You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
You are the MP for whichever UK constituency you live in. Your party has allowed a conscience vote and so you should vote in whichever way you think is best for your constituents and for the country.
The motion before you is [b]"should the UK extend its military campaign against ISIL to include air strikes against targets in Syria"[/b]?
What is your vote?
Thread rules and assumptions:
- 1 vote per poster.
- all MPs are assumed to have read the Commons Select Foreign Affairs Committee report: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmfaff/457/45702.htm
- all MPs are assumed to have heard today's debate: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/commons/todays-commons-debates/read/unknown/185/
- The only options are to vote yes, no or to abstain.
- Whichever option receives the most votes will be the UK's policy.
- Votes will be counted as of 0900 on 27 Nov 2015.
No
Because we have no plan what to do afterwards, and we've f***** that up at least 3 times in recent history.
I would suppourt them if there was a believable roadmap for what happens afterwards.
No. Let the Russians sort it out.
[b]No.[/b]
ISIL as a cohesive military force is about to be destroyed by Russia, France, the US and probably other powers. That story is already written.
If the UK has any role to play, it is in assisting the civilian population of Syria in the immediate aftermath of the firestorm. This will help stabilise Syria, stem the forced exit of Syrians from where they live, and reduce the likelihood that Syria is a governance-free zone in which hirsute lunatics can run rampant.
This might involve co-operating with a transitional Syrian government, significant cost and the risk of British military lives. It will not involve many fancy pew pew pew explodey videos of missiles hitting Hiluxes. But I think we will achieve more in the long term by spending money on unglamorous post-conflict stabilisation than by shovelling millions of pounds to the military-industrial complex so it blows up shit that other countries have already decided to destroy.
Yeah, why not? Neeeeeooooooowwwwww DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA, take that fritz
No - Syria is a Russian client state it's up to them we'd be better off NOT# selling weapons to Turkey and Saudia Arabia who will then flog them off to various rebel groups incl' IS/Daesh
#but poor tories are unhappy tories.
Send in the bombers, then once you've done that go and sort all the other messes out which aren't currently in the news.
My elected representative recently tabled a private members bill to bring back hanging, voted against gay marriage, and recently made us all proud by filibustering a bill to give free parking to carers. He's rabidly anti EU, and is listed as one of the top 5 MP's likely to defect to UKIP.
I'm at a loss to imagine how he'll vote on bombing the shit out of a load of godless brown people.
Personally I'd vote for it if there were anything even remotely resembling a strategy, or a plan for what to do other than drop some bombs, and hope for the best
I can't see anything remotely resembling that. So on past record, it'll inevitably just make things worse. So for that reason.. I'm out!
No. Let someone else spend money on it - we're skint remember.
No. Neit. Nein.
thisisnotaspoon - Member
NoBecause we have no plan what to do afterwards, and we've f***** that up at least 3 times in recent history.
I would support them if there was a believable roadmap for what happens afterwards.
agree completely
with no idea who will replace IS with, itll just lead to more of the same
even assuming we could actually defeat them by dropping bombs on a guerrila army hiding amongst civillians, were not Israel ffs!
we'll only end up provoking attacks in london
Yes. Whats the other option? Diplomatic talks with them?
There's enough people bombing the shit out of people over there whether they're ISIS or not. Not sure what the RAF will bring to the table.
Oh, and go and do the same with Boko Haram and Somali pirates on the way home.
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
Yep, Putin got this covered... he's going in solo, taps aff
Also read an interesting article (forget where) that claimed Turkey were turning a blind eye to ISIS activity & profiting from their half-inched oil reserves along with attacking Kurdish militants in the area who were fighting against ISIS or something...
No.
Russia bombed them.....I don't think they've surrendered yet.
No.
Simplistically put, dropping bombs on "them" will only make more of "them" and "they" will doubtless turn their attention to the UK, if it's not already on us. It needs a better solution - and I have no idea what that might be - than simply shooting and bombing indiscriminately
No
On the basis I can't help thinking this is just what ISIS (or their backers) want.
And anyway, even if you do manage to obliterated them ... and not sure it would, they seem still to have a good hold of a fair part of Iraq (in my limited knowledge).... an off shoot will spring up else where.
No.
Let some other ****er sort it out. When will we learn that we're not responsible for everything throughout the world.
No one will thank us and most will blame us.
