UK General Discussion: 2017 and onwards, Mayhem

[Silent Hunter]

There is a difference between accidental killing of civilians and deliberate targeting on them.

[Omega21]

There is a difference between accidental killing of civilians and deliberate targeting on them.

How do you accidentally target an embassy?

The guy who provided the map of places not to bomb also confirmed the maps are correct.

Maybe it's an embassy on wheels so it moves every day.

Either the commander was a thick knob (which is unlikely), or they deliberately bombed it.

[Silent Hunter]

We could've stuck with the sanctions and left iraqis alone.

Saddam would have died at some point and the regime would eventually have come apart. We'd have had to deal with the consequences sooner or later.

Also, re Kosovo. I suggest you have a good think about what you would have been done instead.

I'm.a pacifist,
I would love England to be a neutral state just like Switzerland and Japan. #Switzerland-on-sea

Japan isn't neutral.

Also, if someone was being beaten up in front of you, would you just let them be beaten up?

[Blair]

If you think the split between ‘Arab and kurds’ only started in 2003 Audrey you need to do some more research into Iraqi history.

Besides Iraq in 2003 wasn’t stable; everyone forgets that Saddam was trying to convince the world that he had nuclear weapons. He’d bankrupted and starved his country, whilst also ethnicallly cleansing a good portion of it. Iraq was anything but stable (hence why his regime collasped) does that justify intervention? No. But it’s wrong to buy into the revisionist idea of a stable Iraq.

The irony of course is that Saddam would have either been deposed or thrown into a civil war in the Arab spring. Let’s give the people in these countries agency and blame rather than thinking it all revolves around us.

Besides it’s a repetitive debate; targeted air strikes and military operations with a clear aim can clearly work if they have broad support from the international community.

[Silent Hunter]

If you think the split between ‘Arab and kurds’ only started in 2003 Audrey you need to do some more research into Iraqi history.

Besides Iraq in 2003 wasn’t stable; everyone forgets that Saddam was trying to convince the world that he had nuclear weapons. He’d bankrupted and starved his country, whilst also ethnicallly cleansing a good portion of it. Iraq was anything but stable (hence why his regime collasped) does that justify intervention? No. But it’s wrong to buy into the revisionist idea of a stable Iraq.

The irony of course is that Saddam would have either been deposed or thrown into a civil war in the Arab spring. Let’s give the people in these countries agency and blame rather than thinking it all revolves around us.

Besides it’s a repetitive debate; targeted air strikes and military operations with a clear aim can clearly work if they have broad support from the international community.

I don't think the Arab Spring would have occurred without Iraq myself. However, Saddam was not a young man and the competency of his sons to govern after he passed on is debatable.

I believe that intervention in 2003 was a mistake in retrospect, but something would have had to been done about Saddam in the long term... unless we wanted to do with Iraq what we ended up doing with Libya in 2004.

[Silent Hunter]

Japan wasn't neutral though - it was an American military base. It had armed forces for the use of the defence against the country. That's not pacifist in the conventional definition of the word.

[Silent Hunter]

Japan wasn't neutral though - it was an American military base. It had armed forces for the use of the defence against the country. That's not pacifist in the conventional definition of the word.

American bases are there to protect Japan from North Korea and in the past the Soviet Union.

That still doesn't make Japan neutral or pacifist.

[Silent Hunter]

So, the "meaningful vote" is on Tuesday. What's everyone's predictions for how it will go?

[DaWN]

So, the "meaningful vote" is on Tuesday. What's everyone's predictions for how it will go?

May will almost certainly lose. Whether she survives or not depends on the margin and how the alternatives present themselves in the immediate aftermath. My personal prediction is that it won't be all that close and May will be gone at some point during January, the new PM will attempt to delay Article 50 and Corbyn will be left seething that the sidelines that there won't be a general election he so desperately wants. The delay to Article 50 won't end up meaning anything though, and we'll probably crash out with no deal or something worse than the current deal, because nobody in any part of British politics has the slightest idea of how to sort all this out, because of a long, and I suspect now irreparable, trail of stupidity and incompetence going back to well before June 2016.

[Silent Hunter]

I think we're more likely than not to get a second referendum with the option to Remain. May would take that over a General Election. People have long questioned whether her heart is really in Brexit.

[DaWN]

I think we're more likely than not to get a second referendum with the option to Remain. May would take that over a General Election. People have long questioned whether her heart is really in Brexit.

Well, it would be a lovely solution to this entire mess but nobody with any power wants it to happen, least of all May, who probably knows it will finally destroy the last vestiges of any authority she might have in the Conservative party.

She would take it over a general election after what happened last time, I agree with you there, but she won't do either. I think it's time to accept that the second referendum just isn't feasible unfortunately.

[Silent Hunter]

I think we're more likely than not to get a second referendum with the option to Remain. May would take that over a General Election. People have long questioned whether her heart is really in Brexit.

Well, it would be a lovely solution to this entire mess but nobody with any power wants it to happen, least of all May, who probably knows it will finally destroy the last vestiges of any authority she might have in the Conservative party.

