European views on ISIL

Very good speech- shame about the cause its for- the worst thing you can do with good rhetoric is use it to support bad policy. And it seems pretty clear Cameron doesn't have a plan beyond bomb them and hope for the best. His 70,000 ground troops is a joke and made up of disparate groups many of whom hate each other, some of whom are extremists too and most of whom probably wont show anyway assuming they actually exist at all in the first place.

This is mainly about being seen to do something, and being seen to support our allies- the military case for our intervention is pathetically weak.

Hurrah for war!    (if you're an arms manufacturer that is)-



And thanks to last nights vote the UK's biggest arms dealer can join in the money-making fun and mayhem!



Altogether now (if you're a Tory with shares in, or you sit on the board of an arms dealer) "We're in the money! We're in the money"

I agree with Benn. But my immediate thought was, this is a statesmanlike presence and Labour really needed someone like this when it all went pear shaped and they needed a strong leader. he has the charisma of his dad and he can obviously rally the troops. shame really they got Corbyn.

I agree with him- Figg

May I ask why? (And his Dad would have been spinning in his grave at the him backing a Tory government on war)

Mrs Figg wrote:Holy Crap!! Hilary Benn's speech. probably the best speech in 70 years. where was he when we needed a new labour leader?

It all sounds good, until you remember that ISIS is the result of instability arising from sending in troops. What's needed is slow middle east consensus building and support, so when troops DO go in it will be part of sealing a social breach rather than causing further damage. Quick action is just treating the symptoms while allowing the cause to fester.

I think its pretty much agreed on all sides that the UK bombing raids are more of a symbolic coming to the aid of the French rather than anything decisive. Nobody is saying that a few more jets are going to change the outcome. But it is a signal that we are not washing our hands of responsibility. The alternative is what exactly? do we wait until IS has got a stronghold in Lybia? oh wait they already have. do you know how near that is to mainland Europe?

But they are not just symbolic- those are real bombs falling on real people, some of who are bound to be innocent civilians- bombs that might not be falling if we hadn't decided to join in the bombing frenzy.
Bombing is not going to solve this. Diplomacy is- not with ISIS, but with the other Muslim states around them. We need to cut some deals with Russia and in the short term with Assad- unpleasant but its not like that stopped us dealing with tyrants like Gadaffi or Saddam for decades. And issues like Israel/Palestine need a road to settlement that all can see happening- and that means the US and Israel need to cut some deals they don't want to.
Bombing is not going to do any of that.

I honestly dont think this is our fight- we are just the outward targets. This is a Muslim nation problem, a reformation moment and the other moderate nations need to be persuaded to step up to the plate, and the west needs to stop pussyfooting round Saudi and tell them some shit needs to stop and stop now. All those beatings, dismemberments, stonings need to go out with ISIS. Currently we are in the dubious position of calling ISI the most barbaric thing on the planet whilst at the same time we are allied with a country who performs many of the same barbaric act under state sanction.

Sorry but, I have to agree with Petty on this one. What a God awful mess !

Pettytyrant101 wrote:But they are not just symbolic- those are real bombs falling on real people, some of who are bound to be innocent civilians- bombs that might not be falling if we hadn't decided to join in the bombing frenzy.
Bombing is not going to solve this. Diplomacy is- not with ISIS, but with the other Muslim states around them. We need to cut some deals with Russia and in the short term with Assad- unpleasant but its not like that stopped us dealing with tyrants like Gadaffi or Saddam for decades. And issues like Israel/Palestine need a road to settlement that all can see happening- and that means the US and Israel need to cut some deals they don't want to.
Bombing is not going to do any of that.

I honestly dont think this is our fight- we are just the outward targets. This is a Muslim nation problem, a reformation moment and the other moderate nations need to be persuaded to step up to the plate, and the west needs to stop pussyfooting round Saudi and tell them some shit needs to stop and stop now. All those beatings, dismemberments, stonings need to go out with ISIS. Currently we are in the dubious position of calling ISI the most barbaric thing on the planet whilst at the same time we are allied with a country who performs many of the same barbaric act under state sanction.

we have to do all those things and bomb IS. The Kurds wanted airstrikes, they got them. I for one was quite happy they dropped one on Jihadi John.

But you have to have the plan in place already before the bombing- bombing is pointless unless you can take and hold the territory won, otherwise they just come back again. And we cant hold that ground as we have no one to hold it for us and we have no ground troops there- nor does anyone else who is bombing.
All we are doing right now is bombing for the sake of it, for political reasons, which is the worse reason for killing people, its just to be seen to be doing something and not sitting on the sidelines. Its the UK's old, and increasingly expensive and improbable belief we are still an Empire and need to be in in on everything that goes on in the world.

don't be ridiculous, its nothing to do with the Empire.

Then why are we cutting 12 billion to the NHS, unelpoyed, low paid workers, social services ect and putting 60 billion into defence if we aren't still trying to keep up with the Jones'?

whats that got to do with the Empire? that seems like a load of SNP hogwash.

