Support NeoGAF

[Mr. Luchador]

David Cameron is the best at talking for a long time and not actually talking about, committing to, or answering the question or topic at hand. It's quite the skill.

 

[Coriolanus]

I would consider supporting air strikes if the people proposing them could even give a half realistic answer about what they want the political situation in Syria to be like in 5-10 years.

I somehow doubt that "glass." would be enough to get your support, mate.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

Labels the leader of the Opposition a terrorist sympathiser?

I know all I need to know about Cameron with that.

 

[Walshicus]

Labels the leader of the Opposition a terrorist sympathiser?

I know all I need to know about Cameron with that.

And after Corbyn took the high ground in not calling Cameron a pig fucker...

 

[CyclopsRock]

I would consider supporting air strikes if the people proposing them could even give a half realistic answer about what they want the political situation in Syria to be like in 5-10 years.

So far the plan seems to be

1. Bomb Syria
2. Imaginary army of 70,000 moderate fighters appears to simultaneously wipe out ISIS and Assad
3. ???
4. Profit

Edit: Cameron being asked to withdraw/apologise for calling oponents of his war terrorist sympathisers 12 times. Shaking with rage Salmond is best Salmond.

I've seen posts like this all about and tbh I think it's slightly - or a lotty - misrepresenting the actual argument put forwards which is available to read in this fairly simply written document here. It can be broken down in these two little sections...

That is why I believe that we should now take the decision to extend British
airstrikes against ISIL into Syria, as an integral part of our comprehensive
strategy to degrade ISIL and reduce the threat it poses to us.
At the same time, we must close down the ungoverned space in Syria that ISIL
is exploiting, by working round the clock to bring about a political resolution to
the war there.

That means putting Britain’s full diplomatic weight, as a full member of an
international coalition, behind the new political talks – the Vienna process. It
means working through these talks to secure a transition to an inclusive
Government in Syria that responds to the needs of all the Syrian people and
with which the international community could co-operate fully to help restore
peace and stability to the whole country. It means continuing to support the
moderate opposition in Syria, so that there is a credible alternative to ISIL and
Assad. It means using our aid budget to alleviate the immediate humanitarian
suffering. It means insisting, with other countries, on the preparation of a
proper stabilisation and reconstruction effort in Syria once the conflict has
been brought to an end. And it means continuing, and stepping up, our effort
here at home to counter radicalisation.

We must pursue all these tracks in parallel. As the threat from ISIL to our
national security grows, we must take action - recognising that no course of
action is without risk, but that inaction – not dealing with ISIL at source – also
carries grave risk.

We have a comprehensive overall strategy in place to tackle the ISIL threat
globally. This document sets out how extending our military contribution to
Coalition operations in Syria would contribute both to our aim of reducing the
ISIL threat to the UK and to delivering our objectives in Syria.

This Government’s strategy for Syria therefore reflects our need
simultaneously to:
- Protect the UK here at home by maintaining robust counter-terrorism
capabilities;
- generate negotiations on a political settlement, while supporting and
preserving the moderate opposition;
- help deliver, through this process, a government in Syria that can
credibly represent all of the Syrian people;
- degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL, including through Coalition military
and wider action;
- continue our leading role in humanitarian support and forestall further
migratory flows towards Europe;
- support stabilisation already underway in Iraq and plan for post-conflict
reconstruction in Syria; and
- work in close partnership with our allies across the Middle East, to
mitigate the impact of ISIL and other violent extremist groups on the
stability of the region.

All these elements are linked - and all are important.

So they aren't saying "we don't need a political solution, we can just bomb them into oblivion" but rather "whilst we pursue a political solution, let's bomb them." The alternative, really, is just "let's pursue a political solution and not bomb them in the mean time." IMO I dunno if that's better.

Edit: Uhhh he is a terrorist sympathiser, guys. You don't have to think there's a problem with that, but that doesn't change what it means. If you actually don't think he is one, please tell me what he'd need to do or say to be a terrorist sympathiser (where we all acknowledge that "sympathiser" and "supporter" are different things. This is also true for Livingstone and McDonnell btw.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

'cept it kind of is, because bombing them necessarily changes the negotiating grounds for talks, making them harder to achieve.

 

[CyclopsRock]

'cept it kind of is, because bombing them necessarily changes the negotiating grounds for talks, making them harder to achieve.

Maybe, but it has benefits too.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Maybe, but it has benefits too.

Yes, but they're not worth the costs. The faster you can achieve negotiated settlement between Assad and the majority of the opposition, the faster ISIS will be dealt with. Delaying negotiations just to kill ISIS troops is just stupid in that context; it's missing the forest for the trees.

 

[Walshicus]

Maybe, but it has benefits too.

Benefits to who?

