Shadow Cabinet Anger Over Shock Corbyn Letter

[techguyone]

I like it.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Hugh

So according to Mr Corbyn's policy consultation, 75% opposed air strikes on Syria.

Strange how a YouGov poll a week ago gave these figures.

Some differing viewpoints reported in the Telegraph

I don't think it's a great surprise that Diane Abbott's views aren't based in reality.

I don't think it's a great leap to suggest that there's a big element of self-selection in Corbyn's policy consultation.

His new kind of politics appears to be authoritarianism based around him and his inner circle dictating, with him seeking confirmation from elements of the membership when it suits his agenda. This alongside his apparent disdain for the responsibilities of MPs to reflect their constituencies, not just his supporters, lowers my opinion of him yet further.

Not entirely sure what's new about his groupies spitting venom at anyone who disagrees with him, or a union boss threatening MPs who dare to express dissent.

Beyond comedy, deeply into the realms of tragedy. The illiberal views expressed both by Corbyn and, more virulently, his supports sicken me.

Looks like the SNP stance has not gone down well with a lot of Scotish folk, a few comments about opposing the government rather than doing the right thing for the country

http://www.scotsman.com/news/nicola-...ikes-1-3957659

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Mr Banana

Looks like the SNP stance has not gone down well with a lot of Scotish folk, a few comments about opposing the government rather than doing the right thing for the country

http://www.scotsman.com/news/nicola-...ikes-1-3957659

Why is bombing Syria "the right thing for the country"?


I can't stand Sturgeon, but I think she has a point here:

Originally Posted by Nicola Sturgeon

“There is no shortage of countries bombing Syria, what there is a shortage of is people trying to get a ceasefire on the ground amongst the non-Daesh combatants and unify in the action against them.”

She added: “We can’t just do something for the sake of it if it runs the risk of making things worse.”

[nomadking]

There are at least 4 groups involved in Syria. They are all fighting for their OWN supremacy and dictatorship. How could there be any agreement between them, when they all want the same thing but in different ways and mostly to the detriment of the other groups?

[TheDaddy]

Some good points made here I think

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/...r-war-on-syria

I particularly liked point 1 and 7

Originally Posted by nomadking

There are at least 4 groups involved in Syria. They are all fighting for their OWN supremacy and dictatorship. How could there be any agreement between them, when they all want the same thing but in different ways and mostly to the detriment of the other groups?

[techguyone]

Strangely enough I agree, it's not like there's any shortage of bombs being dropped, and it means another step closer to getting sucked into (yet another) 'war' we can't really win, have no idea what to do at the end of it, and don't even have the benefit of two clearly defined sides.

Why are they not cutting off supplies, fuel, money. Lets face it Daesh are not actually doing anything productive that a state/country does, it has no economy beyond what it's stolen.

If you must bomb something then bomb all the oil producing bits, let any receiving country know that there will be grave sanctions for anyone found to be receiving Deash oil.

See how they like being a state with no food or money.

[Osem]

For me doing nothing is not an option, even if we may wish it was. The only question is what we do and certainly bombing ISIL supply routes, weapons dumps, oil storage facilities etc. is already being done. Whatever else happens this will continue and likely increase as will targeted attacks on leading members of the group.

This is a battle we must fight but isn't one we can win in the traditional sense because the warped ideology which underpins ISIL doesn't require vast manpower, military/financial resources to spread. The genie is out of the bottle and isn't going back in but I think we must do much more to reduce the spread of ISIL's evil message and its widespread targeting of impressionable young people via social media in particular.

Whatever is done won't have the desired result quickly or have an ideal outcome and we need to accept that. This isn't going to be a conventional war, it's going to be a very long term battle of ideologies fought as much in the minds of certain sections of society as in bombed out towns and villages in places like Syria and Libya.

I don't especially care. We're already using airstrikes in Iraq with a limited number of aircraft and this will extend it to Syria. We know that airstrikes from American forces have succeeded in limiting ISIS gains since Summer of last year but at the same time they're probably not going to be that much more use beyond that.

The amount of attention and disagreement that is being generated by this decision seems totally out of proportion to the decision itself. We're not really gearing up for war, we're not really radically changing our approach to the conflict and we're not committing too many more resources.

[heero_yuy]

ISIS is an idea, an ideology born out of hard Islam and you don't stop that by killing the followers. Have we learned nothing since the Romans persecuted the followers of Christianity?

It was mentioned on the Today programme this morning on R4 that the reason the USA are only doing 7 missions a day is that they have no targets so us joining in is symbolic at best.

If we really want to be safer on our streets then the ISIS 5th columnists and their sympathisers in our midst must be watched and arrested if needs be. At least funding for extra spooks is now forthcoming.

Well heaven forbid if we lose any planes or pilots if we do go ahead..I wonder how long the resolve will last after that...

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Well heaven forbid if we lose any planes or pilots if we do go ahead..I wonder how long the resolve will last after that...

I agree. Dave is crossing his fingers here. If ISIS parade a captured British pilot then things will get awkward for him especially if the public see no apparant benefits from extending the bombing to Syria.

He is not presenting a holistic approach to this ISIS issue: he should be detailing to the House a complete plan, one that involves economic sanctions on countries funding these groups, actions taken against individuals and companies handling the ISIS oil, prosecution of the banks who must be laundering the ISIS funds, deploying NATO troops to help Turkey close down the ISIS supply lines in and out of it's territory, what/who will be installed after ISIS is pushed back from its current territory, etc.

Only when the bombing can be shown to have a rational place in a coherent strategy would it make sense and so far, I see no such thing presented to the public or the House ..

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Well heaven forbid if we lose any planes or pilots if we do go ahead..I wonder how long the resolve will last after that...

We lost plenty in Iraq, Afghanistan and before that the Falklands. I can't see this episode going that far however. It was the deaths in Paris served to change France's resolve and strengthen it, hitherto they'd largely kept out of the 'war'. I don't see the deaths of a few pilots changing that any time soon.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Osem

We lost plenty in Iraq, Afghanistan and before that the Falklands. I can't see this episode going that far however. It was the deaths in Paris served to change France's resolve and strengthen it, hitherto they'd largely kept out of the 'war'. I don't see the deaths of a few pilots changing that any time soon.

We never lost any that were put in a cage and set on fire and I see 1 pilots death like that changing everything