Corbyn would oppose Syria air strikes

Watch
GuppyFox
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10436528.html
A Commons vote to extend UK airstrikes of Isis positions in Syria could be postponed if Jeremy Corbyn becomes Labour leader.

Three of the candidates in Labour's leadership race - Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall - have left the door open to supporting action in Syria.

But Jeremy Corbyn, the left-wing candidate, opposes extending the RAF bombing campaign, and has previously warned: "The US is already bombing Syria and this has not stopped Isis. We need to cut off the supply of money and arms that is flowing to Isis."

Having suffered defeat in the last vote on military action in Syria two years ago, David Cameron is cautious about pressing ahead without the opposition's support.
I can't help but agree with Corbyn, and I hope he has some serious influence on this if he becomes Labour leader.
1
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
While we should be cutting off money and arms as well, this non-action militarily is disgusting.

Pacificm - Sitting atop a hill called the moral high ground while everybody below gets slaughtered.

Cameron and Blair are to blame for this though, they brought in the precedent of a Commons vote on the issue because Blair couldnt get his party to support him and Cameron was too much of a coward to risk it.
1
reply
Skip_Snip
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
Like Rakas21 said, why not do both? Cut off their supplies, and bomb the crap outta them. Surely both courses of action would complement one another.
1
reply
novablast
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
I think David Cameron would've still suffer a defeat even if Corbyn wasn't elected Labour leader.
1
reply
Steeplechasing
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
Corbyn's right though. The reason why ISIS has not surrendered yet is because they are still getting funding from other group in the middle east i.e. in places like Qatar, Saudi Arabia. He's absolutely right about assessing where it is they are getting money from. Also, we need to stop legitimizing states like Qatar and Saudi Arabia by allowing their leaders to come for friendly meetings with our leaders, we need to tell them that if they continue allowing people in their country to support this brutality then we will respond.
0
reply
driftawaay
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
(Original post by Steeplechasing)
Corbyn's right though. The reason why ISIS has not surrendered yet is because they are still getting funding from other group in the middle east i.e. in places like Qatar, Saudi Arabia. He's absolutely right about assessing where it is they are getting money from. Also, we need to stop legitimizing states like Qatar and Saudi Arabia by allowing their leaders to come for friendly meetings with our leaders, we need to tell them that if they continue allowing people in their country to support this brutality then we will respond.
This! I puke whenever I see Cameron/Obama with one of those non-humans.
0
reply
Steeplechasing
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
(Original post by driftawaay)
This! I puke whenever I see Cameron/Obama with one of those non-humans.
Indeed. 'But hey, it's okay to be friends with the Saudis cause they give us our oil' is the argument these morally corrupt lunatics use. And 'oh, it's okay that working conditions on the Qatar World cup stadium have killed hundreds of migrant workers because, you know, Qatar have invested in London's Shard' is the argument probably running through that buffoon Boris' head.
1
reply
RF_PineMarten
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
He is talking rubbish when he says air strikes are not working. US air strikes have pushed back ISIS on a number of fronts in Syria, particularly where they've co-ordinated with the Kurds (YPG). ISIS were pushed back from Kobane town and the surrounding countryside, the YPG have pushed back ISIS from large parts of Hassakeh province, the YPG took Tall Abyad from ISIS (cutting off a key supply route to Raqqa), and just recently a major ISIS assault to take Hassakeh city was repelled by the YPG. And none of that would have been possible without US air strikes. ISIS suffered heavy casualties and loss of equipment during that time, especially in their failed Kobane offensive which they threw a lot of equipment into.

It has been made abundantly clear by the YPG that air strikes combined with a capable ground force is very effective at forcing ISIS out of territory. The problem is having a competent ground force for the Sunni Arab areas (which the Kurds will not go far into), which is an issue in Syria because we oppose the Syrian government but there is no "moderate" rebel force strong enough. The problem lies with this - not with the air strikes.
1
reply
Fango_Jett
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
(Original post by Steeplechasing)
Corbyn's right though. The reason why ISIS has not surrendered yet is because they are still getting funding from other group in the middle east i.e. in places like Qatar, Saudi Arabia. He's absolutely right about assessing where it is they are getting money from. Also, we need to stop legitimizing states like Qatar and Saudi Arabia by allowing their leaders to come for friendly meetings with our leaders, we need to tell them that if they continue allowing people in their country to support this brutality then we will respond.
Not happening any time soon though. The world, especially the likes of the US, relies far too much on imported oil. Keeping their economies afloat is of much greater concern than the deaths of a few Iraqis and Syrians.
0
reply
RF_PineMarten
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
I'd also like to point out something about where their weapons come from. The place is a warzone, small arms like AK47s and RPGs and their ammunition are very common and not that hard to get hold of. You could cut off smuggling routes but they would still have plenty. You are not going to starve ISIS of weapons.
0
reply
IsraelforLife
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
No no no.


