Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

[Silva]

Well you've just done the job for me. Are there significant numbers of civilians in their strongholds and around their major bases (i.e. the buildings and camps targeted by air strikes)? Answer: Nope, there are no civilians there.

Ergo no, civilians are not cannon fodder. IS members are cannon fodder.



The RAF don't seem to be struggling with coming up with targets. At least up till now.

You realise they're not keeping their shit in conveniently easy to bomb places, right? when the bombs come they'll be hiding in schools and hospitals.

You seem to have this image of war in your head where the civilians and soldiers are living separate lives, which simply isn't the case.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

That's not what he nor I are suggesting at all. You mention bombing their supply chains and oil income - you're absolutely right but unfortunately that's not the plan at all (considering our Turkish allies are the ones buying their oil and letting them user their border, and Cameron isn't going to step on their toes). Instead, the plan seems to be queuing up to bomb dense cities like Raqqa where scores of civilians will die.

Similarly, I don't understand why you're calling an unwillingness to jump headfirst into doing what we always do 'sitting and twiddling your thumbs'. Its that hawkish, warmongering, attitude, that sees us sleep walk into these crisis. No one (not even Corbyn, although your so keen to say otherwise) advocates doing nothing, you're confusing calls for a sensible, managed, considered response, one which shows evidence of having learnt from our mistakes in the past, with a hand washing 'not our problem' response.

What of any practical use does Corbyn advocate doing about Syria? He'll dabble about the fringes with talk about financing, but there's still a war going on and a nation in ruins. This is the former chair of the STWC we're talk about here, workable solutions to real world problems is not the basis upon which his ideas are formed.

Cameron's plan is has its flsws, yes, but the broader principle of intervention in this case (which dear Jeremy would never contemplate) is the right one.

 

[Kaos]

What of any practical use does Corbyn advocate doing about Syria? He'll dabble about the fringes with talk about financing, but there's still a war going on and a nation in ruins. This is the former chair of the STWC we're talk about here, workable solutions to real world problems is not the basis upon which his ideas are formed.

Cameron's plan is has its flsws, yes, but the broader principle of intervention in this case (which dear Jeremy would never contemplate) is the right one.

The plan which Silva, myself, the former British ambassador to Syria and various former heads of intelligence have proposed numerous times.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

The plan which Silva, myself, the former British ambassador to Syria and various former heads of intelligence have proposed numerous times.

Your beloved Corbyn has endorsed the sue of military force? I am shocked, shocked.

 

[Silva]

Your beloved Corbyn has endorsed the sue of military force? I am shocked, shocked.

Well, he's put Ken on it and we found out last week he's advocating a full on western invasion.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Well, he's put Ken on it and we found out last week he's advocating a full on western invasion.

Not quite, he actually suggested that China should be the one putting the botos on the ground.

 

[NinjaFletch]

What of any practical use does Corbyn advocate doing about Syria? He'll dabble about the fringes with talk about financing, but there's still a war going on and a nation in ruins. This is the former chair of the STWC we're talk about here, workable solutions to real world problems is not the basis upon which his ideas are formed.

Cameron's plan is has its flsws, yes, but the broader principle of intervention in this case (which dear Jeremy would never contemplate) is the right one.

About as much as Cameron does when you look past the airstrikes. Not a lot.

Which says a lot about Cameron's 'plan' as well.

 

[Ubik]

Obviously I don't have access to these secret Intel files you harp on about but neither do you. However going by precedence it's not farfetched to suggest that this military adventure would be disastrous or ineffective at best. And considering we don't seem to learn from empowering questionable factions I sincerely doubt that we're willing to upset the Turks who's regional goals are contradictory to weakening ISIS.

Say what you want about Corbyn but in his political career his stances regarding foreign intervention have been retrospectively spot on everytime.

Was bloody wrong on Kosovo, even had the temerity a few years later to sign a motion in parliament downplaying the ethnic cleansing that went on, all to self-justify his dogmatism. He's a broken clock.

 

[ThierryHenry]

I'm far more likely to trust his judgement than I am someone who has declared he would not be prepared to take the ultimate decision and press the button if needed

Bloody hell.

 

[Ubik]

Needless to say, you do not recover from such a pit of public disdain.

 

[ThierryHenry]

What use are 'human shields' in a bombing campaign anyway? If ISIS had innocent civilians to use as protection from bombing they would have to make public for it to have any effect on Western civilian opinion on the conflict. That would make them look weak and desperate. I don't think that is the look they are going for.

