Re: Friday 7th April 2017
Posted: Fri 07 Apr, 2017 12:39 pm
Watson is, frankly, a total disappointment. Supporting the strikes makes me have even less respect for him.
It's being claimed that Corbyn consulted with Nia Griffith, Shad Defence Sec, before finally releasing his statement.James O'BrienVerified account @mrjamesob 3h3 hours ago
More
Colleague contacted main Labour Press Office at 7.30. They are currently still in discussions with the leader's office about who will speak.
Corbyn released his statement at 11.21Paul BrandVerified account @PaulBrandITV 1h1 hour ago
More
Understand Corbyn consulted @NiaGriffithMP, then his office disregarded her advice and condemned the strikes anyway. She backed them.
AnatolyKasparov wrote:The important thing about Watson, arguably, is that he was elected to his present post on a very different platform to the one he is now taking.
Many who voted for him (I didn't) understandably feel short-changed.
AnatolyKasparov wrote:I am speaking about things more generally.
In 2015 he positioned himself in an undeniably left-leaning way - "I AM THE PERSON WHO TOOK ON THE MURDOCH EMPIRE" blah blah - and told people he would happily work with JC if he won. Also made a big thing of "digital democracy" ISTR - what has happened there in the past 18 months?
As for this US action - meh. Truth is likely that Trump did it because he saw something on TV that he didn't like. If you (and others) want to put your trust in him, be my guest
Apparently Thornberry will be speaking for Labour not Griffith.pk1 wrote:Much was made of journalists complaining about Corbyn's press office tardiness.
James O'Brien claims they requested a statement at 07.30hrs
It's being claimed that Corbyn consulted with Nia Griffith, Shad Defence Sec, before finally releasing his statement.James O'BrienVerified account @mrjamesob 3h3 hours ago
More
Colleague contacted main Labour Press Office at 7.30. They are currently still in discussions with the leader's office about who will speak.
Corbyn released his statement at 11.21Paul BrandVerified account @PaulBrandITV 1h1 hour ago
More
Understand Corbyn consulted @NiaGriffithMP, then his office disregarded her advice and condemned the strikes anyway. She backed them.
No wonder Labour can't get decent headlines
Wasn't that the position before Corbyn gave his briefing?PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Apparently Thornberry will be speaking for Labour not Griffith.pk1 wrote:Much was made of journalists complaining about Corbyn's press office tardiness.
James O'Brien claims they requested a statement at 07.30hrs
It's being claimed that Corbyn consulted with Nia Griffith, Shad Defence Sec, before finally releasing his statement.James O'BrienVerified account @mrjamesob 3h3 hours ago
More
Colleague contacted main Labour Press Office at 7.30. They are currently still in discussions with the leader's office about who will speak.
Corbyn released his statement at 11.21Paul BrandVerified account @PaulBrandITV 1h1 hour ago
More
Understand Corbyn consulted @NiaGriffithMP, then his office disregarded her advice and condemned the strikes anyway. She backed them.
No wonder Labour can't get decent headlines
Wonder if that's because Griffith & Corbyn are at odds with one another over this whereas Thornberry will say whatever Corbyn wants her to say ?PaulfromYorkshire wrote: Apparently Thornberry will be speaking for Labour not Griffith.
Yes. In reality the focus is probably only on Griffith because May and Boris have bottled it and sent Fallon out to face the media.AnatolyKasparov wrote:Or maybe, as already pointed out, that is the normal situation anyway? She is shadow Foreign Sec after all.......
She said air strikes are not the answer and we have to sit around a table and talk.pk1 wrote:I haven't got my tv on so can't judge but whatever it was that she did say, she's being slammed for it on twitter.
https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&ver ... y&src=typd" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Can't see that happening any time soon. In the meantime, the slaughter continuesPaulfromYorkshire wrote:She said air strikes are not the answer and we have to sit around a table and talk.pk1 wrote:I haven't got my tv on so can't judge but whatever it was that she did say, she's being slammed for it on twitter.
https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&ver ... y&src=typd" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I don't agree with the last. The responsibility for the failure of the motion to support strikes in 2013 does not lie with those voting for it.TechnicalEphemera wrote:So the scenario I suggested last night has come to pass. Somebody in Trump's cabinet that he is listening to is reasonably bright. This is how I see it.
