Parliament Recalled-How do you want your elected MP to vote re IS in Iraq

[Don Quixote]

1. What right do we have to drop bombs on anyone?
2. We are a tin-pot nation in terms of military force
3. We cannot even afford our own NHS yet we're considering spending shit loads of money turning non-radicals in to radicals
4. Have we not learnt the lessons from history

The answer is NO

If we are such a tin - pot nation in terms of military force, why do we have the sixth highest military expenditure in the world?

 

[Stoo82]

They said, "Something has to be done" about Assad, remember? The cruelty was beyond anything you had ever heard, etc.

My point was that we wanted to take out Assad, and had we done so, IS would probably be in control of Syria today.

You're emotive appeals to "do something" are understandable, but we have lost a lot of blood and treasure over the last decade, to create a more volatile situation in the middle east, and we did so because we didn't think before we acted.

Assad should have been weaken last year. You simply cannot use chemical weapons. Well, you didn't use to be able to. Seems times have changed.

What evidence do you have to suggest IS would have taken control of Syria had the West 'got rid' of Assad? How would IS have controlled his vast modern army? What about their air force? Would Turkey have allowed the take over? Israel? I just don't see it. Its a civil war and a bloody messy one for sure. No one knows who is who.

What do you suggest? And you can't say: "Not have bombed them in the first place"

 

[dingodan]

Assad should have been delt with. You can not use chemical wepons. Well, you use to not be able to. Seems times have changed. What evidence do you have to suggest IS would have control of Syria had 'got rid' of Assad? How would IS have controlled his vast modern army? What about their air force? Would Turkey have allowed the take over? Israel? I just don't see it. Its a civil war and a bloody messy one for sure. No one knows who who.

What do you suggest? And you can't say: "Not have bombed them in the first place"

Well look at Iraq after we got rid of Hussein, look at Libya after we got rid of Gaddafi, both are Jihadi wonderlands today. Nature abhors a vacuum.

What do I suggest? Thinking things through properly.

 

[Stoo82]

Well look at Iraq after we got rid of Hussein, look at Libya after we got rid of Gaddafi, both are Jihadi wonderlands today. Nature abhors a vacuum.

What do I suggest? Thinking things through properly.

I don't think the west has rushed into this one. You say that about Iraq and Libya, but I would argue there are states out there which were Jihadi wonderlands before any military action was taken in those countries. Afghanistan, I gather Yemeni is a bit of a hotbed too. So the question is, was it US-led military action which led to the creation of IS, or, was it there complete and utter failure in creating a stable Iraq. Disbanding the army/police force, that king of thing.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

It really pisses me off - Syria was a beautiful, secular country.

Assad was/is undemocratic, has questionable human rights, and at least half of the Syrian population thought he was an incompetent leader.

I understand that Western nations wanted him gone for the above reasons - but what on earth gave us the right to militarise terrorists like we did? We turned Syria into a warzone, like Iraq, and either inadvertently or directly militarised the IS. Syria is no longer a beautiful, secular country thanks to the West.

It's not too late to help Assad to restore peace, but we won't. It'll just be more bombs, more destruction, more violence, more terrorism, more death - until ultimately it is under Western supervision and we can instil our twisted idea of democracy - which will fail, like it has Iraq, and decades more violence and destruction will commence.

What do you mean by help Assad restore peace?

 

[dingodan]

I don't think the west has rushed into this one. You say that about Iraq and Libya, but I would argue there are states out there which were Jihadi wonderlands before any military action was taken in those countries. Afghanistan, I gather Yemeni is a bit of a hotbed too. So the question is, was it US-led military action which led to the creation of IS, or, was it there complete and utter failure in creating a stable Iraq. Disbanding the army/police force, that king of thing.

I'm not sure what you mean by "created". If you mean what has motivated and galvanized them? who knows. I can tell you who has armed and enabled them though. Us.

You would do well to give this a watch/listen.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

Return it to how it was before the uprising. A modern, secular, peaceful & progressive predominantly Muslim country.

No bombs, no guns, no beheadings, no massacres, no violence.

But how? How would you deal with the rebels and I mean the non is rebels.

 

[goldstone]

It really pisses me off - Syria was a beautiful, secular country.

Assad was/is undemocratic, has questionable human rights, and at least half of the Syrian population thought he was an incompetent leader.

I understand that Western nations wanted him gone for the above reasons - but what on earth gave us the right to militarise terrorists like we did? We turned Syria into a warzone, like Iraq, and either inadvertently or directly militarised the IS. Syria is no longer a beautiful, secular country thanks to the West.

It's not too late to help Assad to restore peace, but we won't. It'll just be more bombs, more destruction, more violence, more terrorism, more death - until ultimately it is under Western supervision and we can instil our twisted idea of democracy - which will fail, like it has Iraq, and decades more violence and destruction will commence.

Much sense in what you say. Looking back, the Syrian people were much better off under Assad.

 

[1066familyman]

I'm pretty impressed with the amount of "no" votes on this poll, all things considered.

This is a circumstance in which reasonably we could be argued to be threatened, I would not say greatly, but the will to cause us harm is probably greater than ever, and the means now too.

Having said that, I have to emphasize that violence leads to violence. It's silly, it's almost a cliche, but we continue to do the same things, hoping for different results. Every bomb we drop to "destroy radical Islam", has the effect of - radicalizing Islam. Until we recognize this, these circumstances will continue in perpetuity.

