Syria Today (I have a dream?)

President Obama won’t say anything more about Syria today because it is 50 years since civil rights activist Martin Luther King made his “I have a dream speech”. War hawks say that Obama’s credibility is at stake after he stated the use of chemical weapons by the Syrians was a “Red line”, surely if he can find a way avoid further escalation it will demonstrate his character.

There should be a blank-cheque vote tomorrow in the House of Commons about if the UK should take action in response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria. SAS / UKSF troops are said to be in place within Syria. US and UK governments are suggesting they have evidence that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons, which they won’t show anyone (neither Chinese and Russia to get support at UN security council or the House of Commons so they can make a proper judgement).

Assad government stated they would use chemical weapons in case of invading forces, they are fighting mercenary/ Al-Qaeda `militia’ forces from multiple countries. These `rebels’ have been armed by the West leading to escalation.

If the UK and USA take action (or already are taking action?) against Assad it will be the first publicly acknowledged time we fought on the same side as Al-Qaeda since Al-Qaeda term was named/created/trained/recruited/supported by the CIA to fight in Afghanistan. Or at least the first time since September 11, 2001.

Advertisements

LIberal Doublespeak – paying more is paying less

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11946112

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11947701

Liberal democrats are claiming that students who will pay more for their education in the future will be paying less.

Their argument seems to be that the longer you delay paying back a loan, and the slower you pay it back the better.

I’m a bit worried that politicians can make this argument so easily, I think this is the same way they think about borrowing on the national scale. At least on the national scale one thing they often seem to forget is that the cost of borrowing can change.

I think it is very disingenuous to claim that richer students will pay more for their loans because they will pay them back sooner. Also does this mean no one will have a choice but to borrow to pay for their education, will it be compulsory to take loans from the government, or will students be allowed to pay upfront if they have the money? Paddy Ashdown seemed to claim that no one will pay for their education (only pay it back later).

Did we enter the world of double speak?

If anyone knows where I can read the proposals for this legislation please let me know. Mr Ashdown suggested we should read, but didn’t say where.