Thanks to George Monbiot, I now consider waterboarding to be an appropriate cure for Owen Paterson's loss of contact with reality.

A contest in which nobody particularly won. Especially the man best known for okay-ing racist headlines, engendering a culture of privacy invasion in the british press/media in general (yes, the culture that eventually led to hacking a dead girl's phone messages to get a scoop) and let us not forget using his own position as editor of a huge newspaper to further shares which he beforehand emptied his bank account to invest - going so far as to invest using his wife's name - yet somehow managing to snake his way out of losing his job.

The archetypal dirty, immoral, probably psychopathic/sociopathic/whatever the current buzzword is, utter fucking slimeball, piers morgan. Who thinks an argument is won by saying "I won."

Why do i hate america so much? After watching this video only one reason; they let you on TV you cunt. I insist that if he is forced out of the country, he is not allowed to return to britain.

It may be a British accent but that's definitely not in Britain.

Like tabloids and colonialism, Zoo magazine is one of Britains many demoralizing sources of embarrassment.

What tribe was she from? (Native American?) Or is he talking about someone of East Indian decent, you know, that country that Britain invaded in the 1600's to harvest resources from?

(I'm so confused)

The fan club somehow keep finding the money to keep it flying... there is only one that flies though:

http://www.vulcantothesky.org/history/return-to-flight.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2337573/Saved-Britain-Last-flying-Vulcan-stay-skies-friends-raise-money-technological-breakthrough.html

ok.
i am reading your response.
and trying to follow your logic..
it is..confusing.
i do not mean that in a critical way.it literally is confusing.

so let me understand this.
you think that because people pointing out the hypocrisy on american foreign policy somehow translates to a moral relativism in regards to assad?
that one is more evil than the other?
and to point to one means to ignore the other?

ok.
which one is MORE evil:
1.the assad regime which has been brutal on its own citizens.beheadings,executions in the street.the people are in a constant state of fear.
this is a common tactic for brutal dictators.fear and intimidation and when then start getting out of control? killings and maimings.of the public kind.
assad has been on the human rights watch for decades.
he is a monster.
or.
2.america and britain have been sending weapons and training a weak rebel force (for the past few years btw).after the outbreak of violence of the arab spring and assads decending hammer of escalating violence the rebels find their ranks being filled by alqeada,muslim brotherhood and other radical muslim factions.
which has the culminative effect of not only creating the civil war but prolonging it.
death tolls of innocents rising.
displaced syrians in the millions.

which of these two are "more" evil?
both caused death.
both caused suffering.
or do you think training and arming rebel factions which only serves to prolong the conflict less evil?

while evil is an arbitrary and subjective word the answer is BOTH are evil.
on a basic and human level BOTH bear responsibility.

let us continue.

now america has had a non-interventionism policy so far.just supplying training and weapons and prolonging the civil war and henceforth:the violence,death,maiming and suffering.

then two things quietly happened.
syria russia and china (iran as well) began talks to drop the petrodollar AND assad refusing a natural gas pipeline through syria (probably in order to not piss off russia).

when you realize that americas currency is almost solely propped up by the petrodollar,the current white house rhetoric starts to make more sense.

this is why evidence on who is responsible for the chemical attacks is important because the united states government used THAT as its reason for NOT entering the conflict (even though it already was involved,but not directly).the united states didnt want to get directly involved.
until the pipeline and petrodollar talks started to surface.

and then as if by magic.
a chemical attack is executed.
now assads army was winning,on all fronts.
why would he risk international intervention if he was winning?
now i am not saying that dictators and tyrants dont do dumb things,but that is dumb on an epic level.
doesnt make sense.
doesnt add up.

so the whole drumbeats for war now.
which were non-existent a month ago...
are all about "humanitarian" and "human rights" and a new "axis of evil".

bullshit.plain and simple.

this is about oil.
about the petrodollar.
this is about big business.

bryzenscki called this 20 yrs ago in his book "the grand chessboard"

and that is my counter argument.
and by your last post on my page i think you agree in some fashion.

