[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Exactly what I was saying earlier:

But no one is against giving aid to displaced innocents' - only 'opportunists' who voluntarily leave their countries and travel 'Westward Ho' in search of 'La Dolce Vita' - and surely, it is not only naive to claim that these countries were completely stable 'paradises' even before our involvement, but also the degree of culpability that we have for the current 'Status Quo' is highly contentious.

Have you just rehashed this post from earlier? I have 'de ja vue'.

We can perform possibly illegal targeted drone strikes because Syria isn't a 'paradise'?

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Have you just rehashed this post from earlier? I have 'de ja vue'.

We can perform possibly illegal targeted drone strikes because Syria isn't a 'paradise'?

Yes, it is a re-hash, but no, I did not mean that Syria not being a paradise is justification for us bombing it.

To save me explaining, I will paste MTVN's excellent and truthful comments:

"Any UK military activity in Syria has been minimal and all very recent. We might have contributed to the destabilisation of the region but it is hardly as if Syria would be a haven without us or that there would be no civil war."

[Livia]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Yes, it is a re-hash, but no, I did not mean that Syria not being a paradise is justification for us bombing it.

To save me explaining, I will paste MTVN's excellent and truthful comments:

"Any UK military activity in Syria has been minimal and all very recent. We might have contributed to the destabilisation of the region but it is hardly as if Syria would be a haven without us or that there would be no civil war."

Didn't you actually say at the start of your post that you'd said the same thing earlier? It was quite clear.

MTVN's posts is excellent... very concise. And there have been no illegal strikes by us at Syria... as you probably know.

[Toy Soldier]

Wow. The last two pages of this thread only confirm that most people clearly have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about when I say that Britain has fingerprints all over this...

I'm not talking about some specific "involvement" that Britain has had, some military action that can be pointed to, "British foreign policy" or any of that... stuff.

I'm talking about the very fabric of the way the world has developed over the last several hundred years. Did we put Assad in power? No. Was the British Empire - which you may say is "now over", but upon which our entire wealth and comfortable way of life is founded - a huge part of the formation of the political situations in these countries? Yes. Absolutely.

Have we continued to use that power and influence and been complicit in the massively uneven distribution of wealth and global resources that is the root of pretty much every issue in the Middle East and Africa? Mmmmm... that would be a "yup", also.

Is it just Britain? No, of course not, plenty of others have benefitted their own citizens by raping the **** out of the rest of the world. Some may even feel like that's justified - "survival of the fittest" and all that - but what utterly baffles me is that people want to pretend like it didn't happen. Like our cosy homes aren't built on the backs of billions of the world's poorest. And that the things that are happening now aren't in any way related to that. It's just so, so blinkered.

We aren't the worst country in the world, not by a million miles. It's a good place to live. Many of the people are good, and enlightened, and kind. That's why people keep trying to get in. OBVIOUSLY living under the Assad regime would be worse. That's not the point or even close to it.

[the truth]

Britain or rather the monarchy and the elite brits have been heavily involved in almost every human tragedy the world has ever seen....most wars were started by the monarchy. the monarchy represent nothing but evil, period

hitler even got some of the idea for the horrific holocausts from the britsish concentration camps in africa....and what about the irish potatoe famine or even the indian famines as recently as 70 years ago

The Bengal Famine of 1943-44 must rank as the greatest disaster in the subcontinent in the 20th century. Nearly 4 million Indians died because of an artificial famine created by the British government, and yet it gets little more than a passing mention in Indian history books.

and while we are being real, we are not GREAT Britain , the word great is a geographical term not an adjective. the british empire was a disgrace, it was a bunch of greedy crooks exploiting the genius of the british workers and industrialists for their own filthy ill gotten gains. just look at the titanic. then world war 1? tens of millions died across the world, over a million brits dying in a mud bath for nothing for rich bastards...thank God for Lloyd George, the world greatest ever working class hero.

it wasn't 100% evil, we left some democracies sort of, we built some institutions, we pushed forward scientifically, but our cruelty and greed was unforgivable

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Wow. The last two pages of this thread only confirm that most people clearly have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about when I say that Britain has fingerprints all over this...

I'm not talking about some specific "involvement" that Britain has had, some military action that can be pointed to, "British foreign policy" or any of that... stuff.

I'm talking about the very fabric of the way the world has developed over the last several hundred years. Did we put Assad in power? No. Was the British Empire - which you may say is "now over", but upon which our entire wealth and comfortable way of life is founded - a huge part of the formation of the political situations in these countries? Yes. Absolutely.

Have we continued to use that power and influence and been complicit in the massively uneven distribution of wealth and global resources that is the root of pretty much every issue in the Middle East and Africa? Mmmmm... that would be a "yup", also.

