So, what will Corbyn do about ISIS?

[Hibbyradge]

He has no strategy apart from doing nothing, that much is clear, but the big question is whether or not he allows a free vote.

If he does, the likelihood is that parliament will get to vote on the issue and will give its approval to a bombing campaign against ISIS.

This will allow him to remain "pure" and sit on the sidelines being holier, and lefter, than everyone else. It will be a total cop out and it will be seen as such.

If he whips his party against, it will probably give him the opportunity him to "cleanse" the party of some of the dissenters. I've read some folk posting on FB that "if they don't follow the leader's instructions, they should bugger off to the Tories "where they clearly belong"."

It's funny because I don't remember any of those same people telling Corbyn to bugger off to the Communist Party or some other rag bag outfit at the margins of politics on any of the 533 times he voted against his own party. Maybe that's what he means by "new politics". :dunno:

Given that John McDonnell supports a free vote, that's where my money would go.

[cabbageandribs1875]

he's stated that the final decision will be made by him, if he 'changes' his mind and allows free votes he will look a tad silly, the Labour party are great for belly laughs

[Hibbyradge]

he's stated that the final decision will be made by him, if he 'changes' his mind and allows free votes he will look a tad silly, the Labour party are great for belly laughs

Will he be breaking the Party's own rules (again) if he tries to impose his will on the shadow cabinet?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CVC3-chWcAASj5v.jpg

[RyeSloan]

Labour are all over the place...dressing it up as a new style of politics doesn't wash and really if this is how they wish to go on then they are even more doomed than some would suggest.

Corbyn's position and his principles seem to be conflicting on a daily basis and surely you have to wonder how long this circus can go on.

I think he will be forced to allow a free vote but really to have any hope of leading a united party and brining some order to the PLP he should stick to his desire to vote against and take those who wish to stand next to him with him and accept those that don't won't.

[Hibbyradge]

Labour are all over the place...dressing it up as a new style of politics doesn't wash and really if this is how they wish to go on then they are even more doomed than some would suggest.

Corbyn's position and his principles seem to be conflicting on a daily basis and surely you have to wonder how long this circus can go on.

I think he will be forced to allow a free vote but really to have any hope of leading a united party and brining some order to the PLP he should stick to his desire to vote against and take those who wish to stand next to him with him and accept those that don't won't.

It seems to me that Corbyn, and the far left generally, care more about protest and principles than they do about power, so a free vote is possible.

However, he only recently resigbed as Chair of the Stop the War Campaign so there will be pressure on him to whip his MPs. Diane Abbot seems to think he will and the Telegraph says that 3 of his allies expect it too.

New politics is a lovely phrase and all those questions from Sarah in Basildon are very sweet, but when you have got left wing activists and major Trade Union leaders threatening shadow ministers and mPs, you can see there is nothing new about it.

In fact, it's all very predictable.

[Betty Boop]

It seems to me that Corbyn, and the far left generally, care more about protest and principles than they do about power, so a free vote is possible.

However, he only recently resigbed as Chair of the Stop the War Campaign so there will be pressure on him to whip his MPs. Diane Abbot seems to think he will and the Telegraph says that 3 of his allies expect it too.

New politics is a lovely phrase and all those questions from Sarah in Basildon are very sweet, but when you have got left wing activists and major Trade Union leaders threatening shadow ministers and mPs, you can see there is nothing new about it.

In fact, it's all very predictable.Just like your relentless slagging of Jezza on a daily basis.

[Hibbyradge]

Just like your relentless slagging of Jezza on a daily basis.

Ha ha touche.

However, he gives me plenty of reason to do so.

If he ever starts to get things right, I'll be delighted and I'll compliment him.

He just hasn't yet.

[Geo_1875]

I think he should get a few of his mates together and go round and challenge ISIS to a square go.

As for the OP why would he need a policy on ISIS? He's in opposition. We keep hearing that Labour can't win with him in charge so he'll never be in a position to implement any policy. If he convinces the shadow cabinet to enforce a whip it's then up to Cameron to convince enough MPs in his own party to back his bombing campaign.

[Hibbyradge]

I think he should get a few of his mates together and go round and challenge ISIS to a square go.

As for the OP why would he need a policy on ISIS? He's in opposition. We keep hearing that Labour can't win with him in charge so he'll never be in a position to implement any policy. If he convinces the shadow cabinet to enforce a whip it's then up to Cameron to convince enough MPs in his own party to back his bombing campaign.

He certainly won't win an election without policies! :confused:

[steakbake]

I think the problem is that bombing ISIS and not bombing ISIS are both the wrong way.

You can't simply drop bombs on them until the problem goes away. I read a letter from one Labour MP in the Times who was simultaneously saying that there was no plan for Syria for after bombing, but he was in favour of bombing anyway. What on earth? Have people learned nothing from recent years?

The solution to IS is not for the UK to be grandstanding. It will require probaly a multilateral and multinational response that will include for example, taking tougher lines with Saudi and softer lines with Iran. It's clear as well that despite a year ago, being set on bombing Assad, that he too, will need to be part of the solution.

I think bombing is a mute substitute for having to do some serious diplomacy and reshaping of basic relationships in the region. Some form of military intervention seems like it might be unfortunately necessary, but that must not be solely a 'western' venture.

[JeMeSouviens]

I agree pretty much word for word with ex-Tory frontbencher David Davis ...


David Cameron made a characteristically fluent case on Thursday. But he did not actually answer the two critical questions that must precede any decision by Britain to initiate hostilities within Syria: namely, what is the political end game and what is the military plan to achieve it?

The first is incredibly difficult but not impossible. We need to drag all the interested parties around a table and hammer out a mutually acceptable solution.

If we are still a long way from a consensus, it is because most of the main players seem more intent on destabilising their enemies than stabilising their friends.

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have a history of enabling financial support for any jihadi group that attacked the Shia – including Isis. Turkey has facilitated the sale of up to a billion dollars of Isis oil, has held open the border for jihadi groups and their intelligence agency has supplied arms to jihadis in Syria.

