Might be easier if the current government wasn't so insistent on cutting renewable energy grants.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
I'm having to say the same thing over and over again because you're refusing to address anything I ask you.
So for the third time, can you address the questions I asked in post #2205?
I've humoured you and answered everything you asked. Stop ignoring what you don't have an answer to.
Nice to see we're still not abandoning the lie that Cameron's come up with anything substantial on that front.
or you could say it spiked after the paris attacks and it is now just back in line with the levels pre paris - which are way more people in favour than opposed - but its not a Corbyn point your making to it would be better taken to a more appropriate thread? - if you want to talk about the implications for his leadership and how the same poll shows him loosing popularity and votes amongst people who voted labour last time then yeah that fits here - but if its specifically about the westminister vote on action in syria against isil then the westminister thread or the isis thread are better fits
lets not put it in here though - either the westminister or probably even more appropraite the isis thread
Such a bunch of bastards.
Although you can't because thats clearly not true based on the timeline above.
My my, that's quite a drop.
True enough. We were a world leader in progression to meet carbon emission reduction targets under the (evil) Blair era government. Now we are heading to be among the worst
What successful airstrikes? WW2 there were plenty. I would say that the first Gulf War had a desirable outcome in that Saddam was put back in his box and didn't end up controlling half of the worlds oil. Even the second Iraq war was successful at point of war, it was the exit strategy that failed the country. Saddam was disposed of very quickly. Did we offer air support then?
All these points are debatable of course and I do not know the entire history of British airstrikes so I would not like to comment beyond that.
You admit to having no answers or even opinions as to a plan of action whilst the most reliable opposition force on the ground, the Kurds, say that they can defeat ISIS with more air support.
You do not convince me at all.
No I don't actually, I said if you wanted my opinion you could go back and read it. You clearly haven't bothered to do that. I'll freely admit to not having all the answers. As should absolutely anyone who wants to be taken seriously in this thread, that doesn't mean I haven't suggested how I think we could improve the situation.
WW2! Really? You think thats a good example of how airstrikes will help in Syria? It's completely and utterly unrelated. You might as well start talking about the Anglo-Zanzibar war I mean, it lasted 38 minutes and didn't involve a single plane. But still, its as relevant as WW2!
And the Iraq War is your proof of successful foreign intervention and the only problem was the exit strategy? Jesus Christ, and to think, people accuse Corbyn of having a mangled sense of history.
Even the First war you're hard pushed to call a success, some short term aims might have been achieved, but you can pretty much draw a straight line from now all the way back to there for the problems in Iraq. It hardly helped.
Do you want to try again? Or can we admit that you don't have a single example of how the proposed military action in Syria has helped the situation in the past?
@NinjaFletch Do you accept that air strikes weaken an enemy?
Do you accept that bombing densely populated cities do more harm than good? Do you accept that recent bombing campaigns in the Middle East have proven ineffective and disastrous?
If you think it's as easy as providing Kurds with air support then I now understand why you haven't taken the position you have.
They haven't weakened ISIS so far?
Bombing densely populated areas is without doubt risky but it is for that very reason we are being asked by the coalition to join them Our expertise is in precison bombing and the fact that in 18 months of bombing Iraq not one civilian has died because of it.
Any military action has both successes and failures.
Now can you answer my question -- Do you accept that air strikes weaken an enemy?
Really? I read that Coalition estimates are that 23,000 DAESH fighters have been killed - don't you think that might have weakened them?
No. I never said that it would be easy or that it would work. I am interested in hearing convincing arguments as to a solution, or any ideas at all.
They were effective at achieving the short term aim of disposing of a pair of tyrants. Both were disposed of with ease. The failure was stabilising the nations after the war. The West failed to do that or even consider the possible consequences of not doing that it seems.
Short-term? Absolutely. (although I would like to point out that is not an open and shut case, and various members of the armed forces have questioned their effectiveness)
But me and you had the discussion as to why I think they're counter productive in the longterm as much as two weeks ago.
It was my impression we were seeking a solution to the Syria crisis. It is my opinion, and you have yet to provide an argument against that, that airstrikes are detrimental to the long term aims of the West in Syria - namely, a resolution to the conflict and stopping the spread of radical Islam.
Or to put it in the words of a former US general:
Airstrikes might lead to the destruction of the group named as 'IS', we then pat ourselves on the back, call it a job well done and go home. Then in a few years time, when the new group IS+ or whatever we want to call them comes along we stand around and act bewildered 'how did that happen?'
