certainly not a good place to find yourself.
We should be building on those treaties, not demolishing them.
And so we are back to where we were. What effective action do you advocate to enforce those treaties? Because bombing Syria sure as hell won't do it. The only way to militarily enforce those treaties is to have a full scale escalation and go to war in Syria, putting us into a direct shooting war with Russia and Iran. Nothing else militarily will work.
So what exactly are you advocating from your armchair? If you say 'Something must be done' it is incumbent upon you to say what you think that 'something' should be, otherwise all you are doing is repeating exactly the same mistakes we have made time and time again.
" from your armchair?"
Oh, don't be silly. You too are in full armchair pontificating mode.
I've already expressed what I think should be done: enough to send a message that the use of chemical weapons will not gain you any military or financial advantage. A good start (in two ways) might be attack the helicopter fleet that he is using to drop the bombs, the airfields and similar infrastructure. Try to discover where his munitions dumps are and attack them.
As I said earlier, unlike Saddam, Assad is not using these weapons because he is mad. He is using them because they are advantageous. We need to make it not advantageous, and also to show other countries such usage would not help them.
I am not the one advocating sending people to fight and kill on my behalf so I am quite comfortable in my armchair.
As for the rest of your suggestions. An utter waste of time. All that will happen is the helicopters will be replaced by the Russians and Iranians, just as the planes were last time. You will do absolutely nothing t prevent Assad winning the war because that is what the Russians want. Until you can provide a realistic alternative regime that the Russians will trust to maintain close ties, nothing will shift Assad short of all out war.
Well done, Donald. As you said in 2013, surprise is so important in these cases.
To be fair to the Donald (why?) the leaks might not be coming from the US, but from elsewhere. If the US are giving Russia hints due to the need to deconflict, the hints may be coming from that side.
Or this is some form of deconfliction message "keep out of those areas". Or even misinformation.
Or he wants to know if S-400 works or not, and wants to give it a decent trial.
Nah, the Israelis already do that using US-built planes. Allegedly ...
And advocating the effective abolition of some of the few effective weapons treaties we have is certainly not a good place to find yourself.
We should be building on those treaties, not demolishing them.
And so we are back to where we were. What effective action do you advocate to enforce those treaties? Because bombing Syria sure as hell won't do it. The only way to militarily enforce those treaties is to have a full scale escalation and go to war in Syria, putting us into a direct shooting war with Russia and Iran. Nothing else militarily will work.
So what exactly are you advocating from your armchair? If you say 'Something must be done' it is incumbent upon you to say what you think that 'something' should be, otherwise all you are doing is repeating exactly the same mistakes we have made time and time again.
" from your armchair?"
Oh, don't be silly. You too are in full armchair pontificating mode.
I've already expressed what I think should be done: enough to send a message that the use of chemical weapons will not gain you any military or financial advantage. A good start (in two ways) might be attack the helicopter fleet that he is using to drop the bombs, the airfields and similar infrastructure. Try to discover where his munitions dumps are and attack them.
As I said earlier, unlike Saddam, Assad is not using these weapons because he is mad. He is using them because they are advantageous. We need to make it not advantageous, and also to show other countries such usage would not help them.
I am not the one advocating sending people to fight and kill on my behalf so I am quite comfortable in my armchair.
As for the rest of your suggestions. An utter waste of time. All that will happen is the helicopters will be replaced by the Russians and Iranians, just as the planes were last time. You will do absolutely nothing t prevent Assad winning the war because that is what the Russians want. Until you can provide a realistic alternative regime that the Russians will trust to maintain close ties, nothing will shift Assad short of all out war.
Using the same tone you're using: you're willing to see people be gassed from the safety of your comfortable armchair.
I get the message. You'll reject whatever I suggest out of hand, so this conversation is absolutely pointless. Just don't bother asking me such questions again as you're unwilling to listen.
And again, you turn the conversation onto regime change, when I have said nothing about that.
I will leave it at this: your wish for the chemical and biological weapons treaties to fall by the wayside is utterly absurd, wrongheaded and dangerous.
Re the earlier comment on Uber - yes young people use Uber a lot. But it’s not the only form of transport we use. A lot of us still get buses and the tube (I don’t know where his idea young people don’t use buses comes from).
Because getting on the bus means having to deal with bus people.
When I was in London, I'd regularly take the bus.
(Disclaimer: some ignorant people may not think I am young.)
