About as much as Cameron does when you look past the airstrikes. Not a lot.
Which says a lot about Cameron's 'plan' as well.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
About as much as Cameron does when you look past the airstrikes. Not a lot.
Which says a lot about Cameron's 'plan' as well.
Was bloody wrong on Kosovo, even had the temerity a few years later to sign a motion in parliament downplaying the ethnic cleansing that went on, all to self-justify his dogmatism. He's a broken clock.
Bloody hell.
Needless to say, you do not recover from such a pit of public disdain.
Silva had it right before, what you're doing here is dehumanising the innocent Syrian people. Our action of bombing Syria will lead to the deaths of many innocent Syrian civilians. You can believe that's a cost of war, or you can believe that that is going to do more medium-to-long term harm than good, but don't ignore that fact.
Was he though? All the evidence suggests that more atrocities were committed following the Belgrade bombings than before it just as he had predicted to be the case. I don't want to get into that discussion here but I would suggest you ready Chomsky's excellent reviews on the conflict which do dignify Corbyn's position at the time:
http://chomsky.info/200005__/
http://chomsky.info/20060425/
Though its without doubt that he's been retrospectively spot on regarding recent conflicts in and around the Middle East, which is where this next military adventure is proposed to take place.
Against whom though? He's never been shy about supporting certain uses of force.
@hobbers
That whole bit about no civilians/target practice/cannon fodder: have you read anything about life under ISIS?
http://www.spiegel.de/international...y-life-under-the-islamic-state-a-1041317.html
That whole bit about no civilians/target practice/cannon fodder: have you read anything about life under ISIS?
http://www.spiegel.de/international...y-life-under-the-islamic-state-a-1041317.html
He spells his stand out. Seems pretty sane.
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-failed-show-bombing-syria-isil-work-jihadist
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-failed-show-bombing-syria-isil-work-jihadist
I agreed until -
Respectfully, if one of Corbyn's premises are that negotiation with Daesh is even possible or can give us acceptable outcomes, then any conclusion he reaches is suspect. It is not obvious that he understands the nature of the Daesh threat and that they are not simply the 21st century's IRA.
From the paragraph I thought he was referring to the whole situation in Syria rather than ISIS itself.
What are the specifics of your plan?
Do you propose sanctions on SA, kick Turkey out of NATO and then what, turn the whole of the Middle East except for Israel against us? Sanctions haven't made North Korea stop pointing nuclear warheads at us. Would sanctions on Saudi Arabia not raise the global oil price? Would Saudi Arabia not seek military expansion of its own into other rich Arab oil states if we cut off a great proportion of their income? It will take a long time to choke a nation as rich as Saudi Arabia to death and they won't sit by and let it happen. They would have no qualms about letting their own people starving to death either in their attempts at maintaining the status quo.
ISIS could have enough gas in them to create a version of their Islamic state and could become entrenched there indefinitely. Are you willing to even accept that while we 'exhaust all possibilities' that thousands innocents in the Middle East will die anyway and that you proposed course of action could also make things worse?
The question is, can we take a chance on ISIS? You seem to think yes, most people think differently and unless the hard left, Corbyn's labour I mean, can come up with a convincing alternative (or any at all), they are not going to win this argument.
Last edited:
Yeah even though I posted it, I do think it was bit awful sounding. If anyone one to check it's here(the quote is at 18:22)
That may be a fair accusation but the opposition having no alternative after a rushed debate is no reason to proceed bombing with haste.
I find it ridiculous that Cameron has ignored calls for further debate so he can rush this through.
Peace, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing
I am amazed, shocked even, that some people are in favour of bombing.
I am amazed, shocked even, that some people are in favour of bombing.
Take a chance on ISIS? I know Cameron likes to frame this vote as the central issue of whether ISIS are dealt with or not but much larger forces are already in play and have been for some time.
A vote against the UKs involvement in the bombing of Syria is not a vote to let ISIS prosper and neither is it a last say on the matter.
Interesting how I said after the Paris attacks that people only supported Air Strikes because the wounds were fresh and got shouted at on here for it.
Well today a YouGov poll is showing that support has dipped back under 50%
Well today a YouGov poll is showing that support has dipped back under 50%
true... 48% in favour
but 31% against
with 21% undecided
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/12/02/analysis-sharp-fall-support-air-strikes-syria/
Other interesting highlights are a -41% rating for Comrade Corbyn
Conservatives 41% (up from 37% in September and 36.9% in the last election)
Labour 30% (down from 31% and 30.4% in the last election)
UKIP 16% (down from 17% and 12.6% in the last election)
Libs 6% (down from 7% and 7.9% in the last election)
SNP / Welsh party 4% (down from 5% and 4.7% in the last election)
Greens 3% (up from 2% and 3.8% in the last election)
Essentially the conservatives have gone from a 5.5% lead over Labour in the last election to an 11% lead - what would a swing like that do in an election? along with the increased UKIP vote - my guess is decimate Labour
wasnt Corbyn supposed to energise new voters, win the Scottish vote back and take votes away from UKIP and the Greens - Its not working out that way by the looks of things!
