UK Politics Thread V: Upon This Blasted Heath

[Imperializt Russia]

We fucked up Libya royally, after fucking up Iraq somewhat, forgive me if it's now apparently "incorrect" to see Syria as maybe not the right thing to do.

Thank Christ the actual invasion was voted the shit down.

The civil war that emerged after the intervention was a lot different to the Iraqi insurgency. The Iraqi insurgency was sectarian and religious in nature, which made it extremely dangerous in contrast to the civil war that emerged in Libya, which was more ideological and based around the motivations of various warlords. I'd say that civil war is a lot better than a brutal dictator who was willing to slaughter his way to maintaining a grip on the country. Libya wanted something other than Gadaffi, the country was strongly united behind that cause and we gave them that.

Libya almost doesn't exist anymore, because of what we did.

That's on us. We didn't try and push towards where Libya should go, we were focused too much on "fuck Gaddafi". Then someone did, with a bayonet.

[Souseiseki]

There is a housing crisis. If the options are between doing nothing, building affordable houses, or building houses nobody can afford, the choice should be obvious

If you have a functioning heart yes, but I get the impression Lamadia might need a heart transplant.

did you deliberately paraphrase tony blair or was it a happy accident

[Wolfmanne2]

The civil war that emerged after the intervention was a lot different to the Iraqi insurgency. The Iraqi insurgency was sectarian and religious in nature, which made it extremely dangerous in contrast to the civil war that emerged in Libya, which was more ideological and based around the motivations of various warlords. I'd say that civil war is a lot better than a brutal dictator who was willing to slaughter his way to maintaining a grip on the country. Libya wanted something other than Gadaffi, the country was strongly united behind that cause and we gave them that.

Libya almost doesn't exist anymore, because of what we did.

That's on us. We didn't try and push towards where Libya should go, we were focused too much on "fuck Gaddafi". Then someone did, with a bayonet.

Cameron did mess up in terms of post-Libya stabilisation, but the intervention as a whole was a success. Would the Libyans who would have their families slaughtered by Gadaffi rather have that or a civil war with their former allies? People lived in fear of Gadaffi; he was once loved and did a lot of good, but Gadaffi being overthrown was an example of collective buyer's remorse. Had we'd not intervened, two things would have happened: the rebels would have won at a greater cost. The other is that Gadaffi would have won and he would executed a reign of terror that would had been even more costly than the civil war that has ensued. In that the case we would be guilty of allowing deaths by inaction.

[Souseiseki]

Blair did mess up in terms of post-Iraq stabilisation, but the intervention as a whole was a success. Would the Iraqis who would have their families slaughtered by Saddam rather have that or a civil war with their former allies? People lived in fear of Saddam; he was loved and did a lot of good, but Saddam being overthrown was an example of collective buyer's remorse. Had we'd not intervened, two things would have happened: the rebels would have won at a greater cost. The other is that Saddam would have won and he would executed a reign of terror that would had been even more costly than the civil war that has ensued. In that the case we would be guilty of allowing deaths by inaction.

[Ifreann]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/09/28/th-sound-to-vanish-from-english-language-by-2066-because-of-mult/

Thuck this. I'm not going to sound like an idiot by 2066.

Is this not how you lot talk now?

[Wolfmanne2]

Blair did mess up in terms of post-Iraq stabilisation, but the intervention as a whole was a success. Would the Iraqis who would have their families slaughtered by Saddam rather have that or a civil war with their former allies? People lived in fear of Saddam; he was loved and did a lot of good, but Saddam being overthrown was an example of collective buyer's remorse. Had we'd not intervened, two things would have happened: the rebels would have won at a greater cost. The other is that Saddam would have won and he would executed a reign of terror that would had been even more costly than the civil war that has ensued. In that the case we would be guilty of allowing deaths by inaction.

The sarcastic analogy doesn't make sense because the Iraq War and the Libyan Civil War aren't remotely comparable. For one Iraq was at peace prior to the Iraq War; Libya wasn't. If Saddam had decided he would start killing loads of people systematically in contrast to a few gassings of the occasional village, then intervention would be justifiable.

[Imperializt Russia]

Libya almost doesn't exist anymore, because of what we did.

That's on us. We didn't try and push towards where Libya should go, we were focused too much on "fuck Gaddafi". Then someone did, with a bayonet.

Cameron did mess up in terms of post-Libya stabilisation, but the intervention as a whole was a success. Would the Libyans who would have their families slaughtered by Gadaffi rather have that or a civil war with their former allies? People lived in fear of Gadaffi; he was loved and did a lot of good, but Gadaffi being overthrown was an example of collective buyer's remorse. Had we'd not intervened, two things would have happened: the rebels would have won at a greater cost. The other is that Gadaffi would have won and he would executed a reign of terror that would had been even more costly than the civil war that has ensued. In that the case we would be guilty of allowing deaths by inaction.

The intervention was not a success.
Intervention cannot stop at deposition of the former leader - that's a fucking copout and you know it.

