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

I heard on the radio yesterday that the French are launching 7 sorties a day in syria To the Russians 160+ sorties a day.
The reason being the French have no one on the ground calling in the strikes, where as the Russians are working in conjunction with assads forces on the ground who are requesting 600-800 air strikes a day.

Also the French have been clinical with there choice of targets and bombing with no civilian collateral damage where as the Russians are blowing up civilians a plenty.

ernie_lynch

He didn’t explain why the US and the French hadn’t bombed ISIS’s headquarters in Syria though.

They’re just saving a bit of glory for Dave.

Because the Americans only bomb weddings, funerals and British AFV’s, while the French have probably already surrendered – obviously.

Also the French have been clinical with there choice of targets and bombing with no civilian collateral damage

Yes of course, their bombs only kill bad people.

Which brings us to an important point – with the US involved in bombing it’s double important not to put British boots on the ground.

It’s an interesting point about people on the ground, you have to wonder if the real reason they want the RAF involved is that British Special Forces would be on the ground calling in strikes. We know they do in Iraq, probably did in Libya and have done in Syria while embedded with the US / Canadian forces.

He didn’t explain why the US and the French hadn’t bombed ISIS’s headquarters in Syria though.

Is this not where the “special bombs” argument comes in?

We’ve got special bombs which we won’t give to our American and French friends?

That sounds a little mean.

Yes of course, their bombs only kill bad people.

No you only target the bad people.

Its pretty obvious that any bombing campaign will involve “collateral” damage and will lead to innocent lives

the best we can do is argue about the extent

We’ve got special bombs which we won’t give to our American and French friends?

You don’t just fit a new weapon to a plane by strapping it to the outside, it will need integrating with the avionics, testing etc. etc. However, you’ll be pleased to know the Saudi’s are the only other country with them currently.

No you only target the bad people.

The Russians are targeting good people???!!!

Bastards.

Its pretty obvious that any bombing campaign will involve “collateral” damage and will lead to innocent lives [being lost]

But so will not bombing.

You don’t just fit a new weapon to a plane by strapping it to the outside, it will need integrating with the avionics, testing etc. etc.

I am of course aware of that – our American friends don’t just lease us nuclear warheads (which I would class as Very special bombs), we get the whole kit including servicing and a technical inquires contract.

Which makes our meanness with regards to our special bombs even more unacceptable imo.

But so will not bombing.

Why haven’t the intelligence services identified who funds, arms and trades with ISIS? Who deals with their finances?

Surely this would be key to cutting off their supply chain and degrading their capabilities.

Which makes our meanness with regards to our special bombs even more unacceptable imo.

If everyone had special bombs, there would be no reason for us to join in on a jolly rollicking war, what!!

Keeps the shareholders happy too, doncha know

Why haven’t the intelligence services identified who funds, arms and trades with ISIS? Who deals with their finances?

Surely this would be key to cutting off their supply chain and degrading their capabilities.

What makes you think that this is an either/or scenario?

I say we do both.

The Russians are targeting good people???!!!
Bastards.

No, the Russians are bombing targets requested by assads forces who we know not causing collateral damage to and killing the civilian population is high on their priority list, not.

Where as the French are using there own intelligence and do care about accidentally or other wise targeting civilians.

What makes you think that this is an either/or scenario?

Unlike the blanket coverage regarding airstrikes, I can’t recall any significant debate or media coverage regarding ISIS’s supply chain…

and they are infallible dont forget that bit

and they are infallible dont forget that bit

No they are not, but they are not going in gung Ho randomly dropping as many bombs as possible for the sake of dropping bombs.

In Iraq it is not uncommon for our bombers to come back complete with all there bombs due to no legitimate targets.
Were determined.

ah its skill that means they dont kill any civilians yes that will be it skill and self restraint 😕

I dont know why you are posting this shite tbh and whilst I can accept they try not to any bombing campaign will have collateral damage, its not even debatable, and to argue otherwise is foolish as you so persistently demonstrate.

That said your [blind]faith in their brilliance is touching.

Where as the French are using there own intelligence and do care about accidentally or other wise targeting civilians.

Not according to the French.

According to the French they are sharing intelligence and targets with the Russians.

Russia And France To Join Forces Against IS

Russian President Vladimir Putin has agreed to set up a joint military operation with France to combat Islamic State.