Last edited:
Again, do you care to outline the alternative and how your alternative will play out, you know, your long term plan?
If you choose to be passive then you are taking a chance, innocent people will die. Bombing them is taking a chance and innocent people will die. Going after Turkey and Saudi Arabia is taking a chance and innocent people will die. The last option could very well be the worst in terms of casualties and suffering. Why intentionally destabilise two of the most powerful military players in such a volatile region, seems stupid when you think about it just a little bit.
If you are saying one course of action is wrong and the major flaw is the lack of long term planning, then you have to come up with a credible alternative that delineates a clear long term strategy.
Blame Blair... (if it couldnt possibly be Tonys fault blame anybody else but call them a Blairite) that seems to be the long term strategy coming from elements of labour at the momet
Last edited:
It seems stupid you think we can solve the problem of IS when two of our biggest regional 'partners' are supporting them.
As for your last point. No, he doesn't. Aside from the fact we've talked about 'credible plans' before you don't have to have one to disagree.
Rushing to do the wrong thing (based on all evidence from every time we've done it before) because its a 'plan' is not better than no plan. Making the problem worse for the sake of doing something isn't a 'solution'.
Yup, clearly.
You don't answer the crucial question. You don't want to rush in, that is taking a chance on ISIS. When are the hard left going to come up with some credible ideas? Don't forget that while you are dithering about ISIS are brutally murdering thousands whilst further having the opportunity to establish themselves in the region. How long do you need?
It just seems that you are happy to posture again. And you wonder why people don't take Corbyn and the hard left seriously.
A leader has to lead.
Again what is this increased chance that you speak of that relies solely on the UK delaying involvement?
Even should Cameron carry the vote he will nevertheless be constrained by circumstance, either through the guidance of his generals and air marshals, or the active support the regime receives from Russia. Most people known that the army of 70,000 is a nonsense or at the very least misleading, so it will be interesting to see how MPs view the PM's objectives 6-9 months from now. Were Labour led by Hilary Benn they might be able to press the matter further, a usefulness which Corbyn's ideology bars them from providing.
Is it as simple as that? Looking at the recent example of Libya, do you not think that more could have been achieved had the West (particularly Europe) been more interested in the aftermath? Instead, Qatar used the fractious post-war environment for its own purposes, and the instability has spread into Tunisia which was the best thing to come out of the changes wrought by the Arab Spring.
Speaking of which:
Stop with this line: 'When are the hard left going to come up with some credible ideas?' because it makes you seem like a moron. The argument that its only the 'hard left' that oppose airstrikes is ridiculous, the idea that Cameron's given us 'credible ideas' is ridiculous, and the idea that Corbyn's response is actually that different from Cameron's 'plan' beyond airstrikes is ridiculous, too.
All this is kind of irrelevant, and I'll make the next bit easy for you, there is mountains of evidence as to why air-strikes are a bad idea. Give me one piece of historical evidence that shows they will work? One piece of evidence for air-strikes being an unqualified success that achieve everything that we hope they will and don't make the long term situation on the ground worse?
You're arguing against a straw man that doesn't exist. No one is saying to do nothing, what those opposed to airstrikes are arguing is not to irrationally run headlong into another foreign policy disaster. To do things differently this time, based on lessons we should have learnt getting it wrong before.
So you don't want to answer any of the crucial questions about a suitable course of action over Syria, or even offer an opinion?
A larger military effort in Syria would increase the chance of defeating ISIS. The Kurds have specifically asked for air support to assist them and that they believe they can defeat ISIS with that assistance.
If you don't have an alternative plan then you are saying that we should do nothing. What different things do you want to do?
Libya's an interesting example. I supported airstrikes in Libya, I thought it was morally the right thing to do. That we'd learnt our lessons from Iraq, at least, and weren't jumping headfirst into another war, but in the aftermath of whats happened is a key part of why I don't think we should do it now.
As you say, if we'd managed the aftermath we might have got somewhere, but we didn't or couldn't. Instead, Cameron announced it a job well done said the airforce should be 'proud' of what they did in Libya and left Libya to clear up Libya's mess.
