Stop the War?

[DaveR]

It's always easier to decide not to do anything. As has been widely observed, Corbyn's stance does not represent either principle or pragmatism. He's not a pacifist - he has actively supported 'armed struggle' by various groups in various places in the past - but nor does he have an actual plan (even a hopeless one) for achieving a diplomatic resolution.

[Otta]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Some good debate thanks. Just e-mailed my

> (non-Dulwich) MP who was a 'yes' - no info on his

> Website unlike other Labour MPs

Is that Jim Down by any chance? If so, he totally ignored loads of emails asking what his intention was. Proper safe seat MP who can't be arsed engaging.

[BrandNewGuy]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's always easier to decide not to do anything.

Oh I don't know. It's pretty easy to 'do something'. However worng-headed that something might be.

[miga]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's always easier to decide not to do anything.

Just because it's easier to do nothing, doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do.

Anyway - this was a conscience vote - not really a Corbyn v. Cameron thing. There were (admittedly fewer) Tories who crossed the other way, despite being whipped.

[bodsier]

Cameron, like so many other MP's really haven't got a clue, an alternative idea to defeat Daesh does not even occur to them.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/nicolas-henin-the-man-who-was-held-captive-by-isis-for-10-months-says-how-they-can-be-defeated-a6757336.html

[DulwichFox]

I doubt if Cameron could point to Syria on an unmarked map, let alone the towns and areas he is bombing..

DulwichFox

[Parkdrive]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's always easier to decide not to do anything.

> As has been widely observed, Corbyn's stance does

> not represent either principle or pragmatism.

> He's not a pacifist - he has actively supported

> 'armed struggle' by various groups in various

> places in the past - but nor does he have an

> actual plan (even a hopeless one) for achieving a

> diplomatic resolution.

Seems to me the way things have unraveled in the middle east in the past god knows how long, no f**ker has a clue, never mind a plan.

[Sue]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I read a post from Jeremy Corbyn's Facebook page

> earlier (which someone else had shared I might

> add). His post itself was fair enough, but the

> comments were cringe worthy. And the spelling, ye

> Gods.

To be fair, Otta, to the best of my knowledge poor spelling is not correlated with intelligence.

[BrandNewGuy]

By the way, those ISIS-controlled Omar oilfields in eastern Syria that the RAF bombed last night are the same ISIS-controlled Omar oil fields that the US destroyed in October. Seems to be like government expenditure proposals ? just keep on announcing the same amount of cash as if it's new each time.

http://www.business-standard.com/article/international/coalition-strikes-destroy-is-oil-field-in-syria-spokesman-115102300031_1.html

[Loz]

bodsier Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Cameron, like so many other MP's really haven't got a clue, an alternative idea to defeat Daesh

> does not even occur to them.

> [www.independent.co.uk]

I really can't see how a no-fly zone over Syria would help to defeat ISIS/Daesh.

[DulwichFox]

Why would America be so concerned about terrorism when they have had 1,051 mass shootings in 1,066 days..

amongst their own people.

That is the grim facts...

DulwichFox

[Michael Palaeologus]

bodsier Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Cameron, like so many other MP's really haven't

> got a clue, an alternative idea to defeat Daesh

> does not even occur to them.

>

>

>

> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-eas

> t/nicolas-henin-the-man-who-was-held-captive-by-is

> is-for-10-months-says-how-they-can-be-defeated-a67

> 57336.html

It is odd. How does being held captive make this chap an expert on anything other than being held captive? Otherwise its just platitudes about being nice to people who aren't Daesh and that will see 'em off.

No fly zone? Daesh don't have any aircraft (that fly) so this would just allow them to trade oil and fuel over the borders without hinderance.

[WorkingMummy]

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why would America be so concerned about terrorism

> when they have had 1,051 mass shootings in 1,066

> days..

> amongst their own people.

That comment is very interesting in light of the report that the married couple who killed 14 people in San Bernadino yesterday are being posthumously investigated for "terrorism", because they were Muslim, and may have been in contact with extremists via social media. Obama and the Feds have both said that they "haven't ruled out the possibility" that this was a terrorist attack.

Irony.

The average, daily mass-killing in the US is apparently not terrorising. This single incident could probably be used to justify starting a war.