We need to bang our supposed allies’ heads together and stop this nonsense. It can be done. The Arab nations are waking up to the dangers of their own activities, with the sacking of some of their pro-Isis ministers. Similarly, the Russians need to grip the Iranians.

And we have to stop obsessing about Assad. His regime is vicious, but so is nearly every active player in this conflict. The British government’s line smacks of a retrospective wish to justify its abortive 2013 attempt to bomb him. But the Syrian government still controls most of the cities and is the only plausible guarantor of the safety of all the non-Sunni communities threatened by a jihadi victory. The wisest course is to start negotiations on the future of Syria and Iraq without any preconditions.

The second unanswered question is even harder. What is the military plan? Since we cannot win with air alone, this reduces to “where will we find a pro-western army?”

David Cameron asserted that the “Free Syrian Army” commanded 70,000 troops. What this probably refers to is a disparate range of up to 1,500 different tribes and villages, in possibly 40 loose associations. Many of these operate under the control of Isis or the two essentially al-Qaida affiliates. Only the Kurds are in truth independent of the jihadis.

So this 70,000 is probably a phantom army. Which means that the military force will have to be a regional one, which in turn depends on the Vienna process reaching some form of mutually acceptable conclusion between all the regional powers. In this, Britain could have a very real role, which we should not miss in the heat of the moment. And it is at a time when the Russians are signalling in numerous ways that they are willing to play a real constructive role.

And that is part of the risk of the obsession with British bombing.

Despite the brave words of the prime minister, we will add very little to the military impact. Besides, military actions by themselves are not enough. The best lesson here is the spectacularly successful military action that we and the Americans carried out when we completely wiped out al-Qaida in Iraq. We simply created the vacuum that was then filled by Isis, because we did not fix the politics first.

Furthermore, despite the government’s assertions, our involvement will increase the short-term risk of terrorist attacks in Britain. As the attack on the Russian airliner showed, military actions can crystallise immediate terrorist responses. That is not a reason for inaction, but we should be honest with the British people about the consequences of what we do.

The reason for hesitation here is even more important. The Paris atrocity may just have created a strategic opportunity that will allow Isis to be completely eradicated. That will be in the first case a political initiative, the building of a grand alliance that creates both the plan and the military instrument to bring a stable future to this tortured part of the Middle East. Once that is done, then we should put our shoulder to the wheel, with every bit of military muscle we can muster.

But now? If we focus our efforts on providing a marginal military input in Syria, we will no doubt feel better about ourselves. Perhaps David Cameron will feel that he has put us back in the front rank of the alliance. It might provide some good short-term headlines. But we will have wasted what might be the best opportunity for 10 years to bring a real solution to the tragedy that is Syria and Iraq today.

David Davis is the Conservative MP for Haltemprice and Howden. He is a former shadow home secretary

[Geo_1875]

He certainly won't win an election without policies! :confused:

He, and Labour, have a whole raft of policies. Some to do with the economy, others to do with the environment, probably one on affordable housing. They will even have a foreign policy based on UK security. I don't recall Cameron and his party standing at the last election with a policy on bombing foreign countries.

[Betty Boop]

Go for it Jeremy impose the whip !

[Bristolhibby]

I agree pretty much word for word with ex-Tory frontbencher David Davis ...

A great article. Feels weird agreeing with a former Tory Front bencher.

This is not a time for random bombing. This is a time for doing what we do best, facilitating and brokering. Muslim Boots on the ground will destroy Isis. We must be doing our utmost to enable that to happen.

To answer the OP Corbyn has to relentless pursue and explaining that the bombing narrative is fundamentally flawed. Sometimes you need to take a break, before going in swinging.

Paris is just a cause to jerk the knee.

J

[lord bunberry]

Go for it Jeremy impose the whip !
I can't understand why he wouldn't. He was elected as leader because people wanted the party to take a different path. People voted for him because he had left wing principles, for him to not take his party in that direction would be a betrayal of the people who voted for him. He's already abstained on the trident vote, to allow a free vote on this would be the beginning of the end for him.

[Geo_1875]

I can't understand why he wouldn't. He was elected as leader because people wanted the party to take a different path. People voted for him because he had left wing principles, for him to not take his party in that direction would be a betrayal of the people who voted for him. He's already abstained on the trident vote, to allow a free vote on this would be the beginning of the end for him.

He's told them what the party policy is and is relying on them doing the right thing. :rolleyes:

[Hibbyradge]

A great article. Feels weird agreeing with a former Tory Front bencher.

This is not a time for random bombing. This is a time for doing what we do best, facilitating and brokering. Muslim Boots on the ground will destroy Isis. We must be doing our utmost to enable that to happen.

To answer the OP Corbyn has to relentless pursue and explaining that the bombing narrative is fundamentally flawed. Sometimes you need to take a break, before going in swinging.

Paris is just a cause to jerk the knee.

J

It's a very well put argument regardless of who it's from. As good as I've read, in fact.

ISIS has to be defeated. There seems to be no limit to their barbarism and savagery.

It's truly depressing. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-burns-woman-alive-for-refusing-to-engage-in-extreme-sex-act-un-says-10272832.html)

I think military action has to be firmly on the agenda, whether it's now or later. Yes, lets urgently explore the possibility of a concerted political initiative, but if that does not materialise quickly, we must get involved.

[Hibbyradge]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/30/syria-airstrikes-jeremy-corbyn-gives-labour-mps-free-vote?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet

[BroxburnHibee]

I can't understand why he wouldn't. He was elected as leader because people wanted the party to take a different path. People voted for him because he had left wing principles, for him to not take his party in that direction would be a betrayal of the people who voted for him. He's already abstained on the trident vote, to allow a free vote on this would be the beginning of the end for him.

Agreed

If he doesn't lead then he won't last long

[JeMeSouviens]

A great article. Feels weird agreeing with a former Tory Front bencher.

This is not a time for random bombing. This is a time for doing what we do best, facilitating and brokering. Muslim Boots on the ground will destroy Isis. We must be doing our utmost to enable that to happen.

