Syria

  • 9.5K Views
  • Last Post 2 weeks ago
Coxford_lou posted this 06 November 2015 - Last edited 22 February 2016

I refuse to contribute more to a thread entitled Russia 'resolving' the Syria crisis, so am starting a new one.

Diane Abbott = lou_sad

 

485 Comments
Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
pap posted this 07 November 2015 - Last edited 07 November 2015

Shame.  Was framed as a question. Still, nice to have you on the political again.   Did you have any thoughts about Syria?

Coxford_lou posted this 07 November 2015

Of course I have thought about Syria. I have thoughts about most things. Thanks for asking. 

Barry Sanchez posted this 07 November 2015

We should stay the fuck out, no bombing, no funding sides, nothing but helping the refugees.

Coxford_lou posted this 07 November 2015

Originally posted by Barry Sanchez

We should stay the fuck out, no bombing, no funding sides, nothing but helping the refugees.

 Well, you've got Diane Abbott championing your cause, so good luck to you.

pap posted this 07 November 2015

Thing is, it's not enough to say that Diane Abbott is crap.  You have to say why, which normally involves setting out your own position.

Barry Sanchez posted this 07 November 2015

Originally posted by Coxford_lou

Originally posted by Barry Sanchez

We should stay the fuck out, no bombing, no funding sides, nothing but helping the refugees.

 Well, you've got Diane Abbott championing your cause, so good luck to you.

Jesus, I'll renege on that then..................

Coxford_lou posted this 07 November 2015

Originally posted by pap

Thing is, it's not enough to say that Diane Abbott is crap.  You have to say why, which normally involves setting out your own position.

 No I don't. It's a free country, and I can do what I like. 

If you want to respect me less for it, that's up to you, I'm fine with that.

But I definitely don't have to do what you want me to do. 

saintbletch posted this 07 November 2015

Originally posted by Coxford_lou

Originally posted by pap

Thing is, it's not enough to say that Diane Abbott is crap.  You have to say why, which normally involves setting out your own position.

 No I don't. It's a free country, and I can do what I like. 

If you want to respect me less for it, that's up to you, I'm fine with that.

But I definitely don't have to do what you want me to do. 

You really know how to get under pap's skin, Lou.

Have we taught you nothing here?

Barry Sanchez posted this 07 November 2015

Originally posted by pap

Thing is, it's not enough to say that Diane Abbott is crap.  You have to say why, which normally involves setting out your own position.

Will she is a cock stuck in the 70's suffice?

  • Liked by
  • Goatboy
  • Coxford_lou
Bucks posted this 07 November 2015 - Last edited 07 November 2015

Originally posted by pap

Thing is, it's not enough to say that Diane Abbott is crap.  You have to say why, which normally involves setting out your own position.

No, because its very clear why she is in trouble, if you watch the clip, irrespective of your views.  I appreciate she is not a Tory in trouble though.

  • Liked by
  • Coxford_lou
Goatboy posted this 07 November 2015

Originally posted by Coxford_lou

Originally posted by pap

Thing is, it's not enough to say that Diane Abbott is crap.  You have to say why, which normally involves setting out your own position.

 No I don't. It's a free country, and I can do what I like. 

If you want to respect me less for it, that's up to you, I'm fine with that.

But I definitely don't have to do what you want me to do. 

 

Coxford_lou posted this 07 November 2015

lol! I'm rebelling against Papster. Fuck the establishment! lou_wink

Bearsy posted this 07 November 2015

woah this is getting syrious.

  • Liked by
  • Spudders
pap posted this 07 November 2015

Fair dos.  I was merely comparing the context that the thread was started with.  Not for me, ta.  Bazza does a better cold open lou_lol

pap posted this 07 November 2015

Originally posted by Coxford_lou

 No I don't. It's a free country, and I can do what I like. 

It isn't, and you can't.   But don't blame me for that.   Blame the people that have made certain parts of speech illegal, and are sending the OB round to arrest people for what they've said on Twitter.

If you want to respect me less for it, that's up to you, I'm fine with that.

I respect the thread less.   There are millions of people displaced, no indication as to why you utterly reject the idea of Russia doing what the West has been unable to do (they're the bad guys, right?  I know.  I've seen Red Dawn too lou_lol) and the narrowing of the argument into Diane fucking Abbot.

