Author Topic: Arguments for and against the UK joining the strikes on ISIS in Syria  (Read 48372 times)

Gonnagle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11333
Re: Arguments for and against the UK joining the strikes on ISIS in Syria
« Reply #175 on: December 01, 2015, 02:01:10 PM »
Dear Jeremyp and Jakswan,

This Corbyn bloke, interesting to watch him grow, he is now the boss and a lot of people don't like the new boss, he now has new responsibilities, playing politics whilst still sticking to his principles.

I saw a bit of him on the Andrew Marr programme, suited and booted, very calm and telling us he wants to be Prime Minister.

I think a lot of people are underestimating the man, he plays the scruffy politician but I think he is very quick to learn.

He did play a big part in overturning tax credits and his victory over the other wannabes was over whelming.

And this free vote, I think he is doing the smart move, I don't know but I think he is a very canny operator.

Gonnagle.
I will now read posts very carefully and then using the two God given brains cells that I have reply as if I am talking to a two year old, yes that should suffice as a gentle reminder✝️✝️✝️❤️

Outrider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14720
Re: Arguments for and against the UK joining the strikes on ISIS in Syria
« Reply #176 on: December 01, 2015, 02:08:00 PM »
Time will tell.  Oldham, on Thursday, may give an inkling of how Labour supporters are viewing things.  There is something like a 16,000 Labour majority there.  So they ought to at least maintain that lead, if not increase it, if Corbyn is having any effect.

It might, but there are a number of other effects in play too: the possible dissolution of the existing Lib Dem vote, or possible retrieval of lost Lib Dem votes from other parties, the precipitous drop-off in UKIP activism now that they're focussed on the European referendum...

O.
Universes are forever, not just for creation...

New Atheism - because, apparently, there's a use-by date on unanswered questions.

Eminent Pedant, Interpreter of Heretical Writings, Unwarranted Harvester of Trite Nomenclature, Church of Debatable Saints

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65796
Re: Arguments for and against the UK joining the strikes on ISIS in Syria
« Reply #177 on: December 01, 2015, 03:00:57 PM »
Time will tell.  Oldham, on Thursday, may give an inkling of how Labour supporters are viewing things.  There is something like a 16,000 Labour majority there.  So they ought to at least maintain that lead, if not increase it, if Corbyn is having any effect.

Or rather the share of vote as the turnout is likely to be much smaller.

BashfulAnthony

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7520
Re: Arguments for and against the UK joining the strikes on ISIS in Syria
« Reply #178 on: December 01, 2015, 03:44:16 PM »
Or rather the share of vote as the turnout is likely to be much smaller.

The polls, for what they're worth, are suggesting an up-swing in the UkIP vote, despite their low-profile.  Not much of a choice, if you don't like Corbyn: either  Cameron or UKIP, basically:  or no vote at all; and that is telling in itself when politics are so much to the fore at present.  I do believe that any reduction in the Labour vote, whether it is in actual numbers, or percentage of the vote, means a smack in the face for Corbyn.
BA.

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.

It is my commandment that you love one another."

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65796
Re: Arguments for and against the UK joining the strikes on ISIS in Syria
« Reply #179 on: December 01, 2015, 04:56:34 PM »
The polls, for what they're worth, are suggesting an up-swing in the UkIP vote, despite their low-profile.  Not much of a choice, if you don't like Corbyn: either  Cameron or UKIP, basically:  or no vote at all; and that is telling in itself when politics are so much to the fore at present.  I do believe that any reduction in the Labour vote, whether it is in actual numbers, or percentage of the vote, means a smack in the face for Corbyn.

So say for example, turnout halved but all votes went to Labour? Your position isn't sensible in psephological terms. Further if there is a small swing in % terms to UKIP, while not being great for Corbyn, if Labour were to do better vs Tories in % terms could be portrayed as net good for Corbyn.

Given the spread of issues since the general election, it would seem presumptive to take this as a purely a referendum on Corbyn, and the question is would any other leader do better for Labour at this stage. Corbyn is a side show here. Either he will be gone before the next election and we may have a similar situation to the early 80s with a Gang of considerably more than 4, or he will lose badly due to the electoral changes.

