Noggin
Winger
We can't be best off out of it when they're hell bent on trying to attack us.
In a nutshell.
Corbyn
- Thread starter spitfire
- Start date
- Status
Medulla
Striker
If recent history has taught us anything it's that entering into a military campaign with open-ended objectives and without a plan for an endgame is a costly recipe for making a bad situation even worse. The only thing you can really say in its favour this time is that it is hard to imagine Syria getting any worse, but if that's the strongest argument in favour of dropping bombs then I think we need to think on.
I'm not an isolationist, but we're being railroaded into this and we need to pause and think clearly before making a very important decision. Cameron has to come back to the table with a better plan, not something half arsed with a plea to trust him (Libya?). It's the minimum requirement and anything less should be met with a no vote.
Do you think everyone should just pull out till there is a clear and concise endgame to all this? Could be waiting a while to get everyone pulling in the same direction that's all
monkeytassle
Striker
What to we do with the refugees until it's figured out? Ask them to tread water?
Medulla
Striker
That's begging the question. The whole thing being debated is whether getting involved will improve or not the situation and, by extension, the likelihood the refugees will be able to return home.
Other countries can do as they please. I'm talking about the duty incumbent on the Prime Minister to his Parliament being to lay out a solid, coherent plan with all bases covered as best as we can, allowing the MPs to vote on this basis. Otherwise we've learnt fuck all.
You can't paint as unreasonable to request to have a proper joined up strategy, especially after our recent dalliances in the Islamic world.
Last edited:
I'm not painting it as unreasonable, just think its highly difficult too get one given the factions involved on all sides. Just cos you cant get the perfect endgame at the moment doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing nothing at all imo. Its a situation as prime minister I would hate to be in tbh, unlike the thousands of others including myself when he makes a decision he's going to get comebacks no matter what he does where as us can make these life and death calls knowing its never going to come back and haunt us at a later date
ravydavygravy
Striker
The only way to beat ISIS is to get pally with Russia and Assad.
Going by this article I assume the UK military is advising the same.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-are-contradictory-says-former-military-chief
Will Dave perform the necessary U-turn though? If he doesn't this will go on for many years.
Going by this article I assume the UK military is advising the same.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-are-contradictory-says-former-military-chief
Will Dave perform the necessary U-turn though? If he doesn't this will go on for many years.
Medulla
Striker
I never said perfect, and the alternative is not 'do nothing'. I too would not like to be in his shoes, but these are the expectations that are on you if you want to be a good Prime Minister.
It's a horrible mess, but that just makes it all the more important that clear heads prevail. As I alluded to before, it feels like emotion is leading reason and we're grasping for 'something' to do to look a player on the world stage, first and foremost.
smoker
Striker
That's the spirit, every man for himself!
Medulla
Striker
Mmm, that's exactly what I meant.
smoker
Striker
Well, if you can reductam ad absurdum, so can I.
Not sure if you recall the Sinjar massacre of August 2014 but without western airstrikes 45,000 Yazidi would have found a mass grave instead of 5,000. The situation on the ground is complicated and our strategy needs to adapt quickly, imposing constraints on ourselves fighting against an enemy that knows none would be dangerous.
I have read nearly every post on this thread and watched a lot of political discussions and parliamentary debates PMQs etc over the last couple of weeks and read many opinions in the press - mostly the Guardian and Independent. I am no clearer on what is the best course of action in Syria. I don't believe our bombs will make any difference to the war in Syria or increase our risk of domestic terrorism. We are a target because we are a western power. We have a large Muslim population among which there are likely to be some disaffected people and it is likely that eventually someone will succeed in committing a Paris style atrocity here. This, despite Ken Livingstone's comments, will not be the fault of anyone but the people who choose to commit such atrocities. After years of fighting I don't believe there are any moderates left in Syria - just different fanatical opinions. Whatever emerges is unlikely to be a democratic, stable state as we would recognise it. If we do nothing a lot of people will die. If we intervene a lot of people will die. We can join in to support our allies, which is not necessarily a bad thing as we may need them some day, or we can just wait and see how it turns out.