Is it just Britain? No, of course not, plenty of others have benefitted their own citizens by raping the **** out of the rest of the world. Some may even feel like that's justified - "survival of the fittest" and all that - but what utterly baffles me is that people want to pretend like it didn't happen. Like our cosy homes aren't built on the backs of billions of the world's poorest. And that the things that are happening now aren't in any way related to that. It's just so, so blinkered.

We aren't the worst country in the world, not by a million miles. It's a good place to live. Many of the people are good, and enlightened, and kind. That's why people keep trying to get in. OBVIOUSLY living under the Assad regime would be worse. That's not the point or even close to it.

..I think though that the point to be focused on is the here and no and not how the here and now was got to because that won't change anything..?..I guess it's like, for us in out lives as individuals when we find ourselves in a place and may think ..oh if only/was that a right decision, a wrong one etc...but no amount of reflection will change anything..?...so its more about the now..(for me..)..and the moving forward from that/and how things can be 'put right'..and how we as a country can contribute toward that..this is a humanity issue/a world issue and every country needs to help, finger pointing blame does not give the migrants what they need and is no use to them at all....yes, the how did we get here also has some importance obviously to learn from things etc..and maybe not to do again..but I doubt that anything will be learned ..(by any country..)...enough for the world ever to be right, well that just won't ever happen will it...

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..I think though that the point to be focused on is the here and no and not how the here and now was got to because that won't change anything..?..I guess it's like, for us in out lives as individuals when we find ourselves in a place and may think ..oh if only/was that a right decision, a wrong one etc...but no amount of reflection will change anything..?...so its more about the now..(for me..)..and the moving forward from that/and how things can be 'put right'..and how we as a country can contribute toward that..this is a humanity issue/a world issue and every country needs to help, finger pointing blame does not give the migrants what they need and is no use to them at all....yes, the how did we get here also has some importance obviously to learn from things etc..and maybe not to do again..but I doubt that anything will be learned ..(by any country..)...enough for the world ever to be right, well that just won't ever happen will it...

The point is, though, that so many British people are rejecting the idea of taking in refugees / are vilifying refugees / would like to take the stance that it's not our fault and not our problem. It's wrong. In both senses of the word. It's morally wrong, and it's factually incorrect.

If more people were aware and accepting of that then maybe (probably not, but maybe) more people would be willing to see us help, spending more, doing more. Maybe if they realised that we do actually have a responsibility here, they would be more willing to stand up and let our government know that Britain should be doing more. Using more of our stolen wealth to help.

That said, when has the government ever listened to anything the citizens have to say? Especially this one. And if they're willing to trample on the backs of our own working poor then I guess expecting them to give a stuff about Johnny Foreigner is a stretch. So maybe it is pointless.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

Didn't you actually say at the start of your post that you'd said the same thing earlier? It was quite clear.

MTVN's posts is excellent... very concise. And there have been no illegal strikes by us at Syria... as you probably know.

Cameron, who had said that he would seek parliament’s approval before extending any British military action against Isis targets from Iraq to Syria, said he had acted in line with his commitments. He reserved the right to authorise strikes without a vote in the event of an emergency.

'However Jeremy Corbyn said: “I have questioned the legal basis for the use of drones. Urgent consideration now needs to be given to the appropriate process by which attacks such as this one are sanctioned, on what evidence and on what basis of law.”

Corbyn also said he was writing to the prime minister over his failure to accept his call for an international summit to address the Syrian refugee crisis. He said: “Further to the prime minister’s inadequate response in the chamber ... I am now writing to offer the prime minister the opportunity to explain his inadequate response to my request for an urgent summit involving the UN, [European Union] and the US on Syria and the refugee crisis.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...hting-for-isis

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..I think though that the point to be focused on is the here and no and not how the here and now was got to because that won't change anything..?..I guess it's like, for us in out lives as individuals when we find ourselves in a place and may think ..oh if only/was that a right decision, a wrong one etc...but no amount of reflection will change anything..?...so its more about the now..(for me..)..and the moving forward from that/and how things can be 'put right'..and how we as a country can contribute toward that..this is a humanity issue/a world issue and every country needs to help, finger pointing blame does not give the migrants what they need and is no use to them at all....yes, the how did we get here also has some importance obviously to learn from things etc..and maybe not to do again..but I doubt that anything will be learned ..(by any country..)...enough for the world ever to be right, well that just won't ever happen will it...

Why won't it, is it our legacy to pass on our ignorance to our children,
maybe no amount of reflection will change anything but if every generation accepts the will of Britain is strongest therefore we justify whatever we did/do as the 'greater good', but is it really... If you look at it objectively putting aside national pride has every decision we made been the right one?