The Labour Party is not up the schtuck because of Corbyn, he is a mere symptom.

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65796
Re: Arguments for and against the UK joining the strikes on ISIS in Syria
« Reply #180 on: December 01, 2015, 05:01:21 PM »
Incidentally, as I have previously pointed out some readers of the runes on the polling are predicting it to be closer than the polls are showing. Anything less than a 5% swing from Labour is a perfectly spinnable result for them.  The problem will be that many of those who will be arguing it is a disaster would be members of the Shadow Cabinet.

« Last Edit: December 01, 2015, 05:03:27 PM by Nearly Sane »

jakswan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12485
    • Preloved Ads
Re: Arguments for and against the UK joining the strikes on ISIS in Syria
« Reply #181 on: December 01, 2015, 06:54:02 PM »
I was half way through writing a post that refuted you, but I actually talked myself into agreeing with you.

I think the perception is that he had to "bottle it". If half the cabinet resigned, it would be spun as the collapse of the party.

Corbyn doesn't have the backing of the parliamentary party otherwise he would have told the cabinet to follow his lead or get out. Then he could replace them with people that align better with his views. He can't do that because the parliamentary party won't follow him. The only way to change that is to cull the right wing MPs and bring in more people on the left. That can't happen before the next general election and it will be a veritable bloodbath if he does it and the parliamentary party would be too damaged in the lead up to the election to be effective.

Yes fair point, though if he does it early enough it would give them time. I think a lot of hardcore left actually believe their own spin, 'those nasty Tories and their voters, we are nice lovely people they are bound to vote for us, what is not to like!'
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
- Voltaire

wigginhall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17730
Re: Arguments for and against the UK joining the strikes on ISIS in Syria
« Reply #182 on: December 01, 2015, 08:05:30 PM »
I notice that Cameron has said something interesting - that in Iraq, the air-strikes have worked, since IS territory has been retaken.

'Retaken' is an interesting word, which presumably refers to ground troops, the Iraqui army probably.

So how will this work in Syria?  We have the promise of the 70, 000 friendly fighters.  However, they are being bombed by Russia, and are fighting the Syrian army and Hezbollah.   Will they abandon this and begin to fight IS?

Well, they might of course.  It seems a bit flimsy to me.
They were the footprints of a gigantic hound!

Jack Knave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8690
Re: Arguments for and against the UK joining the strikes on ISIS in Syria
« Reply #183 on: December 01, 2015, 08:38:05 PM »
I hadn't appreciated that this is not just a free vote,but one where Hilary Benn will be able to speak for the Labour Party against the policy of the Labour Party. In  a free vote they would normally speak as an individual MP. This is a guddle in a menoge.
Are you saying that usually in a free vote the cabinet or core of a party still speak with one voice?


Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65796
Re: Arguments for and against the UK joining the strikes on ISIS in Syria
« Reply #185 on: December 01, 2015, 09:47:07 PM »
Are you saying that usually in a free vote the cabinet or core of a party still speak with one voice?
Depends. In a full free conscious vote they don't have to, but here JC is stating that he is speaking for the Labour Party. In that case it can be collectively responsible for the shadow cabinet, here not, but there can be no speaking for the Labour Party opposing the Labour Party which is where we appear to be

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65796
Re: Arguments for and against the UK joining the strikes on ISIS in Syria
« Reply #186 on: December 02, 2015, 07:57:15 AM »
Wes Streeting the Labour MP posted the message below. I think it it a powerful set of thoughts

'This has certainly been the worst day I've experienced in Parliament since my election. It's come in stark contrast to every other day because I can - hand on heart - say that I love my job and every aspect of it. How many of us are lucky enough to say that?

The atmosphere in Parliament is febrile. Tempers are fraying and even good friendships strain as people debate the right course of action in a conflict that is deeply complex.

