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

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.

US withdrawal from Iraq began 2 years before Obama became president - he merely continued with Bush's policy.

And Bush originally thought it was all over in 2003 :

[img] ?t=1367337600[/img]

The spectacular growth of ISIS in Iraq has nothing to do with withdrawal and everything to do with a corrupt Western-backed sectarian government in Baghdad.

And the spectacular growth of ISIS in Syria has everything to do with a Western sponsored civil war.

This has probably been covered, but I can't find it anywhere- why isn't something like this every put to the public vote?!

jonba - Member
Historical references say that this is unlikely.

What history are you referring to?

why isn't something like this every put to the public vote?

Because in our 'democracy', we vote for a representitive to speak/vote on our behalf. Which is lovely.

Bombing is the wrong response to an ideology. We need to undermine the recruitment and motivation of ISIS.

I've had messages from current and ex members of the military who think the only way to sort out IS is boots on the ground and they are keen to get out there.

Had lunch with a very considered American friend of mine who said Bataclan is Europe's 9/11, things will not be the same again. The "do nothing" argument is history.

French minister Valls said a couple of days ago Europe must act to stem the flow of refugees as if they do not the people of Europe will act to end the EU. The government is working flat out to build a coalition and a plan to eradicate IS militarily. Front Nationale looks very likely to win Calais regional election.

why isn't something like this every put to the public vote?

Can I be awarded the contract for printing the ballot paper or campaign posters etc ...

If so I encourage everything to be put to the public vote ... so long as I am awarded the contract for printing.

If I am awarded the contract to print I swear wholeheartedly I will vote and support JC as my Jesus Christ.

😛

@ernie, I highly recommend you read Emma Sky's book. Obama put Malarky and Iraqi government in place in his haste to "hand over"

The discussion we are having here is as always open and informative but the events at Bataclan and the intervention of Russia makes our air strikes inevitable and a major offensive an absolute certainty. The discussion is purely academic.

jambalaya - Member

I've had messages from current and ex members of the military who think the only way to sort out IS is boots on the ground and they are keen to get out there.

Awesome. You know Cameron isn't proposing this, right?

Bombing is the wrong response to an ideology. We need to undermine the recruitment and motivation of ISIS.

I've had messages from current and ex members of the military who think the only way to sort out IS is boots on the ground and they are keen to get out there.

JC speaking a lot of sense again. This bombing is clearly just a tokenistic knee jerk reaction - there's blatantly no strategy.

Its a wide net you cast to be able to deliver your anecdotal appeals to authority and I am surprised to hear ex forces folk have a strong belief in the use of force and a poor grasp of what is being proposed

Fantombiker - Member
Bombing is the wrong response to an ideology.

Okay ... hmmm ... so does ideology just jump out of thin air to brainwash people (like a physical entity to mess with your brain) or does an ideology need a physical vessel to transmit?

We need to undermine the recruitment and motivation of ISIS.

Exactly how?

Have a new human resources department?

Bombing is the wrong response to an ideology. We need to undermine the recruitment and motivation of ISIS.

Yeah good luck with that.

I think commonsense is required more than luck.

The "do nothing" argument is history.

Who is saying do nothing? As far as I can see most people are saying that they're against it because lobbing bombs around is a token pointless gesture. Ken Livingstone has just been on Question Time talking about what it really requires, which is tens of thousands of troops in a broad multinational coalition, and I'm inclined to agree. But waging an all out war against IS comes at a huge cost. Not just money, which would run into billions, but also hundreds of not thousands of dead soldiers (can people stomach videos on the internet of British soldiers being beheaded and burnt?), attacks in UK cities, and all the other stuff that comes with war. It seems to me that the those clamouring for bombing want to look like they're doing something without having to commit to the real pain and sacrifice that it would require.

But is an all out war with Isis not inevitable sooner or later.
And the later will be harder fought.

I think commonsense is required more than luck.

We already bomb them in Iraq this merely takes it over the border.

I thought Dave's speach was pretty well balanced. And the BBC also just presented this as for and against in the news so I don't see peyote gung-ho rushing in but considered approach.

But is an all out war with Isis not inevitable sooner or later.

Maybe, maybe not. The point is that it shouldn't be the first option. There are loads of things that can be done before military action is taken. Do you honestly think those things have been tried? No of course they haven't, because they are very hard, take a long time, and would involve addressing our own culpability and hypocrisy where the likes of Saudi Arabia and Israel are concerned. Far easier to drop a few bombs, make everyone feel a bit better, then let someone else worry about it later.