The Islamic extremism of IS is caused by Western Imperialism and persecution, instead of dropping bombs, we should be sending them flowers and chocolates


^ This is what imbeciles like Corbyn actually believe
0
reply
footstool1924
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
(Original post by RFowler)
He is talking rubbish when he says air strikes are not working. US air strikes have pushed back ISIS on a number of fronts in Syria, particularly where they've co-ordinated with the Kurds (YPG). ISIS were pushed back from Kobane town and the surrounding countryside, the YPG have pushed back ISIS from large parts of Hassakeh province, the YPG took Tall Abyad from ISIS (cutting off a key supply route to Raqqa), and just recently a major ISIS assault to take Hassakeh city was repelled by the YPG. And none of that would have been possible without US air strikes. ISIS suffered heavy casualties and loss of equipment during that time, especially in their failed Kobane offensive which they threw a lot of equipment into.

It has been made abundantly clear by the YPG that air strikes combined with a capable ground force is very effective at forcing ISIS out of territory. The problem is having a competent ground force for the Sunni Arab areas (which the Kurds will not go far into), which is an issue in Syria because we oppose the Syrian government but there is no "moderate" rebel force strong enough. The problem lies with this - not with the air strikes.
And where did you glean this information from?
0
reply
Fango_Jett
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
(Original post by Dumachi)
The death toll is a few million...

Yeah, sorry. A few million Muslims in the desert dying is of little concern to the west. If you think the US is bombing Isis for any other reason apart from to secure their oil supply, you are sorely mistaken.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
(Original post by Fango_Jett)
Not happening any time soon though. The world, especially the likes of the US, relies far too much on imported oil. Keeping their economies afloat is of much greater concern than the deaths of a few Iraqis and Syrians.
Of the 4 big consumers/future consumers (US, EU, China, India) the US is actually now the least dependent and could be a net oil exporter by 2020. The Middle East is much less important to them than during the Cold War.
0
reply
SignFromDog
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
I think that's wrong and immoral position for Corbyn to take. We're not talking about airstrikes on the Syrian regime, we're talking about UK forces being able to strike ISIS combat units who are in Syria.

The democratic government of Iraq, and our Kurdish friends, are begging for our help to stop ISIS' genocidal campaign. I don't think we've seen a movement quite as nihilistic, violent and insane since the Khmer Rouge.

We have an obligation to do all in our power to prevent genocide, and if ISIS isn't stopped, they will wipe out the Yezidis, the Nestorian and Chaldean Christians and as many Alawites as they can get their hands on.
0
reply
The two eds
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
(Original post by GuppyFox)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10436528.html

I can't help but agree with Corbyn, and I hope he has some serious influence on this if he becomes Labour leader.
Yeh him and his 238 or so MPs are going to do so much against a majority government who are all practically so far up Cameron's ***, he could tell them to vote for their own execution and they would.
0
reply
footstool1924
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by The two eds)
Yeh him and his 238 or so MPs are going to do so much against a majority government who are all practically so far up Cameron's ***, he could tell them to vote for their own execution and they would.
The promised EU referendum would cause schism within the Tory Party. Instead of playing it slightly neutral like they did in the run-up, the Tories would be forced to come down on one side to gain the far-right votes.

That would drive them towards the far-right and Labour (if Corbyn was leader) would shift to the centre-ground and thus a more "reasonable" person.

If Corbyn chose to campaign on an anti-Tory ticket as opposed to a pro-left ticket, he will pick up many of the non-voter and disenfranchised votes.

Added to, the fact that Cameron has stated that he will not stand for election in 2020, the Conservative Party, depending on the outcome of the EU Referendum would be fractured as they start their leadership bids.


Labour, by holding a leadership election now has nothing to lose but everything to gain. Even if the party threatens to split, Labour still has 3 years to work on attracting people back to their cause.

As Cameron's end-term draws near, allegiance to him will start evaporating. The leadership bid for the Conservative Party will implode the Conservatives (either as split parties or not being able to maintain a strong challenge for at least 10-15 years).

Hold the EU Referendum in early 2016 and the Conservatives may be in with a fighting chance in 2020. Hold the EU Referendum in late 2017 and kiss goodbye to 2020 and 2025.
0
reply
The two eds
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
(Original post by footstool1924)
The promised EU referendum would cause schism within the Tory Party. Instead of playing it slightly neutral like they did in the run-up, the Tories would be forced to come down on one side to gain the far-right votes.

