News0 min ago
Corbyn Cannot Support Air Strikes On I S
39 Answers
And opposition front bench resignations are expected.
http://
Is there anything that this person WOULD back that might secure the security of these Isles?
And where are the usual AB suspects to sing his praises whilst his party melts down in front of his eyes? They're very conspicuous by their absence!
http://
Is there anything that this person WOULD back that might secure the security of these Isles?
And where are the usual AB suspects to sing his praises whilst his party melts down in front of his eyes? They're very conspicuous by their absence!
Answers
237SJ - "... [air strikes] will just make the UK even more of a target for terrorism that it already is." We're already a target. And quite frankly, I don't care whether or not air strikes against ISIS increase the "threat" level in this country. The moment we become become afraid to fight the terrorists for fear of future reprisals, we've lost. The aim of...
01:13 Fri 27th Nov 2015
-- answer removed --
Cor byn laden is a disgrace to the party and to the country. He's a superannuated old fool stuck in the 60s. We are already under threat from evil . Trouble with IS(I prefer the Andrew Neil version)... when it's defeated, and it will be, it'll only pop up again under yet another name. The threat is there and will always be so while we have any extremists in the world. It is a many headed monster. Cor byn Laden is not fit for purpose and should go. He's an embarrassment .
-- answer removed --
No matter the reasons behind the air strikes .What air strikes will do is kill people .Does anyone have the moral right to do that .Hear shouts of pacifist .No one has the right to kill for what ever reason .Thought just crossed my mind but maybe I'm being a silly old fool but ,Geordie back slides on family credit just as Davy want to go to war . Why is the labour man so bad because he doesn't want to kill people?
birdie expresses things more bluntly than I would have but I agree in particular with the idea that the threat level against this country has rather little to do with air strikes in Syria. ISIS are probably the sort of people who would be able to sell convincing propaganda that the West should be attacked equally for intervening in the Middle East as if we had stayed out and "abandoned us to the mercies of evil local leaders" or some such.
Whatever action we take should be based on more important concerns than the lies and poison ISIS leaders would spread as a response -- rest assured that, whatever we do, they will spin it to justify hatred, bile and murderous attacks on civilians who had nothing to do with it.
Whatever action we take should be based on more important concerns than the lies and poison ISIS leaders would spread as a response -- rest assured that, whatever we do, they will spin it to justify hatred, bile and murderous attacks on civilians who had nothing to do with it.
mr corbyn, in taking the labour leadership, had been handed the biggest mandate in the party's history. which, given his political leanings, is to return the party to its left wing roots. if certain members of the front bench don't want to sing from the little red hymn book, then maybe they don't warrant a place on the front bench of a left wing labour party.
Rosetta - //A H how can u admire a man whose mindset is so clearly routed in the ideology of the past.//
I admire anyone who has strong principles and defends them - that does not mean I unconditionally admire and support everything a person stands for - it is the concept of defending your beliefs that I admire.
Although on this occasion, I do side with Mr Corbyn - I do not believe that bombing IS targets will bring forth any reaction other than revenge bombing on UK streets.
I admire anyone who has strong principles and defends them - that does not mean I unconditionally admire and support everything a person stands for - it is the concept of defending your beliefs that I admire.
Although on this occasion, I do side with Mr Corbyn - I do not believe that bombing IS targets will bring forth any reaction other than revenge bombing on UK streets.
I think the latest outrage is more to do with the correspondence trying to get the shadow cabinet to fall into line, rather than continue private discussions. It's less to do with Corbyn's stance on war.
The issue is less important than it sounds because other counties are already involved in action: so not to do nothing against Daesh, it's more a case of standing with our allies (and others) as part of that action, or leaving it to the big powers to sort out.
We know Corbyn is reputed to be a pacifist (I'm unsure if he has said so) so we know he would be unwilling to join in, to spend on a war, and have our soldiers die for the cause without having a large reason to do so. I don't believe this means he would not support action if he really believed there was a threat that could not be already contained.