I heard a debate on the news this morning and I noticed that there is one thing never ever considered when to comes to this particular enemy. Dialogue. Diplomacy. Talking to your enemy, as much is it might feel uncomfortable, it's necessary. We might think that it takes a strong leader to drop bombs and commit troops, it actually takes a stronger one not to. The aim should be peace.

So 12 months ago we were all for bombing Assad in Syria and now we're all for bombing the mugs he's fighting. The policy seems to be, bomb anything, the target appears to be a mere detail afterthought. What could possibly go wrong? Just another ****-up in the disastrous western policy in the Middle East over the past 30 years where we veer backwards and forwards from bombing military dictatorships and the Islamist insurgents generally battling those crap governments.

We haven't got a clue what we're doing or to who. We haven't done for as long as I've been alive. ISIS is not the West's problem, ISIS WANT the West to get involved, it'll ve the best recruiting call they could possibly have.

Let's see Arabs deal with this problem.

Furthermore, if we commit to bombing we'll have boots on the ground within a year. It won't be popular but it's a big NO from me.

Whenever I think about the West and their approach to the Middle East I can't help but think of this:

[yt]cWZJcKM8pO0[/yt]

Unfortunately, for Parliament to have been recalled, the vote is already a Yes. They wouldn't recall otherwise.

 

[looney]

I'm not sure what you mean by "created". If you mean what has motivated and galvanized them? who knows. I can tell you who has armed and enabled them though. Us.

You would do well to give this a watch/listen.

Well heres a first, I find im in agreement with you here. With Afghanistan and to an extent Iraq there was a clear strategy with a defined set of outcomes, regardless of rights or wrongs. This is an absolute mess, the only thig agreed upon is kill ISIS which in itself could become a form of genocide. They need the tribes on board to make this work and thats the sunni tribes I mean. They have zero, state worshipping yank libtards looking to government for the solution pffft.

 

[dingodan]

Well heres a first, I find im in agreement with you here. With Afghanistan and to an extent Iraq there was a clear strategy with a defined set of outcomes, regardless of rights or wrongs. This is an absolute mess, the only thig agreed upon is kill ISIS which in itself could become a form of genocide. They need the tribes on board to make this work and thats the sunni tribes I mean. They have zero, state worshipping yank libtards looking to government for the solution pffft.

I'm not sure that we had clear strategies in Iraq or Afghanistan, that's why we lingered so long.

I don't know if you watched the video in my post, but here's the final thing he says,

"The people who live there need to stand up and fight. civilized Islam needs to say to radical Islam, "This does not represent our religion", that the beheading of civilians, that rape and killing women, does not represent Islam. The voices aren't loud enough."

It's time for that I think.

But I don't think that it's possible without some soul searching on the part of the West. I'm sure a lot of people imagine that it can't be done without us, I think the reality is, it can't be done with us.

 

[Scoffers]

How is the UK having the 6th largest military budget in the world tin-pot?

If we are such a tin - pot nation in terms of military force, why do we have the sixth highest military expenditure in the world?

Guys, get real, Eritrea, Columbia, Thailand, Burma, Egypt and Turkey all have a larger deployable force than we do.

 

[Scoffers]

At least some of those have conscription. Turkey, Egypt & Colombia definitely do.

Really the strength of military is more about spending rather than numbers.

My Tin Pot quote was a bit silly, agreed, and I certainly agree that size of force isn't everything, my point is more that we are scaling back our expenditure extensively meaning that our effective capability is significantly reduced from what it was. I have 2 brothers who have been in the forces (Army and Navy) and the stories they tell are frankly shocking.

 

[Biscuit]

Guys, get real, Eritrea, Columbia, Thailand, Burma, Egypt and Turkey all have a larger deployable force than we do.

True, but if war broken out between the UK and Eritrea I know who I'd be backing.

Money goes a long way towards providing our forces with highly advanced military equipment, intelligence, support and vehicles.

For what it's worth I do believe we should have a larger deployable force than we do, doubling the number of reservists isn't going to help when the shit gets real. We need a much larger ground force, by 2018 we'll only have about 80,000.

 

[looney]

At least some of those have conscription. Turkey, Egypt & Colombia definitely do.

Really the strength of military is more about spending rather than numbers.

The strength of a Military is measured in Victories, nothing else.

 

[yxee]

I think many people's MP here fits into the 3rd category of this poll.

 

[Soulman]

Bethnal Green and Bow MP Rushanara Ali quits shadow cabinet over Iraq vote.
http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co....quits_shadow_cabinet_over_iraq_vote_1_3785617

Scots born Ian Liddell-Grainger, MP for Bridgwater & Somerset West, failed to discharge his primary duty to represent his Constituents in Parliament today by deliberately absenting himself from the Commons, recalled to debate military action against ISIS.
It is reasonable to ask whether a person whose chosen national identity is English, who is loyal to England and her people would have acted as these two “English MPs” [to use the BBC's misleading description] have done?

 

[BHAFC_Pandapops]

On a less serious note, has anyone else noticed the Rt. Hon. David Cameron's Prime Ministerial Comb Over?

On a scale running from Gandalf at the bottom to Bobby Charlton at the top, it's very very close to the top.