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

I think of ISIS as a set of twisted beliefs and ideals as much as any physical object, territory or possessions. Syria and Iraq just happen to be the staging post now.

If we drop bombs in Syria ISIS will just disappear into the shadows and reappear in another conflict probably with more radicalised Western citizens.

To me it would be like trying to drop bombs into clouds to eradicate the rain.

I also thought Jeremy Corbyn gave a very reasoned response as to why he is against it, but IMO he should allow a free vote.

I’m finding the most useful responses here are those that just say ‘yes’ or ‘no’.

Its a no for me. IS recruit and grow from the west killing innocent people in air strikes and when youve got everyone throwing bombs at every faction of syria killing all and a sundry they can paint them selves as fighting for a just cause and recruit more. Take the spike in volunteers for the french armed forces after the attacks.

Westminster probably need a big bloody terrorist attack in the UK to sway public opinion.

Wonder when we’ll get that?

Christmas probs… Extra bonus points for seasonal inappropiateness and they’ll wanna get a wriggle on cos I imagine they already have signed contracts and whatnot to fulfil after the recent trade fairs

Westminster probably need a big bloody terrorist attack in the UK to sway public opinion.

I think public opinion is more pro air strikes than you think. The Commons vote (next week) will be a substantial majority with significant Laboir support and minimum Tory abstention/vote against. It’s my view this is reflective of public opinion, French press reporting the anti demonstration today was just 5,000 vs 1m for Iraq invasion

late christmas we need to bring the public up to speed with we cannot have a nativity play due to muslims, carols banned in XXX due to Muslims and other stupid made up shit that the gullible buy without any evidence to support it

In a few years time this will weigh around Cameron’s neck like it does to Blair now

I’m with Shirley bassey

I doubt it. Everyone is bombing Syria – Assad, the Russians, the US, the French, and a few others – not that it stops acts of terrorism of course. Britain claiming its right to join in and have a go at killing a few more people won’t be as significant as Britain’s role in launching an aggressive war against Iraq.

And again yes,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34954233

I think public opinion is more pro air strikes than you think.

There’s no real need to guess.

48% back British air raids on the extremists, contrasted with 30% who want the RAF to stay out of the fight, and 21% who don’t know. But an overwhelming majority – 59% believe sending Tornado warplanes into action over Syria will increase the risk of terrorists inflicting carnage in the UK.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-cameron-fails-convince-public-6914446

I think public opinion is more pro air strikes than you think.

Or doesn’t feel *that* strongly against it.

I think it’s a complete waste of time apart from showing the US we’re a good ally.

However, I’m not desperately opposed to it because a) We’re already doing recon there and that info is passed on to people who bomb b) Us bombing Syria will make no miltary difference at all. If two more RAF aircraft bomb Syria, two less will be bombing Iraq. c) There aren’t enough targets anyway, so more planes doesn’t equate to more bombing.

I suspect most people feel that way. Are against it, but don’t really GAF if it happens because it will make no difference at all. (Apart from showing ISIS that we will always respond the way they want to their deliberate provocation.)

> 59% believe sending Tornado warplanes into action over Syria will increase the risk of terrorists inflicting carnage in the UK.

Would be interesting to know why they think that. As far as I can see attacks are coming regardless, and we’re told several have been stopped already, so it makes no difference.

Would be interesting to know why they think that. As far as I can see attacks are coming regardless, and we’re told several have been stopped already, so it makes no difference.

Yeah, we’ve 100pc pissed of the middle east already. The number of terrorist attacks is now related only to the quantity of disaffected yobs with some kind of tenuous Muslim background in Bradford or Crawley.

–

It’s my view this is reflective of public opinion, French press reporting the anti demonstration today was just 5,000 vs 1m for Iraq invasion

I’ve just heard on the radio that demonstrations and rallies have been banned in Paris since the mass murders a couple of weeks ago.

Coming late to this…

Against – bombing would play into ISIL’s hands and also cause much civilian collateral damage. When will Western countries learn that
even ‘liberal’ intervention causes problems not solves them.

I’ve just heard on the radio that demonstrations and rallies have been banned in Paris since the mass murders a couple of weeks ago.

@Kona sorry for my confusing post, the wife was reading a French story about the London demonstrations. When I saw the TV coverage I thought 5,000 was a very optimistic estimate too. You are quite right the French government have banned any large gatherings.

