A long and difficult summit

I hope he's not getting too ratty - Cameron.

Business as usual then in Brussels,lots of talk but no action.This sums up the EU beautifully,as a toothless tiger terrified that they may have to actually make a decision.

Just another meeting......they do so love their meetings.....which illustrates yet again the utter waste of time and money spent today.What
have they achieved? Two or three hours spent arguing about the choice of
the wording? Good grief,I pray we never have to rely on them in an emergency.

So,there you are Libyan rebels,on your own,but as people get slaughtered
no doubt the knowledge that the EU have had a meeting will buoy you up no end.

Just been blogging on Stephanie Flanders's blog with regard to the desperate stae of the economy. It does occur to me that the way the country recovered (eventually!) in the past was to wage war. Perhaps a no holds barred European invasion of North Africa is called for to fix our economy (by making government deficit expenditure fine and dandy) and as a side issue get rid of the appalling autocratic tyrants! Not a one hand behind our back affair as in Afghanistan - Libya is a really good place to fight as both the Germans and we know!

(Not an entirely serious contribution!)

PD 65 from previous blog

Spurious reasons of consistency are not the main arguments against engaging in regime change in another country.

I have no idea how this will pan out and doubt anyone can categorically claim to know the right course of action. It all depends how Gadaffi proceeds and the signs are not looking good at the moment.

#1

You hope that Cameron isnt getting too ratty? Mmmmh,I dunno,might be a good thing if he gets ratty enough (your word) or frustrated enough (Nicks word) and comes to realise what a complete waste of space the EU is.Not to mention the grotesquely large amount of money this charade eats
up.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Coats@4
You're right of course. These are complex judgements, difficult enough without bringing in irrelevant arguments. In my view, two often made points which should have no bearing are:
1 But we sold them the weapons / propped up the regime / treated them as allies only a short while ago, and
2 Why act against this regime when we turn a blind eye to worse?

7 * green @ 5

All I really mean is he needs to keep a cool head. Not sure he always has one, on recent evidence.

and Susan Croft from prior:

A more ethical foreign policy, does that sound better? I'm not suggesting a Vincent Van Gogh 'too good for this world' type approach, shunning trade with all and sundry. But let's aspire to virtue.

A hated government is still on the rampage, waging war on it’s own people. We simply don't know how bad this could get, or what horrors already lie hidden. Things may be getting worse not better.

Is Cameron talking about libya – or the disunited kingdom?


(On topic, not defamatory, not breaching any other rules - anyone deletes, I will be complaining)

RB from previous blog

" All that sitting on our hands achieves is more dead and a rising tide of resentment that we did nothing to help. Acting decisively now is morally right and would do more to make other dictators realise that they should get out whilst the going is good without a bloodbath, or they might be next.

This is what the nation state is for - this is why we have armed forces - this would make the new Libyan government our allies for evermore and open a new chapter for the UK in the arab world - it would bury the shame of our involvment in George Bush's disastrous invasion of Iraq on manufacured lies about WMD."

Your well thought out but convoluted blog on defence capability doesn`t answer a simple question,-why?

You say it would be morally right to act against Quadafi.Does this commit us to act against other tyrannical regimes if they fire on their people like Saudi Arabia?,or Bahrain,or the Yemen? If so do we want to engage in a hundred year war in the Gulf and Maghrab as our oil supplies dwindle,our population declines and we revert to the Crusaders Islamic militants accuse us of being.

If you feel we should engage in moral crusades whatever the consequence,that`s consistent.I think Mr.Cameron`s desire to intervene began after the fall of Mubarek in Egypt and Zine Ben Alsi in Tunisia. He thought he would back the winning side,but Quaddaffi is no walkover and other reactionaries will also fire on their people?

Mr.Cameron`s rebuff by European ministers and the CIA show how weak his argument is for intervention. He must stay cool,watch and wait,see the Ark Royal and its Harriers sailing into the sunset.








Meanwhile our oil supplies dwindle,our population declines and we revert to the Crusaders Islamic militants accuse us of being.

Nice one @9. Cameron and Hague's rhetoric on Libya could well come back and haunt them. Should have waited before they jumped on the 'Arab Spring' bandwagon. He isn't nicknamed mad dog for nothing and wasn't going to roll over as easily as Mubarak. Cameron's attempt at being seen as a world player are beginning to look rather stupid. Remember Iraq and keep well out of it.

from prev blog. susan croft 10
Susan. Im not sure why you wanted to bring gordon brown into the Libya debate. But seeing as you have I wanted you to know that since this conservative led coalition came to power, conservative mp Gerald Howarth lead a delegation leading the the UK arms industry to Abu Dhabi for Idex, the region's most important weapons fare. A tenth of all the global exhibitors are from Britain. Mr howarth was quoted as saying "we have ambitious plans".
The most unequivocal message since the election was made by Peter Luff, the defence equipment minister, who told a defence show in last June "There will be a very, very, very heavy ministerial commitment to arms sales. There is a sense that in the past we were rather embarrassed about exporting defence products. There is no such embarrassment in this government.
Campaign against the arms trade figures show that in the third quarter of 2010, equipment approved for export to Libya included wall-and-door breaching projectile launchers, crowd control ammunition, small arms ammunition and tear-gas/irritant ammunition. No requests for licences were refused.
Trade minister, Lord Green, announced at the time that ministers will be "held accountable" if companies fail to secure deals and foreign investors favour Britain's economic rivals. Beside him was business secretary, Vince Cable”.
Im sure you will join me in condemnation of the conservatives and liberal democrats in all this.

Euro debate - the black hole of good or firm intentions. Dave do something! Send Tony in to reason and mediate - he can talk the hind legs off a camel! Suggest Abdelbaset al-Megrahi is made interim President. Anything - Eurovision song contest is based in Tripoli next year?

Snooty needs to get on with it if he still fancies a bombing for oil policy.

Any time soon gadaffi is (probabably) going to win. At that time he will remember the people who tried, and failed, to do him harm. No more oil contracts, commercial contracts or even oil for snooty's rich chums. Meanwhile the Chinese sit quietly waiting to see who wins before they play their hand. Anyone want to guess who will be getting the oil/contracts in future?

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared."
Niccolo Machiavelli

Saga 1

Not Ratty but Toad.

re #3
Start a new one, you mean?

We were involved in two when the credit crunch got going (and had to pull out of one, leaving our allies to clear up) which didn't help our economy avoid the crunch, crisis and recession. We are still paying for t'other with no discernible outcome or way out.

Libya is a (potential) civil war. Underway without us. And I think I feel that it should stay that way, but am not fully decided on that.

So who do you want us to have a go at? (Not an entirely serious question!)

Either I had forgotten and was reminded or did not know and learnt recently that the US Government is required to spend 50% of the national budget on their military. Somewhat different to the UK economy, I think.

#16

Can you expand on your last pragragraph please..In case you wonder about my motives ...I ask out of genuine interest

Regards

I think many in the UK want to sort out Libya, and feel angry with what we see. But perhaps this is a wake-up call to the UK and we are made to accept that we are no longer able to wield the power we had. We will go away with our heads down, and we will think about where we are in the world and where we want to be. Then we will seek about making those changes.

Cameron does want to make a difference in Libya but we need the support of others. It is China, Russia, UN who should listen to the screams in the Libyan prisons right now.

' The Arabs don't do democracy' There you have it in a nutshell it's time our rather out of his depth leader realised this and stopped talking big.

Just for a reminder here are some quotes from President Obaba's Nobel acceptance speech. Full speech is at www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34360743/ns/politics-white_house.

"More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace."


"First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior - for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure - and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one."


"The same principle applies to those who violate international law by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur; systematic rape in Congo; or repression in Burma - there must be consequences. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression."

