yes - though his loyal corbynistas see them as endearing traits... oh well roll on the by election and scottish fiascos - and if he is lucky he will just have time to have a meltdown over trident before he is kicked out
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
Washington and Paris want the Raptor reconnaissance pods on our Tornado aircraft with their ability to deliver small but highly accurate Brimstone missiles which provides something that even the Americans don't have. Also the RAF's equipment is well-suited to so-called dynamic targeting - i.e. where an aircraft overflies a selected area, locating targets for itself and then engaging them and is responsible for some 60% of the tactical intelligence gained over Iraq, it is a useful additional tool to have in the airpower toolkit.
Cameron has already stressed that there is a need for military action but it does have its limits. It has an important part to play within a wider comprehensive approach that includes diplomacy, humanitarian aid and, in the longer term, efforts to help the governments of Iraq and (one day) Syria to build up good governance.
If you're really interested in finding out what the strategy is there's some info here...
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/...sive-British-Military-Operations-to-Syria.pdf
You could apply that logic to every retrospective bad decision. Of course we don't know how history may have panned out in an alternate universe, but looking back now its obvious to see why those invasions were a terrible idea and why it would have been feasible that the people of those respective countries (as well arguably our own security) would have been better off.
That's also empty rhetoric.
The reality is: civilians will die, that will dignify ISIS' recruitment drive, more people get radicalised, there are more attempts of terrorist attacks as a result in the UK, and the AQ affiliated rebels who in our eternal wisdom we've chosen to arm, turn our backs on us just as they have done in the past, Turkey and Saudi Arabia will continue to support Islamists to cement their own regional agenda and Cameron will do feck all about it.
Ah yes, the Brimstone missiles. The ones we've sold to no other country other than Saudi Arabia, but obviously, not selling missiles to the Saudi's would be harmful to our economy. So rather than address that as an actual issue we'll just be bellicose instead.
Also, they're completely unrelated to the question I actually asked and the second part is vague nothings.
So I ask again, what is the wider strategy?
Because the armchair generals will not be using their boots.
Not sure whether to
or 
I'll leave it there and you can sit around happy clapping with your buddies Corbyn and Ninja and do feck all.
I agree that Corbyn is incredibly weak in defence, but I still don't understand how admitting that he'd refuse to use weapons which have the sole purpose of annihilating thousands, if not millions of innocent lives when they're used, mainly for the purpose of revenge. Anyone who is willing to use them should be willing to admit they are willing to participate in the above - I very much doubt the likes of Cameron/Osborne and co would be willing to say this in an incredibly blunt manner.
I'd imagine maintaining the current policy of containment so Da'esh struggle to expand at the rate they were previously, working to destroy their revenue source of oil fields, working with the forces already engaged with them to reduce their territory still further, require Turkey to step up control of their border with the region, ramp up aid spending for those displaced and injured, continue working with western allies and Russia in Vienna and beyond to bring about a transition from Assad and bring a ceasefire in the civil war, hopefully resulting in all forces in the region then turning squarely upon Da'esh in order to wipe them out.
Corbyn's, as far as I can tell, is to tell off Saudi Arabia and Turkey, withdraw from the area and proudly proclaim that there's no blood on his hands.
Not sure whether to
I'll leave it there and you can sit around happy clapping with your buddies Corbyn and Ninja and do feck all.
Instead of resorting to the smileys why not admit you don't know how bombing Syria will help, that you have no idea how it contributes to a long term solution, you don't know how it will make us safer, and the main reason you want to do it is to get revenge?
At least then we could debate it for what the airstrikes are, rather than trying to pretend they're a key part of a general strategy
There's a few bits here and there I disagree with (particularly the last sentence which I think is, sadly, wishful thinking) but yes, thats pretty much exactly what I told Marching recently when he asked what my solution was when he was beating the airstrike drum.
Sadly, too, quite a lot of it is not what is being done. Instead of censuring Turkey for their support of IS we're getting closer to them. Closing off international markets to IS, both to buy arms and sell oil, is the number one way you can limit their power. It also has the quite nice side effect of not directly involving the deaths of innocent people, too.
But the above policy includes airstrikes, it's part and parcel of containment. You could justifiably argue that adding our planes to those already involved in Syria won't make much difference, but the inescapable fact is that there are already airstrikes occurring in Syria, and if there's any merit to the argument that our capabilities result in far fewer civilian casualties (I don't know much about bombs so I'm taking the leap of believing the PM there) than the likes of Russia then that should be a benefit of our involvement. Not sure of the veracity but Michael Dugher mentioned a few days ago that our action in Iraq since last year has resulted in zero civilian casualties along with a hefty retreat of Da'esh.