If we didn't bomb due to the hypothetical human shields, it is just as safe to assume that ISIS would torture and kill them eventually anyway as it safe to assume that those hostages even exist in the first place.

ISIS have a broad definition of what constitutes a heretic and that they must be put to death. They won't be using anyone that believes in the Islamic state as hostages.

The governing principles of a caliphate are that it's a state that exists to be in a constant war with everyone else and every member is a soldier. Incomparable to anything else as far as human civilisation goes.

I'm not doubting there are plenty of moderate civilians in the towns and villages in the areas under ISIS control. They are not under any threat from British airstrikes. But in their strongholds and around their major bases? Nope. All cannon fodder.

Silva had it right before, what you're doing here is dehumanising the innocent Syrian people. Our action of bombing Syria will lead to the deaths of many innocent Syrian civilians. You can believe that's a cost of war, or you can believe that that is going to do more medium-to-long term harm than good, but don't ignore that fact.

 

[Kaos]

Was bloody wrong on Kosovo, even had the temerity a few years later to sign a motion in parliament downplaying the ethnic cleansing that went on, all to self-justify his dogmatism. He's a broken clock.

Was he though? All the evidence suggests that more atrocities were committed following the Belgrade bombings than before it just as he had predicted to be the case. I don't want to get into that discussion here but I would suggest you ready Chomsky's excellent reviews on the conflict which do dignify Corbyn's position at the time:
http://chomsky.info/200005__/
http://chomsky.info/20060425/

Though its without doubt that he's been retrospectively spot on regarding recent conflicts in and around the Middle East, which is where this next military adventure is proposed to take place.

 

[Sir Matt]

Your beloved Corbyn has endorsed the sue of military force? I am shocked, shocked.

Against whom though? He's never been shy about supporting certain uses of force.

 

[berbatrick]

@hobbers
That whole bit about no civilians/target practice/cannon fodder: have you read anything about life under ISIS?

http://www.spiegel.de/international...y-life-under-the-islamic-state-a-1041317.html

 

[berbatrick]

He spells his stand out. Seems pretty sane.
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-failed-show-bombing-syria-isil-work-jihadist

 

[naturalized]

He spells his stand out. Seems pretty sane.
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-failed-show-bombing-syria-isil-work-jihadist

I agreed until -

Only a negotiated peace settlement can overcome the Isil threat.

Respectfully, if one of Corbyn's premises are that negotiation with Daesh is even possible or can give us acceptable outcomes, then any conclusion he reaches is suspect. It is not obvious that he understands the nature of the Daesh threat and that they are not simply the 21st century's IRA.

 

[berbatrick]

I agreed until -



Respectfully, if one of Corbyn's premises are that negotiation with Daesh is even possible or can give us acceptable outcomes, then any conclusion he reaches is suspect. It is not obvious that he understands the nature of the Daesh threat and that they are not simply the 21st century's IRA.

From the paragraph I thought he was referring to the whole situation in Syria rather than ISIS itself.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

How do you carry out surgical strikes on a densely packed city where ISIS (who constitute a small minority of the city) are mixed with the locals? It's not like the city is split into ISIS and non-ISIS districts.

You'd have a point if we'd already exhausted the credible alternative of cutting off their supply points from Turkey and Saudi to no avail, but considering Cameron has recently sold the Saudi enablers billions of dollars worth of weapons while publicly backing Turkey after they shot down the Russian plane (which was incidentally bombing terrorist postions) it suggests they're not even bothering with that first.

What are the specifics of your plan?

Do you propose sanctions on SA, kick Turkey out of NATO and then what, turn the whole of the Middle East except for Israel against us? Sanctions haven't made North Korea stop pointing nuclear warheads at us. Would sanctions on Saudi Arabia not raise the global oil price? Would Saudi Arabia not seek military expansion of its own into other rich Arab oil states if we cut off a great proportion of their income? It will take a long time to choke a nation as rich as Saudi Arabia to death and they won't sit by and let it happen. They would have no qualms about letting their own people starving to death either in their attempts at maintaining the status quo.

ISIS could have enough gas in them to create a version of their Islamic state and could become entrenched there indefinitely. Are you willing to even accept that while we 'exhaust all possibilities' that thousands innocents in the Middle East will die anyway and that you proposed course of action could also make things worse?

