Is that a bad thing ?
I'm very, very fond of Alan Johnson. Former home secretary as well. Very fair man from what I've seen.
Isn't he a bit 'everyone's favourite uncle' though?
In Iraq we've supported a government and their military in taking back control of their country - in principle at least, not altogether successful obviously. So the destruction of IS in Iraq, or defeating them in certain locations will mean control is taken back by an entity you can deal with.
What exactly is the plan when we achieve certain objectives in Syria? If ISIS are defeated, or lose control of towns or regions, then who takes over? What is the power vacuum, who steps in? What are we bombing to achieve, destroy ISIS then just have to deal with Assad, what is the objective if ISIS are effectively destroyed - support the rebels, enter into a conflict against the Russians who support Assad? I don't feel there is a credible long term objective here, or being presented with a strategic plan of what happens if the bombing is successful.
I don't see the bombing in anyway countering the terrorist threat which can be carried out by a small cell of dangerous people.
We haven't got a plan if Assad walked out tomorrow, and if there was a plan where everyone would be safe, I am sure he would leave.
WTF ? Assed doesn't care about anything other than retaining power does he ? Or have I missed something. And what inside knowledge do you have that makes you "sure" ?
And I don't think we will be dropping Barrel Bombs.
First of all you will have to explain to me what would happen in Syria if Assad left this afternoon. What would the scenario be?
If the nutters have arrived I am off. Very interesting thread chaps.
Yep. Grew up in Notting Hill - his mother was Liverpool and married a ne'er do well who left the family home and his mother tried to keep up appearances before her early death. Social services allowed his older sister to effectively look after him from early teens. She was a hero.
A well balanced-rounded chap. Should have been Labour leader.
Quite a good speech. Lib Dem's support the government. There huge number of MP's will swing the vote
That's the rest of them wiped out at the next election
I don't understand your detailed scenario. Can you expand on this?
no he shouldn't he is a PRATT who couldn't lead a DOG
Sorry it was a bit rude. But what has a scenario that is not going to happen got to do with anything.
Best to leave it there.
But I will help you, Assad has a choice and has got to consider what would happen if he left. I would suggest that what would follow would be a mass exodus of millions of Alawate’s, Shia’s, Christian’s and other minority groups and the 120,000 army would break ranks and flee. Anyone who can't escape Syria would be slaughtered, followed by a battle between all the factions with Daesh winning and taking over. It also vital for a transition to take place with the state institutions intact.
Anyone who thinks that Syria would suddenly become a democratic secular country if Assad leaves is living on another planet and is the equivalent of cutting off ones nose to spite ones face.
If you have a different scenario I am all ears?
that's a sad indictment of the Alawites and other groups that they have no other potential leader among them. the problem with your position is that Assad is not an option either for the millions flee him and his regime in the first place. anyone that thinks supporting him will lead to a democracy or even simply a peaceful day to day existence has ignored why we are where we are.
Corbyn needs to stabilise and rebuild his party first (he's got another 18 months to solve that), and forcing those that aren't on his side to vote will only coast the party more damage. And would it be a better victory if a free vote outvoted Cameron? A big if.