To answer the OP Corbyn has to relentless pursue and explaining that the bombing narrative is fundamentally flawed. Sometimes you need to take a break, before going in swinging.

Paris is just a cause to jerk the knee.

J

Indeed, I've only just recovered ...

[steakbake]

I don't understand how Labour have become hawks. Cameron will need to rely on Labour votes to get his war.

[Hibbyradge]

Corbyn has given his tacit approval for the bombing campaign.

If he had used the whip, there wouldn't even be a debate.

Now, we'll get a debate and a campaign.

[ronaldo7]

Corbyn has given his tacit approval for the bombing campaign.

If he had used the whip, there wouldn't even be a debate.

Now, we'll get a debate and a campaign.

:agree: The military will have picked their targets, and we'll be bombing by the week end. Dave has played the Labour party again.

[steakbake]

Corbyn has given his tacit approval for the bombing campaign.

If he had used the whip, there wouldn't even be a debate.

Now, we'll get a debate and a campaign.

If he had used the whip then an open debate becomes a rebellion. He had little other choice.

[Hibbyradge]

If he had used the whip then an open debate becomes a rebellion. He had little other choice.

There would have been no debate.

Cameron said as much.

[lord bunberry]

If he had used the whip then an open debate becomes a rebellion. He had little other choice.
Maybe an open rebellion would've been better for him. At some point he's going to have to make a stand and find out who in his party is prepared to back him. It's clear plenty in his party don't share his views, but they might be prepared to go along with him for now. At the moment he looks weak.

[ronaldo7]

Both the SNP and Labour have asked for a two day debate, the gov have given one. Pathetic.

[marinello59]

Both the SNP and Labour have asked for a two day debate, the gov have given one. Pathetic.

Cameron doesn't want a debate, he just wants a vote. The shambles that is the Labour Party means he can do what he wants for the foreseeable future.

[Hibbyradge]

Cameron doesn't want a debate, he just wants a vote. The shambles that is the Labour Party means he can do what he wants for the foreseeable future.

Yip. It's a joke.

#newpolitics

[judas]

It seems to me that Corbyn, and the far left generally, care more about protest and principles than they do about power, so a free vote is possible.

It's a disgrace. Caring more about principles than power. Really shocking.

[bigwheel]

It's a disgrace. Caring more about principles than power. Really shocking.


:greengrin:greengrin

[Hibbyradge]

It's a disgrace. Caring more about principles than power. Really shocking.

It is. It's utterly ridiculous.

If we want to stop the Tories, we need to be in power, not carping from the sidelines. Get power, then we can make the changes.

Standing by a set of principles that just about no-one else shares, is lunacy and is a betrayal of those who need the Labour Party to help them.

And, even with his tablet of stone principles, when he had the chance to actually make a decision, today, he copped out with the free vote. The worst decision he could have made.

Here's another take on Jezza's principles.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2015/11/forget-books-jeremy-corbyn-without-historical-precedent

[R'Albin]

It is. It's utterly ridiculous.

If we want to stop the Tories, we need to be in power, not carping from the sidelines. Get power, then we can make the changes.

Standing by a set of principles that just about no-one else shares, is lunacy and is a betrayal of those who need the Labour Party to help them.

And, even with his tablet of stone principles, when he had the chance to actually make a decision, today, he copped out with the free vote. The worst decision he could have made.

Here's another take on Jezza's principles.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2015/11/forget-books-jeremy-corbyn-without-historical-precedent

Is the point of a political party not to have principles which the public decide whether or not they agree with? I'm not saying the public should be totally ignored, their opinions should be listened to and thought about, but surely there has to be more substance to a party than just wanting to win.

I'm not going to pretend I have a deep understanding of this conflict - because I don't - however, I think Corbyn has offered some good ideas on how to helpsolve the issue: I think the solution actually lies in creating some kind of acceptable government in Syria that can in turn then hopefully deal with the problem with Isis, or Isil. “I think there is some hope there, but I also think we have to ask some questions about the way in which Isil has received weapons, has received money, has been able to sell oil, has been able to export it and the role that other countries have played in this, including the way in which Turkey has been bombing Kurdish positions on the border and the way in which Saudi Arabia, maybe not at Government level, but certainly at aid-level, has been providing support to Isil.”

Maybe not a solution, as such. But at least he appears to be thinking about the long-term. I don't understand how bombing again is going to resolve anything. Was bombing Iraq not what helped Isis grow to the extent they have today?

[Hibrandenburg]

Is the point of a political party not to have principles which the public decide whether or not they agree with? I'm not saying the public should be totally ignored, their opinions should be listened to and thought about, but surely there has to be more substance to a party than just wanting to win.

I'm not going to pretend I have a deep understanding of this conflict - because I don't - however, I think Corbyn has offered some good ideas on how to helpsolve the issue: I think the solution actually lies in creating some kind of acceptable government in Syria that can in turn then hopefully deal with the problem with Isis, or Isil. “I think there is some hope there, but I also think we have to ask some questions about the way in which Isil has received weapons, has received money, has been able to sell oil, has been able to export it and the role that other countries have played in this, including the way in which Turkey has been bombing Kurdish positions on the border and the way in which Saudi Arabia, maybe not at Government level, but certainly at aid-level, has been providing support to Isil.”

Maybe not a solution, as such. But at least he appears to be thinking about the long-term. I don't understand how bombing again is going to resolve anything. Was bombing Iraq not what helped Isis grow to the extent they have today?

It's the only answer. Since we've helped destabilise the whole area by removing the governments that were in place ourselves and encouraging uprisings against the others we have a responsibility to ensure that the vacuums left are filled with governments that can ensure balance is returned. With ISIS running rampage in the area that is not possible but bombing them from the air is not gonna solve the situation, in fact it will probably only make things worse. The option to back any particular side is also unlikely because the only real candidate is Assad and we've pretty much burnt our bridges there and the Russians would more than likely back him to the hilt if the west decides to back any other group. It's a bloody mess and instead of bombing first then ask questions later we need to have a political solution involving all sides bar ISIS in place before any solution can work.