now,
let us discuss your "final solution".
oh my friend.you accused so many of being naive.
reading your conclusion i can only shake my head.
not that i dont appreciate your time or that i dont see maybe why you feel that way.
i just dont think you grasp the enormity of it and have listened to one too many of the uber-rights "paper tiger" argument.

if we choose the path you think is the best to put assad on his heels.
america launches a limited strike on assad forces.
and lets say those strategic targets are 100% incapacitated (unlikely,but this is hypothetical).
what then?
have you considered what the reaction of russia,china,iran,saudi arabia, might be?
because according to international LAW,without a united nations concensus.russia and china AND iran would have the right to step in,set up shop and tell you to go fuck yourself.they would dare you to cross that line.
and what then?
do you cross it? and under what grounds?
you have (and when i say YOU i mean america) already disregarded every single policy put forth in regards to international law.the irony is the you (america) were vital in the creation of those very laws.(we rocked that WW2 shit son).

so pop quiz jack.what do you do?
do you really think you can ignore russia and china?ignore the international community?
do you really think the american government gives two shits about people dying in another country?
(checks long list of historical precedent)
not..one..bit.

here are the simple facts.
YOU are a compassionate human being who is outraged over the suffering and execution of innocent people.
YOU.
and i and pretty much everybody with a soul and a heart.
but YOUR argument is coming from that outrage.and man do i wish i was your age again.
god i admire you for this alone.
but the simple,hard and ugly fact is:
this country is about its own business of empire.
they could not give a fuck who is dying or being oppressed,tortured or enslaved.
i will be happy to provide the links but please dont ask...i dont wish to see your heart break anymore than it already has.
you and i live under the banner of an empire.this is fact.
this empire only cares about its own interests.

so let us talk about the very thing that is the emotional heart of the matter shall we?
the syrian people.
how do we alleviate their suffering?
how do we quell the tidal wave of dying?

a limited strike on strategic targets would help the innocents how exactly?
by bombing them?this is your logic?
or is "collateral damage" acceptable? and if so..how much?
do you realize that there are no actual 'strategic targets".assads troops are embedded just as much as the rebels are.
so..where do you hit for maximum effect?
and how many innocent deaths are acceptable?
and if the goal is to weaken assads forces,to level the playing field,wouldnt this translate to an even MORE prolonged conflict?
and wouldnt that equal even MORE innocent people dying?

this scenario is WITHOUT russia,china or iran intervening!

you are killing more and more people that i thought you wanted to save!
what are you doing man? are you crazy!

so i ask you.
what are your goals?
is it revenge?
is it regime change?
do you wish to punish assad?

then assasination is your only true option that will get the results you want and save innocent lives.

in my opinion anyways.

this is why i choose the non-intervention or the negotiation route.
yes..there will still be violence but only to a point.
when negotiations begin there is always a cease fire.
in that single move we stopped the violence.
this will also have the effect of bringing other international players to the table and much needed food,supplies and medical for the syrian people.

all kinds of goodies for the syrian people who are in such desperate need of help.
wanna go with me? ill volunteer with ya!

so which path is better for the syrian people?
a limited strike which at the very least will prolong this vicious civil war.
or negotiations which will bring a cease fire,food,water,medical help,blankets,clothes and smiles and hugs for everyone!

are ya starting to get the picture?

i have lived on three continents.
met and lived with so many interesting and amazing people.
learned about so much and was graced and touched in ways that are still incredible for me to explain.
and you have got to be the most stubborn mule i have ever met...ever.

but kid.you got some serious heart.
so you stay awesome.
namaste.

*edit-it appears assad may be the culprit.syria just accepted russias offer to impound the chemical weapons.so we know they have them.lets see what the US does.
i still think you are going to get your wish for military action.so dont be getting all depressed on me now.

The right answer is noninterventionism, in my opinion. And sanctions aren't diplomatic solutions. They are acts of war on a sovereign country, which usually results in starving its people, which creates resentment.