In any case, the cabinet, shadow or otherwise, has a shared responsibility to put up an "agreed" front/opinion so were Corbyn in power and could not persuade his cabinet he'd probably have agree with the majority decision, or risk a lot of resignations (or pick a new cabinet more in line with his own views), or resign. The only sensible options would be to accept the first among many does have to go along with the majority on occasion; or on principle say he can't accept joint responsibility for the prevailing view, and trigger a leadership contest.
The issue is less important than it sounds because other counties are already involved in action: so not to do nothing against Daesh, it's more a case of standing with our allies (and others) as part of that action, or leaving it to the big powers to sort out.
We know Corbyn is reputed to be a pacifist (I'm unsure if he has said so) so we know he would be unwilling to join in, to spend on a war, and have our soldiers die for the cause without having a large reason to do so. I don't believe this means he would not support action if he really believed there was a threat that could not be already contained.
In any case, the cabinet, shadow or otherwise, has a shared responsibility to put up an "agreed" front/opinion so were Corbyn in power and could not persuade his cabinet he'd probably have agree with the majority decision, or risk a lot of resignations (or pick a new cabinet more in line with his own views), or resign. The only sensible options would be to accept the first among many does have to go along with the majority on occasion; or on principle say he can't accept joint responsibility for the prevailing view, and trigger a leadership contest.
"mr corbyn, in taking the labour leadership, had been handed the biggest mandate in the party's history. which, given his political leanings, is to return the party to its left wing roots. if certain members of the front bench don't want to sing from the little red hymn book, then maybe they don't warrant a place on the front bench of a left wing labour party. "
The problem Jeremy Corbyn has is that, while he may have a "mandate" from a lot of people who voted for him to become leader, those people are out of step with the PLP, and almost certainly, the voters who matter. He may have what he regards as honourable reasons for his stance on IS, but they don't wash with me and they don't wash with a lot of people. Not, crucially, those people on the labour benches, especially, who are speaking out more and more outspokenly. This may be the issue that hastens the end of the Corbyn interregnum. As a labour supporter I certainly hope so.
The problem Jeremy Corbyn has is that, while he may have a "mandate" from a lot of people who voted for him to become leader, those people are out of step with the PLP, and almost certainly, the voters who matter. He may have what he regards as honourable reasons for his stance on IS, but they don't wash with me and they don't wash with a lot of people. Not, crucially, those people on the labour benches, especially, who are speaking out more and more outspokenly. This may be the issue that hastens the end of the Corbyn interregnum. As a labour supporter I certainly hope so.
Astonishingly I find myself in complete agreement with Mr Corbyn, albeit for totally different reasons.
Leaving aside the fact that the UK’s contribution will make very little difference (even if the campaign as a whole was showing some success) bombing Syria will make no difference to the terror threat posed to Europe. As has been emphasised just about everywhere, including here on AB, the Paris outrage was committed by people based mainly in Western Europe. They were “Belgians” so we were told. Quite how dropping a few bombs on the nutcases who infest Syria will prevent something similar happening is lost on me.
What is needed is more concentration of effort within Europe. In particular the virtually free movement of people between Europe and the Middle East needs to be drastically curtailed; the intelligence services need to be bolstered to monitor the EU citizens already here who seek to do harm; the external borders of the EU need rigorous policing; and the Schengen Agreement (what's left of it) needs to be abandoned forthwith to prevent mass invasions such as those which have occurred during the last six months or so from recurring. All of this needs more “boots on the ground” in the home countries. None of it will be achieved by bombing Syria.
Leaving aside the fact that the UK’s contribution will make very little difference (even if the campaign as a whole was showing some success) bombing Syria will make no difference to the terror threat posed to Europe. As has been emphasised just about everywhere, including here on AB, the Paris outrage was committed by people based mainly in Western Europe. They were “Belgians” so we were told. Quite how dropping a few bombs on the nutcases who infest Syria will prevent something similar happening is lost on me.