[Livia]

Corbyn... LOL... Corbyn who pointedly turned his back on our troops returning after being in action? Corbyn the apologist? Don't make me laugh...

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Wow. The last two pages of this thread only confirm that most people clearly have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about when I say that Britain has fingerprints all over this...

I'm not talking about some specific "involvement" that Britain has had, some military action that can be pointed to, "British foreign policy" or any of that... stuff.

I'm talking about the very fabric of the way the world has developed over the last several hundred years. Did we put Assad in power? No. Was the British Empire - which you may say is "now over", but upon which our entire wealth and comfortable way of life is founded - a huge part of the formation of the political situations in these countries? Yes. Absolutely.

Have we continued to use that power and influence and been complicit in the massively uneven distribution of wealth and global resources that is the root of pretty much every issue in the Middle East and Africa? Mmmmm... that would be a "yup", also.

Is it just Britain? No, of course not, plenty of others have benefitted their own citizens by raping the **** out of the rest of the world. Some may even feel like that's justified - "survival of the fittest" and all that - but what utterly baffles me is that people want to pretend like it didn't happen. Like our cosy homes aren't built on the backs of billions of the world's poorest. And that the things that are happening now aren't in any way related to that. It's just so, so blinkered.

We aren't the worst country in the world, not by a million miles. It's a good place to live. Many of the people are good, and enlightened, and kind. That's why people keep trying to get in. OBVIOUSLY living under the Assad regime would be worse. That's not the point or even close to it.

I am saying no more as to this as I am truly stunned and disillusioned as to it.
However,I do have to say, your post above is brilliant and so I commend you for it,really well said.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

Corbyn... LOL... Corbyn who pointedly turned his back on our troops returning after being in action? Corbyn the apologist? Don't make me laugh...

Do you have a point to make about Mr Corbyns stance here?

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Do you have a point to make about Mr Corbyns stance here?

Did you have a point? Or are you just doing cut and paste today?

Corbyn's stance is neither here nor there. He's a bit of a joke. Hope he gets elected though. It'll make Labour more unelectable than ever before!

[lostalex]

this is why the UK system is so weird. people don't elect people, they elect parties. garden brown was never elected by the people to be PM, but he was PM for many years...

It just doesn't seem very democratic to me.

Every elected official should be an individual and vote however they like.

In the US, many Democrats are against abortion, or pro gun rights, they don't have to stick to the party. And they can be elected to president by the people, they don't have to be elected by just the party elite.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by lostalex

this is why the UK system is so weird. people don't elect people, they elect parties. garden brown was never elected by the people to be PM, but he was PM for many years...

It just doesn't seem very democratic to me.

Every elected official should be an individual and vote however they like.

In the US, many Democrats are against abortion, or pro gun rights, they don't have to stick to the party. And they can be elected to president by the people, they don't have to be elected by just the party elite.

Weeellll... Brown was only PM for 3 years, and that was after the resignation of Blair. I'm sure similar can happen in the US, unless "House of Cards" has been lying to me?? (Isn't the whole point that Kevin Spacey knows he won't be elected President, so he gets there through political manipulation instead...)

It's supposed to be that people elect a party here, choosing a representative in their local area and then the party with the majority of MPs getting into power and the party leader then being PM by default. However, I would say that since Thatcher, the elections have actually "unofficially" been very presidential and quite similar to US elections. For example, the one this year was very much about Cameron and Miliband, even in the press, and Miliband is probably the major reason for the Tory victory when it comes down to it. Also, as other examples, UKIP was all about Farage and the SNP in Scotland has been all about Alex Salmond and now Nicola Sturgeon.

The ballot papers may SAY that you're voting for your local candidate but... Most people are really voting for the leadership.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Weeellll... Brown was only PM for 3 years, and that was after the resignation of Blair. I'm sure similar can happen in the US, unless "House of Cards" has been lying to me?? (Isn't the whole point that Kevin Spacey knows he won't be elected President, so he gets there through political manipulation instead...)

It's supposed to be that people elect a party here, choosing a representative in their local area and then the party with the majority of MPs getting into power and the party leader then being PM by default. However, I would say that since Thatcher, the elections have actually "unofficially" been very presidential and quite similar to US elections. For example, the one this year was very much about Cameron and Miliband, even in the press, and Miliband is probably the major reason for the Tory victory when it comes down to it. Also, as other examples, UKIP was all about Farage and the SNP in Scotland has been all about Alex Salmond and now Nicola Sturgeon.

The ballot papers may SAY that you're voting for your local candidate but... Most people are really voting for the leadership.

No US president has ever stepped down just to give the position to his vice president. they have been forced out or assassinated, but nothing like the way british PM's step down to give power to a new party PM. The democratic party cannot vote Barack obama step down to give it to Joe biden. It's totally different.

