Jeremy Corbyn

[Deleted member 15344]

Thought it was up to government to prove their plan of action as being 'workable'....

Clearly they haven't, as they wouldn't be needing to petition the opposition for support, if they had...

Well just thought that people who said that it isn't workable to conduct air strikes would have come up with alternative actions in the government and indeed on here

But it appears no one can come up with something else to try first

 

[Fyldewhite]

And you think that's a good thing ?

Have you come up with an alternative workable action to tackle ISIL ?

If I were to answer that then I'd say "I'm not sure". Which I think is the point......not enough people are convinced that the proposals on the table are a workable solution.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

If I were to answer that then I'd say "I'm not sure". Which I think is the point......not enough people are convinced that the proposals on the table are a workable solution.

So then do nothing ? And let them continue to terrorise the world ?

 

[Doon frae Troon]

And you think that's a good thing ?

Have you come up with an alternative workable action to tackle ISIL ?

Yes it is the same as Corbyn/Sturgeon/SLAB and the Tory rebels.

Do you think we should bomb Syria when the country and Westminster MP's are totally undecided about what action to take

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Yes it is the same as Corbyn/Sturgeon/SLAB and the Tory rebels.

Which is what ?

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Which is what ?

Surely you must have read/listened to them.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Surely you must have read/listened to them.

Nope - you can post a link if you wish

 

[Ethan]

So then do nothing ? And let them continue to terrorise the world ?

The current plan seems to be to do something that will make them terrorise the world more.

The options here are only bad and worse. Many think bombing without a clear plan (other than to blow lots of stuff and civilians up) is the worse idea.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

The current plan seems to be to do something that will make them terrorise the world more.

The options here are only bad and worse. Many think bombing without a clear plan (other than to blow lots of stuff and civilians up) is the worse idea.

Always a risk when force is use - the risk could be bigger doing nothing. The terrorists with freedoms of no direct action against them could up their campaign

When did anyone suggest bombing without a clear plan ? Every target will be from the best intelligence source and will be done for a reason - specific targets will be found

So what is the alternative ?

 

[Fyldewhite]

So then do nothing ? And let them continue to terrorise the world ?

No, not saying that at all. We are not "doing nothing" at the moment either. Syria is complicated and I for one see no strategy on the table to eradicate ISIL and bring stability to the country. The biggest "pull" for me is that we should be supporting our allies and it's a big step not to do that. However, recent history shows it's not always the right course. What I am saying is that I think there may be a case to come back with better proposals with better predictability and likely outcomes that will support a sustainable solution. I know that's difficult, all this is very, very hard but to send in the bombers just because the "we must do something" view prevails may be an error.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

But the bombers won't be sent in "just to do something"

They will be sent to target specific areas to start nullifying ISIL - hit training camps , target leaders , target ammunition dumps etc - all tactical targets that would be hit for a reason

Right now ISIL are planning their next attacks , they are recruiting from all round the globe , they are training those in camps that we know about , they are stockpiling weapons , trading in arms

We need to blunt that , we need to disrupt their plans , stop them recruiting and hit their training camps.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Nope - you can post a link if you wish

 

[Deleted member 15344]

What's wrong ?

What would be your plan to tackle IS as it appears you don't want the UK to take part in the coalition air strikes ?

 

[Ethan]

But the bombers won't be sent in "just to do something"

They will be sent to target specific areas to start nullifying ISIL - hit training camps , target leaders , target ammunition dumps etc - all tactical targets that would be hit for a reason

Right now ISIL are planning their next attacks , they are recruiting from all round the globe , they are training those in camps that we know about , they are stockpiling weapons , trading in arms

We need to blunt that , we need to disrupt their plans , stop them recruiting and hit their training camps.

Lets take it as read that IS are building and are up to no good. We all agree on that.

What we don't agree on is that you can surgically take them out just like that. We heard the same in Iraq2 and the first stage was over quick but careened loads of problems including helping the rise of IS and a nuclear Iran. Do you think they might be spreading heir camps out a bit as we speak? Maybe moving munitions out of easy reach?

The intelligence is not good enough and IS can melt away into the civilian population. One misplaced bomb and you recruit thousand more who cross over from supporters to warriors.

We are in a hole. We should stop digging.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Lets take it as read that IS are building and are up to no good. We all agree on that.

What we don't agree on is that you can surgically take them out just like that. We heard the same in Iraq2 and the first stage was over quick but careened loads of problems including helping the rise of IS and a nuclear Iran. Do you think they might be spreading heir camps out a bit as we speak? Maybe moving munitions out of easy reach?

The intelligence is not good enough and IS can melt away into the civilian population. One misplaced bomb and you recruit thousand more who cross over from supporters to warriors.

We are in a hole. We should stop digging.

Yes we can surgically take out specific targets with presicion air strike with minimal collateral damage - the RAF have been doing that for a while on specific targets - that's why the Brimstone is so important - it's not carpet bombing.

Again Ethan you still have come up with your plan - what you think we should do instead of air strikes

 

[Old Skier]

Lets take it as read that IS are building and are up to no good. We all agree on that.

We are in a hole. We should stop digging.

So IS are building but you want to give up.

Everone knows that there is no feasible plan other than, at the moment, a campaign to reduce the capability of IS. Perhaps when their ability have been significantly reduced a plan could be produced.

 

[Old Skier]

Again Ethan you still have come up with your plan - what you think we should do instead of air strikes

From his post it looks like do nothing.

 

[Old Skier]

Corbyn now wants a 2 day debate on the Syria bombing issue according to BBC 24. Thought as further delaying tactics as no time in the Parlimentary calendar this side of 2015.

 

[MegaSteve]

Again Ethan you still have come up with your plan - what you think we should do instead of air strikes

It's not for 'Joe Public' to come up with a plan...

That's the 'work' of government and then get the required support..
Failure to do so means a plan B needs to be formulated...

 

[Deleted member 15344]

It's not for 'Joe Public' to come up with a plan...

That's the 'work' of government and then get the required support..
Failure to do so means a plan B needs to be formulated...

But "Joe Public" appear to be ok to dismiss the current plan put forward by the government

Just trying to find out whilst they dismiss the plan the government have put forward what their suggestions are that should be done to tackle IS ?

I think though it's clear that no one has an alternative to the UK joining in the Air Strikes