Britain - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ross
  • 13,454 comments
  • 769,584 views

How will you vote in the 2024 UK General Election?

  • Conservative Party

    Votes: 2 6.9%

  • Green Party

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Labour Party

    Votes: 14 48.3%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 2 6.9%

  • Other (Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland)

    Votes: 1 3.4%

  • Other Independents

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other Parties

    Votes: 2 6.9%

  • Spoiled Ballot

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Will Not/Cannot Vote

    Votes: 8 27.6%
  • Total voters
    29
  • Poll closed .
Keef
Anybody know why they always play "America" whenever a British driver wins an F1 race? Uggghhhhhhhh.
Click to expand...

The question is why the Colonies took a piece of John Bull/Purcell and did all that "My country 'tis of thee" stuff, very odd :D
 
The coverage of the parliamentary vote and some of the notes has been incredibly frustrating when the question has been raised as to why the vote doesn't include action in Syria.

It's incredibly simple. Iraq has asked us to intervene. And so we are legally allowed to act.

We have not been asked to fight in Syria. Therefore we would be attacking a sovereign nation. And after all the criticisms of previous legality of war, why is it even a discussion! ?
 
ExigeEvan
The coverage of the parliamentary vote and some of the notes has been incredibly frustrating when the question has been raised as to why the vote doesn't include action in Syria.

It's incredibly simple. Iraq has asked us to intervene. And so we are legally allowed to act.

We have not been asked to fight in Syria. Therefore we would be attacking a sovereign nation. And after all the criticisms of previous legality of war, why is it even a discussion! ?
Click to expand...

Action in Syria would also be legal if requested by Iraq given the uncontrolled nature of that region of Syria (the Syrian government can't act) and it's resultant weight on IS's "Iraqi Front". Still, I'm glad that the Houses are keeping from Syria at the moment, that's a very convoluted situation at the moment.
 
haitch40
Since I mostly follow a realist line I have to ask. Who cares about legality of conflict? All states are selfish.
Click to expand...
If I felt it was a conflict that threatened the UK then the legal system can wait. But it doesn't. This is a conflict for the region that can only be settled by the region. If we are participating then we should do so in a way that is welcomed by the international community and not justified after the fact.

I still think it's pointless launching air strikes against an insurgency and with only a limited ground presence. You can not hold ground or identify and execute (extremely fluid) targets that way.
 
haitch40
Who cares about legality of conflict?
Click to expand...

The Hague.

The illegality of conflict has resulted in pretty much any war before 1945. Think of any British war, conflict and battle in earlier periods of history and you'll find something which did not have the consent of the people. There might also be a correlation between British engagements and levels of aristocracy power.

I hate war, it's nothing more than a contest to see who has the biggest d**k or whose god has the biggest d**k. Which gives me problems because we live in a world where there already are wars and already is violence. Pacifism alone cannot solve it. It makes me very uncomfortable.
 
Liquid
I hate war, it's nothing more than a contest to see who has the biggest d**k or whose god has the biggest d**k. Which gives me problems because we live in a world where there already are wars and already is violence. Pacifism alone cannot solve it. It makes me very uncomfortable.
Click to expand...

You know better than that. There is nothing analogous about a schlong-measuring contest and protecting ones interests - whatever they may be - oil, land, votes... Perhaps in a cold-war situation, but I guess that is not the war you object to.

War is an interesting thing, it panders to the basic human need to fight and kill, it will never go away - if everyone were equal, and had everything they wanted, it might go away... but somebody somewhere is always going to want to "get their gun off", and when that person is in charge, moves will be made, and people will have to counter. Wars wouldn't happen if the soldier, airman, seaman didn't pull the trigger.
 
Liquid
The Hague.

The illegality of conflict has resulted in pretty much any war before 1945. Think of any British war, conflict and battle in earlier periods of history and you'll find something which did not have the consent of the people. There might also be a correlation between British engagements and levels of aristocracy power.