"But I also know that sanctions without outreach - and condemnation without discussion - can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door"

12#

Yeah you tell 'em lefty. Sack the lot of 'em eh, filthy warmongers. Another 100,000+ skilled and semi skilled workers on the dole in areas that are unemployment blackspots. Not to mention all the other industries who depend on the defence sector. Any industrial capability the country has got left, short of building Formula 1 cars down the swanee.

Yeah. Right on.

Such a decision would be plumbing depths of stupidity beyond measure.

VC10 tanker aircraft are already in Cyprus and have been offering support during the extraction of civilians from Libya. Sky said the UK’s Ministry of Defence was contemplating using the tanker aircraft to assist any Typhoons stationed in Cyprus.
The Financial Times (FT) quoted UK officials saying: “Akrotiri would be very useful if we wanted to deploy. That would seem most logical.”

Logical?? What if Libya retaliate and hurt the poor Cypriot People? I thought the reason for the British Base being in Cyprus was to give the Cypriot People protection from the Turks?? or was that another lie/ deal just like if they joined the EU? I hope it doesn't come to that though. Poor little Cyprus I don't think that Island can take any more lies:-(.

Kind regards

On the subject of the blog Nicholas, such is life. Thats what international politics is like. And, CMD had better get used to it. Thats the way it is.

So lets hear no more of ethics and all that pap. The UN isnt going to act. The EU isnt going to act. Ashton couldnt run a bath let alone a foreign service. NATO could, but has to have the political direction and cannot lead on its own, it has to be given the political mandate or if not a mandate, a significant enough lead from major members who build a coalition of the willing, for it to act outside the main articles of self defence. And at the moment, that political mandate or lead, isnt there. Certainly not from the US, which is historically where it has come from.

It might be different if it spreads to Saudi, but I have my doubts. I'm more inclined to think that the Shia in Saudi have been watching developments in Libya with interest... and know that unless they are swift, very well equipped and decisive and well led that they've got no hope in hell of toppling the House Of Saud. Half measures such as what has happened in Libya will only serve to reinforce that all the regimes have to do is brass it out and nobody will act and the rebels will eventually be worn down. Particularly if they keep significant elements of their military on side. Thats the difference between Libya and Egypt. Mubarak lost the Army. Gadaffi has kept enough of his.

Its got stuff all to do with ethics, regardless of which political party is in power. And the fluffy bunny brigade need to grow up, wake up and smell the arabica, pronto.

Given that a No Fly Zone is already past it's use by date, some form of military support is the only real option.

Troops on the ground might not be possible, but training and logistical support can easily be achieved, without upsetting too many of our friends.

Will Hague seemed to be starting to think along those lines when he sent in our 'diplomatic team', though why they couldn't just use the front door is still a mystery.

While the population can retreat from the army, the situation is still manageable, but when they are cornered and surrounded, which may not be too long in coming, the result could be wholesale slaughter.

We must send HMS Cumberland back to Benghazi (on another humanitarian mission?) which should discourage aerial bombing and heavy artillery. Even the Gaddafis know what could follow any accidental hits on a British warship.

If a few advisers go ashore, then so much the better, they might even let some sophisticated weaponry fall into rebel hands.

22#

Akrotiri is a strategic gateway to the middle east. The sovereign base areas prevented the turks from advancing any further in 1974. The invasion back in 74 could quite easily have been prevented had the Greek side including Archbishop Mikarios had acted less hot-headedly and inflammatory.

"Poor little Cyprus"..... do me a favour. You're having a laugh.

Hi Fubar_Saunders

Are you sure your not an MP if not you should be, your quotes are amazing, don't get me wrong so are every body else's :-)

Richard Bunning, from previous blog:

"Other nations in the EU also have Typhoons and there are airbases within a suitable distance available to use to implement a NFZ."

Yes there are.

"I would think that a combination of cruise missiles and guided air munitions could be used to take out most the Libyan aircraft on the ground with little risk to civilians and any planes that did take off could be spotted by AWACs, then Typhoons scrambled to shoot them down within minutes."

Er, Rich, thats not a no fly zone. Thats a full blown act of war. The rest of the arab world, regardless of how much they may hate Gadaffi would turn against the west in a heartbeat. Any Arab spring momentum would be utterly and completely lost.

"IMHO, if the Libyan pilots knew this was being put in place, they'd either refuse to fly or would defect."

Theyd need to have seen evidence of it happening. I'm sure they were probably told that the F14 Tomcats of the USNavy were superior to them back in the 1980's. Didnt stop 4 Libyan Sukhoi Su22's having a go... and getting whupped in the process. You dont understand the fast jet pilot mentality.

"The UK and France both have amphibious assault capability. Our two assault ships, HMS Albion and HMS Bulwalk can deliver a large armoured battlegroup of infantry and Challenger II tanks, whilst HMS Ocean would operate as a helicopter carrier that could deliver both heavy lift support and Apache gunship close air support, with frigate and destroyer escorts and Astute subs for protection."

Right, so an overt act of war isnt enough, you're advocating a full on invasion? Even if we had the mandate, and we havent, we havent got the manpower. Or the money that it would cost to pursue such an adventure. Nor the experience of operating not only in the Libyan desert but also in the built up areas where Gadaffis forces are. This is an absolute non starter.

"I'd say that such an operation to take out Gaddafi in Tripoli could be completed in a matter of hours, then the Libyans could set up a new government under the support of the Arab League, whilst we left ASAP."

Hah. Were you born sometime after 2003 by any chance? Taking Gadaffi out in a matter of hours? Do you not think we have learned anything since Iraq???

"People forget that the UK saved Sierra Leone from the ravages of being terrorised by militias paid by diamond smugglers though a very effective military intervention, which the Sierra Leonians arfe eterrnally grateful for - when finally the US accepted that we couldn't stand by and watch genocide in Bosnia, the coalition acted and ended it."

This is not Sierra Leone. These are not just militias. Libya is vastly different. Bosnia is also different. The UN were already on the ground, regardless of how ineffective they were. Allied forces were already there. What made the difference was airstrikes against Serbia and keeping the rest of the parties from each others throats. This is absolutely not the same. This is not ethnic cleansing on an industrial scale by a neighbouring state.

"Only ground forces can take and hold territory and unless we decapitate the Libyan regime, it looks like the people are going to lose in the face of Gaddafi's heavy weapons."

Correct, it does. It might seem harsh, but thats the way it is. You cant just kick off an uprising against either your own government or a neighbour, like Georgia tried to and then run for cover shouting for NATO or the UN to save you.

"All that sitting on our hands achieves is more dead and a rising tide of resentment that we did nothing to help. Acting decisively now is morally right and would do more to make other dictators realise that they should get out whilst the going is good without a bloodbath, or they might be next."

Morally right to you maybe. Pardon my bluntness, but I'm not happy sending any more of our sons and daughters into a battle that isnt theirs.

"This is what the nation state is for - this is why we have armed forces - this would make the new Libyan government our allies for evermore and open a new chapter for the UK in the arab world - it would bury the shame of our involvment in George Bush's disastrous invasion of Iraq on manufacured lies about WMD."

First, no absolutely not. We have armed forces for our own self defence above everything else. They are there to protect us, the UK and our interests. They are absolutely not there to effect regime change. And no, it wouldnt bury the shame of Iraq. Saddam was no less a tyrant than Gadaffi was. And Iraq, frankly was an abomination.

Thank god you're not a politician.

Yeah I think I know the whole story, I was raised with it and heard it from all 3 sides Turks,Greeks and British and they all point the finger to England. So yes Poor Cyprus they were desperate for there freedom from the British so they agreed to anything to get away from them, they were treated very very badly sorry to say this but its true.