I felt very let down by the Prime Minister tonight, when the media reported that he told the Conservative backbenchers' committee (known as the 1922 Committee) not to "walk through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers". I have lived in this city, which has endured terrorism, all my life. This is a deep insult to MPs from all parties who have very serious concerns about the strategy that the Prime Minister set out last week - in a far more dignified way than he behaved tonight. This is not the way I'd expect any Prime Minister to behave in these circumstances.

I'm also upset at the way in which MPs who plan to support air strikes are being treated. I wrote before about some of the nasty tactics against some of my Labour colleagues, but there seem to be many people who believe that anyone voting for air strikes is unthinking or unprincipled. Let me assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. On an issue like this, we all weigh the evidence, we all search our consciences and we all do what we believe to be right. Opponents of air strikes do not have a monopoly on wisdom or conviction.

I bumped into someone this evening who has been working in foreign affairs for decades and he couldn't tell me with certainty what the right answer to Syria is. I felt reassured, because I've spoken to people who are 100% sure that air strikes are right and those who are 100% sure they're wrong. On the eve of tomorrow's vote, I both envy that certainty and find it unnerving.

This afternoon I added my name to a cross-party amendment opposing air strikes in these circumstances (see below). Tomorrow, I will support the amendment and oppose the government's strategy for air strikes.

However difficult today has been is nothing compared to a day in Syria. Whatever the decision tomorrow, I pray it's the right one. It is one that will rest heavily on our consciences'

jakswan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12485
    • Preloved Ads
Re: Arguments for and against the UK joining the strikes on ISIS in Syria
« Reply #187 on: December 02, 2015, 08:55:55 AM »
Yes Camerons latest rhetoric offers little, I feel sorry for Red Ken, he has become something of a liability recently.
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
- Voltaire

Aruntraveller

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11627
Re: Arguments for and against the UK joining the strikes on ISIS in Syria
« Reply #188 on: December 02, 2015, 08:58:53 AM »
NS - thanks for posting that. It articulates many of my doubts and uncertainties on this matter.

It's nice to know that Mr Cameron considers me a terrorist sympathiser - simply because I can't see what good throwing more bombs at the problem will do.

One thing the comments of our PM show is his petulant nature - the sooner the electorate wake up to his knee jerk tendancies the better.
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. - God is Love.

floo

  • Guest
Re: Arguments for and against the UK joining the strikes on ISIS in Syria
« Reply #189 on: December 02, 2015, 09:20:29 AM »
Whilst I dislike Corbyn's political outlook, I think Cameron was bang out of order to make the comment about sympathising with political terrorists!

jakswan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12485
    • Preloved Ads
Re: Arguments for and against the UK joining the strikes on ISIS in Syria
« Reply #190 on: December 02, 2015, 09:39:34 AM »
NS - thanks for posting that. It articulates many of my doubts and uncertainties on this matter.

It's nice to know that Mr Cameron considers me a terrorist sympathiser - simply because I can't see what good throwing more bombs at the problem will do.

One thing the comments of our PM show is his petulant nature - the sooner the electorate wake up to his knee jerk tendancies the better.

Slight pedantry on my part Cameron is not calling you a terrorist sympathiser but Corbyn, Red Ken and McDonnell. Who have sympathised with terrorists.

Its cheap shot a bit like opponents saying everyone who supports air strikes are war mongers, it makes Cameron look like a prat.
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
- Voltaire

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65796
Re: Arguments for and against the UK joining the strikes on ISIS in Syria
« Reply #191 on: December 02, 2015, 09:44:50 AM »
Slight pedantry on my part Cameron is not calling you a terrorist sympathiser but Corbyn, Red Ken and McDonnell. Who have sympathised with terrorists.

Its cheap shot a bit like opponents saying everyone who supports air strikes are war mongers, it makes Cameron look like a prat.

He's calling everyone who votes against him in the commons terrorist sympathisers.

Hope

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25569
    • Tools With A Mission
Re: Arguments for and against the UK joining the strikes on ISIS in Syria
« Reply #192 on: December 02, 2015, 09:46:27 AM »
Slight pedantry on my part Cameron is not calling you a terrorist sympathiser but Corbyn, Red Ken and McDonnell. Who have sympathised with terrorists.