I use the bus every day when I am working in Aberdeen. For once recently I was grateful for Stagecoach as they were the only company in the city whose drivers were not on strike for 2 weeks.
I couldn’t wait to get off buses when I passed my driving test, and I haven’t looked back since.
I used them a bit as a student in Bristol to get around the City, particularly at night to save on taxis, and was happy to pay the £1.50 fare, but that’s it. Haven’t used them since in 15 years unless I’ve had no alternative. They are really only used by schoolkids, students, pensioners, those on benefits, or nerds. I can’t think of anyone serious who works who uses them, and it’s a miracle they raise anything in fares at all.
Well done, Donald. As you said in 2013, surprise is so important in these cases.
To be fair to the Donald (why?) the leaks might not be coming from the US, but from elsewhere. If the US are giving Russia hints due to the need to deconflict, the hints may be coming from that side.
Or this is some form of deconfliction message "keep out of those areas". Or even misinformation.
Or he wants to know if S-400 works or not, and wants to give it a decent trial.
I don't know how he managed to get by before it was invented,he seems made for it.
I think he just did it in person / via the phone...will pay you bigly for the work, your the best contractor, always said they were the worst, not going to pay, sue me, I’ll sue you...
It all depends whether you consider being a Pacifist to be all or nothing, when surely there are degrees of Pacifism.
"And this seems to be the point about Mr Corbyn's attitude to military action. He thinks it should only be done as a last resort - and only then if the United Nations agrees to it"
Yes, but that's not what he was saying in 2015, when he was saying he couldn't be definite about being an absolute (in his words, 'total') pacifist while giving the clear impression if forced into a choice that that is what he would say.
It may be of course that he was lying then.
(Incidentally there are no degrees of pacifism. A pacifist is somebody who is always opposed as a matter of conscience to violence and rejects it as an option. You are a pacifist, or you are not. If you espouse violence as an option, at any point, you are not or cease to be a pacifist. Otherwise it is like saying something is 'slightly morally wrong.')
Taken to its logical conclusion Pacifism leads to the ultimate extinction of Pacifism.
If the US and UK had refused to fight Hitler, he’d have eventually secured everything he wanted. That might have included a puppet Government here supplying troops for him, and doing his bidding, including the deportation and murder of Jews and “undesirables”, or a full conquest with even harsher repression.
Pacifists would have then had nowhere to go, and would have been forced to become active or passive Fascists, or die.
I couldn’t wait to get off buses when I passed my driving test, and I haven’t looked back since.
I used them a bit as a student in Bristol to get around the City, particularly at night to save on taxis, and was happy to pay the £1.50 fare, but that’s it. Haven’t used them since in 15 years unless I’ve had no alternative. They are really only used by schoolkids, students, pensioners, those on benefits, or nerds. I can’t think of anyone serious who works who uses them, and it’s a miracle they raise anything in fares at all.
London is the exception to the rule.
The Edinburgh buses are really good. Lothian Buses resisted the arrival of StageCoach though...
Using the same tone you're using: you're willing to see people be gassed from the safety of your comfortable armchair.
I get the message. You'll reject whatever I suggest out of hand, so this conversation is absolutely pointless. Just don't bother asking me such questions again as you're unwilling to listen.
And again, you turn the conversation onto regime change, when I have said nothing about that.
I will leave it at this: your wish for the chemical and biological weapons treaties to fall by the wayside is utterly absurd, wrongheaded and dangerous.
LOL. I see you are throwing one of your little tantrums.
I have asked you a series of simple questions. Given that bombing has utterly failed in the past, what military action would you advocate that would be effective in enforcing the treaties but would avoid us actually invading Syria? You have come up with absolutely nothing so far except what has clearly failed in the past.
Since you are apparently so keen for us to go and kill people I would at least expect you to have some plans about how to achieve your aims.
I think I'm probably responsible for the bad reputation bus passengers have. I often use busses after walks, and I can sometimes have an (ahem) aura around me after a hot day.
Though the best (worst?) reaction was a week or two after the London bombings in 2005. I got on a train near Ashford in Kent, hot, sweaty and bearded after a trip along the North Downs Way. A French family in the carriage look at my beard and large rucksack and move into the next carriage ...
I don't know how he managed to get by before it was invented,he seems made for it.
