Another major (presumably terrorist) incident. Now in Manchester.

[Macca]

We capitalised on that to our best advantage, carved up lands in arbitrary ways ensuring a good mix of warring people in each new nation state, as in Africa and elsewhere.

Were we interested in helping the ME resolve its problems? Feck no! Don't be daft! We played at geopolitics, divide and rule, prolong the wars, back both sides if necessary, keep them squabbling while we secure the resources.

And it worked, largely. But you can't then put the genie back in the bottle. No other choice but to continue to infiltrate and recruit within these extremist factions: my enemy's enemy is my friend etc etc. Play both sides, blackmail bribe and coerce with threats of punishment.

We've perfected these black arts over centuries. I really doubt how much control or knowledge the government (whether blue or red) really has over these kinds of activities. It's a legacy of Imperial times, and back then private interests were more powerful than states (think East India Company with its own private armies etc) and I suspect that remains to this day.

Okay I largely agree with this with two exceptions: I did use to wonder why when they gave independence to the African nations they did not divide them up into smaller countries where each tribal/religious group got their own nation and a slice of the pie.

I suspect the answer was not some Machiavellian plot to keep them unstable but that the Foreign Office didn't want the extra workload and complexities of dealing with a hundred extra new countries so just crossed their fingers and hoped it would all work out. That tends to be how these things really happen, cock-ups not conspiracies, or just plain old human nature: 'Screw doing that, it's way too much effort.'

Our interference on the middle-east has nothing to do with the legacy of imperialism and everything to do with oil. If there was no oil there would be no problem. But our entire society is 100% dependant on that oil. The old stability and security thing again. Oil stops: chaos and anarchy start. So regardless of the moral implications and the consequences to those who are in the way, the oil must be secured and kept secure. Nothing can be allowed to prevent that.

Now that doesn't mean that the middle east has to be as much a mess as it is, but then we are back to the human nature/cock-up thing again.

[Arkless Electronics]

Reminds me of Homer Simpson's description of Christianity: 'The one with all the well-meaning rules that don't work in real life.'

If we lived in Rainbow Land then I would agree with you. But we don't, it is a hard , cold world and hard, cold decisions need to be taken all day every day. That is never going to change and if we were adopt a Rainbow Land approach to the world we would be eaten alive in days.

The job of the government is not to 'care' about people. The job of the government is to prevent anarchy and chaos. That is because no matter how bad you might think it is now for 'the disadvantaged and vulnerable', if there was anarchy and chaos it would be a million times worse for them.

They are pretty good at it in this country, they have had a thousand years of practical experience, of course. But it does mean we can squander our time discussing such high level concepts as opposed to spending all our efforts trying to find food, shelter and avoiding injury and death.

Consequently I find it strange that people born and brought up in the exceptional stability and safety of this country should be so aggressively anti the very 'establishment' that provides that stability and security, regarding it as an enemy that needs to be torn down because it is not moral enough, or not idealistic enough.

It is the idealists who are the problem. The people who want to change the world have caused more death and suffering in history than everyone else combined.

I disagree so strongly with both the above and your previous post that... well that I'll have to keep most of it in to avoid severe ad hominem.

Jeremy Corbyn is the best PM we have never yet had and I back him and his aims 100%. Idealism and morals are exactly what we do need! More importantly we need real socialism and redistribution of wealth.

"Consequently I find it strange that people born and brought up in the exceptional stability and safety of this country should be so aggressively anti the very 'establishment' that provides that stability and security, regarding it as an enemy that needs to be torn down because it is not moral enough, or not idealistic enough" --