In the wake of another call for action and in the want of long term strategy (again) I don't know how people think its going to turn out much better than last time.
I do have some sympathy for Cameron here, because I can understand why he wants to help our allies, but I don't think the Obama administration has got Syria right and I think, increasingly, Obama is being short-termist knowing that the mess that he makes won't be his to clean up.
erm actually you know that poll you posted earlier saying less than 50% of people support airstrikes
(but failing to say 48% approve, 31% disagree and 21% have not made up their mind)
well that kind of does show that it is only the left where opposition is in the ascendency with even more liberal democrats in favour of action than opposed
so yeah the facts kind of show that apart from the most left wing party more people are in favour of airstrikes
Yes, threat of sanctions should absolutely be on the cards.
You're exaggerating the collateral Saudi Arabia has. They're currently on the verge of bankruptcy, they're suffering from internal quarrels and threat of regime change, they've stupidly got involved in a war they can't seem to win in Yemen and now they're watching their allies normalize relations with Iran. The West has them exactly where they want them should they choose to leverage that they stop funding within their own country for ISIS elements. Instead, we have Cameron gifting them with state of the art weaponry to help them bomb Yemeni weddings and schools. Turkey is also in a precarious position considering how they rely extensively on our commerce and military cooperation. Not to mention their desperation to assimilate in the European union. Furthermore, if the West suddenly started taking an interest in the rights of Kurds and Cypriots you think they wouldn't start to panic?
And you realise it was destructive neocon foreign liberal that essentially ascended ISIS to where they are now, so what makes you think that the same policy that will fix it? Yes we'll be taking a chance but until white Europeans started to get murdered in their own shores, no one really cared anyway. And lets not forget that there are forces already fighting ISIS in the region, dropping bombs on cities will not only largely prove ineffective, but also counter-productive since we'll only increase civilian casualties and hence sympathetic sentiment towards ISIS. Strangling ISIS' supply lines WILL severely cripple them, allowing the current forces involved in fighting them to pick them off.
Last edited:
If you care go back through my post history and find it, but its irrelevant to the debate at hand.
Even then, I think you have to admit that 'I don't know' is a perfectly valid answer to this. The Syria situation is incredibly complex, and acting like anyone of us has all the answers is odd.
Why are you ignoring the rest of my post? Lets not pick and choose what we respond to.
Thats not a counter to my point at all. I said 'the argument that only the hard left oppose airstrikes is ridiculous[emphasis added]'.
And you respond by showing me a chart that shows across the board peoples opinions are moving from 'lets bomb the shit out of them' to 'lets not' that UKIP, Con and Lib Dem supporters all oppose airstrikes.
You then also make that completely fallacious assumption that if you voted for Labour in the 2015 election you're part of the 'hard left'.
The hard left might form the bulk of opposition, I'd be surprised if it didn't tbh, but thats not what I said.
But thank you, actually, because you've proved exactly what I was saying. People that oppose airstrikes can be found in all walks of life with various political beliefs. Saying that its the 'hard-left' versus everyone else is wrong.
In short, yes.
Cameron was an Iraq war supporter who considered Mandela a terrorist and is all too happy to help arm Jihadist groups, some linked to Al Qaeda. Corbyn had consistently voted against intervention in Iraq and Libya and was dignified in both those occasions.
Can we not have a CAF Poll?
erm actually you know that poll you posted earlier saying less than 50% of people support airstrikes
(but failing to say 48% approve, 31% disagree and 21% have not made up their mind)
well that kind of does show that it is only the left where opposition is in the ascendency with even more liberal democrats in favour of action than opposed
so yeah the facts kind of show that apart from the most left wing party more people are in favour of airstrikes
Interesting you bring this up,
It seems people are beginning to realise that Cameron's grounds for bombing are shallow as you'd expect.
Interesting you bring this up,
It seems people are beginning to realise that Cameron's grounds for bombing are shallow as you'd expect.
still way more people in favour though... and the most relevant thing about the poll (to this thread which is on Corbyns leadership) is his -41% rating.
Wouldnt the westminister or the ISIS in iraq and syria threads be more sensible places to diccuss the westminister vote about bombing syria or iraq?
Interesting you bring this up,
It seems people are beginning to realise that Cameron's grounds for bombing are shallow as you'd expect.
Look how sharply its dropped though recently, would have been interesting to see how much more it drops had they not rushed to a decision today.
Labour MP Diana Johnson claims to have received threatening email over Syria airstrikes as protesters gather outside Stella Creasy's house
2 December 2015
Hull North MP Diana Johnson revealed she had received an email saying those who voted in favour of the government's plan would face lobbying to secure a vote of no confidence six months on from today.
