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

Even in this letter "some" have said bomb he is admitting that they will ignore the wishes of the vast majority

Writing the most letters and shouting the loudest on social media doesn't make people a majority.

Writing the most letters and shouting the loudest on social media doesn't make people a majority.

. Its not like anyone is going to change their mind,

The longer it goes on for the more red faced and snipey Cameron will get, especially if he's pushed on his make believe 70000 troops issue, and the more he calls people who disagree with him terrorist lovers, the more labour MPs in particular are going to appreciate how clueless he is about it all.

Also I know the lib dems were hollowed out after their time in coalition, but did I read it correctly that they will all be voting for bombing?

The telling image of the day is one of Corbyn delivering his speech flanked by Benn and Watson both of whom will vote against him and in favour of air strikes.

That in itself is interesting. The fact that Corbyn has deliberately got people who will disagree with him on his front bench. Arguably good for debate and potentially good PR, should the media's screaming accusations of splits and infighting ever calm down.

Points repeatingly being made against the "No" voters as to their reluctance to state whether they are also against the existing campaign in Itaq which has universally been seen to have been a success in pushing back IS

Also very interesting that the term Daesh is now being used by everyone, except Corbyn. Daesh being the derogatory term most in the Middle East use to describe IS

Correct me if i am wrong but doesn't the 70000 troops include the Al Qeda fighters who are involved in a power struggle with Isis as to which brand of beardy nastiness is best? If so i think they used to be baddies and we should not trust them..

I believe the US tried to sign up a moderate force and fell 60906 short of 70000 troops.

That in itself is interesting. The fact that Corbyn has deliberately got people who will disagree with him on his front bench. Arguably good for debate and potentially good PR, should the media's screaming accusations of splits and infighting ever calm down.

On the topic at hand.
I think even though I'm completely against these air strikes, I think the crux of the matter is about supporting our allies and our position on the world stage.

Bryant (Labour) spoke very eloquently and clearly on Sky as to why he's voting yes, to paraphrase;

IS are already at war with us and trying to attack our way of life. We have to take action. I don't think Cameron has handled himself well over this issue but I will not let that form the basis of my decision

Daesh being the derogatory term most in the Middle East use to describe IS

The group is known in Arabic as ad-Dawlah al-Isl?miyah f? 'l-?Ir?q wa-sh-Sh?m, leading to the acronym Da'ish or Daesh

Shakes head that you would claim this.

I think we have started using it as its easier than having to add "so called" before hand which does express a view on them where as this is simply their NAME.

jambalaya

Points repeatingly being made against the "No" voters as to their reluctance to state whether they are also against the existing campaign in Itaq which has universally been seen to have been a success in pushing back IS

Yes, and the border between Syria and Iraq is constantly refered to as an imaginary line in the sand that's of no relevance. Consider who made that line in the sand.

Also consider why Iraq is a war zone. Then consider what the likely outcome of a successful bombing campaign in Syria will be. Asad isn't an imaginary dictator. Far from it, he's killed 200,000 of his own civilians in this war. He's got support from Russia. What are the implications of waging war on his turf? If a co-alition of the willing beats ISIS do they just turn on Asad? Will Russia have his back? What's the extent of this licence to wage war in Syria? What's the end game? What's to stop a small, mobile force from dissolving and regrouping in another country?

Junkyard - lazarus

Daesh being the derogatory term most in the Middle East use to describe IS

Its merely an Arabic abbreviation of their name

The group is known in Arabic as ad-Dawlah al-Isl?miyah f? 'l-?Ir?q wa-sh-Sh?m, leading to the acronym Da'ish or Daesh

Apparently the insulting derogatory aspect of using this term comes from mispronunciation. As to which pronunciation is the offensive one seems to be anyone's guess.

IS are already at war with us and trying to attack our way of life. We have to take action.

Many would agree with those two sentences. I suspect many would prefer that action we take be effective.

