Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think that was the vote on bombing syria.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7LsEzTKbps

one of the big problems that seems to be forgotten. the Jungle never left, they just build ever tthicker, ever long defensive fences and walls. .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPFTAHXnO04

getting from a few hundred to 10,000
things are getting dangerous.

WARNING
NSFW / CHILDREN LANGUAGE

 angelofvengeance wrote:
To me, he's done the right thing. Gave support to the anti-Gaddafi forces and left it at that

So exactly the wrong thing then? If you are going to become actively involved in toppling a long standing dicatator you need 2 things. Firstly you need a plan for what you want to happen after the dicator falls and you need to fully resource and support that plan. If all you do is chuck some bombs around and then wander off home safe in the knowledge of 'mission accomplished' you will leave a pile of smouldering gak behind that will make the situation much worse in the medium/long term and destabilise the entire region into the bargain.

Those "anti war loonies" as you so delightfully named them were fundamentally correct, all you need to do is to take a look at the corrupt and fragmented state of Iraq, the millions of dead and the rise of Daesh as proof of that.

I'm appalled by the cavalier way Cameron has behaved this last week. Throwing your toys out the cost and resigning from the benches because the new PM doesn't care enough to keep you in the loop is a childish thing to do at best. He was elected as an MP to serve his constituency. Taking your ball and going home because you're not PM anymore is just scorn-worthy and shows the kind of man he is. Even Brown sat another Parliament.

Although I can't help but think he jumped because he thought he'd be pushed after this Libya report came out. If he was still in Parliament, he'd potentially have been subject to all sorts of interesting questions, whereas now he's a private citizen (like Blair) and wanders off whistling to his book deal (also like Blair). I reckon he got the tipoff about the report and just thought 'Sod it, I don't need to be interrogated over this, I'm not even PM anymore, I don't even like May' and decided that was that. Which doesn't make it any less contemptible.

I wasn't particularly enamoured of the man to begin with, but now I'm less so.

Leaving a Tyrant in power is a lesser evil than removing him and buggering off without helping to rebuild the nation. A tyrant as evil as Saddam or Gaddafi is infinitely preferable to the bloody power vacuum we have now in Syria and Iraq.

That's what happened in Libya, and would have had happened in Syria had Cameron got his way.

The reason why the West got involved in Libya was that a serious western friendly rebellion started as part of the Arab Spring. We saw two options, to support them or to do nothing, which was tantamount to supporting Gaddafi since he had all of the main army and air force units on his side, as much as they were at any rate.

Serious boots on the ground was never going to happen after the Iraq disaster, so our inevitable support for the rebels had to be bombing plus some training, special forces, and supplies.

This actually worked pretty well, but the country has been destabilised since by a combination of Islamic extremist insurgents and ex-army bandits. Similar to ISIL but with less extremism and more power hungry pragmatism.

By the time this situation developed we were involved in Syria and Iraq against ISIL.

What to do? Even the USA does not have unlimited resources and appetite for such foreign adventures.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

What to do?

Have a real plan for what happens the firing stops and resource it properly, that's the only thing that works. If you can't do that the chances are excellent that you will end up doing more harm than good.

Half arsed measures are an utter disaster.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

What to do?

Have a real plan for what happens the firing stops and resource it properly, that's the only thing that works. If you can't do that the chances are excellent that you will end up doing more harm than good.

Half arsed measures are an utter disaster.

There are plenty of lessons to learn in the immediate aftermath of the Iraq invasion...

It's interesting these future incursions didn't include those lessons, simply because it wasn't politically popular.

 jhe90 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7LsEzTKbps

one of the big problems that seems to be forgotten. the Jungle never left, they just build ever tthicker, ever long defensive fences and walls. .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPFTAHXnO04

getting from a few hundred to 10,000
things are getting dangerous.

add a warning for explicit content pls there are children in the house

 Ketara wrote:


Although I can't help but think he jumped because he thought he'd be pushed after this Libya report came out. If he was still in Parliament, he'd potentially have been subject to all sorts of interesting questions, whereas now he's a private citizen (like Blair) and wanders off whistling to his book deal (also like Blair). I reckon he got the tipoff about the report and just thought 'Sod it, I don't need to be interrogated over this, I'm not even PM anymore, I don't even like May' and decided that was that. Which doesn't make it any less contemptible.