(Message to all MPs: if you want your vote to count, you need to put "yes", "no" or "abstain" somewhere obvious, preferably the first word of your post!)
john_drummer - MemberNo.
Simplistically put, dropping bombs on "them" will only make more of "them" and "they" will doubtless turn their attention to the UK, if it's not already on us. It needs a better solution - and I have no idea what that might be - than simply shooting and bombing indiscriminately
No.
I share John_Drummer's rationale on this
No,
based on our track record of not sorting things out after we've done the "easy" bit.
Also TOO many planes with missiles and bombs occupying the same airspace, we don't need to add anymore.
No.
Dropping bombs on a non-military force means significant collateral damage - or to put it another way, killing or injuring normal people. That leads to more people who will be the next ISIS.
So bombing maybe slows down or restricts the issue a little now but it's really just offsetting it by 10 or so years at which point it'll be even worse - see Iraq wars 1 and 2, Afghanistan, etc.
Not to mention that there's far from a clear view internationally (including Russia here) on who we should actually be bombing and I see perfect circumstances for misunderstandings/etc as has already happened between Turkey and Russia.
No
Stopping their funding might be a better way to go, not sure how you'd go about that though... 😕
Another no
We should stop being part of the world police and have a nice cup of tea instead
Yes.
But only in that its the least useless option of the three.
No
If we are going to kill people, let's identify them before killing them, not randomly kill people who happen to be in the vicinity.
If we really need to interfere in a fight in another country's sovereign territory, let's declare war, and put troops on the ground (preferably all the bloodthirsty internet warriors who won't mind dying for the cause).
No
Sick and ashamed of the mess we create by thinking we have the right to bomb people in foreign countries
No, I can't see what the long term plan that bombing helps to work towards is and I can't see that our bombing is necessary in addition to those already doing it.
no
No, also because
I can't see what the long term plan that bombing helps to work towards is.
[b]NO[/b]
The case for, as far as I can make out according to the PM this morning made primarily of the following.
1. we bomb them in Iraq, it makes no sense to stop at a border they don't recognize.
2. It will strengthen our collaboration with our NATO allies.
3. It will help prevent attacks here.
The case isn't strong enough. There have been over 5000 missions flown by coalition aircraft and they've made little or no difference so far I can't see how 8 more aircraft will change that.
If it's just to make sure we cosy up to the US to show support, that's a poor reason to bomb a country
And finally, clearly it hasn't stopped so far, attacks by radicalised terrorists on our soil, and I can't see how it will, and there seems a good case that it will in fact strengthen their resolve to attack us even more.
No.
mostly because chucking explosives around is a bad idea in principle.
also, recent history suggests it'll make a bad situation much, much, worse.
show me a pragmatic argument that reasonably links our involvement to a better happier world, and i'll change my mind.
while i wait, No.
(now, where's my £70k per year plus expenses?)
No.
What does it gain, especially in the long term?
I'm abstaining, for now.
We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.
I can't see how diplomacy or "un-radicalisation" would work in the short to mid term and I don't believe carpet bombing built up areas is a good thing. Any other options that isn't a field invasion?
No
1 - Recent on line reports suggested that IS was more angry about the EU countries taking in more refugees than any plans to bomb them (IS).
2 - Frankie makes sense [url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/20/britain-clings-bombing-addiction-weary-rationale-junkie-frankie-boyle ]#1 [/url] and [url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/23/frankie-boyle-fallout-paris-psychopathic-autopilot ]# 2[/url] read on.
senor j - MemberWe're ... damned if we don't.
how's that?
You really would hope that given the recent disastrous history of our interference in the region, we'd be a little bit smarter, more thoughtful, maybe more hesitant about going in all guns blazing.
Apparently not
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it
Christ only knows how much worse this situation can get. I feel we're about to find out
[the PM said this morning that bombing would...]
...strengthen our collaboration with our NATO allies.
They should do one of those team building days where you try to build a raft out of plastic barrels in the morning, go on a treasure hunt in the afternoon and then have a curry in the evening.
Maybe because we'll be seen to be weak to our major allies (Les Francais and the Americans) and our not so allies (Russia). Unfortunately I think we will still be a target for IS attacks globally just because of our association with our allies.
Personally, I think [b]NO[/b] because I would not want to see a repeat of Afghanistan. I do not think we have a long term strategy for Syria and IS short of "let's bomb them' and the same thing worked really poorly further east. I also think the current political leadership has not learnt that lesson.
