[Closed] Forum House of Commons vote on air strikes in Syria - which way will you vote?

but but but

explosions in slo-mo!

Ins't it legitimate to look into DC's claims then? Even if that does mean a 'weaponry ****athon' 🙂

Hands up if you want air strikes.[img] [/img]

An improved Brimstone 2 was expected to enter service in October 2012, but problems with the new warhead from TDW[4] and the ROXEL rocket motor put back the planned date to November 2015.

From Wikipedia. So is it that Dave has these new awesomz missiles and wants to show other people how good they are?

Hands up if you want a weaponry ****athon 🙂

Ah, so it's a sales exercise, Makes sense now...

[img] [/img]

nope...regardless of whether I think its a good idea or not to drop bombs, theres enough folk already involved that our intervention would make next to no difference

Why do we as a nation always have to take the lead in getting involved, why not let others do it if it really must be done

IMO droppping bombs will only make us more of a terroist target, not that they really need an excuse. If I was the Pm i'd send out an ultimatum 'commit any terror acts on our soil and we'll join in, until then we won't'... at least that may make them think twice about attacking the uk.

Why do we as a nation always have to take the lead in getting involved

[s]Because it's our responsibility as a civilized country to show people the right way and to help those who are suffering by bombing the shit out of the bad people[/s]

Because it lets us feel like we're still part of the greatest empire in the world and important. And because we're scared of ISIS, etc and like kids in the playground, hitting back is the easiest, most obvious way to respond and make ourselves feel a bit better and prove that we're in control. For the short term at least.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/23/frankie-boyle-fallout-paris-psychopathic-autopilot ]if you’ve got a massive fight in, say, a pub car park, the best way of solving it is clearly standing well back and randomly lobbing in fireworks[/url]

Mr Boyle Nails it.

Ah, so it's a sales exercise,

They've already been used in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the vids are online, so not sure this stacks up.

They only got mentioned because people were querying whether Dave's claim of bringing something new to the party was true or not. And a guided missile with minimum collateral damage, fired under high rules of engagement is not the the same as a stack of 500lb bombs dropped from a mile high at an area target.

The strategy in Syria is to starve ISIS of funds, by in effect closing all the exits to export oil. I suspect this is where the RAF will be involved in going after trucks etc.

I do agree it would be far better if an actual strategy was outlined to the general public.

No there is only one bomb I would drop and the solution is as follows

Isis are awaiting a final reckoning with the 'armies of rome' which we should assemble for them at the designated battleground according to legend.

Then the night before the battle, we spirit them away, and nuke the entire site from orbit.

game over.

why on earth should Britain get involved, after all, it's a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing!

NO!

I don't see that further destruction and killing is the answer.
Plus, I don't understand how it will protect the UK from terrorist attacks- won't it do the opposite?

And a guided missile with minimum collateral damage

A *ing big explosion is a *ing big explosion, whatever causes it. Could you talk me through how this one causes less collateral damage?

Oh.. **** IT!! Just talk to me about weapons systems big boy!!!!

*swoons*

No
because we have no plan for tomorrow.

seperate vote.
Yes
to close the borders of the EU before the whole refugee mess unravels Europe which I think it will do if left unchecked,the right will take over if we don't.

No.

If we want to improve the situation we should stop bombing them in Iraq and use the money to spend on cyber attacks against them and investigations to close down their income streams.

why on earth should Britain get involved, after all, it's a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing!

It's more like a decision in 1943 on whether to bomb the Nazi bits of Austria when the UK is already bombing the Nazi bits of Germany (and when the U.S., France and the Soviet Union have just said they intend to bomb those bits of Nazi Austria).

I do agree it would be far better if an actual strategy was outlined to the general public.

I know. It'd be nice, wouldn't it? With withholding the strategy, the more cynical amongst us may jump to the conclusion that there isn't one.

That can't be right though, can it? We wouldn't be that stupid, would we? Again?

No

The more I search on Brimstone, the more Google throws up news on Contracts, and re-stocking, and RAF orders, and how the USAF are looking at them, and we're investigating putting them on Helicopters...and flogging them to Saudi Arabia.

It's difficult not to reach the obvious conclusion, isn't it?

Are we [i]totally[/i] sure who we should bomb this time?

Yes of course. We bomb the bad guys.

NO.

The Kaiser, Hitler, Churchill, Harris, Nixon etc all thought they could bomb their enemies into submission by destroying their morale. It never worked then and it won't work now.*

Stupid ego trip.

