Psychoactive Substances: Rolling UK Politics in The Neo-Con Era

This looks like such an obviously ill-thought out and avoidable foreign policy blunder in the making that any blowback could be disastrous for Cameron. Is there even much in the way of overt pressure coming from the US?

idk how much pressure there is from the US or NATO but it's a status thing. It's virtually consequence free and isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference to Syria either way so the choice is either to sit at the top table with France and the US or risk the perception that the UK isn't a major player in world events any more.

I can't imagine ISIS is going to think 'well, we were ok with you bombing us in Iraq but you've crossed a line with your occasional raids in Syria' and there are almost no targets of value left to hit (France responded to the Paris attacks by bombing a football stadium and a chicken farm) so anything that is attacked by the UK is likely to be hit anyway by someone else.

Unless things radically change on the ground, the whole business is a performance - which makes all the bluster even more embarrassing.

But we've got magic bombs that are more accurate at taking out specific chickens

isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference to Syria either way

If the Magic bombs fail and there are civilian casualties? I know this could probably be covered up with a 'there were ISIS fighters hiding out in that hospital'.

I don't think the UK participating in bombing would necessarily mean an escalation in the amount of bombing being done. That's not an argument in favour of the UK getting involved though.

idk how much pressure there is from the US or NATO but it's a status thing. It's virtually consequence free and isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference to Syria either way so the choice is either to sit at the top table with France and the US or risk the perception that the UK isn't a major player in world events any more.

it is so depressing that people, much less those governing us, think like this

the only effect i can think of this extended campaign having is to kill or maim people where the bombs fall. that's about the only thing that can be said with any certainty.

Yes but would a bomb from the UK kill Syrian civilians - totally get this is no escalation.

The pro-bombing side admit that the UK taking part would make no difference whatsoever, so its pure post-imperial hangover and ego. Just about being there as if France or anybody else really care. xxp

it is so depressing that people, much less those governing us, think like this

Peace induces a boredom to a lot of people. If you don't need a hospital, school, library or many public services government is just taking your money in taxes and you've got to see them doing something.

xp Yes, the UK has been killing civilians in Iraq since the bombing started there. The idea that Tornadoes are more accurate than every other plane on the planet seems fanciful. Whether it's the UK, the US or France bombing the chicken farm isn't going to make a massive amount of difference to the chickens though.

Imperial hangover is otm.

Cameron wants his Falklands

No ground forces.

kind of reminiscent of the whole badger cull fiasco, what with the tories rushing to appease the farming lobby with complete disregard for the evidence that it could actually make things worse by dispersing badgers and spreading infection. except now ISIS are the infected badgers in our midst, BAE cosying up with the MOD is DEFRA being dictated to by the NFU, sensitive bombing is the new humane shooting, and Jeremy Corbyn was formerly the guitar player from Queen

i should pad that one out a bit and send it to the guardian tbh

It's witty and it's troubling!

Leaving all of Behr's 'evidence' aside (=talking to a few people who mostly agree with him) look at this nugget:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/02/oldham-byelection-jerermy-corbyn-labour

Outside a shopping centre in the middle of town, I speak to Warren, in his 30s, also a Ukip supporter. He says he’s not into politics but caught snippets of the debate about terrorism on the news. “Cameron was saying ‘enough is enough’ and Corbyn seemed to be saying ‘let bygones be bygones. Let’s hide under a rock’ or something. I think he’s a pussy.”

And you guys were mocking Cameron's "I'm not having it" yesterday. Shows how out of touch you are.

There's a big difference between the posh, whiny 'I'm not having it!' and the not-posh 'let's be 'avin you!'.

Not to mention re: badger cull, many farmers were actually opposed to the badger cull because of the cruelty and other reasons already mentioned.

Warren and Cameron connect across the class barriers. Quite nice really.

The idea that Tornadoes are more accurate than every other plane on the planet seems fanciful.

Similarly the apparent ability of UK to foil numerous attempts in the last year as claimed (repulsive how this was just casually dropped in by PM a few weeks ago - selective disclosure when it suits the bullshit argument, with no real scrutiny and lapped up by pro-bombers), considering how 'easy' the attacks in Paris have come across as.

There is a wider question around the issue of when ignorant morons became something for politicians and commentators to tiptoe around rather than people to argue against and try and win over. Guessing this was Gordon Brown's bungled mic check but it felt like it was brewing before that?

I'd like to think that Corbyn's movement building will be a break from just nodding to people.

idk how much pressure there is from the US or NATO but it's a status thing. It's virtually consequence free and isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference to Syria either way so the choice is either to sit at the top table with France and the US or risk the perception that the UK isn't a major player in world events any more.

