Should we bomb Isis in Syria?

[TheMinsterman]

Without a stable, cohesive long term plan, effective ground support and a commitment to a long game I just can't support us going in, hopefully it is rejected and forced to be a lengthier debate because it isn't some we can rush.

 

[Womble98]

It is definitely going to go through, the majority of tories support and a large number of labour support.

I have changed my mind after reading this.

I have thought long and hard on my decision regarding how to vote on airstrikes in Syria. Here is my full statement:

Last week the Prime Minister put the case for the extension of the existing agreement to UK airstrikes in Iraq to Syria. He clearly considered that the issue was clear cut – a view I do not share, just as I do not share the view of some that there is obviously no case to consider. In truth the question as to whether bombing by the UK in Syria would serve any clear purpose or add to a planned strategy on the future of Syria is a very complex, finely balanced matter. It is unfortunate that the question of bombing or not bombing Syria seems to have become embroiled with considerations of the internal dynamics of the Parliamentary Labour Party, and I need to measure a decision as to whether to support bombing or otherwise on a far higher bar than whether my vote makes me pro- or anti-Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Party.

What is clear is the ISIL have to be defeated: they are a murderous perversion of Islam: a death cult posing as a state; and represent a threat both to the civilian population of all religions in Syria and Iraq as well as an escalating threat to our safety and security in Europe – as the recent tragic events in Paris have underlined.

It is also clear I think that, with the passing of UN Security Council Resolution 2249, a ‘necessary measure’ to prevent and suppress terrorist acts by ISIL could be seen to be a process of bombing ISIL, and opposition to potential bombing because it has no legal or political grounds is not tenable.

I have listened very carefully to the debate, and have tried to find out for myself as much as possible about the complexities of this truly horrific war being fought in Syria, between multiple and shifting alliances both within Government and rebel forces. What is still lacking, I think, is a clear strategy for engineering the defeat of ISIL; it is by no means apparent that bombing by British forces will have the material impact on the situation that over 8000 airstrikes and 57,000 sorties by mostly US forces patently so far have not.

In one sense bombing in Iraq against ISIL is far simpler. This is being undertaken at the request of an established and legitimate government against a threat to its territory, and forces. The Iraqi Army, or the Kurdish Peshmerga have shown they can take and hold territory subsequently.

It is, however, very unclear as to whether the presumed main purpose of bombing, which would be to assist anti-ISIL forces take and hold previous ISIL territory, or rather the ‘right’ forces being able to take and hold such territory in Syria is a feasible proposition right now. Bombing ISILs lines to find that equally unsavoury forces, such as Al Qaeda affiliates of the Syrian government, filled the space would be counterproductive. I do not find the claims that there are ’70,000 moderate rebel forces’ ready to take and hold territory credible: many of this number (if such exist) are engaged in in-depth struggles to hold territory against the Syrian Government and parts of the country well away from ISIL’s lines and would not be available suddenly to fill a vacuum left by others. Furthermore the conflicting interests of major external forces – some backing the Syrian regime, some backing some rebels but not others, some backing ‘moderate’ rebels but not ‘extremist rebels’.

It seems to me that, unless some kind of strategic progress can be undertaken which places those forces into different configurations against ISIL, such as a successful conclusion of the tentative Vienna talks which could enable Syrian forces, shorn of Assad and joined by substantial elements of rebel forces, to make a real and sustainable impact against ISIL, we will not achieve the desired outcome. I think pursuance of such initiatives, together with sustained action to strangle all forms of financial and material support for ISIL, covertly or overtly, represents a better strategic way forward than adding a small further ingredient to an already confused and intractable situation. Britain can best make its contribution through such initiatives and through continuing to support the degradation of ISIL’s presence in Iraq.

For these reasons, I am not convinced by the Prime Minister’s propositions concerning bombing, and I will not be supporting his resolution when it is put forward later this week.

 

[Pagnell]

Without a stable, cohesive long term plan, effective ground support and a commitment to a long game I just can't support us going in, hopefully it is rejected and forced to be a lengthier debate because it isn't some we can rush.

This. Corbyn is bang on the money, the whole endeavour has a rushed and almost desperate feel to it from Call Me Dave, as if he wants it passed before the mandate from the British people, which already appears to be against taking action, doesn't become even more so. However, I have a feeling it will be passed and, regardless of the intentions, more anti-west resentment will be an inevitability as a result.

 

[slaphead]

This. Corbyn is bang on the money, the whole endeavour has a rushed and almost desperate feel to it from Call Me Dave, as if he wants it passed before the mandate from the British people, which already appears to be against taking action, doesn't become even more so. However, I have a feeling it will be passed and, regardless of the intentions, more anti-west resentment will be an inevitability as a result.

Not 100% sure Corbyn is spot on, but he is close. This whole shitstorm won't be settled by diplomacy as Corbyn wants, ISIL simply won't talk, they do need to be forced out.

I agree with Salmond, he has just remarked that for the last two years the government has sat on it's hands and done nothing while the banks and big financial institutions have allowed the sale of the oil which is funding ISIL. That is the very first thing the government could have done something about. For every bomb detonated, RPG and bullet fired, the banks have funded it, at least partially. They too have blood on their hands.

