Search results

Perhaps not. However, the point of this thread is to try and discredit him because he’s waiting for evidence before possibly starting a war. I have merely suggested that Corbyn’s approach of wanting to wait for evidence is a good thing. And, as the Iraq war proved, rushing in because the U.S...

You really are going to great lengths to try and mention Labour aren’t you? I assume you’re desperately trying to imply that because it was a Labour government that lead us in to Iraq that is some how discredits Corbyn’s evidence based approach, which was the same back then as it is now.

Did I say it was the Tories fault? No. I said it was backed by the Tories after you correctly pointed out it was Labour that lead us to war. What you failed to point out though, totally accidentally I’m sure, is that it was strongly opposed by Corbyn. And Blair a socialist? :lolol:

Backed by the Tories, which JC strongly opposed.

What, where he wanted absolute evidence before condemning anyone? Seems like he’s going for a pretty consistent approach to me.

Yeah, because rushing in to war with no evidence has never had consequences before has it? It definitely hasn’t increased the likelihood of a terrorist attack in the country. Oh... wait...

Once again Jeremy Corbyn's calm, composed and Prime Ministerial response to a deepening crisis is attacked by the establishment; his pleas for evidence, certainty and diplomacy are lambasted as unpatriotic or cowardly by the media. History will prove him right. Again.