What are the implications of waging war on his turf? If a co-alition of the willing beats ISIS do they just turn on Asad? Will Russia have his back? What's the extent of this licence to wage war in Syria? What's the end game? What's to stop a small, mobile force from dissolving and regrouping in another country?

Don't you worry your pretty head about any of that princess. Leave this to the grown ups. It'll all be fine. Trust us. We've done this kind of thing before

Oh.....

jimjam
What's to stop a small, mobile force from dissolving and regrouping in another country?

And just as I say that MP Daniel Kawcynzski has just mentioned that ISIS are fleeing into Libya.

Apparently the insulting derogatory aspect of using this term comes from mispronunciation. As to which pronunciation is the offensive one seems to be anyone's guess.

Do people really think calling them Daesh really bothers them? The idea of politicians and the media arguing about terminology on the basis of how offensive it is, is just ridiculous, and demeans the whole debate. This is supposed to be a serious business is it not? If they were that bothered about it, why don't they just call them 'those c***s in the middle east'?

Doesn't look like it is going well for either party leader today. Margret Hodge tweeted this:

The level of debate brings shame on us all. Cameron should apologise and Corbyn practice new politics by direct answers.

The key thing for me is the lack of military strategy & endgame by Cameron. It seems just wants to waggle his tackle and be seen as a force on the world stage.
Given the air space in Syria seems to be crowded with Russians, Turks, France and US problems with 'friendly' fire would seem to be the greatest risk.
I suppose at least he has a UN resolution now but the main issue for me is that Syria is a Russian satellite state and therefore not a NATO playground like Iraq is.
Edit - this article makes some good points
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/01/vote-syria-airstrikes-david-cameron-libya

Do people really think calling them Daesh really bothers them? The idea of politicians and the media arguing about terminology on the basis of how offensive it is, is just ridiculous, and demeans the whole debate. This is supposed to be a serious business is it not? If they were that bothered about it, why don't they just call them 'those c***s in the middle east'?

those cs in the middle east'?

How about calling them the 'Arabian Nutters Against Liberty?'
or
'Those Other Stupid Syrians Enraging Real Syrians'

v8ninety

'Those C***s in the Middle East Waving Black Flags with White Arabic Script on' (TCITMEWBFWWASO)?

I think that describes a lot of those 70,000 freedom fighters.

The name IS is an attempt to make it sound like they speak for all of Islam. Best not give that any credence by repeating it, so I agree in this instance.

against the "No" voters as to their reluctance to state whether they are also against the existing campaign in Itaq which has universally been seen to have been a success in pushing back IS

At best, the bombing in Iraq caused a small loss of territory to IS. At worst, there was no net loss at all. There is no consensus about how to measure the territory controlled by ISIS, let alone a consensus that bombing is a success in pushing back ISIS. In fact...

This month, Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the fight against ISIS “tactically stalemated” with no “dramatic gains on either side,” predicting it would take “a decade or more to resolve” the problems that led to ISIS’s rise. This is the difference a year made.

Also very interesting that the term Daesh is now being used by everyone, except Corbyn. Daesh being the derogatory term most in the Middle East use to describe IS

I'm out on the moor/farm at dunscore (nr drumlanrig) and there's 3 jets flying helluva low up n' down the cairn valley, low enough for me to see the pilots as they bank above me, they are coming so close together I'm wincing,waiting on the impact as I watch them, I guess they are expecting a [i]yes[/i] vote 😐

Had a nice email from my labour MP explaining why he will be voting in favour. (I'd asked him to vote against). I wonder how many had emailed or written expressing a view, and if the overwhelming opinion was against if he would have taken a different action?

@kona I am telling what I heard during the live coverage of which I watched about 2.5 hours, if you don't think it's true listen yourself. I'm happy to call them Daesh. @JY the BBC won't use the term Daesh as they know it's a derogatory name and they think that to use the term would impact their impartiality 😯

@gear, it's highly likely in circumstances like this that the vast majority of messages MPs will get will be against military action. That doesn't mean they reflect the majority view, many people in favour won't email their MP to say so.

