... is that sometimes he is just plain right.
He is on the subject of Bomber Dave's desire to join his mates who are already doing a pretty extensive job of reducing Isis held towns in Syria to heaps of rubble. Like Tone snuggling up, hands thrust into waistband of jeans, to George Bush by joining him in the Iraq misadventure, Dave seems to be driven by a fatal attraction to the glow of being at the top table with the big boys and the German lady. Being in the thick,- and thick it is,-of the action is his way to keep his place there. That's a dose hubris as dangerous as Tone's.
Enough bombs are already being delivered to Syrian territory daily. Isis dig themselves nice secure tunnels so the brunt of the casualties must fall on the unfortunates who just happen to live there and haven't managed to escape. Wrecking infrastructure,homes, businesses, schools , hospitals just adds to the eventual difficulty and cost of eventually rebuilding each one that is destroyed. The future is delayed with each hit. It had always been thus from World War 2 to the first Bush "Shock and Awe" bombs to hit buildings in Baghdad. There is a case for very limited, highly accurate attacks on Isil's ability to function. Taking out oil trucks is fine. Hitting the vaults containing the dollar bills used to pay the extremists would also be fine as would be other razor sharp targets. It's something the RAF Tornadoes are particularly skilled at but are plenty of other people's aircraft already on the case.
However many bombs are dropped, everyone knows that only ground troops can remove Isil from all the strips of territory they control. Again only small scale surgical attacks by special forces and larger ones by modest sized specialist groups can do the job effectively without further massive and counter productive destruction. And yet there is still talk of it needing tens of thousands of troops and good old fashioned tanks. Dave promises two brigades of 10,000 for this kind of work by 2025. Was there a misprint here? Can't the military professionals reshuffle their antiquated structures and start work on them right away?
Back to Comrade Jeremy. He may generally live in a la la land of student demos and protests past when repressive and even murderous dictators were seen as the rightful owners of the masses but in some things he states the blindingly obvious. This is the danger of the man. Given the right combination of circumstances it could, regardless of all other logic and the mayhem it would cause enable him to push past opposition and win in 2020. One shudders to think of the consequences.
He has already correctly identified the whole current Middle Eastern fiasco on the western bombing and invasion of Iraq. He is correct. Worse, it was totally unnecessary from a western point of view. Saddam Hussein ran a hard line and, for his opponents unpleasant, secular state but he kept the disparate tribes and interests in formation. The invasion wasn't about his human rights abuses, persecution of the Marsh Arabs, Kurds or anyone else he didn't like but about a Bush led obsession about unfinished business from the first Iraq war (Its invasion of Kuwait) when action was actually justified but the victors betrayed their Iraqi opposition supporters when, with victory a certainty they suddenly pulled back leaving these supporters exposed and to their inevitable grisly fates. The weapons of mass destruction accusation was an over hyped and absurd justification. One day maybe son or grandson of Chilcott may actually say so. For saying it's we who started it Corbyn gets volleys of "You can't say that " from many vested interests in the various establishments and even his own Labour Party. Away from the Westminster and media bubble though, many "ordinary people" say he's spot on.
Yesterday he also questioned whether Britain joining in the Syria bomb fest might make Britain less rather than more safe. Dave responded predictably. But think for a moment. So far despite its inevitable and unalterable vulnerability Britain hasn't experienced any "outrages" since 7/7. If you were Isil what would you do to show that joining in the bombing makes the country less safe? And if there is a big bang or series of bangs here who will be able to say "I told you so. It was obvious"? It wouldn't only be the country shown as less safe. Dave's judgement will look seriously flawed and many of the 2020 "ordinary people "voters would also be saying "It was obvious". Corbyn wouldn't have to say anything at all.
That would be very serious for Dave and for Britain. A Corbyn- led real left wing government would be far more dangerous to the country than any terrorists could ever be.
He is on the subject of Bomber Dave's desire to join his mates who are already doing a pretty extensive job of reducing Isis held towns in Syria to heaps of rubble. Like Tone snuggling up, hands thrust into waistband of jeans, to George Bush by joining him in the Iraq misadventure, Dave seems to be driven by a fatal attraction to the glow of being at the top table with the big boys and the German lady. Being in the thick,- and thick it is,-of the action is his way to keep his place there. That's a dose hubris as dangerous as Tone's.
Enough bombs are already being delivered to Syrian territory daily. Isis dig themselves nice secure tunnels so the brunt of the casualties must fall on the unfortunates who just happen to live there and haven't managed to escape. Wrecking infrastructure,homes, businesses, schools , hospitals just adds to the eventual difficulty and cost of eventually rebuilding each one that is destroyed. The future is delayed with each hit. It had always been thus from World War 2 to the first Bush "Shock and Awe" bombs to hit buildings in Baghdad. There is a case for very limited, highly accurate attacks on Isil's ability to function. Taking out oil trucks is fine. Hitting the vaults containing the dollar bills used to pay the extremists would also be fine as would be other razor sharp targets. It's something the RAF Tornadoes are particularly skilled at but are plenty of other people's aircraft already on the case.
However many bombs are dropped, everyone knows that only ground troops can remove Isil from all the strips of territory they control. Again only small scale surgical attacks by special forces and larger ones by modest sized specialist groups can do the job effectively without further massive and counter productive destruction. And yet there is still talk of it needing tens of thousands of troops and good old fashioned tanks. Dave promises two brigades of 10,000 for this kind of work by 2025. Was there a misprint here? Can't the military professionals reshuffle their antiquated structures and start work on them right away?
Back to Comrade Jeremy. He may generally live in a la la land of student demos and protests past when repressive and even murderous dictators were seen as the rightful owners of the masses but in some things he states the blindingly obvious. This is the danger of the man. Given the right combination of circumstances it could, regardless of all other logic and the mayhem it would cause enable him to push past opposition and win in 2020. One shudders to think of the consequences.
He has already correctly identified the whole current Middle Eastern fiasco on the western bombing and invasion of Iraq. He is correct. Worse, it was totally unnecessary from a western point of view. Saddam Hussein ran a hard line and, for his opponents unpleasant, secular state but he kept the disparate tribes and interests in formation. The invasion wasn't about his human rights abuses, persecution of the Marsh Arabs, Kurds or anyone else he didn't like but about a Bush led obsession about unfinished business from the first Iraq war (Its invasion of Kuwait) when action was actually justified but the victors betrayed their Iraqi opposition supporters when, with victory a certainty they suddenly pulled back leaving these supporters exposed and to their inevitable grisly fates. The weapons of mass destruction accusation was an over hyped and absurd justification. One day maybe son or grandson of Chilcott may actually say so. For saying it's we who started it Corbyn gets volleys of "You can't say that " from many vested interests in the various establishments and even his own Labour Party. Away from the Westminster and media bubble though, many "ordinary people" say he's spot on.
Yesterday he also questioned whether Britain joining in the Syria bomb fest might make Britain less rather than more safe. Dave responded predictably. But think for a moment. So far despite its inevitable and unalterable vulnerability Britain hasn't experienced any "outrages" since 7/7. If you were Isil what would you do to show that joining in the bombing makes the country less safe? And if there is a big bang or series of bangs here who will be able to say "I told you so. It was obvious"? It wouldn't only be the country shown as less safe. Dave's judgement will look seriously flawed and many of the 2020 "ordinary people "voters would also be saying "It was obvious". Corbyn wouldn't have to say anything at all.
That would be very serious for Dave and for Britain. A Corbyn- led real left wing government would be far more dangerous to the country than any terrorists could ever be.