The attack was a provocation to see how Trump would react. If Assad can use his limited chemical stockpile he can win the war much more quickly and cheaply than the months of slow grind he faces.
Given such a test Trump had no option but to act, once he had made his initial response his entire credibility was on the line.
His strike has been carefully calibrated, there was a degree of cooperation with Russia and casualties on all sides minimised. This was a better result than I feared.
The use of cruise missiles makes sense given the efficient Russian air defences. To fly manned aircraft would require coordinated attacks on Assad's and Russia's air forces and that would have crossed a line nobody wants to cross.
A message has been sent, Assad has been warned, if he heeds the warning then things will stabilise. If he doesn't things get messy, but Russia has an incentive to keep him in line.
This has saved lives, it is a proportionate, calibrated well thought through action. It deserves our qualified support.
If Corbyn has again overruled his defence secretary she should resign. Dugher is unsubtle, and unhelpful but sadly right on the fundamentals.
There is in my view no comparison with or causality from Milibands decision not to strike Syrian government forces. Cameron, as others noted, could have gone back with a sensible proposal, he chose not to.
Which, as with the claim that art 50 would have been passed regardless of how Labour voted, is a fact that is not determinative of the moral question. Indeed, it doesn't matter.AnatolyKasparov wrote:It will continue regardless of whether we add to it or not.
Are you naturally unable to understand complexity or do you have to work on it...or are you just a sad wum?SpinningHugo wrote:I don't agree with the last. The responsibility for the failure of the motion to support strikes in 2013 does not lie with those voting for it.TechnicalEphemera wrote:So the scenario I suggested last night has come to pass. Somebody in Trump's cabinet that he is listening to is reasonably bright. This is how I see it.
The attack was a provocation to see how Trump would react. If Assad can use his limited chemical stockpile he can win the war much more quickly and cheaply than the months of slow grind he faces.
Given such a test Trump had no option but to act, once he had made his initial response his entire credibility was on the line.
His strike has been carefully calibrated, there was a degree of cooperation with Russia and casualties on all sides minimised. This was a better result than I feared.
The use of cruise missiles makes sense given the efficient Russian air defences. To fly manned aircraft would require coordinated attacks on Assad's and Russia's air forces and that would have crossed a line nobody wants to cross.
A message has been sent, Assad has been warned, if he heeds the warning then things will stabilise. If he doesn't things get messy, but Russia has an incentive to keep him in line.
This has saved lives, it is a proportionate, calibrated well thought through action. It deserves our qualified support.
If Corbyn has again overruled his defence secretary she should resign. Dugher is unsubtle, and unhelpful but sadly right on the fundamentals.
There is in my view no comparison with or causality from Milibands decision not to strike Syrian government forces. Cameron, as others noted, could have gone back with a sensible proposal, he chose not to.
The rest is right, but it isn't just Corbyn. Thornberry was saying the same at WatO.
The worst and least defensible position is "we don't really know whether the Assad regime used chemical weapons". That is just an attempt to duck the hard moral choice that must be made. See Corbyn and Thornberry.
So a moral absolutist argument againSpinningHugo wrote:Which, as with the claim that art 50 would have been passed regardless of how Labour voted, is a fact that is not determinative of the moral question. Indeed, it doesn't matter.AnatolyKasparov wrote:It will continue regardless of whether we add to it or not.
I am not sure I follow this argument. Is it the usual whataboutery?howsillyofme1 wrote:So a moral absolutist argument againSpinningHugo wrote:Which, as with the claim that art 50 would have been passed regardless of how Labour voted, is a fact that is not determinative of the moral question. Indeed, it doesn't matter.AnatolyKasparov wrote:It will continue regardless of whether we add to it or not.
When are we bombing Israel then.....or Saudis Arabia, Bahrain, the Philippines perhaps or even the US?
