Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

In tears

487 replies

G1veMeStrength · 02/12/2015 22:40

Fucking parliament. You utter bastards. You're going to kill people and it won't stop anything.

OP posts:
mimishimmi · 03/12/2015 01:28

He spoke the truth though. This is how they operate.

AgentZigzag · 03/12/2015 01:37

A senior member of the nazi party convicted of crimes against humanity, amongst other things, and you're defending his version of The Truth mimi??

Wow.

mimishimmi · 03/12/2015 01:40

It's how the banking/arms industry operate. They , along with other corporations, funded the Nazis.

Brioche201 · 03/12/2015 01:41

The Syrians are living with violence everyday.at least the allied bombings are for a constructive purpose.
The UK is already a target. It is only because our security services are so good they have been able to foil multiple plots

Kryptonite · 03/12/2015 01:42

So all the people against. Just what do you propose we do instead to eradicate IS? Genuinely curious and not got a response yet.

MistressMerryWeather · 03/12/2015 01:53

Will this bombing eradicate IS, Kryptonite?

Actually, how exactly do you believe it will help?

LaLyra · 03/12/2015 01:55

I think Benn's speech was what a politician's speech should be. It should be provoking and a good attempt at swaying people to his side, to me that's what a politician should be doing.

In saying that though I'd be thoroughly disappointed in any elected politician who had, or should have, already researched an issue, thought about it and come to a decision, and then allowed their mind to be changed by one speech by someone.

I also think the clapping and almost celebrating of a decision to bomb people, a decision that does have the chance of accidentally killing innocent civilians, is deeply distasteful. I know someone will likely point out that IS are distasteful, but that doesn't mean we have to be clapping and cheering decisions like that. It's not a race to the bottom of the morals barrel.

I don't know if it's the right decision or not. Every time I decide one way something or someone else makes a point that makes me sway. I just hope the people with access to more information than me have made the right decision.

Kryptonite · 03/12/2015 01:55

Will this bombing eradicate IS, Kryptonite?

I have no idea whether it will or won't. Nice side stepping of the question I posed.

APlaceOnTheCouch · 03/12/2015 01:59

Kryptonite do you seriously believe that some extra British planes in Syria will eradicate IS? Because it seems to me that even the PM can't explain how that will happen, and he can't explain an exit plan, a cohesive humanitarian response or how to rebuild the country afterwards.

I don't understand why the people supporting bombing aren't explaining how they think it helps. Or is it a gung ho attitude of 'at least we're doing something'? personally I'd prefer a Hippocratic Oath approach to bombing - if you can't guarantee you are not going to make the situation worse then don't take action. It may take longer to come up with a strategy that works but surely it's preferable to take that time. History has shown that the 'short, sharp victory' approach to conflict only ever benefits politicians in the short term .

MistressMerryWeather · 03/12/2015 02:06

I find the simplest way to find out what someone really thinks is to ask them a straight question.

I am not side stepping anything.

You are clearly for this yet have no actual reasons why it will make a difference.

Jellytot321 · 03/12/2015 02:11

It is an incredibly sad state of affairs, when somebody posts that they are crying something that is undeniably going to have horrific consequences and she is told to 'get a grip'. If you cannot cry for the children and innocent people who are going to get killed as collateral damage, then I don't know what you can cry for. And if being 'grown up' is losing all my compassion and seeing this as a good, necessary thing, then fuck it.

Even if I believed this was the only necessary way to defeat ISIS, which I personally don't, then myself, and OP, and others, would still have a right to cry over the lives that are going to be lost as a result of this.

It is so disillusioning to see how many people could not give a toss about bombing these people. And I often wonder if you people sat down with them, or played with their children, or had an insight into how normal their lives were before all of this- would it make the slightest bit of difference to you? Would you then feel compassion for these human beings, or would getting upset for them be seen as childish and ridiculous? Because I'm sure you've cried for less than a human life being taken before.

I honestly think some people need to give them selves a shake and look at the bigger picture- we are all humans, and we are all worth the same. We just happen to be born in a privileged position, in a safe country. Of course IS are a threat and they have tragically taken lives, but surely then it is not right to take more lives in response? It's like playground games turned murderous. No matter whether you think these strikes are 'necessary', you should at least have the humanity to feel compassion for those who are going to die.

over and out

Kryptonite · 03/12/2015 02:19

I find the simplest way to find out what someone really thinks is to ask them a straight question.I am not side stepping anything. You are clearly for this yet have no actual reasons why it will make a difference.

You're doing it yet again! Not a single mention of actually answering my question, and saying what opposing views to bombing and what they should do.
Merely turning questions back onto me. Confused
Where did I say I was for it? Nowhere.
Thankfully, there's someone on the other thread who actually has answered my question and has a coherent and opposing (cheers, underthegreenwoodtree, not sure if you're on this thread or not) you've been most helpful.

MistressMerryWeather · 03/12/2015 02:42

Of course I will turn a stupid question back on you!

Until you answer...

How will this bombing help?

MistressMerryWeather · 03/12/2015 02:50

Oh bugger it, I don't even care.

Let us stereotype...

Sansoora · 03/12/2015 03:24

Its the right thing to do.

Want2bSupermum · 03/12/2015 03:51

My concern is that they are making the same mistake they made with Iraq and Afghanistan. They made the decision to go in without having a clear plan regarding their objective or how it would be funded. The UK has cut their armed forces to the bone. They should not be voting this way without a clear plan that is laid out about how it's going to be paid for. We have zero money for the NHS, education or housing yet they can find money to bomb Syria.

mathanxiety · 03/12/2015 04:05

We live in a sad world full of very complicated problems. But I agree with RealityCheque (i.e. this is the right thing to do -- and I would like to add that the US has no business going around the middle east and near east and north Africa encouraging revolution unless they have a very clear idea how the revolutions they sponsor are going to pan out.)

mathanxiety · 03/12/2015 04:14

Though I do believe this particular step by Britain (following the US as usual) is a case of the US using European allies to stick it to Russia or to try to get a foothold in a situation that Russia had (correctly) decided to intervene in in the only way that is guaranteed to work -- to throw its weight behind Assad for better or for worse. Russia is running rings around the US in Syria.