You have heard 1 story but we have heard many and all even the British are blaming them selves, also written in Black and White. I would not mess with the situation hun its deep, sad and getting boring now.

How old are you btw? were you in Cyprus at the time?

"Even the Gaddafis know what could follow any accidental hits on a British warship."

Yep.

Nothing.

Nothing would happen.

The Iranians took 15 RN prisoners, officers and men, right under the noses of the armed ships helicopter. The Somali pirates took the Chandlers under the noses of an RFA with a helicopter and a party of Marines. The RFA stood back and watched it happen.

Nothing happened. The Navy didnt do squat.

Cumberland would be on the bottom of Bengazi harbour and nothing would happen. Sure, there'd be a big stink about it, but do you really think it'd be a case of "right, you're going to wish you'd not done that" and we'd go piling in???

No chance. Not a hope in hell.

Fubar@29
Playing the devil's advocate an accidental hit on the Cumberland could turn public opinion behind intervention, dependent on the media reaction. They may of course prefer to report it as another cock up rather than an unjustified attack on our forces.

No dodgy dossier standing in the way just a dodgy despot and a few dodgy politicians.

Why Bogie-Pye

So very true meninwhitecoats :-)

What have find so suprising is the double standard and hypocricy of which the west, US and "international community" operate. For example, Saudi has been supressing the right of its citizen to protest, no single word of condemnation from the so called "world leaders/powers" and Israel used disproporttionate force on the Palestinians leading to the killing over 1400 Palestinians, the UNSC did not pass a resolution against Israel or recommending Israel leaders be tried at ICC.

What we've seen of recent of David Cameron is typical of him, he's a show man, he talks a lot but says nothing.

21. fubar.
The point was that for conservatives to criticise labour on arms deals is hypocrisy of the worst kind. More than that though, you know very well the history of the conservative party and the arms trade.
But I note from your post that its ok to sell arms to people that kill women and children because it supports uk jobs, and heh fubar, pound notes are your god above all else. Classic ukipean neocon unethical bile.

Flee gov - Fleece gov - Farse gov : That is the dot com in Question.

Reminds me of a parental guidance computer game that never went on sale, where you start out in life running for school president, with cost cutting interactive games like top trumps and penny up, too win more & more class votes with funny money backing on the cards. With power-ups to buy your way into bigger money pits where the stakes are high and the perks match the on tap content...

Could this be the way forward in 22cent AI gaming "Street Vendor".

@29

Rules of engagement, F_S.

If we sent a ship into the potential war zone with a clear option to return fire if attacked, then they would respond.

As to your other comments:
We were within Iranian waters if memory serves and I don't know where your version of the Chandler's capture comes from.

I agreed with the first Gulf war in the early 1990's but strongly disagreed with the second. I am also satisfied that the second Gulf war was illegal and admired the late Robin Cook for his stance on it.

I would fully support unilateral action by for example France & the UK right now. If they wait for the UN's or the US's nod, then it shows that Europe by itself still has no teeth or guts, and yes another Bosnia.

Cameron & Sarcosy here is your golden opportunity to succeed where Bliar clearly failed, on your own patch, and for a worthy cause. Do it now.

By the way you might even get the Swiss to help you out. They have an old score to settle.

The simple fact is that Britain can do nothing about Libya by itself. It has to act through multinational organisations - the EU, NATO or the UN. By their very nature those bodies are slow, cumbersome and require compromise.

The best strategy for this public schoolboy government is to talk a good game about the birth of democracy and an ethical foreihgn policy while relying on cooler more experienced heads to reign in their youthful exuberance.

If things take a turn for the worst in Libya Cameron can say "I told you so". If it all works out for the best no-one will remeber Cameron's frustration.

Given Britain's economic interests in Libya and past dealings with Gadaffi we have some major ground to make up so I would have thought Cameron's 'exasperation' is pitched just about right. But I think the authopr of this blog and the Downing Street spin machine are well aware of that.

After the very cosy relationship between the last Labour government and Gaddafi, there is now no possibility of remaining friends as the current Prime Minister has said (quite rightly!) that Gaddafi must go.

However, if Gaddafi manages to cling to power by crushing the rebellion and bombing his own people, what then?

Will an isolated Gaddafi go back to his old ways, sponsoring international terrorism and possibly developing WMDs?

While countries like Russia and China have a vote on the Security Council, we can expect no response from the UN. Some people believe that only the UN can sanction any action. Without UN approval, any intervention (they say) would be 'illegal'. Frankly, that's nonsense. The UN is a talking shop, nothing more, and a pretty useless one at that.

But as to what action could be taken by a so-called 'coalition of the willing' is very unclear. Militarily, Britain has very little to offer to support a 'no fly zone'. 9 Nimrods and 80 are now being scrapped.

https://bit.ly/fQPsJ5

The irony of Cameron making his statement on the very day that the Ark Royal is mothballed will not be lost.

The motto of the Ark Royal was 'Zeal Does Not Rest'. Well today, it not only rested but was put to sleep.

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/surface-fleet/aircraft-carriers/hms-ark-royal/

# 39

Sorry for typo! 9 Nimrods and 80 Harrier Jump Jets are now being scrapped.

https://bit.ly/fQPsJ5

I can definitely imagine Cameron's frustration - think the best comment that sums it all up is #2 (Sevenstargreen) - "Business as usual then in Brussels,lots of talk but no action.This sums up the EU beautifully,as a toothless tiger terrified that they may have to actually make a decision."

Still, given that the drivers of social revolution are well in place in many of the North African and Middle Eastern countries, I imagine the EU had best get into and stay in decision-making mode as the calls pertaining to Libya are unlikely to be a once-off event in the year ahead.

It would be interesting to see if there are further protests in Iran - no doubt, the force used to quell unrest there will not be too different from what is happening now with the good Colonel.

lefty11 12

You obviously only read what you want to the lefty because if you read my other post to Sagamix you will realise I have nothing against Britain selling whatever we can in the Global Market Place. This was my post on this issue.


sagamix 13

You can have ethical foreign policy, but you would be a very poor Country it you did. Then who is it that decides what is ethical, for instance, we would not deal with China over human rights etc. Then it is deciding how far this should extend. For instance Russia deals with many pretty bad regimes, so should we trade with them, and so it goes on.

Over the years, under ethical foreign policy, we would not have had oil from the Middle East, because of the despotic regimes that were in power.

Britain produces very few things that they can sell in the World market, if we pick and choose who to sell them to, pretty soon we will not be able to pay the bills.

Mistakes will always be made in foreign policy, because you deal with the World as it is. No one can ever predict when this will change.

I don't believe you have thought this one through.

However, it does seem a step too far for

'with his mouth puckered as he blew out hard.

Tried it as described. Didn't end well. No wonder he is 'frustrated'.

Maybe we'll soon be treated to a body language 'expert' in the screen corner for a running commentary on what our pols are 'feeling'. Possibly.

Sorry leftie have a new computer and I tend to hit the sent button by mistake.

To continue from post 42

It does however seem a bit too far, for Brown to send British Special Forces to train Libyan troops.

However, if Britain does not sell them arms, and gain the money from doing so, some other Countries certainly will. Britain would lose therefore, the income from these lucrative deals.

38 Cassandra

"The best strategy for this public schoolboy government is to talk a good game about the birth of democracy...."
====================================

"Support the Libyan Democrats" - could be a good soundbite.

44. Susan-Croft
OK, so in essence your view is that it is good we sell (the conservative led coalition) as many arms as possible regardless of who to as the profit will benefit our country. And also we cant as a country pick and choose who we sell arms to. Also we cant have a more ethical arms policy as you would be unhappy about drawing a line somewhere. Except when it comes to training troops from other countries and charging for this.

Are the liberal 'democrats' starting to waver?