 

[CyclopsRock]

Yes, but they're not worth the costs. The faster you can achieve negotiated settlement between Assad and the majority of the opposition, the faster ISIS will be dealt with. Delaying negotiations just to kill ISIS troops is just stupid in that context; it's missing the forest for the trees.

Benefits to who?

Killing some IS brothers isn't the only other benefit; There's virtue to "keeping them on their toes" and attempting to ensure they don't have a safe haven where they can act with impunity. It's something of a panopticon; We don't have to physically disrupt everything, they just need to know that anything could be disrupted. Also aiding an ally when they asked for our help and it costs us relatively little isn't worth nothing, IMO. They're a neighbour, a friend, a fellow member of NATO - not to mention a permanent member of the security council. Cameron stood up and rightly said that we stand shoulder to shoulder with our cousins across the channel and then they asked for our help. We shouldn't do things simply because they asked us to, but that doesn't mean it's not a reason either.

Can you give me your thought process to explain why Britain conducting air strikes will halt or slow down any negotiation between Assad and the opposition powers in Syria?

 

[Jezbollah]

Does anyone know what position did Burnham took tonight? I missed it. Thanks.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Does anyone know what position did Burnham took tonight? I missed it. Thanks.

Voted no.

 

[Jezbollah]

Voted no.

Cheers sir.

Hilary Benn on right now.

EDIT: God damn he's a good speaker.

 

[twobear]

Edit: Uhhh he is a terrorist sympathiser, guys. You don't have to think there's a problem with that, but that doesn't change what it means. If you actually don't think he is one, please tell me what he'd need to do or say to be a terrorist sympathiser (where we all acknowledge that "sympathiser" and "supporter" are different things. This is also true for Livingstone and McDonnell btw.

Lets not play this daft rhetorical game please.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Killing some IS brothers isn't the only other benefit; There's virtue to "keeping them on their toes" and attempting to ensure they don't have a safe haven where they can act with impunity.

Yeah, but they kind of do this safe heaven unless you're proposing we bomb civilian areas.

Can you give me your thought process to explain why Britain conducting air strikes will halt or slow down any negotiation between Assad and the opposition powers in Syria?

Any kind of negotiation will necessarily reflect the facts on the ground and the existing balance of power to some extent. That's unavoidable. When you change the facts on the ground, you change the terms on negotiation, which usually means everyone has to go back to the drawing board. Say you're Assad now. You know that Cameron is bullshitting about the 70,000 rebels ready to fight ISIS, and you know that you can make some ground on ISIS as a result of bombings on ISIS elsewhere - in other words, you can make slight gains or entrench current ones. Well, you now have every incentive to just wait, because your negotiating power just gets better by the day. Why seriously consider any proposals when they'll be worthless by next month?

There's a reason civil wars typically end in negotiations only after a protracted period of stalemate.

 

[Walshicus]

I just think it's incredibly naïve to think that *this* bombing campaign will be effective. It's like Frankie Boyle said - we're trying to stop a pub carpark fight by standing several streets away lobbing fireworks in. If anything we're doing IS recruiter's jobs for them.

As for costing relatively little... if you drew up a table listing all the things the government could spend money on ranked by the incremental number of English lives they'd save or improve per pound, *this* just wouldn't factor. We'd be getting better value putting that cash into improving country roads or increasing funding for public leisure centres, let alone healthcare.

As for solidarity... France showed over a decade ago that it was right to ignore "solidarity" and avoid the Iraq quagmire. Just because they've made the same mistakes America did then, doesn't mean we're doomed to repeat history's blunders.

 

[Empty]

benn's speech. a seriously good piece of rhetoric.

 

[nib95]

Painfully disappointing the number of warmongers in the Labour camp, even after Iraq, where essentially these same sorts of arguments that Hillary Ben made were regurgitated. Support our allies, destroy the evil, stop it before it comes to us etc. Great load of shodding good that all did, with Islamic extremism up hundreds of percent since, Iraq going from having no suicide bombings in its countries history, to having nearly 2000 since the war. Pakistan going from 1 suicide bombing in the previous decades, to 400 suicide attacks since the intervention. Thousands of innocent lives lost. Billions in tax payer money spent. And essentially exchanging Al-Qaeda for an even more empowered and dangerous Daesh. Topped off with that, the admission that Islamic extremists would indeed make up some of that 70,000 transitional force. Fucking incredible. Absolutely pathetic.

 

[UnblessedSoul]

Bombing them wont end isis at all, nobody is committing to troops on the ground because they don't want anyone killed. The bombing is a waste of money because it's a half arsed measure. ultimately they will continue and possible recruit more people to their cause from all the casualty deaths. As far as Assad is concerned for a stable country to happen there must a large united majority for that to happen, if it fails we are looking at a gaddafi 2.0. They wont even go into detail about any sort of credible plan, until they do bombing should not even be an option.

