Jeremy Corbyn's Labour

[superblue24]

I am an interventionist, I have always thought that democracy should be imposed throughout the world (which is probably an oxymoron).
But I would say that Cameron's show of strength speech sounded about as weak and lacking in conviction as it is possible to be. In comparison I think Corbyn is talking a lot of sense in the lack of a coherent plan that Cameron is offering."

Yet somehow he has failed to convince many of his own cabinet and is waking up to a party in disarray once again. He must step down, there is no unity.

 

[rigsby]

I am an interventionist, I have always thought that democracy should be imposed throughout the world (which is probably an oxymoron).
But I would say that Cameron's show of strength speech sounded about as weak and lacking in conviction as it is possible to be. In comparison I think Corbyn is talking a lot of sense in the lack of a coherent plan that Cameron is offering.

Corbyn:

"Our first priority must be the security of Britain and the safety of the British people. The issue now is whether what the PM is proposing strengthens, or undermines, our national security.
"I do not believe that the PM today made a convincing case that extending UK bombing to Syria would meet that crucial test. Nor did it satisfactorily answer the questions raised by us and the Foreign Affairs Committee.
"In particular, the PM did not set out a coherent strategy, coordinated through the UN for the defeat of ISIS. Nor has he been able to explain what credible and acceptable ground forces could retake and hold territory freed from ISIS control by an intensified air campaign.
"In my view, the PM has been unable to explain the contribution of additional UK bombing to a comprehensive negotiated political settlement of the Syrian civil war, or its likely impact on the threat of terrorist attacks in the UK.
"For these, and other reasons, I do not believe the PM's current proposal for air strikes in Syria will protect our security and therefore cannot support it."

You sound like some American Neocon. Spending billions to invade Iraq and Afghanistan leaving thousands of innocent people dead. At the end of it all at election time they wait to be told who to vote for by their religious leader.

You will never 'impose' democracy or negotiated settlement by bombing. The one thing that unites the different factions is the sight of American or British uniforms in their land. So boots on the ground will mean body bags on the ground.

If you are trying to convince people to reject their system, which has been around a lot longer than our version of democracy. Perhaps we should do better than ending up with Bush and Blair as our leaders.

 

[Uncle Leo]

**** sake Abbot.

[VINE]iamVnD9A1Xg[/VINE]

 

[Pubey]

****in' hell.:hilarious:

 

[MK Shrimper]

For once I agree with Jezza,bombing them is stupid and futile,it will only achieve minor success whilst acting as the recruiting sergeant for IS.

One of the most sensible things you have ever said. :clap:

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I am an interventionist, I have always thought that democracy should be imposed throughout the world (which is probably an oxymoron).
But I would say that Cameron's show of strength speech sounded about as weak and lacking in conviction as it is possible to be. In comparison I think Corbyn is talking a lot of sense in the lack of a coherent plan that Cameron is offering.

Corbyn:

"Our first priority must be the security of Britain and the safety of the British people. The issue now is whether what the PM is proposing strengthens, or undermines, our national security.
"I do not believe that the PM today made a convincing case that extending UK bombing to Syria would meet that crucial test. Nor did it satisfactorily answer the questions raised by us and the Foreign Affairs Committee.
"In particular, the PM did not set out a coherent strategy, coordinated through the UN for the defeat of ISIS. Nor has he been able to explain what credible and acceptable ground forces could retake and hold territory freed from ISIS control by an intensified air campaign.
"In my view, the PM has been unable to explain the contribution of additional UK bombing to a comprehensive negotiated political settlement of the Syrian civil war, or its likely impact on the threat of terrorist attacks in the UK.
"For these, and other reasons, I do not believe the PM's current proposal for air strikes in Syria will protect our security and therefore cannot support it."

Unlike you *** I'm not an interventionist, though I'm no pacifist,either.

I was impressed by Ken Livingstone on QT last night, who argued the case for ground troops from nations such as China,Russia and India as well as Western countries etc, under the auspices of the UN.That makes sense to me.

Cameron's argument seems to be that we should bomb Syria just because the US,France and our other allies are.

It's obvious that without ground troops and a peace plan there will be no solution to the crisis in Syria.

KL also made the point that if we hadn't embarked on an illegal war in Iraq, (with Blair lying to the country about the existence of WMD's), then the London bombings in 7/7 would never have happened.He's right.What's more if we bomb Syria without UN backing, then we can expect more of the same in the future.

 

[mrsblue]

Unlike you *** I'm not an interventionist, though I'm no pacifist,either.

I was impressed by Ken Livingstone on QT last night who argued the case for ground troops from nations such as China,Russia and India as well as Western countries etc, under the auspices of the UN.That makes sense to me.

Cameron's argument seems to be that we should bomb Syria just because the US,France and our other allies are.

It's obvious that without ground troops and a peace plan there will be no solution to the crisis in Syria.

KL also made the point that if we hadn't embarked on an illegal war in Iraq, (with Blair lying to the country about the existence of WMD's), then the London bombings in 7/7 would never have happened.He's right.What's more if we bomb Syria without UN backing then we can expect more of the same in the future.

Very true indeed,

Add the recent Turkey v Russia spat which illustrates how dangerous the entire thing really is for us all.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Yet somehow he has failed to convince many of his own cabinet and is waking up to a party in disarray once again. He must step down, there is no unity.

Cameron hasn't been able to persuade all of the Tory party to back bombing in Syria (there are at least 15 or so Tory rebels,apparently).Should he therefore stand down?