@soma - they don't fly low like that to drop guided weapons although of course they may be sharpening up their general flying skills ahead of a deployment. Sky was reporting we'd deploy more Tornados and some Typhoons . As a note the Tornado was said to be a better aircraft for such operations despite its age.

Ooooooooo - can we start talking about missile systems again......

[img] [/img]

[i]@soma - they don't fly low like that to drop guided weapons although of course they may be sharpening up their general flying skills ahead of a deployment. Sky was reporting we'd deploy more Tornados and some Typhoons . As a note the Tornado was said to be a better aircraft for such operations despite its age. [/i]

Flying low over here too, can't be for practicing in the Middle East as it's pi55ing down 🙂

Former soldier John Baron MP defends opposing airstrikes & says: "I've been called a pacifist and worse." Tory shouts: "What's worse?"

Tories really are vermin.

Tories really are vermin.

You realise John Baron is a tory too, right? I think you mean "some MPs really are vermin".

I'm happy to call them Daesh.

I am telling what I heard during the live coverage of which I watched about 2.5 hours, if you don't think it's true listen yourself.

Klunk - Member

Former soldier John Baron MP defends opposing airstrikes & says: "I've been called a pacifist and worse." Tory shouts: "What's worse?"

Tories really are vermin.

There's a school of thought that pacifism, when taken to it's logical conclusion is a recipe for genocide. IE, if the whole of the western Europe were committed pacifists ISIS could kill us all with sharpened sticks. See Gandhi's comments that the Jews should walk willingly to the gas chambers.

Professional career politicians, particularly right wing ones will no doubt be aware of this viewpoint.

Wonder what odds I can get at the bookies to us being back here again within a year discussing bombing Libya?

There's a school of thought that pacifism, when taken to it's logical conclusion is a recipe for genocide.

How does that work then?

See my stealth edit Binners.

You realise John Baron is a tory too, right?

what he's not defected to UKIP yet, I'm surprised/

So are we going to start calling other countries the So Called People's Republic of China, the Alleged Islamic Republic of Iran, the Purportedly United Kingdom?

It's daft. Kind of thing you'd expect from a seven year old.
Why not just call them smell faces or something?
And while we're into correct labelling - Britain isn't great and it's certainly not united.

There's a school of thought that pacifism, when taken to it's logical conclusion is a recipe for genocide.

[quote=jimjam spake unto the masses, saying]
There's a school of thought that pacifism, when taken to it's logical conclusion is a recipe for genocide.

I'm not sure that qualifies as "thought".

The problem with pacifism, is that everyone has to subscribe to it for it to work. Which they don't. Which leaves a thorny issue. Still no to airstrikes on Syria though.

I'm not sure that qualifies as "thought".

Nor a "logical conclusion".

The problem with [b]absolute[/b] pacifism, is that everyone has to subscribe to it for it to work [b]absolutely[/b].

Eventually it will lead to foot soldiers fighting IS.

Bombing will kill innocent men, women and children and won't solve the issue.

Also very interesting that the term Daesh is now being used by everyone, except Corbyn. Daesh being the derogatory term most in the Middle East use to describe IS

*apologies to any non-English folk.

How many SAS/SBS/Special forces personnel does the british army have?

I think it's only 240 ish (could be wrong), not a great deal but i guess they are quite effective in targeting.

SAS/SBS* 400-500 in each

* Part of Navy

@jimjam - the recent proposal in the spending statement is that we should have more

@kona strange bedfellows Jezza and I indeed, I won't let it happen again 😳

It's great isn't it how Cameron's statement has been twisted, he said those voting no would walking through the lobby with those who do with terrorist sympathisers. He didn't call them sympathisers themselves. He also said this to a Tory meeting. Toys out of the pram indignation from some of those voting no. Cameron IMO knew he'd win the vote easily and that the terrorist sympathisers remark wouldn't cost him anything.

