Jeremy Corbyn

[daverollo]

How do you propose that happens?

The same way you eat an elephant, small bite sizes chunks at a time.

IS have grown rapidly in the last 24 months and have spread the net further in the middle east. They have been halted and slowed in Iraq as a direct result of air strikes and other measures. While they don't recognise borders, it is convenient for them that we do. They stick two fingers up laughing at our ineptitude to suppress and eradicate them while we debate the morale issues of whether it is right to bomb them in their hide outs in Syria.

They will without doubt continue to rain as much mayhem on the West as is possible, training up terrorists to return to Europe and hit the populations anywhere, the more vulnerable the better in their eyes. There is no negotiating to be had with them.

The laughable thing about Corbyns stance is to 'take the moral high unrealistic ground' and say that France and the US should be seeking a peaceful solution to the civil war in Syria. I agree, however, no peace will be found until IS are removed from the equation. The longer they continue to stay in Syria and Iraq, unchallenged the stronger they will get and the more protracted and lengthy any campaign will be.

I'd love to hear what Corbyns solution is for dealing with IS, can't seem to find that anywhere, anyone care to provide a link?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I'll support further military action when I'm convinced that it won't make things worse.
No one has been able to do that so far.

Has military action made things worse when we started targeting IS in Iraq ?

 

[HomerJSimpson]

The same way you eat an elephant, small bite sizes chunks at a time.

IS have grown rapidly in the last 24 months and have spread the net further in the middle east. They have been halted and slowed in Iraq as a direct result of air strikes and other measures. While they don't recognise borders, it is convenient for them that we do. They stick two fingers up laughing at our ineptitude to suppress and eradicate them while we debate the morale issues of whether it is right to bomb them in their hide outs in Syria.

They will without doubt continue to rain as much mayhem on the West as is possible, training up terrorists to return to Europe and hit the populations anywhere, the more vulnerable the better in their eyes. There is no negotiating to be had with them.

The laughable thing about Corbyns stance is to 'take the moral high unrealistic ground' and say that France and the US should be seeking a peaceful solution to the civil war in Syria. I agree, however, no peace will be found until IS are removed from the equation. The longer they continue to stay in Syria and Iraq, unchallenged the stronger they will get and the more protracted and lengthy any campaign will be.

I'd love to hear what Corbyns solution is for dealing with IS, can't seem to find that anywhere, anyone care to provide a link?

I get what you're saying and to a point agree with you. My concern, supported by the Sky News article I posted earlier, is that you'd need to put significant troops on the ground at some point and how long do you keep them there for. When is the job done? While some on here seem to have the whole thing mapped out already, it's a terrifyingly difficult area to manage and to find a cohesive and viable long term solution

 

[chippa1909]

Has military action made things worse when we started targeting IS in Iraq ?

Well yes, I would say there has been a lot more ISIS attacks worldwide in the past 18 months than previously.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Well yes, I would say there has been a lot more ISIS attacks worldwide in the past 18 months than previously.

And you link that to the bombing in Iraq where ISIS is being driven away and their capabilities in that country has been reduced.

 

[ColchesterFC]

Well yes, I would say there has been a lot more ISIS attacks worldwide in the past 18 months than previously.

And you would be correct, but maybe not for the reasons you expect. Until April 2013 ISIS (IS/ISIL/Daesh etc) did not exist. Up to that point they were Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) so prior to Apr 2013 any attacks would have been put down to Al Qaeda not ISIS and it wasn't until Feb 2014 that ISIS officially became a separate entity.

http://www.vox.com/2015/11/19/9760284/isis-history

To be clear - this info has come from a Google search and I'm not claiming to be the font of all knowledge on ISIS but I was interested in finding out if the frequency of ISIS attacks had increased in the last 18 months.

 

[Jimaroid]

I've been hoping that something posted in this thread would help sway my feelings on the situation one way or another but unfortunately nothing has. I just think it's an impossible situation, one where both action and inaction will lead to different types of bad outcomes.

My emotional response to IS atrocities, like the Paris attacks, is that we have to step up our action against IS. But I don't see any logic in being drawn further into the war that IS crave. The airstrike strategy hasn't been very effective in Syria, the USA has bombed IS targets more than 3000 times in the last year. Airpower alone can't win this war and I'm disappointed that the case to fight IS is being presented (mostly) in terms of airstrikes when there are number of senior political and military officials saying that it's a war that can only be won on the ground.