* The only time it can be claimed to have worked was in 1945 against Japan, but of course Japan was about to surrender anyway. The Negasaki bomb was just an ego trip to see if the bomb worked.

Absolutely not, have we not learnt anything from the 2 previous interventions.
Add to that we are skint!
Better protecting our borders here to make sure no swarthy gentlemen gain entry bearing unwanted gifts. As Dave said we are a top tier target, so lets go bomb the crap out of a country 2000 miles away!
As Terry Wogan would say 'Is it me?'

No

Out track record is abysmal and the whole situation is far more complex and confusing than the previous excursions that we royally ****ed up anyway.

It's a no from me but...If it was certain that only the shitbags got hit & neutralised, then it would be a yes.
As someone else said, we need to strengthen our security here. Stop the bastards getting in & neutralise their mates who are already here. The money would be better spent doing that.

No, because the current plan is rubbish.

(Surprised myself there)

No

it just seems like a fairly useless gesture with no long term though behind it

NO

Because a war with the west is what isis wants to fulfil some prophecy about the end of the world.

If a crazy person in the street asked you for a fight would you say yes? Of course not, you walk away because they are crazy.

No. The United States has been bombing ISIS targets in Syria for over a year, it's grossly insulting to suggest that the US, the greatest military power on earth, isn't up to the job and needs help from us.

So it's an almost unanimous "NO" here then.

Our MP's will say yes won't they...

🙄

Every prime minister wants there own war that they took part in. Blooming Churchill syndrome in'it

So it's an almost unanimous "NO" here then.

Our MP's will say yes won't they...

Yeah but this place is full of bearded cyclists, how many bearded cyclists in the House of Commons will be voting 'Yes' ?

No.

The argument that the UK can't stand by while it's allies take action is a strong one, but knee-jerk reactions to horrific events in a quest for vengeance are not a proper reason to go to war. The only justification I've heard so far is that we must be seen to be taking action, however ineffective, because otherwise we'll look like a bunch of cowardly chickens. I don't know about anyone else, but I grew out of that sort of schoolyard thinking when I was about 12.

Instead of asking if we should take ineffective token action against an ill-defined enemy, they should be asking whether we want to do whatever it takes to solve the problems in the Middle East, and that means 100s of thousands of troops, dead UK servcemen and women, billions of pounds, a probable increase in terrorist attacks here and elsewhere in the west, and sorting out the likes of Israel and Saudi Arabia.

If a crazy person in the street asked you for a fight would you say yes? Of course not, you walk away because they are crazy.

But what if he was raping some one would you intervene .

I think every country who has bombs should pitch up and drop them on Isis, that's what they are for, shame to waste them.

No.

NO.

[b]NO![/b]

There's not a [i]single[/i] morally justifiable or even just plain sensible reason to do so. It WON'T work, it WILL make the UK a bigger target for extremism (and create moar extremists) and it's just wrong. It's what ISIS WANT, FFS!!! Whilst I am not religious, are we a 'Christian country'? Does Christianity not teach that you should turn the other cheek? Talk about misrepresenting religious teachings. The whole thing is both scary and ridiculous.

But what if he was raping some one would you intervene .

Yes.

With Russia and the US pulling in the same direction there is a realistic, albeit not certain, prospect of a political settlement being secured in Syria, but only if ISIS can be driven out. 10 million people have been displaced by the Syrian civil war, trying to help them get their country back is a worthwhile endeavour.

Isis are the biggest threat to world peace since ww2, I like world peace, so think the world should unite and smack the shit out of the vicious ****s.

The worst thing that could happen is to leave them unchecked to grow further into an actual state. Oil rich, cash rich and then go on to develop WMDs with their MO.

They are a threat, but unchecked they just will become an ever bigger threat.

With Russia and the US pulling in the same direction there is a realistic, albeit not certain, prospect of a political settlement being secured in Syria, but only if ISIS can be driven out.

So how come after the British government deciding 18 months ago that ISIS was a terrorist organisation, and helping with nearly 4,000 US-led coalition air strikes in Iraq, ISIS hasn't been driven out of Iraq ?

Explain that if you would.

Indeed whenever i fear peace is threatened what I do is start a war to ensure the peace works with fights as well fear a fight might brake out then just smack someone and scream who wants some then... my only question is whether yours was intentional satire.