Looks like they can see the writing on the wall: stay joined at the hip to the party of evil and the liberals may well cease to exist as a parliamentary party at the next election - regardless of how the electoral system has been fiddled.

How long will Clegg stay as leader? How long will the liberals stay as part of the conspiracy government?

Could a minority tory regime carry through their policies of national destruction?



Tories: taking labour's mess and making it worse.

I am amazed by some of these "intellectual" posts. I am stunned by Baroness Ashton. I have always been suspicious of Angela Merkel. I loathe the political EU. Again, it appears, Europeans are going to sit back and ignore a pogrom - the mass murder of thousands in order to maintain power. Germany has a long, documented history of involvement with those - now Angela Merkel is manoeuvring to support another one. I am furious that we are acting in such a COWARDLY and TWO FACED way.
I care not a jot it's Libya - we should take action with ANY country that is murdering its citizens - and we should do this using our European/English/US morals. Our morals are perfectly fine - as Germany found out at the Nuremberg trials. We (either the UK, the US, NATO or the EU forces, hopefully all of them) should already be shooting down with Cruise missiles or any other suitable kit, Libya's air force. Gadaffi and his family must "meet their destiny" with the next few days - NOT WEEKS.
Gadaffi must be thanking the heavens that the Japanese disaster has moved the news focus to the other side of the planet. I want David Cameron to refocus on this and take unilateral action alongside the US. I want the “Peaceniks”, the “naysayers” to be ignored – like we finally ignored them in Bosnia. Perhaps the Dutch military could recover some honour by leading an expedition to “get Gadaffi” – after Pristina some backbone would do the Dutch a world good. Baroness Ashton must be fired by Cameron immediately and William Hague must be replaced. She is an unelected-by-anyone accident of history and is absolutely the “wrong person”. He is simply out-of-his-depth because he is not a leader. Being affable is not being a Leader. Lastly, let this EU meeting, with its disgraceful communiqué, be the catalyst for some major EU reform. Let’s follow France and support the Rebels!

No23 Fubar,
Is it true that Baroness Ashton is a European civil servant and her main role is to implement policy decided by the Council of Ministers?
Is it reasonable to assume that whoever had been appointed would have been subject to your rather harsh criticsm due to the consistent anti EU views that you express.
I saw her being interviewed by J Paxman recently, she seemed to do quite well,indeed, it was quite an accomplished performance.

leftie11 46

Yes, I think there is a big difference to be honest. We have to trade with other nations for the survival of the UK in the Global market. If we don't trade with certain other nations, other Countries will, and all it will mean for Britain is lost income.

However, going that one step further, as Brown did, and sending British Special Forces to train Libyan troops is an ethical matter, to my mind.

The problem for David Cameron and his Government is that Europe and the World does not trust UK judgement following the disaster of Labour's 'Ethical' Foreign policy.

Cameron and Hague should continue their line of contingency planning for all events and this clearly means a no fly zone: Merkel take note.

The European Union has basic principles of Human Rights and Democracy - it is bothered enough to ensure that violent convicted UK criminals get the vote while locked up, but happy to see Gadaffi drop bombs from his aircraft on his own people.

I found the comment from some of the EU Eastern States "Arabs don't do Democracy" shameful. Surely it is more a case that Arab citizens don't have a choice as a result of years of repression.

If EU is to be credible as an organisation, it needs to get a grip on what it stands for. Intervention in the affairs of a sovereign state is never a good option but surely allowing Genocide is worse?

No48 realist,
I note from the list of unsavoury characters ( from an earlier contribution) that you wish to depose, that it did not include any of the Royalist thugs in the Gulf States who are currently waging war against their own people.
Was there any particular reason for that? When they turn up for the wedding should they be arrested for 'crimes against humanity'?

Susan @ 42/44

True enough that ‘ethics’ are subjective. Same goes for the National Interest. When you or I – or anybody - talk about either, we’re only giving our view of what it entails. We need to trade our backsides off (I’m not advocating withdrawing from the big bad world) but scrapping tooth & nail for arms contracts to places where human rights are not respected ... is this, for example, something the UK government and/or British companies ought to be hell-bent on doing? No, I don’t think it is. Sure, it contributes to GDP and employment. So does the manufacture and sale of cigarettes. But wouldn’t we still prefer to see an end to it? – for such activities to be replaced with something more wholesome and enlightened? Yes, I reckon we would. Let’s think progressively and progress to a better and more progressive place.

For once I'm rather pleased with the EU even if they are cowards!

As Churchill said "Jaw jaw is better than war war."

44. susan
Susan, im surprisingly not up for a row, but I must say that I find these type of views disturbing and quite evil in their eventual consequences. (not saying you are evil). Suffice to say im well aware of labours recent record in regard arms trade which I disagree with. Of course as I have said before, the conservatives record on these matters is even more appalling and quite considerably so. What happens is that any responsibility, ethics or guilt from arms trade as dismissed. This is because that it is near impossible to prove original sale and then to where these arms can eventually end up.
Just one example to note is that conflicts in Africa since the end of the cold war have cost the continent £150bn, equivalent to all the foreign aid it has received over the same period. Almost half of the countries on the continent have been involved in some form of conflict since 1990 at a substantial cost to lives and development. So in a big way there is a cost financially to our arms trade.
I find it incredibly confusing and unpalatable how excuses for our actions over large parts of our arms trade are justified, as I know in my heart is is unequivocally wrong. This is a classic example of the difference between left and right wing views and how money drives and supersedes morals, accompanied by the trump card of “thats just the way things are, we don’t live in a perfect world” and “they will buy it from somewhere else anyway”
Personally I would like to see a clear flexible strategy and policy on countries we do not sell arms to, incorporated with a difficult but comprehensive analysis on onward sales. I know it would be difficult but we should try. Even if we prevent some arms going into the wrong hands it would be better than our situation now.
I would like to see us scrap or vastly reduce our nuclear deterrent and/or perhaps share with other European nations. I would like to see our airforce, navy and army consolidated in the short/medium term but equipped to world leading standards to enable us to lead the way in united nations approved missions. I would like to see the territorial army expanded and army cadets available more widely through schools, which would also provide discipline and much needed direction for some of our more distracted and wayward youth. Most importantly and despite its criticism as a talking shop, I would like to see the united nations credibility restored and our actions excluding under direct attack always umbrellared/authorised by its authority.

Sagamix 53

I have nothing whatsoever against the ideas of good ethics in foreign policy, in that sense. It is just not practical I am afraid. Britain produces very little that the Global Market wants to buy, if we pick and choose who to sell it to, we would soon run out of any Countries to sell our goods to.

Lets look at the other side of the coin. If we had used these ethics you speak of in the Middle East over past years, and not sold despots goods. They in return would not have sold us oil, that certainly would have been no good for the British economy. Then comes the question whose ethics are we talking about. The sort of ethics Britain represents I presume. Well here again comes a problem, a lot of Arabs do not agree with the ethics Britain represents, so if they had applied their ethics, they would not have sold Britain any goods.

You can get yourself in all sorts of problems by thinking you have the moral high ground with regard to trade, making Britain a poor Country is just one of them. The World is a big place, with all sorts of different cultures, it is not for Britain to decide which are deserving and which are not.

I have to say, just at this time, my heart really is going out to the people of Japan. This was an unavoidable disaster for them. They are a lovely people with a lot to offer the World, it is very sad indeed.

I think to have an ethical policy then it has to be ethical in all ways and not a pick n mix way. Not sure we can say selling arms is OK, but then training isn't, just because one brings us more money.

In the end the govt has to decide what the boundaries are and then live by those and be big enough to be honest with what that means and what it doesnt. The UK has never and probably never will (unfortunately) have a truly ethical approach to dealing with the rest of the world.

