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

I'd just like to say I haven't read any of the above.

But in reaction the the news I just heard that states we may be bombing syria by the end of the week, why bring any more trouble to our shores than there already is? Against.

If our MPs are so in favour I am sure all will be allowed a free vote not an anti democratic whipped vote and i am puzzled why Cameron was so desperate to ensure that the pro bombing labour MPs were free to vote in favour as he holds a majority.

No is my vote, they already have enough martyrs for their cause why give them more. I was close to voting yes but I remember Russia in afghanistan, over 2 decades of fighting!!!

Oh for the love of God/Allah [b]HOW THE * DID WE END UP TALKING ABOUT LEON *ING BRITTAIN AGAIN?!!!
[/b]
JHJ - do me a favour will you...? In fact... do us all one...

Just * off with your ridiculous Jimmy Saville/Westminster conspiracy theories. Because we're all absolutely sick of *ing hearing it!!!! Change the ****ing record FFS!!!!!

Back on topic.....

[img] ?oh=d3812129c38c51b6f730704600227bf7&oe=56F041EF&__gda__=1458383577_f7e9ff6cce764afb781c631d579df77e[/img]

Though I'm sure its all now done and dusted already, and our elected representatives are staggering yet again towards another pointless, costly, futile and ultimately counter-productive military quagmire that we'll still be stuck in another 15 years from now, wondering how we never thought through all the subsequent consequences before blundering in (AGAIN!)

We cant afford it, remember we are skint billions in debt amd cant afford to look after our own country but will our so called representitives see sense getting us into another expensive futile war, will they heck as.

rone - Member

Victims of terrorism W.Europe and percieved threat with 1970-2015 chart.

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/8670458?ncid=fcbklnkukhpmg00000001

Appears to me terrorism works.

I think the intrinsic issue with present terrorism is the homogeneous nature which , in itself is worrying as it indicates (possibly) greater organisation and motivation, but also a widespread issue that is not being confronted. The latter being, at its crux, the severe disconnect between many immigrant communities and their hosts.

binners

our elected representatives are staggering yet again towards another pointless, costly, futile and ultimately counter-productive military quagmire that we'll still be stuck in another 15 years from now....

I'm not so sure anymore. Jambalaya has changed my mind on this. Let's see if I can get my facts straight......

Ok, so we already have the bombs, and they were expensive to develop, and they go stale if we don't use them, which would mean we'd have to throw them out and replace them with fresh bombs. Also, it's important to see what these bombs will do when dropped on a goat farmer in a hilux, so these tests are important. Also, there's some sort of loyalty programme or return customer discount available so if Britain needs to buy more bombs they'll be cheaper than the first batch, so we're actually saving money.

And since the money to fund this is all coming from a special pot of rich people's taxes it doesn't actually effect the public purse since their tax is specially allocated to pay for the bombs they sell. Right?

And then when you consider that the fighter jets and the pilots and bombs and the fuel and support staff are already over there just pissing about and it'll cost more money to bring that stuff home there really is no argument for not bombing anyone. It's simple logic.

Binners, calm yourself, I'm sick of hearing about war mongers profiting from plundering the planet and it's people for profit, but I don't get hostile because it is a real situation that needs discussing to find solutions, rather like the other issues I discuss, which all too often, involves the very same people.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely etc...

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Well, the headline in this morning's Metro - which I happened to see on a Tube seat - is "Corbyn's Free Vote Leaves UK On Brink Of War".

So it's all Jezza's fault after all.

Nice quote, but you've wrongly attributed it....

[img] [/img]

What's that rotter done to the lovely Debbie McGee?

Hmm, best not go there...

Chapeau @jimjam

I am firmly of the view that "do nothing" was not an option and Corbyn's diplomacy suggestions are worthless. Without air strikes in Iraq IS would be in Baghdad. The air campaign to date has stopped their advances and pushed them back. The intensified campaign will further degrade them and allow ground forces to eradicate them as an organised force.

There will be substantial casualties and we will see further terrorist attacks on us. The battle against IS is going to be long and very bloody.

