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

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.

Isn't that what charities funded by the general population such as Help for Heroes and Royal British Legion are for?

How well does the state support people injured in the course of duty?

Are there any contributions from the arms industry in support of those killed and injured?

Have you a link Jamby? can't find it anywhere apart from a mention in an article about Hollande?

Besides, the Germans have never sent troops abroad on offensive missions since the end of WW2, I can't imagine for a minute that the country taking more Syrian refugees than most European countries will join in in any attacking capability.

[img] [/img]

£300k is about how much it costs to run the NHS for about 4 seconds. A proverbial drop in the ocean.

Ever needed to get to an NHS dentist but couldn't find one? to run a 365day urgent care dentist cost £630,000 a year, (when I used to run them) so about the cost of a sorties worth of weapons (tornadoes fly in pairs)

nickc

Ever needed to get to an NHS dentist but couldn't find one? to run a 365day urgent care dentist cost £630,000 a year, (when I used to run them) so about the cost of a sorties worth of weapons (tornadoes fly in pairs)

That's just the cost of the ordinance though. I've seen figures bandied about in the news that it costs approx £1million per plane, per sortie.

Then again, if the fighter jets and the pilots and the weapons and the fuel just happen to be there they might as well go blow shit up. Otherwise they'll just gather dust and get rusty. Do bombs have a best before date?

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.

We should spend money dropping bombs on Syrians because otherwise we might have to spend some money NOT dropping bombs on Syrians.

Killing people because it avoids us having to do stock rotation FFS...

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.

I just wrote "Down with ISIS" on a Post-it note. That achieved roughly as much as a few more airstrikes will, and it cost much less than £300k.

[i]it costs approx £1million per plane, per sortie.[/i]

yes, heard that as well, seems to be the accepted going rate...There have been approx 5000 USAF missions so far...

Ain't austerity a bitch...

I didn't realise Dentists were so cheap - not even 3/4 of a million pounds for a 24/7 emnergancy dentists service? That barely covers the annual salary of a handful of dentists. OK i'm being pedantic and i'm sure the figure is accurate, but it is a bit of a pet annoyance of mine when the media throws figures around without any context. £300k sounds like alot to the average layman on the street, but in the grand scheme of things it's not alot at all. Our whole military budget is only a mere 2% of GDP and given security is the number 1 priority of any government, that seems great value to me. The company I work for contributes 2% of the UK's GDP alone, so one company is effectively funding our whole military budget.

Money well spent!!

[img] ?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=87048bea50dc91596580d7e558290c7b[/img]

[img] ?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=a6d39d23fe1aeed6c4f6e917cb262a3f[/img]

[img] [/img]

Good for business?

[url= https://theintercept.com/2015/11/16/stock-prices-of-weapons-manufacturers-soaring-since-paris-attack/ ]Stock Prices of Weapons Manufacturers Soaring since Paris Attacks[/url]

EU law states they must assist

jivehoneyjive - Member

Money well spent!!

I see 20 jihadi/ISIS sympathizers in those pictures, so clearly the current weapons aren't effective enough. For £1million quid a pop I'd want all those [s]people[/s] terrorists vapourised.

Maybe we should give binners the red button for Crimbo...

Apparently thermonuclear explosions do wonderful things with desert sand.

[img] [/img]

Life imitates Art, after all, old chap.

I just hope there's some work left over for old [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Soames ]Fatty Soames[/url] to make a pretty penny:

[img] ?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=GkZZ8bf5zL1ZiijUmxa7QVDxdC%2FgVmP39kNAcUfbxPwJ3iqO%2BJHlVakpz2z24rNqENUgkwISBJj5WHS%2BE4uZYA%3D%3D[/img]

[img] ?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=GkZZ8bf5zL1ZiijUmxa7Qcy9TJ086l6ep9Mk5W8SEv4hJN%2FUxa12w%2FiraO7M6c1S%2BfmBo7DzE6HZcn5%2FQjGy9A%3D%3D[/img]

[i]£300k sounds like alot to the average layman on the street, but in the grand scheme of things it's not alot at all.[/i]

Average earnings in the UK is circa £28k, with tax/NI at £6k.

