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

but but but

explosions in slo-mo!

Ins’t it legitimate to look into DC’s claims then? Even if that does mean a ‘weaponry wankathon’ 🙂

Hands up if you want air strikes.

An improved Brimstone 2 was expected to enter service in October 2012, but problems with the new warhead from TDW[4] and the ROXEL rocket motor put back the planned date to November 2015.

From Wikipedia. So is it that Dave has these new awesomz missiles and wants to show other people how good they are?

Hands up if you want a weaponry wankathon 🙂

Ah, so it’s a sales exercise, Makes sense now…

nope…regardless of whether I think its a good idea or not to drop bombs, theres enough folk already involved that our intervention would make next to no difference

Why do we as a nation always have to take the lead in getting involved, why not let others do it if it really must be done

IMO droppping bombs will only make us more of a terroist target, not that they really need an excuse. If I was the Pm i’d send out an ultimatum ‘commit any terror acts on our soil and we’ll join in, until then we won’t’… at least that may make them think twice about attacking the uk.

Why do we as a nation always have to take the lead in getting involved

Because it’s our responsibility as a civilized country to show people the right way and to help those who are suffering by bombing the shit out of the bad people

Because it lets us feel like we’re still part of the greatest empire in the world and important. And because we’re scared of ISIS, etc and like kids in the playground, hitting back is the easiest, most obvious way to respond and make ourselves feel a bit better and prove that we’re in control. For the short term at least.

if you’ve got a massive fight in, say, a pub car park, the best way of solving it is clearly standing well back and randomly lobbing in fireworks

Mr Boyle Nails it.

Ah, so it’s a sales exercise,

They’ve already been used in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the vids are online, so not sure this stacks up.

They only got mentioned because people were querying whether Dave’s claim of bringing something new to the party was true or not. And a guided missile with minimum collateral damage, fired under high rules of engagement is not the the same as a stack of 500lb bombs dropped from a mile high at an area target.

The strategy in Syria is to starve ISIS of funds, by in effect closing all the exits to export oil. I suspect this is where the RAF will be involved in going after trucks etc.

I do agree it would be far better if an actual strategy was outlined to the general public.

No there is only one bomb I would drop and the solution is as follows

Isis are awaiting a final reckoning with the ‘armies of rome’ which we should assemble for them at the designated battleground according to legend.

Then the night before the battle, we spirit them away, and nuke the entire site from orbit.

game over.

why on earth should Britain get involved, after all, it’s a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing!

NO!

I don’t see that further destruction and killing is the answer.
Plus, I don’t understand how it will protect the UK from terrorist attacks- won’t it do the opposite?

And a guided missile with minimum collateral damage

A ****ing big explosion is a ****ing big explosion, whatever causes it. Could you talk me through how this one causes less collateral damage?

Oh.. **** IT!! Just talk to me about weapons systems big boy!!!!

*swoons*

No
because we have no plan for tomorrow.

seperate vote.
Yes
to close the borders of the EU before the whole refugee mess unravels Europe which I think it will do if left unchecked,the right will take over if we don’t.

No.

If we want to improve the situation we should stop bombing them in Iraq and use the money to spend on cyber attacks against them and investigations to close down their income streams.

why on earth should Britain get involved, after all, it’s a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing!

It’s not really like 1938, though, is it?

It’s more like a decision in 1943 on whether to bomb the Nazi bits of Austria when the UK is already bombing the Nazi bits of Germany (and when the U.S., France and the Soviet Union have just said they intend to bomb those bits of Nazi Austria).

I do agree it would be far better if an actual strategy was outlined to the general public.

I know. It’d be nice, wouldn’t it? With withholding the strategy, the more cynical amongst us may jump to the conclusion that there isn’t one.

That can’t be right though, can it? We wouldn’t be that stupid, would we? Again?

No

The more I search on Brimstone, the more Google throws up news on Contracts, and re-stocking, and RAF orders, and how the USAF are looking at them, and we’re investigating putting them on Helicopters…and flogging them to Saudi Arabia.

It’s difficult not to reach the obvious conclusion, isn’t it?

Are we totally sure who we should bomb this time?

Yes of course. We bomb the bad guys.

NO.

The Kaiser, Hitler, Churchill, Harris, Nixon etc all thought they could bomb their enemies into submission by destroying their morale. It never worked then and it won’t work now.*

Stupid ego trip.

* The only time it can be claimed to have worked was in 1945 against Japan, but of course Japan was about to surrender anyway. The Negasaki bomb was just an ego trip to see if the bomb worked.