On Turkey, I think the US asked them to do this in the last couple of days, whether it'll be forced through on them I don't know. But crucially, I don't think there's any strategy against Da'esh that works without the military component.
Given the ludicrous level of scrutiny, anyone would think the debate is about whether to bomb Corbyn or not.
Give it a month or two.
Not sure whether to
I'll leave it there and you can sit around happy clapping with your buddies Corbyn and Ninja and do feck all.
Compelling response, thanks very much.
I never said do feck all, I just said that dropping bombs isn't the way to approach this and you've yet to refute all the evidence that suggests this.
My objection to airstrikes is an objection to airstrikes as much as it is an objection to UK involvement in Airstrikes. If you want to discuss whether the UK involvement would lead to more or less civilian deaths then fine, but thats not why I'm opposed to airstrikes in general.
I also think you're taking some very questionable points and running with them. Is Russia bombing targets because they're IS or because they're anti-Assad? Unless they've changed tact then 'helping Russia' directly goes against our stated aim in the region.
I'm similarly worried that the PM's number of moderate rebels, used as justification for the 'military component' can only be reached if you include Al-Qaida affiliated or backed groups - this has been discussed more broadly in another thread so I won't repeat it - but any 'answer' to Islamic extremism in the Middle East that involves arming and training Islamic extremists is not an answer. I'd have thought we'd learnt our lesson with this in the 80's but apparently not.
The problem with Turkey is the migrant crisis. They can play it as a political tool, and have done. The EU's response was to re-open debate regarding Turkish EU membership at the exact time we should be pushing them away.
On the Dugher point, (which I think is almost certainly a lie based on a very generous interpretation of 'valid target') I remember similar claims being made in Libya, and look what thats got us. A failed state, a breeding ground for extremism, and warring Islamic extremist groups. We might exterminate IS (or whatever language is being used) but thats not really the point. IS is just one name for a multitude of groups and people, if the way you do it is so self-defeating in the long term you aid the rise of the next group (which is exactly what we've done in the past when we've done stuff like this) then I can't understand why people are so desperate to jump head first into doing the exact same things again.
I am not really in favour of military action with no long term planning. Not that any government would reveal a long term military plan that would be used as a stick to beat them with when it most likely fails.
what is Corbyn's long term plan for Syria anyway?
All I heard was him on the radio saying 'we might kill people that may or may not support ISIS in their homes. Does he prefer the 'may not' lot to be dragged out of their homes and excuted in public by ISIS, or best case scenario live in abject terror of that eventuality while the Western hard left wage a long term 'war of ideas'.
Not supporting ISIS supporting Islamic regimes like Turkey and Saudi Arabia, I fully agree with that. Has Corbyn's vocalised that idea to the country yet?
what is Corbyn's long term plan for Syria anyway?
All I heard was him on the radio saying 'we might kill people that may or may not support ISIS in their homes. Does he prefer the 'may not' lot to be dragged out of their homes and excuted in public by ISIS, or best case scenario live in abject terror of that eventuality while the Western hard left wage a long term 'war of ideas'.
Not supporting ISIS supporting Islamic regimes like Turkey and Saudi Arabia, I fully agree with that. Has Corbyn's vocalised that idea to the country yet?
All well and good, we can certainly disagree on whether the strategy will work overall. My overall point is that there is a strategy, it's being implemented by a multitude of other nations and we can play a beneficial part in it.
That motion would probably pass...
FFS it's been said a dozen times and doesn't take Einstein to work out that if IS terrorists are bombed along with their supply chains, oil fields and command structure it will weaken them and maybe, just maybe persuade others thinking of joining them that it might not be their best decision.
Sitting twiddling your thumbs Corbyn style will definitely not help.
Very easy to say what shouldn't be done but if you are suggesting as Corbyn is doing that we should be seeking a peace with IS by talking to them you are living on a different planet to me.
That's not what he nor I are suggesting at all. You mention bombing their supply chains and oil income - you're absolutely right but unfortunately that's not the plan at all (considering our Turkish allies are the ones buying their oil and letting them user their border, and Cameron isn't going to step on their toes). Instead, the plan seems to be queuing up to bomb dense cities like Raqqa where scores of civilians will die.
Ever consider perhaps that this is EXACTLY the response ISIS were looking for?
I'm sorry but I don't think you understand the argument, the history, and why statements like the bolded one are utterly ridiculous. In fact, I can say -with absolute certainty - based on the times we've done it before that a sustained bombing campaign is more likely to persuade rather than dissuade people to join IS.
