pacifists/conscienti ous objectors/Jeremy Corbyn

trisher I don't agree entirely.

I think that concerted action by a united group of nations including those in the Middle East would be a better way forward, not individual nations working separately.
It's not revenge bombing, they are trying to stop the terrorists but they need to stop their source of revenue too.

Of course he has got it right.
The stupid, naive, inadequate nature of the OP as it is written is unbelievable. Firstly the phrase "conscientious objector" relates only to an individual who refuses to join a military organisation because of their beliefs.
It has nothing to do with individual actions against another person. If we are going to use language let us at least do so with some accuracy.
Responding to the present situation with some sort of revenge bombing would be counter-productive. Terrorists are made by such actions not defeated by them.

I was relieved when the vote was against intervention two years ago.
I think that events have proved that this was the right decision.

Heads in the sand never ends well.

At the moment, the greater enemy is ISIS therefore before anything else can be decided ( like who gets what) they need to be dealt with. after that, perhaps Russia and Iran ( friends of Assad) can persuade him to hold elections.Not likely that he will, and he has a lot of supporters in Syria anyway, but 'yer never know'. so yes, my enemy's enemy is my friend, sums it up well.

Have I got this right as I cannot seem to get it clear in my head:

Two years ago David Cameron lost the vote in the Commons to take military action in Syria against President Assad.

President Assad is fighting rebels in Syria, one of these groups being ISIL.

If there is another vote in the Commons for intervention in Syria against ISIL, presumably this would mean we would be on the side of President Assad, as we would be fighting for the same aim.
Or would we be duplicitous, supporting Assad to get rid of ISIL then getting rid of Assad in support of another rebel group?

If Cameron had won the original vote then would that have accelerated the rise of ISIL?

Does anyone know?
Or is it a case of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend?'


Or perhaps head-in-the-sand Corbyn has got it right.

After seeing him and other Labour MP's today on tv, am not sure how many would vote his way!

Because he is a leader.

Quite!

And as the leader of the Opposition he will have a large say in how the vote would go if they had another to decide - or not - on intervention in Syria.

Governments who are bombing your country are likely to make you a bit annoyed, maybe annoyed enough to retaliate in an 'extremist' way.

But it's the Syrian government which is bombing certain sections of Syria .....

whitewave. Did you manage to find a link please?

My thoughts too rosesarered, he's not leading a cohesive party but his own agenda.

I think he's way out of his depth and as such he's becoming a liability to the Labour Party, hence his MPs either declining to comment or openly contradicting him.

He looked a very lonely figure on the benches in Parliament today, whilst all around him in the Labour Party MP's were more or less assuring Cameron of their support.I think his days may be numbered as Labour Leader.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34844762

Interesting blog......

He has always said that

'Jeremy Corbyn says he supports any "strictly necessary force" needed to protect the UK in a terrorist attack' according to the BBC website so he's starting to change his stance!
It seems he is getting a bashing from Labour MPs who don't think he's right, so perhaps there's hope after all.

Any actions he might or might not take are hypothetical so what's the point of him pontificating.

Because he is a leader.

If you want to kill the terrorists then find another way.

You dont know of another way, and neither does anyone else it seems.

Sometimes in life, choices are between a worse, or a worser way.

At which point did I talk about appeasement. Like many you seem to lack any understanding regarding the policy of appeasement. In 1938 Britain was in no way ready to go to war. Chamberlain bought the country time to re-arm and prepare. Without that time it's highly likely that we would now be a satellite country of a NAZI led Greater Germany. The USA wouldn't have entered the war in Europe because it wouldn't have been in their interest to. Hitler would have been free to turn all his attention on Russia and his scientists would have had time to perfect the atom bomb which he would have had no hesitation of dropping on Moscow.

A lot of you are writing off JC because of the way he looks and the fact that he won't be drawn into stark declarations of revenge. Any actions he might or might not take are hypothetical so what's the point of him pontificating.

Do you really think Dave and his chums are going to keep you safe using bombing campaigns? A bomb may kill a few terrorists but how many innocents will die with them. We say that we abhor what's happening to the Yazidi slave women. Well some of those women will be in the camps and villages with the terrorists and will be killed. Kill the terrorists by all means but killing innocents is never acceptable. If you want to kill the terrorists then find another way.

VQ.....Like Neville Chamberlain did in 1938!!!

Well I didnt think they did, but if others tell me otherwise, then I would take that on board.

Don't you think IS want world domination then, soon?

I don't have "an axe to grind" regarding my sister in the slightest Eloethan . I agree that many ( but not most) public sector workers do a stressful job. Just like many private sector workers do. My point is that she was totally non political and now views JC as the hero of the hour. God help us all.

I see your point.

But in the case of IS, they are being taught a different version of the Koran.

And Germany in WW2 wanted world domination.

So that doesnt apply in these cases in my opinion.

Yeah, well. They've already done that haven't they? Or at least a neighbouring country. And others.

Monica I agree about JC. He does look like everyone's favourite uncle. Appearances can be deceptive though. He's probably a boring old, dyed-in-the-wool, extreme leftie.

Governments who are bombing your country are likely to make you a bit annoyed, maybe annoyed enough to retaliate in an 'extremist' way.

Even if that is true about the arms FarNorth, the Government and media do not make some people become radical islamists if that is the right phrase.

grabba. But it is his own words that most people object to!