Before several millions of pounds of taxpayers money is blown up in the desert shifting a few grains of sand about, some of that money would be better directed at specialist teams in this country tasked with cutting off their communications, their money supply and their access to weapons.

 

[Dave-Vale]

Cameron and his fucking arrogance. Refused to apologise for his 'terrorist sympathiser' comments.

 

[Chris FGR]

Typical arrogance.

Not a lefty, but I can't stand Cameron or the Conservatives. Arrogant upper class public school wankers, Murdoch arse licking, sell your granny for a few quid no matter the consquences closet xenophobes and pretty much everything that I detest about this country. Labour are no better, mostly closet tories or lefty loons with an extreme lefty leading the sinking ship. UKIP are the worst of the right wing tories loons let loose.

Why is politics in this country so shit? Nothing to vote for, and more importantly, in situations like this, no one to trust to get it right.

 

[Gashead]

Not 100% sure Corbyn is spot on, but he is close. This whole shitstorm won't be settled by diplomacy as Corbyn wants, ISIL simply won't talk, they do need to be forced out.

He has never said this funnily enough! Media lazily quoting again. He's said he wants a diplomatic process to end the political conflict in Syria, not diplomatic discussions with IS. As you say they're not that sort of bunch.

However, what he has said multiple times is...

I agree with Salmond, he has just remarked that for the last two years the government has sat on it's hands and done nothing while the banks and big financial institutions have allowed the sale of the oil which is funding ISIL. That is the very first thing the government could have done something about. For every bomb detonated, RPG and bullet fired, the banks have funded it, at least partially. They too have blood on their hands.

Before several millions of pounds of taxpayers money is blown up in the desert shifting a few grains of sand about, some of that money would be better directed at specialist teams in this country tasked with cutting off their communications, their money supply and their access to weapons.

..exactly what Salmond is saying. Totally agreed with the both of them, and there are vested interests which means a lot of the world leaders won't look deeper into it. Cameron's lack of plan astounds me, and its a shame this vote will pass tonight because the consequences will be astronomical, and nobody has even thought about the aftermath.

 

[Dave-Vale]

Corbyn has openly stated he is not a pacifist as such, and wants to hit ISIS where it hurts. Cutting off their supplies and sources of funding along with a long term plan as to how to resolve the civil war in Syria.

 

[Blitzballer]

Someone give Osborne some more coke, he looks like he's about to nod off in the commons

 

[Womble98]

Benn's speech was brilliant and it will be a massive victory for aye.

 

[Blitzballer]

Benn's speech was brilliant and it will be a massive victory for aye.

agreed

 

[TheMinsterman]

Benn's speech was brilliant and it will be a massive victory for aye.

God help us then, although considering how he botched the Middle East enough already maybe not...

 

[TheMinsterman]

Amendment blocked.

 

[TheMinsterman]

Ayes 397 No 223.

Military action approved.

 

[Womble98]

John Bercow sat there for 10 hours didn't leave once, didn't go and get food, didn't go to the loo, listened to every single word of that shit show. That is dedication.

 

[silkyman]

Bet he had a packed lunch and an empty bottle hidden under his chair...

 

[Dave-Vale]

Fantastic.

 

[sl1k]

I agree with a military intervention but doing so without even a whiff of a political solution in the region is about one of the stupidest things you can do and whether people wanna get all emotional about Paris (then suddenly begin to care about the thousands of people murdered there to date) or not this is a repeat of 2003 in principle.

So obviously more about a show of solidarity with our allies than anything else.

 

[General_disarray]

How much is this going to cost? All this bollocks about not being able to afford housing benefits, police, NHS wages etc etc and within one week we've decided to go and bomb another country.

 

[Craig]

£40k per bomb.

 

[Dave-Vale]

£10million per mission.

I mis-read the meme. It's estimated around £800k per missile and £1million per mission.

 

[Luke_1884]

£10million per mission.

I mis-read the meme. It's estimated around £800k per missile and £1million per mission.

Hopefully won't be firing many of those though mate... Or shit really has hit the fan.

 

[Pliny Harris]

The depressing predictability of things.

 

[smat]

"I misread the meme" should go on political debate's fucking headstone.

 

[Dave-Vale]

"I misread the meme" should go on political debate's fucking headstone.

Sorry. I'm tired and it's been a busy day.

Are memes not allowed in political debates?

 

[Gashead]

Very disappointing. I can't see many positives arising so let's hope there are no serious repercussions.

 

[Dave-Vale]

Just watched Hilary Benn's speech. Tony would be ashamed.

 

[Stevencc]

Salmond is trying to play it cool with all the "Scotland is being dragged into a war with no valid exit strategy" shit but someone needs to tell the rubber-faced ponce that they voted "aye" and not "yes".

Bloody warmongering Scots.

Am I right or am I right, friends?

 

[Womble98]

Just watched Hilary Benn's speech. Tony would be ashamed.

This isn't the same as Iraq, and its stupid to act like it is. The change from bombing Iraq to bombing Syria as well isn't that big.

I agree with the points made above that we should have a political aim to this, that there is no pointing bombing now and just killing IS. What then?

 

[pontoonlew]

The worst thing about any big political news stories is how many Fucking retarded ill informed status' there are on Facebook.

I saw one woman say if we closed the boarders we wouldn't have to bomb Isis because they'd be easier to catch....