No for all the obvious reasons

Christ only knows how much worse this situation can get. I feel we're about to find out

The sad reality I fear is that even if the UK and other western countries show huge restraint, if IS/Daesh/whoever want a fight then they're going to get one. The question is not whether they should be fought/defeated, but how best to do it? Lobbing bombs from a distance is obviously not going to do it, and will make things worse in terms of recruiting new jihadis and increasing attacks in the west. I think deep down we all know what the ultimate solution is, but very few people, least of all politicians would support it.

Isis are the biggest threat to world peace since ww2, I like world peace

What a ridiculous comment, we haven't had world peace since WW2, and the biggest threat to world peace has been the United States. ISIS can't achieve much beyond terrorist outrages.

ISIS can't achieve much beyond terrorist outrages.

Here maybe, for now.

ISIS can't achieve much beyond terrorist outrages.

Does Christianity not teach that you should turn the other cheek?

A man hit me but I turned the other cheek, he hit me again later, but I turned the other cheek. He kept on hitting me & I pleaded with him but he wouldn't listen & again I turned the other cheek. I was defeated & he'd won.

I still don't agree with bombing the shit out of them in Syria though. As I said, higher security here & neutralise them closer to home.

They've got most western leaders dancing to the sound of their tune.

Because of a terrorist outrage which involved killing Europeans in a European city (killing non-Europeans in hot countries is much more acceptable) There's no need to talk them up.

If no one had been bombing Isis they probably would have taken Iraq by now.

A man hit me but I turned the other cheek, he hit me again later, but I turned the other cheek. He kept on hitting me & I pleaded with him but he wouldn't listen & again I turned the other cheek. I was defeated & he'd won.

You screwed up. After offering him the other cheek you should have said "now it's my turn".

if no one had bombed Iraq we probably would not have ISIS

FTFY

I have been saying bomb them for over a year because what they were doing in hot countries. And over a year ago I said they would commit exactly the atrocities that they have gone on to do in France. And I was told I was being stupid it would never happen.

Anyone who thinks leaving Isis to their own devices is the way to go and it will sort its self out are deluded.

If no one had been bombing Isis they probably would have taken Iraq by now.

So the aim of bombing ISIS is "containment"? No one has made that clear. Mefty's comment [i]"only if ISIS can be driven out"[/i] doesn't suggest that.

But perhaps you're simply moving the goalposts to suit as the debate progresses? Not the best strategy to inspire a feeling that you have a well thought out plan.

And over a year ago I said they would commit exactly the atrocities that they have gone on to do in France.

And how specifically would bombing them have prevented the Paris attacks? That's a serious question by the way.

No.

There's no plan, this is just opportunism and willy waving.

Dave wants to play with the toys, strut about and look all powerful n, that so he can flog off the NHS while the cameras are all pointed at the "terrorists"..

Cynical? moi? 🙂

And incidentally, they'd be doing exactly what ISIS want them to do.

OK it was not satire

Thanks

And how specifically would bombing them have prevented the Paris attacks? That's a serious question by the way.

I think the warmonger's logic is that had France not been bombing ISIS in Syria France would have suffered even more terrorist outrages than it has.

Does that not sound logical to you ?

We should never have left Iraq and instead have stayed until it had begun to prosper.
We should never had encouraged the civil war in Syria .
We should have squashed Isis the moment they reared their ugly head.

I think you'll find that the prime objective of George Bush, and the other oil millionaires in his administration, was to get their hands on Iraq's oil ..... not to sit there and watch it become wealthy.

It's called neocolonialism.

EDIT : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1138009.stm

[i] What makes the new Bush administration different from previous wealthy cabinets is that so many of the officials have links to the same industry - oil.

The president, vice-president, commerce secretary and national security adviser all have strong ties to the oil industry.

Vice-President Dick Cheney amassed some £50m-$60m while he was chief executive of Haliburton oil company.

Commerce Secretary Donald Evans held stock valued between $5m and $25m in Tom Brown Inc, the oil and gas exploration company he headed.

National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice was a director of Chevron.

The concentration of energy connections is so pronounced that some critics are calling the Bush government the "oil and gas administration". [/i]

I just want to be sure that it's ISIS we're killing. Got no problem with that.

I don't know where we find bombs that can make that fine discrimination.

The kill them all and let god sort them out policy is a bit unsophisticated for my liking.

You screwed up. After offering him the other cheek you should have said "now it's my turn".

Ok Ernie your'e right, I've changed my mind. Bomb the shit out of the chickenshit scumbags.