Damn the consequence, as long as we are morally in the right (or perceive ourselves to be)
Hi. I just got back in and saw your question. This was airstrikes on Isis in Syria, following the terrorist attacks in Paris. It was just about crossing the border into Syria from Iraq, as you say, but Cameron actually won the vote. Corbyn opposed because he's a pacifist. Hilary Benn was for supporting the government and quite a few Labour MPs voted for it, reasonably enough imo, although Benn was a bit of an arse with his ott speech in the debate. Cameron tried to pretend he had been right in 2013 and winning the vote in 2015 was vindication of this, but how winning a vote to bomb Isis vindicates an earlier rejected proposal to bomb Assad is beyond me. The press lapped it up, of course and Cameron was the main man for all of a few months until the debacle that was the EU referendum.seeingclearly wrote:Willow, if I remember rightly the motion fell on the basis of us crossing into Syria, it was felt Iraq was enough involvement, and Camerons argument just collapsed? Or was there more than this? 2015 wasn't the greatest time for me. Happy to be corrected on this or any credible reference?Willow904 wrote:The airstrikes in 2015 were to be on Isis targets, not Assad. And it was just about Cameron's ego. We were already engaged in fighting Isis alongside the Americans in Iraq and the Commons vote didn't lead to any major increase in our contribution to that fight, just gave official permission for crossing over into Syria.SpinningHugo wrote: Ok, well I think the 66 Labour MPs who voted in favour of airstrikes in Syria in 2015 were right. That any better?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39531108Stockholm lorry rams crowds, killing at least two people
A lorry has driven into a store in central Stockholm, killing at least two people, Swedish police say.
Earlier media reports said three people had been killed. Police said a number of people were also injured.
Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven said the country has been attacked and everything indicated that this was an act of terrorism. (BBC News website)
Well Miliband was basically saying maybe, but you haven't demonstrated a coherent plan. Libya tells us how well badly thought out regime change works (i.e. it doesn't). Libya was much better off under Gadaffi, and even if he had trashed the one remaining rebel city the death toll would have been far less than now.SpinningHugo wrote:I don't agree with the last. The responsibility for the failure of the motion to support strikes in 2013 does not lie with those voting for it.TechnicalEphemera wrote:So the scenario I suggested last night has come to pass. Somebody in Trump's cabinet that he is listening to is reasonably bright. This is how I see it.
The attack was a provocation to see how Trump would react. If Assad can use his limited chemical stockpile he can win the war much more quickly and cheaply than the months of slow grind he faces.
Given such a test Trump had no option but to act, once he had made his initial response his entire credibility was on the line.
His strike has been carefully calibrated, there was a degree of cooperation with Russia and casualties on all sides minimised. This was a better result than I feared.
The use of cruise missiles makes sense given the efficient Russian air defences. To fly manned aircraft would require coordinated attacks on Assad's and Russia's air forces and that would have crossed a line nobody wants to cross.
A message has been sent, Assad has been warned, if he heeds the warning then things will stabilise. If he doesn't things get messy, but Russia has an incentive to keep him in line.
This has saved lives, it is a proportionate, calibrated well thought through action. It deserves our qualified support.
If Corbyn has again overruled his defence secretary she should resign. Dugher is unsubtle, and unhelpful but sadly right on the fundamentals.
There is in my view no comparison with or causality from Milibands decision not to strike Syrian government forces. Cameron, as others noted, could have gone back with a sensible proposal, he chose not to.
The rest is right, but it isn't just Corbyn. Thornberry was saying the same at WatO.
The worst and least defensible position is "we don't really know whether the Assad regime used chemical weapons". That is just an attempt to duck the hard moral choice that must be made. See Corbyn and Thornberry.
For clarity, I wasn't demanding a resignation, I was pointing out if it is true the shadow defence secretary was overruled she should resign. Why hang on in a non job?howsillyofme1 wrote:Why is it people cannot make a point without immediately bringing it to Cornyn and demanding more resignations?
There is no right or wrong answer regarding Syria now..it has been a complete failure of policy since the beginning
The USA is now directly involved militarily in Syria now....is that a good thing?