The intensified campaign will further degrade them and allow ground forces to eradicate them as an organised force.

[b]bombs dont kill ideas[/b]

No one credible really thinks us joining in signals the end for ISIS

Pterrorism does not have a homogeneous nature it is just lazy reporting that lumps disparate groups of terrorists who share a religion albeit in a very twisted form as one overarching group.
Imagine how big Christian terrorists as a group would be if every self professed Christian killer from the Basque separatists through IRA,Irish Protestant , Lords Resistance Army,The Anti Abortion murderers , Anders Biervik Timothy Mcveigh etc ad infinitum was lumped into one.

The air campaign to date has stopped their advances and pushed them back. The intensified campaign will further degrade them and allow ground forces to eradicate them as an organised force.

Jammers - Is there even the remotest shred of verifiable independent evidence that that's the case? I know thats what 'they' would like to have us believe, but I think we need a bit more than that thanks.

You not getting that feeling that you've heard it all before? Deja vu...

Frankly 'they' told us that was the case with the Taliban in Afghanistan for 12 years. That'll be the same Afghanistan thats still now under the control of the Taliban. Same as it was then.

And Iraq?

Same old, same old....

Did you know that the word gullible isn't actually in the dictionary?

jambalaya

There will be substantial casualties and we will see further terrorist attacks on us. The battle against IS is going to be long and very bloody.

It needn't be though. Not long term anyway. There has to be a political, cultural and economic strategy.

[i]@br the top 1% pay 27% of the taxes so let's assume it's the rich that are paying for all this military stuff.[/i]

Ok, so it's MY money, rather than just your average UK taxpayers money.

I'm definitely against them spending MY money on this foolhardiness.

Why haven't the MP's asked us, the electorate, what we think? I would be happier whether I agreed with the House of Commons vote or not, if I had had the chance to vote which way my MP should vote 😥

I am firmly of the view that "do nothing" was not an option and Corbyn's diplomacy suggestions are worthless.

2) air strikes on Syria are a diplomatic initiative, not a military one. There is sod all difference in practical terms between the UK sending half a dozen planes when the U.S., Russia, Syria and France are already banging away at IS. One of your consistent arguments in favour has been that our allies (unsure if you're including Russia and Syria here) would be bemused if we didn't.

1) just because "do nothing" is not an option, it doesn't mean "do this thing" is the only option. Everything looks like a nail when all you have is a hammer...and various other pithy turns of phrase.

Why haven't the MP's asked us, the electorate, what we think?

U.S., Russia, Syria and France are already banging away at IS.

Apparently not..there were 7 strikes last week on IS (a truck and one bloke walking through a field) all carried out by the US, they don't have anything to drop bombs on.

[b]NO,[/b] let Saudi/Iran kill their own kids, keep ours here.

Question for me given the overwhelming No's on here, why are out MP's almost certainly in favour?

[quote=votchy said]Why haven't the MP's asked us, the electorate, what we think? I would be happier whether I agreed with the House of Commons vote or not, if I had had the chance to vote which way my MP should vote

The pollsters have and the results show public support for the strikes.

You are allowed to contact your MP to express your views, they might even listen to you 🙂

Question for me given the overwhelming No's on here, why are out MP's almost certainly in favour?

We hear over and over "do nothing was not an option". Well why don't we all dress up as Wizbit and have a foam party in Trafalgar Square? How will that help? Well we can't do nothing. OK can't argue with that, unleash the foam cannons. People seem not to want to argue [i]for[/i] what's proposed. Cameron's entire comment on the long term strategy is "there is a long term strategy". What is it? Who knows but it is. Trust us.

allthepies - Member

The pollsters have and the results show public support for the strikes.

Some have. The Survation poll showed a minority support the strikes (the largest minority, but still). ORB's shows a majority but discounted all "don't knows" and don't seem to report the numbers- so no way to know if it's a true majority.

Is there a similar to poll to this on other websites you visit?
What's the consensus on there?

So Fallon was asked today if air strikes in Syria would reduce the ISIS threat to the UK. His reply was that the UK was already under threat. Which is a fairly circular argument for action.

