Would you vote for bombing ISIS in Syria?

[Albumen]

Here comes Jeremy...

Are you saying his interventions with the IRA helped create peace?

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

What has happened to Alan Duncan ....................

 

[spring hall convert]

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

Laughing at a question Corbyn relayed from a Syrian. Classy
Braying like a donkey. Classy

Cameron's side track of the need for an apology was typical. The weasel wouldn't stand by it either.

 

[Titanic]

What has happened to Alan Duncan ....................

a knighthood. It's Sir Alan Duncan now.

 

[AlbionPics&SouthCoastTwit]

If we want to destroy the ISIS heartland why not bomb Brussels? It's a lot closer too so think of the cost savings on fuel.

Raids in those kinds of home turf cities have been much more productive. ISIS will strike again at the west. Do you really think they tailor it to who is bombing them in Syria?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Cameron wasn't great but Corbyn was shambolic. The reason the Tories heckled him was his deliberate avoidance in answering the point about bombing in Iraq. Corbyn's position is don't bomb ISIS in Syria or Iraq despite parliament already voting in favour by a vast majority.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

a knighthood. It's Sir Alan Duncan now.

Sake. What a farce the honours system is.

 

[AlbionPics&SouthCoastTwit]

Nor do you to be fair.

Actually I know about a lot more than you. Ask a higher ranking police/defense commander. He can't tell you exactly for fear of losing his job but he will have a grave look on his face.

 

[Albumen]

Cameron wasn't great but Corbyn was shambolic. The reason the Tories heckled him was his deliberate avoidance in answering the point about bombing in Iraq. Corbyn's position is don't bomb ISIS in Syria or Iraq despite parliament already voting in favour by a vast majority.

Mr Speaker said he answered it. Corbin was far from shambolic, but hey it doesn't sound like I'm going to agree with you.

Cameron's just been asked to apologise again. The coward is yet again silent.

 

[Pavilionaire]

What a f*cking shambles.

If the NSC poll is anything to go by - and I don't see why it isn't - then 64% of people are against bombing ISIS targets in Syria. Cameron is in the minority and the Tory government could lose a vote in the house AGAIN. Labour have elected as leader someone who is against the bombing in Syria and therefore they should be scoring major political points whilst representing the majority of UK voters, an opportunity to come across as the party of the people AND a party of peace. Instead it is another dog's dinner from Labour as the leadership grant a free vote.

It would be ironic if Labour MPs voting for bombing make the difference here. Why the hell did they elect Corbyn if they weren't prepared to back him?

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

It would be ironic if Labour MPs voting for bombing make the difference here. Why the hell did they elect Corbyn if they weren't prepared to back him?

The PLP didn't did they - they were horrified at his election.

It is as you say, a shambles. As Andrew Rawnsley said on Sunday in the Observer - the Labour Front Bench is simply bad at politics.

 

[GT49er]

It would be ironic if Labour MPs voting for bombing make the difference here. Why the hell did they elect Corbyn if they weren't prepared to back him?

They didn't.

 

[Albumen]

What a f*cking shambles.

If the NSC poll is anything to go by - and I don't see why it isn't - then 64% of people are against bombing ISIS targets in Syria. Cameron is in the minority and the Tory government could lose a vote in the house AGAIN. Labour have elected as leader someone who is against the bombing in Syria and therefore they should be scoring major political points whilst representing the majority of UK voters, an opportunity to come across as the party of the people AND a party of peace. Instead it is another dog's dinner from Labour as the leadership grant a free vote.

It would be ironic if Labour MPs voting for bombing make the difference here. Why the hell did they elect Corbyn if they weren't prepared to back him?

Corbyn needs to stabilise and rebuild his party first (he's got another 18 months to solve that), and forcing those that aren't on his side to vote will only coast the party more damage. And would it be a better victory if a free vote outvoted Cameron? A big if.

 

[spring hall convert]

Actually I know about a lot more than you. Ask a higher ranking police/defense commander. He can't tell you exactly for fear of losing his job but he will have a grave look on his face.

So you don't actually know then.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

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.

You make some interesting points but I still can't see any military logic in only bombing ISIS in Iraq. If as is the case ISIS has it's main strength and command and control in Syria it stands to reason they will continually threaten neighbouring Iraq as well as many other nations. I can see the point about military tokenism but the 8% you talk of is not the same as the coalition's precision weapon capability.

We have already intervened and crossed the line, air strikes are not a complete solution but they are one element in a multi faceted approach at degrading and restricting ISIS control. We should either commit militarily to fighting them everywhere or let others do the fighting I favour the first option.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

What a f*cking shambles.

If the NSC poll is anything to go by - and I don't see why it isn't - then 64% of people are against bombing ISIS targets in Syria. Cameron is in the minority and the Tory government could lose a vote in the house AGAIN. Labour have elected as leader someone who is against the bombing in Syria and therefore they should be scoring major political points whilst representing the majority of UK voters, an opportunity to come across as the party of the people AND a party of peace. Instead it is another dog's dinner from Labour as the leadership grant a free vote.

It would be ironic if Labour MPs voting for bombing make the difference here. Why the hell did they elect Corbyn if they weren't prepared to back him?

Apparently the membership of NSC is not representative of the wider electorate. Polls show a clear majority in favour of air strikes although the lead has reduced over the last 24 hours.

 

[Titanic]

Sake. What a farce the honours system is.

Sir Gerald Kaufman up now

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Sir Gerald Kaufman up now

Ha ha.

 

[Bold Seagull]

You make some interesting points but I still can't see any military logic in only bombing ISIS in Iraq.

In Iraq we've supported a government and their military in taking back control of their country - in principle at least, not altogether successful obviously. So the destruction of IS in Iraq, or defeating them in certain locations will mean control is taken back by an entity you can deal with.

What exactly is the plan when we achieve certain objectives in Syria? If ISIS are defeated, or lose control of towns or regions, then who takes over? What is the power vacuum, who steps in? What are we bombing to achieve, destroy ISIS then just have to deal with Assad, what is the objective if ISIS are effectively destroyed - support the rebels, enter into a conflict against the Russians who support Assad? I don't feel there is a credible long term objective here, or being presented with a strategic plan of what happens if the bombing is successful.

I don't see the bombing in anyway countering the terrorist threat which can be carried out by a small cell of dangerous people.

 

[Pavilionaire]

A strong Labour leader opposed to bombing ISIS in Syria would be able to carry his party on this issue; Corbyn, however, is a weak leader and the votes in favour of bombing from Labour MPs are likely to prove decisive.