The question is, can we take a chance on ISIS? You seem to think yes, most people think differently and unless the hard left, Corbyn's labour I mean, can come up with a convincing alternative (or any at all), they are not going to win this argument.

 

[Sweet Square]

Is everyone else here perfectly happy with that scenario? Assuming that the chronology of events described is accurate, the conduct of the MP verges on the discriminatory itself.

Yeah even though I posted it, I do think it was bit awful sounding. If anyone one to check it's here(the quote is at 18:22)

Spoiler

 

[Smores]

What of any practical use does Corbyn advocate doing about Syria? He'll dabble about the fringes with talk about financing, but there's still a war going on and a nation in ruins. This is the former chair of the STWC we're talk about here, workable solutions to real world problems is not the basis upon which his ideas are formed.

Cameron's plan is has its flsws, yes, but the broader principle of intervention in this case (which dear Jeremy would never contemplate) is the right one.

That may be a fair accusation but the opposition having no alternative after a rushed debate is no reason to proceed bombing with haste.

I find it ridiculous that Cameron has ignored calls for further debate so he can rush this through.

 

[Stanley Road]

Peace, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing

I am amazed, shocked even, that some people are in favour of bombing.

 

[Smores]

The question is, can we take a chance on ISIS? You seem to think yes, most people think differently and unless the hard left, Corbyn's labour I mean, can come up with a convincing alternative (or any at all), they are not going to win this argument.

Take a chance on ISIS? I know Cameron likes to frame this vote as the central issue of whether ISIS are dealt with or not but much larger forces are already in play and have been for some time.

A vote against the UKs involvement in the bombing of Syria is not a vote to let ISIS prosper and neither is it a last say on the matter.

 

[NinjaFletch]

Interesting how I said after the Paris attacks that people only supported Air Strikes because the wounds were fresh and got shouted at on here for it.

Well today a YouGov poll is showing that support has dipped back under 50%

 

[sun_tzu]

Interesting how I said after the Paris attacks that people only supported Air Strikes because the wounds were fresh and got shouted at on here for it.

Well today a YouGov poll is showing that support has dipped back under 50%

true... 48% in favour
but 31% against
with 21% undecided

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/12/02/analysis-sharp-fall-support-air-strikes-syria/

Other interesting highlights are a -41% rating for Comrade Corbyn

In essence, Mr Corbyn is polarising the electorate – gaining ground among a large, worried minority of voters, but alienating the much larger majority. This is why, even as the number of people supporting his stance on Syria has grown, so has the number of people who say is failing as party leader.

Just after he won his leadership election, he became the first opposition leader in sixty years of polling to start out with a negative rating, with more people saying he was doing badly than well. His net score then of minus eight soon got worse. Two weeks ago it was minus 22.

Now it is minus 41, with just 24% saying he is doing well and 65% saying badly. It is even negative among people who voted Labour in May; his net score with them is minus six.

Conservatives 41% (up from 37% in September and 36.9% in the last election)
Labour 30% (down from 31% and 30.4% in the last election)
UKIP 16% (down from 17% and 12.6% in the last election)
Libs 6% (down from 7% and 7.9% in the last election)
SNP / Welsh party 4% (down from 5% and 4.7% in the last election)
Greens 3% (up from 2% and 3.8% in the last election)

Essentially the conservatives have gone from a 5.5% lead over Labour in the last election to an 11% lead - what would a swing like that do in an election? along with the increased UKIP vote - my guess is decimate Labour
wasnt Corbyn supposed to energise new voters, win the Scottish vote back and take votes away from UKIP and the Greens - Its not working out that way by the looks of things!

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Take a chance on ISIS? I know Cameron likes to frame this vote as the central issue of whether ISIS are dealt with or not but much larger forces are already in play and have been for some time.

A vote against the UKs involvement in the bombing of Syria is not a vote to let ISIS prosper and neither is it a last say on the matter.

Again, do you care to outline the alternative and how your alternative will play out, you know, your long term plan?

If you choose to be passive then you are taking a chance, innocent people will die. Bombing them is taking a chance and innocent people will die. Going after Turkey and Saudi Arabia is taking a chance and innocent people will die. The last option could very well be the worst in terms of casualties and suffering. Why intentionally destabilise two of the most powerful military players in such a volatile region, seems stupid when you think about it just a little bit.