I wasn't particularly enamoured of the man to begin with, but now I'm less so.

I'm inclined to agree. The timing of his retirement does seem rather suspicious given the rather damning report. Part of me thinks whether the government as a whole took the opportunity partially to put the smack down on someone they blamed for Lockerbie. However we, as the populace, aren't entirely faultless in all of this either even if we didn't have the direct control. After the Iraq War/Afghanistan we as a population were so opposed to putting troops on the ground that rather than DC arguing the case to try and ensure stability they used bombing as a hands off approach which inevitably les to damaged infrastructure and no true government with a mandate hence leaving every man and his dog fighting to fill that hole. It is hence no surprise that the Country then fell into civil war. Iraq did the same thing and that was with a lot of boots on the ground. In addition this was during the period of austerity and there were enough voices trying to reduce state aid to foreign countries that the cash Libya really needed to rebuild the infrastructure and stabilise the situation. As such we did 'our bit' and then chaos ensued. There are definitely similarities between this and what the US did with Afghanistan as a way of hurting the USSR and the ensuing issues that caused. I can see why the US is quite frustrated with France/England's approach. Despite what people say about Blair he did try and see through what he started, his real problem being why we went there in the first place which was misleading to say the least. DC on other hand never seemed to have any conviction on anything (except maintaining power) and his policies seemed to be based on what the Daily Mail was writing on any particular day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FacebookJunkie wrote:
The new boundaries are not in themselves politically motivated. The fix was done by choosing December 2015 as the cut off.

There is no guarantee that using the data from this summer would make things much better for Labour. My own (safe Tory) constituency also saw registered voters rocket in June/July.

No there is no guarantee at all. The issue the commission had was a lot of constraints in how they applied it. The new boundaries that have been drawn are particularly weird and there appears to be cases where non-Tory boundaries are partially swallowed where there is enough Tory support to not really affect the outcome. There is actually no reason why not to just draw square boxes of a size that pulls in a certain population and run it that way and is likely to be fairer. Once someone starts drawing lines on a map, those lines run the risk of being influenced to benefit the currently in power party. I do again repeat that if you are not happy reply to the consultation - the more that do, the more likely they might listen (though this is the Tory party!).

 Dwarfmorf101 wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7LsEzTKbps

one of the big problems that seems to be forgotten. the Jungle never left, they just build ever tthicker, ever long defensive fences and walls. .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPFTAHXnO04

getting from a few hundred to 10,000
things are getting dangerous.

add a warning for explicit content pls there are children in the house

Editted.
it proves a pint, the situation as never gone away, just hidden on more recent news.

On slightly different news it appears that PMQs got decidedly serious today

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/pmqs-theresa-may-christmas_uk_57d93f09e4b00f7417353dc5?utm_hp_ref=uk&utm_hp_ref=uk

given all the other issues they have to debate, such as this...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/david-attenborough_uk_57d81941e4b0614ca6be5381?utm_hp_ref=uk-news

or any of these:-

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/forget-brexit-and-grammars-heres-the-bad-news-the-government-may-have-wanted-you-to-miss-this-week_uk_57d2d217e4b0d45ff871eb8a

 whembly wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

What to do?

Have a real plan for what happens the firing stops and resource it properly, that's the only thing that works. If you can't do that the chances are excellent that you will end up doing more harm than good.

Half arsed measures are an utter disaster.

There are plenty of lessons to learn in the immediate aftermath of the Iraq invasion...

It's interesting these future incursions didn't include those lessons, simply because it wasn't politically popular.

In a democracy it is ridiculous to not take into account what is not politically popular.

To do well in retrospect by "Have a great plan" is the mantra of a certain US presidential candidate who is noted for his exuberant lunacy.

Maybe the plan executed in Libya was the best one that was feasible at the time. As Parson Gotti says, "We make plans. Some of them work." As video game companies know, no-one ever sets out to make a gakky game.

This is all a bit off topic in the Brave New World of Theresa May's Brexit Britain.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Maybe the plan executed in Libya was the best one that was feasible at the time.

No coherent and workable plan=don't get involved.