So it takes 50,000 of us, a year, to pay enough tax/NI for that £300k...

Nice one Jive Honey - no idea what photo's i'm looking at there. Horrendous devastation for sure. Are they the result of RAF bombing? Al Qaeda or ISIL bombing? Assad's army bombing a local town, earthquake or what? I could post up images of terrorist attacks on the UK or in Paris, not sure what it would prove other than to unhelpfully whip up human emotions. Also with all the ordnance being dropped on Iraq and Syria at the moment (hundreds of bombs every single day) then presumably the overwhelming majority hit their target without any collateral damage. Again, context is everything.

All images from airstrikes on Raqqa, which is the main focus of the proposed vote.

-

-

-

> So it takes 50,000 of us, a year, to pay enough tax/NI for that £300k...

know what, cancel my posts above, one again I ignored the first rule of Singletrack which is "only use the bike forum". should know better.

sorry. as you were.

Can that dentists serve 50,000 people?

No, I ran 3, they operated 8am-8pm 365 days a year and had about 12,000 unique pts/ practice, that lot costs nearly £2 million a year to run. so you'd need 4 of them to hit that number of patients.

the price of 2 and a bit sorties, but with less destroyed building and orphaned kids, obvs...

jimjam - Member
...Do bombs have a best before date?

Depends on which end you're at...

then presumably the overwhelming majority hit their target without any collateral damage.

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.

This has probably been covered but I've not read the entire thread, though I see people are talking about how war makes people very rich

Cheney's Halliburton made nearly $40billion from the Iraq War

Contractors reap $138bn from Iraq war
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7f435f04-8c05-11e2-b001-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3t15tQSib

Yep... Hence my pic of [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Soames ]Nicholas 'Fatty' Soames[/url]...

Being as we're on a fresh page, here's another:

[img] [/img]

He is chairman of [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Defence_Services ]Aegis Defence[/url]

In Iraq, Aegis is under contract (worth $293 million over three years) to the United States Department of Defense

In 2011, Aegis was awarded a $497 million contract by the U.S. Department of State for assuming security forces operations at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/profile-charless-biggest-buddy-nicholas-soames-royalist-minister-for-food-1466703.html ]Soames is a long time friend of Prince Charles[/url], and served as his equerry in the early 1970s, which meant he knew about Charles and Camilla's early trysts.

When Diana first accused the Prince of Wales of adultery with Camilla Parker Bowles, Soames told the BBC that the accusation, and Diana's fear of being slandered by her husband's courtiers, stemmed merely from Diana's mental illness, and "the advanced stages of paranoia

What he knew of Charles' relationship with Jimmy Savile and Lord Mountbatten at that time (and if he met Justice Goddard, the chair of the inquiry into child abuse when she was married to Camilla's close friend) has yet to be disclosed.
[url= http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/28297/Accidents-can-happen-Warning-to-Diana-from-Prince-Charles-s-friend ]
He is also said to have threatened Diana shortly before her death, likely in relation to her work attempting to ban landmines.[/url]

Where Nicholas Soames is Aegis Chairman, Aegis chief executive is former Major General Graham Binns, who served in the Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire

You don't need to construct a tangled web to see that many of the people that make money out of war also have a say in whether we go to war. Bloody basturds the lot of them!

@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.

@nickc a number of references on BBC, FT, Telegraph plus German site dw.com

JY I saw the first comments on this the day after Hollande used the language "at war" by a commentator explaining why he'd used that term very deliberately. There is another blog with a more detailed piece, I'll recall it from my history later

Edit one piece here from the 17th [url= https://www.rt.com/news/322429-france-military-assistance-eu/ ]linky[/url]

Blog posting here [url= http://pol-check.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/is-eu-at-war-with-isis.html ]link - Is EU are war with IS[/url]

They have other pieces which reflect my views, partcocularly the EU incompetence over migration policies

@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.

Even if those figures were true it very clearly shows that the rich don't pay "for all this military stuff".

27% falls well short of 100%

By 73% in fact.

@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.

How much should they be paying though?

I just quoted that as I assume the 27% covers the £60bn we spend on defence. So assume for the sake of argument the rich pay for defence and everyone else pays for the other stuff.