 

[Jezbollah]

For: 397
Against: 223
Majority: 174

Looks to be more than 60 Labour MPs voting for action.

 

[Humidex]

For: 397
Against: 223
Majority: 174

Looks to be more than 60 Labour MPs voting for action.

67, I believe.

 

[Jezbollah]

Yep, just confirmed.

Seems like one of them was the chief whip, surprisingly enough.

 

[Fernando Fernandez]

I think I read it was 11 Tories that voted against.

Well it's done now. History will tell if this was the right decision. Chilcot part II due 2027

 

[twobear]

Yep, just confirmed.

Seems like one of them was the chief whip, surprisingly enough.

Surely Mr Cameron will have to press ahead with deselection, given that they're terrorist sympathisers and all.

 

[Beefy]

So is Corbyn lasting to the election?

 

[Humidex]

So is Corbyn lasting to the election?

No.

 

[Jezbollah]

So is Corbyn lasting to the election?

I don't know. I do know that Hilary Benn sounded like the real leader in that Party...

 

[twobear]

So is Corbyn lasting to the election?

Good luck getting an alternative elected by the Labour party membership if they do try to push him out by coup.

 

[nib95]

No.

Then Labour is permanently diminished and fractured. If Labour gets rid of Corbyn, they are not leftist enough for a huge portion of their party. They already proved that with Blair, but Corbyn is the way they can turn the tide, and it's clearly what members of their party, as in, the public, actually want. If he's too leftist for them, they will clearly be considered too conservative for many.

 

[Fernando Fernandez]

I don't know. I do know that Hilary Benn sounded like the real leader in that Party...

The man that holds the dagger rarely holds the crown.

Its a very difficult thing to unite all sides of Labour. Blair was successful because he was charismatic and able to juggle both sides. Whose next no idea? Whose got the best chance of winning the election for Labour? Maybe Dan Jarvis.

 

[War Peaceman]

Hilary Benn's speech was well delivered rubbish.

It assumed that all fights against fascist are equal. It assumed that you should oppose something because it is evil even if the fucking plan is moronic. It assumed that proud fights against fascism by Labour/socialist forefathers are the same as dropping some bombs on Syrians.

I'm instinctively anti-intervention, but military action has a purpose and value. This is just a meandering plan driven by rage after the Paris attacks. In Iraq there is an existing infrastructure that can move in after bombings but in Syria it is chaos with numerous conflicting factions. Madness.

 

[Kuros]

So is Corbyn lasting to the election?

Not a chance. Hari Kari after the May elections.

 

[Jezbollah]

Then Labour is permanently diminished and fractured. If Labour gets rid of Corbyn, they are not leftist enough for a huge portion of their party. They already proved that with Blair, but Corbyn is the way they can turn the tide, and it's clearly what members of their party, as in, the public, actually want. If he's too leftist for them, they will clearly be considered too conservative for many.

You've hit the nail on the head there. The only way the party doesn't split is if one of the two groups is purged.

Update: The Labour chief whip actually abstained, so I take that last comment back.

The man that holds the dagger rarely holds the crown.

Its a very difficult thing to unite all sides of Labour. Blair was successful because he was charismatic and able to juggle both sides. Whose next no idea? Whose got the best chance of winning the election for Labour? Maybe Dan Jarvis.

As a soft centre-right, I could very well see myself voting for Dan Jarvis..

 

[Walshicus]

The only way the party doesn't split is if one of the two groups is purged.

Labour voters overwhelmingly want *Labour* MPs; the sooner we can be rid of the Tories that have infected the party the better... Corbyn just needs to hold out until grassroots can start the cull.

 

[Uzzy]

I think I read it was 11 Tories that voted against.

Well it's done now. History will tell if this was the right decision. Chilcot part II due 2027

You assume we'll be done with bombing the middle east by then. I'm not so sure.

 

[CharmingCharlie]

I guess congratulations are in order for David Hameron he finally got the war he wanted and has been after for the past few years. This is not gonna do a fucking thing but create more hate towards the UK and the West. If anything we are doing exactly what IS want, but who cares we want to be gung ho and bomb a few sand dunes.

 

[Beefy]

By 2020 there will be nothing left of Syria for ISIS to want to control.

 

[CCS]

Brave of MPs to do the right thing in the face of considerable public opposition.

 

[2700]

Then Labour is permanently diminished and fractured. If Labour gets rid of Corbyn, they are not leftist enough for a huge portion of their party. They already proved that with Blair, but Corbyn is the way they can turn the tide, and it's clearly what members of their party, as in, the public, actually want. If he's too leftist for them, they will clearly be considered too conservative for many.