[bigwheel]

It is. It's utterly ridiculous.

If we want to stop the Tories, we need to be in power, not carping from the sidelines. Get power, then we can make the changes.

Standing by a set of principles that just about no-one else shares, is lunacy and is a betrayal of those who need the Labour Party to help them.

And, even with his tablet of stone principles, when he had the chance to actually make a decision, today, he copped out with the free vote. The worst decision he could have made.

Here's another take on Jezza's principles.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2015/11/forget-books-jeremy-corbyn-without-historical-precedent


Do you feel it is in anyway ironic to select a right wing magazine with a clear anti-cornyn agenda as a balanced representation on Corbyn's principles?

Give me a politician who is consistent with their principles over one that is hungry for power - every day of the week.

[lucky]

I voted and campaigned for Corbyn and I hope he uses the "whip" to establish a anti bombing vote. But as others have said the focus should be on the Tories, they have the majority and are in power. If cameron can't convince his own people then why should anyone listen to him? I don't see the MSM claiming he's unfit to govern. The U.K. Is not the world player it once was, cuts to the military budget means we are barely capable of launching more air strikes. Don't forget 2 years ago he wanted bomb the Syrian government out of office now he wants to bomb ISIS. We should be looking for a peaceful solution not more killing

[marinello59]

Do you feel it is in anyway ironic to select a right wing magazine with a clear anti-cornyn agenda as a balanced representation on Corbyn's principles?

Give me a politician who is consistent with their principles over one that is hungry for power - every day of the week.

If Corbyn was being consistent with his principles he would have enforced the whip. He has handed Cameron victory on a plate.

[Hibrandenburg]

Bombing Syria without a plan to react as the situation develops is just pure crazy. The lines are blurred enough without adding more complexity to the situation. This post (not mine) sums up the situation nicely:


President Assad ( who is bad ) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels ( who are good ) started winning ( Hurrah!).
But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State ( who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy ( who are still good.)
So the Americans ( who are good ) started bombing Islamic State ( who are bad ) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) so they could fight Assad ( who is still bad ) which was good.
By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS ( which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.
Getting back to Syria.
So President Putin ( who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi ) has decided to back Assad ( who is still bad ) by attacking IS ( who are also bad ) which is sort of a good thing?
But Putin ( still bad ) thinks the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans ( who are good ) who are busy backing and arming the rebels ( who are also good).
Now Iran ( who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good ) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad ( still bad ) as are the Russians ( bad ) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.
So a Coalition of Assad ( still bad ) Putin ( extra bad ) and the Iranians ( good, but in a bad sort of way ) are going to attack IS ( who are bad ) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) which is bad.
Now the British ( obviously good, except that nice Mr Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad ) and the Americans ( also good ) cannot attack Assad ( still bad ) for fear of upsetting Putin ( bad ) and Iran ( good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS ( who are super bad).
So Assad ( bad ) is now probably good, being better than IS ( but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there ) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America ( still Good ) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin ( now good ) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran ( also Good ) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS ( still the only constantly bad group).
To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims ( Assad and Iran ) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good ( Doh!.)
Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal ( mmm.might have a point.) and hence we will be seen as Bad.
So now we have America ( now bad ) and Britain ( also bad ) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels ( bad ) many of whom are looking to IS ( Good / bad ) for support against Assad ( now good ) who, along with Iran ( also Good) and Putin ( also, now, unbelievably, Good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?

Yepp, let's bomb them and see what happens, after all what could possibly go wrong?

[R'Albin]

If Corbyn was being consistent with his principles he would have enforced the whip. He has handed Cameron victory on a plate.

Not really IMO. I read a quote of his from 2013 where he said that MPs should be allowed a free vote on military matters. He's been completely consistent but couldn't win with this one.

[Moulin Yarns]

The post by Hibrandenburg sums the whole thing wonderfully

[marinello59]

Not really IMO. I read a quote of his from 2013 where he said that MPs should be allowed a free vote on military matters. He's been completely consistent but couldn't win with this one.



He wasn't the leader of the opposition then. He has totally failed to oppose the very thing he claims to have a principled stand on. Surely his anti-bombing principles would trump his free vote principles?

[R'Albin]

He wasn't the leader of the opposition then. He has totally failed to oppose the very thing he claims to have a principled stand on. Surely his anti-bombing principles would trump his free vote principles?

He has personally opposed though. There isn't a lot he can do if his shadow cabinet don't agree, because aren't they able to just rebel anyway? Just because he feels strongly about bombing, doesn't mean he should abandon his beliefs about the free vote. He's letting his MPs vote for what they believe in which I think is the correct thing to do in this instance.

[Hibbyradge]

Not really IMO. I read a quote of his from 2013 where he said that MPs should be allowed a free vote on military matters. He's been completely consistent but couldn't win with this one.



Exactly.

His need to be consistent and stick to his principles are obviously more important to him than the effect of the bombing.

These 2 quotes are worthy of consideration;

Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative. Oscar Wilde.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall.

Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood?

Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

[bigwheel]

If Corbyn was being consistent with his principles he would have enforced the whip. He has handed Cameron victory on a plate.


Sticking to your principles, even when you know it will end up in defeat - shows that you actually have some principles. Principles are not things you can choose to have one day, and forget them the next

[marinello59]

Sticking to your principles, even when you know it will end up in defeat - shows that you actually have some principles. Principles are not things you can choose to have one day, and forget them the next

He hasn't stuck up for his principles though. Has he? Doesn't that mean fighting the best fight you can? He had handed Cameron the vote on this. Unless I am missing something.

[bigwheel]

He hasn't stuck up for his principles though. Has he? Doesn't that mean fighting the best fight you can? He had handed Cameron the vote on this. Unless I am missing something.


well if his principle was that it should be a free vote (as stated in another post), then he has stuck with them....some people on here were challenging that principles should come secondary to power - my main point is you can't choose - you either have principles or you don't...it's not something you can choose to change.

[marinello59]

He has personally opposed though. There isn't a lot he can do if his shadow cabinet don't agree, because aren't they able to just rebel anyway? Just because he feels strongly about bombing, doesn't mean he should abandon his beliefs about the free vote. He's letting his MPs vote for what they believe in which I think is the correct thing to do in this instance.

