Bombing Syria

[Savage Henry]

You have went from asking for proof regarding numbers to just ignoring the proof and the actual people that are dying. With comments like this, I can see why we continue to get away with using terms such as colleteral damage instead of murder.

The UK authorised a drone attack to kill specific individuals without a court of law deeming they had acted illegally and with a background of a Prime Minister that sought and was refused permission by parliament to bomb. This is state sponsored murder whether you like it or not.

The least you could do in light of this post is provide proof that intervening is the least worst thing How many net lives will be saved by this intervention? Will there even be a net saving in lives or just a net saving in western lives?

There are 83,602 Syrian refugees in the city of Erbil alone who will be able to return to their home country if the threat of religious or ethnic persecution is removed. Source

That in turn will allow the various charity organisations in and around Iraq to focus on urban regeneration in that country. It will also permit them to rebuild Mosul and Sinjar into places remotely suitable for living.

Unless of course you think that by leaving things as they are, these people will just choose to return to Syria, or perhaps that number is not enough lives to warrant intervention?

[Savage Henry]

That hasn't always been the case. ISIS were allied with the FSA at one point during the conflict in much the same way Al Qaeda linked groups still are and that didn't and doesn't stop what remains of the FSA from receiving support from western countries. What has happened consistently throughout the conflict is that arms originally given to more "moderate" groups like that have soon wound up in the hands of the more radical ones. The reality is that Turkey in particular have been supporting ISIS through buying oil from them and that's even being stated openly by portions of the mainstream media now, so isn't some far out conspiracy theory:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/david-cameron-there-arent-70000-moderate-fighters-in-syria-and-whoever-heard-of-a-moderate-with-a-a6753576.html

Maybe instead of dropping bombs when many long months of that by the US haven't put much of a dent in ISIS's operational capacities (strange that?), NATO should simply get its house in order and do what it takes to stop its members and allies from actively backing religious maniacs? Won't happen, because the petrodollar has to be maintained, so Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States can never be challenged over human rights as it's much easier to deal with corrupt dictatorships than functioning democracies in that regard. Claims that the west is doing anything positive in Syria are frankly vomit inducing once you grasp what is really going on, but as usual the plebs have to be led to believe that we are the good guys in all of this, so let's boamb ra loat of thum will be the order of the day and the level of analysis provided.

There was a time when the Labour party might have done what the SNP will do and tell the truth and vote against it, but even with Corbyn there's no danger of that, because he was never going to be able to lead his party to the left in a unified way and maintain party discipline given the track record he had of ignoring the party whip.

That's complete conjecture. A very reasonable conjecture, but conjecture all the same.

IS operational capabilities have been all but decimated in Iraq, as a direct result of Western bombing. Again, I realise it's an unpalatable truth, but it's a truth nonetheless.

If you had any idea what was going on in Mosul, you'd been under no doubts "we" are the good guys in this. No doubts whatsoever. It's too easy to be masochistic and blame the west for this. IS have existed since the 1930s. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the petrodollar - as unethical a road as that may lead us down - and everything to do with a savage wing of militant Islam hell bent on killing anyone who does not adhere to their abhorrent value system .

The SNP position is no more or less the truth than Cameron's potion. They are setting a three line whip on an issue which is so complicated that no decision is correct. It's frankly shameful that they are putting political expediency ahead of assisting on what by necessity must be a Western-drive humanitarian effort. They can draw a three line whip safe in the knowledge that they have no decision to make. I'm an SNP member, by the way.

[WullieBroonIsGod]

Are the tories being whipped on this vote?

[doulikefish]

Are the tories being whipped on this vote?

Seemingly theres 30 gong to vote against it

[strichener]

There are 83,602 Syrian refugees in the city of Erbil alone who will be able to return to their home country if the threat of religious or ethnic persecution is removed. Source

That in turn will allow the various charity organisations in and around Iraq to focus on urban regeneration in that country. It will also permit them to rebuild Mosul and Sinjar into places remotely suitable for living.

Unless of course you think that by leaving things as they are, these people will just choose to return to Syria, or perhaps that number is not enough lives to warrant intervention?

So we bomb f**k out of the country and then let the charities in to rebuild? This has a familiar ring to it.

[kirkyblue2]

Motion for debate

MPs will debate the following motion:

“That this House notes that ISIL poses a direct threat to the United Kingdom; welcomes United Nations Security Council Resolution 2249 which determines that ISIL constitutes an 'unprecedented threat to international peace and security' and calls on states to take 'all necessary measures' to prevent terrorist acts by ISIL and to 'eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria'; further notes the clear legal basis to defend the UK and our allies in accordance with the UN Charter; notes that military action against ISIL is only one component of a broader strategy to bring peace and stability to Syria; welcomes the renewed impetus behind the Vienna talks on a ceasefire and political settlement; welcomes the Government's continuing commitment to providing humanitarian support to Syrian refugees; underlines the importance of planning for post-conflict stabilisation and reconstruction in Syria; welcomes the Government’s continued determination to cut ISIL’s sources of finance, fighters and weapons; notes the requests from France, the US and regional allies for UK military assistance; acknowledges the importance of seeking to avoid civilian casualties, using the UK’s particular capabilities; notes the Government will not deploy UK troops in ground combat operations; welcomes the Government's commitment to provide quarterly progress reports to the House; and accordingly supports Her Majesty's Government in taking military action, specifically airstrikes, exclusively against ISIL in Syria; and offers its wholehearted support to Her Majesty's Armed Forces .”

