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

What strategy does this bombing serve? How does if factor into the long term plan to solve this "Middle East" problem? Is there a long term plan and if so what is it?

What strategy does this bombing serve?

Aaaah ... strategy... the one thing so noticeable by its absence, with regards to western policy towards the Middle East. On present form I don't see 'us' developing one any time soon either.

Unless 'drop some more bombs' actually passes for strategy. Shit! Its actually does, doesn't it, as far as Dave and chums are concerned?

Its actually does, doesn't it, as far as Dave and chums are concerned

By "chums" I assume you mean the following (as they all are or have bombed Syria / ISIL)

Australia
Bahrain
Canada
France
Jordan
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
United States of America

You forgot Russia. They're lobbing the odd bit of ordinance around too.

With friends like some of those.....

So the do nothing scenario is no better than the cocked up military approach at this point and our hands are just as bloodied.

It's scary that this is the level of argument. With no rational or reasonable explanation as to what bombing will achieve, the main justification is simply 'we can't do nothing'.

It's like a discussion over how to tackle a kitchen fire. Should we pour fire on it or just leave it burn because we can't do nothing.

I reckon that Corbyn is going to whip his MPs. He's not going to demand loyalty to his leadership though; he's emailed out to the membership, asking for their views on the vote. I would imagine that the replies are going to read a lot like this thread... He's going to demand that the labour MPs are loyal to their party membership, not to him. That way he neatly sidesteps the 'how can you be loyal to a bloke who has rebelled so often himself?' argument. Not that that will stop it beng made, mind you.

He's going to demand that the labour MPs are loyal to their party membership, not to him.

Cycling is more dangerous that ISIS:

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9359763/Bee-stings-killed-as-many-in-UK-as-terrorists-says-watchdog.html ]LINK[/url]

[i]"The annualised average of five deaths caused by terrorism in England and Wales over this period compares with total accidental deaths in 2010 of 17,201, including 123 cyclists killed in traffic accidents, 102 personnel killed in Afghanistan, 29 people drowned in the bathtub and five killed by stings from hornets, wasps and bees"[/i]

And we should bob the living hell out of those dastardly bumble bees, Brimstone sounds ideal for their so-called 'Hives'

? Their party membership isn't whipping them, Corbyn is. Does he think they're sufficiently stupid to fall for that crap?

? Their party membership isn't whipping them, Corbyn is. Does he think they're sufficiently stupid to fall for that crap?

Hey... here's a really novel idea. Its pretty revolutionary stuff, so brace yourselves....

How about the MP's vote on the basis of representing the views of their constituents?

Like I said... pretty radical stuff. Bordering on the subversive.

Theres an awful lot of sabre rattling, and people itching to send the bombers in, from the comfort of their Westminster clubs. I don't see that even remotely reflected in the general population, who are understandably far more wary. Perhaps Corbyn has noticed that too? Just a thought

"vote the way the people that select you overwhelmingly want you to vote, or prepare to face the people who select you and explain your conduct, and possibly face deselection"

The Labour party membership and the MP's constituents are not the same. Awesome power play in Labour at present, big one to watch is Tom Watson and which way he moves, if he plays it right then he is the next leader.

@digga I think the emergence of IS should force us to accept that in this regard Assad is our ally. Had Assad been defeated sooner the FSA would have had the strength together with the Kurds to prevent the emergence of IS as such a strong force.

Whilst UK, French and Belgian terrorists hold thise passports they share the fundamentalist ideology which is primarily run out of Syria and Iraq in the same way Al-Q did out of Afghanistan. IS in the Middle East provides the weapons training, tactics and the resources to develop these attacks. It's a "safe haven" for them and one we must take away

My point about the debate being pointless is that discussions about whether bombing will help or hurt are irrelevant as the bombing camping exists already and in the wake of the Paris attacks is being ramped up substantially. Whilst not being openly discussed it's my understanding we have an obligation under EU law to assist. The Germans are putting an extra 1,200 troops into Syria.

All right, how about "vote the way the people that select you overwhelmingly want you to vote, or prepare to face the people who select you and explain your conduct, and possibly face deselection".