At the moment its a difficult balancing act, but Cameron does sail awfully close to the wind in terms of hypocrisy as he seems to want to politically score off Labour for past dealings with Libya, while at the same time take credit for flogging arms to other countries run by dictators. Equally Labour needs to get away from shouting 'sack him' every time Hague sneezes (to be fair it looks like Alexander has toned down the playground rhetoric a little bit).

Its painful to watch whats going on in Libya and even more painful to see the international community achieve jack squat over the last 3 weeks. Ethics or otherwise it'll be the usual suspects who suffer - ordinary people trying to live their life with some basic level of freedom we all take for granted.

So the EU have spent another three or four days deciding that we're not going to do anything but aren't going to say so, and that Libya is not really the same as Czechoslovakia.

And Dave is now just stood like cheese at fourpence.

I suppose it could be worse.

The EU is the world's most successful peace process. Peace at last in our continent where we'd been each been threatened by war for more than 2,500 years!
That's what its forerunner the European Coal & Steel Community set out to do. And it's THE leading objective of the whole EU. Which is why our Leaders spend so much time and effort trying to iron out differences in national policies that were generated by 'sovereign states' in the past. Different policies that are also unnecessary obstructions to enabling our own citizens to make deeper relationships with the citizens of other Member States.
Fewer national differences = more individual and deeper relationships that make for less hostility AND a permanent embedding of all citizen's human rights.
That Objective is one of the core reasons there are so many countries who've joined and who want to join.
Can the EU's own peace process be now extended to non-member States?
It's worth offering the emerging Arabian democracies the opportunity to sign up to the Convention for Human Rights and participation in its Court at The Hague as some sort of guide and guarantee of their newly born constitutions. Or maybe some similar 'Arabian' convention could be devised?
Would that would be an helpful development to go alongside a soft loan programme that draws on the example conditions of the 1940s 'Marshall Plan'?

#59 Leftie wrote:

"The EU is the world's most successful peace process."

Possibly, but we don't know for sure. We can also include
a)It may be the other way round, the EU (in its various guises) grew out of a passionate desire for peace amongst European peoples and leaders after the horrors of WW2.
b)the role of NATO, in uniting Western nations against socialist aggression.
c) Taking Europe as a whole and not just the Western part, technology and the threat of nuclear destruction.
d) The export of UK/US/French political democracy and its institutions to central Europe (and much later to Eastern Europe)

Of course the EU was not founded until 1993 and by that time war between its constituent members was unthinkable. Ever closer union was not a condition of peace in Europe. It was more a symptom than a cause.

59. At 12:29pm on 12 Mar 2011, leftie wrote:
The EU is the world's most successful peace process. Peace at last in our continent where we'd been each been threatened by war for more than 2,500 years!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Partly true. NATO and the presence of hundreds of thousands of uncle Sam's finest had rather an awful lot to do with it as well.

49. At 10:46am on 12 Mar 2011, IPGABP1 wrote:
No23 Fubar,
Is it true that Baroness Ashton is a European civil servant and her main role is to implement policy decided by the Council of Ministers?

Yes.

Would anyone have invited the same opprobrium? Well, had they ever held a position of elected office, had they had any experience whatsoever in the field of diplomacy and foreign affairs, had they had any credibility amongst their peers in the world, possibly.

Cathy Ashton has a score of Absolutely Zero where these important aspects are concerned. Yet, she's the highest remunerated female politician on the planet. And her position speaks for the peoples of over 30 nations in one of the most powerful trading blocks on the planet.

Come on mate, lets face it. She's a political placeman who is out of her depth. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

"Could a minority tory regime carry through their policies of national destruction?"

Does anyone give a flying one for anything that jon has to say?

Anyone?

{tumbleweed blows through the street}

No.

Thought not.

I hear you, Susan (56), and noted, but I don’t think we’re so inherently rubbish at producing things of real value that we have to continue to base our economy forever more on activities such as investment banking, property speculation and dealing arms. We can have a bit of that, sure, with preferably the weapons going to saints not sinners (although do saints want guns?), but let’s try and move away from it. Recent history shows the perils of hitching our fortunes to these unsavoury (and overly high-earner and froth driven) sectors. Like for example, people get perturbed by the recent news that Betfair are, and HSBC might be thinking of, moving away from Britain - but I’m sanguine. I reckon we can get by okay without what is effectively no more than a massive online gambling exchange. And Betfair? Well I’m not sure what they do, however the name indicates they’re also something to do with gaming. I won’t go as far as to say ‘goodbye and good riddance’ but I’ll certainly say 'goodbye and don’t forget to send a postcard'. We’re not really so very apart, Susan, on all this stuff when you stop to consider. We both like trade and we both dislike the idea of UK military action overseas, except as part of an international effort conducted for humanitarian reasons. It’s just you’re a slightly bigger fan of selling killing kit to despots than I am, that’s all.

52. At 11:02am on 12 Mar 2011, IPGABP1 wrote:
No48 realist,
I note from the list of unsavoury characters ( from an earlier contribution) that you wish to depose, that it did not include any of the Royalist thugs in the Gulf States who are currently waging war against their own people.
Was there any particular reason for that? When they turn up for the wedding should they be arrested for 'crimes against humanity'?

Thank you for allowing me to clarify my position:
Firstly, my earlier post just listed the Top 20. The list is long - sadly, and I ran out of internet capacity.
As a 55 year old, I have lived in Nigeria, Ethiopia, Israel, Lebanon (interesting combo, eh), all over the USA, Italy, France and most recently Sudan. I therefore have some experience between "Dictatorships" and "Democracy".
As a Brit, I happen to believe in "we the People". I don't think common citizens are "too stupid to rule themselves". I think the internet has changed EVERYTHING! Email, Skype, Wikipedia/leaks & Facebook have truly changed the world by being democratic - you can say what you like and read what you like. The old days of mind control via propaganda are over; witness the lies of the murderous idiot Saif Gadaffi.
As a result, I say we are no longer prepared to be "ruled over" by anyone. If I am correct then every "King", "Queen", "Prince" & "Princess" should be looking around for a proper job. Therefore, regardless of their track record, good or bad, the days of Monarchy are at an end.
For the avoidance of doubt I include the British Royal Family. They are a historical (some say hysterical) throwback to a past era. Their arrogance that they should stay - is only matched by my assured arrogance they should go immediately. One of those positions will win - and I wouldn't put a bet on them continuing for much longer.
Eventually "the People" do ask themselves the question –“What am I getting out of this and why am I paying for one family to lord over me?” All the British governmental powers that mean anything have already been transferred to Brussels – so “Royal Ascent” is just comical farce!
Monarchs and dictators around the world - their time is up!

36#

According to the Iranians we were in their waters. Which we shouldnt have been. Its not beyond the wit of a GPS equipped vessel to keep its rib vessels out of a disputed area.

RoE: If she gets chance to engage, to see the threat coming in time. Then she can defend herself. Look up what happened to the USS Cole, not to mention some of our vessels in the South Atlantic in 82. You dont get an awful lot of warning. And if you're alongside, you cant go releasing weapons.

The record of what happened to the Chandlers is in the public domain. MoD tried to spin it for the first 48 hours that the RFA didnt get there in time. That was an untruth. The RFA was there. The option to intercept and recover the Chandlers was not taken because it was feared it may result in the loss of life of the hostages. However, it is reasonably accurate to say that there would be the necessary level of skill and training in an RM Commando boarding party to at least have tried.

"socialist aggression." - 66 @ 60

One of those 'oxythingymabobs' here.

34#

I know who we sold weapons to mate. You, on the other hand, unless you google it havent got a clue about what you are talking about. Go away and google how many jobs in the UK rely directly and indirectly on the defence industry and then come back on here and puff your chest out when you've added half a million to the dole queue and got rid of generations of engineering expertise that you will never ever get back.