Similarly, I don't understand why you're calling an unwillingness to jump headfirst into doing what we always do 'sitting and twiddling your thumbs'. Its that hawkish, warmongering, attitude, that sees us sleep walk into these crisis. No one (not even Corbyn, although your so keen to say otherwise) advocates doing nothing, you're confusing calls for a sensible, managed, considered response, one which shows evidence of having learnt from our mistakes in the past, with a hand washing 'not our problem' response.
So far our response to the IS attacks in Paris has been exactly what IS wants. In 2001 our response to the attacks on the Twin Towers was exactly what Al-Qaida wanted. And what have we achieved? Did we eradicate Al-Qaida? Not even close, and in the process we created something worse. There's always something to be said for rational thinking, showing we haven't learnt in 14 years is hardly rational.
Last edited:
Great post. This vote is possibly the first thing I've been genuinely concerned about in politics. If we bomb Syria I think it will achieve nothing at all, except to put a big target on ourselves.
It's also going to almost certainly result in the loss of thousands of innocent lives. If we're committing to airstrikes, then we should be doing so with a full plan set out as to how it's definitively going to eliminate ISIS, and with a goal of effectively tackling terrorism in the long-term.
If our argument is that it'll maybe persuade people not to join ISIS, then that's not good enough. This isn't just some minor thing that we can get wrong and say, "That didn't work, so we'll try something else." If we bomb, we almost certainly cause an extreme loss of life, not just to ISIS but to others not involved with them as well. We can't be going in with a plan as to how it'll maybe stop people from joining them, and maybe result in their destruction.
I'm all for intervention, but it has to be clear as to what our actual aims are, other than just dropping bombs and hoping the problem goes away.
You give the impression you know exactly what is planned and what's not but seem to have missed the talk of closing the 60 mile wide gateway used by IS terrorist to use as they wish and spouting the same stupid line as Corbyn of the allies simply bombing Raqqa maybe highlights you've not read up on the plans quite as well as you think you have.
Corbyn has dodged the question whether he would ever launch a military offensive. What would have us do?
The whole point of us being involved is to provide the precision bombing that is needed. I have no doubt there will be innocent people killed but they are being slaughtered and raped and thrown off buildings for being gay and burnt alive and beheaded. Are you OK that we sit back and allow that to happen. If so, for how long? What's your plan?
Even the people who support military action have a duty to demand that our government makes a better case for it than what they have done so far.
As it is, there are already signs that we've been misled on the 70,000 moderates.
If the government could make a better - and more honest - case for the action, including admitting the role that some of our allies are playing in supporting ISIS, then I could understand people's support for this action without necessarily agreeing with them. As it is I'm bewildered that people can so openly accept that the solution that has been proposed is so flawed but still go along with it, considering the reality of what we are going to be doing.
As it is, there are already signs that we've been misled on the 70,000 moderates.
If the government could make a better - and more honest - case for the action, including admitting the role that some of our allies are playing in supporting ISIS, then I could understand people's support for this action without necessarily agreeing with them. As it is I'm bewildered that people can so openly accept that the solution that has been proposed is so flawed but still go along with it, considering the reality of what we are going to be doing.
It also has to remembered that there is a lot of sensitive classified information that we are not privy to that will have convinced Cameron what action is needed.
lol
When the non-classified information is already getting undermined, I don't see why we should trust information that may or may not actually exist.
There's been support to various degrees of the 70,000 figure as well:
https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/commentary/566300-syrias-many-moderate-rebels
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/20...hters-in-syria-heres-what-we-know-about-them/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34975978
The main issue seems to be its coherency and the ability to extricate it from the extreme al-Qaeda affiliates and jihadist groups.
https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/commentary/566300-syrias-many-moderate-rebels
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/20...hters-in-syria-heres-what-we-know-about-them/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34975978
The main issue seems to be its coherency and the ability to extricate it from the extreme al-Qaeda affiliates and jihadist groups.
This simply isn't true.
Only an idiot like Silva would believe that all information is made public.
That doesn't really answer my point, just makes you look like an arsehole.
That's exactly what ISIS say about us lot. You have a lot in common with them it seems.
Aren't we a big target already?
We're more or less waiting for one small group of people to break through and kill 100+ people irrespective of Wednesday's vote. The only difference then is that our government will have to follow through with military action, most likely a lot more irrational than the current, supposed plans.
Make a point worth answering and I will answer it.
How will our bombs help the situation?