Dan Jarvis

He's voted for action in Syria, against IS.

But read this paragraph of his statement...




Just over a year ago the House of Commons voted overwhelmingly to support airstrikes against Isil in Iraq. We did so because of the direct threat they posed to our safety and global security. The dangers have since multiplied as Isil have strengthened their foothold in Syria. We’ve seen British holidaymakers murdered on the beaches of Tunisia, bombings in Ankara, Beirut, on a Russian airliner, the horrors in Paris, and terror alerts across the world.

 

They've been working then !!!!

 

They decided to airstrike Iraq and now the dangers have multiplied so let's airstrike Syria.

The world's ****** if a politician is backing action, despite his own statement having a paragraph in it that's at odds with his own decisions. Arse.

 

pfff I mean, what has Jarvis ever done in his career that might mean he knows a bit of what he's talking about!

 

It's not necessarily a contradiction though is it. We don't know what would have happened if we'd not undertaken that action in Iraq. Things could have been worse.

That said, I'm personally still to be convinced that more bombing is the right thing.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

 

I'm at odds with his paragraph right there, which seems at odds with his decision. I have enormous respect for Dan as a man. I've spoken with him many times. The two aren't related.

 

He's an arse and your work at Morrison's....right.

 

http://www.thenational.scot/news/na...chobox&utm_term=Autofeed#link_time=1448866961

So this bloke knows sod all then

 

Re: Its only Tuesday

Nobody has voted yet

 

just pointing out what he's done and yet people plough straight in as though he knows nothing. this is always going to be an emotive subject , and quite clearly we won't know the answer for a long time, but at least cut the bloke some slack.

 

He came out and said he was voting in favour of extending strikes into Syria a few weeks back. Personally, I agree.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...on-against-isil-syria-outweighs-case-inaction

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...tary-action-syria-david-cameron-islamic-state

His actual words on Twitter were:

I am persuaded the case for action against #ISIL in #Syria outweighs the case for inaction - my @NewStatesman piece: http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...on-against-isil-syria-outweighs-case-inaction …

https://twitter.com/DanJarvisMP/status/671742784517316609

 

I don't think bombing Syria will get rid of boko horan in nigeria or the other Islamic groups all over African, the radicalised Muslims all over the world or even IS. But it will put British at more at risk to territory attacks.

 

Do I?

 

They should have voted in favour of bombing Syria last time they voted so although it's overdue tomorrows vote is better late than never. I don't see what is wrong with what he's saying.

The threat in Syria needs action in the same way as Iraq, I just don't think airstrikes alone are enough.

 

We disagree on everything politically, pal. But that paragraph baffled me. He's saying we attacked Iraq and since then it's got worse. So now we need to attack Syria.

 

Yes we do know the answer.
Look at last time we took a moral decision to intervene on something we obviously know nothing about.
We arming Kurds who are our allies who are in turn are being bombed and slaughtered by the Turks who are our allies who are shooting down Russian planes who are our allies and we are now looking at using Assad's troops who are our enemy to kill DAISH who are our enemy.
The west has made a fek up in Syria and is still insisting it knows best.
Dan Jarvis should be feked with a cactus imo

 

I don't know Mr D Jarvis and don't care if I ever do.

Barnsley was just an easy way in to front bench political status. He'll be off once a better position comes along.

Hth

 

The way I interpret it is that the threat is growing, particularly in Syria so we have a moral obligation to join our coalition partners by extending the campaign from Iraq into Syria.

Personally I don't think airstrikes are enough, I'd prefer to see a sustained and focused ground offensive backed by airstrikes.

We don't agree politically? I can't say I'd noticed. You're a good lad though, for a lefty.

 

Syria isn't Iraq where you have dedicated ground forces, the Kurds and Iraqis fighting Daesh even then their progress hasn't been pushed back only halted. Diplomatically we haven't stopped Turkey bombing the Kurds who we are supposed to be supporting so what chance have we stopping the plethora of forces and factions fighting each other in Syria. The only force in Syria capable of taking territory from Daesh is Assad and the Russians , is Cameron going to go into an alliance with them ? Doubt it

 

I didn't realise your politics ran so deep, I think you need to be in the question time audience with such radical views, have you ever thought about a career in politics HR?