I personally do not think there are 75,000 moderate troops in Syria, the key word is moderate. They are not moderate by our liberal western standards in any way shape or form in my view.

Sky News calling the vote very clearly yes, 120+ (?) majority with 50 Labour MPs voting Yes.

I personally do not think there are 75,000 moderate troops in Syria, the key word is moderate. They are not moderate by our liberal western standards in any way shape or form in my view.

So you think that if ISIS do withdraw from territory they currently hold the vacuum will be filled by another 75,000 extremists.

What an excellent plan - what could possibly go wrong? No wonder you are fully backing Cameron.

Cameron IMO knew he'd win the vote easily and that the terrorist sympathisers remark wouldn't cost him anything.

Apart from a poll in the Times suggests that many of the public would fit his description, along with a YouGov poll suggesting that 31% don't support bombing, on;y 49% support the bombing down from 59% a week ago.

embarrassing thing to say for a sitting PM.

It's great isn't it how Cameron's statement has been twisted, he said those voting no would walking through the lobby with those who do with terrorist sympathisers.

Toys out of the pram indignation from some of those voting no.

Cameron IMO knew he'd win the vote easily and that the terrorist sympathisers remark wouldn't cost him anything.

*walk through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers"

Hard to tell who he was calling names but he certainly seems to be implying that some of those who oppose the war are terrorist sympathisers and that is, and no one has argued otherwise not even Davem Just BS

It's great isn't it how Cameron's statement has been twisted, he said those voting no would walking through the lobby with those who do with terrorist sympathisers. He didn't call them sympathisers themselves.

The only person who is trying to twist things is you jambalaya.

According to the Daily Telegraph this was Camerons precise words :

[i]"You don't want to walk through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers."[/i]

It is crystal clear that he accusing Jeremy Corbyn and the MPs who support him of being terrorist sympathisers. It is also crystal clear that that sort of highly offensive slur is unbefitting from a Prime Minister and that he should apologise.

Of course he won't which is excellent news for Corbyn - it shines a light on the real Cameron.

Gandhi's comments that the Jews should walk willingly to the gas chambers

Aren't some of the Labour front bench on the record sypathysing with terrorists?

What about SOE? Don't the people voting no sympathise with SOE's efforts in WW2?

What about SOE? Don't the people voting no sympathise with SOE's efforts in WW2?

Only the terrorist sympathisers.

konabunny - Member

Gandhi's comments that the Jews should walk willingly to the gas chambers

He didn't say that.

I wasn't trying to start a debate about the philosophical concepts of pacifism, rather to simply say that some people take a very dim view of it as an outlook/standpoint.

If Gandhi didn't say that I'd like to know what he did say though as it's something I've heard attributed to him many times.

binners - Member

Ooooooooo - can we start talking about missile systems again......

You mean S-300 ... aaaaahhhh ...

Think mine is bigger than yours.

[img] [/img]

If Gandhi didn't say that I'd like to know what he did say though as it's something I've heard attributed to him many times

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

If Gandhi didn't say that I'd like to know what he did say though

Well what he did say, iirc, was that he thought that Western civilisation would be "a good idea".
Cheeky git.

I'd like to know what he did say though

[i]Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs... It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany... As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions."[/i]

And largely it's misquoted as Gandhi still believed that pacifism was powerful, as demonstrating that rather than succumbing to punishment because it's their right. You do it willing because it is wrong, and should be seen as wrong.

Hitler killed five million Jews.

I think Super Great Dear Leader with the little Red Book set the record for culling human population.

Estimated at between 40 million to 70 million ...

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/maos-great-leap-forward-killed-45-million-in-four-years-2081630.html ]The Independent[/url]

Of course he won't which is excellent news for Corbyn - it shines a light on the real Cameron.

a) Cameron won't be fighting the 2020 election as leader and b) Labour are after SNP/Green/Non voters, not Tories and centrists. So landing points on Tories doesn't help him much.