[Philjia]

The civil war that emerged after the intervention was a lot different to the Iraqi insurgency. The Iraqi insurgency was sectarian and religious in nature, which made it extremely dangerous in contrast to the civil war that emerged in Libya, which was more ideological and based around the motivations of various warlords. I'd say that civil war is a lot better than a brutal dictator who was willing to slaughter his way to maintaining a grip on the country. Libya wanted something other than Gadaffi, the country was strongly united behind that cause and we gave them that.

Libya almost doesn't exist anymore, because of what we did.

That's on us. We didn't try and push towards where Libya should go, we were focused too much on "fuck Gaddafi". Then someone did, with a bayonet.

We got rid of Gaddafi. We just didn't fully consider what we wanted instead of Gaddafi.

[Souseiseki]

Blair did mess up in terms of post-Iraq stabilisation, but the intervention as a whole was a success. Would the Iraqis who would have their families slaughtered by Saddam rather have that or a civil war with their former allies? People lived in fear of Saddam; he was loved and did a lot of good, but Saddam being overthrown was an example of collective buyer's remorse. Had we'd not intervened, two things would have happened: the rebels would have won at a greater cost. The other is that Saddam would have won and he would executed a reign of terror that would had been even more costly than the civil war that has ensued. In that the case we would be guilty of allowing deaths by inaction.

The sarcastic analogy doesn't make sense because the Iraq War and the Libyan Civil War aren't remotely comparable. For one Iraq was at peace prior to the Iraq War; Libya wasn't. If Saddam had decided he would start killing loads of people systematically in contrast to a few gassings of the occasional village, then intervention would be justifiable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi%E2% ... h_conflict

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Shia ... ng_in_Iraq

[Imperializt Russia]

Blair did mess up in terms of post-Iraq stabilisation, but the intervention as a whole was a success. Would the Iraqis who would have their families slaughtered by Saddam rather have that or a civil war with their former allies? People lived in fear of Saddam; he was loved and did a lot of good, but Saddam being overthrown was an example of collective buyer's remorse. Had we'd not intervened, two things would have happened: the rebels would have won at a greater cost. The other is that Saddam would have won and he would executed a reign of terror that would had been even more costly than the civil war that has ensued. In that the case we would be guilty of allowing deaths by inaction.

The sarcastic analogy doesn't make sense because the Iraq War and the Libyan Civil War aren't remotely comparable. For one Iraq was at peace prior to the Iraq War; Libya wasn't. If Saddam had decided he would start killing loads of people systematically in contrast to a few gassings of the occasional village, then intervention would be justifiable.

Did you forget we maintained a no-fly-zone over Iraq between the two wars precisely because he was?

[Souseiseki]

saddam "a few gassings of the occasional village" hussein

[Wolfmanne2]

Cameron did mess up in terms of post-Libya stabilisation, but the intervention as a whole was a success. Would the Libyans who would have their families slaughtered by Gadaffi rather have that or a civil war with their former allies? People lived in fear of Gadaffi; he was loved and did a lot of good, but Gadaffi being overthrown was an example of collective buyer's remorse. Had we'd not intervened, two things would have happened: the rebels would have won at a greater cost. The other is that Gadaffi would have won and he would executed a reign of terror that would had been even more costly than the civil war that has ensued. In that the case we would be guilty of allowing deaths by inaction.

The intervention was not a success.
Intervention cannot stop at deposition of the former leader - that's a fucking copout and you know it.

It was a success in the terms of we gave the Libyan people an opportunity to decide their own future, but it was a failure in that we did not create the environment for that freedom to be used in a peaceful, constructive manner. I do think we should have done more and I think if Gordon Brown was presiding over the intervention rather than David Cameron that would have been done. I've never denied that Western inaction after the civil war has lead to the civil war that exists today, but saying you would have preferred Gadaffi winning with a bloody reprisal or a bloodier civil war with a rebel victory isn't kosher to me.

[Vassenor]

To the people who say there is no overcrowding on British trains I submit the journey I just had where I was stood all the way from Derby to Birmingham.

[Wolfmanne2]

The sarcastic analogy doesn't make sense because the Iraq War and the Libyan Civil War aren't remotely comparable. For one Iraq was at peace prior to the Iraq War; Libya wasn't. If Saddam had decided he would start killing loads of people systematically in contrast to a few gassings of the occasional village, then intervention would be justifiable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi%E2% ... h_conflict

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Shia ... ng_in_Iraq

None of these can be defined as a civil war.

saddam "a few gassings of the occasional village" hussein

You're the one who'd rather have Saddam still in power to this day.

[Great Nepal]

We got rid of Gaddafi. We just didn't fully consider what we wanted instead of Gaddafi.

...Britain apparently has strong opinions on what it doesn't like; but has major problem deciding the alternative it wants.

[Souseiseki]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi%E2% ... h_conflict

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Shia ... ng_in_Iraq

None of these can be defined as a civil war.

saddam "a few gassings of the occasional village" hussein

You're the one who'd rather have Saddam still in power to this day.

why is one rebellion more valuable than the other?