Cameron needed this vote to be taken quickly whilst he could still exploit the horror felt at the attacks in Paris. If Corbyn had said he was enforcing the whip then the arithmetic would still have been too risky for the PM to call for this vote. If Corbyn was going to fight for his principles and show leadership that's what he should have done. Really, what is the point of Corbyn? When the 54 SNP MPs claim to be the only real opposition to the Tories now it would be hard to argue against.

[marinello59]

well if his principle was that it should be a free vote (as stated in another post), then he has stuck with them....some people on here were challenging that principles should come secondary to power - my main point is you can't choose - you either have principles or you don't...it's not something you can choose to change.

What has he achieved for the many innocent Syrians who will be facing British bombs by the weekend then?

[bigwheel]

What has he achieved for the many innocent Syrians who will be facing British bombs by the weekend then?


He will be voting against it...like many others. I guess he believes in democracy. It's a heart breaking situation that's for sure. One that the people who vote in support of this act will be making worse. The people of Syria are asking us not to - yet, the way this government are looking for blood, it looks like it will happen..hugely sad.

The people of this you try have a roll to play to..call your MP now - tell them - not in my name..

I wrote to mine last week..

[lord bunberry]

well if his principle was that it should be a free vote (as stated in another post), then he has stuck with them....some people on here were challenging that principles should come secondary to power - my main point is you can't choose - you either have principles or you don't...it's not something you can choose to change.
He is making this a matter of principle to avoid a revolt in his own party. If principles are secondary to power he shouldn't have stood to be leader of the party.
He will be gone long before the next election, which is a shame as I was genuinely excited when he was elected.

[bigwheel]

He is making this a matter of principle to avoid a revolt in his own party. If principles are secondary to power he shouldn't have stood to be leader of the party.
He will be gone long before the next election, which is a shame as I was genuinely excited when he was elected.

Thats your assumption - you might be right - I'm not sure what your point is really - a revolt in his own party would have lost him
Power anyway - so not sure a short lived victory would have done anything to stop this Ill thought out strategy by Cameron and co.

I wasn't excited when he came to this role - Corbyn has many policies that I dream
Off being our governments strategy - but he seems not to have the complexity that a modern PM needs.

More unfortunately , the media seem to be fighting him every step of the way - almost making him look crazy - to care about normal people's lives. Modern politics of today needs change - and one thing that I do admire is that he is at least fighting hard




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

He could have saved Syrian lives.

He chose to save his consistent voting record instead.

[ronaldo7]

He could have saved Syrian lives.

He chose to save his consistent voting record instead.

He saved having a war within his party instead of a war in Syria. As Maitlis put it so eloquently:rolleyes: last night...He Bottled it.

[marinello59]

He saved having a war within his party instead of a war in Syria. As Maitlis put it so eloquently:rolleyes: last night...He Bottled it.

:agree:

[Hibbyradge]

He copped out for sure.

Even Miliband had the kahunas to order his party to vote against bombing Syria.

[Colr]

Sticking to your principles, even when you know it will end up in defeat - shows that you actually have some principles. Principles are not things you can choose to have one day, and forget them the next

..and on this issue, I think he is right. It's another **** up in the making....and he's ****** it up!

[R'Albin]

Exactly.

His need to be consistent and stick to his principles are obviously more important to him than the effect of the bombing.

These 2 quotes are worthy of consideration;

Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative. Oscar Wilde.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall.

Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood?

Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.

Ralph Waldo Emerson


He hasn't stuck up for his principles though. Has he? Doesn't that mean fighting the best fight you can? He had handed Cameron the vote on this. Unless I am missing something.

Isn't it supposed to be a democracy though? The public have decided to vote for politicians to make decisions on their behalf, and several Labour MPs have opted to vote for the bombing. Corbyn has done his utmost to persuade these people to vote against bombing and they aren't going to. If we are going to criticise him for anything, it's choosing these MPs to be on his shadow cabinet who disagree with a lot of his principles. There was always going to be issues like this.

Just because he's being consistent doesn't mean he is wrong. I just can't see how allowing his MPs to take responsibility to vote what they believe in, even though he strongly disagrees, is a bad thing. As for the quotes you've posted Radge, I agree with them. People should be willing to change their mind on issues and not let pride get in the way of doing the right thing - however I think he has done the right thing here and for the right reasons.

[RyeSloan]

Isn't it supposed to be a democracy though? The public have decided to vote for politicians to make decisions on their behalf, and several Labour MPs have opted to vote for the bombing. Corbyn has done his utmost to persuade these people to vote against bombing and they aren't going to. If we are going to criticise him for anything, it's choosing these MPs to be on his shadow cabinet who disagree with a lot of his principles. There was always going to be issues like this. Just because he's being consistent doesn't mean he is wrong. I just can't see how allowing his MPs to take responsibility to vote what they believe in, even though he strongly disagrees, is a bad thing. As for the quotes you've posted Radge, I agree with them. People should be willing to change their mind on issues and not let pride get in the way of doing the right thing - however I think he has done the right thing here and for the right reasons.

Don't think I agree....he should have told the public what Labour stands for.

This is literally a life and death decision that will cost millions of pounds, to be unable to lead his party to a definitive decision on its policy on such matters is a failure of leadership and conviction.

There are many persuasive arguments against bombing Syria and it would have been heartening to see Labour take a stand and back those arguments by putting forward a strong message on what Britain's foreign policy should be in these types of situations , that would have garnered some respect from me at least. Instead we got a very public in fight that was more about Labour than the rather important matter to hand.

[marinello59]

Isn't it supposed to be a democracy though? The public have decided to vote for politicians to make decisions on their behalf, and several Labour MPs have opted to vote for the bombing. Corbyn has done his utmost to persuade these people to vote against bombing and they aren't going to. If we are going to criticise him for anything, it's choosing these MPs to be on his shadow cabinet who disagree with a lot of his principles. There was always going to be issues like this.

