Wandering Warrior wrote:
Corbyn thinks it will with his none shoot to kill policy. That's fine if you don't have to make a decision whether to lose your life or not!!
I agree, mediation with these idiots is like hitting the Sun with a snowball.
As an aside, Corbyn in his own way is as daft as Daesh with his apologist attitude!!
Good post slim jim. As for corbyn. well would rather not get drawn into a political debate about a man that represents everything that is wrong with labour values.And has killed any hopes of a labour rule with him at the helm.
Syria and issues of military apart, how can you say that Corbyn represents 'everything' that is wrong with the Labour Party when unlike the leadership of the last few years of Blair and Brown, he is a true Socialist with the same kind of values of those who founded a century or so ago, a alternative for ordinary working class people to the Conservative and Liberal parties.
Only Tories or those today who think they are Tories because they are better off than others come out with that kind of comment.
All Corbyn has said is that if we join in with air strikes on ISIS in Syria, it could result in retaliation with terrorist attacks on this country which will, in my opinion will happen anyway in view of the fact that the ISIS leadership have indicated that any country which attacks them in Syria will suffer the same fate as Paris.
Like anyone else, he is entitled to a opinion even if it is a wrong opinion for many, including myself on this issue.
Perhaps, if we, the USA, NATO, the United Nations had done something more positive about the rise of ISIS Islamic fundamentalism over the last couple of years or so, the situation might now be now different.
Getting rid of Dictators like Saddam in Iraq and Gadaffi in Libya has not helped as they had their countries under control and free of Muslim fundamentalism and ISIS.
Now we got world leaders like Cameron running round in a state of panic as a result of having done nothing about the rise of ISIS in the middle east and parts of Africa.
Bombing them is just a reaction on the line of Bush going to Iraq. It made things a lot worse. I am not saying we should not do nothing but it has to be through NATO or the UN. And the we are getting rid of a dictator is a cover for wanting to get hands of the resources that country has.
Mugabe is one of the worst and yet we do nothing as he has no oil.
keptinthedarkfans wrote:
Good post slim jim. As for corbyn. well would rather not get drawn into a political debate about a man that represents everything that is wrong with labour values.And has killed any hopes of a labour rule with him at the helm.
Syria and issues of military apart, how can you say that Corbyn represents 'everything' that is wrong with the Labour Party when unlike the leadership of the last few years of Blair and Brown, he is a true Socialist with the same kind of values of those who founded a century or so ago, a alternative for ordinary working class people to the Conservative and Liberal parties.
Only Tories or those today who think they are Tories because they are better off than others come out with that kind of comment.
All Corbyn has said is that if we join in with air strikes on ISIS in Syria, it could result in retaliation with terrorist attacks on this country which will, in my opinion will happen anyway in view of the fact that the ISIS leadership have indicated that any country which attacks them in Syria will suffer the same fate as Paris.
Like anyone else, he is entitled to a opinion even if it is a wrong opinion for many, including myself on this issue.
Perhaps, if we, the USA, NATO, the United Nations had done something more positive about the rise of ISIS Islamic fundamentalism over the last couple of years or so, the situation might now be now different.
Getting rid of Dictators like Saddam in Iraq and Gadaffi in Libya has not helped as they had their countries under control and free of Muslim fundamentalism and ISIS.
Now we got world leaders like Cameron running round in a state of panic as a result of having done nothing about the rise of ISIS in the middle east and parts of Africa.
Bombing them is just a reaction on the line of Bush going to Iraq. It made things a lot worse. I am not saying we should not do nothing but it has to be through NATO or the UN. And the we are getting rid of a dictator is a cover for wanting to get hands of the resources that country has.
Mugabe is one of the worst and yet we do nothing as he has no oil.
Exactly, it has to done by every free nation of both the UN and NATO to get get rid of the ISIS cancer now in our mist.
Perhaps, even in the case of Syria, a free Syrian Army comprising of the fit young men which people like DaveO says have no viable army to join to save their country from both a Dictator or ISIS.
people can we just remember that if you even slightly agree with Corybn you are a terrorist sympathiser and dont want the UK to get its MoJo back.
i fail to see how Bombing and Airstrikes will have any positive effect, when the unavoidable collateral Loss of life happens you are creating more support for the group you are trying to stop.
our mighty overlord Cameron stated himself in october that airstrikes will only increase support for ISIS (ISIL)
maybe he then remember he has shares in Arms companies before he then voted for them?
despite the atrocities committed in Paris recently i fail to see bombing ISIS (more like Pro Assad fighters) will help resolve the issue, i know its a old schools yard saying but two Wrongs don't make right.
These are two reasons not to trust people.
