Cameron won the vote on Syria

[carlton43]

I was very glad of that vote and the Cameron response at the time. I feel we are always too quick to join pointless military adventures, especially in the Middle East. We tend to enter them with far too little examination of the nature and prospects for our military and political objectives.....and often with no thoughts at all as to end game and exit strategy.

Is there anyone on this site prepared to try and convince me that the recent long campaign in Afghanistan had any benefits at all to Britain, our reputation, our finances or our safety? Did we leave it in better military and political shape? Is the Taliban completely destroyed? Have we completely eliminated the growing of opium poppies? Are the various warlords dead or utterly defeated? Is the influence of Pakistan, fundamentalist Islam and subversive organisations much diminished? Are women free from oppression and able to gain education and employment at their own will? Have any of the hard won areas of land been lost back to some form of insurgency? Well, we know the answers. And the cost of that utter shambles was just how much per head of the population? And for what may one ask?

I am a strong believer in a foreign policy of masterly inactivity, very strong on first class diplomacy, honesty and straight dealing.........but mainly staying completely out of the affairs of others unless our interests are seriously affected. There is no activity at all I would have supported from Korea through to Syria now...except for the Falklands campaign. We should do our best to say the right thing and to deny arms and supplies to all sides. I would support a major powers joint task force to quash problems that affect world trade, piracy, the flow of oil or access to scarce resources. Not a UN force as that institution has too much small state nonsense voting and no proper decisions are usually taken. I would like to see India, China, Russia and America to decide together directly to knock heads together or just crush any stupidity. But I don't want Britain taking unilateral action or coat-tailing America or being over influenced by Israel.

[East Anglian Lefty]

Would you care if the Afghanistan campaign had accomplished anything?

I disagree with neocons, but I retain a special, burning contempt for foreign policy 'realists'.

[pomofaced]

We still bombed Syria in the end.

But it was an inspiring moment of commons democracy and a respectful response by Cameron at the time. I'll also add that nauseating Galloway, whom I would say is one of the few public figures I hate, gave a good speech during that debate, which I watched for hours.

Foreign Policy Realists are certainly gaining back some lost ground on the question of being 'right' since liberal interventionalism was top of the pops from the 90s until the mid-2000s. Caution in such actions appears to be vindicated on the whole in this era.

And also I would add neo-conservatism is the most misunderstood political position of the last 20 years. I've had so many arguments over what it is, its history and influence over the Bush administration its hard to count. The early 'neo-cons' are the most interesting, people like Sidney Hook (liked to be known as a Cold War Liberal) for example really understood the weakness of liberal societies and external threats without being a fascist like someone like Carl Schmitt.

[carlton43]

Sept 3, 2015 22:40:19 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

Would you care if the Afghanistan campaign had accomplished anything?

I disagree with neocons, but I retain a special, burning contempt for foreign policy 'realists'.

I am prepared to answer but am uncertain what your question means?

[Deleted]

Sept 3, 2015 22:40:19 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

Would you care if the Afghanistan campaign had accomplished anything?

I disagree with neocons, but I retain a special, burning contempt for foreign policy 'realists'.

& of course they are not a new phenomenon...

"a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing"

[carlton43]

Sept 4, 2015 8:00:28 GMT @robin said:

Sept 3, 2015 22:40:19 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

Would you care if the Afghanistan campaign had accomplished anything?

I disagree with neocons, but I retain a special, burning contempt for foreign policy 'realists'.

& of course they are not a new phenomenon...

"a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing"

Is that the point behind EAL's remark?  If so, a sort of trade off between me castigating him as an over-emotional, hand-wringing 'Something Must Be Done' even if we have no idea what that something should be..........to him castigating me with your pithy quote above, and to which I will in part concede, even though we do now know a fair amount (but never as must as we think we do!) about such places that are nothing like so far away as once they were?
 
I am not an internationalist, nor a believer in the divine mission of the west to put right the sins of the world, nor a subscriber to the mantra of feeling we must help every lame dog we find in the streets of the world. For instance, seeing a picture of a drowned child on a beach makes not one whit of difference to me because I know that large numbers of people are drowning daily and that must include some children. Children are dying of malnutrition and disease and snake-bite and old land mines daily all over the world. Not much I can do about it and the body on the beach in Turkey makes no difference except to the vacuous emotion led fools. The facts have not changed by a single photo. Nothing has changed. But it seems a whole attitude and a national policy might change because of that gormless reaction by a man demonstrating total unfitness to be PM......if he does alter policy because of it.

We need to wise up to our economic and political reality and do and say far far less. We all interfere too much and get involved in matters that are literally 'none of our business'. Don't bore me with more tedious quotes along the lines of 'No man is an island.....' Yes we are if we wish to be or it suits us to be. Bad things happen in the world all of the time. We can't put them all right or even stop them happening. People have the ability to move about more readily than once they did. We can't accommodate large quantities of them every time something goes wrong somewhere in the world, even if we wanted to. And I make no secret at all of NOT wanting to. 

[Richard Cromwell]

I think a second question could now be asked: With the benefit of hindsight, how MPs vote?

[The Bishop]

An utterly risible claim by Pollard in all respects, and some even more deranged stuff in the replies.

(and in actual fact, Farron did not vote in 2013 - and supported action in the debate two years later)

[Richard Cromwell]

Feb 23, 2022 13:28:26 GMT The Bishop said:

An utterly risible claim by Pollard in all respects, and some even more deranged stuff in the replies.

(and in actual fact, Farron did not vote in 2013 - and supported action in the debate two years later)

To be clear, I wasn't meaning to include Pollard's tweet - it just shows up because it's the OP - just Farron's.