General Election 2015

[Westdene Seagull]

I suppose my point is that I am really very, very tired of the way politics has taken a turn in this country. It seems positive campaigning went out of the window around 20 years ago in favour of this tedious scaremongering.

No need for you to worry during this election then because that nice Mr Milliband promised on breakfast TV that Labour would run a positive campaign this time.

 

[Buzzer]

Of course I would want Syria to return to how it was... just like 99.9% of Syrians do. It lived under a dictatorship, sure, the people wanted democracy... but despite that it was a relatively peaceful, secular nation who was going forward culturally and economically... you would have had a great time if you visited as a tourist. Now look at it, it's been destroyed - the continuing death toll and suffering are unimaginable - Christians, Jews and all other faiths have had to seek refuge, if they were lucky, others massacred. It has become a terrorist factory set in a warzone. It's a terrible thing to see and most sad of all, it was all totally avoidable - Western nations just, for some reason, decided to aid the terrorists rather than attempting to restore peace or simply leaving it be.

99.9% of Syrians want a return to Assad's brutal dictatorship of yesteryear? I doubt it, I really do. As for returning a country to brutal dictatorship ("..you would have had a great time if you're a tourist! FFS!) does not mean that everything is fine. It's certainly not fine for the thousands of dissidents that Assad and his father have murdered over the years.

I'm not for one moment taking away from the mess that was made worse by Western dilettantism but the West did not create the situation in Syria; Assad and his fascist government did. All dictatorships fall because of their brutality.

 

[Buzzer]

Sanctions just don't work, they just inflict greater inequality and suffering on regular civilians. What did the decades of sanctions against Cuba actually achieve except poverty? How about the recent sanctions on Iran - or the current sanctions on Russia? Has more than half a century of sanctions on North Korea improved anything at all? They only inflict suffering and inequality onto regular people, not the leaders, that's why they don't work.

You better tell the people of South Africa that then because sanctions were what brought an end to apartheid. Why didn't sanctions against Cuba and North Korea work? Because unlike S Africa they weren't universal. Both regimes continued to be propped up by the Russians and Chinese.

Have you not considered that if it had relative wealth, there would be less of a need for gulag's and oppression?

Really? North Korean oppression of its own people is the fault of the Western world because we imposed sanctions on them? Not only DO sanctions work but morally and ethically they are the right thing to do. A minute ago you said that the West should have left Syria alone and not meddled in their politics. If we still disagree with their brutal regime then how else apart from sanctions are we supposed to exert pressure and how is it therefore right that we should be trading on a business as usual basis with a regime that we think is evil? Your arguments are all over the place.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Of course I would want Syria to return to how it was... just like 99.9% of Syrians do. It lived under a dictatorship, sure, the people wanted democracy... but despite that it was a relatively peaceful, secular nation who was going forward culturally and economically... you would have had a great time if you visited as a tourist. Now look at it, it's been destroyed - the continuing death toll and suffering are unimaginable - Christians, Jews and all other faiths have had to seek refuge, if they were lucky, others massacred. It has become a terrorist factory set in a warzone. It's a terrible thing to see and most sad of all, it was all totally avoidable - Western nations just, for some reason, decided to aid the terrorists rather than attempting to restore peace or simply leaving it be.

I've seen you spout some crap but seriously ..... you actually want a country returned to a dictator that has unleashed banned chemical weapons on his own people including children. That has set children alight using barrel bombs dropped from helicopters ?? REALLY ??

You moan about not being represented in the British parliament yet support a dictator ? You realise you're supporting a murderer and terrorist ?

 

[beorhthelm]

The sad reality of the Middle Eastern situation is that, unfortunately, they would be better off with their despots or dictators ruling with an iron fist, like they were before our intervention.

with the exception of Iraq we didnt do anything, they decided they didnt like their despots and dictators anymore. our intervention has then ranged from lacklustre to non-existant, reserved to some diplomatic statements of support. we certainly haven't forced democracy on any of those arab nations that chose revolution. other than these factual errors, you are probably right that they arent ready.

 

[pastafarian]

I am sure there are some great MP's.

Really? You think this?

You seem at odds with yourself.Only a few posts earlier you were saying.

but that's not what happens with the current system, where we have all our decisions made for us by crooked toffs in Westminster.

Westminster should be full of experts, scientists, economists and so on - not a bunch of public school boys who have been trained mainly to lie and deceive.

You think Westminster is full of public school boys?

its increasingly hard to take anything you say seriously when you are reduced to spouting baseless and deceptive soundbites. you would make a good politician though with your bunkum......or a good troll

keep up the good work.

 

[Buzzer]

- you either aren't aware of or don't appreciate what life is like there now, compared to how it was before.

I'm very well aware of what it was like before and why it was bound to descend into anarchy - because it was a brutal dictatorship. If it hadn't happened in the last year it would have happened soon anyway. Please read my responses, I made this very clear in the post that you quoted. Assad is to blame for the mess and none of your revisionist apologia - "authoritarian but not brutal" - changes that fact.