I think he just did it in person / via the phone...will pay you bigly for the work, your the best contractor, always said they were the worst, not going to pay, sue me, I’ll sue you...
Sure, but now he can do it to millions, much better. It reminds me a bit of Crowley in Good Omens, comparing the old school demons trying to corrupt individuals one at a time, vs his modern low key methods to spread little tortures to thousands, like crashing the phone system at lunch time to piss off huge numbers of people.
Re the earlier comment on Uber - yes young people use Uber a lot. But it’s not the only form of transport we use. A lot of us still get buses and the tube (I don’t know where his idea young people don’t use buses comes from).
Because getting on the bus means having to deal with bus people.
When I was in London, I'd regularly take the bus.
(Disclaimer: some ignorant people may not think I am young.)
Re the earlier comment on Uber - yes young people use Uber a lot. But it’s not the only form of transport we use. A lot of us still get buses and the tube (I don’t know where his idea young people don’t use buses comes from).
Because getting on the bus means having to deal with bus people.
When I was in London, I'd regularly take the bus.
(Disclaimer: some ignorant people may not think I am young.)
Using the same tone you're using: you're willing to see people be gassed from the safety of your comfortable armchair.
I get the message. You'll reject whatever I suggest out of hand, so this conversation is absolutely pointless. Just don't bother asking me such questions again as you're unwilling to listen.
And again, you turn the conversation onto regime change, when I have said nothing about that.
I will leave it at this: your wish for the chemical and biological weapons treaties to fall by the wayside is utterly absurd, wrongheaded and dangerous.
LOL. I see you are throwing one of your little tantrums.
I have asked you a series of simple questions. Given that bombing has utterly failed in the past, what military action would you advocate that would be effective in enforcing the treaties but would avoid us actually invading Syria? You have come up with absolutely nothing so far except what has clearly failed in the past.
Since you are apparently so keen for us to go and kill people I would at least expect you to have some plans about how to achieve your aims.
Tantrum? Nah. I'm actually sitting down laughing at the BBC's excellent 'Doodlebugs' with my son before putting him to bed in a few minutes. Your silliness is just adding to my good humour.
I have given answers to your questions, but you just broad-brush reject them in (IMO) silly ways. It then becomes a pointless conversation.
Perhaps we should move onto something we agree on, like HS2 ...
Using the same tone you're using: you're willing to see people be gassed from the safety of your comfortable armchair.
I get the message. You'll reject whatever I suggest out of hand, so this conversation is absolutely pointless. Just don't bother asking me such questions again as you're unwilling to listen.
And again, you turn the conversation onto regime change, when I have said nothing about that.
I will leave it at this: your wish for the chemical and biological weapons treaties to fall by the wayside is utterly absurd, wrongheaded and dangerous.
LOL. I see you are throwing one of your little tantrums.
I have asked you a series of simple questions. Given that bombing has utterly failed in the past, what military action would you advocate that would be effective in enforcing the treaties but would avoid us actually invading Syria? You have come up with absolutely nothing so far except what has clearly failed in the past.
Since you are apparently so keen for us to go and kill people I would at least expect you to have some plans about how to achieve your aims.
Good post .Especially a plan and what it would achieve.
Re the earlier comment on Uber - yes young people use Uber a lot. But it’s not the only form of transport we use. A lot of us still get buses and the tube (I don’t know where his idea young people don’t use buses comes from).
Because getting on the bus means having to deal with bus people.
Not really. When I’ve been on the bus I just put on my headphones and stare out the windows. Most of the other people of my generation that I see are also glued to their phones in some way or another and just ignore everyone else. It’s basically what we do on the tube except it’s on a bus.
Whether I am on a bus or tube and I use both I am almost invariably the only person reading a book.
Books only work if reading whilst in motion doesn't make you sick. I can read a little on most trains.
I have to say I'm not convinced that lobbing a few cruise missiles into Syria is what we should be doing.
It's going to solve nothing and we'll just end up watching Russian propaganda videos about the civilian casualties caused by US/UK aggression.
I do think that the use of chemical weapons is something we need to stop, but chucking a few missiles at Syria isn't going to achieve that goal. Surely we need to target Assad and his family.
Re the earlier comment on Uber - yes young people use Uber a lot. But it’s not the only form of transport we use. A lot of us still get buses and the tube (I don’t know where his idea young people don’t use buses comes from).
Because getting on the bus means having to deal with bus people.
