Syria air strikes

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

With pond life like Livingstone publicly stating he would support deselection for any MP who voted for airstrikes, now is the time to publicly back your MP's - stop skipping the issue.

Not skipping the issue merely asking if why Corbyn (who has not attacked MPs who didn't vote his way) needs to back these MPs, yet you don't ask Cameron (who called those who didn't vote his way 'terrorist sympathisers') to do the same. Maybe you have low expectations of Cameron - I just don't know.

You've not mentioned Livingstone before in relation to this. Can you post a link please because having seen his QT appearance I am aware of his quotes being cropped so there isn't the context of his full speech. Can trust very little in the media's carefully chosen sound bites at the moment.

 

[londonblue]

Not skipping the issue merely asking if why Corbyn (who has not attacked MPs who didn't vote his way) needs to back these MPs, yet you don't ask Cameron (who called those who didn't vote his way 'terrorist sympathisers') to do the same. Maybe you have low expectations of Cameron - I just don't know.

You've not mentioned Livingstone before in relation to this. Can you post a link please because having seen his QT appearance I am aware of his quotes being cropped so there isn't the context of his full speech. Can trust very little in the media's carefully chosen sound bites at the moment.

Because, as far as I'm aware, these Tories aren't being subjected to threats and trolling in general, like some of the Labour MPs are. As a leader he should show leadership and make a point, in the same way as Hilary Benn did, and explicitly say that that kind of behaviour in un-Labour and un-democratic.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Because, as far as I'm aware, these Tories aren't being subjected to threats and trolling in general, like some of the Labour MPs are. As a leader he should show leadership and make a point, in the same way as Hilary Benn did, and explicitly say that that kind of behaviour in un-Labour and un-democratic.

He has:

'as we have both said many times, abuse and intimidation have no place in politics. And the party as a whole will not accept such behaviour, from whatever quarter it comes.'

 

[londonblue]

He has:

'as we have both said many times, abuse and intimidation have no place in politics. And the party as a whole will not accept such behaviour, from whatever quarter it comes.'

Good. So what is your argument? He's done what people want him to do.

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

Not skipping the issue merely asking if why Corbyn (who has not attacked MPs who didn't vote his way) needs to back these MPs, yet you don't ask Cameron (who called those who didn't vote his way 'terrorist sympathisers') to do the same. Maybe you have low expectations of Cameron - I just don't know.

You've not mentioned Livingstone before in relation to this. Can you post a link please because having seen his QT appearance I am aware of his quotes being cropped so there isn't the context of his full speech. Can trust very little in the media's carefully chosen sound bites at the moment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...-voted-for-bombing-deselection_n_8706630.html

There's your link. I mentioned Livingstone in post 93 (which you replied to) sorry you feel the media is bias against you. So far as I know they report what they hear and see.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Good. So what is your argument? He's done what people want him to do.

I think you have got the wrong end of the stick - SAM was asking for Corbyn to back the 'yes' MPs not me.

 

[Beefy]

Read in one of the papers over here that the "Moderates" that DC has stated we're bombing in support of are controlled by an affiliate of Al Qaeda and are themselves opposed to the Assad regime as much as they are ISIS.

Point is the entire situation is so complicated. People on the 'lets bomb them' side seem to be trying to boil this down to Good vs Evil and it just isn't.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...-voted-for-bombing-deselection_n_8706630.html

There's your link. I mentioned Livingstone in post 93 (which you replied to) sorry you feel the media is bias against you. So far as I know they report what they hear and see.

So the quote is:

"People have got a right to have a candidate they agree with. An MP's job shouldn't be for life," he said. "It was very bad in the old days when people got selected and were there for 50 years and no one had any chance to get them out.
"If I had an MP who had voted to bomb Syria then I would be prepared to support someone challenging. As long as they were good on a load of other issues.


That sounds fair to me - if an MP is representing and area then their policies need to fit in with the voters in that area. It's a pretty non aggressive way that Ken has put that information across. I would absolutely agree that at times he says things for effect but what has been said above is reiterating standard voting practice.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Read in one of the papers over here that the "Moderates" that DC has stated we're bombing in support of are controlled by an affiliate of Al Qaeda and are themselves opposed to the Assad regime as much as they are ISIS.

Point is the entire situation is so complicated. People on the 'lets bomb them' side seem to be trying to boil this down to Good vs Evil and it just isn't.

Spot on Beefy. The very people we could engage in on the ground are the very people we're pushing to side with ISIS/Daesh or whatever they're called today.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Read in one of the papers over here that the "Moderates" that DC has stated we're bombing in support of are controlled by an affiliate of Al Qaeda and are themselves opposed to the Assad regime as much as they are ISIS.

Point is the entire situation is so complicated. People on the 'lets bomb them' side seem to be trying to boil this down to Good vs Evil and it just isn't.

There are a lot of reports that many Syrians are much more concerned with ridding themselves of Assad than ISIL.