Absolutely not, have we not learnt anything from the 2 previous interventions.
Add to that we are skint!
Better protecting our borders here to make sure no swarthy gentlemen gain entry bearing unwanted gifts. As Dave said we are a top tier target, so lets go bomb the crap out of a country 2000 miles away!
As Terry Wogan would say ‘Is it me?’

No

Out track record is abysmal and the whole situation is far more complex and confusing than the previous excursions that we royally **** up anyway.

It’s a no from me but…If it was certain that only the shitbags got hit & neutralised, then it would be a yes.
As someone else said, we need to strengthen our security here. Stop the bastards getting in & neutralise their mates who are already here. The money would be better spent doing that.

No, because the current plan is rubbish.

(Surprised myself there)

No

it just seems like a fairly useless gesture with no long term though behind it

NO

Because a war with the west is what isis wants to fulfil some prophecy about the end of the world.

If a crazy person in the street asked you for a fight would you say yes? Of course not, you walk away because they are crazy.

No. The United States has been bombing ISIS targets in Syria for over a year, it’s grossly insulting to suggest that the US, the greatest military power on earth, isn’t up to the job and needs help from us.

So it’s an almost unanimous “NO” here then.

Our MP’s will say yes won’t they…

🙄

Every prime minister wants there own war that they took part in. Blooming Churchill syndrome in’it

So it’s an almost unanimous “NO” here then.

Our MP’s will say yes won’t they…

Yeah but this place is full of bearded cyclists, how many bearded cyclists in the House of Commons will be voting ‘Yes’ ?

No.

The argument that the UK can’t stand by while it’s allies take action is a strong one, but knee-jerk reactions to horrific events in a quest for vengeance are not a proper reason to go to war. The only justification I’ve heard so far is that we must be seen to be taking action, however ineffective, because otherwise we’ll look like a bunch of cowardly chickens. I don’t know about anyone else, but I grew out of that sort of schoolyard thinking when I was about 12.

Instead of asking if we should take ineffective token action against an ill-defined enemy, they should be asking whether we want to do whatever it takes to solve the problems in the Middle East, and that means 100s of thousands of troops, dead UK servcemen and women, billions of pounds, a probable increase in terrorist attacks here and elsewhere in the west, and sorting out the likes of Israel and Saudi Arabia.

If a crazy person in the street asked you for a fight would you say yes? Of course not, you walk away because they are crazy.

But what if he was raping some one would you intervene .

I think every country who has bombs should pitch up and drop them on Isis, that’s what they are for, shame to waste them.

No.

NO.

NO!

There’s not a single morally justifiable or even just plain sensible reason to do so. It WON’T work, it WILL make the UK a bigger target for extremism (and create moar extremists) and it’s just wrong. It’s what ISIS WANT, FFS!!! Whilst I am not religious, are we a ‘Christian country’? Does Christianity not teach that you should turn the other cheek? Talk about misrepresenting religious teachings. The whole thing is both scary and ridiculous.

But what if he was raping some one would you intervene .

REALLY bad analogy. How about;
What if he was raping someone in a crowd of other people who all had opinions about his actions, ranging from ‘way to go big boy’ to ‘you miserable scumbag, I’m going to clout you with a rock’, and your only option is ‘should I chuck a grenade in his general direction, because I haven’t got the political will to actually enter that crowd and figure out what’s going on’.

Yes.

With Russia and the US pulling in the same direction there is a realistic, albeit not certain, prospect of a political settlement being secured in Syria, but only if ISIS can be driven out. 10 million people have been displaced by the Syrian civil war, trying to help them get their country back is a worthwhile endeavour.

Isis are the biggest threat to world peace since ww2, I like world peace, so think the world should unite and smack the shit out of the vicious ****.

The worst thing that could happen is to leave them unchecked to grow further into an actual state. Oil rich, cash rich and then go on to develop WMDs with their MO.

They are a threat, but unchecked they just will become an ever bigger threat.

With Russia and the US pulling in the same direction there is a realistic, albeit not certain, prospect of a political settlement being secured in Syria, but only if ISIS can be driven out.

So how come after the British government deciding 18 months ago that ISIS was a terrorist organisation, and helping with nearly 4,000 US-led coalition air strikes in Iraq, ISIS hasn’t been driven out of Iraq ?

Explain that if you would.

Indeed whenever i fear peace is threatened what I do is start a war to ensure the peace works with fights as well fear a fight might brake out then just smack someone and scream who wants some then… my only question is whether yours was intentional satire.

No for all the obvious reasons