Here's some reasons why noninterventionism is so important. First, bombing campaigns usually create collateral damage, and the funny thing about people, they tend to hate you when you kill their moms or sons or wives or friends. For reference, please refer to 9/11 in the U.S.

Secondly, Syria is having a civil war. How'd the U.S. like it if Britain supported the Confederacy during its civil war?

Thirdly, supporting the rebels is essentially being al-Qaeda's air force. Yeah, remember those guys? The guys who flew planes into our buildings? I don't think we should support them.

Fourth, our sudden pious indignation is misplaced, and worse, selective. I didn't hear one person in the U.S. calling to bomb Israel when they used white phosphorous on Palestinian women and children.

Fifth, you know exactly what is really fueling the march into Syria. It's not a humanitarian intervention, it's about oil. Syria doesn't want to trade their oil in U.S. dollars. Neither does Iran. If we allow the U.S. to bomb Syria, we will soon be marching into Tehran.

Sixth, who made us world police?

Lastly, it's not like we couldn't be spending that money at home fixing our infrastructure and taking care of our people. I think feeding the homeless here is way more important than making people homeless in other countries from bomb campaigns.

It seems as if Ed Miliband and his jolly horde actually managed to postpone the strike by a few days. Who'd have thought that there might be substantial opposition in Britain's parliament...

I did not see this coming, to be honest. They're still going to strike, but at least their warmongering will be on the fucking record.

The picture is golden, by the way. Protective gear for the foreigners, a pack of smokes for the locals.

Also this.

"Mr. Miranda was in Berlin to deliver documents related to Mr. Greenwald’s investigation into government surveillance to Ms. Poitras, Mr. Greenwald said. Ms. Poitras, in turn, gave Mr. Miranda different documents to pass to Mr. Greenwald. Those documents, which were stored on encrypted thumb drives, were confiscated by airport security, Mr. Greenwald said. All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden. The British authorities seized all of his electronic media — including video games, DVDs and data storage devices — and did not return them, Mr. Greenwald said."

The hard shoulder in britain is used for stopping in the event of emergencies and such - breakdowns, that kind of thing. Probably not a great idea to drive down it and get stuck behind a dead car.

Snowden handed another set of slides over to the largest newspaper in Germany as well as a public broadcasting service. These slides include the names of telecoms that were involved in GCHQ's dragnet program.

The crème de la crème:
Verizon Business, Codename: Dacron, British Telecommunications ("Remedy"), Vodafone Cable ("Gerontic"), Global Crossing ("Pinnage"), Level 3 ("Little"), Viatel ("Vitreous"), Interoute ("Streetcar").

Many of these are customers of DE-CIX, the world's largest IXP, whose operators were adamant in their claim that no foreign service has access to their infrastructure -- no word about their corporate lackeys, understandably so.

And you gotta love how brazen they are in their admission that GCHQ's work is in the best interest of Britain's economy -- yes, economy.

And while we're at it: public broadcast journalists dug out a list of 207 US companies that are involved in intelligence gathering on German soil. Best comment was by the CEO of DE-CIX: these providers (re: Level 3) work in accordance with US law, even in Frankfurt. Not German law, US law.

Maybe we can still beat Puerto Rico in the race to become your 51st state.

This type of person is pretty common in Britain. They mistake self satisfaction for happiness.
The illusion falls apart when they get to around 50.
It won't be long before she'll be sitting at an Italian marble work surface in her bespoke kitchen drinking Pinot at nine in the morning, calling her blind twelve year old Labradoodle “Darling”

Hard to argue with him. Having said that, not every country is as obsessed with owning property as Britain (and Australia). People rent the same property for decades in Germany, I believe.

From where I sit, property ownership = debt = uncertainty = limited capital gains these days. Breaking the property fetish may not in itself be a bad thing for a generation.

@charliem & @kymbos yeah, sorry, he's ozzie, only born in britain.