Would you vote for bombing ISIS in Syria?

[cjd]

Hopefully I can go back home on Sunday knowing that at least our Parliament has some balls.



French papers see the House of Commons as poised to approve air strikes in Syria. Liberal Le Monde says British military analysts see the vote as a chance to restore British prestige, after more recent impressions that it has turned inwards and "plays a diminished role" on the world stage. Conservative Le Figaro and top-selling Ouest-France note Mr Cameron's wish not to "outsource" British security, given that the United States and France are "already hitting jihadist targets in Syria". Left-wing Liberation runs a dispatch by its London correspondent Sonia Delesalle-Stolper examining the divisions in the Labour Party ahead of the vote. She says shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn "managed to keep a straight face" while defending Jeremy Corbyn's "strong leadership", but she has no doubt herself that Labour "lacks a coherent and united vision".
Share this post on

Read more about these links.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

JC - cheers for the response. I agree that inaction has consequence, however, the problem with this is that (i) it posits that anything other than bombing is inaction (ii) the consequences of our inaction doesn't mean the situation will remain unresolved. Our involvement will be to balance out the Russians, it's more a diplomatic gesture than a reasoned military one.

As for Cameron, the onus is on him to justify a case, hence my concern with his vague statements (I would be making the same point were it a Labour government looking to justify). Last week he cited both the Raptor Module and the Brimstone Missiles as decisive difference making options we could bring to the conflict (thus justifying our involvement). When he was asked to clarify if Saudi Arabia possessed the latter (they do) he didn't respond.

My pleasure. The balancing out the Russians explanation is your interpretation I think there are numerous reasons why the Government thinks we should get involved. On the diplomatic front supporting allies, stepping up to the plate, not outsourcing our defence to name but three. On the military front the RAF has a proven track record of successfully hitting ISIS in Iraq with no reported cases of civilian casualties. Can you explain to me the military reasoning as to why it's OK to bomb ISIS in Iraq but not in Syria (unless by drone)?

Can you please set out your criteria for justifiable intervention?

 

[symyjym]

Interesting poll results so far, with the "no's " far outnumbering the "yes's".... I am in the camp of those who have seen such things all before and it does not solve the problem. Putting aside my natural aversion to the bombing of another country and warfare in general... A rational person asks: "What is the end game?" "Where is the strategy for follow up? " I have no faith in Cameron's 70,000 moderate fighters to materialise.

If we should drive them out of Syria they will go somewhere else. NB Al Queda & the Taliban were supposedly defeated but they are still with us and the ideology is stronger than ever.

I could rant all day but the final straw was our P M calling me a "terrorist sympathiser" because I question his strategy. That is gutter politics . So I am NO.

His 70,000 infighting moderate fighters is pure fantasy. Does he think the British public are fools?

The only coherent boots on the ground is the 125,000 Syrian army.

 

[GT49er]

North Stand Chat is clearly the home of a bunch of TERRORIST SYMPATHISERS ((c) David Cameron). I'm glad this is an open poll as I'm going to ABUSE my mod powers and send all the names of those who voted 'NO' to CI5. You'll be quaking in your Tofu slippers when Bodie and Doyle pay you all a visit, pinko leftie scum.

I think you'll find Bodie is no longer available, having gone to a place where ISIS want all of us to go.

 

[El Presidente]

I think you'll find Bodie is no longer available, having gone to a place where ISIS want all of us to go.

Croydon?

 

[GT49er]

Croydon?

I think they would regard that as an escape..........................

 

[Vegas Seagull]

Dave wiping the floor & taking no prisoners

 

[Ernest]

Cameron SQUIRMING and REFUSING to apologise for his SHAMEFUL remarks

 

[scamander]

My pleasure. The balancing out the Russians explanation is your interpretation I think there are numerous reasons why the Government thinks we should get involved. On the diplomatic front supporting allies, stepping up to the plate, not outsourcing our defence to name but three. On the military front the RAF has a proven track record of successfully hitting ISIS in Iraq with no reported cases of civilian casualties. Can you explain to me the military reasoning as to why it's OK to bomb ISIS in Iraq but not in Syria (unless by drone)?