We either have to fight all-in or not at all. I don't see the sense in fighting half a war.

Given all that, and in the context of *still* not knowing the results of Chilcott inquiry, which could help us better understand the decision facing us, I can't help but feel we are about to make another mistake.

I want IS destroyed and I want us involved in that fight but I don't feel the case has been made that the proposed action is the right path. It feels to me like "We can't do nothing, let's do something!" which is the same type of decision making that has led to many lost battles in the past.

Oh well, this time tomorrow, we will at least have one part of the debate resolved.

 

[chippa1909]

And you link that to the bombing in Iraq where ISIS is being driven away and their capabilities in that country has been reduced.

So we're now supposed to be glad that things in Iraq are better since bombing started, but attacks in the rest of the world have increased.
Whoopee.

 

[Old Skier]

So we're now supposed to be glad that things in Iraq are better since bombing started, but attacks in the rest of the world have increased.
Whoopee.

Thats because their aim is to rule the rest of the world, there not going to do that from a sand hill in the Middle East.

If they were just interested in the normal in fighting that occurs in those parts then let them crack on and leave them to it this time, but that's not what they want.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

So we're now supposed to be glad that things in Iraq are better since bombing started, but attacks in the rest of the world have increased.
Whoopee.

What it does show that presicion strikes in Iraq are helping blunt the capabilty of ISIS in that area and aiding the Iraq army to re take control of the areas that ISIS took over.

They have show to be effective and can be effective in Syria to help reduce their capabilty to train and command attacks.

 

[ger147]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/1/gen-joseph-dunford-us-has-not-contained-isis/

 

[chippa1909]

Ha ha.
Cameron's idiotic "terrorist sympathisers" comment has already led to 20 Labour MP's who were going to back him to change their minds.
The man's an absolute fool.

 

[richy]

Ha ha.
Cameron's idiotic "terrorist sympathisers" comment has already led to 20 Labour MP's who were going to back him to change their minds.
The man's an absolute fool.

He must read The Sun. Ridiculous comment and sounds like he's flapping.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Ha ha.
Cameron's idiotic "terrorist sympathisers" comment has already led to 20 Labour MP's who were going to back him to change their minds.
The man's an absolute fool.

Cameron seems to have lost the plot completely.
What an astonishingly crass choice of words.

 

[chippa1909]

Cameron seems to have lost the plot completely.
What an astonishingly crass choice of words.

Obvious now why he didn't want a two day debate. New poll in The Times tomorrow shows public support for military action has fallen from 59% to 48%.

 

[ColchesterFC]

Ha ha.
Cameron's idiotic "terrorist sympathisers" comment has already led to 20 Labour MP's who were going to back him to change their minds.
The man's an absolute fool.

I agree that it is a ridiculous thing to say but is it any worse than Corbyn talking about bombing Syria (that's not what it's about it's about bombing IS targets in Syria) or suggesting that those that are in favour of airstrikes are supporting "the killing of innocent civilians" or "on their heads be it" if airstrikes cause an IS attack in the UK?

 

[Sweep]

I'll support further military action when I'm convinced that it won't make things worse.
No one has been able to do that so far.

129 innocent people in Paris have just been murdered in cold blood. 99 are fighting for their lives. Innocent people in cities across the world are living in fear they will be next. IS is beheading, murdering, raping, crucifying, ethnically cleansing... How much worse do you think it should get before we do anything?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Cameron seems to have lost the plot completely.
What an astonishingly crass choice of words.

Just heard that on the news - staggering thing to say

And I remain absolutely not convinced. I have heard nothing in respect of an outcome that amounts to much more than wishful thinking.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Just heard that on the news - staggering thing to say

And I remain absolutely not convinced. I have heard nothing in respect of an outcome that amounts to much more than wishful thinking.

Ah welcome back - thought after your statement in regards the brimstone you had disappeared

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Ah welcome back - thought after your statement in regards the brimstone you had disappeared

ah - we are believing that Brimstone is that much more accurate than anything the French or the USA have that it will make a difference. Well OK, we can believe (btw - context for my statement - I used to be a missile guidance, control and navigation systems engineer - I designed these things so know how they work)