@dekadanse, IS like most terrorist groups deliberately hide amongst civilians/non militants. The fact is civilians will be killed either way, want we are trying to do is put a stop to the civilian casualties IS are trying to inflict on their fellow Mislims and of course on us.

I think public opinion is more pro air strikes than you think. The Commons vote (next week) will be a substantial majority with significant Laboir support and minimum Tory abstention/vote against. It’s my view this is reflective of public opinion,

And it’s my view that it reflects the opinion of politicians.

So whatever the vote results in, mine will be a true statement and yours will still be a guess.

No.

We haven’t learnt from the past. Other options need exploring.

want [sic] we are trying to do is put a stop to the civilian casualties IS are trying to inflict on their fellow Mislims and of course on us.

1. 10883 civilians have been killed in Syria in 2015 alone (a further 45,000 in the entire conflict) according to the UN, although that figure isn’t split up between the responsibility of pro or anti govt. forces.

2. 60 people in the UK have been killed in the last 10 years due to terrorism.

I think that lobbing more bombs into Syria is probably going have more of an effect on 1. than 2.

Interestingly, there have been reports of the USAF not attacking ISIS forces while they were being attacked by the Syrian Army as their actions may be interpreted as acting in Assad’s interests.

@nick I think the death toll in Syria is close to 200,000 the vast majority civilians.

The Labour Party meeting is on Monday and the vote is rumoured to be on Wednesday. My guess is a majority of 75 in favour of air strikes.

@nick I think the death toll in Syria is close to 200,000 the vast majority civilians.

No, the majority have been pro govt forces (some 62,000), followed by civilians 55,000, followed by non govt forces, about another 49,000, then there are about another 45,000 who are unidentified.

The point is, I think we can put to bed the lie that the bombing of ISIS forces in Syria will somehow make a major impact of the already very low numbers of terrorist deaths in the UK. The vast majority of which were perpetrated by UK citizens.

We arrived in Afghanistan with the intent to build a nation, but left left when it started to cost too much.

We invaded iraq, and had no plan for what came after.

So we bombed Libya from a great height, and now it is a failed state.

So now we are heading to Syria…and are already back in Iraq.

Since the likes of Jambabollox are avoiding the what comes after question, I thought I’d post our oh so glorious triumphs in the middle east in the last few decades, just to give them a few pointers.

Cameron wants his war, it appears to be a badge of honour for Prime ministers these days.

Since the likes of Jambabollox are avoiding the what comes after question

Perhaps you’re right, perhaps you’re not (because the past is not the future http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/30/syria-iraq-labour-cameron-blair).

But the fact you choose to descend to personal insults removes any credibility from your contributions.

That article is witless (it sets up a straw man and then fails to knock it down) and irrelevant (because it doesn’t discuss the “what happens the day after?” question).

Also, your link doesn’t work.

> Also, your link doesn’t work.

Ah the close bracket is messing the URL I think.

Cameron wants his war, it appears to be a badge of honour for Prime ministers these days.

Like the vast majority of MP’s, he’s conveniently ignoring the last few little bits of bother we’ve had, as they all went so well (la-la-la… I’m not listening!!!). Instead he’s got this vision of his glorious Maggie/Falklands moment

Somebody really does need to have a word

This whole debate is irrelevant and handing our allies (EDIT: i meant enemies) a big propaganda coup. Others are already bombing Syria. We’re already actively engaged in Syria in many lethal activities save from actually dropping ordnance (we’re providing intel, recon, active targeting). All we’re discussing and the potential outcomes is already in motion and we’re already pregnant with it whether we decide to bomb or not bomb. Its more of a show of solidarity with our allies and sending out a message to our enemies rather than anything tactically necessary. We’re already involved in activities to amass a ground force to compliment the bombing campaign and we’ll support that. And we’re still 100% focussed on getting rid of Assad, though it is now a secondary objective behind dealing with ISIS on the ground.

We invaded iraq, and had no plan for what came after.

When we invaded Germany in ’45 we allowed most of the established leadership to stay in place, in the knowledge that they were, largely, full blown committed nazi’s, because we knew that we needed to keep them in place to stop it all going to ratshit afterwards. This was in past times when this type of thing didn’t hit the press – imagine it nowadays, latest daily mirror scandal as it was revealed we had given a job to a former senior nazi.

Americas policy in Iraq was one of de-baathification – now, I am perfectly willing to accept that this was foolish, it was loudly voiced as so at the time. however, I suggest that had they gone around an alternative policy, that those standing there now screaming loudest about how we had no plan for afterwards, would have been the first ones screaming loudest about how we were working with murderers and culpable for the contained oppression of the Ba’ath parties opponents.