I'm not automatically against military involvement in overthrowing dictators, I would be more than happy to see a much more widespread military involvement against Daesh for instance, but it is the work of years and it will swallow a significant percentage of GDP.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Maybe the plan executed in Libya was the best one that was feasible at the time.

No coherent and workable plan=don't get involved.

Inaction is better than a poorly planned action.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


In a democracy it is ridiculous to not take into account what is not politically popular.

To do well in retrospect by "Have a great plan" is the mantra of a certain US presidential candidate who is noted for his exuberant lunacy.

The problem with our politics is when you start pandering to the populist notions. The Badger cull is a good example of this. There is the notion by farmers that the issue with bovine TB comes from badgers solely so the answer is to shoot them. However last time they trialled this it failed spectacularly. Yes the areas where the cull occurred became TB free temporarily, but it exacerbated the situation in the surrounding regions. What the data showed was that Badgers are quite social creatures. When they were being culled it was not directed and indiscriminate. That meant that some sets became home to only a few badgers (still with TB) and they left looking for company. What this then did was spread the infection to sets in surrounding region (that were TB free) and the overall effect was to spread TB in the badger population - it only reduced it in the local area. Yet they are repeating again the same exercise, even to the point of enlarging the pilot study before even the results have been analysed. The same can be said for the flooding a few years back; there was pressure to dredge the rivers because of the populist notion that this was reducing capacity and hence exacerbating flooding. Except it doesn't, lots of gunk at the bottom of rivers actually slows the flow rate which means river water takes longer to reach any particular point. If you have a fast flowing river then the water reaches the same point much quicker and as soon as you reach a choke point it backs up and floods. Dredging in effect can make flooding much worse. It's one of the reasons why the Northumberland floods were so bad (for similar but not the same reasons). The water flowed quickly from the surrounding land and as soon as it hit choke points (in this case the flood defences) it bottled up and flooded causing havoc. The flood defences work for 'normal' floods, but not for exceptional circumstances (hence the term flood plains).

The real issue is that there is no desire by the government/politicians to have a proper debate with the public to try and engage them; it's just too easy yo use soundbites all the time. With other MPs (like PMQs) the debates generally degrade to public school childish spats that dissociates people from the actual arguments for and against different actions. Even things like Question Times isn't really a debate with the public; it's just questions that the MPs argue over. They need to engage and debate with the public.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

In a democracy it is ridiculous to not take into account what is not politically popular.

To do well in retrospect by "Have a great plan" is the mantra of a certain US presidential candidate who is noted for his exuberant lunacy.

Maybe the plan executed in Libya was the best one that was feasible at the time. As Parson Gotti says, "We make plans. Some of them work." As video game companies know, no-one ever sets out to make a gakky game.

This is all a bit off topic in the Brave New World of Theresa May's Brexit Britain.

The best plan was not destroying the armed forces and infrastructure of a secular government letting the extremists step in (as happened in Iraq).

I think it's naive to think what followed wasn't predicted by the Western powers. They've had experience in what happens with the removal of the government and infrastructure.

Not to mention they blatantly flouted the No-fly Zone meaning nobody is going to trust them with it for a long time.

Well, it looks like everybody's favourite EU president, Jean-Claude Juncker, is calling for an EU military headquarters.

I feel vindicated!

Cameron's recent actions, i.e abandoning ship, again! only confirms what I've been saying for years - he was unfit to hold high office.

Now we have the possibility of further EU integration. I've been banging the drum for months, warning of this.

I think Britain has had a narrow escape. We should thank our lucky stars we got out whilst we could.

Instead of having a moment of reflection and asking why Britain left, the EU have decided to go full steam ahead with further steps towards an EU army...

I think they've well and truly lost the plot in Brussels.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Well, it looks like everybody's favourite EU president, Jean-Claude Juncker, is calling for an EU military headquarters.

I feel vindicated!

Now we have the possibility of further EU integration. I've been banging the drum for months, warning of this.

I think Britain has had a narrow escape. We should thank our lucky stars we got out whilst we could.

Maybe if you read the whole speech rather than reading the headlines would give you a better picture of what they are proposing.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-16-3043_en.htm

None of this seems unreasonable to me!

Also it's worth reading about how this 'evil' combined military is already up and running such as on the BBC

What sort of missions does the EU run?