How unlike you to read out the Russian press release. More reliable than the "MSM", I'm sure.Temulkar wrote:1. The strike has no legal justification in international law.
2. The Russians have stated that they will upgrade Syrian air defence in response.
3. Senior staff and vital equipment were removed from the air base because they were warned by the US administration via Russia 2 hours before the strike. (so much for not telling the enemy what your going to do!)
4. Syrian forces have proceeded to re-bomb the area attacked with chemical weapons this week.
To sum up: an illegal strike that achieved nothing of military pr political value, has led to the upgrade of syrian defences and retaliatory attacks on innocent civilians. No surprise the usual warmongers and child murderers are supporting it, frankly.
I think there've been long term problems between Corbyn and Griffith (Shadow Defence) and Thornberry (Shadow Foreign Affairs). He, via Milne, pulled rank over them on the subject of (not) defending NATO allies.howsillyofme1 wrote:Why is it people cannot make a point without immediately bringing it to Cornyn and demanding more resignations?
There is no right or wrong answer regarding Syria now..it has been a complete failure of policy since the beginning
The USA is now directly involved militarily in Syria now....is that a good thing?
Or trying to buy a bit of time to think?SpinningHugo wrote:I don't agree with the last. The responsibility for the failure of the motion to support strikes in 2013 does not lie with those voting for it.TechnicalEphemera wrote:So the scenario I suggested last night has come to pass. Somebody in Trump's cabinet that he is listening to is reasonably bright. This is how I see it.
The attack was a provocation to see how Trump would react. If Assad can use his limited chemical stockpile he can win the war much more quickly and cheaply than the months of slow grind he faces.
Given such a test Trump had no option but to act, once he had made his initial response his entire credibility was on the line.
His strike has been carefully calibrated, there was a degree of cooperation with Russia and casualties on all sides minimised. This was a better result than I feared.
The use of cruise missiles makes sense given the efficient Russian air defences. To fly manned aircraft would require coordinated attacks on Assad's and Russia's air forces and that would have crossed a line nobody wants to cross.
A message has been sent, Assad has been warned, if he heeds the warning then things will stabilise. If he doesn't things get messy, but Russia has an incentive to keep him in line.
This has saved lives, it is a proportionate, calibrated well thought through action. It deserves our qualified support.
If Corbyn has again overruled his defence secretary she should resign. Dugher is unsubtle, and unhelpful but sadly right on the fundamentals.
There is in my view no comparison with or causality from Milibands decision not to strike Syrian government forces. Cameron, as others noted, could have gone back with a sensible proposal, he chose not to.
The rest is right, but it isn't just Corbyn. Thornberry was saying the same at WatO.
The worst and least defensible position is "we don't really know whether the Assad regime used chemical weapons". That is just an attempt to duck the hard moral choice that must be made. See Corbyn and Thornberry.
Tubby Isaacs wrote:How unlike you to read out the Russian press release. More reliable than the "MSM", I'm sure.Temulkar wrote:1. The strike has no legal justification in international law.
2. The Russians have stated that they will upgrade Syrian air defence in response.
3. Senior staff and vital equipment were removed from the air base because they were warned by the US administration via Russia 2 hours before the strike. (so much for not telling the enemy what your going to do!)
4. Syrian forces have proceeded to re-bomb the area attacked with chemical weapons this week.
To sum up: an illegal strike that achieved nothing of military pr political value, has led to the upgrade of syrian defences and retaliatory attacks on innocent civilians. No surprise the usual warmongers and child murderers are supporting it, frankly.
I don't mind admitting, I don't know what to do. But I at least allow that people who see a case for bombing Assad can have honourable and longer term motives.
But, yeah. "Child murderers".
Stop The War called. They're missing your geopolitical deep thinking.
For some it's a dishonourable position, I agree. But not for everybody. Some will just be wanting thinking time.TechnicalEphemera wrote:Above, I think that it is clear, via trustworthy third parties that Assad's regime launched the attack. Pretending otherwise is pretty naughty as it gives political cover to actual child murderers.