If you are saying one course of action is wrong and the major flaw is the lack of long term planning, then you have to come up with a credible alternative that delineates a clear long term strategy.

 

[sun_tzu]

If you are saying one course of action is wrong and the major flaw is the lack of long term planning, then you have to come up with a credible alternative that delineates a clear long term strategy.

Blame Blair... (if it couldnt possibly be Tonys fault blame anybody else but call them a Blairite) that seems to be the long term strategy coming from elements of labour at the momet

 

[NinjaFletch]

Again, do you care to outline the alternative and how your alternative will play out, you know, your long term plan?

If you choose to be passive then you are taking a chance, innocent people will die. Bombing them is taking a chance and innocent people will die. Going after Turkey and Saudi Arabia is taking a chance and innocent people will die. The last option could very well be the worst in terms of casualties and suffering. Why intentionally destabilise two of the most powerful military players in such a volatile region, seems stupid when you think about it just a little bit.

If you are saying one course of action is wrong and the major flaw is the lack of long term planning, then you have to come up with a credible alternative that delineates a clear long term strategy.

It seems stupid you think we can solve the problem of IS when two of our biggest regional 'partners' are supporting them.

As for your last point. No, he doesn't. Aside from the fact we've talked about 'credible plans' before you don't have to have one to disagree.

Rushing to do the wrong thing (based on all evidence from every time we've done it before) because its a 'plan' is not better than no plan. Making the problem worse for the sake of doing something isn't a 'solution'.

 

[ThierryHenry]

From the paragraph I thought he was referring to the whole situation in Syria rather than ISIS itself.

Yup, clearly.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

It seems stupid you think we can solve the problem of IS when two of our biggest regional 'partners' are supporting them.

As for your last point. No, he doesn't. Aside from the fact we've talked about 'credible plans' before you don't have to have one to disagree.

Rushing to do the wrong thing (based on all evidence from every time we've done it before) because its a 'plan' is not better than no plan. Making the problem worse for the sake of doing something isn't a 'solution'.

You don't answer the crucial question. You don't want to rush in, that is taking a chance on ISIS. When are the hard left going to come up with some credible ideas? Don't forget that while you are dithering about ISIS are brutally murdering thousands whilst further having the opportunity to establish themselves in the region. How long do you need?

It just seems that you are happy to posture again. And you wonder why people don't take Corbyn and the hard left seriously.

A leader has to lead.

 

[Smores]

You don't answer the crucial question. You don't want to rush in, that is taking a chance on ISIS. When are the hard left going to come up with some credible ideas? Don't forget that while you are dithering about ISIS are brutally murdering thousands whilst further having the opportunity to establish themselves in the region. How long do you need?

It just seems that you are happy to posture again. And you wonder why people don't take Corbyn and the hard left seriously.

A leader has to lead.

Again what is this increased chance that you speak of that relies solely on the UK delaying involvement?

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

About as much as Cameron does when you look past the airstrikes. Not a lot.

Which says a lot about Cameron's 'plan' as well.

Even should Cameron carry the vote he will nevertheless be constrained by circumstance, either through the guidance of his generals and air marshals, or the active support the regime receives from Russia. Most people known that the army of 70,000 is a nonsense or at the very least misleading, so it will be interesting to see how MPs view the PM's objectives 6-9 months from now. Were Labour led by Hilary Benn they might be able to press the matter further, a usefulness which Corbyn's ideology bars them from providing.

Though its without doubt that he's been retrospectively spot on regarding recent conflicts in and around the Middle East, which is where this next military adventure is proposed to take place.

Is it as simple as that? Looking at the recent example of Libya, do you not think that more could have been achieved had the West (particularly Europe) been more interested in the aftermath? Instead, Qatar used the fractious post-war environment for its own purposes, and the instability has spread into Tunisia which was the best thing to come out of the changes wrought by the Arab Spring.

Speaking of which:

 

[NinjaFletch]

You don't answer the crucial question. You don't want to rush in, that is taking a chance on ISIS. When are the hard left going to come up with some credible ideas? Don't forget that while you are dithering about ISIS are brutally murdering thousands whilst further having the opportunity to establish themselves in the region. How long do you need?

It just seems that you are happy to posture again. And you wonder why people don't take Corbyn and the hard left seriously.

A leader has to lead.