Since 2003 the EU has launched some 30 civilian and military operations in Europe, Africa and Asia - under the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Sixteen are still going on, including six military operations::
◾Its mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina oversees the implementation of the 1995 Dayton Agreement which ended the Balkan Wars. It replaced Nato forces in 2004
◾Counter-piracy operation Atalanta began off the coast of Somalia in 2008
◾In 2015, Operation Sophia began targeting migrant-traffickers in the Mediterranean
◾The EU also has military training programmes in Somalia, Mali and the Central African Republic

So note the bit about where the EU have taken over from NATO in some areas!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37359196

It's also worth noting how much they can save from having joint commands co-ordinating actions rather than a mish-mash of people making conflicting decisions.

 Whirlwind wrote:
The Badger cull is a good example of this. There is the notion by farmers that the issue with bovine TB comes from badgers solely so the answer is to shoot them. However last time they trialled this it failed spectacularly. Yes the areas where the cull occurred became TB free temporarily, but it exacerbated the situation in the surrounding regions. What the data showed was that Badgers are quite social creatures. When they were being culled it was not directed and indiscriminate. That meant that some sets became home to only a few badgers (still with TB) and they left looking for company. What this then did was spread the infection to sets in surrounding region (that were TB free) and the overall effect was to spread TB in the badger population - it only reduced it in the local area. Yet they are repeating again the same exercise, even to the point of enlarging the pilot study before even the results have been analysed.

Don't forget that when the results were analysed and revealed that the cull was ineffective and not even managing to kill enough badgers to approach being somewhat effective, even after the government reduced that target number, the government stopped using the group that was doing the analysis in order to "do it themselves".

Well that's because in their capacity of being part of the British Public, they are bored of experts.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Well, it looks like everybody's favourite EU president, Jean-Claude Juncker, is calling for an EU military headquarters.

I feel vindicated!

Now we have the possibility of further EU integration. I've been banging the drum for months, warning of this.

I think Britain has had a narrow escape. We should thank our lucky stars we got out whilst we could.

Maybe if you read the whole speech rather than reading the headlines would give you a better picture of what they are proposing.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-16-3043_en.htm

None of this seems unreasonable to me!

Also it's worth reading about how this 'evil' combined military is already up and running such as on the BBC

What sort of missions does the EU run?

Since 2003 the EU has launched some 30 civilian and military operations in Europe, Africa and Asia - under the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Sixteen are still going on, including six military operations::
◾Its mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina oversees the implementation of the 1995 Dayton Agreement which ended the Balkan Wars. It replaced Nato forces in 2004
◾Counter-piracy operation Atalanta began off the coast of Somalia in 2008
◾In 2015, Operation Sophia began targeting migrant-traffickers in the Mediterranean
◾The EU also has military training programmes in Somalia, Mali and the Central African Republic

So note the bit about where the EU have taken over from NATO in some areas!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37359196

It's also worth noting how much they can save from having joint commands co-ordinating actions rather than a mish-mash of people making conflicting decisions.

You're missing the point. No matter how benign the intentions of any EU military force, how the hell did we morph from a common market to a full blown supra-national institution with pretentions to becoming a European super-state?

I'm on the fence these days when it comes to NATO, but at least NATO does what it says on the tin - it's a military alliance and has been so since day 1.

The EU on the other hand is far more insidious. By its nature, it's anti-democratic, and thus, ironically, anti-European.

Any European democrat worth their salt should be bitterly opposed to any plan for an EU military. The EU should never be allowed to have any military mandate, for reasons which are self-evident.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Don't forget that when the results were analysed and revealed that the cull was ineffective and not even managing to kill enough badgers to approach being somewhat effective, even after the government reduced that target number, the government stopped using the group that was doing the analysis in order to "do it themselves".

Yes agreed, I think for the government science and evidence = inconvenience and 'not compatible with our views''. Wouldn't be nice if they decided such things should be used for making rational policy, but instead they'd prefer to argue over semantics on what you call Christmas trees to protect 'British values' whilst ignoring the fact it started as a German tradition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


You're missing the point. No matter how benign the intentions of any EU military force, how the hell did we morph from a common market to a full blown supra-national institution with pretentions to becoming a European super-state?

Because there were elections and the each countries representatives votes on policies? And I think the address makes it quite clear that they are looking to make the EU better for everyone rather than demanding that countries are taken over.