Unless the west is prepared to address the social, economic and political issues in the region after IS have been defeated then there's not much point in letting off a few brimstones because everyone will be back there in 10 years time.

It is only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realise there is always a way to solve a problem without using violence..

How the hell is anyone going to kill an ideology which spans multiple countries, let alone one?

Presumably by not supporting the conditions which have resulted in its spectacular growth.

Do you really believe jambalaya's nonsense that ISIS's spectacular growth and influence in Iraq is all down to the Americans leaving?

I don't see peyote gung-ho rushing in but considered approach

The 'problem' of IS is not ours to solve. Like it or not, we are in the crosshairs of ISIS for their perception of ‘our’ transgressions against them and theirs historically, as well as a complete clash of ideologies. We, the west, cannot 'defeat' them without a costly and lengthy conventional war, which the public will not have the stomach for.

If we wish to aid their defeat, (do we? Really? It’s always good to have a convenient enemy to distract and unite public feeling) we should take an honest look at the ideologies of the various factions and support the ones that we can feel most moral affinity to, NOT just the ones that have the most oil. Unfortunately that will never happen because cash always trumps morality when it comes to foreign policy. When you look at the west dispassionately, from an outsiders, a middle easterner’s perspective, it’s not a hell of a lot more attractive in the way it treats people than ISIS...

It is only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realise there is always a way to solve a problem without using violence..

No.

And I'm still getting used to my actual MP saying things I fully agree with on subjects like this.

Nope

we should take an honest look at the ideologies of the various factions and support the ones that we can feel most moral affinity to, NOT just the ones that have the most oil.

this is a very relevant point - the more time they spend infighting and jostling for position against each other, the less time they spend trying to kill us

take a look at some of the most successful policies we had against the IRA - blackmail, bribery and disinformation. I recall that one of the best ones was when the IRA were robbing banks for cash, we subtly over reported the amounts lost, meaning they thought that people were pocketing money for themselves. The result being a spate of known PIRA men getting kneecapped. The thing about this is that, even if you're only partially successful in turning people, then you end up with the enemy looking over their shoulder for betrayal and not trusting each other. The IRA wiped out many of their own best men looking for moles.

I see no reason why 'targeted strikes' - i.e.. bombings. can't play a useful part in that.

Obviously, Mossad do similar, but they really do play 'big boys rules'

Hell No...

Too much taxpayers money has already gone into the rise of ISIS, [url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq ]with MI6 providing training and weapons for many of those who went on to become ISIS recruits[/url]:

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[url= https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/secret-pentagon-report-reveals-west-saw-isis-as-strategic-asset-b99ad7a29092#.kzcbentqz ]
Pentagon report predicted West’s support for Islamist rebels would create ISIS[/url]

A declassified secret US government document obtained by the conservative public interest law firm, Judicial Watch, shows that Western governments deliberately allied with al-Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups to topple Syrian dictator Bashir al-Assad.

The document reveals that in coordination with the Gulf states and Turkey, the West intentionally sponsored violent Islamist groups to destabilize Assad, and that these “supporting powers” desired the emergence of a “Salafist Principality” in Syria to “isolate the Syrian regime.”

According to the newly declassified US document, the Pentagon foresaw the likely rise of the ‘Islamic State’ as a direct consequence of this strategy, and warned that it could destabilize Iraq. Despite anticipating that Western, Gulf state and Turkish support for the “Syrian opposition”?—?which included al-Qaeda in Iraq?—?could lead to the emergence of an ‘Islamic State’ in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the document provides no indication of any decision to reverse the policy of support to the Syrian rebels. On the contrary, the emergence of an al-Qaeda affiliated “Salafist Principality” as a result is described as a strategic opportunity to isolate Assad.

[url= https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/ex-intel-officials-pentagon-report-proves-us-complicity-in-isis-fabef96e20da#.66t9mhyth ]Ex-intel officials: Pentagon report proves US complicity in ISIS[/url]:

Renowned government whistleblowers weigh in on debate over controversial declassified document

“it’s pretty well known” in the intelligence community that Saudi Arabia sponsors Islamist terrorists to this day:

“It’s kind of a deal that the Saudis will support various Islamic extremists, all around the world, and the deal is that they [extremists] will not try to overthrow the corrupt, alcohol-drinking clique in Saudi Arabia.”

Why aren't stories such as those linked above reported more widely within the media?