Stop with this line: 'When are the hard left going to come up with some credible ideas?' because it makes you seem like a moron. The argument that its only the 'hard left' that oppose airstrikes is ridiculous, the idea that Cameron's given us 'credible ideas' is ridiculous, and the idea that Corbyn's response is actually that different from Cameron's 'plan' beyond airstrikes is ridiculous, too.

All this is kind of irrelevant, and I'll make the next bit easy for you, there is mountains of evidence as to why air-strikes are a bad idea. Give me one piece of historical evidence that shows they will work? One piece of evidence for air-strikes being an unqualified success that achieve everything that we hope they will and don't make the long term situation on the ground worse?

You're arguing against a straw man that doesn't exist. No one is saying to do nothing, what those opposed to airstrikes are arguing is not to irrationally run headlong into another foreign policy disaster. To do things differently this time, based on lessons we should have learnt getting it wrong before.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Again what is this increased chance that you speak of that relies solely on the UK delaying involvement?

So you don't want to answer any of the crucial questions about a suitable course of action over Syria, or even offer an opinion?

A larger military effort in Syria would increase the chance of defeating ISIS. The Kurds have specifically asked for air support to assist them and that they believe they can defeat ISIS with that assistance.

You're arguing against a straw man that doesn't exist. No one is saying to do nothing, what those opposed to airstrikes are arguing is not to irrationally run headlong into another foreign policy disaster. To do things differently this time, based on lessons we should have learnt getting it wrong before.

If you don't have an alternative plan then you are saying that we should do nothing. What different things do you want to do?

 

[NinjaFletch]

Is it as simple as that? Looking at the recent example of Libya, do you not think that more could have been achieved had the West (particularly Europe) been more interested in the aftermath? Instead, Qatar used the fractious post-war environment for its own purposes, and the instability has spread into Tunisia which was the best thing to come out of the changes wrought by the Arab Spring.

Speaking of which:

Libya's an interesting example. I supported airstrikes in Libya, I thought it was morally the right thing to do. That we'd learnt our lessons from Iraq, at least, and weren't jumping headfirst into another war, but in the aftermath of whats happened is a key part of why I don't think we should do it now.

As you say, if we'd managed the aftermath we might have got somewhere, but we didn't or couldn't. Instead, Cameron announced it a job well done said the airforce should be 'proud' of what they did in Libya and left Libya to clear up Libya's mess.

In the wake of another call for action and in the want of long term strategy (again) I don't know how people think its going to turn out much better than last time.

I do have some sympathy for Cameron here, because I can understand why he wants to help our allies, but I don't think the Obama administration has got Syria right and I think, increasingly, Obama is being short-termist knowing that the mess that he makes won't be his to clean up.

 

[sun_tzu]

The argument that its only the 'hard left' that oppose airstrikes is ridiculous .

erm actually you know that poll you posted earlier saying less than 50% of people support airstrikes
(but failing to say 48% approve, 31% disagree and 21% have not made up their mind)

well that kind of does show that it is only the left where opposition is in the ascendency with even more liberal democrats in favour of action than opposed

Among voters who would vote Labour today, opposition to air strikes is even stronger, with 57% backing Mr Corbyn’s stance and just 23% backing the Prime Minister’s position. Paradoxically, that should worry Labour’s leader, for the party is haemorrhaging support among people who voted for the party in May but currently back air strikes. They comprise more than three million people; our figures suggest that well over one million of them would no longer vote Labour if an election were held today.

In essence, Mr Corbyn is polarising the electorate – gaining ground among a large, worried minority of voters, but alienating the much larger majority. This is why, even as the number of people supporting his stance on Syria has grown, so has the number of people who say is failing as party leader.

Just after he won his leadership election, he became the first opposition leader in sixty years of polling to start out with a negative rating, with more people saying he was doing badly than well. His net score then of minus eight soon got worse. Two weeks ago it was minus 22.

Now it is minus 41, with just 24% saying he is doing well and 65% saying badly. It is even negative among people who voted Labour in May; his net score with them is minus six.

so yeah the facts kind of show that apart from the most left wing party more people are in favour of airstrikes

 

[Kaos]

What are the specifics of your plan?

Do you propose sanctions on SA, kick Turkey out of NATO and then what, turn the whole of the Middle East except for Israel against us? Sanctions haven't made North Korea stop pointing nuclear warheads at us. Would sanctions on Saudi Arabia not raise the global oil price? Would Saudi Arabia not seek military expansion of its own into other rich Arab oil states if we cut off a great proportion of their income? It will take a long time to choke a nation as rich as Saudi Arabia to death and they won't sit by and let it happen. They would have no qualms about letting their own people starving to death either in their attempts at maintaining the status quo.

