Friday 7th April 2017

[seeingclearly]

Watson is, frankly, a total disappointment. Supporting the strikes makes me have even less respect for him.

[AnatolyKasparov]

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.

[pk1]

Much was made of journalists complaining about Corbyn's press office tardiness.

James O'Brien claims they requested a statement at 07.30hrs

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.

It's being claimed that Corbyn consulted with Nia Griffith, Shad Defence Sec, before finally releasing his statement.

Paul 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.

Corbyn released his statement at 11.21

No wonder Labour can't get decent headlines

[SpinningHugo]

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.

So, you agree with Corbyn on Assad and strikes?

I don't, and I am glad some prominent Labour people are saying they don't.

[pk1]

For some light-hearted cheer, have a read of this by Jonn Elledge reporting on his encounter with the protestors outside the New Statesman office yesterday:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AnatolyKasparov]

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

[SpinningHugo]

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

That isn't the question. I am not asking your opinion about Trump's motives.

I am asking whether this is the right or wrong thing to do?

"Meh" not constituting an answer in my view.

As for whether I 'put my trust in Trump', again I think that is an attempt to just not answer the question. I don't: I think he is a disastrous president. That doesn't answer the question of whether this intervention is right or wrong.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Much was made of journalists complaining about Corbyn's press office tardiness.

James O'Brien claims they requested a statement at 07.30hrs

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.

It's being claimed that Corbyn consulted with Nia Griffith, Shad Defence Sec, before finally releasing his statement.

Paul 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.

Corbyn released his statement at 11.21

No wonder Labour can't get decent headlines

Apparently Thornberry will be speaking for Labour not Griffith.

[SpinningHugo]

Much was made of journalists complaining about Corbyn's press office tardiness.

James O'Brien claims they requested a statement at 07.30hrs

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.

It's being claimed that Corbyn consulted with Nia Griffith, Shad Defence Sec, before finally releasing his statement.

Paul 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.

Corbyn released his statement at 11.21

No wonder Labour can't get decent headlines

Apparently Thornberry will be speaking for Labour not Griffith.

Wasn't that the position before Corbyn gave his briefing?

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/ ... s-bet-slip" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Red Rum wins Grand National again as man cashes in 43-year-old bet


FWIW met Red Rum a couple of times,despite his celebrity status,very down to Earth.


We had both jumped/clambered over the Grand National fences.I was a tad slower.

[AnatolyKasparov]

I'm not totally against this action IF it can be shown with reasonable probability that the chemical attack was a deliberate action authorised by the Syrian government.

So, to that extent, I suppose I disagree with Corbyn.

But I don't think that has yet been demonstrated, has it? And it really isn't possible to disregard motive in situations like this. If it is true that Trump is a terrible POTUS who takes decisions for bad reasons, then naturally people will be more reticent in supporting him. This is entirely sensible and logical.

[pk1]

Apparently Thornberry will be speaking for Labour not Griffith.

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 ?

[AnatolyKasparov]

Or maybe, as already pointed out, that is the normal situation anyway? She is shadow Foreign Sec after all.......

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Or maybe, as already pointed out, that is the normal situation anyway? She is shadow Foreign Sec after all.......

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.

[pk1]

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;

[PaulfromYorkshire]

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;

She said air strikes are not the answer and we have to sit around a table and talk.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

"A swift and fast (sic.) UN investigation."

[pk1]

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;

She said air strikes are not the answer and we have to sit around a table and talk.

Can't see that happening any time soon. In the meantime, the slaughter continues

[AnatolyKasparov]

It will continue regardless of whether we add to it or not.

[howsillyofme1]

Good afternoon

The use of chemical weapons is pretty abhorrent (being a chemist myself I have seen effects of even minor contact) but sometimes struggle to see that much difference between them and indiscriminate bombing like what we saw in Mosul recently

I have no real issue with carrying out action if it leads to a desired outcome. At the moment I see no indication what the intended outcome was so cannot really see whether it was a success

From what I have seen the outcome is very little material damage, an annoyed Russia and further attacks on this area by Syria

It looks like whatever the intention was it hasn't really succeeded...or it may have and the question would be will the consequences of it be worth it

Now the USA has started this does it continue?

Some of you may support without question the actions of an unstable US president but please accept some of us have little confidence in his methods, reasons or actions.

[TechnicalEphemera]

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.

[SpinningHugo]

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.

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.

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.

[howsillyofme1]

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?

[SpinningHugo]

It will continue regardless of whether we add to it or not.

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.

[howsillyofme1]

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.

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.

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.

Are you naturally unable to understand complexity or do you have to work on it...or are you just a sad wum?

Your posts are consistently the lowest quality on here.....I may disagree with other posters but they have a far more coherent approach to their arguments

[howsillyofme1]

It will continue regardless of whether we add to it or not.

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.

So a moral absolutist argument again

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)

[SpinningHugo]

It will continue regardless of whether we add to it or not.

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.

So a moral absolutist argument again

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)

I am not sure I follow this argument. Is it the usual whataboutery?

I suspect it is best for both of us if we don't engage on this issue. I assume I can take it as read that you just agree with Stop the War and leave it there?

[Willow904]

Ok, well I think the 66 Labour MPs who voted in favour of airstrikes in Syria in 2015 were right. That any better?

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.

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?

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.

[Temulkar]

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.