Just because he's being consistent doesn't mean he is wrong. I just can't see how allowing his MPs to take responsibility to vote what they believe in, even though he strongly disagrees, is a bad thing. As for the quotes you've posted Radge, I agree with them. People should be willing to change their mind on issues and not let pride get in the way of doing the right thing - however I think he has done the right thing here and for the right reasons.

If he had enforced the whip we wouldn't be having this vote today. How can that be a sign that he made the correct decision? We will be killing people in Syria by the weekend. Corbyn has proved himself both weak and self indulgent here. The language Cameron is now coming out with shows how unassailable he believes himself to be. It's frightening to think what this Government will get away with over the next few years.

[bawheid]

If he had enforced the whip we wouldn't be having this vote today. How can that be a sign that he made the correct decision? We will be killing people in Syria by the weekend. Corbyn has proved himself both weak and self indulgent here. The language Cameron is now coming out with shows how unassailable he believes himself to be. It's frightening to think what this Government will get away with over the next few years.

Weak in the extreme. It's sad, because I was rather excited for Westminster politics when Corbyn was elected.

This 'terrorist sympathisers' stuff that Cameron is coming out with needs to be properly countered. It's a shocking way for a Prime Minister to behave. It won't be though, at least not by the Labour front bench. Hopefully Angus Robertson will take him to task on it.

[Future17]

Weak in the extreme. It's sad, because I was rather excited for Westminster politics when Corbyn was elected.

This 'terrorist sympathisers' stuff that Cameron is coming out with needs to be properly countered. It's a shocking way for a Prime Minister to behave. It won't be though, at least not by the Labour front bench. Hopefully Angus Robertson will take him to task on it.

I read a headline containing that reference this morning and thought it would just be tabloid sensationalism. The fact he actually said it is almost unbelievable to me.

So you can't oppose the use of deadly militaristic force in a country for which Cameron has all but admitted he has no reconstruction plan without being a "terrorist sympathiser"? Cheap and nasty playground bully tactics from him, which makes it all the more infuriating that there is no credible Westminster opposition to the Tories now.

[Betty Boop]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CVK1px4W4AAq9Pm.jpghttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/CVK1qE_WcAEkUIs.jpg

Cameron and his cronies, he's an absolute disgrace.

[Betty Boop]

Can't think of any leader of the opposition that has received the treatment, Jeremy Corbyn has. Branded as a 'terrorist sympathiser' because he objects to the UK joining the coalition of the killing. Others would have jacked it before now.

[marinello59]

Can't think of any leader of the opposition that has received the treatment, Jeremy Corbyn has. Branded as a 'terrorist sympathiser' because he objects to the UK joining the coalition of the killing. Others would have jacked it before now.

Cameron is being pressed in the house to apologise for that disgraceful remark. No shock that he won't. The nasty party is back in all its glory now.

[heretoday]

If we want to hit ISIS at its source we should commence bombing Saudi Arabia.

[Rasta_Hibs]

It is nothing short of a disgrace this western coalition and their middle eastern policy. Cameron and the likes should be sent to fight!

[Betty Boop]

If we want to hit ISIS at its source we should commence bombing Saudi Arabia.
Exactly instead of cosying up and backing them in secret deals, to join the Human Rights Council.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMh7RG6_Tp4

[marinello59]

Angus Robertson getting right to the heart of things.

[Betty Boop]

Angus Robertson getting right to the heart of things.

Yea asking the crucial questions. :not worth

[BroxburnHibee]

Funny how we can always afford to bomb someone.

Actually it's no funny as all.

[JimBHibees]

Funny how we can always afford to bomb someone.

Actually it's no funny as all.

Absolutely we had the military puppet this morning on BBC going on about how accurate the bombs were and there would be less collateral damage. Pretty sure we heard the same guff before Iraq and what are the civilian deaths totalling there about 300k or so.

Western foreign policy is an absolute shambles and they tend to reap what they sow.

[(((Fergus)))]

Allah be praised that this man does not have to do anything about ISIS – or do anything else other than occasionally read out people's e-mails on TV. The only way he would destroy ISIS is if we all paid £3 to join and got him to replace al-Baghdadi.

[bigwheel]

Allah be praised that this man does not have to do anything about ISIS – or do anything else other than occasionally read out people's e-mails on TV. The only way he would destroy ISIS is if we all paid £3 to join and got him to replace al-Baghdadi.

Do you think bombing of Syria will actually reduce the threat in the UK ? It will only act to increase radical views in the region - it's is a blunt and I'll thought plan...he is right to hold the government and their supporters to account - Cameron's strategy could not be more wrong if he tried


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pete]

I read a headline containing that reference this morning and thought it would just be tabloid sensationalism. The fact he actually said it is almost unbelievable to me.

So you can't oppose the use of deadly militaristic force in a country for which Cameron has all but admitted he has no reconstruction plan without being a "terrorist sympathiser"? Cheap and nasty playground bully tactics from him, which makes it all the more infuriating that there is no credible Westminster opposition to the Tories now.

Agree with everything you say apart from the "credible opposition" part. They shouldn't be written off for the future because their leader refuses to shout, crack whips or play the games that others play.

A lot of people don't want your average working person to realise that there is an alternative to giving 50% of your salary up so you can live in some overpriced flat that is nothing more than some buy-to-let landlords pension pot.

If they were to cut through all the crap it would be a nightmare for so many, mainly rich people. Guess who is shouting the loudest?

[Hibrandenburg]

Absolutely we had the military puppet this morning on BBC going on about how accurate the bombs were and there would be less collateral damage. Pretty sure we heard the same guff before Iraq and what are the civilian deaths totalling there about 300k or so.

Western foreign policy is an absolute shambles and they tend to reap what they sow.

I saw him on sky news as well and thought exactly the same.

[Chip shop Joe]

Can't think of any leader of the opposition that has received the treatment, Jeremy Corbyn has. Branded as a 'terrorist sympathiser' because he objects to the UK joining the coalition of the killing. Others would have jacked it before now.