I would tear down that establishment, kill it and dance on its grave before finally taking a shit on it! This establishment of the elites that take untold wealth from the usury of the working man and then expect him to be grateful to even receive the crumbs from their table, the establishment that allows the existence (positively encourages it in fact!) of "Sir" Philip Green and Mike Ashley types that exploit the most needy on ZHC's whilst they relax in £2 Billion personal yachts, the establishment that propagates the most foul and vile propaganda via The Daily Mair etc (what happened to the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 which they are in continuous breach of?) which has brainwashed the thick into almost holding marches demanding their own health service is taken away and their wages be cut immediately so their "masters" can be even richer.. You can almost imagine the ghastly sight of thick Little Englanders marching down the road with placards supplied by The Daly Mair and chanting "what do we want? LESS HUMAN RIGHTS AND A LONGER WORKING WEEK! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? TO DIE IN THE STREET FROM EASILY CURABLE DISEASES LIKE THE PLEBS WE ARE! When do we want it NOW!!

Law of the jungle, survival of the fittest, dog eat dog etc should remain in the jungle, amongst animals.. not civilised human beings!

[Arkless Electronics]

Okay I largely agree with this with two exceptions: I did use to wonder why when they gave independence to the African nations they did not divide them up into smaller countries where each tribal/religious group got their own nation and a slice of the pie.

I suspect the answer was not some Machiavellian plot to keep them unstable but that the Foreign Office didn't want the extra workload and complexities of dealing with a hundred extra new countries so just crossed their fingers and hoped it would all work out. That tends to be how these things really happen, cock-ups not conspiracies, or just plain old human nature: 'Screw doing that, it's way too much effort.'

Our interference on the middle-east has nothing to do with the legacy of imperialism and everything to do with oil. If there was no oil there would be no problem. But our entire society is 100% dependant on that oil. The old stability and security thing again. Oil stops: chaos and anarchy start. So regardless of the moral implications and the consequences to those who are in the way, the oil must be secured and kept secure. Nothing can be allowed to prevent that.

Now that doesn't mean that the middle east has to be as much a mess as it is, but then we are back to the human nature/cock-up thing again.

I find that more offensive than if you had advocated the legalisation of paedophilia!!!!!!

[Macca]

I find that more offensive than if you had advocated the legalisation of paedophilia!!!!!!

You should understand that I am describing the viewpoint of Government here, not necessarily my own view. I'm suggesting that this is why things are how they are, not saying it is how things should be.

[Marco]

Idealism and morals are exactly what we do need! More importantly we need real socialism and redistribution of wealth.

Hear, hear!!

I would tear down that establishment, kill it and dance on its grave before finally taking a shit on it! This establishment of the elites that take untold wealth from the usury of the working man and then expect him to be grateful to even receive the crumbs from their table,

You and me both, Jez, although I'd pish on it too, then set it on fire, just to be sure!

In terms of your last bit, unfortunately that appears to be exactly what Martin thinks we should all be grateful for......

Oh, along with the "security and safety" we apparently all enjoy. Tell that to the families of the victims of the Manchester bombing. I'm sure the dead all felt 'safe and secure' beforehand.....

Marco.

[Macca]

I disagree so strongly with both the above and your previous post that... well that I'll have to keep most of it in to avoid severe ad hominem.

Jeremy Corbyn is the best PM we have never yet had and I back him and his aims 100%. Idealism and morals are exactly what we do need! More importantly we need real socialism and redistribution of wealth.

"Consequently I find it strange that people born and brought up in the exceptional stability and safety of this country should be so aggressively anti the very 'establishment' that provides that stability and security, regarding it as an enemy that needs to be torn down because it is not moral enough, or not idealistic enough" --

I would tear down that establishment, kill it and dance on its grave before finally taking a shit on it! This establishment of the elites that take untold wealth from the usury of the working man and then expect him to be grateful to even receive the crumbs from their table, the establishment that allows the existence (positively encourages it in fact!) of "Sir" Philip Green and Mike Ashley types that exploit the most needy on ZHC's whilst they relax in £2 Billion personal yachts, the establishment that propagates the most foul and vile propaganda via The Daily Mair etc (what happened to the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 which they are in continuous breach of?) which has brainwashed the thick into almost holding marches demanding their own health service is taken away and their wages be cut immediately so their "masters" can be even richer.. You can almost imagine the ghastly sight of thick Little Englanders marching down the road with placards supplied by The Daly Mair and chanting "what do we want? LESS HUMAN RIGHTS AND A LONGER WORKING WEEK! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? TO DIE IN THE STREET FROM EASILY CURABLE DISEASES LIKE THE PLEBS WE ARE! When do we want it NOW!!