What is needed is more concentration of effort within Europe. In particular the virtually free movement of people between Europe and the Middle East needs to be drastically curtailed; the intelligence services need to be bolstered to monitor the EU citizens already here who seek to do harm; the external borders of the EU need rigorous policing; and the Schengen Agreement (what's left of it) needs to be abandoned forthwith to prevent mass invasions such as those which have occurred during the last six months or so from recurring. All of this needs more “boots on the ground” in the home countries. None of it will be achieved by bombing Syria.
It's interesting to see how opinions on what to do about ISIS are so wholly unconnected with the more traditional political dividing lines, on AB and elsewhere. Different motivations for the choice of action, to be sure, but this isn't a left v. right issue. I agree more with Naomi and birdie on this one.
"Leaving aside the fact that the UK’s contribution will make very little difference"
Not if you believe the assertion that the UK has UK, as yet unapplied, military technology to bring to bear
"They were “Belgians” so we were told. Quite how dropping a few bombs on the nutcases who infest Syria will prevent something similar happening is lost on me. "
Yes they were, and as such posed - certainly in the medium term, with their local knowledge and grievance against the societies they knew - a much greater threat than "unknowns" coming in, possibly disguised as refugees.
Nonetheless they were it seems inspired by the IS "caliphate" ambition, and had of course been there to fight and receive training.
"Quite how dropping a few bombs on the nutcases who infest Syria will prevent something similar happening is lost on me. "
That of course is correct, but the hope and belief is that that is not going to happen, In 2001 the US and allies launched a "war on terror" and yet 14 years later we live in a world which perhaps makes 2001 seem safe by comparison. Nonetheless the assessment now is that this is actually a different and more immediate sort of threat, that cannot simply be left, or solved by any other means.
Simply battening down the hatches in Europe is not going to work. It's like buryng our head in the sand, albeit under a large and heavy manhole cover :-)
Not if you believe the assertion that the UK has UK, as yet unapplied, military technology to bring to bear
"They were “Belgians” so we were told. Quite how dropping a few bombs on the nutcases who infest Syria will prevent something similar happening is lost on me. "
Yes they were, and as such posed - certainly in the medium term, with their local knowledge and grievance against the societies they knew - a much greater threat than "unknowns" coming in, possibly disguised as refugees.
Nonetheless they were it seems inspired by the IS "caliphate" ambition, and had of course been there to fight and receive training.
"Quite how dropping a few bombs on the nutcases who infest Syria will prevent something similar happening is lost on me. "
That of course is correct, but the hope and belief is that that is not going to happen, In 2001 the US and allies launched a "war on terror" and yet 14 years later we live in a world which perhaps makes 2001 seem safe by comparison. Nonetheless the assessment now is that this is actually a different and more immediate sort of threat, that cannot simply be left, or solved by any other means.
Simply battening down the hatches in Europe is not going to work. It's like buryng our head in the sand, albeit under a large and heavy manhole cover :-)
"Quite how dropping a few bombs on the nutcases who infest Syria will prevent something similar happening is lost on me. "
"That of course is correct,..."
Quite so. But Mr Cameron's pitch on this is that military action by the UK in Syria is essential to enhance the safety of the UK. From yesterday's debate:
"David Cameron spent nearly three hours on Thursday answering questions from MPs in an attempt to convince them of the case for air strikes.
He argued joining in with strikes on IS targets in Syria would make Britain "safer" and the country had to stand by allies such as France rather than "outsourcing" its security."
His assertion was short on detail. He explained (roughly) what our Tornado aircraft can do. He did not make the connection between doing it and "making Britain safe". The short answer is it won't. But he needs to be seen to be "doing something".
"That of course is correct,..."
