Forum House of Commons vote on air strikes in Syria – which way will you vote?

You are the MP for whichever UK constituency you live in. Your party has allowed a conscience vote and so you should vote in whichever way you think is best for your constituents and for the country.

The motion before you is “should the UK extend its military campaign against ISIL to include air strikes against targets in Syria”?

What is your vote?

Thread rules and assumptions:

– 1 vote per poster.
– all MPs are assumed to have read the Commons Select Foreign Affairs Committee report: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmfaff/457/45702.htm
– all MPs are assumed to have heard today’s debate: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/commons/todays-commons-debates/read/unknown/185/
– The only options are to vote yes, no or to abstain.
– Whichever option receives the most votes will be the UK’s policy.
– Votes will be counted as of 0900 on 27 Nov 2015.

No

Because we have no plan what to do afterwards, and we’ve f***** that up at least 3 times in recent history.

I would suppourt them if there was a believable roadmap for what happens afterwards.

No. Let the Russians sort it out.

No.

ISIL as a cohesive military force is about to be destroyed by Russia, France, the US and probably other powers. That story is already written.

If the UK has any role to play, it is in assisting the civilian population of Syria in the immediate aftermath of the firestorm. This will help stabilise Syria, stem the forced exit of Syrians from where they live, and reduce the likelihood that Syria is a governance-free zone in which hirsute lunatics can run rampant.

This might involve co-operating with a transitional Syrian government, significant cost and the risk of British military lives. It will not involve many fancy pew pew pew explodey videos of missiles hitting Hiluxes. But I think we will achieve more in the long term by spending money on unglamorous post-conflict stabilisation than by shovelling millions of pounds to the military-industrial complex so it blows up shit that other countries have already decided to destroy.

Yeah, why not? Neeeeeooooooowwwwww DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA, take that fritz

No – Syria is a Russian client state it’s up to them we’d be better off NOT# selling weapons to Turkey and Saudia Arabia who will then flog them off to various rebel groups incl’ IS/Daesh

#but poor tories are unhappy tories.

Send in the bombers, then once you’ve done that go and sort all the other messes out which aren’t currently in the news.

My elected representative recently tabled a private members bill to bring back hanging, voted against gay marriage, and recently made us all proud by filibustering a bill to give free parking to carers. He’s rabidly anti EU, and is listed as one of the top 5 MP’s likely to defect to UKIP.

I’m at a loss to imagine how he’ll vote on bombing the shit out of a load of godless brown people.

Personally I’d vote for it if there were anything even remotely resembling a strategy, or a plan for what to do other than drop some bombs, and hope for the best

I can’t see anything remotely resembling that. So on past record, it’ll inevitably just make things worse. So for that reason.. I’m out!

No. Let someone else spend money on it – we’re skint remember.

No. Neit. Nein.

thisisnotaspoon – Member
No

Because we have no plan what to do afterwards, and we’ve f***** that up at least 3 times in recent history.

I would support them if there was a believable roadmap for what happens afterwards.

agree completely

with no idea who will replace IS with, itll just lead to more of the same
even assuming we could actually defeat them by dropping bombs on a guerrila army hiding amongst civillians, were not Israel ffs!

we’ll only end up provoking attacks in london

Yes. Whats the other option? Diplomatic talks with them?

There’s enough people bombing the shit out of people over there whether they’re ISIS or not. Not sure what the RAF will bring to the table.

Oh, and go and do the same with Boko Haram and Somali pirates on the way home.

Yep, Putin got this covered… he’s going in solo, taps aff

Also read an interesting article (forget where) that claimed Turkey were turning a blind eye to ISIS activity & profiting from their half-inched oil reserves along with attacking Kurdish militants in the area who were fighting against ISIS or something…

No.
Russia bombed them…..I don’t think they’ve surrendered yet.

No.

Simplistically put, dropping bombs on “them” will only make more of “them” and “they” will doubtless turn their attention to the UK, if it’s not already on us. It needs a better solution – and I have no idea what that might be – than simply shooting and bombing indiscriminately

No

On the basis I can’t help thinking this is just what ISIS (or their backers) want.