Law of the jungle, survival of the fittest, dog eat dog etc should remain in the jungle, amongst animals.. not civilised human beings!

So there are things you don't like about the Establishment (what you've listed) but no matter how many times you tear it down there will always be a new one that springs up. And it may be worse than the one you had.

Yes, we get outrageously ripped off by them, IMO as a cynical pragmatist that is the price we pay for the security and stability. However I believe that reforming the Establishment of some of the things you rightly accuse it of doing, at least to some degree, is possible. The swamp could be partially drained without too much upset.

Now if Corbyn was a more capable man than he is then I would be all for him to do that even though I am not keen at all on the more idealistic aspects of Socialism. But the fact is that he couldn't even pass his bloody A levels, never had a proper job, and I don't think he has a scooby how the real world works.

[Arkless Electronics]

You should understand that I am describing the viewpoint of Government here, not necessarily my own view. I'm suggesting that this is why things are how they are, not saying it is how things should be.

I'm glad to hear it! You seemed to be saying that it matters not how many foreigners are killed, regimes changed, wars started etc so long as we get our oil and remain a wealthy elite of "Westerners"...

[Arkless Electronics]

So there are things you don't like about the Establishment (what you've listed) but no matter how many times you tear it down there will always be a new one that springs up. And it may be worse than the one you had.

Yes, we get outrageously ripped off by them, IMO as a cynical pragmatist that is the price we pay for the security and stability. However I believe that reforming the Establishment of some of the things you rightly accuse it of doing, at least to some degree, is possible. The swamp could be partially drained without too much upset.

Now if Corbyn was a more capable man than he is then I would be all for him to do that even though I am not keen at all on the more idealistic aspects of Socialism. But the fact is that he couldn't even pass his bloody A levels, never had a proper job, and I don't think he has a scooby how the real world works.

Whilst I'll partially agree on his level of intellectual competence etc (he's no Enoch Powell, Tony Benn or George Galloway when it comes to brains and oratory skills but he's hardly thick either...), he is that rare and special thing... an honest politician who CARES and puts people before profit

[Firebottle]

.... the Foreign Office didn't want the extra workload and complexities of dealing with a hundred extra new countries so just crossed their fingers and hoped it would all work out. That tends to be how these things really happen, cock-ups not conspiracies, or just plain old human nature: 'Screw doing that, it's way too much effort.'

Our interference on the middle-east has nothing to do with the legacy of imperialism and everything to do with oil. If there was no oil there would be no problem. But our entire society is 100% dependant on that oil. The old stability and security thing again. Oil stops: chaos and anarchy start. So regardless of the moral implications and the consequences to those who are in the way, the oil must be secured and kept secure. Nothing can be allowed to prevent that.

Now that doesn't mean that the middle east has to be as much a mess as it is, but then we are back to the human nature/cock-up thing again.

I'm sure this is much nearer the truth, but look towards the US of A for the real thrust behind keeping the oil flowing.

[Haselsh1]

Well said.

Ultimately this is all our own fault... We started illegal wars in the Middle East in order to protect oil supplies (in order to take control of other peoples oil would be more accurate) and in the process killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims, destabilised the regimes that had been keeping a lid on tribal and religious tensions and paved the way for the creation of Al Qaeda and ISIS. Remember that for every innocent Westerner killed in terrorist atrocities such as in Manchester there are probably 500 Muslims killed by Western armed forces.... Do you really expect them not to want revenge? If the boot were on the other foot would you not want revenge?

So, so true. We systematically destroy their countries in the name of justice and good and then wonder why they hate us so intensely. I remember back in the 80's, the situation in Northern Ireland.