Not really. When I’ve been on the bus I just put on my headphones and stare out the windows. Most of the other people of my generation that I see are also glued to their phones in some way or another and just ignore everyone else. It’s basically what we do on the tube except it’s on a bus.
Sorry, been on the train.
And that's the problem. It's not on demand. It's not point-to-point. It's not a controlled environment that doesn't smell of wet wool between October and February. It's not, at all, aspirational - and we keep being told that the youth swing to Corbyn is (at least partly) down to the apparent blocking of otherwise reasonable aspirations for steady jobs and stable housing, and to have them on terms not functionally dissimilar to their parents. It's just making do, edging a little forward, on someone else's timetable, knowing that, at the end of it, you've still got 10 minutes walking in the cold and the rain, shopping in hand, and that, unless something changes radically, this is what it's going to be.
That's not to say they won't use it and thus end up with a few quid extra a week - but it's about a big a cure for the overall malaise as recommending they have fewer slices of avocado toast or switching to a cheaper bottle of beer.
Re the earlier comment on Uber - yes young people use Uber a lot. But it’s not the only form of transport we use. A lot of us still get buses and the tube (I don’t know where his idea young people don’t use buses comes from).
Because getting on the bus means having to deal with bus people.
When I was in London, I'd regularly take the bus.
(Disclaimer: some ignorant people may not think I am young.)
You aren't under 25.
Last October Welsh Conservatives announced policy to offer free bus travel for 16- 25
Wales Labour stated 'too expensive' and 'fantasy economics'
Corbyn pinching policy from the Wales Conservatives
Does anyone know if the Morning Star still gets a subsidy from the Russian Government?
The Russian (and Eastern Bloc) support of various left-wing things always seemed to me to be the most outrageous thing. Somehow no-one seemed to mind though.
Buses are unsuitable outside large city centres, and even within they’re not great.
I’ve always thought we should try our own mashrutkas in the suburbs and rural areas ie minibus size vehicles that can cope with narrow twisty roads. You tend to only see them in poorer parts of Europe and developing countries though.
Books only work if reading whilst in motion doesn't make you sick. I can read a little on most trains.
Good evening, everyone.
Indeed so. I can't look at any kind of text be it book, magazine, kindle, internet or whatever else whilst in motion. Feeling really sick is a guaranteed result for me if I try. Music and podcasts are the only options to keep my brain distracted... having nothing to focus on also leads to me feeling sickly after a while too if the journey is a long one. Buses are worse than trains in that respect but cars are the worst of all for me.
Books only work if reading whilst in motion doesn't make you sick. I can read a little on most trains.
Good evening, everyone.
Indeed so. I can't look at any kind of text be it book, magazine, kindle, internet or whatever else whilst in motion. Feeling really sick is a guaranteed result for me if I try. Music and podcasts are the only options to keep my brain distracted... having nothing to focus on also leads to me feeling sickly after a while too if the journey is a long one. Buses are worse than trains in that respect but cars are the worst of all for me.
Oddly this was never a problem for me when I was young, became a problem for my twenties and then ceased being a problem again. I can knit, checking pattern directions, while in a car with no trouble at all these days.
The BBC has defended a decision to air Enoch Powell's 1968 "Rivers of Blood" speech on Radio 4.
The Archive on 4 programme, presented by BBC media editor Amol Rajan, will on Saturday broadcast the right-wing MP's anti-immigration speech - voiced by an actor - in full, for the first time.
Re the earlier comment on Uber - yes young people use Uber a lot. But it’s not the only form of transport we use. A lot of us still get buses and the tube (I don’t know where his idea young people don’t use buses comes from).
Because getting on the bus means having to deal with bus people.
Not really. When I’ve been on the bus I just put on my headphones and stare out the windows. Most of the other people of my generation that I see are also glued to their phones in some way or another and just ignore everyone else. It’s basically what we do on the tube except it’s on a bus.
Sorry, been on the train.
And that's the problem. It's not on demand. It's not point-to-point. It's not a controlled environment that doesn't smell of wet wool between October and February. It's not, at all, aspirational - and we keep being told that the youth swing to Corbyn is (at least partly) down to the apparent blocking of otherwise reasonable aspirations for steady jobs and stable housing, and to have them on terms not functionally dissimilar to their parents. It's just making do, edging a little forward, on someone else's timetable, knowing that, at the end of it, you've still got 10 minutes walking in the cold and the rain, shopping in hand, and that, unless something changes radically, this is what it's going to be.
