Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
Miliband To Claim Refugee Disaster Was Partly Cameron's Fault
72 Answers
Barrel scraping tactics?
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Zacs-Master. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
> The precise wording will be very important, which is why all of these pre-speech announcements tend to irritate me rather. Why not wait until he's actually said it? Ho hum.
The speech was trailed by the Labour Party, which is how the Tories knew what was in it before it took place.
This was probably a bad area to attack. Miliband has had virtually nothing to say on any foreign policy since he became leader. Now in the run-up to the election he comes out with some 20-20 hindsight on Libya. That's pretty lame. The 2011 intervention into Libya was made by a multi-state coalition, not even by Cameron.
When Gaddafi was in power many of the migrants went from Tunisia rather than Libya. Since Gaddafi's fall it is easier to travel through Libya and catch a boat from there if, say, you're from Eritrea or Somalia.
The following background may be instructive:
http://
A shame that Miliband did not mention this, perhaps because most of it happened on the watch of the previous Labour governments.
The speech was trailed by the Labour Party, which is how the Tories knew what was in it before it took place.
This was probably a bad area to attack. Miliband has had virtually nothing to say on any foreign policy since he became leader. Now in the run-up to the election he comes out with some 20-20 hindsight on Libya. That's pretty lame. The 2011 intervention into Libya was made by a multi-state coalition, not even by Cameron.
When Gaddafi was in power many of the migrants went from Tunisia rather than Libya. Since Gaddafi's fall it is easier to travel through Libya and catch a boat from there if, say, you're from Eritrea or Somalia.
The following background may be instructive:
http://
A shame that Miliband did not mention this, perhaps because most of it happened on the watch of the previous Labour governments.
Stand easy. It's all the fault of Global Warming (or whatever we're calling it this week)
http://
http://
The story is by now familiar. We take military action against a country and remove the rulers. Then we leave without a credible replacement Government installed. Anarchy ensues and opportunists like ISIS take over. The population fearing for their lives, leave and we then have a refugee crisis.
In 2011, David Cameron told the Libyan people that we had saved them. Now the Libyan people are fleeing from ISIS's tyranny because we abandoned them to a fate worse than Gaddafi.
In 2011, David Cameron told the Libyan people that we had saved them. Now the Libyan people are fleeing from ISIS's tyranny because we abandoned them to a fate worse than Gaddafi.
// If this refugee crisis is Cameron's fault, then I guess the Islamic State in Syria must be Miliband's fault since his vote against action resulted in the West doing nothing which prompted the Saudis and Quararis to bankroll IS. //
That is rather twisted logic. Cameron wanted to support the rebels which included IS. If we had removed Assad which was Cameron's plan, then IS would have just won sooner. The Saudis and Qataris are funding IS because they are massacring Shias, and trying to install an extreme Sunni Caliphate instead.
That is rather twisted logic. Cameron wanted to support the rebels which included IS. If we had removed Assad which was Cameron's plan, then IS would have just won sooner. The Saudis and Qataris are funding IS because they are massacring Shias, and trying to install an extreme Sunni Caliphate instead.
Cameron wanted to support the secular rebels and if the West did take action, the extremists would not have been bankrolled and become the power they are now. The Saudis only funded IS in hope of getting rid of the Assad regime. They have no interest in a Sunni Caliphate. They just want to be able to sell gas to Europe which they cant with the Assads in control as they are puppets of the Russians and so block the building of the gas pipeline that the Saudis are after. The Russians want to keep their monopoly on gas to Europe. So you could say that Miliband really did show himself to be "Red Ed" when he voted against action in Syria! He did just what the Russians wanted.
Scowie,
Most of ISIS funds are not donated from the Saudis/Qataris. They are from oil sales from captured fields in Iraq.
If anything, the Saudi/Qataris/UAE want to scupper the envisaged gas pipeline. Syria (under Assad), Iran and Iraq have signed an agreement to build such a pipeline. The Saudis are against it because it would lose much of its markets (as well as moving the blance of power to Shia run countries).
Most of ISIS funds are not donated from the Saudis/Qataris. They are from oil sales from captured fields in Iraq.
If anything, the Saudi/Qataris/UAE want to scupper the envisaged gas pipeline. Syria (under Assad), Iran and Iraq have signed an agreement to build such a pipeline. The Saudis are against it because it would lose much of its markets (as well as moving the blance of power to Shia run countries).
The initial funds from the Saudis/Qataris made IS a power capable of capturing oil fields in Iraq. There are two competing pipeline propositions, Iraqi and a Qatari:
http://
http://
The Qataris want the Assads out so they can build theirs.
http://
http://
The Qataris want the Assads out so they can build theirs.
> The story is by now familiar.
The familiar thing is the twisting and positioning of history to suit a political point.
> We take military action against a country and remove the rulers.
No, "we" didn't take military action. "We" were part of a multi-state coalition that implemented United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973.
Also "we" did not remove the ruler. Gaddafi was killed by members of the National Transitional Council of Libya.
The familiar thing is the twisting and positioning of history to suit a political point.
> We take military action against a country and remove the rulers.
No, "we" didn't take military action. "We" were part of a multi-state coalition that implemented United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973.
Also "we" did not remove the ruler. Gaddafi was killed by members of the National Transitional Council of Libya.
scowie; you appear to hold the naïve view that this struggle is between different countries[i, when it is fundamentally something much more apocalyptic, and should be seen from the perspective of the combatants. It's not about [i]pipelines] , it's a fight to the death between Sunnis, Shias, and Alawites, and as Nigel Farage has said; we'd better keep out of it.
@ayg
But this isn't a presidential election. We don't vote for the leader, we vote for our constituency MP. So millions of voters will have to disregard your sage advice.
If you are worried that the unions are pulling his strings, don't lose sight of the fact that everything the next government does will be moderated by the coalition partner(s) and, if Union interference becomes obvious, a no confidence vote would bring them down at a stroke.
He can only become one of two things, as PM:- effective or short-lived.
But this isn't a presidential election. We don't vote for the leader, we vote for our constituency MP. So millions of voters will have to disregard your sage advice.
If you are worried that the unions are pulling his strings, don't lose sight of the fact that everything the next government does will be moderated by the coalition partner(s) and, if Union interference becomes obvious, a no confidence vote would bring them down at a stroke.
He can only become one of two things, as PM:- effective or short-lived.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles17 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles22 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles32 mins ago
News74 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.