If you don’t believe me, just look at how they are still the same ones still going on about us as a nation supporting Mugabe,, Pinochet and pol pot, ignoring the fact that, at the times, the alternatives were even worse.

This whole debate is irrelevant

without wishing to pick on you specifically, this is one of the points made by those who wish to start bombing that I find most difficult to comprehend.

We are talking about killing people, and lets be clear, a great many of the people we will kill (and have killed already) will be innocent bystanders.

Our recent history in this part of the world is one of un-utterable miserable failure. We’ve killed people in a unending and unwinable “War on Terror” that stretches from Somalia, to Pakistan to Yemen, to Afghanistan, via Lybia , Iraq, and now Syria…That has at it’s heart the need to control energy, and disrupt a country that we see as an enemy: Iran. In a ceaseless blind panic, guided by the same “Intelligence-driven” paranoia that fuelled the cold war.

It doesn’t work, and eventually we’ll have to; like Gorbechev and Regan realise that we will have to come to a peace that is politically derived.

I doubt Cameron has the wit to realise it, or the bravery to begin the process that it will eventually demand.

When we invaded Germany in ’45 we allowed most of the established leadership to stay in place

Denazification

“The United States military pursued denazification in a zealous, albeit bureaucratic, fashion, especially during the first months of the occupation. One of the punishments for Nazi involvement was to be barred from public office and/or restricted to manual labour or “simple work”. At the end of 1945 3.5 million former Nazis awaited classification, many of them barred from work in the meantime. By the end of the winter of 1945–46 42% of public officials had been dismissed.”

El-bent – Member

We arrived in Afghanistan with the intent to build a nation, but left left when it started to cost too much.

We invaded iraq, and had no plan for what came after.

So we bombed Libya from a great height, and now it is a failed state.

So now we are heading to Syria…and are already back in Iraq.

Since the likes of Jambabollox are avoiding the what comes after question, I thought I’d post our oh so glorious triumphs in the middle east in the last few decades, just to give them a few pointers.

I seldom find myself in agreement with George Galloway, but his appearance on the Politics Show yesterday morning was one such exception.

He was broadly in support of air strikes against ISIS, but only where it was in co-ordination with the governments on the ground; it is them who have to pick up the pieces. Bombing merely to create a temporary geographic vacuum would not guarantee any longer lasting freedom from extrimists.

I understand your concerns Nick, and I have no idea what the fix is, no more than anyone else (our politicians included). We’re damned if we do and damned of we don’t. The military side of things is not the problem, militarily all our campaigns have been successful – its the aftermath that we’ve failed at. Syria might offer up an opportunity as, unlike Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, it still has all the necessary institutions a country needs to function, so should be easier to transition between regimes. I also think, as much as it pains me to admit, we probably need to soften our demand on Assad’s removal and have a more managed transition once we’ve dealt with ISIS. This also might mean making some concessions with Putin.

We’ve already turned a blind eye to Assad with disastrous consequences, with mass murders at the hands of chemical weapons, the emergence of ISIL (though they were probably already on the rise post Al Qaeda) and mass migration of an entire nation. So the do nothing scenario is no better than the cocked up military approach at this point and our hands are just as bloodied.

It’s a mess, no doubt about it.

What strategy does this bombing serve? How does if factor into the long term plan to solve this “Middle East” problem? Is there a long term plan and if so what is it?

What strategy does this bombing serve?

Aaaah … strategy… the one thing so noticeable by its absence, with regards to western policy towards the Middle East. On present form I don’t see ‘us’ developing one any time soon either.

Unless ‘drop some more bombs’ actually passes for strategy. Shit! Its actually does, doesn’t it, as far as Dave and chums are concerned?

Its actually does, doesn’t it, as far as Dave and chums are concerned

By “chums” I assume you mean the following (as they all are or have bombed Syria / ISIL)

Australia
Bahrain
Canada
France
Jordan
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
United States of America

You forgot Russia. They’re lobbing the odd bit of ordinance around too.

With friends like some of those…..

So the do nothing scenario is no better than the cocked up military approach at this point and our hands are just as bloodied.

It’s scary that this is the level of argument. With no rational or reasonable explanation as to what bombing will achieve, the main justification is simply ‘we can’t do nothing’.

It’s like a discussion over how to tackle a kitchen fire. Should we pour fire on it or just leave it burn because we can’t do nothing.