• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Jeremy Corbyn

MARKakaJIM said:
So you do advocate doing nothing then?
Click to expand...

Even if opponents to the bombing can't come up with a quick and easy solution, that doesn't make bombing right or sensible. The argument for so far is "Something must be done! This is something, therefore it must be done!"

With my tinfoil hat on, I'd suggest that stopping ISIS being frightfully beastly to the Syrians and successfully carrying out the occasional atrocity elsewhere is not anywhere near the real reason behind the desire to bomb. As ever, there are bigger things at stake.

It's a bit of cliche to quote Orwell at such times, but hey... "War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it."
 
'Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me' comes to mind when thinking about Britains choices in the Middle East
 
Dublin Drummer Wolf said:
'Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me' comes to mind when thinking about Britains choices in the Middle East
Click to expand...

I prefer this one

a8417a14cf3a25b3ff9affef3d987dbf24bc74c769ec4235fce7647259efbef8.jpg
 
Alan Johnson, Margaret Beckett and Yvette Cooper all think Corbyns wrong on air strikes. Along with Hillary Benn of course.
 
And that is why it should always have been a free vote. Individual MPs voting the way their conscience instructs them rather than being threatened with a telling off from a whip. Whatever the final outcome, making it a free vote was the right decision.
 
Lord Knows said:
We may be best served doing nothing because the more we have previously done the more the problem escalates.
Click to expand...

So Long Architect said:
Even if opponents to the bombing can't come up with a quick and easy solution, that doesn't make bombing right or sensible. The argument for so far is "Something must be done! This is something, therefore it must be done!"

With my tinfoil hat on, I'd suggest that stopping ISIS being frightfully beastly to the Syrians and successfully carrying out the occasional atrocity elsewhere is not anywhere near the real reason behind the desire to bomb. As ever, there are bigger things at stake.

It's a bit of cliche to quote Orwell at such times, but hey... "War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it."
Click to expand...
I must have missed the part where I was in favour of bombing Syria.
 
On the plus side, the department I work in at the Company I work for (not much longer) make spares and do repairs for the Tornado, might get a bit of extra work coming our way. :icon_wink:
 
Quite liked Alan johnson's comments.

John Woodcock: 'I will do everything I can to stop my party becoming essentially the cheerleader, the vanguard for a sort of angry, intolerant pacifism, which sets a myriad of conditions, of preconditions, which they know will never be met, and will ultimately say no to any military intervention.'

Alan Johnson: 'I wish I had frankly the self-righteous certitude of the finger-jabbing representatives of our new and kinder type of politics, who will no doubt soon be contacting those of us who support this motion tonight.'

Margaret Beckett: 'Should we take no further action against Daesh, who are themselves killing innocent people and striving to kill more every day of the week? Or should we simply leave it to others?'

Yvette Cooper: 'I disagree with those who say we should wait until the peace process is completed in order to take airstrike action against Daesh.'
 
I tend to agree PQ, while there's always been a nasty element within the Tory Party, (young lad just committed suicide following pressure from Grant Schapps and his bully boys), the activists in Corbyns camp are doing themselves no favours at all.
 
Ed Miliband opposes airstrikes in Syria.

Having listened to today’s debate and the many arguments that have been made, I will be voting against the government’s motion tonight.

I will do so because I do not think the case has been adequately made that extending British air strikes will either defeat ISIL or make us safer here at home.

A strategy for the defeat of ISIL depends crucially on ground troops and a political settlement, or the path towards a political settlement. That is because ISIL cannot be defeated from the air alone, as even supporters of air strikes acknowledge, and because ISIL’s success depends on the vacuum created from a multi-sided civil war.

Neither an explanation of who the ground troops will be, nor the political settlement we are seeking in Syria, or how we get there, has been provided by the government. We would be going ahead without an adequate road-map or a clear strategy.

The other case made for extending air strikes is that it will make us safer here at home. But I do not believe this case has been adequately made either.

ISIL is a network, not simply an organisation with a headquarters. What is more, nearly 3000 coalition air strikes have already been aimed at Syria and the case for what British air strikes will add is weak.

ISIL can only be defeated in Syria with an effective and comprehensive plan. That is what is required and the proposition fails to meet that test. That is why I will be voting against the motion.

http://labourlist.org/2015/12/ed-miliband-opposes-airstrikes-in-syria/
 
Ian Austin & Adrian Bailey

Hang your heads in shame.
 
Adrian Bailey is my MP. I'm not much of a fan of his though, glad I didn't vote for him now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Del Woppio
Top strikers - the early years.
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
Deutsch Wolf
Deutsch Wolf
D
They Wore The Shirt launch
Replies
0
Views
2K
dwarfio
D
Back
Top