Our pig-****ing PM says something pretty unbecoming for which he should apologise (but we know he doesn't do apologies) and that becomes Corbyn trying to land punches on the Tories. 😆

Gandhi's comments that the Jews should walk willingly to the gas chambers

As usual, context matters - my understanding is that he said that, as they were going to be killed anyway, they should commit suicide as that would better draw the world's attention to their plight

🙁

deadlydarcy - Member

Our pig-**** PM says something pretty unbecoming for which he should apologise (but we know he doesn't do apologies) and that becomes Corbyn trying to land punches on the Tories.

You mean [b]'terrorist sympathisers'[/b]?

Is being called [b]'terrorist sympathisers'[/b] that crucial in this debate?

Why do you think he used the term [b]'terrorist sympathisers'[/b]?

Is he point scoring when he referred to those opposing him in this debate as [b]'terrorist sympathisers'[/b]?

Does that mean the current debate, due to being called [b]'terrorist sympathisers' [/b], mean the whole debate now revolved around or being hijacked by the definition of [b]'terrorist sympathisers' [/b]?
😯

Refreshing to see Saudi Arabia being associated with ISIS multiple times on ch4 news tonight.

"Of course he won't which is excellent news for Corbyn - it shines a light on the real Cameron."

.......... So landing points on Tories doesn't help him much.

Well that's a novel idea.......the suggestion that a Tory leader making a prat of himself doesn't help the Labour Party.

Refreshing indeed jimjam...as long as it's just a bit of noise and doesn't interfere with...y'know...business.

deadlydarcy - Member
Refreshing indeed jimjam...as long as it's just a bit of noise and doesn't interfere with...y'know...business.

Hence, you cannot be a politician or diplomat. 🙄

Well that's a novel idea.......the suggestion that a Tory leader making a prat of himself doesn't help the Labour Party.

It doesn't, or not directly, they're each after completely different voters. Corbyn is after SNP/Green/Non-voters. Tories are after Tories, centrists and floating voters.

Refreshing to see Saudi Arabia being associated with ISIS multiple times on ch4 news tonight.

Really? That is good news, I despair for humanity a little less.

Thank [s]dog[/s] god

after different voters

For example; say I'm a 'centrist', who believed the bollocks spouted by the tabloids, and has been horrified by the prospect of [i]having[/i] to vote Tory or 'waste' a vote on the lib dems because my party has gone all Trotsky. Is it not conceivable that I could start to feel that actually now I've heard Corbyn on the old Jeremy Vime show and he sounded like he made a lot of sense, AND THEN that old Etonian pillock whom I'd never trusted anyway basically tells me that I love ISIS because I have doubts about this crap kneejerk response to Paris, means that I'm going to look into what this Corbyn chap ACTUALLY has to say rather than the misquoted sound bites atributed to him by the establishment press. Shock horror, I'm a Corbyn fan now.

x several thousand. Maybe.

It's possible.

they're each after completely different voters

I call bullshit.

About the only thing that is clear in the world of Labour is which voters they are after. It aint Tories. Equally, I can't see hard core Corbynites voting Tory.

But we'll see.

Verdict is in on 1st round of voting

[url= http://www.itv.com/news/story/2015-12-02/syria-airstrikes-vote-mps-poised-to-decide-after-heated-debates/ ]
MPs reject amendment blocking airstrikes against IS in Syria by 390 votes to 211~ 179 majority in favour of airstrikes[/url]

MPs will now vote on the motion backing airstrikes targeting the terror group in Syria.

The UK government wins the vote backing airstrikes in Syria by 397 votes to 223 - a majority of 174.

We'll have to gauge public reaction over the coming days and weeks

.

what was the STW verdict - i dont have time to skim the last 10 pages

and apart from just quoting pointless guff, did anyone else even read the select committee paper, nevermind any other evidence, not sure some of todays speakers had.

So there you have it, the government is going to bomb Syria 🙁

Toyota shares will be on the rise, along with Hilux production.

Oh,I feel so much safer now.

Well we can all rest easy knowing that Renton is on his way to sort shit out!