"If the vote of no confidence is carried the MPs can then limp on until their selection at the next General Election, when they will be deselected," the email said. "During the four year period in the run up to the next General Election, the whole country will now [sic] of the no confidence in thr MPs from their Labour party."
Labour party members would "try to wash the blood from their hands of the innocent civilians which the bombs will surely kill". the email added.
Posting on her Facebook page, Johnson said she was "very saddened" to have received the message, saying she had spent the last few days consulting with constituents "and considering in detail the evidence and proposals from the government".
It is claimed that the email has been sent to other MPs as well.
Last night hundreds of people descended on Parliament Square to protest against bombing Syria. Some protesters even made their way to Walthamstow Labour MP Stella Creasy's house, noting "she has no children to upset"
Meanwhile Asim Mahmood, a Labour councillor in Walthamstow, has called for any MP who supports the vote should "automatically go through a trigger ballot for reselection".
Creasy said in a Facebook post that she would not "be bullied by a sitting Walthamstow Labour councillor with the threat of deselection if I don't do what he wants".
"On a matter of national security, such intimidation is completely unacceptable and disrespectful to the residents of Walthamstow who deserve better and glad to hear Jeremy in PLP condemn such conduct."
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has come under fire from some on the left for allowing his MPs a free vote, although he has said he will vote against the airstrikes.
Yesterday the party was reportedly forced to cancel a phone canvassing event in support of Oldham candidate Jim McMahon because Stop the War was planning to march on Labour's Brewers Green HQ in protest against his decision.
David Cameron has urged MPs not to be swayed by "Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers".
http://www.cityam.com/230045/labour...ence-if-she-votes-to-approve-syria-airstrikes
2 December 2015
Hull North MP Diana Johnson revealed she had received an email saying those who voted in favour of the government's plan would face lobbying to secure a vote of no confidence six months on from today.
"If the vote of no confidence is carried the MPs can then limp on until their selection at the next General Election, when they will be deselected," the email said. "During the four year period in the run up to the next General Election, the whole country will now [sic] of the no confidence in thr MPs from their Labour party."
Labour party members would "try to wash the blood from their hands of the innocent civilians which the bombs will surely kill". the email added.
Posting on her Facebook page, Johnson said she was "very saddened" to have received the message, saying she had spent the last few days consulting with constituents "and considering in detail the evidence and proposals from the government".
It is claimed that the email has been sent to other MPs as well.
Last night hundreds of people descended on Parliament Square to protest against bombing Syria. Some protesters even made their way to Walthamstow Labour MP Stella Creasy's house, noting "she has no children to upset"
Meanwhile Asim Mahmood, a Labour councillor in Walthamstow, has called for any MP who supports the vote should "automatically go through a trigger ballot for reselection".
Creasy said in a Facebook post that she would not "be bullied by a sitting Walthamstow Labour councillor with the threat of deselection if I don't do what he wants".
"On a matter of national security, such intimidation is completely unacceptable and disrespectful to the residents of Walthamstow who deserve better and glad to hear Jeremy in PLP condemn such conduct."
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has come under fire from some on the left for allowing his MPs a free vote, although he has said he will vote against the airstrikes.
Yesterday the party was reportedly forced to cancel a phone canvassing event in support of Oldham candidate Jim McMahon because Stop the War was planning to march on Labour's Brewers Green HQ in protest against his decision.
David Cameron has urged MPs not to be swayed by "Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers".
http://www.cityam.com/230045/labour...ence-if-she-votes-to-approve-syria-airstrikes
Oh yes, the 'hard left' that includes the former NATO deputy supreme commander, the former British ambassador to Syria, the conservative defence committee chair and 15 conservative MPs.
You are using a lot of words to say the same thing over and over whilst never addressing the issue at hand. You are acting like the kind of politician that Corbyn claims not to be. It is fine that you don't know or have any answers but the potential future leader of Great Britain has to come up with some credible alternative rather than just taking pot shots from the side.
Doing nothing is not a credible alternative, nor is letting our allies do all the dirty work.
@Kaos
I would like that UK to end association with Saudi Arabia but I don't think it is that easy. If Saudi Arabia and the country collapses, then what? Who gets control of that massive oil reserve that will put them among the most powerful nations in the world?
I think that Saudi Arabia should be kept stable in the current climate.
Good post.
He's made it clear he is against military action and this is just more of his woolly minded thinking whilst ISIL carry on with their slaughter which is exactly what they are doing whilst we fail to support the rest of the coalition. We are currently bombing a few miles away from Syria and it makes no sense to extend that to where the IS terrorists are over the border.