Its cheap shot a bit like opponents saying everyone who supports air strikes are war mongers, it makes Cameron look like a prat.
From what I have heard, the comment was that MPs who oppose extending air strikes are terrorist sympathisers; he didn't specify any particular MPs - so that covers Tory MPs who oppose today's motion, Labour MP's who oppose it, SNP MPs who oppose it, etc.  By extension, he is then suggesting that anyone who opposes the motion, even if they have no vote on it, are 'terrorist sympathisers'.
Are your, or your friends'/relatives', garages, lofts or sheds full of unused DIY gear, sewing/knitting machines or fabric and haberdashery stuff?

Lists of what is needed and a search engine to find your nearest collector (scroll to bottom for latter) are here:  http://www.twam.uk/donate-tools

jakswan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12485
    • Preloved Ads
Re: Arguments for and against the UK joining the strikes on ISIS in Syria
« Reply #193 on: December 02, 2015, 10:40:43 AM »
He's calling everyone who votes against him in the commons terrorist sympathisers.

From your earlier post;

he said 'walk through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers'

he did not say 'walk through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and you will be a terrorist sympathiser'
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
- Voltaire

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65796
Re: Arguments for and against the UK joining the strikes on ISIS in Syria
« Reply #194 on: December 02, 2015, 10:52:29 AM »
From your earlier post;

he said 'walk through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers'

he did not say 'walk through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and you will be a terrorist sympathiser'

The people who walk through the lobbies are identified as Jeremy Corbyn (who is in this case not explicitly identified as a terrorist sympathiser due to the lack of the word other), and terrorist sympathisers - so there are no other people in that phrase going through the lobbies.


Even had he phrased it as you want to read it, it's an ad hom and attempting guilt by association.

Gonnagle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11333
Re: Arguments for and against the UK joining the strikes on ISIS in Syria
« Reply #195 on: December 02, 2015, 11:21:07 AM »
Dear Mr Cameron, ( I doubt he would last two seconds on this forum )

Is the strain telling, should you step down, will you admit it was a bloody stupid thing to say.

Gonnagle.
I will now read posts very carefully and then using the two God given brains cells that I have reply as if I am talking to a two year old, yes that should suffice as a gentle reminder✝️✝️✝️❤️

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65796
Re: Arguments for and against the UK joining the strikes on ISIS in Syria
« Reply #196 on: December 02, 2015, 11:22:21 AM »
And the following is a statement from Alistair Carmichael about why he is voting to support the bombing. As with Wes Streeting's statement, it illustrates the consideration being taken by MPs but comes down on the other side


