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

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

The sad reality I fear is that even if the UK and other western countries show huge restraint, if IS/Daesh/whoever want a fight then they’re going to get one. The question is not whether they should be fought/defeated, but how best to do it? Lobbing bombs from a distance is obviously not going to do it, and will make things worse in terms of recruiting new jihadis and increasing attacks in the west. I think deep down we all know what the ultimate solution is, but very few people, least of all politicians would support it.

Isis are the biggest threat to world peace since ww2, I like world peace

What a ridiculous comment, we haven’t had world peace since WW2, and the biggest threat to world peace has been the United States. ISIS can’t achieve much beyond terrorist outrages.

ISIS can’t achieve much beyond terrorist outrages.

Here maybe, for now.

ISIS can’t achieve much beyond terrorist outrages.

On this you are technically wrong; it appears that they can manipulate the west into yet another costly and pointless middle eastern war. They’ve got most western leaders dancing to the sound of their tune.

Does Christianity not teach that you should turn the other cheek?

A man hit me but I turned the other cheek, he hit me again later, but I turned the other cheek. He kept on hitting me & I pleaded with him but he wouldn’t listen & again I turned the other cheek. I was defeated & he’d won.

I still don’t agree with bombing the shit out of them in Syria though. As I said, higher security here & neutralise them closer to home.

They’ve got most western leaders dancing to the sound of their tune.

Because of a terrorist outrage which involved killing Europeans in a European city (killing non-Europeans in hot countries is much more acceptable) There’s no need to talk them up.

If no one had been bombing Isis they probably would have taken Iraq by now.

A man hit me but I turned the other cheek, he hit me again later, but I turned the other cheek. He kept on hitting me & I pleaded with him but he wouldn’t listen & again I turned the other cheek. I was defeated & he’d won.

You screwed up. After offering him the other cheek you should have said “now it’s my turn”.

if no one had bombed Iraq we probably would not have ISIS

FTFY

I have been saying bomb them for over a year because what they were doing in hot countries. And over a year ago I said they would commit exactly the atrocities that they have gone on to do in France. And I was told I was being stupid it would never happen.

Anyone who thinks leaving Isis to their own devices is the way to go and it will sort its self out are deluded.

If no one had been bombing Isis they probably would have taken Iraq by now.

So the aim of bombing ISIS is “containment”? No one has made that clear. Mefty’s comment “only if ISIS can be driven out” doesn’t suggest that.

But perhaps you’re simply moving the goalposts to suit as the debate progresses? Not the best strategy to inspire a feeling that you have a well thought out plan.

And over a year ago I said they would commit exactly the atrocities that they have gone on to do in France.

And how specifically would bombing them have prevented the Paris attacks? That’s a serious question by the way.

No.

There’s no plan, this is just opportunism and willy waving.

Dave wants to play with the toys, strut about and look all powerful n, that so he can flog off the NHS while the cameras are all pointed at the “terrorists”..

Cynical? moi? 🙂

And incidentally, they’d be doing exactly what ISIS want them to do.

OK it was not satire

Thanks

And how specifically would bombing them have prevented the Paris attacks? That’s a serious question by the way.

I think the warmonger’s logic is that had France not been bombing ISIS in Syria France would have suffered even more terrorist outrages than it has.

Does that not sound logical to you ?

We should never have left Iraq and instead have stayed until it had begun to prosper.
We should never had encouraged the civil war in Syria .
We should have squashed Isis the moment they reared their ugly head.

I think you’ll find that the prime objective of George Bush, and the other oil millionaires in his administration, was to get their hands on Iraq’s oil ….. not to sit there and watch it become wealthy.

It’s called neocolonialism.

EDIT : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1138009.stm

What makes the new Bush administration different from previous wealthy cabinets is that so many of the officials have links to the same industry – oil.

The president, vice-president, commerce secretary and national security adviser all have strong ties to the oil industry.

Vice-President Dick Cheney amassed some £50m-$60m while he was chief executive of Haliburton oil company.

Commerce Secretary Donald Evans held stock valued between $5m and $25m in Tom Brown Inc, the oil and gas exploration company he headed.

National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice was a director of Chevron.

The concentration of energy connections is so pronounced that some critics are calling the Bush government the “oil and gas administration”.

I just want to be sure that it’s ISIS we’re killing. Got no problem with that.

I don’t know where we find bombs that can make that fine discrimination.

The kill them all and let god sort them out policy is a bit unsophisticated for my liking.

You screwed up. After offering him the other cheek you should have said “now it’s my turn”.

Ok Ernie your’e right, I’ve changed my mind. Bomb the shit out of the chickenshit scumbags.