Having to moral courage to go with the will of the people if they say they do not want to bomb another country will be a big challenge for the UK.
I note that Dave's claimed that the RAF have some capabilities that are needed that presumably no one else has. Anyone have any idea what that could be as I can't think of it.
Not sure what the RAF will bring to the table.
Ability to use fast jets to hit small moving targets with minimum collateral. Better than the other options available to other contries.
I note that Dave's claimed that the RAF have some capabilities that are needed that presumably no one else has. Anyone have any idea what that could be as I can't think of it.
My understanding is that it's something to do with Jaffa Cakes.
But the Frenchies have Pims
[img] 
[/img]
Ability to use fast jets to hit small moving targets with minimum collateral. Better than the other options available to other contries.
I'd forgotten that the UK was the only country with an air force.
[img] 
?w=940&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=0b0378898cc15ca193c0e80d41092c41[/img]
No.
Ability to use fast jets to hit small moving targets with minimum collateral. Better than the other options available to other contries.
Specifically? As above, I'm not aware of any capability for that that others don't have.
Now if that was true, it would be a fair point but is it?
I assume one thing he is talking about the [url=
Missile[/url]
It seems like, just as with Iraq, when they vote yes (because they overwhelmingly will), our elected representatives will once again be solidly reflecting the will of their constituents, who are all itching to get stuck in
Senior J - you ask for alternatives.. How about instead of spending money on jets and bombs etc , we spend it on internal security? That way we ramp up our own protection and don't harm innocent people or potentially make the situation worse...I'm no expert though so just a personal opinion...
No.
I'm not unequivocally against it - I can imagine circumstances when it might be the best option but it's far from clear that's the case at the moment. In fact I'm not convinced that even the Gov't really know what they hope to achieve by it, it seems more like a knee-jerk reaction and the (apparent) need to be seen to be doing something about/against IS.
Also this:
There's enough people bombing the shit out of people over there whether they're ISIS or not.
I assume one thing he is talking about the Brimstone Missile
Yep, no one else has any air launched ground attack missiles.
How much does it cost to get a plane in the air and drop a bomb?
If I was Jeremy Corbyn I'd be offering full support, with one caveat:
The Govt. get 1 year, and if ISIL hasn't been destroyed utterly on the ground in Syria and it's capability to spread violent jihad else where in the world severely derailed, then Cameron resigns.
I mean if Cameron believes that air strikes will make such a difference it's a risk he'd be willing to take, right?
That sounds fine if you're in the playground. I don't think that even DC has claimed that this will fix things in a year.
What does it gain, especially in the long term?
Oil? The Tories are best buds with the O&G sector.
I vote No.
Based on past experience bombing the shit out of middle eastern countries seems to have actually been a contributing factor to extremism, so doing more of it seems to be a bit bloody stupid.
But on the other hand everyone likes a good war, it keeps the plebs occupied whilst the government screw them over.
No!
I don't see how flattening more of their country helps the Syrians. Killing more innocents (bombs are not able to discriminate no matter what the powers that be tell us) is only going to add fuel to a fire we have already stoked enough.
Perhaps if we hadn't set about arming the FSA,Iraqi army, Anti Gaddafi Libyans etc... then Daesh or IS or whoever they call themselves would not be in the position they are now.
no one else has any air launched ground attack missiles.
Of course they do, but not with the equivalent capability.
No.
Cameron talks about the Kurds and FSA providing ground troops without mentioning that they are being bombed, and therefore hampered, by the Turks and Russians.
We should not commit any more resources until all participants have a common goal and well thought out, realistic plan to follow.
This is just a knee jerk reaction to the Paris attacks.
Zippykona: Sky News back of the enveloped £1,000,000 per two-plane mission: http://news.sky.com/story/1342768/how-much-will-airstrikes-on-is-cost-taxpayer
Obviously it can cost a bit more than that to rebuild what was hit by the bomb.
Of course they do, but not with the equivalent capability.
What capability, specifically, do we have that the US, Russia, France etc don't?
That sounds fine if you're in the playground. I don't think that even DC has claimed that this will fix things in a year.
Yep, it is playground stuff isn't it?
The point isn't really the time-scale, the point is that Cameron wouldn't put his career on the success (or otherwise) of a bombing campaign in Syria, I mean the very idea is ridiculous isn't it? And yet here we are discussing the idea that we're about to throw bombs at a country for far from satisfactory reasons, which, apparently, isn't ridiculous
mcj78, was this the article you were thinking of?
senor j - MemberWe're ... damned if we don't.
how's that?