ISIS could have enough gas in them to create a version of their Islamic state and could become entrenched there indefinitely. Are you willing to even accept that while we 'exhaust all possibilities' that thousands innocents in the Middle East will die anyway and that you proposed course of action could also make things worse?

The question is, can we take a chance on ISIS? You seem to think yes, most people think differently and unless the hard left, Corbyn's labour I mean, can come up with a convincing alternative (or any at all), they are not going to win this argument.

Yes, threat of sanctions should absolutely be on the cards.

You're exaggerating the collateral Saudi Arabia has. They're currently on the verge of bankruptcy, they're suffering from internal quarrels and threat of regime change, they've stupidly got involved in a war they can't seem to win in Yemen and now they're watching their allies normalize relations with Iran. The West has them exactly where they want them should they choose to leverage that they stop funding within their own country for ISIS elements. Instead, we have Cameron gifting them with state of the art weaponry to help them bomb Yemeni weddings and schools. Turkey is also in a precarious position considering how they rely extensively on our commerce and military cooperation. Not to mention their desperation to assimilate in the European union. Furthermore, if the West suddenly started taking an interest in the rights of Kurds and Cypriots you think they wouldn't start to panic?

And you realise it was destructive neocon foreign liberal that essentially ascended ISIS to where they are now, so what makes you think that the same policy that will fix it? Yes we'll be taking a chance but until white Europeans started to get murdered in their own shores, no one really cared anyway. And lets not forget that there are forces already fighting ISIS in the region, dropping bombs on cities will not only largely prove ineffective, but also counter-productive since we'll only increase civilian casualties and hence sympathetic sentiment towards ISIS. Strangling ISIS' supply lines WILL severely cripple them, allowing the current forces involved in fighting them to pick them off.

 

[NinjaFletch]

If you don't have an alternative plan then you are saying that we should do nothing. What different things do you want to do?

If you care go back through my post history and find it, but its irrelevant to the debate at hand.

Even then, I think you have to admit that 'I don't know' is a perfectly valid answer to this. The Syria situation is incredibly complex, and acting like anyone of us has all the answers is odd.

Why are you ignoring the rest of my post? Lets not pick and choose what we respond to.

so yeah the facts kind of show that apart from the most left wing party more people are in favour of airstrikes

Thats not a counter to my point at all. I said 'the argument that only the hard left oppose airstrikes is ridiculous[emphasis added]'.

And you respond by showing me a chart that shows across the board peoples opinions are moving from 'lets bomb the shit out of them' to 'lets not' that UKIP, Con and Lib Dem supporters all oppose airstrikes.

You then also make that completely fallacious assumption that if you voted for Labour in the 2015 election you're part of the 'hard left'.

The hard left might form the bulk of opposition, I'd be surprised if it didn't tbh, but thats not what I said.

But thank you, actually, because you've proved exactly what I was saying. People that oppose airstrikes can be found in all walks of life with various political beliefs. Saying that its the 'hard-left' versus everyone else is wrong.

 

[Kaos]

Is it as simple as that? Looking at the recent example of Libya, do you not think that more could have been achieved had the West (particularly Europe) been more interested in the aftermath? Instead, Qatar used the fractious post-war environment for its own purposes, and the instability has spread into Tunisia which was the best thing to come out of the changes wrought by the Arab Spring.

In short, yes.

Cameron was an Iraq war supporter who considered Mandela a terrorist and is all too happy to help arm Jihadist groups, some linked to Al Qaeda. Corbyn had consistently voted against intervention in Iraq and Libya and was dignified in both those occasions.

 

[Stanley Road]

Can we not have a CAF Poll?

 

[Kaos]

erm actually you know that poll you posted earlier saying less than 50% of people support airstrikes
(but failing to say 48% approve, 31% disagree and 21% have not made up their mind)

well that kind of does show that it is only the left where opposition is in the ascendency with even more liberal democrats in favour of action than opposed

so yeah the facts kind of show that apart from the most left wing party more people are in favour of airstrikes

Interesting you bring this up,

It seems people are beginning to realise that Cameron's grounds for bombing are shallow as you'd expect.