So assume for the sake of argument the rich pay for defence and everyone else pays for the other stuff.

So the rich don't pay for education, health, the environment, policing etc ?

What a disgrace.

EDIT : Btw the claim that 1% pay 27% is meaningless drivel, all you can deduce from that (if it's true) is that the 1% are incredibly wealthy. Because even if they pay 99% tax on their income what the 1% contribute shouldn't represent anywhere near 27% of total taxation.

You don't need to construct a tangled web

I'd far prefer it was simple, but it is indeed a tangled web...

From the [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Defence_Services ]Aegis Defence wikipedia page[/url]

On 27 October 2005 a number of "trophy" videos showing private military contractors in Baghdad firing upon civilian vehicles with no clear reason discernible from the footage itself sparked two investigations after they were posted on the internet. The videos were linked unofficially to Aegis Defence Services. Both the US Army and Aegis conducted investigations into the video; while the Aegis report is closed for client confidentiality reasons, the US Army enquiry concluded that the contractors involved were operating within the rules for the use of force. More4 News broadcast extracts of the videos in March 2006. The video showed Matthew Elkin (former U.S. Army Ranger and lead security contractor) denouncing the contractors and ordering a cease fire.

On 6 April 2006 More4 News reporter Nima Elbagir identified disaffected former Aegis contractor Rod Stoner as responsible for posting the videos on the website. Aegis would not confirm that its contractors were involved in the incidents shown in the videos, but obtained a High Court injunction to have Stoner's website closed down.

In the same More4 program, [b]Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn insisted that the Pentagon's contract with Aegis Defence Services should be suspended until the matter had been properly investigated and fully reported upon[/b].

Also worth bearing in mind it was Nicholas Soames, long time friend of Prince Charles (as was Jimmy Savile) that recently called for Tom Watson to apologise regarding Leon Brittan.

The late Leon Brittan is still under investigation over several allegations of child abuse from multiple victims.

The same investigation is looking into allegations of abuse on military bases, involving high ranking members of the military and intelligence services...

Before I'm accused of straying off topic, here's a cartoon about similar action in Iraq:

[img] [/img]

Junkyard - lazarus

SOURCE you have said this a number of times and i have never heard this except from you - can you cite a source please?

Refers to article 42.7 of Lisbon.

Mutual defence clause (Article 42.7 TEU)
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for hose States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.

A brilliantly terribly worded article that doesn't really seem to mean anything at all, since there's no definition of what we're supposed to aid and assist with. Interpretations seem to vary wildly with hawkish people basically treating it as a blank slate for an attacked state to demand pretty much anything they want. But in the absence of a state of war it's messy- France isn't at war with Syria or Iraq.

The main argument of those using it to justify an armed response is that we're supposed to attack the source of the attacks. Which I'm pretty sure means we have to invade Belgium and France.

Article 222 was actually designed for this job but hasn't been invoked. Opinion on why seems split; it's an EU rather than member state response so needs the whole edifice to act rather than individuals, seems to be the main reason cited. But also, it actually sets out expectations of response and they fall short of attacking Syria.

jimjam - Member
...Do bombs have a best before date?

epicyclo - Depends on which end you're at...

LOL

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.

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.

Costs. Yes of course there will be a substantial cost as there is economically when we suffer from terrorism. Also weapons do have a use by date, I would also imagine replacements could well cost less as the original batches need to cover R&D costs, newer versions may be available which are better.

My guesstimate (Jambabolix 😀 ) for the majority was 75 but BBC is quoting 120. If true a 1 day debate is ample as the vote is very clearly for airstrikes.

[off topic]
@jive Leon Brittain is not under investigation for any child abuse and in reality he NEVER was as the most cursory initial checks of the allegatations showed them to be baseless. Let's discuss this on the Rotherham thread and the fact the police and justice system are now finally bringing action against the perpetrators of those hideous crimes. None of whom have any link to senior politicians and thus the case is of no interest to you or your "journalist" source as he's only interested in institutional / establishment stories. There quite simply never was a "Westminster peopophile ring", it may well be individuals where involved illegal behaviour but there was not any kind of ring or indeed any cover up.

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.