The Labour party membership and the MP's constituents are not the same. Awesome power play in Labour at present, big one to watch is Tom Watson and which way he moves, if he plays it right then he is the next leader.

Supposedly of the 70,000 who responded to Corbyns "don't bomb email" 70% where against and 30% for. So does that mean the Labour Party MPs should vote to reflect that, 70% against 30% for, or does first last the post apply ?

[i]The Germans are putting an extra 1,200 troops into Syria[/i]

Needs to be approved by German parliament first. (edit) And to be more specific, they're talking about recon. planes, and deploying ships to aid the French carrier force, and some ground forces on the Turkish/ Jordan borders (see recon planes), so saying "sending troops to Syria" is playing pretty fast and loose with the facts...

It's a "safe haven" for them and one we must take away

This is the same flawed logic the US used to bomb Laos during the Vietnam war, and it didn't work there either, 40 years later Vietnam is still a unified one party communist state (at peace). You can't bomb ideas out of existence. The only way to solve this is politically.

All this concentration on what labour MP's are going to do is masking over one other significant factor....

Namely that Dave has enough of his own MP's who's votes are by no means guaranteed on this one either. The shadow of Iraq doesn't just fall on one party. It hangs over the whole of Westminster who's cross party support took us there in the first place. So it isn't labour or Tory, its not a party issue. Its the more thoughtful, or those with their eyes on slim majorities who'll be asking the most questions. And you don't have to ask too many questions before this whole thing starts looking just as shaky as the case for going into Iraq

Why bombing won't work, some may say obviously...

so saying "sending troops to Syria" is playing pretty fast and loose with the facts...

So better than usual then and you are encouraging him 😉

MPs should do what the public want/ their constituents not what parties want

Their job is to represent after all.

Also as jamby sort of notes it doesn't really matter what we do as folk are already bombing them even if we do nothing
Given that I dont know why Dave cares so much

Given that I dont know why Dave cares so much

He's still pretty huffy about losing the vote to bomb the other lot in Syria ...

[img] [/img]

Given that it's the public's money and sorties cost in the region of £33,000 an hour per plane, not to mention the pilots, engineers and support crew are sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, husbands, wifes, mums and dads of british citizens, wouldn't a direct referendum be a better solution for such serious decisions?

What if half of the MPs voting on the issue were in the pockets of the arms industry?

[i]How about the MP's vote on the basis of representing the views of their constituents?[/i]

Because that isn't how it works.

You vote for an MP based on what they say they'll do plus whichever parties manifesto they're (currently) attached to and their 'views' also have a impact.

They then vote how they want to - or told to, if a member of a party and the whips' are out.

The only way to solve this is politically.

Whom does one engage with to identify a political solution? If the stated aims of IS are to bring about the fall of Western democracy, we're pretty far away from agreeing on a middle road...

Saudi Arabia for a start...

If they are encouraged to cease promoting wahhabism, in time, support for IS will dwindle.

Who funds ISIS and trades with them, keeping their weapons and ammo supply stocked up?

These are avenues that the intelligence services have had plenty of time to investigate...

Given that it's the public's money and sorties cost in the region of £33,000 an hour per plane, not to mention the pilots, engineers and support crew

But they fly and maintain the planes regardless so most of that cost would happen in peace time anyway. Plus we are already flying recon missions, so the only extra cost is the price of a missile if fired.

Whom does one engage with to identify a political solution?

This is the big one for me, in plenty of cases this is an option, but against ISIS then it isn't on the table, hence, unfortunately force really is the only option IMO.

unfortunately force really is the only option IMO.

Or attrition.

But they fly and maintain the planes regardless so most of that cost would happen in peace time anyway.

Where do the pilots and support crew live in peace time? How are food, water, entertainment, fuel, missiles and the planes themselves transported to the area in which [b]sorties[/b] are flown from?

These are examples of additional costs above and beyond the costs incurred by peacetime training exercises...

unfortunately force really is the only option IMO

How about cutting off the supply of weapons that allows ISIS to continue expanding their territory through sanctions on those who trade with them?

I'm preprepared to bet money that Western intelligence agencies are talking to ISIS secretly.