It's a piss poor politically motivated opening to a topic that affects millions of people.

But I definitely don't have to do what you want me to do. 

This is true. 

Coxford_lou posted this 07 November 2015

Originally posted by pap

I respect the thread less.   There are millions of people displaced, no indication as to why you utterly reject the idea of Russia doing what the West has been unable to do (they're the bad guys, right?  I know.  I've seen Red Dawn too lou_lol) and the narrowing of the argument into Diane fucking Abbot.

It's a piss poor politically motivated opening to a topic that affects millions of people.

Well, clearly I dispute that.  I just don't want to be involved in the thread talking about Russia bombing Syria, where you're pitching the Russia approach as something to be celebrated. That's not me playing funny games, or playing politics. That's just straight up where I stand on it. 

The Diane Abbott clip is a perfect encapsulation to me of how the Stop The War Coalition and others on the hard left have no interest in hearing the voices of those affected, when those voices don't fit their moral stance. The Syrians are begging the West to get involved. 

I perfectly understand the realpolitik argument of Russia supporting Assad, don't get me wrong. But the reality of that approach, is those that have been oppressed by a dictator, are now being bombed by friends of Assad. That makes me sick in the stomach. You say you stand for the revolution. This is a real revolution.

You keep asking me to state my position on this, but I've already answered that question. I don't think there is any solution that doesn't have high risk of failure, whether humanitarian intervention, supporting local uprisings etc etc. But doing nothing doesn't sit well with me either, and I believe the world should be taking humanitarian responsibility for issues like this. So I watch, I read, I listen, I form view points, and I have hope the region will progress.

And while I occasionally put in a counter argument here when most frustrated, I have zero desire to get sucked into a deep debate about the issue with those who are so far off my viewpoint on it. Or who have a generally anti-West viewpoint.

I don't know what could be clearer than that.

Goatboy posted this 07 November 2015

I bet Diane Abbott likes sausage.

  • Liked by
  • Coxford_lou
  • BTripz
pap posted this 07 November 2015

Syria has long been used as a means of proxy war by various Western-leaning interests.  If Furball were still here, he'd talk about the atrocities that Assad's father committed writ large upon his people.   I'm not condoning nor excusing that, but Assad is the recognised head of a nation, and besides, there was a deal on the table last year to take him out of the picture, brokered by the Russians, which the West wanted no part in.

Russia's presence, at the request of the recognised Syrian authority, is legal under international law.   Besides, the West is more than happy to prop up dictatorial regimes when it is in their interests.  We're top mates with Saudi Arabia, sell crowd control gear to oppressive regimes like Bahrain and historically, have had a history of ignoring human suffering if it is being done in our interests.

So we can't play the moral card, because when it comes down to it, we've proven over the decades that we will consistently oust democratically returned governments in favour of something else, such as napalmed warzones dealing with the lingering effects of Agent Orange, dictators like Pinochet being allowed to wreak havoc in Chile for decades, as long as he played ball.   Mossadegh, Iran, 1953 - wanted to nationalise the oil interests of his country, ousted and replaced by the Shah's regime, complete with death squads for any relenters.

The sphere of interests that you are protecting routinely goes to war because countries democratically choose leaders they do not like, or adopt new government forms.  

You can call me anti-Western for disagreeing with this, but I fundamentally disagree with the arrogance of that position, and the death it has caused.

Who the fuck are we to choose?

  • Liked by
  • JBoy
  • Jack Schitt
Coxford_lou posted this 07 November 2015

You choose the side of democracy and progress, and you criticise it come hell or high water until it does it better. And you choose the side of the people. I thought that's what you're all about - not this odd 'recognised head of a nation' respect. You're letting your dislike for how things have been done in this past cloud your judgement on the reality of what is happening on the ground. I get the critique of the west. I get the realpolitik argument. But that's where it ends for me.

Diane Abbott should have listened to the Syrians and she should have argued why she didn't believe getting involved was the right thing to do even though civilians were being bombed. But she didn't have the balls. I expect more from the left and from the Labour Party.

Fatso posted this 07 November 2015

I agree she should have listened to the Syrians - but are those Syrians representative of the country? Imagine if someone asked some Brits their thoughts on politics and they chose SWF as their sample group?