That would drive them towards the far-right and Labour (if Corbyn was leader) would shift to the centre-ground and thus a more "reasonable" person.

If Corbyn chose to campaign on an anti-Tory ticket as opposed to a pro-left ticket, he will pick up many of the non-voter and disenfranchised votes.

Added to, the fact that Cameron has stated that he will not stand for election in 2020, the Conservative Party, depending on the outcome of the EU Referendum would be fractured as they start their leadership bids.


Labour, by holding a leadership election now has nothing to lose but everything to gain. Even if the party threatens to split, Labour still has 3 years to work on attracting people back to their cause.

As Cameron's end-term draws near, allegiance to him will start evaporating. The leadership bid for the Conservative Party will implode the Conservatives (either as split parties or not being able to maintain a strong challenge for at least 10-15 years).

Hold the EU Referendum in early 2016 and the Conservatives may be in with a fighting chance in 2020. Hold the EU Referendum in late 2017 and kiss goodbye to 2020 and 2025.
I was almost willing to not give a serious comment when I saw that Corbyn will apparently move into the centre ground. I'm sorry but please. I will blow my brains out if Corbyn takes the centre ground. Hell he even admitted he is a proud socialist and left winger. He would rather die than support a centre wing policy.

Cameron is already centre while a reasonable section of his party is centre right. The Blair office and the Tory party are almost identical. They abandoned the right the second they declared their support for the EU. Part of the reason Cameron is moving the referendum forward is because of the talks but moreso the result of the election in May. He induced project fear into the minds of Tories to stop them defecting to UKIP. He knows full well how to get into the heads of the electorate. He simply has to say for example "you will lose your pensions if we leave the EU" and hey presto, the media will spread his message, he wins.

Does anyone actually believe people will vote to leave the union? It will be majority support to stay in. The UK electorate are cowards, they are scared of change, they will always opt for the current system out of fear of stepping into the unknown. Cameron has nothing to fear from his party or the electorate, he has won and played the game perfectly. There are but a handful of MPs who would risk their well payed profession for their beliefs nowadays. They are an elitist breed. The Eurosceptics in his party are cowards, when Cameron waves his wand they will follow.
0
reply
footstool1924
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#19
Report 6 years ago
#19
(Original post by The two eds)
I was almost willing to not give a serious comment when I saw that Corbyn will apparently move into the centre ground. I'm sorry but please. I will blow my brains out if Corbyn takes the centre ground. Hell he even admitted he is a proud socialist and left winger. He would rather die than support a centre wing policy.
You seem to misunderstand. Corbyn's policies are "left-wing" at the moment because the Conservatives are in power.

If the Tories move towards the far-right, then Corbyn's position becomes centre-ground.

Terms like left-wing/right-wing are relative to the thing that you are comparing it to.

Cameron is already centre while a reasonable section of his party is centre right. The Blair office and the Tory party are almost identical. They abandoned the right the second they declared their support for the EU. Part of the reason Cameron is moving the referendum forward is because of the talks but moreso the result of the election in May. He induced project fear into the minds of Tories to stop them defecting to UKIP. He knows full well how to get into the heads of the electorate. He simply has to say for example "you will lose your pensions if we leave the EU" and hey presto, the media will spread his message, he wins.
I don't think threatening the electorate would go down too well.

Cameron doesn't want to leave the EU but he is being forced to make comments like "swarm of illegal immigrants" to placate the more right-wing members of his party.

Apparently, over 100 Tory MP's now want the UK to leave the EU.

If the UK does stay in the EU, then there will be a party revolt because not only has he not managed to negotiate better terms, but people are stuck with the status quo.

Does anyone actually believe people will vote to leave the union? It will be majority support to stay in. The UK electorate are cowards, they are scared of change, they will always opt for the current system out of fear of stepping into the unknown. Cameron has nothing to fear from his party or the electorate, he has won and played the game perfectly. There are but a handful of MPs who would risk their well payed profession for their beliefs nowadays. They are an elitist breed. The Eurosceptics in his party are cowards, when Cameron waves his wand they will follow.
Cameron's going or did you not hear? He couldn't care less what the electorate or his party think of him post-referendum.

If he keeps the UK in the EU, he and the Conservatives are finished but if he doesn't, then they are also finished.

Cameron simply delayed the execution for 5 years. He wanted more terms but he'll settle for 2.
0
reply
Thorley Jynx
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
Guys. He already voted against this action as did parliament as a whole >
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling now you've started university?

I'm loving it! (57)
14.65%
I'm enjoying it but I'm still settling in (98)
25.19%
I'm a bit unsure (67)
17.22%
I'm finding things difficult (133)
34.19%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (34)
8.74%

Watched Threads

View All