I'm on the fence these days when it comes to NATO, but at least NATO does what it says on the tin - it's a military alliance and has been so since day 1.

Actually that isn't true during times of conflict NATO would take control of all the militaries to co-ordinate actions according to the bbc (about 3/4 the way down the article)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37317765

The EU on the other hand is far more insidious. By its nature, it's anti-democratic, and thus, ironically, anti-European.

Jeez, last time I looked we got to vote on the representatives in the EU parliament. The presidencies are shared equally between the European states with governments that have elected representatives. Policy decisions are voted on by these elected representatives so erh I'm not sure where the anti democracy idea is coming from yet you are quite happy to sit on the fence about a military organisation that you don't even know who controls what because of secrecy?

Any European democrat worth their salt should be bitterly opposed to any plan for an EU military. The EU should never be allowed to have any military mandate, for reasons which are self-evident.

You'll have to explain what is self evident, because it isn't to me. The EU already has military mandates, the U.K. already provide armed forces to them; yet building a command centre to make it more efficient is just that bridge too far apparently? I haven't heard of anyone complaining about the uk forces already working for the EU?

A general response to Whirlwind's post.

Let's take a trip down memory lane...

London riots. 2011.

Could you imagine 10 Downing street's reaction if the Russian foreign minister had arrived unannounced in London, and then began meeting with the rioters to express solidarity with them and hear their grievances? And possibly even offer a promise of Russian aid and assistance?

No, neither could I, and yet, fast forward a few years to the Ukraine crisis, and EU ministers and foreign ministers from various EU members arrived in Kiev and did just that...

The EU's courting of Ukraine, its ineptitude at geopolitics, should be reason alone to exclude it from having any military force under its control. Now I'm reading they've been offering military training programmes in the Central African Republic?

Holy horsegak! Did I miss something here? Is Central Africa part of Europe? My knowledge of geography is sketchy at best

but this is silly, now.

I could mention the EU's shambolic handling of the Bosnian civil war as another reason why it should not be allowed within a hundred miles of a military, but I'll discuss the wider moral and political implications.

The British people signed up to a common market in 1973. Over the years though, the Westminster elite, working hand in hand with the Brussels elite, have gradually allowed this loose trading alliance to morph into a supra-national institution. You could say that this was all done democratically by elected British governments, which is true, but June 23rd has shown that what the British people think of the EU, and what Cameron and Co thought of it were two completely different things...

So this institution, with a mockery of a Parliament (it can't even propose legislation, so it's no Parliament in my book) grows and grows and grows like every other bureaucracy that has ever existed in human history...

The EU, aided and abetted by people like Juncker, think having a military is logical, no big deal.

Democrats on the other hand, should hear the alarm bells ringing. They should lament the loss of sovereignty, democracy, the will of the people being eroded.

Luckily, Britain got the last parachute and bailed out before the plane crashed...

Part 2: NATO and the EU.

Countries in NATO are obviously part of an alliance, but they still retain sovereignty. We can leave anytime, and if say, Turkey requests aid over Syria, we can say hell no, this is not in our interest. Yes, NATO has a provision for everybody abdicating military command to one HQ for the greater good, but that's an extreme circumstance like World War 3, or the Soviet Union steaming through West Germany. It's unlikely to be ever used...

Crucially, NATO contains non-EU members, notably the USA, Canada, Turkey, Norway, and Iceland, which provide a counter-balance to EU ambitions

The goal of an EU military should be seen for what it is - an attempt to subvert US hegemony and push out non-EU members. France has long resented US dominance of NATO.

And yet, if the gak ever hits the fan, I know who'll be coming to the rescue, and it won't be Jean Claude Juncker, it'll be the USA.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The goal of an EU military should be seen for what it is - an attempt to subvert US hegemony and push out non-EU members. France has long resented US dominance of NATO.

Is it? I thought it was all to allow the constituent countries to support each other with a more closely linked military compliment. I can't see it being controlled by Europe against the will of the constituent components.

And yet, if the gak ever hits the fan, I know who'll be coming to the rescue, and it won't be Jean Claude Juncker, it'll be the USA.

Assuming, of course, that Trump doesn't become POTUS and refuse to intervene when asked by NATO, as he's made clear he intends.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A general response to Whirlwind's post.