Encourage Turkey to stop funding ISIS by buying the oil they're selling, encourage S.A. to stop indirectly funding ISIS through Turkey, encourage Iran to withdraw Hezbollah, encourage the Russians to help Assad to stop the armed struggle. Encourage the Kurds to negotiate with the PKK to stop fighting the Assad regime. Stop aerial bombing that's killing civilians.

There are plenty of things we could be doing instead of lobbing munitions at the problem

Where do the pilots and support crew live in peace time? How are food, water, entertainment, fuel, missiles and the planes themselves transported to the area in which sorties are flown from?

These are examples of additional costs above and beyond the costs incurred by peacetime training exercises...

you might have a point if we hadn't had men and planes based at RAF Akrotiri for sixty years.

[quote=nickc said]I'm preprepared to bet money

You've got the money out of the bank and on the table ready ? 😀

> How are ... the planes themselves transported to the area in which sorties are flown from?

I know this one! They fly them!

there's some francs, and few euros, and maybe even the odd bit of proper currency... 😆

Copa - the do nothing case needs just as much, if not more justification than the do something case. Both options can be just as deadly and risky. History teaches us that on both counts. I've not seen a compelling argument for either point of view - that is why this is not a clear cut decision and is a very difficult decision that has divided opinion with politicians. The real world is just not that simple and not made easier by JC's openly critical opinions of military action in any circumstances - it just undermines his point of view and people assume he never went into this with an open mind and capable of being persuaded.

> How about cutting off the supply of weapons that allows ISIS to continue expanding their territory through sanctions on those who trade with them?

Bit late for that, didn't they grab, ironically, all the weapons the US supplied to the Iraqi army, which then abandoned them?

dragon

But they fly and maintain the planes regardless so most of that cost would happen in peace time anyway. Plus we are already flying recon missions, so the only extra cost is the price of a missile if fired.

Curious to know what the seemingly insignificant cost* of one of these missiles is. Anyone?

[i]*I mean, quite apart from the collateral damage they are likely to cause, the innocent people they'll kill, the infrastructure they'll destroy, the hearts and minds they'll lose, the propaganda they provide ISIS with.[/i]

Sky news did a piece a while ago that put the cost of Brimstone (2 on each plane) at £102,000 each, and then there's paveway (4 on each plane) at £22,000 each

so that insignificant cost is about £300K per sortie per plane in missiles alone,

If it costs more to knock a house down then it's worth, perhaps the RAF could just buy it?

@nickc I was quoting from the Guardian headline, "on the border" is a bit vague though. You are quite right it needs to be approved by the German Parliament but EU law states they must assist. It's why Hollande invoked the treaty and used the term "at war" immediately after the Paris attacks.

@jj, as above Akatori in Cypru and the defence budget has contingencies for actually using the weaponry which in effect we've already paid for. It will of course need to be replaced. We've offered Akatori for French use if they wish although they are currently focused on their aircraft carrier as they might as well use what they've got and already paid for, using it for real provides valuable information and experience

even weapons and ammo have a finite shelf life, so ultimately stocks have to be rotated and if not used would have to be disposed of in training or safe decommissioning or disposal, which costs a fortune.

nickc
Sky news did a piece a while ago that put the cost of Brimstone (2 on each plane) at £102,000 each, and then there's paveway (4 on each plane) at £22,000 each

so that insignificant cost is about £300K per sortie per plane in missiles alone,

Pffft. And here was me thinking it might be expensive. I lose more than that running for the bus.

jambalaya

using it for real provides valuable information and experience

Yep. That information will be in history books years from now, remarking on the fact that western powers STILL had no coherent strategy or policy in the middle east.

I suppose the £300K cost of the missiles needs to be balanced alongside the potential costs of achieving the same result through ground based forces.

As well as the direct cost, the avoided cost of injured servicemen and associated compensation and rehabilitation probably make air strikes quite cheap in comparison.

It's not expensive relatively speaking. £300k is about how much it costs to run the NHS for about 4 seconds. A proverbial drop in the ocean.

no

How much does one of these cost?

[img] [/img]

surely from an economic view it makes more sense? They cost us a packet, and we never get to use them