'You will have seen it reported in the press and media this morning that Liberal Democrat MPs will support the motion in the House of Commons today to extend to areas of Syria our current military involvement against ISIL/Da’esh in Iraq. I want to explain why, after lengthy discussion and deliberation, we have reached this decision and why I will support it.
Decisions of this sort are never easy and this has been the most difficult one that I have ever known. I certainly do not share David Cameron’s reported view that those who oppose intervention are “terrorist sympathisers”. This is an issue on which we have all had to come to our own conclusions and for many of us it has been an enormously difficult process. I know no one, inside parliament or not, who has approached this from anything other than a position of good faith and I respect completely those who have reached a different conclusion from mine.
By comparison the decision to oppose war in Iraq was simple by comparison – it was clearly illegal and it was difficult to identify what the British interest in intervention was.
Recognising that some of the problems we are dealing with today have their roots in that disastrous misadventure, we should be quite clear about why this is a different conflict with different issues.
The intervention against ISIL/Da’esh in Iraq which we currently support is legal by virtue of the fact that we were invited to take part by the Iraqi government. The proposed extension of that to Syria is legal as it has the mandate of a United Nation Security Council Resolution 2249. The legality of the proposal is therefore clear.
The wording of that resolution, if fact, goes further than authorising action. It “calls on” states that have the capacity to act.
I also believe that there is a UK national interest that justifies acting here. Our neighbour and ally France has asked that we should. That same request has already received positive responses from Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark.
ISIL/Da’esh is a brutal organisation that subjugates woman, tortures and executes gays and will kill or torture anyone in their own community that does not actively support them. They have a capacity to take their war to our own communities as recent atrocities in Beirut, Paris and Sharm Al Sheikh have demonstrated. They are a force that has to be confronted. We are already engaged in this through our participation in strikes against them in Iraq. Refusing to extend that to Syria will not remove the threat of an attack happening in this country.
Of course, bombing alone is not going to be enough to resolve this. To beat ISIL/Da'esh militarily will require ground troops and those must come from within Syria and the surrounding countries.
It will also require a concerted political and diplomatic effort. That means that the Vienna process must be supported and broadened as far as possible.
Most importantly of all, if we are really to learn from the mistakes of Iraq and Libya we must be prepared to commit to engaging in post-conflict stabilisation and reconstruction and to commit the money to that.
Whatever decision the Commons takes today will have consequences. Be in no doubt, however, that failing to act will also have consequences. The civil war that has killed thousands and which has seen unprecedented numbers of people displaced from their homes and come to Europe as refugees will continue.
Earlier this summer the response of British people to that refugee crisis was a compassionate one which had at its heart a determination to help. We have an opportunity (NB this is only an opportunity – it comes with no guarantees) to be part of an international effort to bring that conflict to an end, to use international institutions to rebuild a broken state and to do so in a way that is legal. To shrug our shoulders and refuse that opportunity because it is too difficult or should be left to others is to cheapen the compassion of that response and determination to help.'



Udayana

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5478
  • βε ηερε νοω
    • The Byrds - My Back Pages
Re: Arguments for and against the UK joining the strikes on ISIS in Syria
« Reply #197 on: December 02, 2015, 11:51:00 AM »
hmm .. just seems to demonstrate the lack of critical thinking applied to the issue.

Oh well, if we are going to join in just to keep up with Joneses, maybe we could take some tips from our new Russian allies and, accidentally on purpose, get rid of Assad while we are there?  :o

Then, with the Russians wiping out the Sunni rebels and Turkey the Kurds, should leave a nice large peaceful wasteland -similar to Afghanistan (?)

« Last Edit: December 02, 2015, 11:52:32 AM by Udayana »
Ah, but I was so much older then ... I'm younger than that now

Gonnagle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11333
Re: Arguments for and against the UK joining the strikes on ISIS in Syria
« Reply #198 on: December 02, 2015, 12:01:34 PM »
Dear Forum,

Its daesh!! right! right.

Pronounced dye esh.

Me and Mr Cameron agree, oh no :( :(

But he will not apologise, saying sorry, is it such a hard thing to do :o

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-34961844

Gonnagle.
I will now read posts very carefully and then using the two God given brains cells that I have reply as if I am talking to a two year old, yes that should suffice as a gentle reminder✝️✝️✝️❤️

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65796
Re: Arguments for and against the UK joining the strikes on ISIS in Syria
« Reply #199 on: December 02, 2015, 12:05:09 PM »
hmm .. just seems to demonstrate the lack of critical thinking applied to the issue.

Oh well, if we are going to join in just to keep up with Joneses, maybe we could take some tips from our new Russian allies and, accidentally on purpose, get rid of Assad while we are there?  :o

Then, with the Russians wiping out the Sunni rebels and Turkey the Kurds, should leave a nice large peaceful wasteland -similar to Afghanistan (?)

I think that is a simplistic characterisation of the argument for extending bombing into Syria, and also factually wrong as it implies that Russia wants to get rid of Assad when they don't. It isn't that others are doing it so we must but that those we are militarily allied with have asked for help AND that it is working in Iraq and will work here.

Now I disagree with that but it isn't because there is no critical thinking just that I think there needs to be a strategic plan in place not a tactical one.

Tuning in and out of the debate, I see that Cameron has been more graceful than his remarks last night but that much of what has been said so far has been taken up with his foolishness. That he, because, if politics can't apologise is one of our great problems, in that too many of us and them think apologies are signs of weakness.