That's not to say they won't use it and thus end up with a few quid extra a week - but it's about a big a cure for the overall malaise as recommending they have fewer slices of avocado toast or switching to a cheaper bottle of beer.
I think it’s a bit of a misjudgment.
Young people don’t want to be on buses. They want what their parents and grandparents had: a home of their own, their own car, a good job, to shed their debt and be able to travel and have fun.
There’s a lot for the Tories to feast on there, if they have the imagination.
Russia has called a UN security council meeting to discuss Syria tomorrow.
to discuss "the threat of US led military action"
Russian led military action is always just fine though.
Well, technically the difference is that Russia was invited in to help Assad (i.e. Syria), whilst the allies have not been invited (for the obvious reasons), and therefore it is an unfriendly act towards Syria.
As a contrary example, AIUI we were 'invited' by the Iraqi government to help them tackle ISIS, and could therefore attack relevant targets within their country without major diplomatic issues.
Comments
The only difference is success: Sierra Leone was, and Afghanistan wasn’t. But both had equally good cases for intervening.
We could extend the analysis to Bosnia (we were too late), Rwanda (didn’t bother at all), and Kosovo (on time).
We tend to retrofit the right/wrong afterwards, once we know it’s cost and can assess that against the gains/or risks we avoided.
So what exactly are you advocating from your armchair? If you say 'Something must be done' it is incumbent upon you to say what you think that 'something' should be, otherwise all you are doing is repeating exactly the same mistakes we have made time and time again.
I fear that's rubbish. Go back eighty years and Corbyn would have been a British Communist whilst it was still fashionable, and large numbers of them did not support the war until the Blitz or Hitler launched Barbarossa. Corbyn is not a Pollitt or Gallagher.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/assad-alawite-syria/557810/
Although it could be a prayer, I suppose.
Oh, don't be silly. You too are in full armchair pontificating mode.
I've already expressed what I think should be done: enough to send a message that the use of chemical weapons will not gain you any military or financial advantage. A good start (in two ways) might be attack the helicopter fleet that he is using to drop the bombs, the airfields and similar infrastructure. Try to discover where his munitions dumps are and attack them.
As I said earlier, unlike Saddam, Assad is not using these weapons because he is mad. He is using them because they are advantageous. We need to make it not advantageous, and also to show other countries such usage would not help them.
Assad - there was no chemical attack but it was terrorist who did it
Give me strength
She has also tried to humanise and defend her husband by giving soft soap interviews.
The Assad regime is a family regime. They are sanctioned. That must mean consequences for them and I think Britain should think carefully about allowing people in such a regime to have an easy out from the effect of sanctions by allowing their wives to carry on as normal.
She is not that different to those girls marrying IS fighters and having their babies. They may not commit any crimes themselves but there is a level of passive complicity there and, possibly, much more active support.
Making it clear to the likes of Assad and Putin and others that those who are closest to them, those who benefit financially from their close association with them will also suffer may be one relatively easy way of putting some pressure on them. And it may have less bad consequences than bombing innocents just to send a message. The likes of Assad don’t care about those innocents. He might care when those nearest to him are affected. Stopping wives shop for clothes in Knightsbridge boutiques is hardly on a par with waterboarding.
https://youtu.be/IPWr2a3JzaM
I am not hugely given to the detection and denunciation of sexism, but the defence of her is all quite close to saying that her adorable little head is so stuffed with Harvey Nicks catalogues there's no room for anything else; women, eh?
https://twitter.com/ELINTNews/status/984485608394502145
So not knocked up in a kitchen by person or persons unknown then, Jeremy.
https://twitter.com/News_Executive/status/984485013407354883
https://twitter.com/ELINTNews/status/984483403805462529
When we do targeted air strikes against a dictator how about instead of blowing up some token tanks we simply target all known residences and palaces belonging to the dictator? Hit their own pocket. That will piss them off more and be more likely to send a message.
Not without precedent, in the war of 1812 we burnt down the White House.
(Disclaimer: some ignorant people may not think I am young.)
Sadly, I cannot see a realistic or safe way of getting there from where we are now.
More than 60 Brazilian members of congress from the opposition Workers' Party have formally changed their names.
They have added the name "Lula", after Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was jailed last weekend.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-43734354
Or this is some form of deconfliction message "keep out of those areas". Or even misinformation.