And house of cards is pure crazy sic-fi level fiction.

[Ashley.]

I'm quite indifferent, if not undecided about where I stand. On the one hand, I love helping people, I get a feel-good feeling whenever I give change to a beggar and I'm quick to defend people who are victims of racism and homophobia, however on the other hand, it's annoying. Who are these people? Why are we letting in 20,000 willy nilly? Will they do harm to our country?

Is there a possibility that at least one of these 20,000 is an ISIS member, a terrorist or a wrong'un, wanting no more than to cause harm to our countries out of pure jealousy? Will British lives be lost if we keep letting them in? How could we possibly know? The answer is no, we don't know anything. We're taking a complete gamble here. Is it our job to help Syria? Not at all. We can put up the borders and send them back to wherever it was they came from, but they know we won't do that, because we're British, and god only knows that Syria will take advantage of this.

Britain is running on a very tight rope right now. Parliament need to think carefully about what they do next because if they make the smallest mistake, then they are going to be taking us down with them.

[JoshBB]

It's not willy-nilly, and 20 thousand is not even that many people in proportion to the amount of people who live here. I view it as a moral obligation to accept those fleeing war, especially those who are fleeing war which we have have exasperated.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Ashley.

I'm quite indifferent, if not undecided about where I stand. On the one hand, I love helping people, I get a feel-good feeling whenever I give change to a beggar and I'm quick to defend people who are victims of racism and homophobia, however on the other hand, it's annoying. Who are these people? Why are we letting in 20,000 willy nilly? Will they do harm to our country?

Is there a possibility that at least one of these 20,000 is an ISIS member, a terrorist or a wrong'un, wanting no more than to cause harm to our countries out of pure jealousy? Will British lives be lost if we keep letting them in? How could we possibly know? The answer is no, we don't know anything. We're taking a complete gamble here. Is it our job to help Syria? Not at all. We can put up the borders and send them back to wherever it was they came from, but they know we won't do that, because we're British. We're awkward, we help people who may not always return the favour, we fall hard for those who we love and we hit the ground that little harder, and god only knows that Syria will take advantage of this.

Britain is running on a very tight rope right now. Parliament need to think carefully about what they do next because if they make the smallest mistake, then they are going to be taking us down with them.

Its not willy nilly they are being taken from refugee camps and will have their paperwork, Willy nilly is when they cross open borders with no vetting as has happened in Germany

[Ashley.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Its not willy nilly they are being taken from refugee camps and will have their paperwork, Willy nilly is when they cross open borders with no vetting as has happened in Germany

How would we know that these people who have been put into these refugee camps are safe? How would we know?

[JoshBB]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Its not willy nilly they are being taken from refugee camps and will have their paperwork, Willy nilly is when they cross open borders with no vetting as has happened in Germany

I don't think Germany's approach could be described like that. As far as I know, people are still being background checked to ensure there are no threats to security, which is obviously the right thing to do.

Willy-Nilly would be to say "accept every single person who wants to come here" and letting in millions in one go, which I agree would be terrible for the refugees and the people who live here.

[Ashley.]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

It's not willy-nilly, and 20 thousand is not even that many people in proportion to the amount of people who live here. I view it as a moral obligation to accept those fleeing war, especially those who are fleeing war which we have have exasperated.

I agree, 20,000 people from Syria is tiny. But 20,000 people from the UK is a much larger percentage. David Cameron has already cut half the country off including people who work in the Emergency Services such as my father, how on earth would we be able to handle 20,000 more people to distribute money to?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

I don't think Germany's approach could be described like that. As far as I know, people are still being background checked to ensure there are no threats to security, which is obviously the right thing to do.

Willy-Nilly would be to say "accept every single person who wants to come here" and letting in millions in one go, which I agree would be terrible for the refugees and the people who live here.

Basically that is what Germany said, they would open their borders to all, they have changed their tune

[JoshBB]

Originally Posted by Ashley.

I agree, 20,000 people from Syria is tiny. But 20,000 people from the UK is a much larger percentage. David Cameron has already cut half the country off including people who work in the Emergency Services such as my father, how on earth would we be able to handle 20,000 more people to distribute money to?

Don't be fooled.

He has been pursuing his agenda of neoliberalism, and enforcing harsh cuts to journey our country to that path. That includes cuts to the NHS (including 66% to social care I believe the figure was), housing, and other public services.

It is sooo much easier for him to blame migrants than to sort this out, he doesn't want to acknowledge that cutting services brings them to breaking point so he is pointing fingers. Running scared. Not only that but austerity hinders growth.

Went a bit off-topic but I hope this made sense for you

[Kizzy]

There is already a few threads on this, I seem to be saying the same thing across a few different pages.