It is, as I said to you yesterday, exactly what we did with Al-Qaida. Except we haven't managed to destroy them, have we?
The RAF bombings in Iraq have been sporadic and usually in isolated territory, not perpetual bombing of a city like Raqqa.
Immediately they might prove effective, but in the long term they increase sympathy towards ISIS and risk radicalisation because of the scores of civilians that will likely be killed, as was the case in other middle eastern countries bombed.
Ninafletch raises a good point - how effective was it in destroying Al Qaeda?
IF that were to be the case then I'd agree. However I have not seen a shred of evidence that that is the plan. The solution will be long and very involved but allowing ISIL to freely move around Syria raping and butchering as they go and also slaughtering British and other nationalities without being able to weaken them with our bombs makes no sense to me.
Even so, I'd take claims of no civilian deaths with a pinch of salt. This is the US standard:
And see here too: http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/
I don't know the exact UK definition, maybe its out there, and I haven't looked. But its incredibly easy how you can manage not to kill civilians if you classify everyone you kill as combatants.
I haven't heard that we will be perpetually bombing Raqqa...can you link us to your source that we are? It is now we need to make an effective impact and I'm pleased you recognise this BUT I agree that it is the campaign is a long term one and not short term. I'm sure we run the risk of further radicalisation but that's happening now and personally I am heartened that 23,000 have died so far which will surely raise a question in those thinking it's a good idea to travel to Syria to join IS.
Are AQ as strong as they were? I'd assume it is an on going fight against them.
Cameron was talking about our jets not killing any civilians. I'm sure someone would have shown the claim to be wrong if it were.
It won't be, I'm sorry.
The 'solution' to the Syria conflict will be only as long and drawn out as public appetite demands. We've talked about Libya a lot but is that not a good example again? We did what we're talking about here, called it a job well done (literally), packed up and went home leaving everyone else to deal with the mess once people had forgotten about the crisis in favour of the new fad.
The fact Cameron is under increasing pressure, even by his own MPs, to clarify what that long term solution is beyond the wooly nothings he's talked of so far suggests he doesn't really have a clear idea. That inspires no confidence in me that he's making a case for airstrikes as part of a plan. Rather, he wants to perform airstrikes and then he will think about a 'plan'. If Airstrikes aren't part of the long term solution -and again, I'm yet to see an argument that they truly are- then it begs the question what purpose are they intended to serve?
Its the sort of thing that tends to come out much later in judicial inquiries. I would be amazed if we had killed not 1 single civilian, and think the only way that figure could possibly be true is with some very generous interpretations of 'combatant' just as the US uses.
I'd love to be wrong, I obviously don't want to see civilians be killed, but we'll see.
How? There are multiple airforces bombing targets. There's a complete breakdown of the state. How will anyone know who bombed what and killed how many?
Drone strikes also had a 'clean' image because of the latter issue (targeting areas where the state doesn't exist) but investigative reporting exposed that myth. Unfortunately that can't happen in this case, you can't send reporters into or near ISIS land.
According to the Long War Journal, as of mid-2011, the drone strikes in Pakistan since 2006 had killed 2,018 militants and 138 civilians.[1] The New America Foundation stated in mid-2011 that from 2004 to 2011, 80% of the 2,551 people killed in the strikes were militants. The Foundation stated that 95% of those killed in 2010 were militants and that, as of 2012, 15% of the total people killed by drone strikes were either civilians or unknown.[2] The foundation also states that in 2012 the rate of civilian and unknown casualties was 2 percent, whereas the Bureau of Investigative Journalism say the rate of civilian casualties for 2012 is 9 percent.[3]
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, based on extensive research in mid-2011, claims that at least 385 civilians were among the dead, including more than 160 children.[4] In July 2009, Brookings Institution released a report stating that in the United States-led drone attacks in Pakistan, ten civilians died for every militant killed.
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, based on extensive research in mid-2011, claims that at least 385 civilians were among the dead, including more than 160 children.[4] In July 2009, Brookings Institution released a report stating that in the United States-led drone attacks in Pakistan, ten civilians died for every militant killed.
I also can't understand how you can trust govts so easily. Lying about civilian killings has been standard procedure for 50+ years.
As I said I would be surprised if he could claim such an untruth and not be picked up on it. Bombings are not something that's taken on lightly and detailed records are kept and missions monitored so I would accept his claim to be correct.
It seems we are not going to agree on this action and only time will tell whether it is right to join the coalition in bombing ISIL in Syria.