Quite so. But Mr Cameron's pitch on this is that military action by the UK in Syria is essential to enhance the safety of the UK. From yesterday's debate:
"David Cameron spent nearly three hours on Thursday answering questions from MPs in an attempt to convince them of the case for air strikes.
He argued joining in with strikes on IS targets in Syria would make Britain "safer" and the country had to stand by allies such as France rather than "outsourcing" its security."
His assertion was short on detail. He explained (roughly) what our Tornado aircraft can do. He did not make the connection between doing it and "making Britain safe". The short answer is it won't. But he needs to be seen to be "doing something".
Cameron claims Britain's 'advanced' bombing capabilities are vital in contributing to the other 66 countries of the Global Coalition to counter-ISIL.(GCCI)
The Plan outlined in the 36 page Memorandum to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee talks of continuing to support the Free Syrian Army who are fighting Assad and assist the bombing of ISIL along with the 66 other countries in GCCI but "Without transition, it will continue to be difficult to generate a Sunni force able to fight ISIL and hold ground in Eastern Syria" - page 20 - the 36 page document assumes that.
"Degrading and defeating ISIL will help promote a political transition by strengthening the moderate opposition forces who must be part of a transition, and by strengthening the territorial integrity of the state of Syria, which ISIL has sought to destroy...
An orderly political transition in Syria would preserve Syrian state structures but deliver a new Syrian government, which is able to meet the needs of the Syrian people, and with which the international community could cooperate fully against ISIL, as we do with the Government of Iraq. But that is not possible for as long as Assad remains in power without any timetable for his departure, and for as long as his security forces murder, torture, gas and bomb his own people." --- a daunting endeavour .
https:/
The Plan outlined in the 36 page Memorandum to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee talks of continuing to support the Free Syrian Army who are fighting Assad and assist the bombing of ISIL along with the 66 other countries in GCCI but "Without transition, it will continue to be difficult to generate a Sunni force able to fight ISIL and hold ground in Eastern Syria" - page 20 - the 36 page document assumes that.
"Degrading and defeating ISIL will help promote a political transition by strengthening the moderate opposition forces who must be part of a transition, and by strengthening the territorial integrity of the state of Syria, which ISIL has sought to destroy...
An orderly political transition in Syria would preserve Syrian state structures but deliver a new Syrian government, which is able to meet the needs of the Syrian people, and with which the international community could cooperate fully against ISIL, as we do with the Government of Iraq. But that is not possible for as long as Assad remains in power without any timetable for his departure, and for as long as his security forces murder, torture, gas and bomb his own people." --- a daunting endeavour .
https:/
Latest from BBC Labour Syria Crisis feed:
Labour MP John Woodcock says the party is in an "utter, chaotic, shambolic mess".
He believes it is "really important to answer" a call from France to join them in air strikes on Syria.
"It's certainly unusual," he says that party leader Jeremy Corbyn and the Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn have opposing views on the issue.
He adds, the "only practical solution" would be to have a free vote, as it isn't just Mr Benn who supports air strikes, but he says it is also "many people in the shadow cabinet". Equally he says there are members of the shadow cabinet who support Mr Corbyn's view.
He points out that Jeremy Corbyn as a backbencher advocated for free votes on military intervention which he set out "quite eloquently" a few years ago.
------------------------
You couldn't make it up.........
Labour MP John Woodcock says the party is in an "utter, chaotic, shambolic mess".
He believes it is "really important to answer" a call from France to join them in air strikes on Syria.
"It's certainly unusual," he says that party leader Jeremy Corbyn and the Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn have opposing views on the issue.
He adds, the "only practical solution" would be to have a free vote, as it isn't just Mr Benn who supports air strikes, but he says it is also "many people in the shadow cabinet". Equally he says there are members of the shadow cabinet who support Mr Corbyn's view.
He points out that Jeremy Corbyn as a backbencher advocated for free votes on military intervention which he set out "quite eloquently" a few years ago.
------------------------
You couldn't make it up.........
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.