Save your quasi socialist claptrap for someone who gives a damn mate. Your posts on the subject, as always, are a complete irrelevance that even Ken Livingstone would blanche at.

#59 lefie wrote:
"Would that would be an helpful development to go alongside a soft loan programme that draws on the example conditions of the 1940s 'Marshall Plan'?"

The financial conditions in Europe in 1945 and in much of the Arab world today are quite different. Countries such as Libya have vast wealth and a guaranteed income stream. What is missing is democracy and the institutions of a liberal order.

28. At 10:34pm on 11 Mar 2011, KayKuprea wrote:
Yeah I think I know the whole story, I was raised with it and heard it from all 3 sides Turks,Greeks and British and they all point the finger to England.
-----------------------------

I was there in 87 at Troodos & Mt Olympus. Personally apart from the nutty drivers around Limassol, I thoroughly enjoyed my time there.

Maybe, just maybe though, you might like to contemplate that had the SBA's not been there my friend, your chums from north of Nicosia would have kept on going until you all ended up in the sea. Very easy to blame centuries of your own mutual hatred on the English instead of learning to get along and sorting it out, which there have been ample opportunities to do since then. Very convenient.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"They are a lovely people with a lot to offer the World" - SC @ 56

This is a duck-billed platitude ... no crime to come out with platitudes, btw, so long as it's not your default mode of speech ... but it is a platitude unless you're (at least mentally) contrasting with a 'people' who are unlovely and have very little to offer the World. So I'm going to assume it's a platitude; would I be correct to assume that?

JH 66
"b)the role of NATO, in uniting Western nations against socialist aggression."


While it is true that the totalitarian states of the Soviet Empire had socialistic elements,it is also the case that the totalitarian nationalism of Nazi Germany had conservative elements.

These states had different ends,their results were similar.

To associate democratic socialist governments with any of their monstrous regimes is mischievious and done with intent.

Desist: You manage well enough without verbal traps for the unwary.

67. At 1:39pm on 12 Mar 2011, sagamix wrote:
"socialist aggression." - 66 @ 60

One of those 'oxythingymabobs' here.

Oxymoronic is a better term.

# 54. pietr8 wrote:

As Churchill said "Jaw jaw is better than war war."

Yes, but Churchill also recognised there comes a time when jawing is not enough.

As Edmund Burke put it, "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."

Theodore Roosevelt advised: "Speak softly and carry a big stick"

The problem is, we're talking loudly - but we haven't got much of a stick, thanks to the defence cuts.

Sagamix 72

I should have thought, that on such a serious and sad issue, you would not be so flippant or frivolous.

Or is this always your 'modus operandi' and if so, I am very disappointed and shocked.

Whilst the eyes of the world are watching events unfold in Japan, it is important to keep a watchful eye on Gaddafi - what better opportunity to perpetrate his monstrosities, than when we look to the other side of the world.

Sagamix 64

On this, as with every other issue we are miles apart. Your big problem, is that you do not understand poverty or disadvantage, so you never really look for any proper solutions to them.

You think by merely saying something it makes it so, it does not. You think if only people thought the way you do, everything would turn out well, and the World would change at your bidding, it will not.

I work in the World as it is, I try to problem solve in the World as it is. Reality is always at my door, and never knocks on yours.

The more business that Britain loses whether it be in arms or the financial sector, two things Britain is good at, the more the less well off in Britain will become poorer. I, for instance care very much about the poor in India and Africa, those children who really want to go to school and cannot. Yet if I was advising the British Government, I would tell them to abolish the department for overseas aid. But then, actually, I believe the only real poverty in Britain, is the bad parents who put on their children, the poverty of aspiration.

So often people advise what will help through practical measures, not necessarily what in an ideal World, they would like themselves. Being a dreamer and using rhetoric to be popular, is what you do. However, for once in your life, think about the people who rely on these industries you despise for their life.

I have accepted that Britain will lose a good portion of its financial sector. I have accepted that those that can, will leave Britain for more tax friendly Countries, because of the foolish actions of our Government and the public, which live in denial of the real problems the UK has. Therefore, tax will continue to rise for everyone, to try and stem just the increase on the interest of the debt. More people will come out of work, and because of this it is quite possible that Britain will actually see real poverty. So you see, it is really your actions and those of people like you, that actually disadvantage people.

That is of course if the Markets can keep being fooled, that the Government has the ability to reign in Britains debt, for as long as that.

Susan @ 76

No, you do me a disservice; I seek a measure of harmony with you at 64 (as you've obviously noticed, since no reply - which is cool) and I'm being perfectly serious at 72.

You say the Japanese are a 'lovely people with a lot to offer the World' and that's fine (but uninteresting) if it's just a platitude. Which it is - a platitude - unless you're mentally contrasting with another 'people' (the French, say, or the Red Indians or whoever) who are unlovely and who don't have much to offer (the World).

And if you're doing this, then it becomes a potentially unsavoury but far more interesting sentiment.

So which is it, Susan, I'm merely asking you - are you offering us (a) a banal platitude, or (b) a potentially unsavoury and rather more interesting sentiment?

(a) or (b) ... has to be one or the other.

I'm assuming (a) - the platitude - and just wondered if I was correct, that's all.

"On this, as with every other issue we are miles apart." - susan @ 78

Nopey dopey. On this (if you mean economic issues), yes we're at complete and utter loggers, but by no means on 'every other issue'. We agree on Iraq, for example, and more generally we both take the view that British military action overseas (if not clearly related to self-defence) should on the whole be restricted to playing our part in internationally sanctioned missions for humanitarian purposes. We're tight as tights, Susan, on topics such as that.

68. At 1:40pm on 12 Mar 2011, Fubar_Saunders wrote:

I sometimes wonder why, when you already hold the european lifetime moron award, you strive to maintain your reputation. You don’t need to do this, the award is for life fubar.
Your post just indicates how much you devalue life. You claim to be knowledgeable on defence topics yet in regard to its ethical policy your views are simply callous and socially inept. Why don’t YOU go away, perhaps to some African nations and see the families and relatives of those who have died with weapons we sold. Explain to them how we had to do it to save jobs and if it wasn’t us it would have been someone else. Of course you wouldn’t do this, they would lynch you. On the other hand, maybe you should give it a go.
Your ignorance in regards to any ethics combined with your continual ramblings that profit is the finite aspiration of society above all else merely highlights right wing ignorance and perfectly explains why the aspiration of others to make things better in an imperfect world is muddied and held back by selfish social views and low intelligence.

78. At 2:56pm on 12 Mar 2011, Susan-Croft wrote:
Sagamix 64

On this, as with every other issue we are miles apart. Your big problem, is that you do not understand poverty or disadvantage, so you never really look for any proper solutions to them.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Very much so, Susan. Like most of the left, they've never seen poverty except on the TV once a year when Comic Relief comes on. To them, poverty is a lever. A means of extracting votes from the mug punters.

74/67#

Hmm. The name Tito mean anything? Ceacescu? Stalin?

Oxymoronic?

More like rose tinted myopia.

"To associate democratic socialist governments with any of their monstrous regimes is mischievious and done with intent."

Really?

Is that why for decades every Labour party conference used to close with The Red Flag? Why the "monstrous regimes" had the amount of funding and other influence on the democratic socialist parties that they did?

God, when a certain Communist luminary coined the term "useful idiots" he really wasnt kidding was he?

Fubar 82-84

Some legendary left-baiting by you there Mr Saunders. I tip my imaginary cloth cap to you.

In the end if we look for consistency and a lack of hypocrisy (as opposed to the more likly opposite) from our politicians on any point of the political spectrum, myopia is indeed what we'll end up with.

Unfortunately this even extends to issues like Gaddafi and Libya.