And why are Saudi Arabia allowed to continue their global promotion of Wahhabism, which is core to the ideology behind ISIS (and Al-Qaeda)?

And why are Saudi Arabia allowed to continue their global promotion of Wahhabism, which is core to the ideology behind ISIS (and Al-Qaeda)?

Had lunch with a very considered American friend of mine who said Bataclan is Europe's 9/11, things will not be the same again. The "do nothing" argument is history.

There is no one solution to ISIS, bombing will be counter-productive if done alone and western boots on the ground would be like fire fighting with petrol.

Of course bombing alone will not solve the problem - that's obvious as we're already engaged in bombing ISIS in Iraq along side our allies, who are also bombing ISIS in Syria, and yet ISIS territory is not defeated. However it is not a waste of time and it is not useless. Territory is being taken from ISIS by other troops on the ground exactly because the bombing campaign is supporting them, and the territory is being held. But those forces are not enough on their own to completely defeat ISIS forces on the ground. So whilst bombing will not work on its own, neither will boots on the ground, both are required.

David Cameron was clear in his justification yesterday that we need to take the fight ti ISIS on many fronts, the military front in Iraq and Syria, which does mean troops on the ground (not necessarily ours - ideally not ours) and a plan to help the countries in the aftermath of the military campaign (probably for decades), as well as the intelligence angle to fight ISIS in our own country and within our society and to win the idealogical battle. I'm not sure he convinced the house that he has a full plan for all those elements - and he won't, but I think it shows he has learned the lessons of recent wars.

The whole thing about diplomacy is a red herring. We won't beat ISIS via diplomacy. We can only address the Assad situation via diplomacy, once we've taken out ISIS on the ground, but that is now clearly a secondary objective to be addressed once ISIS is defeated on the ground in Iraq and Syria.

It's a ridiculous situation that we're bombing ISIS in Iraq, but only conducting recon and targeting missions over Syria (i.e. directing others bombs onto targets in Syria), but yet not actually dropping bombs over Syria. Some think we're being high and mighty and taking the moral high ground - the reality is that it doesn't make sense, we're still a target for ISIS and our allies are probably a bit bemused at the situation. ISIS is the target, not Iraq or Syria. But some politicians love to be pedantic.

However if we think ISIS in Iraq and Syria is the end, it's not. There are other regions in the world they can just focus on setting up shop so no doubt we'll have to deal with them elsewhere afterwards in north and central Africa. We're in it for the long haul whether we like it or not.

No
I have yet to see any explanation as to how bombing will hurt or restrict ISIS in any practical way . It will inevitably kill civilians it will create a sence of division with those who are susceptible to the binary clash of religions argument that ISIS rely on.
So no military gain.
No propaganda gain in the fight against terrorism.
The advantages would be political for Cameron becoming a diplomatic ' hard man.' And the country in appearing to stand by the US , the yanks who love us will love us regardless Trump and the Tea Party end will continue to regard us as an irrelevance.

Are we even sure 'beating' ISIS is a good idea?

ISIS is effectively a Sunni nation formed out of Sunni areas of Syria and Iraq. If we beat ISIS we hand those areas back to Shias in Iraq and Assad in Syria. Being ruled by Shias/Assad was the reason the uprising started in the first place.

Moreover what does beating ISIS actually mean? We're not going to kill all of them, most will remain part of the local population. Probably in some kind of local power.

I think the biggest problem isn't deciding how to defeat ISIS it's deciding who we want to take over from them - we clearly have no idea. Peace loving moderates do not emerge as winners in violent Civil wars - whoever wins is not going to be warm and friendly. And when they are in control of Sunni areas they are going to be inflicting similar ISIS-esque atrocities as revenge on the Sunni/ISIS population.

The one case I would support bombing would be to keep individual towns/areas in the hands of their current population. ie) If a largely Christian town was fighting to protect itself from being taken over by Sunnis then I have no problem with bombing to support the locals in such a case. That doesn't seem to be what is suggested.

appearing to stand by the US

Standing by the US is a foreign policy objective in its own right and has been for years. Whether it should be or not, I've no idea.

outofbreath - Member
Standing by the US is a foreign policy objective in its own right and has been for years. Whether it should be or not, I've no idea.

Like they stood by the UK in the Falklands?

It's all about money IMO.

Take a look at the Sino-Russian War and the part financiers played in that.