The interesting thing about JC to me, is whether or not he'll insist on the PLP having a whipped vote on opposition to the bombing, or allow a free vote come Monday.

Ed Miliband had the courage to insist that there was a whipped vote for the PLP against bombing (Assad) two years ago.I hope JC will take a similar stand this time around.

 

[rigsby]

Unlike you *** I'm not an interventionist, though I'm no pacifist,either.

I was impressed by Ken Livingstone on QT last night, who argued the case for ground troops from nations such as China,Russia and India as well as Western countries etc, under the auspices of the UN.That makes sense to me.

Cameron's argument seems to be that we should bomb Syria just because the US,France and our other allies are.

It's obvious that without ground troops and a peace plan there will be no solution to the crisis in Syria.

KL also made the point that if we hadn't embarked on an illegal war in Iraq, (with Blair lying to the country about the existence of WMD's), then the London bombings in 7/7 would never have happened.He's right.What's more if we bomb Syria without UN backing, then we can expect more of the same in the future.

The UN always sound like the solution but the fact is they are a toothless tiger. Far to many caveats from all the different nations that take part in the most minor of operations.

It would end up with just the usual suspects doing any real fighting. I read an excellent account from a British Major who narrowly escaped with his life in Sierra Leone after a complete fiasco of a UN mission. You may have seen the film Black Hawk down. It took several hours for the UN forces to mobilise and move three miles.

 

[londonblue]

Unlike you *** I'm not an interventionist, though I'm no pacifist,either.

I was impressed by Ken Livingstone on QT last night, who argued the case for ground troops from nations such as China,Russia and India as well as Western countries etc, under the auspices of the UN.That makes sense to me.

Cameron's argument seems to be that we should bomb Syria just because the US,France and our other allies are.

It's obvious that without ground troops and a peace plan there will be no solution to the crisis in Syria.

KL also made the point that if we hadn't embarked on an illegal war in Iraq, (with Blair lying to the country about the existence of WMD's), then the London bombings in 7/7 would never have happened.He's right.What's more if we bomb Syria without UN backing, then we can expect more of the same in the future.

He's wrong. The people you blame for terrorism are the terrorists. Plain and simple.

You might do something to upset people, and they may use that as their excuse, but that is all it is, an excuse. People should take responsibility for their own actions, and not blame it on others. Making excuses like that on their behalf is even worse.

We live in a democratic society. If these people want to oppose government policy, then they're perfectly entitled to do so, in a peaceful way. There is simply no excuse for terrorism.

 

[mrsblue]

He's wrong. The people you blame for terrorism are the terrorists. Plain and simple.

You might do something to upset people, and they may use that as their excuse, but that is all it is, an excuse. People should take responsibility for their own actions, and not blame it on others. Making excuses like that on their behalf is even worse.

We live in a democratic society. If these people want to oppose government policy, then they're perfectly entitled to do so, in a peaceful way. There is simply no excuse for terrorism.

Shame Bush and Blair never gave the Iraqi people the same choice.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Yet somehow he has failed to convince many of his own cabinet and is waking up to a party in disarray once again. He must step down, there is no unity.

Are we talking about Cameron or Corbyn here? The reason Cameron can't just push it through with his majority is that there are Tory MPs who will not vote for airstrikes.

 

[Napster]

Shame Bush and Blair never gave the Iraqi people the same choice.

how many Iraqis do you know?

 

[mrsblue]

how many Iraqis do you know?

I think the guy selling kebabs may be Iraqi,does he count ?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

You sound like some American Neocon. Spending billions to invade Iraq and Afghanistan leaving thousands of innocent people dead. At the end of it all at election time they wait to be told who to vote for by their religious leader.

You will never 'impose' democracy or negotiated settlement by bombing. The one thing that unites the different factions is the sight of American or British uniforms in their land. So boots on the ground will mean body bags on the ground.

If you are trying to convince people to reject their system, which has been around a lot longer than our version of democracy. Perhaps we should do better than ending up with Bush and Blair as our leaders.

True - I have a very Western view of the word. Simple facts for me though are that Sadam, Assad and IS butcher their own people - and for that reason alone I'm an interventionist.

 

[Napster]

True - I have a very Western view of the word. Simple facts for me though are that Sadam, Assad and IS butcher their own people - and for that reason alone I'm an interventionist.

Absolutely. I can't even see why this is an issue.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Absolutely. I can't even see why this is an issue.

Perhaps because you have a very simplistic view of the world?

 

[Napster]

Perhaps because you have a very simplistic view of the world?

yes that's it! my weltanschau is entirely black and white. youve got me.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

He's wrong. The people you blame for terrorism are the terrorists. Plain and simple.

You might do something to upset people, and they may use that as their excuse, but that is all it is, an excuse. People should take responsibility for their own actions, and not blame it on others. Making excuses like that on their behalf is even worse.

We live in a democratic society. If these people want to oppose government policy, then they're perfectly entitled to do so, in a peaceful way. There is simply no excuse for terrorism.

Or for state terrorism?

Of which the British bombing of Syria would be an example for me (as was the bombing and invasion in Iraq,Afghanistan and Libya).

 

[londonblue]

Or for state terrorism?

Of which the British bombing of Syria would be an example for me (as was the bombing and invasion in Iraq,Afghanistan and Libya).

I disagree with that. Going to war is one thing, but that is not the same as terrorism.

Given that you haven't argued any of the points about KL being wrong I take it that you now agree with me.