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

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.

No

Our ideas of who are the good guys and who are the bad guys are contradictory from country to country in the middle east and we change our minds every few months. The place is a mess and aside from bombing Japan in WW2 I don't think air attack has ever been effective and complete.

Oh and we can't afford it when it comes to any other form of national cost

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

If we do bomb Assad then we will be in direct conflict with the Russians...

No.

Well, not without a clear UN mandate and a strategy that everyone involved at least agrees on.

Putin is doing his own thing, which is basically looking after Russian interests (Russian Naval Base in Syria and access to the Med)
The more parties involved (doing their own thing) the more chance there is of mistakes and people being taken out by friendly fire etc.

I'm pretty sure the UK public won't be convinced it was a good idea when captured British pilots are being burned alive in ISIS promo videos.

The UK sending in a few missiles from a couple of Tornadoes will make no practical difference.

ISIS (and more importantly their ideology) need to be wiped from the earth, but I think the house of Saud aren't far behind in the human rights stakes and we're mates with them...
ISIS isn't just confined to Raqqa either, they seam to be doing pretty well in Libya, and their sister organisations Boko Haram and Al-Shibab also need wiping out.

I think we'd be better off spending our money strengthening Turkeys border with Syria, strengthening our own borders, and taking in plenty of (carefully screened) refugees.

Sir Richard Dannatt made an interesting point earlier this week - He felt we should train and arm some of the Refugees coming out of Syria, then help them to reclaim their own county, prior to any British blood being spilt in Syria.

I feel this is the Arab worlds problem to sort out - or at least to prove they are committed to doing their bit, which they aren't at the moment.

besides, if we've got money to spend, and bullets to use up, i'd rather we killed a few poachers and safeguarded the future of some African wildlife.. we ain't going to run out of Arabs anytime soon.. not so sure about Rhinos though.

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

On the contrary, I believe they already want to attack the UK, and think another attack like 7/7 or Paris is inevitable. Bombing them will probably make it more likely, but only a fraction more likely than it already is, so bombing them is irrelevant in terms of preventing attacks here.

Yes, yes, yes to synchronize squadron of swan like B-52 heavy bombers with bunker busting cluster napalm bombing Vietnam style.

Hang on ... you don't have B-52 you have tiny planes ... Boss, the plane! The plane! 😆

Oh well ... pussy footing precision bombing then ...

You Do Not bomb Assad.

Russia Must stay otherwise Western political correctness will wipe out mankind and we will see the rise of ZM.

But what do you bomb?

Al-Quaeda relied on sponsorship for funding whilst ISIS relies on oil for its funds. It currently generates $1.5m per day from oil production.

The tanker queues at the oil refineries are 6km long and yet since the start of the air strikes in 2014, of the 10600 strikes only 196 have been against the oil production.

The stark problem is that the rebels and ordinary Syrians rely on ISIS for their oil. A mad state of affairs!

So what do you bomb?

Amazing how these ZMs seem to get everywhere Chewky!.

wittonweavers - Member
But what do you bomb?
So what do you bomb?

Opps! My bad ... I mean carpet bombing the lot but not Assad and his mates.

Or if you are using precision bombing then make sure you get the loudest bang for bucks ... where ever make the loudest explosion that is your target ... oil tankers? Ya, that too ...

But please Do Not harm the animals.

Nobeerinthefridge - Member
Amazing how these ZMs seem to get everywhere Chewky!.

They are everywhere ... I/we are surrounded by them.

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

Yes, but they're in politics so they'll agree to something even if they disagree with it.

Although maybe someone won't:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34939109

Yes i was just reading the BBC news page and marvelling at the independence of our national broadcaster.

Have just read 169 posts from 84 different posters in this thread and the vast majority says NO which i would reasonably deem to be a fairly good representation of the UK as a whole.

THe BBC leads with JC saying he cant support air strikes and makes a direct link to possible shadow cabinet resignations. Beneath this is a statement - "Syria air strikes will 'make the UK safer'."

Fairly clear that the BBC continue to kiss Dave's arse.

Have just read 169 posts from 84 different posters in this thread and the vast majority says NO which i would reasonably deem to be a fairly good representation of the UK as a whole.

😆

wittonweavers - Member
Have just read 169 posts from 84 different posters in this thread and the vast majority says NO which i would reasonably deem to be a fairly good representation of the UK as a whole.

Crikey, fairly good representation? 😯

THe BBC leads with JC saying he cant support air strikes and makes a direct link to possible shadow cabinet resignations. Beneath this is a statement - "Syria air strikes will 'make the UK safer'."

You do know that people might misinterpret JC as Jesus Christ so the correct way writing is JC(not Jesus Christ). 😀

wittonweavers - Member
Yes i was just reading the BBC news page and marvelling at the independence of our national broadcaster...

The BBC is just a propaganda slut trying to get by on its reputation for impartial virginity of a few decades ago.

epicyclo - Member
The BBC is just a propaganda slut trying to get by on its reputation for impartial virginity of a few decades ago.

What! You don't say ... I have so much faith in media speaking the truth you know ...

They are the truth!

All hail media the truth!

😛

Yes.

It's been a very clear mistake not to have struck IS in Syria two years ago, one which has cost many many lives in Syria and Iraq

@chip, you are quite correct in that the rushed exit from Iraq was the earl error but given Obama's determination to be different from Bush it was inevitable.

It's my belief the vote will be a clear Yes with many Labour MPs supporting action. Given the pages of No's here it shows how unrepresentative are the views of the typical STW poster to a char forum thread

Typical STWer - Capable of stringing a sentence or two together. Reasonably well informed with a healthy cynisism towards the media/gutter press, capable of some critical thinking. Mostly graduates or at least capable of graduate level intelligent discussions. Relatively affluent, but (with obvious exceptions) neither mega rich nor in poverty. Does not believe stuff purely because it is written in the Daily Mail or the Sun. [i]May[/i] have the a weak spot for the Grauniad [i]or[/i] the Torygraph. Does not think very much of 'reality TV'. Likes posh coffee, sneers at fast food.

So, not typical of the UK public at all!!!

wittonweavers - Member

THe BBC leads with JC saying he cant support air strikes and makes a direct link to possible shadow cabinet resignations. Beneath this is a statement - "Syria air strikes will 'make the UK safer'."

To be fair to the BBC, they also show the full text of Corbyn's very considered letter, which I think is going to put them in the minority.

😀

We have a few trying to bring us back down to tabloid levels of analysis though where wars solves things - massively ignoring the actual causes here- and make us safer.

100% NO

Continue to lobby my MP to little success sadly

Paris has/will lead to bad policies and infringements on personal liberty. A very bad period.......

NO,

I don't see how more bombs is going to help, surely if bombing was going to work it would have already solved the problem or at least shown some sort of improvement. If some sort of plan can be put forward with a defined success criteria and how we will actually bring stability to Syria then maybe. Historical references say that this is unlikely.