All those who believe we should not bomb Isis. Is it because you believe it will encourage them to attack Britain.
Is it because you think it’s not our problem as it is not here the are murdering and raping there way across the country.
Or do you think it would be better for the people of the “hot” countries to be left in the grip of is.

I believe they are here already.
I believe it is our problem and once they had taken Iraq and Syria they would not stop And then it would be our problem in a big way.
And I don’t think the people of the hot countries are best left at the mercy of is.

Seriously google image is to get a brief glimpse of life under is.

All those who believe we should not bomb Isis. Is it because you believe it will encourage them to attack Britain.

People gave their reasons why not read them – i know it wont fit into your little narrative but what is the point asking a question when folk have already answered it

I realise that fell on deaf ears as well

I believe they are here already.

Well obviously bombing them is too late then.

Or are you suggesting bombing ISIS targets in the UK ?

If no one had been bombing Isis they probably would have taken Iraq by now.

So the aim of bombing ISIS is “containment”?

Wouldn’t interdiction be a more accurate term?

Big fat no from me. Waste of money. We should all just let the russians go do what they want, we wouldn’t be as effective as them any way.
Won’t change a thing regarding UK bombings. They don’t need a base halfway around the world to put an IED in a rucksack.

We are never going to agree, I believe is are pure evil and they need to be destroyed, wether it can be done or not you can’t just leave them to it.
And I don’t believe some thing should be done about them but we should leave it to someone else to do it.

We should all just let the russians go do what they want, we wouldn’t be as effective as them any way.

What gives the Russians half a chance is that they are working with the Syrian government, so that if ISIS do withdraw from territory under bombardment the Syrian army can secure the ground.

The Western backed plan appears to be bomb ISIS targets in Syria and fingers crossed that our preferred Islamic terrorists move into previously ISIS held territory.

And remember it was only 18 months ago that the British government decided that ISIS was a terrorist organization – years after they had been butchering and publicly beheading people (but not threatening Iraqi oil)

chip – Member

But what if he was raping some one would you intervene

I’d blow both him and his victim up with a drone. That’ll sort it out.

meh… I’ve actually surprised myself and am going to abstain – I could’t give a flying ****..

maybe a ground war – we’ve got a gazillion fighting fit middle aged opinionated tosspots who have been spanking their gym memberships and doing lots of cycling and so forth.. should provide good sport for the jihadis, maybe ISIS’ll relax a bit once they get the opportunity for a proper square go..

feed ’em to the lions I say

I’d blow both him and his victim up with a drone. That’ll sort it out.

That’s just silly!

Definitely NO. It’s like trying to put out a fire by throwing petrol on it.

That’s just silly!

Which presumably is why successive UK governments didn’t resort to aerial bombardment of selected targets in Northern Ireland in response to terrorist activity/outrages – too much risk of collateral damage.

However it’s presumably worth taking the risk of collateral damage in hot countries full of non-Europeans.

That’s just silly!

your mum’s just silly

My mum is far from silly. She’s a mean, mean old lady. But she’s my mum what can I do?

Really really surprised at the strength of the no vote on here as i fully expect the vote to be yes in Parliament.

For me, its a carefully considered no.

We are on the precipice of war. The whole of Syria and surrounding region is a tinderbox of which IS forms only one part. The Russians and Americans are on opposite sides when it comes to Assad and the government / rebel forces. Turkey is in NATO and has its own grievances. Then there is the religious grievances of the various muslim factions.

Its a hell of a mess and i really cant see a way of sorting it. I just dont think dropping a few indiscriminate bombs will do any good at all.

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.

Alternatively we could wait until everyone else has bombed the shit out of them, and then used the money we would have spent on bombs to pay for things that will make the region more stable and safe.

they played the whole of Cameron’s speech to Commons on Radio 4’s “PM” earlier. I actually thought it was pretty balanced – it certainly wasn’t “warmongering” and he echoed many of the views already expressed on this thread.

Personally I’d vote “maybe”. There seems to be a pretty good logic to using air strikes to degrade ISIL’s supply of military hardware (US hardware left behind when Iraqi forces fled) and also taking out ISIL’s fleet of 500 or so oil tankers that they are using to secure £1/2 Bn a year from oil sales.

Anyone remember when Assad was the bad guy? Will we bomb him next once we’re finished with ISIS?

Yes. I love explosions and am happy when the UK is doing well financially, selling weapons is big business and a few of my friends work at BAE, so drinks on them. Also even though isis have proven to use human shields at every opportunity bombs are so sophisticated these days that hardly anyone dies that isn’t a terrorist. As well as that it’s a 100% proven fact that you can use bombs and guns to kill an idea and it will in no way reinforce the claims isis are making about the west and add to their support.

So what do you suggest is to be done about IS.