[howsillyofme1]

In response to the post from Hugo above

If you make that assumption from my post perhaps that is why your posts are always so lacking

The point I made was that the decision to take any military action is not just whether it is morally right it is whether potential outcomes are considered worthy of the risk

It would be relatively easy to justify a moral case to bomb Russia but it doesn't mean we should

Also a moral case is in the eye of the beholder and a case could me made to do lots of things based on different moral outlooks

My view is that if this stops Assad using chemical weapons with no other consequences then it was possibly the right thing to do (although that could be argued I would say that it was)

If it doesn't and he does it again then what would be the point where it stops?

I have doubts that US becoming directly involved militarily is going to end well though

[tinyclanger2]

Appreciate the discursive nature of comments here today - given that most of life takes place in that grey area we have to learn about for ourselves.

[Temulkar]

And let us not forget that our government sold the syrian regime the components to make the sarin - in 2013!

[PorFavor]

Stockholm 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)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39531108

[TechnicalEphemera]

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.

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.

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.

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.

The logical outcome of American actions last time would have been a gradual escalation and possibly the collapse of the regime. At which point who knows what would happen. Most likely ISIS, AQ, Kurds, Turkey, Iran, Iraq and some gulf states engaged in a vicious multi sided ethnic war without end.

At least an Assad victory and accomodation with the Kurds will bring some stability.

As for Thornberry, she is defending the leaders position as is her brief. I am not sure you can read any more into it than that.

[TechnicalEphemera]

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?

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?

The answer as to whether US involvement is a good thing depends on whether Assad stops using chemical weapons and whether the USA can hold off on further involvement if he keeps his hands off them.

Note, there is no suggestion the USA intended to stop Assad from using conventional weapons.

It is probably true that if they had done nothing more chemical attacks would have followed.

People are going to comment on Corbyn's actions, he is representing the Labour Party.

[Tubby Isaacs]

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.

How unlike you to read out the Russian press release. More reliable than the "MSM", I'm sure.

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.

[Tubby Isaacs]

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?

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.

In this case though, he had to make a response quickly, and he's called it the way he always does, as has Tom Watson. I don't see any huge problem there.

[Tubby Isaacs]

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.

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.

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.

Or trying to buy a bit of time to think?

[TechnicalEphemera]

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.

[Temulkar]

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.

How unlike you to read out the Russian press release. More reliable than the "MSM", I'm sure.

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 what its worth, they are my own words, not StW or Russia...An illegal strike - UN comments, amongst others, not StW - has achieved nothing because they were warned - US, Syrian and Russian sources not StW, Will see air defences improved - russian sources, retaliatory strikes UN observation.

The same people screaming for war war now are the same people who allowed bombs to be sold to kill children in Yemen, and the same suspects on here are supporting them. The same gas that was used in the attack that we sold syria components for.

So lets not pretend that there is any strategy, there is none, its not a moral crusade, we sold them the gas components. IT's not about children dying, our bombs are murdering them every day in yemen. Its a unilateral action, in breach of international law, and the likely result will be to make matters worse.

I wont expect the warmongers and their supporters to admit that, though, they never do.

What's worse are the ones who choose this situation to make cheap party political points.

[Tubby Isaacs]

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.

[Tubby Isaacs]

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.

For some it's a dishonourable position, I agree. But not for everybody. Some will just be wanting thinking time.

[Temulkar]

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.

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.

I tell you what in six moths time, if things are better I will happily admit I was wrong, will you?

[Tubby Isaacs]

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.

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.

I tell you what in six moths time, if things are better I will happily admit I was wrong, will you?

I didn't agree with anybody. I clearly said I didn't know what to do.

[Temulkar]

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.

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.

I tell you what in six moths time, if things are better I will happily admit I was wrong, will you?

I didn't agree with anybody. I clearly said I didn't know what to do.

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?

Cos if you 'don't know,' your oh-so-clever-and-coruscating comment to me about StW, is not only unjustified but also unjustifiable, no?

[howsillyofme1]

This whole situation is a complete mess and there is no simple solution

Western military intervention in the ME has very little positive to show and I cannot see US direct involvement in Syria will help at all

I do find it worrying how taking a line suggesting this action is not a good idea in trying to actually resolve the crisis is attacked so viciously in the media whilst those who are always happy to bomb are feted

It is not weak to criticise military action if you think it is an escalation or even if it just maintains the status quo

I see we are very rarely reminded of Libya now and how that came about

Bombing may feel cathartic but if it is done for no benefit then it is the wrong decision

[Tubby Isaacs]

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.

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/higher-educ ... otect-them" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Disability services transform students' lives – we must protect them

[Tubby Isaacs]

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.

Exactly.

There was a kind of "take that, Miliband" at work that I didn't like, as there is now, even though I could respect lots of the people who voted with Cameron.

Of course, Cameron could easily have said "I think this is a crucial issue, maybe I didn't work hard enough to convince, there's not all that much between us, let's have another look". But he didn't. He chose to tell the (sceptical) public that he "got it", and launch a spin war on Miliband. Entirely disreputable.

IIRC, Miliband's motion had something in it about the region, more broadly. I don't recall Cameron answering that at all.

[Temulkar]

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.

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.

You made an unjustified snide comment to me and are now compounding it, by refusing to admit you were wrong to do so. Sorry is the hardest word it seems, but it is definitely the measure of someone's moral substance.