Labour Leadership

[sean_ork]

Fair enough, I'm not arguing, I'm just debating a topic in a thread that you started and until I chased you for an answer, you were actively involved in.

Ah well .....

 

[Pete999]

Fair enough, I'm not arguing, I'm just debating a topic in a thread that you started and until I chased you for an answer, you were actively involved in.

Ah well .....

Fair enough hope all is well with you and yours.

 

[Diddy]

Honest principles Diddy, but going war against the ISIS wouldn't, I think involve conscription, we have enough high tech weapons ans SFs to do our bit, I agree it's a difficult scenario but if we don't do anything and sit around on our behinds, we could be next in line for another bombing, we are already bombing ISIS in Iraq, can't see much difference in moving over to Syria, except for the poor Syrians they have had it rough for a long time poor devils, but in my opinion we have to say enough is enough, bite the bullet and go for it, despite the pacifists, and before anyone says "bet you wouldn't go" I have been to iffy places and was scared witless and I certainly don't want that for this country, we are after all fighting for our way of life.

As far as im concerned what we now do in Iraq is an obligation rather than us just lending a helping hand.
Why is being a peace loving man such a bad thing ?
You also state "it could be us next"......Would you say that if it were say a splinter Russian group or a splinter Chinese group ? It seems to be the feeling that because we are "bigger" and have the backing of the playground bully ?
As you are aware we have been bombing isis for a while now in Iraq.....Has it helped ? Is there less "trouble" over there ?
As you may also be aware France and the rest have been doing air strikes in Syria every day for over a year now - Worked out well so far then ?
This time last year our government wanted Mp's to support air strikes....in support of Isis ffs.....1 year later they are the enemy lol.
A blind deaf mute can see that war = money. As far as I am concerned money and influence in that region is the only reason that the UK "want's" to go in here. There are thousands of "terrorist" groups all over the world blowing themselves and others to smithereens......we don't seem to concerned about the others.
Put it this way if this was an army then I would say get stuck in.If it were a country who for whatever reason we declared war on - same again get the troops in.
This is neither. This is like asking France, USA Nato ect to hit Ireland with airstrikes to root out the bad guys. Would we have been ok with that ?
Again we don't seem to learn from our mistakes nor even our successes.

 

[garrywatters]

In the words of Kenny Everret and his alter ego! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnOHPZ51hAc

 

[derek]

The Saudis are the head of the snake, nothing will change in terms of funding for militant Wahabi supporters until Saudi stops funding them with their billions of dollars of oil money. Even if Syria is invaded by a multi-national force (which would be more effective than just bombing in my opinion) the Salafists will just move to another country that has a small group of likeminded people, and Syria will just end up in the same mess that Iraq and Afghanistan are in now.

 

[sean_ork]

The Saudis are the head of the snake.

Yep, and Turkey is the tail - they are as bad as each other. And those who could actually do something are just feathering their nest.

Philip Hammond accepts £2,000 watch from Saudi sheikh, despite ban on donating expensive gifts | UK Politics | News | The Independent

 

[Deleted member 26818]

My understanding, is that Hereford has been relocated, and is now even closer to Bristol and Birmingham?
Well closer to Birmingham at least.
As for Corbyn's stance on air strikes, it's simply down to whether they will achieve anything, or just be a waste of our money.

 

[sean_ork]

Whatever happens the arms dealers and manufacturers will be happy

 

[Midwest]

Interesting debate. I have never been a Labour Party supporter. However, I feel I must agree with JC & some of his MP's, that the UK's now decided bombing of Daesh, will not have a huge impact, compared to that of our Allies. And we should consider alternatives. However, there are times when your head tells one thing and your heart tells you another.

I listened to some of the debate in the HoC, before our MP's voted. I have to say I was swayed by both sides of the argument. Ultimately, I think we must do something, not leased that the 'Security Council unanimously calls on member nations to fight Daesh', and France asks the UK to join the fight, and we can't give Daesh the oxygen of our reservation to fight them and support our Allies.

I think Hilary Benn's speech gave a good reasoning to support our Allies; Hilary Benn speech in full: 'We must now confront this evil' ? video | Politics | The Guardian

'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing' Edmund Burke.

PS Hilary Benn for Labour Party Leader. :iagree:

 

[Englishman]

But, wars are proven opportunities for some to make their fortunes - Maggie dug herself out of a massive hole of unpopularity by going to war, so perhaps there's reasons why this poisonous snake wasn't for rid of years ago.

So what are you saying? That she, instead of defending sovereign UK territory, that had been invaded by a foreign army, purely went to war to increase her popularity?

 

[sean_ork]

So what are you saying? That she, instead of defending sovereign UK territory, that had been invaded by a foreign army, purely went to war to increase her popularity?

No .....

 

[derek]

So what are you saying? That she, instead of defending sovereign UK territory, that had been invaded by a foreign army, purely went to war to increase her popularity?

Some say she deliberately pulled HMS Endurance (against advice from the military) from the Falkland Islands knowing that the Argentinians would invade to distract their own population from the economic troubles their country was in, thereby forcing us into a war with Argentina which would boost her standing in the UK. Whether that is true I can't say.

 

[YoungScud]

Interesting debate. I have never been a Labour Party supporter. However, I feel I must agree with JC & some of his MP's, that the UK's now decided bombing of Daesh, will not have a huge impact, compared to that of our Allies. And we should consider alternatives. However, there are times when your head tells one thing and your heart tells you another.

I listened to some of the debate in the HoC, before our MP's voted. I have to say I was swayed by both sides of the argument. Ultimately, I think we must do something, not leased that the 'Security Council unanimously calls on member nations to fight Daesh', and France asks the UK to join the fight, and we can't give Daesh the oxygen of our reservation to fight them and support our Allies.

I think Hilary Benn's speech gave a good reasoning to support our Allies; Hilary Benn speech in full: 'We must now confront this evil' ? video | Politics | The Guardian

'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing' Edmund Burke.

PS Hilary Benn for Labour Party Leader. :iagree:

Using Burke's quote is entirely disingenuous. Worse, it's not even germane to the arguments being made. I haven't heard one single opponent of this madness suggest that we do nothing. Lots of alternatives have been mooted, so don't even try to suggest they haven't. As for Benn's speech, it was nothing more than political grandstanding, and designed to out-manoeuvre Corbyn in the Labour power struggle between a party and its ruling elite.

 

[Guest77]

Nuke em :earmuffs:

 

[telectrix]

Nuke em :earmuffs:

too humane.