If somebody outside the official chain of command authorised the strike (hugely unlikely) they are probably already dead.
So you agree with Tim Yeah, you go for that, we have seen what illegal military action by Republican presidents in the middle east gets us, but hey lets ignore the evidence of Iraq, lets ignore Afghanistan, lets pretend Lybia didn't happen and do it all over again, expecting that things will turn out differently this time.Tubby Isaacs wrote:Funny, I've found plenty of people who were against bombing in 2014 who are considering it now. So it isn't a case of "the same warmongers and child murderers", no.
Russians in "this is no problem for us" shock.
I didn't agree with anybody. I clearly said I didn't know what to do.Temulkar wrote:So you agree with Tim Yeah, you go for that, we have seen what illegal military action by Republican presidents in the middle east gets us, but hey lets ignore the evidence of Iraq, lets ignore Afghanistan, lets pretend Lybia didn't happen and do it all over again, expecting that things will turn out differently this time.Tubby Isaacs wrote:Funny, I've found plenty of people who were against bombing in 2014 who are considering it now. So it isn't a case of "the same warmongers and child murderers", no.
Russians in "this is no problem for us" shock.
I tell you what in six moths time, if things are better I will happily admit I was wrong, will you?
You 'don't know' what to do but yet you know enough to accuse me of parroting StW and Putin? And that's in spite of the fact my info came from the US govt press release and washington post The inference from your comment is quite clear: that you dont agree with NOT dropping bombs, or is it just that corbyn is against the bombing so you cant support anything he says?Tubby Isaacs wrote:I didn't agree with anybody. I clearly said I didn't know what to do.Temulkar wrote:So you agree with Tim Yeah, you go for that, we have seen what illegal military action by Republican presidents in the middle east gets us, but hey lets ignore the evidence of Iraq, lets ignore Afghanistan, lets pretend Lybia didn't happen and do it all over again, expecting that things will turn out differently this time.Tubby Isaacs wrote:Funny, I've found plenty of people who were against bombing in 2014 who are considering it now. So it isn't a case of "the same warmongers and child murderers", no.
Russians in "this is no problem for us" shock.
I tell you what in six moths time, if things are better I will happily admit I was wrong, will you?
Exactly.Willow904 wrote:n. This was airstrikes on Isis in Syria, following the terrorist attacks in Paris. It was just about crossing the border into Syria from Iraq, as you say, but Cameron actually won the vote. Corbyn opposed because he's a pacifist. Hilary Benn was for supporting the government and quite a few Labour MPs voted for it, reasonably enough imo, although Benn was a bit of an arse with his ott speech in the debate. Cameron tried to pretend he had been right in 2013 and winning the vote in 2015 was vindication of this, but how winning a vote to bomb Isis vindicates an earlier rejected proposal to bomb Assad is beyond me. The press lapped it up, of course and Cameron was the main man for all of a few months until the debacle that was the EU referendum.
My sources were: the Washington Post, US Govt press release, UN Syrian observatory group press release, and with regard to the upgrading of the syrian air defence, yes the Russian govt: as reported in the Telegraph, Washington Post, New York Times, The Hill, and every other major news organisation in the western world. Are they parroting the Russians too? or are they reporting a statement from one off the players involved in the conflict? Your argument is incoherent, you dont know, but Im parroting russia, in spite of my information coming from the very MSM you accused me of not using as a source.Tubby Isaacs wrote:I think "the Russians say" is you parroting what the Russians say, because you just said the Russians said it. and took it at face value. I mean, they're not a bunch of fascist liars, are they?
I wasn't thinking of Corbyn, I was thinking of you. As it happens, I prefer Corbyn being cautious to people rushing in like Watson, but I don't think everybody who thinks like Watson are "child murderers" and "warmongers", there being a war already. But that's why you remind me of Stop the War. The focus on opponents motives and morals.
I don't find Corbyn convincing on foreign policy, as I've said before. There's an organization that makes countries do exactly what he wants- sit down and avoid conflict by diplomacy. Shame he didn't give it his full support, eh? But he isn't the issue here.