Let's take a trip down memory lane...

London riots. 2011.

Could you imagine 10 Downing street's reaction if the Russian foreign minister had arrived unannounced in London, and then began meeting with the rioters to express solidarity with them and hear their grievances? And possibly even offer a promise of Russian aid and assistance?

No, neither could I, and yet, fast forward a few years to the Ukraine crisis, and EU ministers and foreign ministers from various EU members arrived in Kiev and did just that...

You'd have a point if Ukraine was a part of Russia, but the entire conflict is arguably due to the fact that it isn't.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Maybe the plan executed in Libya was the best one that was feasible at the time.

No coherent and workable plan=don't get involved.

I'm not automatically against military involvement in overthrowing dictators, I would be more than happy to see a much more widespread military involvement against Daesh for instance, but it is the work of years and it will swallow a significant percentage of GDP.

That's never going to happen, or at least it won't happen until the memory of Iraq has faded. The UK also needs to recover from the longest recession since the 1930s in order to have the money to do something. This will probably take 10-20 years.

The point is that politics is the art of the possible. If you have a really gakky option, an even shittier option and a completely disastrously gakky option, you choose the really gakky option. The options in Libya were:

Do nothing and let Gaddafi win.
Aid the rebels as much as possible. (This does not include a ground invasion, due to the memory of Iraq.)
Aid Gaddafi to crush the rebels.

Which would you have chosen?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

The point is that politics is the art of the possible. If you have a really gakky option, an even shittier option and a completely disastrously gakky option, you choose the really gakky option. The options in Libya were:

Do nothing and let Gaddafi win.
Aid the rebels as much as possible. (This does not include a ground invasion, due to the memory of Iraq.)
Aid Gaddafi to crush the rebels.

Which would you have chosen?

Option (A).

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A general response to Whirlwind's post.

Let's take a trip down memory lane...

London riots. 2011.

Could you imagine 10 Downing street's reaction if the Russian foreign minister had arrived unannounced in London, and then began meeting with the rioters to express solidarity with them and hear their grievances? And possibly even offer a promise of Russian aid and assistance?

No, neither could I, and yet, fast forward a few years to the Ukraine crisis, and EU ministers and foreign ministers from various EU members arrived in Kiev and did just that...

I think you are confusing your history a bit. The UK riots (initially) were due to what was deemed persecution and bias against a minority (and exploited) people by the Police (and they are probably right in that view, effectively an early form of 'Black lives matter'). However it escalated from this to effectively just looting and destruction of properties from copy cat groups. It wasn't a political protest at this point. Ukraine was different the EU and Ukraine has been negotiating both loans and free trade agreements for some time and there were obviously a lot of people that wanted to see this happen in the west of the country. The originally peaceful protests became violent (who actually started it is probably open to debate) and as the EU didn't really want a country at civil war next door so tried to mediate a solution. In terms of an overall civil war it probably worked as compared to other uprisings the initial bloodshed was relatively light. After that though there was the issues in the East and Crimea. Russia took over Crimea not in any vested interest of the populace but to ensure that it kept access to the Black Sea (in the same way it is helping Syria because it's Russia's only access to the Med). Russia's armament and 'military volunteers' probably didn't help and it only really came to ahead with the loss of a civilian aircraft shot down by a Russian AA platform.

Now I'm reading they've been offering military training programmes in the Central African Republic?
Holy horsegak! Did I miss something here? Is Central Africa part of Europe? My knowledge of geography is sketchy at best

As part of working with the UN and African Union military to try and help stabilise the region and prevent, effectively, genocides; I'm not entirely sure why you are so opposed to this In reality a stable country means less reason for the populace to migrate from fear of persecution. That then means less pointless deaths in the Med and eases the pressure on the Southern European countries.

I could mention the EU's shambolic handling of the Bosnian civil war as another reason why it should not be allowed within a hundred miles of a military, but I'll discuss the wider moral and political implications.

I think it was a bit more complicated than just saying it was all the EU's fault (though strictly speaking it was the EC at that point?) https://www.britannica.com/event/Bosnian-conflict

The British people signed up to a common market in 1973. Over the years though, the Westminster elite, working hand in hand with the Brussels elite, have gradually allowed this loose trading alliance to morph into a supra-national institution. You could say that this was all done democratically by elected British governments, which is true, but June 23rd has shown that what the British people think of the EU, and what Cameron and Co thought of it were two completely different things...