Consider how things would be if we hadn't decided to honour our treaty with Poland and had continued the policy of appeasement in 1939. We would be a very different country today - definitely not as diverse even if we had managed to evade a German take over. I have a few genuine questions for Jeremy's supporters. Is there a point at which they would consider armed intervention or do they feel that we should always avoid conflict for fear of making things worse? How will they judge the effects of our intervention or lack of it? If we don't intervene and there is a terrorist attack in the UK will they feel guilty? Will they decide retaliation is warranted? If we do intervene and there is a terrorist attack will they blame those who voted in favour? After all if Hitler had won in Europe jihadist terrorism would probably not be a problem but would they feel that the world in general and the UK in particular would have been a better place?
Consider how things would be if we hadn't decided to honour our treaty with Poland and had continued the policy of appeasement in 1939. We would be a very different country today - definitely not as diverse even if we had managed to evade a German take over. I have a few genuine questions for Jeremy's supporters. Is there a point at which they would consider armed intervention or do they feel that we should always avoid conflict for fear of making things worse? How will they judge the effects of our intervention or lack of it? If we don't intervene and there is a terrorist attack in the UK will they feel guilty? Will they decide retaliation is warranted? If we do intervene and there is a terrorist attack will they blame those who voted in favour? After all if Hitler had won in Europe jihadist terrorism would probably not be a problem but would they feel that the world in general and the UK in particular would have been a better place?
Skandhaless
Striker
Personally I think it's easy to sit back and do fuck all.
The labour party fiasco is fascinating me at the moment marra
Come on marra , I mean it shouldn't be too hard .
humour an old fool and direct me to your last criticism of the Tories that wasn't an excuse to get at your own party .
I told you I can't do a thing about the tories. I could do something about the labour party and tried but yoh and your pals new best didn't you. Don't take it out on me cos you and your pals have helped give the tories a free run by making the labour party a shambles. You were convinced Corbyn and co would be blazing a trail now and I would have egg on my face weren't you? Even now you struggle to admit what a jokes it's become because of some misguided sense he will turn it round. Just face facts, it's fucked and you've helped create it. Next time don't bother and let the sensible ones choose eh
Skandhaless
Striker
So is that today, yesterday , this week , last week? When ? . At least it will be after Corbyns election surely . When ?
Chocolate Fireguard
Midfield
What in history gives people the idea that sending the military in is going to improve the situation any or solve the refugee problem? There are about three million Syrian refugees but double that number internally displaced in Syria. Any increase in military action there is likely to increase the number of refugees leaving Syria. We've used the military to change the regime in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya recently and all three countries are now massively unstable and there's nothing we can do about it.
Medulla
Striker
smoker
Striker
The oil is laundered through legal sources, such as Iraqi refineries. It is impossible to stop once it gets into that network. That's why the Russians and Americans are blowing the shit out of oil trucks.
The man simply hasn't a clue.
tiptoad
Striker
Russia, America and a well armed and extremely motivated France are perfectly capable of pummelling Isis.
Why are you so keen to get in on the killing?
D
Deleted member 29721
Guest
Can't do a thing about the Tories? Before Corbyn the Party was f***ing supporting the Tories. Oh no we can't vote against welfare changes or tax credit cuts 'cos the nasty Tories will call us names. We can't campaign against austerity we need to look strong for the public. At least Corbyn actually bothered to campaign against tax credit cuts, how did that work out again?
The sensible ones?
You mean those who thought supporting the Tories welfare plans was a good idea? Those same people who believe you can have austerity, low taxes and protect services all at the same time?
The same people who spent five years accepting the blame for a financial crisis they didn't cause and then wonder why nobody trusts them with the economy? Those people who thought it would be a good idea to write their lack of policies onto a tombstone? Those sensible ones who have just lost two elections in a row?
The same sensible ones who didn't have the first clue how to even win an election in their own party? If you can't even convince your own party to back you then you have absolutely no chance of convincing the rest of the country.
Get with the program mate. He supports it because it has worked every single time in the past, we have successfully bombed Iraq and Afghanistan to a peaceful resolution...
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