[Imperializt Russia]

The intervention was not a success.
Intervention cannot stop at deposition of the former leader - that's a fucking copout and you know it.

It was a success in the terms of we gave the Libyan people an opportunity to decide their own future, but it was a failure in that we did not create the environment for that freedom to be used in a peaceful, constructive manner. I do think we should have done more and I think if Gordon Brown was presiding over the intervention rather than David Cameron that would have been done. I've never denied that Western inaction after the civil war has lead to the civil war that exists today, but saying you would have preferred Gadaffi winning with a bloody reprisal or a bloodier civil war with a rebel victory isn't kosher to me.

Have you considered a career in spin?

[Souseiseki]

do you not see any incongruity between "supporting libya was good because otherwise gaddafi would have brutally crushed them" and "the rebellions in iraq don't count because saddam brutally crushed them"?

[Souseiseki]

By 1986 Iraqi leadership grew tired of the strengthening and non-loyal Kurdish entity in north Iraq and began a genocidal campaign, known as Al-Anfal, to oust the Kurdish fighters and take revenge on the Kurdish population—an act often described as the Kurdish genocide, with an estimated 50,000–200,000 casualties.

Destruction of 4,500 villages and massacre of civilian population.

Sweden, Norway and the United Kingdom officially recognize the Anfal campaign as genocide.

[Wolfmanne2]

It was a success in the terms of we gave the Libyan people an opportunity to decide their own future, but it was a failure in that we did not create the environment for that freedom to be used in a peaceful, constructive manner. I do think we should have done more and I think if Gordon Brown was presiding over the intervention rather than David Cameron that would have been done. I've never denied that Western inaction after the civil war has lead to the civil war that exists today, but saying you would have preferred Gadaffi winning with a bloody reprisal or a bloodier civil war with a rebel victory isn't kosher to me.

Have you considered a career in spin?

It's my heartfelt opinion, call it spin if you like. I think civil war is by far preferable to a bloody reprisal.

None of these can be defined as a civil war.


You're the one who'd rather have Saddam still in power to this day.

why is one rebellion more valuable than the other?

None had a realistic chance in overthrowing Saddam and none were even ongoing by 2003. There's a reason why Bush didn't go under the pretenses of 'there was a rebellion in 1999, it's been defeated, but Clinton should have done something and I'm going to do what he would have done'.

There's a line between an insurgency and a civil war. An insurgency is a relatively small thing that does not affect the viability of the existing state; a civil war or revolution in contrast does.

By 1986 Iraqi leadership grew tired of the strengthening and non-loyal Kurdish entity in north Iraq and began a genocidal campaign, known as Al-Anfal, to oust the Kurdish fighters and take revenge on the Kurdish population—an act often described as the Kurdish genocide, with an estimated 50,000–200,000 casualties.

You dislike the Iraq War, yet you argue for it. I too see it as genocide.

[Souseiseki]

You dislike the Iraq War, yet you argue for it. I too see it as genocide.

If Saddam had decided he would start killing loads of people systematically in contrast to a few gassings of the occasional village, then intervention would be justifiable.

then we have two conflicting positions, genocide being literally defined as the systematic killing of people

[Wolfmanne2]

You dislike the Iraq War, yet you argue for it. I too see it as genocide.

If Saddam had decided he would start killing loads of people systematically in contrast to a few gassings of the occasional village, then intervention would be justifiable.

then we have two conflicting positions

I didn't mean it like that, I was talking about isolated incidents. In the context of the wider Kurdish genocide that would had been some justification. Whether it would have been feasible in light of what else was going on is a different story, seeing that stagflation was ongoing, the Soviet Union was in existence, the US had pulled out of Vietnam not too long ago etc.

[Imperializt Russia]

Have you considered a career in spin?

It's my heartfelt opinion, call it spin if you like. I think civil war is by far preferable to a bloody reprisal.

I believe it's far worse as it's far more disruptive.

Your post is exactly what I would expect from a spin doctor. Change one word in the first sentence and it's a Tory justifying Brexit.

[Wolfmanne2]

It's my heartfelt opinion, call it spin if you like. I think civil war is by far preferable to a bloody reprisal.

I believe it's far worse as it's far more disruptive.

Your post is exactly what I would expect from a spin doctor. Change one word in the first sentence and it's a Tory justifying Brexit.

But me and you both think that the EU isn't a brutal collective dictatorship, so the analogy falls apart there, as we'd both agree that Gadaffi was a brutal dictator.

[Imperializt Russia]

I believe it's far worse as it's far more disruptive.

Your post is exactly what I would expect from a spin doctor. Change one word in the first sentence and it's a Tory justifying Brexit.

But me and you both think that the EU isn't a brutal collective dictatorship, so the analogy falls apart there, as we'd both agree that Gadaffi was a brutal dictator.

I'm talking about your word choice and how it's structured.

It's identikit manufactured phrasing, is me point.