That what Corbyn opposed Syrian air strikes? Because they have resolved absolutely nothing?
https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...military-action-vote-parliament-a8306666.html
It wasn't even claimed that this strike would prevent Assad from launching further chemical weapon attacks. All that the strike is intended to achieve is to ensure that if –perhaps when – Assad thinks about using these weapons again, he won't be under the impression that he can do so without consequence. We reserve the right to punish tyrants, dictators, criminals and madmen like Assad from behaving in this way. Full stop.
Second: the legality of this action. Humanitarian intervention is an increasingly widely recognised basis for armed intervention. It was the basis for intervention in Kosovo in 1999 to stop the slaughter and ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of people there (Jeremy Corbyn opposed this action too, you shouldn't be surprised to hear).
It was the basis for intervention in Sierra Leone to rescue UN peacekeepers and bolster the UN mission in that country.
As for the role of parliament, it's worth adding two further points. First, as a matter of international law, it matters not a jot whether parliament is consulted. Either the use of force is a breach of Chapter VII of the UN Convention or it is not, and it isn't any more or less a breach if parliament has voted for it.
Fourth: Jezza. Jeremy Corbyn has said before how his opposition to Iraq, though it achieved nothing at all, was one of his proudest moments in politics. And it may well be that many of you agree with his stance on Iraq. But do you also agree with his stance on Kosovo? On Bosnia? On Kuwait?
How about the first Gulf war, when we intervened to respond to Saddam Hussein's attempt to annex a neighbouring state by force? Of course, it wasn't just us that intervened. The UN mandated that armed intervention.
Did Jeremy, who now says we need to work through the UN and get UN authority before intervening, honour that resolution by the UN? Nope. In fact, not only did he not support the use of force on that occasion, he tabled motions in parliament to condemn the resolutions that had been passed by the UN!
Of course, this was all a long time after Corbyn's opposition (before he was elected) to the "Tory plot" that was the mission to the Falkland Islands to prevent the British citizens there being invaded by a country run by a military junta. Look over his career and you will not find any tyrant, sadist, despot or psychopathic madman who Jeremy Corbyn has supported military action against. In that context, what does being a “man of principle” really mean?
Tom watson isn't anything but a dupicitous self absorbed ****, will stab any win gof the party in the back to suit his present agenda
A horrible person, I would never expect him to be leader, but anyone who watson would back wouldn't write a manifesto like 2016.
The PLP is still full of career politions who would be happy to revert back to a pre milliband party, which had run it's course, world has changed and so have the public attitude to politics, a more forward thinking way is needed and that shouldn't include
Corbyn, abbot, the eagles, smith, creasey, watson, hodge, etc all relics that are worthless going forward
On the contrary I respect Watson for speaking out at dangerous positions Labour are taking, in relation to racism in the party and helping the Tories to deliver Brexit.
I’m not saying I necessarily want him as leader but he’s a step up from Corbyn and Corbyn and Milne need ditching quickly.
Because Syrian lives don’t matter to him.
Have you read the article you’ve posted there? It literally couldn’t back my argument any more and shows Corbyn to have no principles, that he claims to have.
The 2nd part I’ve quoted there sums him up. He’s a friend to dictatorships and mass murderers.
I’d love you to tell that to the face of a Syrian parent who’s child had died from a chemical weapons attack.
And what do you say to the parents of the children that were killed by western intervention? In Iraq? In Afghanistan? In Libya?
All you guys are the same. You act like western military interventions are acts of humanitarian kindness. That the result is fewer deaths and less suffering. The evidence shows this to be entirely false.
Corbyn was entirely right to oppose inflicting yet more suffering on the Syrians. The country is now rebuilding from the ruins and its institutions remain standing albeit damaged. I find it utterly absurd to countenance that destroying the Syrian government would have lessened the human toll.
But the same could be said against many others such dear old Churchill a white supremacist, mass murderer and how many people were friends with him? Not everything is black and white in this instance and proclaiming that he is anti semitic because he has been associated with some people who hold those views amongst others. Is like saying friends of Churchill are all white supremacist because he held those views. Just you agree with someone on one thing doesn't mean that you naturally agree with them on everything.
Watson doesn't give a fuck about antisemetism, just another cover for doing what he does, stab the party in the back the **** stuck it to blair, brown and milliband once he fell out with them.
I hate him and have since browns time.
This is just total ignorance.
Comparing the Iraq War to our bombing of the chemical weapons factory in Syria is so unbelievably wide of the mark.
What suffering were we inflicting on Syrians by targeting and successfully destroying a factory making chemical weapons that were due to be dropped onto the population by the dictatorship?
Have you ever spoken to a Syrian, seen an interview or heard from a Syrian journalist against the regime that has opposed Western Intervention?
Corbyn also opposed NATO intervention in the Balkans, during ethnic cleansing.