[bodsier]

I agree re no fly zones Islamic State would not be threatened by a no-fly zone since it lacks an air force. The Assad government and those supporting it would be the only target which would threaten England's relationship with Russia. However, What a captive can glean from Daesh is to understand how they think, how they operate. I am not saying his response is necessary the answer. You can't talk to them, they make no sense, people are recruited on the premise that the West hate Muslims. Going in bombing and therefore killing civilians will do nothing to counteract that idea. There are only 36 doctors left in Syria. Civilians need to have a safe haven, for fear of being killed by their own government, Daesh, Russia, America France and now England.....

[Parkdrive]

Back in October didn't the wonderful Dave say that Russia bombing Syria would lead to further radicalization in the area?

[Otta]

Well he would no doubt claim that he only said that because they were bombing anti Assad rebels, but yeah, he's full of shit.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/syria-strikes-david-camerons-take-on-syrian-intervention-in-october-and-december-is-not-quite-what-a6760076.html

[DulwichFox]

Blair was once a passive supporter of CND and went on rallies..

Was Blair 'Radicalised' ? His lust for war seemed to grow stronger.. Even his facial expressions changed.

He certainly aged..

Is that going to happen to Cameron... ?

DulwichFox

[*Bob*]

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Blair was once a passive supporter of CND and

> went on rallies..

> Was Blair 'Radicalised' ?

He fell under the spell and teachings of a fundamentalist religious cult that made him believe that everything he did was right and just.

Hang on.. that all sounds quite familiar..

[El Presidente]

wow, this thread is riddled with pious, ill informed claptrap. Classic anti-war memes masquerading as wisdom.

Judge each case on its merits, not through the prism of Iraq war failures. Bombing ISIS is frankly a rather restrained response to a movement that has no care for human life, no desire to negotiate, and seeks only to impose its warped view on the rest of humanity.

[BrandNewGuy]

Wow, that doesn't advance the debate one inch, but yeah, go ahead and yahboo those who disagree with you.

[Jeremy]

El Presidente... speaking personally... I couldn't care less if every single ISIS soldier gets blown to pieces by falling bombs. My concerns are more along the lines of:

- Will this actually work? Is our intelligence good enough to make air strikes effective against ISIS?

- If we are succesful and ISIS are defeated and/or retreat from Syria, then what? Do we just pull out and let Russia/Syria continue to fight the rebels? Or do we take sides? Is the long term goal to depose Assad? Will we leave the region in deeper chaos?

- How many innocent civilians will die? Will the damage inflicted on ISIS be enough to justify the collateral carnage?

- Where is the money coming from?

[????]

What ever the rights or wrongs of bombing in terms of how effective it will be, EP touches on the truth that most of the internet memes just show how ill informed people are about anything. The comparisons with Iraq for e.g., are crap Unlike Iraq back then:

- there is a UN mandate

- there is a clear threat, rather than a made up one

- we are already bombing ISIS in Iraq

- civilians are already dying in ISIS territory thanks to ISIS

- we are already a target

I'm wasn't convinced by Cameron's case partly because he presented it so appallingly, but I think it's right we get involved. The do nothing option or idealistic bullshit about getting everyone round a table is just an abdication of responsibility.

[miga]

Parkdrive Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Back in October didn't the wonderful Dave say that

> Russia bombing Syria would lead to further

> radicalization in the area?

I was waiting for someone to bring that up. There is a big difference in attitude to collateral damage/civilian death between Russia and UK, which should clear DC of hypocrisy in this regard.

However, seeing as planes dropping bombs kind of look the same from the ground, I'm not sure if the average Syrian would care where they come from.

[Blah Blah]

Iraq is relevant because that created this whole vacuum (the leaders of IS are former ba'ath party henchmen for Saddam Hussein) and if we don't learn the lessons of the aftermath of that one then we have no hope of fixing anything in this one, which by and large is far more widespread and complex than Iraq ever was. To dismiss that as irrelevant is naive.

Bombing without ground forces will change little. That's the point. It's why Cameron stressed this notion of an army of 70,000 locals. But there is no evidence of that, let alone any evidence of a co-ordinated organisaton of that. It can also be argued that more ground troops were needed to invade Iraq (an army with one aim and an identifiable chain of command) and to think that just 70,000 rebel troops (troops engaged in other fights elsewhere between Trukey and Assad) can clear an area bigger in size is optimistic at best. None of this is easy to solve and there are valid arguments on both sides of the fence.

[edhistory]

This may help Mr Cameron raise his phantom army:

Treguna Mekoides and Trecorum Satis Dee