I hate war, it's nothing more than a contest to see who has the biggest d**k or whose god has the biggest d**k. Which gives me problems because we live in a world where there already are wars and already is violence. Pacifism alone cannot solve it. It makes me very uncomfortable.
Click to expand...
The Hague? :lol:
That is all UN based. Following a strict realist principle the UN is useless. As long as the major players support the action no one cares.

International law is not binding. It is up to the states to collectively seek action.
 
@haitch40 You ask who cares about the legality of war. The Hague cares. Is that incorrect?

You did not ask who actually conducts legal warfare, only whom it concerns.
 
As far as the US is concerned, we are bombing in Syria, and nothing is ever off the table, including preemptive 1st-strike nuclear war against anyone who threatens what we consider to be our vital interests.

Indeed it does not matter that there is no explicit Congressional approval, nor that there is no Constitutional rationale, nor that there is no mandate from the UN, nor that there is no permission from Syria.

Bombing in Syria is justified by the ends we seek to achieve; the rollback and destruction of ISIS. Let me say it as plainly as possible: the ends justify the means. As a major corollary we can add that might makes right. Assuming we win, we will write the history, and the little men with pointy heads and thick glasses at The Hague will be grinning from ear to ear.
 
Boris talks to brick :lol: tells it... 'You will not be alone'

1412089053-6191115c39212652f7a28491e34afb06-1038x576.jpg

1412089081-14e6abfeaa314cfb849c13c2bbf73738-600x400.jpg

1412089088-2291a95e52b2590022ca0635c586f807-600x395.jpg




Oh Boris, never change.
 
Liquid
Buffoon.

Yet the dangerous thing is that he is shrewder than his genial, P G Wodehouse public persona lets on.
Click to expand...

An extremely intelligent man and politician. I feel he could genuinely lead an old-Blue push from inside the party (rather like the Tory grass-roots wave that lifted Cameron and Osborne above the unremarkable Hague/IDS/Howard flotsam) to seal the Eurosceptic deal and to close book on the sorry Con-Dem era. If he did that I think there could be a real chance of him being Prime Minister.
 
Somewhat ironic given that he is from that certain stock reviled in some quarters.

He's a toff, but he's the people's toff thanks to a comically bumbling public life. Actors win votes.
 
Touring Mars
"You have permission to purr, Dave..." :lol:
Click to expand...

Owns him with the friendly diminutive while carefully placing him in the public gaze for the excruciating gaffe... while everyone else in the hall laughs. Boris at his finest, I'd say. I wonder if Boris's tyres were flat when he got back to the majoral Jaaaag, I didn't see Wormtongue Osborne anywhere in that clip?
 
Liquid
Yet the dangerous thing is that he is shrewder than his genial, P G Wodehouse public persona lets on.
Click to expand...

Exactly, the persona is very cleverly crafted and it's a very likeable one. He is actually just as shrewd as the next politician.

London would have fallen apart by now if he truly was the man he appears to be :lol: and the chances of him becoming a PM and then leader of a party are very real.

This is still my favourite Boris moment, you can see the worry on Seb Coe's face when he sees where this speech is going :sly:

 
Robin.
London would have fallen apart by now if he truly was the man he appears to be
Click to expand...
I'll see your Boris Johnson, and raise you a Clive Palmer. He's Boris without brains.

Anyway, I was surprised to see the divisions within the Conservative Party make the evening news down here. It must be pretty bad if the intra-party politics of another country get coverage on the other side of the world.

England, please look at our example of precisely what you should not do. Bickering and in-fighting have given us unstable political parties where power-brokers double- and triple-cross one another, "political debate" is little more than politicians seeing who can shout catchphrases louder and for longer, and the end result is a series of unpopular minority governments where the national interest is the first casualty in the war of political points-scoring and a deep cynicism directed towards all politicians by the public.
 

Latest Posts

Back