81. At 3:33pm on 12 Mar 2011, lefty11 wrote:
68. At 1:40pm on 12 Mar 2011, Fubar_Saunders wrote:

I sometimes wonder why, when you already hold the european lifetime moron award, you strive to maintain your reputation. You don’t need to do this, the award is for life fubar.
--------------------------------------------------------
in your parallel universe mate. One that probably is akin to the darkest corners of Dante's mind. Not a place I'd choose to inhabit.
--------------------------------------------------------
Your post just indicates how much you devalue life.
------------------------------------------------------
Oh and your leaflet printing exploits for the sink estate dwellers are a sign of your value of life is it mate? If you truly valued the lives of the poor, you wouldnt have time to be on here, there would be soup kitchens, hostels for the homeless, heaven knows how many other ways you could make a tangible difference. But no. Your contribution is printing off leaflets to con those too simple to tell the difference that everyone they see who isnt wearing a red rosette every five years has come along to eat their firstborn. Gotta say it, you really make a difference to them!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You claim to be knowledgeable on defence topics yet in regard to its ethical policy your views are simply callous and socially inept.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I am knowledgeable on this subject because I've been professionally involved in it virtually all my working life. There is no such thing as an ethical defence policy, you fool. You're attacked, you respond, you defend yourself. Killing people, no matter what the circumstances, is never "ethical". It may on occasion, in matters of self defence, be justifiable, but never "ethical". That comment is so brainfreezingly stupid, it defies belief. AND, yet again, you have to be reminded that there is significantly more breadth to the defence industry, particularly the British defence industry, whats left of it, than just producing bombs and bullets. And you have the temerity to call me inept. Mate, if only you could rise to such dizzy heights!!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why don’t YOU go away, perhaps to some African nations and see the families and relatives of those who have died with weapons we sold.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You ever been to Africa mate? Tell me what British weapons have been supplied to African nations for them to use in either state on state conflicts or in civil wars or internal repression. Come on then genius, where have we been making Kalashnikov AK47's & RPGs in the UK????

You ever been on a battlefield tour anywhere? Ever had any family or friends who have served during the World Wars or other conflicts, Falklands, Iraq, Afghanistan?

No?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Explain to them how we had to do it to save jobs and if it wasn’t us it would have been someone else. Of course you wouldn’t do this, they would lynch you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldnt do it because its none of my business. Like its none of yours. Conversely, you could try explaining to people who may need your help, militarily, that you're just going to ignore their pleas because you see their leaders as "unethical"....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your ignorance in regards to any ethics combined with your continual ramblings that profit is the finite aspiration of society above all else merely highlights right wing ignorance and perfectly explains why the aspiration of others to make things better in an imperfect world is muddied and held back by selfish social views and low intelligence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethics, my foot. What you and your party knows about ethics would fit on the head of a pin and still have room for the complete works of Shakespeare. Oh and by the way, show me any post of mine that says profit is the finite aspiration. Any post will do.

I reminded you of how many jobs, you know for those people who work, depend on the defence industry, directly and indirectly. You know, those "workers", those "ordinary people" you claim to look out for. You'd quite happily chuck them on the dole because you see elements of their industry to be "unethical". I suppose had there been any left, you'd have chucked the miners out as well for their business being ecologically unsound and damaging to the environment.

Run along young man, take your head out of the clouds and grow up, politics isnt for you. Theres some traffic on the M6 that needs playing with instead.

Caricature, Fubar (82), is all that is. No different to the 'tories eat babies' stuff which you send up from time to time. You undermine yourself by coming out with this sort of thing, and it's invariably in loco addressing the issues, so I'm always happy to see it.

Just seen that Prince Andrew has pulled out of a trip to Saudi Arabia 'organised by government business body UK Trade & Investment, was designed to boost defence contracts'

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12721767

What on earth is the government thinking of selling arms to the Saudi regime?

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12708401

Sagamix 79

I really don't know what sort of World you inherit, but it must contain some very strange people in it. There is no hidden agenda, I did not even think about any conclusions which could be drawn from what was said.

I simply like the people of Japan, I think they are a very respectful genuine people. They are diligent and intelligent, and do have a lot to offer the World. This will be an enormus set back for them, not to speak of the sad loss to the Country of all these people.

I just don't understand people like you, who see bad things in everthing someone says or does. Oh they must have another reason for saying that.

I don't judge other cultures like you do, and decide just because they don't fit into your idea of how they should behave, that they are wrong. Its like the EU being discussed, they are not democratic, they just want to force on other Nations their beliefs. There is no freedom in that. I want to go to other Countries, and walk down a street, that looks and feels different in culture to the West. All the time, these people in the EU think they are right, with all their stupid rules and regulations, that we pay a high price for. If Countries outside of this little club, have any sense, they will stay well clear of it. Or be brought down to having no say on how their Country is run, and have all their culture and tradition brought down to one denomination, that which is acceptable to the EU.

I hate all this nanny stuff from the West, they should get their own house in order first.

You mentioned smoking earlier, this is just a small issue which I did not answer you on. I do not smoke, but people have a right to choice. We all know the dangers, it is rammed down our throats enough. The Government penalizes smokers whilst allowing drug filled, drunken people to commit crime and cost the NHS a fortune. Yet in a court, I believe this is still true, the Government takes the stance that there is no proven link between smoking and cancer. Furthermore, the Government gets a fortune from smoking towards the NHS, which well pays for any treatment smokers will recieve. The Government do not want people to stop smoking, it is complete hypocrisy, and it has put a lot of good pubs all over the Country out of business.

86. At 4:17pm on 12 Mar 2011, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
81. At 3:33pm on 12 Mar 2011, lefty11 wrote:
68. At 1:40pm on 12 Mar 2011, Fubar_Saunders wrote:

Another long styled post fubar. Still doesn’t add any credence to your nonsense.


you wrote...........

Oh and your leaflet printing exploits for the sink estate dwellers are a sign of your value of life is it mate? If you truly valued the lives of the poor, you wouldn’t have time to be on here, there would be soup kitchens, hostels for the homeless, heaven knows how many other ways you could make a tangible difference. But no. Your contribution is printing off leaflets to con those too simple to tell the difference that everyone they see who isn’t wearing a red rosette every five years has come along to eat their firstborn. Gotta say it, you really make a difference to them!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep fubar, ive been out today leafleting. Surprisingly though when people realise their council rents are going up, their local youth club is being shut down, bus services are being cut, sure start centre is closing etc etc etc etc, they see the facts themselves. Of course if you knew anything about local politics you would know many party members /councillors work hard all year round and not just near election time. But hey, if they aren’t mother theresa then they don’t truly value what they do. What a joker you are.




I am knowledgeable on this subject because I've been professionally involved in it virtually all my working life. There is no such thing as an ethical defence policy, you fool. You're attacked, you respond, you defend yourself. Killing people, no matter what the circumstances, is never "ethical". It may on occasion, in matters of self defence, be justifiable, but never "ethical". That comment is so brainfreezingly stupid, it defies belief. AND, yet again, you have to be reminded that there is significantly more breadth to the defence industry, particularly the British defence industry, whats left of it, than just producing bombs and bullets. And you have the temerity to call me inept. Mate, if only you could rise to such dizzy heights!!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Classic side stepping of the point. Any government can make a decision to whom they wish to sell arms or not and take measures to prevent them getting into the wrong hands. ITS ALL ABOUT MONEY AS YOU WELL KNOW.