Does anyone have any doubt ISIS will attack the UK again? Does anyone believe airstrikes will prevent another attack?

So Fallon was asked today if air strikes in Syria would reduce the ISIS threat to the UK. His reply was that the UK was already under threat. Which is a fairly circular argument for action.

As Big_n_daft pointed out on the other thread, we're already bombing them, the only question is whether we bomb them on both sides of an imaginary line in the sand that they don't recognise, or just one.

Does anyone believe airstrikes will prevent another attack?

Nope not a chance. Unles of course they are planning to drop bombs on the homes of all the radicals that live in the UK already. I struggle to see why over half of our elected politicians are so stupid they can't see this.

I'm far from a peace loving lefty, but a vote to start dropping bombs would be a token gesture, and pure madness IMO

Survation's poll suggested that most people believe that attacking Syria will make us less safe, not safer. That's probably realistic IMO- terror attacks like Paris don't need IS to have an extant state, terrorism can and certainly will survive in the cracks no matter how hard we bomb them and it's not like they're not dependent on manpower from the middle east- they can (and did) use home-growns.

But, it's interesting I think because it means people aren't just saying "Let's bomb them" out of misplaced self-interest- this is people saying "Yes it'll make us less safe, but we think it's the right thing to do". I reckon that's a lot more adult than arguments in the past.

Though there's still a lot of "it's for our security" in the debate, which I suppose is inevitable. I think it's pish personally but, hey. It's not the only argument for doing this.

You are allowed to contact your MP to express your views, they might even listen to you

Tried it last time, she (Tory) did engage but in the end went with Cameron.

Sadly, vote looks like a shoe-in this time

Unles of course they are planning to drop bombs on the homes of all the radicals that live in the UK already. I struggle to see why over half of our elected politicians are so stupid they can't see this.

They are not stupid. This is a political stunt.

It is extremely useful to those in power to have a perceived threat with which they can cause fear and insecurity among the population.

It is also extremely useful to those in power to then reassure the population that they are dealing with the situation very effectively and that ordinary citizens only need to put their faith and trust in them.

Offering highly simplistic knee-jerk solutions to extremely complex problems, especially when it involves an element of revenge, is politically very effective.

I struggle to see why nearly half of our electorate are so stupid they can't see this.

Not just on here, the *quite* right wing Pistonheads is overwhelmingly anti extending our operations into Syria.

A totally ineffective opposition is allowing CMD to steam roller this through for purely further political gain.

Alex Salmond asked a very good question the other day regarding bombing Syria: What effect will 11 countries bombing Syria have that 10 doesn't?

its the first double figure prime number and therefore it will make all foes tremble and lose

[img] [/img]

Not just on here, the *quite* right wing Pistonheads is overwhelmingly anti extending our operations into Syria.

That's not in the least surprising imo. When people start to engage in debate and think things through they tend to reject simplistic unthought-out solutions.

As Big_n_daft pointed out on the other thread, we're already bombing them, the only question is whether we bomb them on both sides of an imaginary line in the sand that they don't recognise, or just one.

Sounds a bit pointless to bother suggesting it then.

I heard Cameron on the telly this morning claim that bombing ISIS in Syria was important because that was where their headquarters was.

He didn't explain why the US and the French hadn't bombed ISIS's headquarters in Syria though.

I heard on the radio yesterday that the French are launching 7 sorties a day in syria To the Russians 160+ sorties a day.
The reason being the French have no one on the ground calling in the strikes, where as the Russians are working in conjunction with assads forces on the ground who are requesting 600-800 air strikes a day.

Also the French have been clinical with there choice of targets and bombing with no civilian collateral damage where as the Russians are blowing up civilians a plenty.

ernie_lynch

He didn't explain why the US and the French hadn't bombed ISIS's headquarters in Syria though.

They're just saving a bit of glory for Dave.

Because the Americans only bomb weddings, funerals and British AFV's, while the French have probably already surrendered - obviously.

Also the French have been clinical with there choice of targets and bombing with no civilian collateral damage

Yes of course, their bombs only kill bad people.