As a correction it should be what 36% of the UK population think of the EU. I would ask you don't at least include me in your sweeping generic statements thanks.

So this institution, with a mockery of a Parliament (it can't even propose legislation, so it's no Parliament in my book) grows and grows and grows like every other bureaucracy that has ever existed in human history...

Yes that is obviously true isn't...not. After all that's why the plonker Farage (who obviously wasn't an elected MEP) was on the Fisheries commission with other (obviously not elected) MEPs to decide on what the fisheries policy should be which was then (obviously not) voted on by (obviously not elected) MEPs in the obviously (undemocratic) parliament. That Farage didn't turn up was probably our fault for letting such a plonker not do his job and get away with it! The UKs version of democracy isn't the only way you know?

Luckily, Britain got the last parachute and bailed out before the plane crashed...

Ha ha. Yeah right, you've got it wrong. I think it's more like that we were the annoying passengers that were screaming "It's going to crash, we're all doomed". Grabbed something from under a seat and leapt out the flying aircraft only for the rest of the passengers act slightly bemused why we decided to jump out of a plane with a life vest. Still being the Brits we are we're still screaming and saying everything will be alright because we have 'the last parachute' despite the fact it's not slowing the fall in any shape or form!

Crucially, NATO contains non-EU members, notably the USA, Canada, Turkey, Norway, and Iceland, which provide a counter-balance to EU ambitions

The goal of an EU military should be seen for what it is - an attempt to subvert US hegemony and push out non-EU members. France has long resented US dominance of NATO.

A counter balance to the EU ambitions, you're making them sound like North Korea. If anything you've just pointed out why the EU thinks they need a co-ordinated military response by all members - because it can't rely on NATO.

And yet, if the gak ever hits the fan, I know who'll be coming to the rescue, and it won't be Jean Claude Juncker, it'll be the USA.

If it got that bad no one would be coming to the rescue, we'd all be desperately trying to avoid being irradiated and killed within a few days. What would be left of the militaries would be caught up trying to salvage what little remains. My plan is to head to the Cape Verde islands if this looks like it is going to happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Option (A).

The problem with the do nothing approach is that the only inevitable conclusion is you surround yourself with military dictators, because generally they are the ones with the money and the weapons ensuring that any public 'uprising' is squashed as quickly possible. The UKs issue in Libya was that it didn't really help the Country get back on it's feet afterwards with enough cash and resources. DC effectively congratulated himself and then promptly ignored the situation until it became too bloomin' problematic to ignore.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Maybe the plan executed in Libya was the best one that was feasible at the time.

No coherent and workable plan=don't get involved.

I'm not automatically against military involvement in overthrowing dictators, I would be more than happy to see a much more widespread military involvement against Daesh for instance, but it is the work of years and it will swallow a significant percentage of GDP.

That's never going to happen, or at least it won't happen until the memory of Iraq has faded. The UK also needs to recover from the longest recession since the 1930s in order to have the money to do something. This will probably take 10-20 years.

The point is that politics is the art of the possible. If you have a really gakky option, an even shittier option and a completely disastrously gakky option, you choose the really gakky option. The options in Libya were:

Do nothing and let Gaddafi win.
Aid the rebels as much as possible. (This does not include a ground invasion, due to the memory of Iraq.)
Aid Gaddafi to crush the rebels.

Which would you have chosen?

There's another choice... the 'lessons learned from Iraq' choice

Namely:
a) Do nothing and let Gaddafi win.
b) Aid the rebels as much as possible. (This does not include a ground invasion, due to the memory of Iraq.)
c) Aid Gaddafi to crush the rebels.
d) Aid the rebels as much as possible, primarily with air support - when Gaddafi falls, THEN swoop in and protect government infrastructure and assist the local's government transition.

One of the biggest mistake in the early Iraq war is failing to secure the government infrastructers/Banks/Museums/etc... AND firing the low-totem pole government worker bees.

Going into a nation and bombing the gak out of them and breaking things is the easy part. It's what should be done afterwards... and leaving the mess to the natives is a real gakky thing to do.