Either way ,alot of people get hurt...
@Edenvalley boy. i tend to agree with you tbh.
So I looked into Brimstone (via Wikipedia, natch 😉 ) and found this
In September 2014, Tornado GR4 strike aircraft of No. 2 Squadron RAF began flying armed sorties over Iraq in support of Operation Shader, the UK's contribution to the US-led Military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. On September 30, the aircraft made their first airstrikes, engaging a heavy artillery position with a Paveway IV laser-guided bomb and an armed pickup truck with a Brimstone air-to-ground missile.[40] [b]Brimstone is the preferred weapon for these kinds of targets because it is the only air-launched low-fragmentation fire-and-forget weapon that is effective against moving targets that the allied inventory possesses[/b].[41]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brimstone_(missile)
which does suggest some merit to the point.
My question then is how critical is that capability to the general operation.
And I still vote No.
What could possibly go wrong?
[img] 
[/img]
[b]No[/b]
Bombing won't help the civilians, there is already a "lost generation", bombing will just add to the refugee crisis. As has been discovered in Iraq ISIS build tunnels under the towns giving them shelter and free access around the area effectively using the population as human shields.
And also what nickc says.
No. There are enough explosions in Syria already. Better to cut off funding to ISIS and to work hard through diplomatic channels particularly to influence Saudi Arabia
Better to cut off funding to ISIS
But that would mean having awkward conversations with the Saudis and we wouldn't want that now would we.
No
As mentioned there are enough people flying around bombing things as it is.
Why not take a different tack and concentrate on humanitarian avenues instead, maybe show the world that as a nation we don't think all Muslims are terrorists and vice versa (in an ideal world of course. I'm not sure how this would be best achieved right now)
Can we talk about specific weaponry a bit more.
Its massively sexy when middle aged fat blokes who work in IT start getting all frothy about explodey things
No. Utterly deranged.
The action of extremists who believe that bombing, invading and killing is the best way to spread 'British values'.
Ready yourself, binners...
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34930502
So, can British forces make a difference?The PM argues that the particular capabilities of the RAF - the Raptor reconnaissance pods on its Tornado aircraft and their ability to deliver small but highly accurate Brimstone missiles - provide something that others don't have.
That, he says, is one of the reasons why Washington and Paris want the UK engaged. The RAF's equipment is well-suited to so-called dynamic targeting - i.e. where an aircraft overflies a selected area, locating targets for itself and then engaging them.The PM argues that the RAF's Tornado aircraft gives the UK an added capability
This particular "niche" capability is one that even the Americans don't have and combined with the Raptor pod, which is responsible for some 60% of the tactical intelligence gained over Iraq, it is a useful additional tool to have in the airpower toolkit.
However, there are only eight RAF Tornados currently based in Cyprus.
While there is talk that if strike operations are extended to Syria, a small number of additional jets may be deployed, Britain's air contribution remains relatively small, though nonetheless significant.
Oooh, Raptor! I've got all frothy now...
So in summary, it sounds like it'd help a bit but because it's only 8(ish) planes, it wouldn't really help all that much.
[i]Around £10 million of Brimstones from the RAF stock were sold to the Royal Saudi Air Force for use on their Tornados.[/i]
ah....
No, absolutely not.
Firstly because I'm not sure it will help and I like to be sure before I bomb people.
Second because I'm not even sure we know who we're bombing. ISIS are a very messy bunch and Syria is a very messy place. Hitting the right people will undoubtedly be a challenge, and that's assuming we know who the "right" people are.
Thirdly because, being selfish here, I think air strikes will lead to more terrorism in the UK and I simply don't want that.
Me and Corbyn share few political views but this is one of the few.
Its massively sexy when middle aged fat blokes who work in IT start getting all frothy about explodey things
😀
Glad I'm not the only person that finds the regular weaponry ****athons a bit strange.
NO.
Violence isn't the answer to this. If you cut the revenue and funding streams to Daesh then they will implode. This isn't our fight. The money spent on bombs and arms could be used to send humanitarian aid or house refugees. I'm so sick of military action being the first port of call globally.
Glad I'm not the only person that finds the regular weaponry ****athons a bit strange.
nope, not just you.