 

[mrsblue]

Read in one of the papers over here that the "Moderates" that DC has stated we're bombing in support of are controlled by an affiliate of Al Qaeda and are themselves opposed to the Assad regime as much as they are ISIS.

Point is the entire situation is so complicated. People on the 'lets bomb them' side seem to be trying to boil this down to Good vs Evil and it just isn't.

Good post,

Governments tell us over and over again this group or that group are pure evil ,mind games is their biggest weapon.

IS has been rammed down our throats virtually every day,Government and media bombard us with the message that IS must be destroyed.

Propaganda.

 

[londonblue]

I think you have got the wrong end of the stick - SAM was asking for Corbyn to back the 'yes' MPs not me.

But your answer could have been that he has rather than ask why it's necessary.

 

[rigsby]

Read in one of the papers over here that the "Moderates" that DC has stated we're bombing in support of are controlled by an affiliate of Al Qaeda and are themselves opposed to the Assad regime as much as they are ISIS.

Point is the entire situation is so complicated. People on the 'lets bomb them' side seem to be trying to boil this down to Good vs Evil and it just isn't.

List of Syrian groups that hold significant areas of land.

Regime (Assad)
Rebel
Isis
Kurdish
Hezbollah
Jabhat al-Nusra (IN) Bet you don't no what they want

Now add to that.... some areas have up to 3 of the above claiming control, some areas are neutral and of course local tribal feuds.

Difficult to decide who to bomb I would say, as it all gets a bit Life of Brian if you know what I mean. Now some have said put troops on the ground, it would be ta bigger military blunder than all our previous ill thought, Politician led campaigns in the Middle East put together.

The only troops that could have any success would be from the Middle East. Whenever we use Western troops it galvanises local factions to defeat a common enemy. This goes back to Afghanistan in the 1850's.

So called 'Piece keeping' by foreign troops is an almost impossible task. That's why the UN avoid what they were designed for because it would prove what a waste of time, money and Political discussion they really are. Even when we sent troops to Northern Island people forget they were originally tasked with defending Catholics....Look how that ended up.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

But your answer could have been that he has rather than ask why it's necessary.

I think maybe I didn't know that when I first replied. I wondered why SAM had different expectations from the two party leaders so I asked that. I'm still wondering....

 

[londonblue]

I think maybe I didn't know that when I first replied. I wondered why SAM had different expectations from the two party leaders so I asked that. I'm still wondering....

Ahh, that makes sense! Bare with me, I'm a bit slow today...some would say why only today...!

 

[Beefy]

List of Syrian groups that hold significant areas of land.

Regime (Assad)
Rebel
Isis
Kurdish
Hezbollah
Jabhat al-Nusra (IN) Bet you don't no what they want

Now add to that.... some areas have up to 3 of the above claiming control, some areas are neutral and of course local tribal feuds.

Difficult to decide who to bomb I would say, as it all gets a bit Life of Brian if you know what I mean. Now some have said put troops on the ground, it would be ta bigger military blunder than all our previous ill thought, Politician led campaigns in the Middle East put together.

The only troops that could have any success would be from the Middle East. Whenever we use Western troops it galvanises local factions to defeat a common enemy. This goes back to Afghanistan in the 1850's.

So called 'Piece keeping' by foreign troops is an almost impossible task. That's why the UN avoid what they were designed for because it would prove what a waste of time, money and Political discussion they really are. Even when we sent troops to Northern Island people forget they were originally tasked with defending Catholics....Look how that ended up.

I think that is the Al Qaeda affiliate that I was referring to.

The whole thing is such a mess and I don't see how we can expect to drop a load of bombs in support of the group we're trying to help this week and expect that that will make any positive impact by pretty much any definition. We're just going to kill people.

I think there's possibly more of a case for some sort of ground intervention than air strikes. I'm not necessarily saying that that is what I'd favour because I don't think there's anything wrong in saying that a situation is extremely complex and that I don't know how we can fix it.

 

[Benfleet A1]

Good post,

Governments tell us over and over again this group or that group are pure evil ,mind games is their biggest weapon.

IS has been rammed down our throats virtually every day,Government and media bombard us with the message that IS must be destroyed.

Propaganda.

ISIS are just propaganda? Are you for real.

 

[rigsby]

I think that is the Al Qaeda affiliate that I was referring to.

The whole thing is such a mess and I don't see how we can expect to drop a load of bombs in support of the group we're trying to help this week and expect that that will make any positive impact by pretty much any definition. We're just going to kill people.

I think there's possibly more of a case for some sort of ground intervention than air strikes. I'm not necessarily saying that that is what I'd favour because I don't think there's anything wrong in saying that a situation is extremely complex and that I don't know how we can fix it.

My 'bet you don't no what they want' line was an open question to all...not just for you.

If you do want ground troops then you have to have air strikes to cover those ground troops. You can have just air strikes but you cant have Just troops.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

But I thought you said you'd be in agreement with a UN resolution? They have one.

Not chapter 7.

 

[MK Shrimper]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ear-old-victim-of-russias-airstrikes-on-syria

Tragic story and who are Russia bombing exactly?