And anyway, even if you do manage to obliterated them … and not sure it would, they seem still to have a good hold of a fair part of Iraq (in my limited knowledge)…. an off shoot will spring up else where.

No.

Let some other **** sort it out. When will we learn that we’re not responsible for everything throughout the world.

No one will thank us and most will blame us.

(Message to all MPs: if you want your vote to count, you need to put “yes”, “no” or “abstain” somewhere obvious, preferably the first word of your post!)

john_drummer – Member

No.

Simplistically put, dropping bombs on “them” will only make more of “them” and “they” will doubtless turn their attention to the UK, if it’s not already on us. It needs a better solution – and I have no idea what that might be – than simply shooting and bombing indiscriminately

No.

I share John_Drummer’s rationale on this

No,

based on our track record of not sorting things out after we’ve done the “easy” bit.

Also TOO many planes with missiles and bombs occupying the same airspace, we don’t need to add anymore.

No.

Dropping bombs on a non-military force means significant collateral damage – or to put it another way, killing or injuring normal people. That leads to more people who will be the next ISIS.

So bombing maybe slows down or restricts the issue a little now but it’s really just offsetting it by 10 or so years at which point it’ll be even worse – see Iraq wars 1 and 2, Afghanistan, etc.

Not to mention that there’s far from a clear view internationally (including Russia here) on who we should actually be bombing and I see perfect circumstances for misunderstandings/etc as has already happened between Turkey and Russia.

No

Stopping their funding might be a better way to go, not sure how you’d go about that though… 😕

Another no

We should stop being part of the world police and have a nice cup of tea instead

Yes.

But only in that its the least useless option of the three.

No

If we are going to kill people, let’s identify them before killing them, not randomly kill people who happen to be in the vicinity.

If we really need to interfere in a fight in another country’s sovereign territory, let’s declare war, and put troops on the ground (preferably all the bloodthirsty internet warriors who won’t mind dying for the cause).

No
Sick and ashamed of the mess we create by thinking we have the right to bomb people in foreign countries

No, I can’t see what the long term plan that bombing helps to work towards is and I can’t see that our bombing is necessary in addition to those already doing it.

no

No, also because

I can’t see what the long term plan that bombing helps to work towards is.

NO

The case for, as far as I can make out according to the PM this morning made primarily of the following.

1. we bomb them in Iraq, it makes no sense to stop at a border they don’t recognize.

2. It will strengthen our collaboration with our NATO allies.

3. It will help prevent attacks here.

The case isn’t strong enough. There have been over 5000 missions flown by coalition aircraft and they’ve made little or no difference so far I can’t see how 8 more aircraft will change that.

If it’s just to make sure we cosy up to the US to show support, that’s a poor reason to bomb a country

And finally, clearly it hasn’t stopped so far, attacks by radicalised terrorists on our soil, and I can’t see how it will, and there seems a good case that it will in fact strengthen their resolve to attack us even more.

No.

mostly because chucking explosives around is a bad idea in principle.

also, recent history suggests it’ll make a bad situation much, much, worse.

show me a pragmatic argument that reasonably links our involvement to a better happier world, and i’ll change my mind.

while i wait, No.

(now, where’s my £70k per year plus expenses?)

No.

What does it gain, especially in the long term?

I’m abstaining, for now.
We’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t.
I can’t see how diplomacy or “un-radicalisation” would work in the short to mid term and I don’t believe carpet bombing built up areas is a good thing. Any other options that isn’t a field invasion?

No

1 – Recent on line reports suggested that IS was more angry about the EU countries taking in more refugees than any plans to bomb them (IS).

2 – Frankie makes sense #1 and # 2 read on.

senor j – Member

We’re … damned if we don’t.

how’s that?

You really would hope that given the recent disastrous history of our interference in the region, we’d be a little bit smarter, more thoughtful, maybe more hesitant about going in all guns blazing.

Apparently not

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it

Christ only knows how much worse this situation can get. I feel we’re about to find out

[the PM said this morning that bombing would…]
…strengthen our collaboration with our NATO allies.

They should do one of those team building days where you try to build a raft out of plastic barrels in the morning, go on a treasure hunt in the afternoon and then have a curry in the evening.