Morelike what have thew SNp got to do with any of this?

I am basing my view on the UK percentage of GDP spent on defence- according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies we are 5th in the worl dfor spending on military.
And if you look at the countries around us they tend have things in common they are much larger territorially, they have a lot more people or they are in a very hostile part oft he world, or all three-

                                                       
                             
                                                     ($ Bn.) % of GDP  Per capita ($)

1 United States United States              581.0    3.0        1821
2 China China                                    129.4    1.2            95
3 Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia                80.8     10.7       2803
4 Russia Russia                                 70.0       3.7         488
5 United Kingdom                              61.8       2.1        964
6 France                                           53.1       1.8        804
7 Japan                                            47.7       1.0        218
8 India                                             45.2       2.2          35
9 Germany                                       43.9       1.1        541
10 South Korea                                 34.4      2.4        668


Per capita in dollars we are spending nearly twice as much as Russia does on our military- Russia is a superpower, Russia is massive, it has tons of resources and people. We are none of these things.

And whilst we do this queues at foodbanks lengthen, families languish in B&B's for lack of affordable housing and working folk like me, but who are in low wage jobs like care work still find themselves having to decide if they can go without food for a couple of days, or heating.

If we don't still have an Empire complex in our ruling class, why are they spending  money like we still have an Empire and as if we are still a world superpower?

spending money on defence or spending money on foreign aid. I would rather they spend money on defence than billions of ill spent foreign aid which is a bottomless pit with no guarantee the money gets to the poor. its more likely creamed off by the corrupt dictators of the poor countries, so which is more of a waste? defending our country or bailing out failed corrupt countries?

my moneys on defence.

I'm not advocating not having defence spending- I am arguing that us being in the top5 spending countries in the world on defence is ludicrous and we clearly cant afford it.
I broadly agree on foreign aid however.

we are also probably a rich country that can afford defence spending without any detriment to other areas of spending. Historically we have a strong army and navy and without those we wouldn't have had the empires you so easily despise, and we wouldn't be the rich country we are today. We have always spent tons on defence from Elizabeth I gallions onwards.

we are also probably a rich country that can afford defence spending without any detriment to other areas of spending.- Figg

Then why are we having to cut 12 billion from essential services just to try to reduce our debt and create a small surplus?

its probably not due to defence spending. when they do cut things its normally the poorest to get it in the neck first not the people who can afford to have things cut. so I don't think its defence spending that's the problem, more an institutional unfairness which allows the rich to get richer on the backs of the poor.

According to the Ministry of Defence the immediate cost of replacing Trident is 17-23 billion based on 2013-14 prices.

The running costs for the projected 40 year life span is between 50-100billion (the Independent and Reuters report the true figure as an eye-watering 160 billion!)

Buts lets stick with the procurement figure, and we will take the higher end because prices have gone up since 2013-14 and because these projects are notorious for over-spend, so its more likely to be closer to the final figure.

So 23 billion- minus the deficit- 12 billion and no cuts to services required, no-one suffers. That leaves 11 billion- plough half of that into conventional forces and the other half into public services.

And you have anything between 50 and 167 billion over the next 40 years to spend.

what about all the jobs it creates?

There really aren't that many- the government (Labour and Tory) have greatly inflated the numbers in their rhetoric- but a freedom of information request got this statement out of the Ministry of Defence-

"there are 520 civilian jobs at Her Majesty’s Naval Base (HMNB) Clyde, including Coulport and Faslane, that directly rely upon the Trident programme. MoD employs 159 personnel at the Clyde base, with private contractors Babcock Marine and Lockheed Martin UK Strategic Systems employing 254 and 107 people respectively. The majority of the jobs are for engineering and science specialists."


Compare that to the Minister of Defence who claimed there were 6500 jobs at risk.

There is also a good argument that if you remove Trident you remove a lot of the security issues which currently prevent those yards being used for other services and for our allies vessels.
And if you save money on Trident and spend a chunk of it instead on conventional naval vessels then the yard will probably employ more in the long run than it does currently (just last month a Russian sub was prowling in Scottish waters- we had to ask France to send vessels as we didn't have any- how is that even possible for an island nation with sea oil reserves?)

Russian vessels can flirt with us but they wouldn't go too far because we have Trident.

For every missile we have for Russia they have 100 coming back- against Russia us having Trident is pointless. To use it would be to commit suicide, and Russia would never have to use theirs against ours because if they wanted to they could take the UK with conventional forces. They vastly outgunned and outman us.
What keeps us safe is not having Trident, its international treaties, alliances and international law.

Part of the idea of the nuclear deterrent is that if you have foreign troops landing on your beaches or dismantling your borders, WWI/WWII style, you launch a nuclear retaliation even if your enemy is using only conventional forces.  Because other countries are aware of this, they are then less likely to launch a massive conventional war against you because the costs would be too high.  It's possible to disagree with this, sure, but there are not many more convincing theories to account for the end of great power wars after WWII and Korea (though certainly the nuclear deterrent is not the only factor at play in this).