You ever been to Africa mate? Tell me what British weapons have been supplied to African nations for them to use in either state on state conflicts or in civil wars or internal repression. Come on then genius, where have we been making Kalashnikov AK47's & RPGs in the UK????
------------------------------------
So you are unaware of BAE Systems chairmen Dick Olver, who was quoted saying "The company is committed to being recognised as a leader in responsible business worldwide,"
wait for it.....................
although he admitted that the UK's Serious Fraud Office and the US's Department of Justice were still investigating company activities in a range of different countries including South Africa, and Tanzania




You ever been on a battlefield tour anywhere? Ever had any family or friends who have served during the World Wars or other conflicts, Falklands, Iraq, Afghanistan?

No?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
yep, my dad served in world war 2




I wouldn’t do it because its none of my business. Like its none of yours. Conversely, you could try explaining to people who may need your help, militarily, that you're just going to ignore their pleas because you see their leaders as "unethical"....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Classic inane nonsense. We have to sell arms to murderous dictators because we sell arms to other people as well.? Crazy talk fubar




Ethics, my foot. What you and your party knows about ethics would fit on the head of a pin and still have room for the complete works of Shakespeare. Oh and by the way, show me any post of mine that says profit is the finite aspiration. Any post will do.
------------------------------
All of your posts that ridicule help for the poorest and low paid, including the one where you said you couldn’t care less about monetary inequality.



You keep going though fubar. You are very popular on here. Mocking at the misery of others, trying to justify the unjustifiable. Apparently even some from the left find it amusing. Next time I see someone in my ward suffering as a result of this govts policies, I will on your behalf tip my imaginary cap to them.

83. At 3:38pm on 12 Mar 2011, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
74/67#
Hmm. The name Tito mean anything? Ceacescu? Stalin?
Oxymoronic?
More like rose tinted myopia.

There are 57 varieties of socialist regimes.The critical distinction is between those who are democratic and those who are totalitarian.To lump together Stalin with Attlee,or Schmidt with Brezhnev shows a lack of discrimination.

The Communist bloc itself was far from homogenous,there were communist patriots like Tito,Dubcek and Imry Nag,contrasted with Erich Honecker who went weak at the knees in the presence of Brezhnev and was famously photographed giving him a passionate kiss.

After WW2 there was great public admiration for the Soviet Union,this didn`t prevent Clement Attlee from arming Britain with nuclear weapons.

The Cambridge spies,Blunt,Philby,Maclean,Burgess were dissident members of the upper middle class,not members of the Labour Party.

"She's the highest remunerated female politician on the planet" (at 62 and ad nauseum elsewhere re Cathy Ashton) is one of those trashcan tabloid phrases which betrays a problematical attitude. Language does this, it's one of its great qualities; and it's one of mine that I almost always detect it. Ditto SC and her either (1) platitude or (2) slur on one or more non-Japanese peoples (Susan to confirm which in due course). And why is this one about Ashton a giveaway? Well just think about it. The extremely generous salary & perks package - sure - is a general (and maybe justified) complaint about Eurocrats. But why all this 'highest paid female politician on Earth' business? What's the precise point being made, do we reckon? See the problem? Mmm, I believe we do.

I do wish politicians realised the limited value of words. Telling Gaddafi he's a bad boy & no-one's going to talk to him is water off a duck's back. If we're not prepared to enforce a no fly zone - now apparently proposed by the Arab league - we should just shut up. We're not doing the freedom fighters in Libya any favours & as the bullets of Gaddafi's troops kill them or his torturers get to work, they'd be able to tell us exactly what Western politicians' words are worth. Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. If we could do something to make the world a better place, why don't we? Selective bombing of Serbia prevented the massacre of Kosovans & allowed a people to regain their freedom. We don't need troops on the ground, just the interdiction of Gaddafi's airforce & artillery.
I'm just waiting for Cameron's words of anger & sorrow when the rebellion against Gaddfi ends in the blood of those who opposed the dictatr.

FS
God, when a certain Communist luminary coined the term "useful idiots" he really wasnt kidding was he?

"Useful idiots fall into several categories. Those like the Webbs,H.G. Wells,Bernard Shaw and various bishops who visited the Soviet Union in the twenties, and although not communist or fellow travellers were taken in.Sydney Webb,LSE founder,famously said "I have seen the future and it works."

There were communist parties outside Russia who Trotsky saw as an opportunity to spread revolution into the heart of Europe,but Stalin kept weak in the interests of the Soviet Union.
This was a fatal error in relation to the German communist party whose leader Ernst Thalmann was unable to resist Hitler`s rise to power.

However,the real venom of the Communist Party was directed at democratic socialism which offered a non totalitarian future.Far from useful idiots, they were labelled as class traitors,and if there was a move towards "Socialism with a human face" in the Soviet empire,it was violently suppressed, starting with Germany and Hungary in the fifties.

Even if Gadaffi manages to put down the present insurrection, he will find it difficult to recover from the humiliation of having lost control of a large part of Libya for several weeks. Many of his more intelligent supporters will be worried that another insurrection might occur and be successful in a few years time.

The international community must make it clear that, when the Gadaffi regime collapses, as it will one day, legal retribution will follow for those who have supported it by criminal acts, even if they were "acting under orders". If there is a bloodbath in the areas recaptured by Gadaffi's supporters, those responsible should be publicly identified and know that they will be marked men for the rest of their lives. Anyone giving them sanctuary should also know that they risk ending up in the dock alongside them.

In these days, when so many people carry mobile phones, collecting evidence of human rights abuse is much easier. Officials of the International Criminal Court must announce very loudly that they are doing so and will act upon it, as soon as it becomes possible. This, in addition to the traditional economic sanctions, should help undermine Gadaffi's and other similar regimes, and bring them down with a minimum of bloodshed.

susan @ 89

"I did not even think about any conclusions which could be drawn from what I said."

No, I can see that. Perhaps you should. But okay, you write again in this latest post about how you respect the Japanese and how they have a great deal to offer. Guess we all agree. It's a bit like saying you're for a balanced diet and against knife crime. Hence platitude. I definitely agree that the Japanese have a great deal to offer; I feel this about all the peoples of the world. We all do - or if we don't, we sure wouldn't admit it on here. We'd keep it to ourselves (wouldn't we?) that there are certain peoples who we don't respect and who we don't think have much to offer. Quite right too, since it would be a touch unsavoury and reprehensible. Do you see what I'm getting at now, Susan? Only way your comment isn't a platitude is if you're mentally contrasting the Japanese with somebody else. With a 'people' who come up a little short in your book. I don't like to think you're doing this and that's why I'm so keen for you to confirm you are dealing in the banal platitude (rather than an interesting and controversial slur). That's all it is. And worth doing? Yes, I'd say so.

Sagamix: "socialist aggression?"

If there are indeed 57 varieties of socialist regimes (Bryhers #91) then I assume the Stalinist post-WW2 Soviet Union model was one of them.

Then if I use this an example of socialist aggression you can refute this:
a) by denying that the Soviet Union was socialist
b) by arguing that the Soviet Union was not aggressive.

I suppose you can also include within the attributes of socialism 'incapable of waging aggressive war on other nations', in which case socialist aggression is indeed self-contradictory. Add in a few more attributes and a socialist regime is incapable of any failing whatsoever, again by definition. By this time though there won't be one socialist regime left, let alone 57, and you will have defined not socialism but your own personal utopia.

sagamix 96

Don't waffle, Sagamix it makes you look more of a fool than you look already.

Now what you've done there, John (97), is you've anticipated my line of development - that a socialist person or country can be aggressive, but when doing so is not being socialist (is lapsing) - and duly closed it off. Karpov eat your heart out. Speaking of which, Fischer v Spassky, that was a good 'cold war' metaphor. The wild western individualist against the mean machine; and the west won.

Ghadaafi will easily outlast and outrun the lot of them. They lack the willpower and commitment to do anything about this and Ghadaafi knows it. In suggesting a no-fly zone cameron was writing cheques only the Amercans can cash- and was rightly rebuked for it.