Which brings us to an important point - with the US involved in bombing it's double important not to put British boots on the ground.

It's an interesting point about people on the ground, you have to wonder if the real reason they want the RAF involved is that British Special Forces would be on the ground calling in strikes. We know they do in Iraq, probably did in Libya and have done in Syria while embedded with the US / Canadian forces.

He didn't explain why the US and the French hadn't bombed ISIS's headquarters in Syria though.

Is this not where the "special bombs" argument comes in?

We've got special bombs which we won't give to our American and French friends?

That sounds a little mean.

Yes of course, their bombs only kill bad people.

No you only target the bad people.

Its pretty obvious that any bombing campaign will involve "collateral" damage and will lead to innocent lives

the best we can do is argue about the extent

We've got special bombs which we won't give to our American and French friends?

You don't just fit a new weapon to a plane by strapping it to the outside, it will need integrating with the avionics, testing etc. etc. However, you'll be pleased to know the Saudi's are the only other country with them currently.

No you only target the bad people.

The Russians are targeting good people???!!!

Bastards.

Its pretty obvious that any bombing campaign will involve "collateral" damage and will lead to innocent lives [being lost]

But so will not bombing.

You don't just fit a new weapon to a plane by strapping it to the outside, it will need integrating with the avionics, testing etc. etc.

I am of course aware of that - our American friends don't just lease us nuclear warheads (which I would class as Very special bombs), we get the whole kit including servicing and a technical inquires contract.

Which makes our meanness with regards to our special bombs even more unacceptable imo.

But so will not bombing.

Why haven't the intelligence services identified who funds, arms and trades with ISIS? Who deals with their finances?

Surely this would be key to cutting off their supply chain and degrading their capabilities.

Which makes our meanness with regards to our special bombs even more unacceptable imo.

If everyone had special bombs, there would be no reason for us to join in on a jolly rollicking war, what!!

Keeps the shareholders happy too, doncha know

Why haven't the intelligence services identified who funds, arms and trades with ISIS? Who deals with their finances?

Surely this would be key to cutting off their supply chain and degrading their capabilities.

What makes you think that this is an either/or scenario?

I say we do both.

The Russians are targeting good people???!!!
Bastards.

No, the Russians are bombing targets requested by assads forces who we know not causing collateral damage to and killing the civilian population is high on their priority list, not.

Where as the French are using there own intelligence and do care about accidentally or other wise targeting civilians.

What makes you think that this is an either/or scenario?

Unlike the blanket coverage regarding airstrikes, I can't recall any significant debate or media coverage regarding ISIS's supply chain...

and they are infallible dont forget that bit

and they are infallible dont forget that bit

No they are not, but they are not going in gung Ho randomly dropping as many bombs as possible for the sake of dropping bombs.

In Iraq it is not uncommon for our bombers to come back complete with all there bombs due to no legitimate targets.
Were determined.

ah its skill that means they dont kill any civilians yes that will be it skill and self restraint 😕

I dont know why you are posting this shite tbh and whilst I can accept they try not to any bombing campaign will have collateral damage, its not even debatable, and to argue otherwise is foolish as you so persistently demonstrate.

That said your [blind]faith in their brilliance is touching.

Where as the French are using there own intelligence and do care about accidentally or other wise targeting civilians.

Not according to the French.

According to the French they are sharing intelligence and targets with the Russians.

[url= http://news.sky.com/story/1588894/russia-and-france-to-join-forces-against-is ]Russia And France To Join Forces Against IS[/url]

[i]Russian President Vladimir Putin has agreed to set up a joint military operation with France to combat Islamic State.[/i]

[url= http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/france-russia-exchange-intelligence-syria-bombing-campaigns-n470116 ]France's Hollande, Russia's Putin Agree to Closer Anti-ISIS Collaboration[/url]

[i]French President Francois Hollande and Russia's Vladimir Putin agreed to share intelligence information and cooperate on selecting targets in the fight against ISIS, raising hope for closer ties between Moscow and the U.S.-led anti-ISIS coalition following the Paris terror attacks[/i]

you really are a bit special.:D

Very interesting that the Foreign Affairs Select Committee itself does not support Syria airstrikes, they've voted against it.