All those who believe we should not bomb Isis. Is it because you believe it will encourage them to attack Britain.
Is it because you think it's not our problem as it is not here the are murdering and raping there way across the country.
Or do you think it would be better for the people of the "hot" countries to be left in the grip of is.

I believe they are here already.
I believe it is our problem and once they had taken Iraq and Syria they would not stop And then it would be our problem in a big way.
And I don't think the people of the hot countries are best left at the mercy of is.

Seriously google image is to get a brief glimpse of life under is.

All those who believe we should not bomb Isis. Is it because you believe it will encourage them to attack Britain.

I realise that fell on deaf ears as well

I believe they are here already.

Well obviously bombing them is too late then.

Or are you suggesting bombing ISIS targets in the UK ?

If no one had been bombing Isis they probably would have taken Iraq by now.

So the aim of bombing ISIS is "containment"?

Wouldn't interdiction be a more accurate term?

Big fat no from me. Waste of money. We should all just let the russians go do what they want, we wouldn't be as effective as them any way.
Won't change a thing regarding UK bombings. They don't need a base halfway around the world to put an IED in a rucksack.

We are never going to agree, I believe is are pure evil and they need to be destroyed, wether it can be done or not you can't just leave them to it.
And I don't believe some thing should be done about them but we should leave it to someone else to do it.

We should all just let the russians go do what they want, we wouldn't be as effective as them any way.

What gives the Russians half a chance is that they are working with the Syrian government, so that if ISIS do withdraw from territory under bombardment the Syrian army can secure the ground.

The Western backed plan appears to be bomb ISIS targets in Syria and fingers crossed that our preferred Islamic terrorists move into previously ISIS held territory.

And remember it was only 18 months ago that the British government decided that ISIS was a terrorist organization - years after they had been butchering and publicly beheading people (but not threatening Iraqi oil)

chip - Member

But what if he was raping some one would you intervene

I'd blow both him and his victim up with a drone. That'll sort it out.

meh... I've actually surprised myself and am going to abstain - I could't give a flying ****..

maybe a ground war - we've got a gazillion fighting fit middle aged opinionated tosspots who have been spanking their gym memberships and doing lots of cycling and so forth.. should provide good sport for the jihadis, maybe ISIS'll relax a bit once they get the opportunity for a proper square go..

feed 'em to the lions I say

I'd blow both him and his victim up with a drone. That'll sort it out.

That's just silly!

Definitely NO. It's like trying to put out a fire by throwing petrol on it.

That's just silly!

Which presumably is why successive UK governments didn't resort to aerial bombardment of selected targets in Northern Ireland in response to terrorist activity/outrages - too much risk of collateral damage.

However it's presumably worth taking the risk of collateral damage in hot countries full of non-Europeans.

That's just silly!

your mum's just silly

My mum is far from silly. She's a mean, mean old lady. But she's my mum what can I do?

Really really surprised at the strength of the no vote on here as i fully expect the vote to be yes in Parliament.

For me, its a carefully considered no.

We are on the precipice of war. The whole of Syria and surrounding region is a tinderbox of which IS forms only one part. The Russians and Americans are on opposite sides when it comes to Assad and the government / rebel forces. Turkey is in NATO and has its own grievances. Then there is the religious grievances of the various muslim factions.

Its a hell of a mess and i really cant see a way of sorting it. I just dont think dropping a few indiscriminate bombs will do any good at all.

I think every country who has bombs should pitch up and drop them on Isis, that's what they are for, shame to waste them.

they played the whole of Cameron's speech to Commons on Radio 4's "PM" earlier. I actually thought it was pretty balanced - it certainly wasn't "warmongering" and he echoed many of the views already expressed on this thread.

Personally I'd vote "maybe". There seems to be a pretty good logic to using air strikes to degrade ISIL's supply of military hardware (US hardware left behind when Iraqi forces fled) and also taking out ISIL's fleet of 500 or so oil tankers that they are using to secure £1/2 Bn a year from oil sales.

Anyone remember when Assad was the bad guy? Will we bomb him next once we're finished with ISIS?

Yes. I love explosions and am happy when the UK is doing well financially, selling weapons is big business and a few of my friends work at BAE, so drinks on them. Also even though isis have proven to use human shields at every opportunity bombs are so sophisticated these days that hardly anyone dies that isn't a terrorist. As well as that it's a 100% proven fact that you can use bombs and guns to kill an idea and it will in no way reinforce the claims isis are making about the west and add to their support.

So what do you suggest is to be done about IS.