Peter Oborne pricks our bubble of self-esteem

I meant to write about this a few days back when I received my latest copy of The Spectator, for whom Peter Oborne seems now to be a regular contributor - so that's another reason to take out a subscription!  Anyway, in that edition, in effect, he posed the question - Aleppo or Mosul: what's the bloody difference? and I would stress the word 'bloody'!  Constantly, or at least, when there is some 'good' TV footage showing wrecked buildings and weeping mothers and children, we are bombarded with coverage of what those dastardly Russians are doing on behalf of their cruel glove-puppet, Bashar al-Assad, as they proceed, mile by mile, to reduce the city of Aleppo to the sort of condition we achieved in Hamburg and Tokyo in 1945!  Cue: horror and outrage aimed mainly at 'Vlad the Impaler' and his despicable nation, Russia.

What we don't see or hear quite so much 0f is the campaign to reduce the Iraqi city of Mosul, the last bastion of those detestable IS fanatics.  This may be because it is our brave RAF chaps who are assisting in the, er, 're-planning' of that unfortunate city as the campaign to wrest it from IS control proceeds inch by bloody inch.  Oborne summarises the predicament thus;

When opponents of the West try to reclaim urban areas from terrorists, they are denounced. When our allies do the same — think of Israel in Gaza or the Saudis in Yemen — we defend them. We judge Assad by one set of rules, and ourselves and our own allies by another.

Well, that's real-politik in action and the stench of humbug, and dead bodies, is overwhelming.  Like Oborne, I have no solution to the problem, it's 'the way of the world'.  Even so, I would appreciate a little less cant from our media and our politicians.  Also, it enforces my deep belief that we should remain as detached as possible from Middle East affairs until it becomes clear beyond doubt that our national interests are threatened.

In the meantime, read Oborne's article - oh, and take out a subscription to 'The Speccie'!

 

Comments

[Loz]

Oborne's an anti-Western, and particularly an anti-American, tosser, who thinks we should be fighting the jihadists while blindfolded with one hand tied behind our backs.

In the case of the Rooskies cf the West, at least we have the goddam decency to own up to targetting errors and accept the full force of the rule of law and due process. The Rooskies lie and shun legal process.

It's a growing habit for the "ooh arr", straw hat, and string holding their trousers up brigade isn't it, this blind spot for the rule of law and due process?

Perhaps we should put Mr Putin in charge of Brexit? No pesky Magna Carta, Common Law, or especially Habeas Corpus to get in the way of the executive then, is there?

SoD

[JK]

Apples 'n oranges David.

October 9th, the Syrian air forces bombed a hospital in Aleppo .. "our" Samantha Power called it "a war crime."

October 18th, the Saudi air forces bombed a community center in San'na Yemen. "That," according to the same Samantha Power, "Was an unfortunate mishap."

Oranges 'n apples don't you see ...

[David Duff]

I 'see', JK, it's 'SoD' who taps his way through life with the aid of a white stick!

[Loz]

When an ally of the West bombs a civilian target, investigations, threats of withdrawal of support, and legal proceedings ensue: -

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=san'na&ie=&oe=#tbm=nws&q=sana%27a+investigation

And when there's criminal behaviour by the West's own troops, they are vigorously prosecuted, even to the point of hounding and harassment of many innocent Western soldiers.

Now just remind me of Vlad the Impaler's response and due process when his allies and troops are accused of atrocities?

SoD

[Pat]

Options for the west in Syria
1 If ending the slaughter trump's all, then pick the strongest side and back it to the hilt. This will involve alliances with nasty people and doing nasty things. And it won't result in democracy or the rule of law
2 Colonise the place. This would involve vastly greater resources and doing nasty things. It would be pointless unless we find the stomach to stay for a couple of generations. I'd rule it out on the last point- some future government is bound to abandon the project before it's half done.
3 Let them sort it out amongst themselves.

[AussieD]

Pat your alternative "3" is the only sensible answer. Let them go about happily killing each other within the confines of their own little dung heaps. If they step out of the dung heap they can either turn about voluntarily or involuntarily.

All this contingent on giving overwhelming support to the one spark of democracy in the area - Israel.

Having, during my service life, had dealings with the various Middle Eastern peoples/cultures I have little sympathy for them.

Harsh but reality often is.

[Loz]

AussieD - Spot on Cobber!

SoD

[Whitewall]

Alternative 3 is the best way. If the combatants run short of Muslims, Europe can send them millions of replacements...if they can part with them.

[backofanenvelope]

""ooh arr", straw hat, and string holding their trousers up brigade'

Why not save a lot of bandwidth and just call us peasants? We could have a competition to choose a word that describes you non-peasants.

[backofanenvelope]

We should just accept that they are Arabs. Because they are Arabs they are doing the only thing they have done in 1400 years. Destroying everything and everybody around them, and then squatting in the rubble. Just quarantine them and stand well back.

[Loz]

BOE, Whitewall, spot on!

Now yer talkin'!

We could have a whip round for the EasyJet / Ryanair tickets for any of the Hairies wanting to get to the ME to join in the fun.

Stand well back, roll in the odd grenade two via a proxy whenever it goes quiet, and they'll be too busy killing each other to bother us for the next 100 years.

But, and this is the only issue that separates us on this subject now I think: Taking in the moderates, ordinary, family men, women and children who want nothing to do with it is both morally correct and of great self-interest to the West.

SoD

[Loz]

BOE,

How about "metro-wanker"? I'm completely ok with that, btw. I've been called worse, the best ever was my P-Coy corporal, short, ginger, and very Scottish, who, due to some minor transgression by me, referred to me as "You, the Sassenach cunt with the silver spoon in his mouth, give me thirty, now!".

So here's the new division of the Western world, it used to be middle vs working class, proddy vs left footers, royalist vs cavalier, York vs Lancaster, now the history books of the future will refer to ...

"Country Bumpkins vs the Metro-Wankers"!

Viva history repeating itself!

SoD

[JK]

Personally SoD, I'd prefer y'all use how Cuffleyburgers called it to mine and TheBigHenry's attention "Cuntbumpers" v Metro-I don't care what.

Thing about that nomenclature is, as it makes its way across the pond me an' TBH will be interested to watch how Team Hillary construes y'alls innocent use into something they can adapt for the fictional War On Women.

[Laban]

Have you noticed how, since "our lot" started attacking Mosul (lot of gung-ho shots of armoured columns rolling, zero shots of bloody or bewildered children), the non-stop "we must do something about Aleppo" barrage has subsided?