Casual Bystander Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11038121/David-Cameron-Isil-poses-a-direct-and-deadly-threat-to-Britain.html We can debate the pro's and con's of independence with varying levels of certainty, although very very little could be considered a guarantee. What CAN be guaranteed though is that an independent Scotland would not enter into the "illegal" wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and once more the hawks are pushing for action, after needing to lie back and lick their wounds when they were rebuffed by public opinion in getting involved in Syria. Don't be fooled, there is an agenda behind Cameron's words, and that agenda will result in the UK being involved in military action on foreign soil either directly or by proxy. ONLY a Yes vote can stop Scottish involvement in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 I'm voting Yes and fully support arming the Kurds against IS, as well as assisting them through air support. Am I #doingitwrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YassinMoutaouakil Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 I'm voting Yes and fully support arming the Kurds against IS, as well as assisting them through air support. Am I #doingitwrong? 100% this, though I'd draw the line at physically putting British troops on the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Bystander Posted August 17, 2014 Author Share Posted August 17, 2014 Let's not forget that William Hague, a right wing secretary for defence, tried to convince people that sending weapons to Syria was not going to end up with those same weapons in the hands of the very organisations he has been claiming are a threat to the British way of life because they would "make sure they ended up in the right hands". Considering war zones are not an ideal place for efficient book keeping and asset tracking one might suggest he was somehow trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Thankfully his line of argument was roundly rebutted and shown to be the folly it was, however let's not kid ourselves as we it could easily have happened - and to be honest is likely to have happened under the radar of public scrutiny. Now we have an even more right wing, and considerably less experienced secretary of defence in Hammond, does anyone believe the rhetoric will diminish? For all Hague's faults as a seasoned politician you would imagine he'd have the experience and the inter-personal skills to deal with international leaders, and their entourages, sensibly. Hammond, sadly, is not so trustworthy. Hammond, is now pushing to send military equipment to the Kurds in Northern Iraq - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11036586/Philip-Hammond-Islamic-State-extremists-pose-a-terrible-threat-in-Iraq.html - completely ignoring the mistakes of the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Bystander Posted August 17, 2014 Author Share Posted August 17, 2014 I'm voting Yes and fully support arming the Kurds against IS, as well as assisting them through air support. Am I #doingitwrong? 100% this, though I'd draw the line at physically putting British troops on the ground. You are both wrong on this subject. I understand where you are coming from but history shows it's "not a good idea". If the arming was to come through the UN, then I might have some level of contrition on the matter, however this should not be unilateral. The bottom line is though, if you vote YES you are guaranteed that Scottish troops would not be involved in "illegal" foreign military action. Vote NO and there is a distinct possibility they will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Bystander Posted August 17, 2014 Author Share Posted August 17, 2014 Lest we forget that the very Kurds the Tories want to arm, represent the PKK. An organisation that is considered a terrorist organisation in the UK and US. The combination of short termism (a very dangerous political strategy) and the old adage "my enemy's enemy". Clearly providing military support for the mujahideen in the 80's in some way to fight off the Soviet invasion was a legendary success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 I don't think the Islamic State have any fans on the Security Council, therefore any intervention would be likely to be legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Bystander Posted August 17, 2014 Author Share Posted August 17, 2014 I don't think the Islamic State have any fans on the Security Council, therefore any intervention would be likely to be legal. Hmm.. I think you are confused. For a start with the UN you can only have things that breach regulations, they are not "illegal" by definition. Secondly the illegal nature is down to the UK courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donj Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 Remember we trained and armed the Afghani's,and Bin Laden,then ended up fighting them.Never mind though as the arms manufacturers are doing great business.Every mad war is fought supplied by weapons from the West or Russia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 Hmm.. I think you are confused. For a start with the UN you can only have things that breach regulations, they are not "illegal" by definition. Secondly the illegal nature is down to the UK courts. Another P+B expert on International Law emerges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Bystander Posted August 17, 2014 Author Share Posted August 17, 2014 Another P+B expert on International Law emerges. Ah, so it's the 'argumentum ad hominem' approach then? Carry on.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 I think this thread started off bang on by outlining the lack of certainty. It then continued to present potential and speculation as fact. However, perhaps the theme of iScotland being less proactive abroad is probably- the question is what will our role within NATO be and what will we pay our armed forces to do other than to keep a defence industry on the go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donj Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 I believe by International law overthrowing a government,however much you disagree with them is illegal.We beat the shit out of Iraq,Afghanistan and Libya(breaking those rules).Much better countries now and top of the holiday destinations I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 Ah, so it's the 'argumentum ad hominem' approach then? Carry on.. I'll take you seriously if you explain why the last Iraq war was illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donj Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 Tell us all about these WMD's and explain why David Kelly was found dead in a wood and I'll tell you why it was illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 Why was Afghanistan illegal? Why wouldn't an independent Scotland have gone into Afghanistan, bearing in mind every other NATO member did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 Tell us all about these WMD's and explain why David Kelly was found dead in a wood and I'll tell you why it was illegal. These matters haven't been brought before a court, UK or otherwise. As Casual Bystander doesn't look like explaining anytime soon, the reason it has been considered illegal is that the UK and US ignored several Security Council votes advocating further WMD inspections, and invaded anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 You are both wrong on this subject. I understand where you are coming from but history shows it's "not a good idea". If the arming was to come through the UN, then I might have some level of contrition on the matter, however this should not be unilateral. Oh great, let's not do anything because "history shows". History shows letting people get massacred because they don't practice the "right" religion isn't a good idea, looks like history is contradicting itself on what to do. What is your problem with the arming coming through the EU? Would an EU member state iScotland object to this? Lest we forget that the very Kurds the Tories want to arm, represent the KKK. An organisation that is considered a terrorist organisation in the UK and US. The combination of short termism (a very dangerous political strategy) and the old adage "my enemy's enemy". Clearly providing military support for the mujahideen in the 80's in some way to fight off the Soviet invasion was a legendary success. The PKK, not the KKK. They are not a terrorist organisation in the same vein as Al-Qaeda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donj Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 Afhanistan was invaded chasing Bin Laden.We destroyed half the country and found him in Pakistan eventually.This war against terror is being created by America rampaging in with us following like wee puppy dogs.The more we do the worse it gets and the more they can ramp it up. Like I said the weapons manufacturers are loving it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Bystander Posted August 17, 2014 Author Share Posted August 17, 2014 The PKK, not the KKK. They are not a terrorist organisation in the same vein as Al-Qaeda. Sorry forgive my typo, it is of course the PKK. However it's nice to see you are providing a league table of terrorism. The point being they are a terrorism organisation and the UK wishes to arm them under the pretence of fighting a war in Syria by proxy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.