[Savage Henry]

So we bomb f**k out of the country and then let the charities in to rebuild? This has a familiar ring to it.

No. We "bomb the f**k out of" IS, then contribute to a rebuilding process which does not lead to a power vacuum and conflicting militia.

It'd be pretty depressing if nothing was learned from the mistakes of Iraq, but at the same time, those mistakes shouldn't prevent us taking out IS. And, of course, the unpopular fact that much of Iraq is vastly improved since 2003.

I'm not necessarily in favour of bombing, but it's far, far more complex than the conspiracy nuts and the SNP make it seem.

[Mr Bairn]

Seemingly theres 30 gong to vote against it

Won't make a difference. They have a majority of 20-odd, so with the inevitable Labstentions then they'll be fine.

[Fudge]

Well wide of the mark ? France has been pounding Raqqa since the Paris attacks. A city with 200,000 civilians and estimated 1500 Isis mingled in between them. More civilians die in large scale bombing raids than anyone else. That's just a simple fact.

Please read my post properly

[Antiochas III]

No. We "bomb the f**k out of" IS, then contribute to a rebuilding process which does not lead to a power vacuum and conflicting militia.

The question that should be asked is how many of the bombs we drop are going to be aimed at Syrian Government Installations. Once we have (failed) to bomb the f**k out of ISIS how do we go about fixing Syria with Russia and Assad on one side and our NATO allies and Syrian Rebels on the other.

This vote is for action against IS, so unless Cameron changes tact (or is lying) the power vacuum will still be there.

Edited December 1, 2015 by Antiochas III

[Savage Henry]

The question that should be asked is how many of the bombs we drop are going to be aimed at Syrian Government Installations. Once we have (failed) to bomb the f**k out of ISIS how do we go about fixing Syria with Russia and Assad on one side and our NATO allies and Syrian Rebels on the other.

This vote is for action against IS, so unless Cameron changes tact (or is lying) the power vacuum will still be there.

I completely agree. The US has all but given up on a unified Syrian state (unlike Iraq, where it's viewed as the only possible future) and nothing happening in the coming days will change that. But it will, however, allow Syrian refugees to return home and may well prevent wider humanitarian crises.

[Antiochas III]

The problem the US have, as before they are lying to someone. They are currently backing the Kurds and the Opposition. While their ally will certainly support the Opposition but will never support the wishes of the Kurds.

Then you have the Opposition itself. There is no way the different sects of such can go about as friends after its finished.

Are the main stays in the Opposition happy with the fact of if they win they might need to give up 75% of their territory they're "fighting for".

[strichener]

No. We "bomb the f**k out of" IS, then contribute to a rebuilding process which does not lead to a power vacuum and conflicting militia.

It'd be pretty depressing if nothing was learned from the mistakes of Iraq, but at the same time, those mistakes shouldn't prevent us taking out IS. And, of course, the unpopular fact that much of Iraq is vastly improved since 2003.

I'm not necessarily in favour of bombing, but it's far, far more complex than the conspiracy nuts and the SNP make it seem.

Come back to me when we have bombed IS into submission and we can re-evaluate. I won't hold my breath meantime.

[ICTJohnboy]

I'm getting so pissed off listening to Corbyn spelling out all kinds of dire consequences in the event of a yes to bombing vote. The result is more or less a foregone conclusion anyway.

Yesterday he had the power to avert that by whipping his party into a no vote - but no, he couldn't run the risk of inflicting further damage on his already discredited, divided party.

So much for his principals the man is a pathetic waste of space

[BerwickMad]

I'm getting so pissed off listening to Corbyn spelling out all kinds of dire consequences in the event of a yes to bombing vote. The result is more or less a foregone conclusion anyway.

Yesterday he had the power to avert that by whipping his party into a no vote - but no, he couldn't run the risk of inflicting further damage on his already discredited, divided party.

So much for his principals the man is a pathetic waste of space

Are you a Labour member/voter?

[doulikefish]

Foreign affairs committee says Cameron hasnt done enough to justify bombing

[bob the tank]

Foreign affairs committee says Cameron hasnt done enough to justify bombing

Although the Tory chairman of the committee was pretty gung-ho on 5 live this morning

[tintax]

This whole issue of whether or not to bomb IS in Syria stinks of a man (Cameron) desperate to join his pals, America and France in bombing a country without any clear strategy or exit strategy for that matter. Have we learned nothing from Libya?

Bombing alone will not defeat an idealogy but will instead feed it.

[Granny Danger]

Tories will put party before logic and rationale country.

Labour MPs will put their own perceived self interest, entrenched right wing politics and hatred of Corbyn before logic and rationale.

I hope these c***s get deselected in the dirtiest sort of infighting imaginable.

[Granny Danger]

This whole issue of whether or not to bomb IS in Syria stinks of a man (Cameron) desperate to join his pals, America and France in bombing a country without any clear strategy or exit strategy for that matter. Have we learned nothing from Libya?

Bombing alone will not defeat an idealogy but will instead feed it.

It's Orwellian.

The interests of the U.S. are the interest of the U.S. nothing else. Absolutely nothing else. They will look at Syria in the same way that the look at the whole of the Middle East and the rest of the world. What is perceived as being in the U.S.'s interests? If this includes conflict and instability in other countries and regions if this can be manipulated to meet U.S. interests then so be it.