Broad Oak: your emotional support animal

Sunday, December 06, 2015

It was bound to happen

David Cameron says bombing IS in Syria will make UK 'safer'

David Cameron says launching UK air strikes against Islamic State militants in Syria will "make us safer".
 
The prime minister denied claims it would make the UK a bigger target for terror attacks, as he made the case for military action, in the Commons.

- BBC News, 26 November 2015

__________________________

Leytonstone Tube station stabbing a 'terrorist incident'

A stabbing at a Tube station in east London is being treated as a "terrorist incident", the Met Police has said.
 
Police were called to reports of people being attacked at Leytonstone around 19:00 GMT on Saturday. The knifeman reportedly shouted "this is for Syria".

- BBC News, 06 December 2015

__________________________

Peter Oborne: "Why I'm cheering for Corbyn... even though I utterly disagree with much of what he says!"

Let’s imagine, by contrast, that Jeremy Corbyn had been directing British foreign policy over the past 15 years. British troops would never have got involved in the Iraq debacle, and never have been dispatched on their doomed mission to Helmand province. British intelligence agents would not be facing allegations that they were complicit in torture.
 
Hundreds of British troops who died in these Blairite adventures (which were endorsed by Cameron) would still be alive.
 
Furthermore, the world would now be a safer place. Tony Blair’s invasion of Iraq and David Cameron’s attack on Libya have created huge ungoverned zones of anarchy across the Middle East and North Africa, in which terrorist groups fester and from which migrants flee.
 
That is why Conservative claims that Jeremy Corbyn would jeopardise our national security are so wrong-headed. His foreign policy advice has often been wiser by far than the foreign policy establishment.
 
- Daily Mail, 26 September 2015
 
__________________________

Remember that the Conservatives whipped their MPs on the Syria vote, and Labour permitted a free vote.

Remember that Corbyn is slagged off by the political Establishment (Blairite on both sides of the House) - ably assisted by our news media - for being (a) weak and (b) a bully. I think Cameron fits the bill far better, on both counts. So did Blair; his strength came from having pit bulls around him.

I don't vote for either party, but I know which currently nauseates me more.


READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

7 comments:

A K Haart said...

If Corbyn turns out to be the kind of leader who loses elections then Osborne’s alternative history is not a feasible one. In which case we go on to ask how it is that Blair and Cameron are the leaders we ended up with? I’ve not seen a convincing explanation.

Sackerson said...

@AKH:

What's Osborne's alternative history?

B and C are explained, I think, by the way that the poltical parties have learned to game the system, making the right noises to sway the swing voters in key seats and also ensuring that the narrative is taken up by the mainstream media. That, and rigging the economy with reckless monetary expansion (and the occasional stroke of good fortune such as North Sea oil). The hope, for them as for the rest of us, is that disaster may be inevitable but we shan't live to see it and they won't live to be hanged for it..

Sackerson said...

Oh I see, Oborne, I keep doing that myself.

Paddington said...

In the US, the conservatives want more war. Partly because a lot of their backers supply the weapons, partly since it keeps down unemployment, and mostly because it takes attention away from the erosion of the economy and opportunities for 'regular' people.

James Higham said...

Remember that the Conservatives whipped their MPs on the Syria vote

No, the Cameron Neo-Con Tories did. Conservatives are a different people. See OoL's Mike for the difference.

Paddington said...

Well, the Tea Party is pushing for more war. If I recall Mike's comments today, he considers them to be 'real' conservatives.

Sackerson said...

P: I think you might mean James?