Unlike the blanket coverage regarding airstrikes, I can't recall any significant debate or media coverage regarding ISIS's supply chain...

Perhaps that's because it doesn't require a parliamentary vote? (Well, technically neither do airstrikes, although it has become an accepted convention)

You appear to have fallen into the logical fallacy that a lack of debate or media coverage means we're not doing it - sometimes these things take place in the shadows, things that the politicians and media don't (or can't) discuss for very good reasons (shock, horror)

Very interesting that the Foreign Affairs Select Committee itself does not support Syria airstrikes, they've voted against it.

What is their reasoning behind that decision?

you tube links and the queen told them to do this 😉

I was thinking more along the lines of increasing radicalization through collateral damage, escalation of engagement and exacerbating the refugee crisis...

Could they be likely factors?

They concluded...

We consider that the focus on the extension of airstrikes against ISIL in Syria is a distraction from the much bigger and more important task of finding a resolution to the conflict in Syria and thereby removing one of the main facilitators of ISIL’s rise. There was consensus among our witnesses that the UK should use its diplomatic weight to exert pressure on the parties in the conflict, and their international sponsors. We note that many more of our witnesses called on the UK to lead a renewed diplomatic initiative rather than conduct airstrikes. Several considered that the Russian intervention had opened up a new opportunity to bring parties to the negotiating table. This appears to be happening now, and we note talks in Vienna on 30 October 2015 which now include Iran.The Foreign Secretary told us that to relent in its pressure on Assad would act as a “recruiting sergeant” for ISIL. We are not persuaded that talks involving all parties would be any more of an incentive for people to join ISIL than allowing the continuation of the chaos and conflict.

And that...

we believe that there should be no extension of British military action into Syria unless there is a coherent international strategy that has a realistic chance of defeating ISIL and of ending the civil war in Syria. In the absence of such a strategy, taking action to meet the desire to do something is still incoherent.

What is their reasoning behind that decision?

It was on the news just now, there was a soundbite, not sure if much will be online yet, I think the gist of the soundbite was along the lines of they don't agree with the reasons put forward by Cameron. Possible signs of intelligence in government, who'd have thunk it?!

^ ah there you go

chip - Member

you really are a bit special.:D

So [i]"French President Francois Hollande and Russia's Vladimir Putin agreed to share intelligence information and cooperate on selecting targets in the fight against ISIS",[/i] according to NBC News, contradicting your claim that the French are using their own intelligence and selecting their own targets, and that makes me "a bit special"?

Excellent.

For balance could anyone post why we should bomb people? (Bullet points may be appropriate)

according to the French they are sharing intelligence and targets with the Russians.

It does not say that, it says they have had a conversation agreeing to a joint military operation with France, Which would make sense to share Intel, does not mean the french will start bombing on assads say so or the Russians will stop.

For balance could anyone post why we should bomb people? (Bullet points may be appropriate)

Surely you mean "why we should bomb [i]bad[/i] people?"

We would only bomb bad people.

Apparently.

chip - Member
you really are a bit special.:D

You mean I'm not a bit special after all ?

and he does not find you rude so crack on 😀

Chip any bombing campaign will include collateral damage. This is not an opinion its just a fact. Its not rude to point this out is just sense.

I dont mind different opinions I just object to ones that are obviously factually incorrect like yours.

PS it was very charming insult you used that gave another lovely insight into the kind of person you are.

Will you call me a mong for this reply?

You mean I'm not a bit special after all ?

Sorry to break it to like this, but I think it's better you know.

I was in Cromwells bedroom at the house that hosts my cross race today. Now considering he had a fairly large part in how our current parliament works, it was gloomy to learn that his family motto is 'Peace is sought through war'.

Why was my response to junkyards insulting post pulled.
When Yunki told someone to get into the sea and called them a turd or insulted my long suffering mum that never got pulled

I would not call you a Mong no.
I explained my self once only to have it pulled so it would be pointless do it again.