So because there are precedents to back up your argument should we do nothing? People on here are real masters of finding reasons not do something. And real short of ideas of what should be done. Why don't some of you postulate some suggestions of what you reckon should be done about the various appalling situations that are found around this planet and let's scrutinise those.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
So because there are precedents to back up your argument should we do nothing? People on here are real masters of finding reasons not do something. And real short of ideas of what should be done. Why don't some of you postulate some suggestions of what you reckon should be done about the various appalling situations that are found around this planet and let's scrutinise those.
Do you actually believe we've nullified Assads ability to use chemical weapons though??
May's reasoning on the motive and immediacy of the strikes just doesn't add up. Her claim that we didn't take orders from Trump even more so.
Ok lets look at it another way. We wait. Firstly we were unable to mount a UN sanctioned inspection team to establish what happened because the Russians vetoed it. So OPCW go in and they are immediately denied access on the grounds of security - but hey, the press were allowed in. The end result of all that will be - and I'll stake my eye teeth on it - inconclusive. Nothing then happens. No airstrikes. No message sent. No UN sanctions because Russia vetoes those. So the next time Assad meets a pocket of particularly stiff resistance in go a few more barrel bombs because chlorine gas will find them wherever they are hiding. And anyone else besides.
But if people think that is justified because nothing was done about Vietnam, Fallujah or whatever then say so. If not then suggest a response.
What happened in Vietnam and Fallujah shows that it is not chemical weapons, but the identity of the power using them which is the sole motivating factor behind this intervention.
I suggest the west does nothing, and especially not without formal proof- many recent interventions have unambiguously worsened whichever area they walked into, but this doesn't seem to have led to any introspection.
Kosovo being the exception. But non-intervention is at least a position that many people would take. It does then somewhat nullify arguments that World should have done something about Rwanda for example.
I don't blame any country for *not* intervening. In a hypothetical world where that's the default stance and simultaneously every government is massacring its people, yes. But not in the world, and especially not from the US (which AFAIK has an active bombing campaign in 7 countries right now)
That's not what i asked, i asked if you thought this nullified Assads ability to use chemical weapons? Because if it didn't then isn't it a bit pointless as the next time he meets stiff resistance he'll just use them again knowing the meek response.
Doing 'something' for the sake of not doing anything whilst raising global tensions might not be Corbyns pacifism but it is fecking stupid.
I don't know if the facilities hit were genuine factories or empty buildings. However, I would think that the US/France/UK do have 'assets' on the ground in the region. I do believe that CW have been and were used so they must have been made/stored somewhere. I also think that 'hotline' communications between the US and Russia would have gone some way to allow the West to underline of the unacceptability of CW usage whilst not escalating things too far.
Only when it's been beneficial for powerful countries to form a narrative. For instance, the US has used depleted uranium in both Iraq and Syria. That is a chemical weapon.
Without getting into the white phosphorus myth (and we can argue technically all day long), you can rest assured the Jeremy Corbyn would attack Israel without UN resolutions or demanding a Parliament recall. He'd have the biggest hard-on ever.
If an Israeli soldier farts he calls for sanctions yet I don't recall the same for Syria. Ever. Just a "political solution".
Even this bunch, under Corbyn's patronage, couldn't help themselves.
When has Corbyn ever demanded to go to war or attack any country, nevermind Israel?Without getting into the white phosphorus myth (and we can argue technically all day long), you can rest assured the Jeremy Corbyn would attack Israel without UN resolutions or demanding a Parliament recall. He'd have the biggest hard-on ever.
If an Israeli soldier farts he calls for sanctions yet I don't recall the same for Syria. Ever. Just a "political solution".
Even this bunch, under Corbyn's patronage, couldn't help themselves.
Never. He is a pacifist and therefore unfit to be PM because he is unable to fulfil the first duty of government. Nothing wrong with that he is entitled to that view. But he should resign and return to the backbenches.
Yes, we need murderers and warmongers.
It's must take special types of mental gymnastics to consider him a pacifist and terrorist sympathizer at the same time.
He would not press the nuclear button
Yes, we need murderers and warmongers.
I think he supported a UN force going into East Timor. There was also an article recently where he said he'd wanted intervention in Rwanda.
Good. I'd rather not die.
And Congo.
The deterrent works because there is an innate willingness to use it.
No it works on the grounds of mutually assured destruction. If used, retaliation is certain. It wouldn't even be in the UK's hands, the US would decide the outcome.
Peacekeeping forces. All very well but pretty useless - as the Belgian UN contingent in Rwanda found out.
If we have to use it, it isn't a deterrent. Hope that helps.
But retaliation would not be certain under Corbyn.
Useless because the major powers didn't put one hundredth of their focus into Congo as they did into starting proxy wars around the world. Corbyn wanted a far greater presence.
Yes it would. The UK has codes which go beyond government. Nuclear submarines stationed at various parts of the world continuously to deter threat. If the UK was attacked, those submarines would respond, but in compliance with the US who by that time would already be firing nuclear weapons. That's how NATO works.
So far it has worked don't you think? Or do you think that if Russia had them and nobody else then Hiroshima and Nagasaki would remain the only places where they were used. How long would North Korea take in the same circumstance? Compared to the US the UK and France's arsenal is fairly token but they send the message.
Who can forget the time we nuked Russia and North Korea.
It is Corbyns stance on the matter which is important here. As a nuclear power the UK must have a leader that is prepared to sanction a response.
Your ideal PM is someone who'll increase the sales of bomb shelters and gas masks.
One reason the US used them on Japan was because nobody could retaliate in kind.
In a similar circumstance other states could well do the same.
The first thing that I want from the PM is a willingness to defend the safety of it's citizens.
From who?
Corbyn. Nuke Corbyn.
From any aggressor. State, terrorist or individual.
Yes, we should have nuked Bin Laden and Fred West.
Nice to see we have our very own Gammon Face on here.
Just look at Switzerland, they don't have a deterrent or go to war and people nuke them almost every week.
Gazza turning up with a fishing rod and a nuclear warhead would have ended the Raoul Moat stand-off a lot sooner.
The use of force should be proportional. But a Prime Minister (of whatever party) should be prepared to take such action when necessary. Sometimes, for the sake of our forces that action may need to be rapid and not hindered by long drawn-out and inconclusive debate. Jeremy Corbyn is a pacifist and does not have the ability to make those kind of calls. Therefore he should resign.
The PM debates should really just be a fight to the death. How can you be PM unless you've strangled someone with your bare hands?