I don't agree with Corbyn however he is definitely a man of principle and I respect that enormously. It would have been far easier to keep a low profile and vote against the bombing but he put himself in the firing line time and time again and the treatment he has received had been disgraceful!

[Hibbyradge]

Do you feel it is in anyway ironic to select a right wing magazine with a clear anti-cornyn agenda as a balanced representation on Corbyn's principles?

Give me a politician who is consistent with their principles over one that is hungry for power - every day of the week.

I was having a look through this thread for a Facebook related bit of research and I just noticed this. Sorry it took me so long to reply! :greengrin

The New Statesman isn't a right wing magazine. It may be right of Corbyn, but it's still a left of centre publication.

[Keith_M]

Bombing IS is idiotic and proves the West has learned absolutely nothng from their attacks on Iraq and Aghanistan.

How many innocent cvilians will be killed? How many more Muslims will be radicalised by what they see as attacks on their fellow believers?

[Expecting Rain]

Corbyn is a breath of fresh air and offers a great challenge to the stagnant and misguided politics of the last couple of decades.

[Dashing Bob S]

The war on terror has proven highly effective at ensuring there is more terror. It's given us the Taliban, Al Quieda, ISIS, each worse than the last, and is now incubating the latest strain, which will be more deadly still.

I think we'll see an escalation in different forms of terrorism, individuals and small cells, as much confused white fascist as 'Islamic' fascist (as in US) and attacking public places like entrances to stadiums, airports (before security), train stations, more homemade 'dirty bombs' using explosives to detonate isotopes, and chemical terrorism through the poisoning of water supplies etc.

All this is a result of changes in global society; the end of both the free market and socialist ideologies with the merger of corporate, banking and state power, the negation of democracy through circumscribed debates (we are criticizing somebody more for failing to bomb a country than for bombing it, as this thread implies) and the behavior of unelected elites, and the increasing militarization and security economies in the west.

There's a cheerful post! That's why I stay away from this board...

[Rasta_Hibs]

US Coalition hit Assad government troops. It didn't take long for them to change targets from ISIS to the legitimate syria government.

The plan all along to topple Assad. Very soul destroying to see this being played out for real when all these actions have been predicted by 'conspiracy theorists' for years.

[Chip shop Joe]

Define "legitimate"!

Also the US and pretty much the whole world except Russia and Iran have stated many times that they want Assad out. Not sure how this is a surprise at all?

[Rasta_Hibs]

Define "legitimate"!

Also the US and pretty much the whole world except Russia and Iran have stated many times that they want Assad out. Not sure how this is a surprise at all?

defined by being elected. It is illegal what the US Coalition are doing.

[Chip shop Joe]

Elected? How many parties were on the voting paper?

Who was the leader before Assad?

It is illegal what Assad is doing! It is called, amongst other things, genocide!

[Rasta_Hibs]

Elected? How many parties were on the voting paper?

Who was the leader before Assad?

It is illegal what Assad is doing! It is called, amongst other things, genocide!

Yes the last elections had independent observers stating that the voting was fair.

The US Coalition are acting illegally and lying to the public to back a war that is only to further the 'elites' own corporate interests.

[Chip shop Joe]

Really?

They were not Iranian or Russian independents were they[emoji3] sure I read at the time that it was amongst other things "fundamentally flawed" a farce and essentially a one party election!

Think we will need to agree to disagree on this as far as I am concerned Assad is systematically torturing and killing his own people and like his father a dictator.

As for bombing Syrian troops a coalition spokesman has denied it even happened and whilst he might not be telling the truth I am far more inclined to believe him than anything Assad or Putin have to say.

On another note if they were actively targeted I am sure you could kill a lot more than three soldiers with a bombing raid, another thing that makes me think it is propaganda!

[(((Fergus)))]

Do you think bombing of Syria will actually reduce the threat in the UK ? It will only act to increase radical views in the region - it's is a blunt and I'll thought plan...he is right to hold the government and their supporters to account - Cameron's strategy could not be more wrong if he tried


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think their plan is probably **** and the stated goal - reducing threat to UK - is myopic. Not as myopic as Corbyn's but still, as you say, a blunt instrument.

BTW the "recruiting sergeant" argument is unfounded if the bombing actually does damage to IS as no one wants to back a losing horse, especially in that region. The concern would be the vacuum it leaves and who would fill it. So far, the west - supposedly allies of the Sunni Arab & Turkish countries - have been doing everything to benefit Iran.

[(((Fergus)))]

Define "legitimate"!

Also the US and pretty much the whole world except Russia and Iran have stated many times that they want Assad out. Not sure how this is a surprise at all?

Assad is the legitimate leader under international law, such as it is, but also for a considerable percentage of the Syrian population. In that sense there are several legitimate leaders of Syria, or rather bits of Syria: Allawite state, west Kurdistan, Islamic State and some secular-ish Sunni state represented by the "western-backed rebels", to name just four possible successors.

[Rasta_Hibs]

Really?

They were not Iranian or Russian independents were they[emoji3] sure I read at the time that it was amongst other things "fundamentally flawed" a farce and essentially a one party election!

Think we will need to agree to disagree on this as far as I am concerned Assad is systematically torturing and killing his own people and like his father a dictator.

As for bombing Syrian troops a coalition spokesman has denied it even happened and whilst he might not be telling the truth I am far more inclined to believe him than anything Assad or Putin have to say.

On another note if they were actively targeted I am sure you could kill a lot more than three soldiers with a bombing raid, another thing that makes me think it is propaganda!

There are no good guys in this. Assad, Cameron, Obama, Putin, Turkish Boy Erdogan all guilty to varying degrees. Only Russia has a legitimate right to bomb in Syria which sounds crazy as i type it.

What you seem to be suggesting is another middle eastern dictator to be removed from power at the request of the West and this is ok? Even though it has been shown to be a failed policy.

If Putin had not stepped in Syria right now would be completely over run with Islamic Extremists. Would you agree with that Statement?