1. We don't know them.
2. We do know them.
Whelley Warrior wrote:
Perhaps, even in the case of Syria, a free Syrian Army comprising of the fit young men which people like DaveO says have no viable army to join to save their country from both a Dictator or ISIS.
They don't just have one army that they can join, they have 5 or 6! Enough so that everyone in Syria could join in. What a fun life they would have. Short though.
Personally I don't agree with sitting behind a keyboard and telling other people that they shouldn't come to Europe to escape a war, they should go and die in their own country. It seems distasteful to me.
Whelley Warrior wrote:
Perhaps, even in the case of Syria, a free Syrian Army comprising of the fit young men which people like DaveO says have no viable army to join to save their country from both a Dictator or ISIS.
They don't just have one army that they can join, they have 5 or 6! Enough so that everyone in Syria could join in. What a fun life they would have. Short though.
Personally I don't agree with sitting behind a keyboard and telling other people that they shouldn't come to Europe to escape a war, they should go and die in their own country. It seems distasteful to me.
Any different than sitting behind a keyboard and not facing up to reality of what is happening in our country.
Whelley Warrior wrote:
Perhaps, even in the case of Syria, a free Syrian Army comprising of the fit young men which people like DaveO says have no viable army to join to save their country from both a Dictator or ISIS.
They don't just have one army that they can join, they have 5 or 6! Enough so that everyone in Syria could join in. What a fun life they would have. Short though.
Personally I don't agree with sitting behind a keyboard and telling other people that they shouldn't come to Europe to escape a war, they should go and die in their own country. It seems distasteful to me.
Any different than sitting behind a keyboard and not facing up to reality of what is happening in our country.
Or even facing What this country has done to the middle east in the last 20 years. The mass exodus of people from Syria is the fault of the NATO countries destabilising the country to remove a dictator that would now bow to us.
The argument of we should remover all bad dictators is really not valid when we leave others in power and actually trade with them and make money out of them.
We have created the middle east problem and we have actually let it go out of hand due to greed of Western Countries. Instead of blaming the refugees we need to blame Blair, Brown and Cameron. But that's ok they are British was done in the name of justice and to protect us all.
If your facing up to an issue at least face up to both sides and not the side that suites your agenda.
Whelley Warrior wrote:
Perhaps, even in the case of Syria, a free Syrian Army comprising of the fit young men which people like DaveO says have no viable army to join to save their country from both a Dictator or ISIS.
They don't just have one army that they can join, they have 5 or 6! Enough so that everyone in Syria could join in. What a fun life they would have. Short though.
Personally I don't agree with sitting behind a keyboard and telling other people that they shouldn't come to Europe to escape a war, they should go and die in their own country. It seems distasteful to me.
Any different than sitting behind a keyboard and not facing up to reality of what is happening in our country.
This Assad is turning out worse than his father and he was a slaughterer of the innocents on a massive scale.
I just thought that the decision not to go ahead and stop Assad killing his own people by the creating a no fly zone over Assad's air bases was wrong.
The USA air force/navy was very well capable of taking out Assad's air forcce and imposing a no fly zone over the areas populated by the ethnic and religious minorities.
We decided not to join then Obama said they wouldn't do it without allies. The first isolationist USA President for a very long while.
Since then Assad's air force has killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of civilians as his air force has freedom of the skies. Now the Russians have joined in leading to more civilian deaths.
Whether it is isis, the Kurds, Sunni or Shia forces then one thing that sent them onto a war footing was Assad.
He now has to be part of the cease fire and only his departure will bring some kind of peace to the area.
Wiganer Ted wrote:Middle East politics is so complicated.
This Assad is turning out worse than his father and he was a slaughterer of the innocents on a massive scale.
I just thought that the decision not to go ahead and stop Assad killing his own people by the creating a no fly zone over Assad's air bases was wrong.
The USA air force/navy was very well capable of taking out Assad's air forcce and imposing a no fly zone over the areas populated by the ethnic and religious minorities.
We decided not to join then Obama said they wouldn't do it without allies. The first isolationist USA President for a very long while.
Since then Assad's air force has killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of civilians as his air force has freedom of the skies. Now the Russians have joined in leading to more civilian deaths.
Whether it is isis, the Kurds, Sunni or Shia forces then one thing that sent them onto a war footing was Assad.
He now has to be part of the cease fire and only his departure will bring some kind of peace to the area.
Should we always trust what the media tells us about Assad being the baddest of bad people in all this fighting and is there any other ulterior motive behind the press reports.
Assad is being backed by the Russians and a Chinese, resulting in oil heading their way. Of course he will be the culprit in all this according to US and British press because of the oil.
I don't know the full facts as I'm not there but I also don't always believe what the media says in situations like this.