Well the Labour party membership aren't representative of the wider public, since Corbyn became leader the Conservatives have consistently led in the polls and his own personal rating have declined. Hardly the signs of a revival in left-wing politics. The Labour party will have to be more pragmatics or they face a decade on the sideline of politics unable to influence any real change. At least Tony Blair managed to get Labour 13 years of power to oversee a massive redistribution of wealth, I prefer that sort of politics to this 'kinder, gentler' nonsense.

 

[RedShift]

Well the Labour party membership aren't representative of the wider public, since Corbyn became leader the Conservatives have consistently led in the polls and his own personal rating have declined. The Labour party will have to be more pragmatics unless they want to face a decade on the sideline of politics unable to influence any real change. At least Tony Blair managed to get Labour 13 years of power to oversee a massive redistribution of wealth, I prefer that sort of politics to this 'kinder, gentler' nonsense.

???

Inequality increased under New Labour didn't it? Or sort of middled.

edit: source http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/4637

 

[nib95]

I guess congratulations are in order for David Hameron he finally got the war he wanted and has been after for the past few years. This is not gonna do a fucking thing but create more hate towards the UK and the West. If anything we are doing exactly what IS want, but who cares we want to be gung ho and bomb a few sand dunes.

It IS exactly what Daesh want lol. They've actually stated as much. That they want more countries in the West to retaliate and attack, giving them more propaganda material in the West is trying to destroy Islam and The Middle East narrative. I mean, who even are Daesh? These guys could literally blend in to the civilian population and come back out after the fighting stopped, which is actually what happened to an extent in Iraq with opposition fighters. This is another fight that basically does not, and will not have a defined enemy. For all we know countless members of Daesh will just join that 70,000 force, claiming they're opponents, for further control and influence later down the line.

 

[Nicktendo86]

If Labour dump Corbyn NOW and get Benn they miiiight have a chance in 2020.

 

[Walshicus]

If Labour dump Corbyn NOW and get Benn they miiiight have a chance in 2020.

A chance with Tory voters. Not Labour. He's about to find life pretty hard at the grassroots.

 

[Nicktendo86]

A chance with Tory voters. Not Labour. He's about to find life pretty hard at the grassroots.

Grassroots are not the entirety of labour voters.

Also amusing to note ukip managed a rebellion tonight, Carswellvoted against Farage's wishes.

 

[2700]

???

Inequality increased under New Labour didn't it? Or sort of middled.

edit: source http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/4637

You're right, inequality did move very little. However both child poverty and pensioner poverty both fell by around 30%. Both due to increases in benefits and the introduction of child tax credits. The chart below, from the IFS as well, shows the effect of Labour's tax and benefit system on each income docile,

Which makes it difficult to see how our two charts reconcile but the best answer seems to be that the highest incomes had very high growth, more than the lowest incomes, causing inequality to either increase slightly or stagnate. But nonetheless the good work Labour achieved with the very poorest in society should not be forgotten.

 

[Ding-Ding]

Labour voters overwhelmingly want *Labour* MPs; the sooner we can be rid of the Tories that have infected the party the better... Corbyn just needs to hold out until grassroots can start the cull.

The only cull that is likely to happen with Corbyn as leader, will be that of Labour MP's at a general election.

Grassroutes maybe trying to push the party left but thats certainly not where the electorate wants them to go. To win an election Labour have to win in places like Basildon, no chance in hell Corbyn gets them anywhere close to taking that seat

Fact remains that in the last 40 years, the furthest left the electorate has voted was Blair. Says alot doesn't it.

 

[War Peaceman]

Grassroots are not the entirety of labour voters.

Also amusing to note ukip managed a rebellion tonight, Carswellvoted against Farage's wishes.

Counting down the days until Carswell rejoins the Conservatives. Those two hate each other. Incredible party, old UKIP.

Proud my MP voted against this Syrian mistake.

 

[nOoblet16]

So is this true or not? Did he totally contradict himself or what here?

 

[War Peaceman]

I don't know if he said that or not, but in fairness Russia's bombing strategy is very different to ours. They have completely different geo-political objectives.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Then Labour is permanently diminished and fractured. If Labour gets rid of Corbyn, they are not leftist enough for a huge portion of their party. They already proved that with Blair, but Corbyn is the way they can turn the tide, and it's clearly what members of their party, as in, the public, actually want. If he's too leftist for them, they will clearly be considered too conservative for many.

That depends in whether he's pushed or he jumps, no? Obviously most resignations involve a bit of a shove, whether it's from the party or the electorate. But I think you're being a little unfair to the left; Corbyn is woefully bad at being a leader. He's not "trained" for it in the way a lot of politicians are (cabinet or shadow cabinet first, appearances on Telly before it matters etc). He's not their only hope (though he might have blown this opportunity for them). Blair transformed the party at least in part because he was really, really good. If he goes and the left splits, who is gonna lead them? And why can't that person lead Labour?