Savage Henry Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 I'm sure the Shia majority have forgotten and forgiven the absence of a no-fly zone for them in the south and how that enabled Saddam to defeat them and carry out reprisals against them. It's only a matter of time until they finally turn away from pro-Iranian parties and embrace American style democracy. The neoCons were right all along. Trying to equate moral values when discussing foreign policy is a futile endeavour. For most of the 20th century, the West's involvement in the Middle East has been nothing short of abhorrent. That shouldn't mean no intervention should ever be taken again, it just means we need to be even more careful about the times and places when we do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 That's a direct contradiction. I've already given at least one example of where bombing has saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Kurds. Baghdad would have fallen to IS long ago had there been no bombing. Look how polarised this thread is. There's no settled will of the Scottish people. There's a whole bunch of differing opinions, some informed, some ill-informed, some based on empty rhetoric. A three-line whip does nothing to voice the opinions (plural) of the Scottish people, of which you and I are equally representative. It represents SNP leadership and SNP leadership only. Political expedience over reasoned, moral choices. The reasoned moral choice is not to bomb, cheers. One issue where the enemy was easily identifiable (Baghdad) does not make a case for all bombing which has been a complete disaster thus far. 73% of Scots disagree with the bombing so that's a majority and the SNP agree with the Scottish people. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Trying to equate moral values when discussing foreign policy is a futile endeavour. For most of the 20th century, the West's involvement in the Middle East has been nothing short of abhorrent. That shouldn't mean no intervention should ever be taken again, it just means we need to be even more careful about the times and places when we do. This is allegedly what we have done before each one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 The reasoned moral choice is not to bomb, cheers. One issue where the enemy was easily identifiable (Baghdad) does not make a case for all bombing which has been a complete disaster thus far. 73% of Scots disagree with the bombing so that's a majority and the SNP agree with the Scottish people. The reasoned moral choice could be to bomb or not to bomb. Neither is inherently more moral than the other. Democracy is not simply the majority view (73% or whatever, let's not go basing things on polls!). It's the views of the whole, and allowing minority views to be expressed. The SNP do not merely represent the voices of their voters, they represent the voices of those who did not vote for them as well. And anyway, surely by that measure, 27% of SNP MPs agree with bombing, and should be allowed to express their opinion to that end? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 This is allegedly what we have done before each one. You'll get no arguments from me on the incompetency of previous campaigns. None at all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 The reasoned moral choice is not to bomb, cheers. One issue where the enemy was easily identifiable (Baghdad) does not make a case for all bombing which has been a complete disaster thus far. 73% of Scots disagree with the bombing so that's a majority and the SNP agree with the Scottish people. 73% of Scots who have heard about the website and decided to register and tick a box. There is no way of telling whether they are representative. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenconner Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 I'm sure the Shia majority have forgotten and forgiven the absence of a no-fly zone for them in the south and how that enabled Saddam to defeat them and carry out reprisals against them. It's only a matter of time until they finally turn away from pro-Iranian parties and embrace American style democracy. The neoCons were right all along. Be curious to know were it ends. Does it end? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 73% of Scots who have heard about the website and decided to register and tick a box. There is no way of telling whether they are representative. It's more than you've got. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 The reasoned moral choice could be to bomb or not to bomb. Neither is inherently more moral than the other. Democracy is not simply the majority view (73% or whatever, let's not go basing things on polls!). It's the views of the whole, and allowing minority views to be expressed. The SNP do not merely represent the voices of their voters, they represent the voices of those who did not vote for them as well. And anyway, surely by that measure, 27% of SNP MPs agree with bombing, and should be allowed to express their opinion to that end? They're quite free to express their opinion but none have as yet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 (edited) They're quite free to express their opinion but none have as yet. Well no, because there's a three-line whip... One of the remarkable things about recent SNP leadership (as opposed to the early 2000s) is the lack of dissension from back benchers. But this isn't always a good thing, because those dissenting voices are not always speaking simply for themselves. Edited December 2, 2015 by Savage Henry 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Well no, because there's a three-line whip... One of the remarkable things about recent SNP leadership (as opposed to the early 2000s) is the lack of dissension from back benchers. But this isn't always a good thing, because those dissenting voices are not always speaking simply for themselves. The majority of SNP MPs do not want to bomb. The rest have clearly went with the majority on this issue. It's called being organised. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Well no, because there's a three-line whip... One of the remarkable things about recent SNP leadership (as opposed to the early 2000s) is the lack of dissension from back benchers. But this isn't always a good thing, because those dissenting voices are not always speaking simply for themselves. There was no three-line whip until yesterday and the leadership only expressed an opinion a day ago. The upswell of anti-bombing feeling within the SNP came long before this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Perhaps this will help: Dave Davies MP (Conservative) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.A.F.C Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Seems like it's already been decided. Any opposition seems to be shouted down by Cameron. Bombing them isn't the answer. There's much bigger issues to be addressed, long term plans. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenconner Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Seems like it's already been decided. Any opposition seems to be shouted down by Cameron. Bombing them isn't the answer. There's much bigger issues to be addressed, long term plans. Hopefully it's a cunning plan. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Seems like it's already been decided. Any opposition seems to be shouted down by Cameron. Bombing them isn't the answer. There's much bigger issues to be addressed, long term plans. A man that does not have the decency to apologise for his outrageous comments about people that he disagrees with. Just the sort of person you want to be leading us into another military action. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeeJay Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 people seem to be forgetting that the UK can never be attacked as we have nuclear weaponry at Faslane... the ultimate deterrent! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WullieBroonIsGod Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 (edited) The house are now refusing to use the terms IS, ISIS or ISIL and are using Daesh. Cameron stated that Daesh are neither representative of Islam and they are not a state. ETA - Angus Robertson has had a swipe at the BBC for using the terms Islamic State Edited December 2, 2015 by WullieBroonIsGod 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Parr Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 I don't see the problem with the BBC using the IS title. And it's heartening to see them not bowing to pressure from the Commons. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Just heard a pro bombing Labour MP saying civilians won't suffer because the RAF use the incredibly accurate brimstone missile. They cost £100,000 a pop, there's no way they'll be chucking them to kill a couple of squaddies in a pick up truck. I remember them bragging about how they could drop a bomb down a lift shaft in the first Iraq war. Then they showed bombs on pallets at Brize Norton ready for shipping out, all gravity bombs little changed from WW2 in accuracy. They stopped allowing filming after that. There used to be 8 hospitals and large clinics in Raqqa, before the bombing started. Now there are none. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.