Yes we have to stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies, the French have asked us to help them so we will do so, just like they did in the Iraq War, errrrr, hold on...

There is a wider question around the issue of when ignorant morons became something for politicians and commentators to tiptoe around rather than people to argue against and try and win over. Guessing this was Gordon Brown's bungled mic check but it felt like it was brewing before that?

feels like this has come from america, joe the plumber etc? just like calling your opponent a terrorist.

Australia, to be more accurate.

A terrorist sympathizer:

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/media/images/74080000/jpg/_74080982_queenhandshake.jpg

most politicians seem to think everybody outside of their bubble is an ignorant moron tbf so any deference to the people they're supposed to represent is always going to look forced

We have BBC News 24 on in the background at work and the phrase 'so-called Islamic State' is slowly driving me insane.

seems like the UK has abandoned any ambition of getting any sort of agreement between the powers involved in syria. given how at odds these powers are, and the already appalling humanitarian & refugee crisis, starting more fires in the name of quick-fix blows to terrorism seems... imprudent. I'm not sure what any realistic amount of changing facts on the ground would do to solve the diplomatic intransigence on the fundamental issues in the region like the kurds and the transition/partition of power. just imagining syria five years in the future seems to be beyond the discourse.

the thing that instills despair is the media credulity; no matter how deranged, baseless and meaningless the standard of debate in westminster gets, it is still politely reported on, questions seriously put to the public and their responses validated and given exposure.

So Cameron is due to say that "we should not be pussies about this"

yeah a friend was making the point that it is strange that a majority of people actually paid to think about this and decide what's best are managing to conclude that military action is best.

xpost

Will the UK joining in even mean more bombs overall, or will it just be us dropping a few of the bombs that the US or France would otherwise be dropping?

Our bombs are smarter than the average bomb.

I honestly think it'll just be picking up some of the work that France or the US would have been doing anyway. It's not like the UK has any special intel that isn't being shared with allies or that there are any targets not being hit at the moment due to a lack of alternative capacity.

special role for UK forces dragging back the French telling them to "leave it he's not worth it" over a charred tundra of former chicken coops

tbc I think there will obviously have to be coordinated military action before there's any semi satisfactory resolution in syria, but each individual country just trying to shoot terrorists from afar is not it

John Woodcock, a pro-airstrikes Labour MP, says it would be helpful for Cameron to withdraw his “terrorist sympathisers” remark. But he says it will not affect how MPs vote. And nor will criticism from anti-war campaigners, Woodcock says.

Will he be reassured that nobody on this side of the House will make a decision based on any such remarks or will we be threatened from doing what we believe is the right thing. Whether those threats come from online activists or indeed from our own dispatch box.

Cameron says he agrees. There is honour on both sides, he says.

— James Forsyth (@JGForsyth)
December 2, 2015

Corbyn turns around and shoots John Woodcock a look of disgust after his intervention

Metro headline, "Corbyn Shoots Backbench Rebel During Syria Debate"

Tom D. - Cameron is going to town on the BBC and their use of "so-called Ismalic State"

Rehman Chishti, the Conservative MP, welcomes Cameron’s decision to use the term Daesh. Does he agree that the BBC should use this term too? He says the BBC says it cannot do so because it would breach their rules on impartiality.

Cameron says he has written to the BBC about this.

lol at every single question and comment from every single one of these wanks

bbc should follow cameron's lead and go with 'this death cult'

"This death cult looks set to carry the debate?"

Cameron says he agrees. There is honour on both sides, he says.

That's the closest thing to an apology you'll get in the Commons.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wtwqPYcoabg/hqdefault.jpg

(started looking for same image, gave up when I realised someone else would have found one by now)

I'm cheered by the fact there's a big debate happening publicly over a cosmetic and token military gesture. In the Blair years I feel like they would have just done it and we would have been all, oh well, yes, got to help out our allies I suppose, NBD, war on terrorism, whatcha gon do. Maybe it's naive to feel this way, I don't know.

'Debate'? Is that what this is?

ffs at all the labour mps using this opportunity to whine about the 'horrific abuse' they are suffering from all quarters

To members of Parliament, before you cast your vote, I beg of you, each and every one of you to please think of the misery and agony and suffering of those Labour MPs. Cameron's terrorist sympathizer (planned) outburst seems to have backfired, but not spectacularly enough.

Nobody is abusing the pro-bombing Labour MPs - even Stella Creasy's FB page is pretty much a majority of very polite people asking her to vote no.

Hasn't stopped people spreading bullshit about people marching to Stella Creasy's house (they didn't, it was her constituency office)

They marched FROM A MOSQUE.