France’s Hollande, Russia’s Putin Agree to Closer Anti-ISIS Collaboration

French President Francois Hollande and Russia’s Vladimir Putin agreed to share intelligence information and cooperate on selecting targets in the fight against ISIS, raising hope for closer ties between Moscow and the U.S.-led anti-ISIS coalition following the Paris terror attacks

you really are a bit special.:D

Very interesting that the Foreign Affairs Select Committee itself does not support Syria airstrikes, they’ve voted against it.

Unlike the blanket coverage regarding airstrikes, I can’t recall any significant debate or media coverage regarding ISIS’s supply chain…

Perhaps that’s because it doesn’t require a parliamentary vote? (Well, technically neither do airstrikes, although it has become an accepted convention)

You appear to have fallen into the logical fallacy that a lack of debate or media coverage means we’re not doing it – sometimes these things take place in the shadows, things that the politicians and media don’t (or can’t) discuss for very good reasons (shock, horror)

Very interesting that the Foreign Affairs Select Committee itself does not support Syria airstrikes, they’ve voted against it.

What is their reasoning behind that decision?

you tube links and the queen told them to do this 😉

I was thinking more along the lines of increasing radicalization through collateral damage, escalation of engagement and exacerbating the refugee crisis…

Could they be likely factors?

They concluded…

We consider that the focus on the extension of airstrikes against ISIL in Syria is a distraction from the much bigger and more important task of finding a resolution to the conflict in Syria and thereby removing one of the main facilitators of ISIL’s rise. There was consensus among our witnesses that the UK should use its diplomatic weight to exert pressure on the parties in the conflict, and their international sponsors. We note that many more of our witnesses called on the UK to lead a renewed diplomatic initiative rather than conduct airstrikes. Several considered that the Russian intervention had opened up a new opportunity to bring parties to the negotiating table. This appears to be happening now, and we note talks in Vienna on 30 October 2015 which now include Iran.The Foreign Secretary told us that to relent in its pressure on Assad would act as a “recruiting sergeant” for ISIL. We are not persuaded that talks involving all parties would be any more of an incentive for people to join ISIL than allowing the continuation of the chaos and conflict.

And that…

we believe that there should be no extension of British military action into Syria unless there is a coherent international strategy that has a realistic chance of defeating ISIL and of ending the civil war in Syria. In the absence of such a strategy, taking action to meet the desire to do something is still incoherent.

What is their reasoning behind that decision?

It was on the news just now, there was a soundbite, not sure if much will be online yet, I think the gist of the soundbite was along the lines of they don’t agree with the reasons put forward by Cameron. Possible signs of intelligence in government, who’d have thunk it?!

^ ah there you go

chip – Member

you really are a bit special.:D

So “French President Francois Hollande and Russia’s Vladimir Putin agreed to share intelligence information and cooperate on selecting targets in the fight against ISIS”, according to NBC News, contradicting your claim that the French are using their own intelligence and selecting their own targets, and that makes me “a bit special”?

Excellent.

For balance could anyone post why we should bomb people? (Bullet points may be appropriate)

according to the French they are sharing intelligence and targets with the Russians.

It does not say that, it says they have had a conversation agreeing to a joint military operation with France, Which would make sense to share Intel, does not mean the french will start bombing on assads say so or the Russians will stop.

For balance could anyone post why we should bomb people? (Bullet points may be appropriate)

Surely you mean “why we should bomb bad people?”

We would only bomb bad people.

Apparently.

chip – Member
you really are a bit special.:D

I was referring to junkyard rudeness and way he talks to people who do not share his opinion.

You mean I’m not a bit special after all ?

and he does not find you rude so crack on 😀

Chip any bombing campaign will include collateral damage. This is not an opinion its just a fact. Its not rude to point this out is just sense.

I dont mind different opinions I just object to ones that are obviously factually incorrect like yours.

PS it was very charming insult you used that gave another lovely insight into the kind of person you are.

Will you call me a mong for this reply?

You mean I’m not a bit special after all ?

Sorry to break it to like this, but I think it’s better you know.

I was in Cromwells bedroom at the house that hosts my cross race today. Now considering he had a fairly large part in how our current parliament works, it was gloomy to learn that his family motto is ‘Peace is sought through war’.

Why was my response to junkyards insulting post pulled.
When Yunki told someone to get into the sea and called them a turd or insulted my long suffering mum that never got pulled

I would not call you a Mong no.
I explained my self once only to have it pulled so it would be pointless do it again.