If she presides over a No Deal Brexit, she'll go down with Ted Heath's "three day week". This will be one to quite happily punt to the voters.

[DaWN]

I think we're more likely than not to get a second referendum with the option to Remain. May would take that over a General Election. People have long questioned whether her heart is really in Brexit.

Well, it would be a lovely solution to this entire mess but nobody with any power wants it to happen, least of all May, who probably knows it will finally destroy the last vestiges of any authority she might have in the Conservative party.

If she presides over a No Deal Brexit, she'll go down with Ted Heath's "three day week". This will be one to quite happily punt to the voters.

You're thinking as if she has the best interests of the nation at heart, which I can assure you she doesn't. Her main concern is keeping what remains of her authority in the party, and any stance which compromises Brexit will go down like a lead balloon with the parliamentary party and the membership. The Conservative party is the self-preservation society I'm afraid, and that extends right up to the top.

And yeah, No Deal Brexit is going to be a disaster and will sink the Conservative party, but it's not like Labour can turn around and say 'we told you so' because they, errr, didn't. If that is the case either our entire political status quo collapses and something new rises from the ashes (the good outcome) or every election from now until eternity is a close nailbiter between the two main parties because tribalism and 'I don't want to let the other guys win' (the bad outcome).

[Silent Hunter]

No Deal Brexit

Parliament won't let that happen. If May wanted to keep her authority in the Tory Party, why agree to this deal which pleases no-one?

[DaWN]

No Deal Brexit

Parliament won't let that happen. If May wanted to keep her authority in the Tory Party, why agree to this deal which pleases no-one?

You have far too much faith in our esteemed elected representatives.

[Silent Hunter]

No Deal Brexit

Parliament won't let that happen. If May wanted to keep her authority in the Tory Party, why agree to this deal which pleases no-one?

You have far too much faith in our esteemed elected representatives.

To protect their own interests. The Tories don't want to preside over a No Deal Brexit.

When Corbyn's No Confidence motion fails, he will back a second referendum.

[Silent Hunter]

ECJ has ruled we can revoke A50 unilaterally.

[brucejoel99]

ECJ has ruled we can revoke A50 unilaterally.

RIP No Deal Brexit. A great early Christmas present, made even better when Parliament inevitably compels May to revoke.

[Sestak]

Breaking: May has pulled tomorrow’s Brexit vote.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

ECJ has ruled we can revoke A50 unilaterally.

RIP No Deal Brexit. A great early Christmas present, made even better when Parliament inevitably compels May to revoke.

Don't go counting chickens yet. All this does is make even more certain the result of Tuesday's vote and that May will be unable to get the EU to make changes for a second attempt to get the deal thru Parliament. Even if Parliament decides to offer up a referendum, there's no guarantee the vote will be Remain.

[Sestak]

ECJ has ruled we can revoke A50 unilaterally.

RIP No Deal Brexit. A great early Christmas present, made even better when Parliament inevitably compels May to revoke.

Don't go counting chickens yet. All this does is make even more certain the result of Tuesday's vote and that May will be unable to get the EU to make changes for a second attempt to get the deal thru Parliament. Even if Parliament decides to offer up a referendum, there's no guarantee the vote will be Remain.

Well, there apparently is no Tuesday vote anymore, so...

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

ECJ has ruled we can revoke A50 unilaterally.

RIP No Deal Brexit. A great early Christmas present, made even better when Parliament inevitably compels May to revoke.

Don't go counting chickens yet. All this does is make even more certain the result of Tuesday's vote and that May will be unable to get the EU to make changes for a second attempt to get the deal thru Parliament. Even if Parliament decides to offer up a referendum, there's no guarantee the vote will be Remain.

Well, there apparently is no Tuesday vote anymore, so...

So we know the result if it had happened, right?

[brucejoel99]

Breaking: May has pulled tomorrow’s Brexit vote.

Jesus, on a scale of 1-10 on the b.s. meter, this is hitting a solid 9.8 lol

ECJ has ruled we can revoke A50 unilaterally.

RIP No Deal Brexit. A great early Christmas present, made even better when Parliament inevitably compels May to revoke.

Don't go counting chickens yet. All this does is make even more certain the result of Tuesday's vote and that May will be unable to get the EU to make changes for a second attempt to get the deal thru Parliament. Even if Parliament decides to offer up a referendum, there's no guarantee the vote will be Remain.

True. Even though they're pulling tomorrow's vote on the deal, they're just delaying the inevitable. Brussels won't grant any further significant concessions; the Norway-style relationship w/ the EU is a non-starter. The actual choice before Parliament at this point is between a 2nd referendum or a No Deal Brexit. Hopefully they can get on w/ making that decision.

[Silent Hunter]

Time isn't running out. She can ask for an A50 extension or revoke now. She could do that on 29 March itself in theory - without an MPs vote.

[Zaybay]

This is the biggest s***show in the Commonwealth's history since the Emu War.