Can you please set out your criteria for justifiable intervention?

Cheers JC,

Nice to have a decent exchange of opinions!

The situation in Iraq is different in a number of ways, firstly there’s a ground force which is operating along with the air strikes. I’m not convinced that we have that in Syria. The targets presented by an army stretching into a new territory (as in Iraq) will differ greatly from one bedded in a territory they hold (as in the regions of Syria occupied). The RAF was involved in 8% of the strikes in Iraq, so perhaps they focused on ones where civilian casualties were less likely?

In terms of justifiable intervention – I’ve yet to hear an argument which draws a positive response for me on this. I’d need to know why our capabilities were specifically needed above those already engaged there. For example, when France responded following the Paris attack they simply snatched the target list off the Americans, the point being they just hit targets which were already going to be hit. They didn’t add anything extra. I understood that they needed and were required to respond, but in terms of pure military value they didn’t add much to what was going on.

You can only intervene once, it’s a line crossed and I have yet to understand what will happen afterwards. Assuming that our airstrikes can do something no others can in the region and we defeat ISIS through it. What then? Support the FSA? (not the nicest of folk). I’m reminded of the age old US policy of supporting or backing a rebellious movement because they were handy at the time, it’s continually failed them. Ironically ISIS were one such group that the US originally backed, trained and armed.

 

[Igzilla]

Ex ISIS hostage says bombing ISIS is a trap, that will push people into the hands of ISIS. He feels the refugees fleeing their "Caliphate" was a blow for ISIS, with scenes of Syrian Muslims being welcomed in Europe. The Paris attacks was their attempt to get Europe to close their borders and close our minds.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8ee_1449036787

Interesting view.

 

[Albumen]

Terrorist sympathisers - The media should jump on him and tear him apart for that. If they weren't all in it together.

 

[Machiavelli]

North Stand Chat is clearly the home of a bunch of TERRORIST SYMPATHISERS ((c) David Cameron). I'm glad this is an open poll as I'm going to ABUSE my mod powers and send all the names of those who voted 'NO' to CI5. You'll be quaking in your Tofu slippers when Bodie and Doyle pay you all a visit, pinko leftie scum.

Can't you send round a modern-type like Saga Noren?

 

[Titanic]

Cameron SQUIRMING and REFUSING to apologise for his SHAMEFUL remarks

Here comes Jeremy...

 

[Ernest]

Cameron DEMEANS the office of Prime Minister, a simple apology at the start for ill judged remarks would have nipped this in the bud.

I love the way the Tory TROLLS can only answer this by TROLLING, they're no better than Cameron and his SHOWER

 

[AlbionPics&SouthCoastTwit]

I am lucky in my life to have lived without a war immediately around me, however the people in my life who have experienced it, all are against any type of bombing. As many have said what is the end game and plan after and during any bombing, its poor.

You are in a WAR on the front NOW. You have absolutely no idea how many plots have been stopped by defensive forces right in the UK started by ISIS and ISIS allies. You fail to recognize how ISIS is fighting this war in front of you.

 

[Titanic]

Cameron DEMEANS the office of Prime Minister, a simple apology at the start for ill judged remarks would have nipped this in the bud.

I love the way the Tory TROLLS can only answer this by TROLLING, they're no better than Cameron and his SHOWER

and the repeated mentions and demands for an apology only go to draw attention to the remarks and their primary target. They should get on with focusing on the real issues.

 

[Albumen]

Corbyns coming across well and controlling it. In his element despite the moronic shouting from the opposition. He's laid his case down, I only hope it's enough.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

If this is the best we have - God help us.

 

[kevo]

Just been watching the debate live, Corbyn barely able to complete his speech due to constant Tory heckling. Disgusting behaviour.

 

[spring hall convert]

You are in a WAR on the front NOW. You have absolutely no idea how many plots have been stopped by defensive forces right in the UK started by ISIS and ISIS allies.

Nor do you to be fair.