[Chip shop Joe]

Assad is the legitimate leader under international law, such as it is, but also for a considerable percentage of the Syrian population. In that sense there are several legitimate leaders of Syria, or rather bits of Syria: Allawite state, west Kurdistan, Islamic State and some secular-ish Sunni state represented by the "western-backed rebels", to name just four possible successors.

I appreciate that it is semantics but Assad is internationally recognised as the leader of Syria not the legitimate leader as by its very definition to be legitimate you have to be lawful and play by the rules something that was universally found not have happened during his election.

[(((Fergus)))]

Time for a light-hearted ISIS-related quiz. Who said it, ISIS or Stop the War:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/12036681/Who-said-it-Stop-the-War-Coalition-or-Isil.html

I got 5 out of 10.

[Chip shop Joe]

Good quiz, I got 5 also! Just goes to show how much of a mess the whole thing is, with no easy answers!

[Rasta_Hibs]

Good quiz, I got 5 also! Just goes to show how much of a mess the whole thing is, with no easy answers!

A real mess with Western powers backing ISIL who have committed genocide.

[Chip shop Joe]

not for the first time I am not quite sure what you are talking about?

Which Western power is backing IS?

[Rasta_Hibs]

not for the first time I am not quite sure what you are talking about?

Which Western power is backing IS?

Hehe I think you do.

It is pretty basic language im using.

Point 1 - Russia has been asked by the Syrian Government to help the fight against terrorists. Means the can legally bomb within Syria.

Point 2 - The USA has been supplying ISIL with weapons & training. Obama is on record stating this.

Does this make sense enough?

[Rasta_Hibs]

Since we are being smart:

Since when was the definition of legitimate, elected? as you stated in a previous post?

If Syrian troops were being targeted do you not think there would be more than a grand total of 3 dead after hundreds/thousands of sorties. They are not very effective these state of the art planes and bombs are they? Hardly worth the bother!

where did you hear that The last Assad election was legit?

Remind me why Syria would be over run if it were not for Russia?

Again why did it take you about 4 years to have the lightbulb moment that the US etc want to "topple" Assad?

When you could have read a newspaper or watched the news during this time to have "uncovered" this shocking news.

I take it your "conspiracy theorists" came to these conclusions by actually listening to Cameron, Obama etc? Not much of a conspiracy is it? More taking note listening of what politicians people are saying!

Many people in the media have said that even now Assad would win a a fair and free election if it was held in Syria. There were independent observers at the last election which is well documented.

The government forces were under the cosh until Russian stepped in and again i think because the West and Gulf nations were backing ISIL then ISIL and the rest off the Suny extremists would have eventually took control of the remaining parts of Syria as Assad was toppled.

I have not just had a lightbulb moment either as previously said this war in Syria, then Iran has been predicted by a few for a long time now. I suppose the point im trying to make is that the whole set of events in Syria is packaged up and sold to the public which does not reflect what is actually going on. It is the duality of the western policy im getting at telling western citizens were fighting ISIL with one face, then turning a blind eye when our western allies are supplying arms to these Islamic Terrorist groups.

I am jumping the gun here but the way i see it what happens next is that if Assad does not step down at the west asking and timing then we will see our troops hit Syrian government troops and infrastructure. I personally think we will see this sooner rather than later. Syrian infrastructure is already being hit.

[Chip shop Joe]

It is simply not true that the election was fair though. The UN and the EU both stated as such at the time!

The Syrian government have been fighting "moderate Rebels" AND IS/Al Nusra Front for 4 years though. Little has changed in Damascus during this 4 years it is still carrying on as normal. In my opinion the Syrian are never going to be over run by IS.

We are fighting IS and want Assad out though and that is what makes the whole situation a mess and why it will last for years.

Assad has been asked to step down for the whole conflict but I'm my opinion the only way the war ends is unfortunately with his help.

[Betty Boop]

You failed to mention that Assad still has the support of a significant number of the population.

[Chip shop Joe]

You failed to mention that Assad still has the support of a significant number of the population.

Not entirely sure why I would mention this?

I am simply stating that the election was deemed not to be fair and that in my opinion Assad would not win a fair election!

[(((Fergus)))]

You failed to mention that Assad still has the support of a significant number of the population.

... a significant *minority* of the population of what was Syria, although it appears that he and Mr Putin are taking steps to change the demographics of his power base.

[Chip shop Joe]

Assad is an alawite who I think make up about 10% of Syrias population. He will have support outwith this group but not a huge amount so he is most definitely a minority in Syria. This is the primary reason in my opinion why he could never win a fair election.

Pretty much every minister, every officer in the armed forces and the vast majority of the soldiers in the Syrian Army are also Alawite which does not strike me as being a democratic way of running a country and I am sure this has not gone unnoticed by the non Alawite majority in Syria.

It is clear that everyone believes what they believe, has their own opinions and gets their information from their own sources.

I suppose we will just have to wait and see how it all pans out.

A very interesting thread but I am now off on my hols for Christmas.

All the best for Christmas and new year and most importantly GGTTH!

[Stranraer]

I think Corbyn is correct on bombing IS. If they are indeed now in Afghanistan too, air strikes on Syria aren't going to stop them. If he was a true leader I think he would have told Labour MP's to back him and deny a free vote. It's amazing how Britain has gone from a country with "No money left" to being able to drop bombs on the Middle East.

[Colr]

You failed to mention that Assad still has the support of a significant number of the population.

Assad was/is a Baath Socialist. So was Saddam. Is this the same Baath socialism?

[Colr]

I think Corbyn is correct on bombing IS. If they are indeed now in Afghanistan too, air strikes on Syria aren't going to stop them. If he was a true leader I think he would have told Labour MP's to back him and deny a free vote. It's amazing how Britain has gone from a country with "No money left" to being able to drop bombs on the Middle East.

We all found the money for war in the 1930s did we not? Its amazing how resources can be marshalled if we all have the same focus. There's a lesson there somewhere.

[Future17]

Hard to imagine we'll ever bridge the gap of suspicion and distrust when things like this go on:

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/virginia-schools-shut-over-arabic-assignment/ar-BBnIPu3?li=AA9SkIr&ocid=mailsignoutmd