The man just opposes any Western Intervention in anything whether it’s right or wrong.
It’s not that I believe ALL western intervention is good, it’s that you think it’s ALL wrong - when that’s far from the case.
Churchill was a flawed man with very atrocious moments but ultimately saved our entire civilisation.
It’s possible to look at the negatives and positives and be thankful to him whilst also criticising his earlier atrocious views.
But he’s not been around in politics since the 1950’s so I’m unsure why need to compare him to Corbyn, a man who hasn’t saved our civilisation and hasn’t accomplished 1% of what Churchill did.
It’s not just those he surrounds himself with, but by the way Milne being his most trusted advisor believing Israel are behind ISIS is fucking frightening. He has commended antisemitic artwork, written the foreword to an antisemitic book, spoke of British Jews has not understanding our sense of humour, failed to offer support over a 2 year period where one of his Jewish MP’s was getting horrifically abused by people saying things in his name etc.
These are his actions or none-actions.
Not those around him.
Saved our nation fuck me so the Russians and US had nothing to do with it? Jesus Christ we really are a blinkered nation in terms of how we write our own history but Churchill saving an entire civilization that takes some beating.
The problem with this if this was the tories and the islamophobia then we would just have laughed/passed this off like one of Boris comedy strips he writes in the torygraph. But rightly or some would suggest wrongly Labour always get an absolute hammering because of who they are.
As unpalatable as it is, Arthur Harris could claim the same accolades with regards to turning points in the war.There was a period of time when it was us standing alone against Hitler and had we lost the Battle of Britain and buckled, as many in parliament wanted, the Tory Party and the aristocracy wanted, Hitler would have been incredibly stronger in controlling Britain.
To say that Churchill’s decisions didn’t save us and didn’t massively contribute to winning the war, are ignorant and political point scoring.
The pressure he was under was absolutely immense and the vast majority would have brokered for peace with Hitler.
Of course the Russians and Americans won the war, along with us, no one is disputing that.
You don’t like Churchill because he was right wing, I don’t like that aspect of him but I appreciate what he did for this country.
I hammer Labour because they’re traditionally my party, who I’ve voted for the most, and that I expect a certain level from them. They’re in the pits and descending into one of the most vile forms of bigotry.
The Tories are cunts, we all know that, I don’t think delving into whataboutism is helpful to improving Labour.
That's silly. Millions opposed the Iraq war but that doesn't make them friends of Saddam. Corbyn's opposed to armed intervention in other nations full stop. That's a stance not many agree with but it would be "principled". (I've no idea if he has supported intervention anywhere.)Because Syrian lives don’t matter to him.
Have you read the article you’ve posted there? It literally couldn’t back my argument any more and shows Corbyn to have no principles, that he claims to have.
The 2nd part I’ve quoted there sums him up. He’s a friend to dictatorships and mass murderers.
For me, the acid test of whether someone is principled or not, is whether they will stand up for what they believe in, even when doing so is to their own detriment.That's silly. Millions opposed the Iraq war but that doesn't make them friends of Saddam. Corbyn's opposed to armed intervention in other nations full stop. That's a stance not many agree with but it would be "principled". (I've no idea if he has supported intervention anywhere.)
That's silly. Millions opposed the Iraq war but that doesn't make them friends of Saddam. Corbyn's opposed to armed intervention in other nations full stop. That's a stance not many agree with but it would be "principled". (I've no idea if he has supported intervention anywhere.)
Where's the immortality pit mate?Again, comparing Iraq and Syria isn’t necessarily a wise thing to do.
And anyway, not wanting intervention full stop means that he doesn’t give a fuck about innocents being on the end of atrocities.
I mean, imagine being against the ending of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, what pit of immortality do you have to sink to, to not be bothered enough to help?
Where's the immortality pit mate?
Get rid, bag 'o' shite, get a Samsung !Oops, bloody iphones.
I’ve definitely not found it but I’ll let you know when I do haha.
There was a period of time when it was us standing alone against Hitler and had we lost the Battle of Britain and buckled, as many in parliament wanted, the Tory Party and the aristocracy wanted, Hitler would have been incredibly stronger in controlling Britain.
To say that Churchill’s decisions didn’t save us and didn’t massively contribute to winning the war, are ignorant and political point scoring.
The pressure he was under was absolutely immense and the vast majority would have brokered for peace with Hitler.
Of course the Russians and Americans won the war, along with us, no one is disputing that.
You don’t like Churchill because he was right wing, I don’t like that aspect of him but I appreciate what he did for this country.
I hammer Labour because they’re traditionally my party, who I’ve voted for the most, and that I expect a certain level from them. They’re in the pits and descending into one of the most vile forms of bigotry.
The Tories are cunts, we all know that, I don’t think delving into whataboutism is helpful to improving Labour.
Get rid, bag 'o' shite, get a Samsung !