As for the rest of your suggestions. An utter waste of time. All that will happen is the helicopters will be replaced by the Russians and Iranians, just as the planes were last time. You will do absolutely nothing t prevent Assad winning the war because that is what the Russians want. Until you can provide a realistic alternative regime that the Russians will trust to maintain close ties, nothing will shift Assad short of all out war.
I get the message. You'll reject whatever I suggest out of hand, so this conversation is absolutely pointless. Just don't bother asking me such questions again as you're unwilling to listen.
And again, you turn the conversation onto regime change, when I have said nothing about that.
I will leave it at this: your wish for the chemical and biological weapons treaties to fall by the wayside is utterly absurd, wrongheaded and dangerous.
I used them a bit as a student in Bristol to get around the City, particularly at night to save on taxis, and was happy to pay the £1.50 fare, but that’s it. Haven’t used them since in 15 years unless I’ve had no alternative. They are really only used by schoolkids, students, pensioners, those on benefits, or nerds. I can’t think of anyone serious who works who uses them, and it’s a miracle they raise anything in fares at all.
London is the exception to the rule.
If the US and UK had refused to fight Hitler, he’d have eventually secured everything he wanted. That might have included a puppet Government here supplying troops for him, and doing his bidding, including the deportation and murder of Jews and “undesirables”, or a full conquest with even harsher repression.
Pacifists would have then had nowhere to go, and would have been forced to become active or passive Fascists, or die.
I have asked you a series of simple questions. Given that bombing has utterly failed in the past, what military action would you advocate that would be effective in enforcing the treaties but would avoid us actually invading Syria? You have come up with absolutely nothing so far except what has clearly failed in the past.
Since you are apparently so keen for us to go and kill people I would at least expect you to have some plans about how to achieve your aims.
https://twitter.com/bwiedwards/status/984409005207556096
Though the best (worst?) reaction was a week or two after the London bombings in 2005. I got on a train near Ashford in Kent, hot, sweaty and bearded after a trip along the North Downs Way. A French family in the carriage look at my beard and large rucksack and move into the next carriage ...
Yep. It's my fault.
Twitter - rumours Assad has left Syria
I have given answers to your questions, but you just broad-brush reject them in (IMO) silly ways. It then becomes a pointless conversation.
Perhaps we should move onto something we agree on, like HS2 ...
Good evening, everyone.
It's going to solve nothing and we'll just end up watching Russian propaganda videos about the civilian casualties caused by US/UK aggression.
I do think that the use of chemical weapons is something we need to stop, but chucking a few missiles at Syria isn't going to achieve that goal. Surely we need to target Assad and his family.
And that's the problem. It's not on demand. It's not point-to-point. It's not a controlled environment that doesn't smell of wet wool between October and February. It's not, at all, aspirational - and we keep being told that the youth swing to Corbyn is (at least partly) down to the apparent blocking of otherwise reasonable aspirations for steady jobs and stable housing, and to have them on terms not functionally dissimilar to their parents. It's just making do, edging a little forward, on someone else's timetable, knowing that, at the end of it, you've still got 10 minutes walking in the cold and the rain, shopping in hand, and that, unless something changes radically, this is what it's going to be.
That's not to say they won't use it and thus end up with a few quid extra a week - but it's about a big a cure for the overall malaise as recommending they have fewer slices of avocado toast or switching to a cheaper bottle of beer.
https://twitter.com/OPCW/status/984459594633285632
Wales Labour stated 'too expensive' and 'fantasy economics'
Corbyn pinching policy from the Wales Conservatives
I’ve always thought we should try our own mashrutkas in the suburbs and rural areas ie minibus size vehicles that can cope with narrow twisty roads. You tend to only see them in poorer parts of Europe and developing countries though.
Get Jezza to disagree if you can
The Archive on 4 programme, presented by BBC media editor Amol Rajan, will on Saturday broadcast the right-wing MP's anti-immigration speech - voiced by an actor - in full, for the first time.
Young people don’t want to be on buses. They want what their parents and grandparents had: a home of their own, their own car, a good job, to shed their debt and be able to travel and have fun.
There’s a lot for the Tories to feast on there, if they have the imagination.
As a contrary example, AIUI we were 'invited' by the Iraqi government to help them tackle ISIS, and could therefore attack relevant targets within their country without major diplomatic issues.