You make it sound like planes are launched and bombs are dropped without a plan. They are not. There are daily Coalition military reports relating to the air war against Islamic State/ Daesh in Iraq and Syria
Where else would they be bombing? Why the need for the resolution if they're already bombing isolated positions?
And those 23,000 that have died have not all been killed because of air strikes. They've been killed by other groups, the Syrian Arab Army, the Iraqi army, Hezbollah, the Kurds, various militias etc. We're not the only ones fighting them.
Al Qaeda are not as strong as they are largely because they've been eclipsed by ISIS. What about the Taliban? They're stronger than they were prior to the Afghan war. Some good the bombing did there.
Well the two groups that have the best ability to assess it both have motives to lie.
I remember in Libya similar claims were made by Western forces and the UN now puts its at 60 civilian deaths. Not as huge as rebel/governmental groups were making out, but not 0 like was claimed at one point.
I have no doubt that technology nowadays greatly reduces the chances of killing civilians. But it can't reduce it to 0.
You can vote your own waaaaayyy 
Very good
Very good
Are you seriously suggesting we and the coalition have one target? There's a few targets shown in that image that have been bombed and perpetuating the myth as Corbyn has been doing that Raqqa is going to be the only target is silly.
I never said airstrikes have killed 23,000 I simply stated the fact they have been weakened by losing that number of fighters.
Last edited:
I agree it can't be reduced to zero and any loss of innocent life is hugely regretable but that IMO is not a reason to not attack the enemy when it's considered to be as safe as possible.
Stop the war by intimidating one of the nicest and best MPs around.
With Corbyn having such a close relationship with STW you'd think he'd have a word with them....or maybe he has 
Are you seriously suggesting we and the coalition have one target? There's a few targets shown in that image that have been bombed and perpetuating the myth as Corbyn has been doing that Raqqa is going to be the only target is silly.
I never said airstrikes have killed 23,000 I simply stated the fact they have been weakened by losing that number of fighters.
Of course its not the only target, but it will be a main target considering how Cameron keeps harping on about it being a key area to strike.
@NinjaFletch
What does the solution being 'as long and as drawn out as the public demand it to be' even mean?
As for historical bombing campaigns. The aims of this campaign are not analogous to recent campaigns in the region either. Most of the world accept that ISIS are a unique and immediate threat that needs to be crushed as soon as possible.
I doubt it. He genuinely is a head in the clouds idealist but genuine and a nice guy I think. He wouldn't try something so cynical.
What does the solution being 'as long and as drawn out as the public demand it to be' even mean?
As for historical bombing campaigns. The aims of this campaign are not analogous to recent campaigns in the region either. Most of the world accept that ISIS are a unique and immediate threat that needs to be crushed as soon as possible.
With Corbyn having such a close relationship with STW you'd think he'd have a word with them....or maybe he has
I doubt it. He genuinely is a head in the clouds idealist but genuine and a nice guy I think. He wouldn't try something so cynical.
What I actually said was:
'The 'solution' to the Syria conflict will be only as long and drawn out as public appetite demands'
which I think is slightly clearer than the misquote.
And I explain what I mean in the next sentence.
Syria will be forgotten about once something new and more shocking happens. Its what always happens.
I have been alive for 33 years and the only thing more shocking than the rise of ISIS that I recall was 9/11.
I don't believe this crisis is leaving our consciousness anytime soon. There are many permutations of outcome and most of them are not good. Unfortunately I do not believe that we can accurately predict what the long term consequences of any course of action suggested in this thread will be, only the short term. That said, it does not make sense to me to leave the occupied people in the clutches of ISIS, nor should we let our allies take responsibility whilst we um and ahh at alternative ideas. In my opinion ISIS are an immediate threat and Corbyn offers no alternative plan of action in the moment when it is needed. Thus he fails his supporters unless you believe in being passive just to maintain a sense of moral superiority.
Perhaps.
There's certainly a suggestion that IS do a lot of what they do for the reasons I mentioned above. They know how to play the media and emotions well to get what they want. They're effectively an end of the world death cult that believes a war eventually fought in Dabiq, in Syria, fought out by foreign troops is a sign of an impending apocalypse and are attempting to manufacture the situation where that happens. The reason ISIS don't drop off the international scene is they don't let themselves.
Dabiq is even the name of their propaganda magazine, they're hardly being subtle about this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-30083303
The problem is, is they have to fight hard to stay relevant. If they didn't, we'd forget about them. Sad but true. Theres plenty of despicable shit that happens around the world that gets half the column inches of ISIS. Hell one of the main causes of the despicable shit is one of our biggest international partners in the area!