I suggest you read up on the Amnesty International website of what life was like under Assad.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

T
I don't support Assad, dictatorships, authoritarianism or nationalism - Syria had all of those, but it was a relatively peaceful and secular nation that was moving forward. I would imagine the people would have found democracy another way, ultimately.

And this country is relatively peaceful and, by world standards, prosperous yet you bang on and on about lack of democracy etc. Then in the next breath you state how wonderful Syria was without democracy. You really do tie yourself in knots and more often than not end up arguing against your own points. I'd suggest you get medical help.

 

[Buzzer]

I don't support Assad, dictatorships, authoritarianism or nationalism - Syria had all of those, but it was a relatively peaceful and secular nation that was moving forward.

As W Wonder has just said you bang on about anger in the UK reaching boiling point with regards lack of democracy and levels of inequality and SOMETHING should be done but in the next breath..in Syria where they live under one of the most oppressive regimes, you think that the people were generally okay and they should just put up with it without outside assistance because eventually something will turn up. Your arguments are contradictory and all over the place.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

As W Wonder has just said you bang on about anger in the UK reaching boiling point with regards lack of democracy and levels of inequality and SOMETHING should be done but in the next breath..in Syria where they live under one of the most oppressive regimes, you think that the people were generally okay and they should just put up with it without outside assistance because eventually something will turn up. Your arguments are contradictory and all over the place.

It's Westdene SEAGULL

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

This has gone a bit off track

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

It's Westdene SEAGULL

At least Buzzer didn't get you mixed up with Withdean Wanderer

 

[Mr Bridger]

They started it.

Ha ha, you Belfry. You sound like you're at school!

 

[Hastings gull]

The sad reality of the Middle Eastern situation is that, unfortunately, they would be better off with their despots or dictators ruling with an iron fist, like they were before our intervention. These countries are seemingly at a different point in history to what we are - or perhaps their current culture is just not compatible with democracy yet. Attempting to force democracy onto these countries has been disastrous. Syria, a once beautiful secular nation, has become perpetuating hell on earth, Iraqis are still victim to daily suicide bombings and it is a considerably worse place to live than under Saddam. Libya and Egypt are shadows of what they recently were, now severely at risk of being besieged by Islamists... and the last decade or so of extreme violence has resulted in a rise of extremism so great that Western countries are failing to control it, and the problem is likely to get worse, particularly if we continue to act violently ourselves towards that region.

I think you may have a point with regard to the lesser of two undoubted evils, sadly. It is just that I don't think that we can blame the West for everything that has happened. Whilst it is clearly not been as easy to graft on a democracy to these counties, unused to such a system, as we perhaps assumed it would be, the interventions did try to democratise the region. (yes, I know, we can be cynical about oil etc). And, of course, they don't have to resort to age-old animosities - they could actually sit round a table and agree on some sort of compromise.

 

[crookie]

To be fair to Mustafa I don't think any sane person could argue that living in Syria now is better than it was before the civil war started.

That said, although it was relatively peaceful, unless you were one of his tribe or cronies it is unlikely you would have made much for yourself and the absence of any political freedoms must have made it pretty stifling to young educated people who wanted a better life and some influence over their countries future.

In hindsight I'm sure the Government wished they had given serious assistance to the moderate FSA in the early months, but remember this was a pretty reg-tag grouping, an army in name only, so you'd never be sure where your weapons ended up.

The experience of Iraq has left huge scars and an understandable reluctance for Western Governments to intervene in the Middle-East. They only did so in Libya to prevent the certain massacre that would have occurred in Benghazi had Gaddafi's forces taken the City. The state of post Gaddafi Libya gives further justification to not intervening.

Syria is a tragedy, but I'm not sure there is a huge amount we ourselves could have done to prevent it, or make it less so.

 

[Mr Bridger]

Perhaps could have done with a icon or similar.

It's all a bit of fun

FUN! FUN!

Give me a heads up when your posts start to get a tad serious

 

[Gwylan]

The Ofcom ruling that the Greens don't count as a major political party but UKIP does has handed quite a boost to Labour. So, the debates will have UKIP present (who primarily take votes off Tories) while the Greens (who would primarily take votes off Labour) are absent. Ed must be rubbing his hands with glee at that ruling

 

[Titanic]

The Ofcom ruling that the Greens don't count as a major political party but UKIP does has handed quite a boost to Labour. So, the debates will have UKIP present (who primarily take votes off Tories) while the Greens (who would primarily take votes off Labour) are absent. Ed must be rubbing his hands with glee at that ruling

or Farage gets shown up for what he and his cronies really are... and the votes flood back to their safe blue haven?

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

The Ofcom ruling that the Greens don't count as a major political party but UKIP does has handed quite a boost to Labour. So, the debates will have UKIP present (who primarily take votes off Tories) while the Greens (who would primarily take votes off Labour) are absent. Ed must be rubbing his hands with glee at that ruling

I think the Greens will also take a large chunk out of the LibDem vote up and down the country.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

or Farage gets shown up for what he and his cronies really are... and the votes flood back to their safe blue haven?

You mean like Clegg did in the EU debate ?