A pity to see Britain led by the nose again into the ME by the State Dept. Britain is being used. However, if British strikes put a dent in ISIS, then good.

But the big picture here is the US is scrambling to (a) acquire a foothold in Syria in order to be taken seriously as a stakeholder in whatever settlement is hammered out after Russia and Assad and the Kurds defeat ISIS, and (b) prevent a bond developing between France and Russia.

Want2bSupermum · 03/12/2015 05:01

Spot on math. Actually I do believe that if the U.S. wants the Uks support they need to pay for it. I say this as a dual US/ UK citizen. When the UK wanted the U.S. to support them during WW2 the Americans made darn sure they got paid for it. The tables have turned and the U.S. wants our support so now they can pay.

kinkytoes · 03/12/2015 05:22

In my opinion some people (especially on here) will disagree with the government simply because it's a conservative one - even if it is trying to protect our very way of life. I'll save my anger for the monsters in suicide vests.

mathanxiety · 03/12/2015 05:23

I think they should do that too.

Yes indeed -- WW2 bankrupted Britain. Afterwards, Germany benefited from the Marshal Plan and still hosts a huge US military presence, because it was important to present a bulwark against the Eastern Bloc in the Cold War era (that is still ongoing in the mind of the State Dept). Britain did not. It was a case of the US taking Britain for granted in full knowledge that they had nothing to fear by way of serious opposition or lack of willingness to jump when required to. The US only spends money when loyalty has to be bought. Britain is a victim of her own self image here, imagining herself to be a major player and even equal partner with the US, which is absolutely not the case.

www.nytimes.com/2006/12/28/business/worldbusiness/28iht-nazi.4042453.html
"Britain to make its final payment on World War II loan from U.S."
Published: Thursday, December 28, 2006

LONDON — Britain will transfer £43 million to the U.S. Treasury on Friday, the final payment on a debt used to finance the World War II defeat of Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany.

The U.S. extended $4.34 billion in credit in 1945, allowing Britain to stave off bankruptcy after devoting almost all its resources to the war for half a decade. Since 1950 Britain has made payments on the debt, the final payment of which is worth $84 million, at the end of every year except six.

At the time it was granted, the loan strained trans-Atlantic relations. British politicians expected a gift in recognition of the country's contribution to the war effort, especially for the lives lost before the United States entered the fight in 1942.

"The U.S. didn't seem to realize that Britain was bankrupt," said Alan Sked, a historian at the London School of Economics. The loan was "denounced in the House of Lords, but in the end the country had no choice."

LOL, oh yes they did. They knew the Empire would not be sustainable if Britain was penniless, and they knew about all the natural resources in the Empire that would be available for American multinationals to exploit in its wake, not to mention the potential to eliminate the middle man in its dealings with the Soviets -- by keeping former colonies sweet either by directly controlling them or by influence peddling.

The loan, the equivalent of £119 billion in today's money, was double the size of the British economy at the time. Today it's a tiny fraction of Britain's £550 billion debt burden, about 36.4 percent of the economy.

Ed Balls, the British Treasury minister, hailed the loan as a mark of friendship between the two countries, which currently are allied in fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those conflicts have cost Britain £8 billion since 2001.

"It was vital support which helped Britain defeat Nazi Germany and secure peace and prosperity in the postwar period," Balls said in a statement. "We honor our commitments to them now as they honored their commitments to us all those years ago."

The need to borrow followed a decision in 1945 by the administration of President Harry Truman to end the lend-lease program used to supply Britain since 1941.

Truman was a first class SOB and so were all his advisors and they were keenly aware that they were playing a long game.

By that time, Britain owed £4.2 billion to foreign creditors, while its income from overseas investments and exports had been halved since before the war.

John Maynard Keynes, the economist and lawmaker who was then the top adviser to the British Treasury, likened his country's financial situation to the military rout at Dunkirk. Prime Minister Clement Attlee dispatched Keynes to Washington to seek support.

Instead of a subsidy, Keynes came back with the loan, fixed at 2 percent interest to be reimbursed in annual payments that were structured like a mortgage. The payments were mostly interest in the early years and shifted toward capital later on.

In addition to the U.S. funds, Canada granted a loan of 1.25 billion dollars, or $1.08 billion at current exchange rates. Britain will also clear that debt with a final repayment Friday.

Meanwhile...
Germany, the former enemy of Britain, the United States and Canada, takes over the leadership of both the European Union and the Group of 8 industrialized countries on New Year's Day.

Oh the irony.

SlaggyIsland · 03/12/2015 06:07

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

SlaggyIsland · 03/12/2015 06:08

Gone and done "What makes the Syrian people so innocent anyway; they are the parents and teachers of the terrorists."

SlaggyIsland · 03/12/2015 06:10

And those mocking the people in tears at this - I'll post up some of the pictures of dismembered children and babies once a few air strike don't quite hit their targets, then you can all have a good old mock at how silly they are crying over that, I mean it's only a vote in parliament right?

Flowerpower41 · 03/12/2015 06:49

I think one of the posters is right i.e. we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. Since we are part of NATO we have to do the same as most our hands are tied alas....

There will be retaliation in any case and it is only a matter of time ....

ISIS are causing a great deal of international worry.