It's not about which side wins, but how much the financiers and arms industry benefits from escalating a war to the point where the combatants need expensive shiny weapons. The political donations of these groups get them tame politicians on all sides of the political spectrum to do their bidding.

About the only good thing about nuclear deterrents is that they scare the shit out of the warmongers too, so localised conflicts work better for them, and as asymmetric as possible.

Like they stood by the UK in the Falklands?

I don't accept the premise of your point, but since nobody is claiming that standing by the UK is a foreign policy objective for the USA it's not worth debating.

We won't beat ISIS via diplomacy. We can only address the Assad situation via diplomacy, once we've taken out ISIS on the ground, but that is now clearly a secondary objective to be addressed once ISIS is defeated on the ground in Iraq and Syria...we're in it for the long haul whether we like it or not".

Unfortunately this is the government's approach: focus on the easily achievable military objective (destroying IS as a military force), describe everything that comes after that as secondary. History tells us that those "everything else" factors are not secondary, they're subsequent. They're quite important and have implications for the next century. There's no point in doing the bombing to destroy IS of something just as bad comes along afterward.

Invading Iraq was militarily easy (if not quite a "cake walk"); invading the important bits of Afghanistan was militarily straightforward too. Mission accomplished, you might say. It's those inconvenient, boring, long term "secondary" questions like "what the F happens now we have destroyed everything and we want these people to settle down" that have buggered us - and them - up.

We KNOW this is for the long haul: we've been at war for the last 14 years. We KNOW the Syrian chapter starts with air strikes. That's why some of us want to know what the purpose and plan for the long haul is.

.:.and that's exactly what my ex-intelligence mate Terrence Q Madeupname told me confidentially when I saw him at Condi's house last time...

Airstrikes and ground intervention are already happening including drone strikes from the UK against identified UK citizens directly threatening us.

Corbyn is going to be further damaged by this as his consistent Stop the War positioning is going to fall flat in the face of Shadow Cabinet opposition and his own party. A Labour leader who doesn't hold the support or respect of a major portion of his own MPs on one of his "signature issues". He's going to offer a free vote as he knows a whipped vote will be a PR disaster as MPs simply ignore him and vote with the Government

Good luck with the thread, it will show how STW political threads are not representative (shock horror), not even of Labour constituency MPs. I'll be back after the Yes vote is carried sometime in the next few weeks.

I found this useful:

BBC News: What's the UK doing about Syria: 11 key questions answered

There are some good links to background information under the heading ‘Islamic State’ (at the bottom of the page).

outofbreath - Member
'Like they stood by the UK in the Falklands?'
I don't accept the premise of your point, but since nobody is claiming that standing by the UK is a foreign policy objective for the USA it's not worth debating.

jambalaya - Member

Corbyn is going to be further damaged by this as his consistent Stop the War positioning <snip>

I'm curious whether you chose to make this up first without bothering to find out what he said, or if you decided you didn't like what he'd said, then made it up.

It probably doesn't make any difference in the grand scheme, but it'd be interesting to know.

Corbyn is going to be further damaged by this as his consistent Stop the War positioning

Corbyn will be no more damaged with his MPs than he already was as they still haven't accepted that their views don't represent the broad base of the party and a large part of the public. He will however gain a huge amount of respect from a significant part of the public who can recognise what this is, which is an establishment driven rush to war with no long term planning or commitment.

In actual fact, I'm sure a lot of labour MPs agree with him, but of course they'll use it as another opportunity to boost their campaign to remove him. The sooner the deselections start the better IMO.

Unfortunately this is the government's approach: focus on the easily achievable military objective (destroying IS as a military force), describe everything that comes after that as secondary. History tells us that those "everything else" factors are not secondary, they're subsequent. They're quite important and have implications for the next century. There's no point in doing the bombing to destroy IS of something just as bad comes along afterward.

Invading Iraq was militarily easy (if not quite a "cake walk"); invading the important bits of Afghanistan was militarily straightforward too. Mission accomplished, you might say. It's those inconvenient, boring, long term "secondary" questions like "what the F happens now we have destroyed everything and we want these people to settle down" that have buggered us - and them - up.

This.

I know it's not a USA policy, so why should we do their dirty work?

I've no idea, why not ask someone who thinks we should do the dirty work of the USA?

Good luck with the thread, it will show how STW political threads are not representative (shock horror), not even of Labour constituency MPs

I have noticed someone who repeatedly claims his posts are representative of the views of the UK, US and European governments and implies they should be deferred to on that basis, though... 😆