Ye Olde War Vote - Poll added

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Zed, Dec 1, 2015.


Should the UK join in air strikes in Syria?

Poll closed Dec 3, 2015.
  1. Yes

    17 vote(s)
  2. No

    35 vote(s)
  1. Poptop2

    Poptop2 Moderator

    So long as they remain on track and don't turn into slanging matches we allow them to run.
  2. Perhaps you misunderstood. I wasnt referring to you. Perhaps that wasnt clear. I was referring to the Tory party.
  3. Certainly not. I was raised a christian and have secular christian values at the heart of my beliefs. It may be there is a god thing. But im guessing it wont be one made in our image! How cruel would that be.
    vanorak likes this.
  4. Poptop2

    Poptop2 Moderator

    Simple rules really,

    Don't get personal. Nothing extreme and consider you response.
    Miss Rosie and 72wilma like this.
  5. My MPs email response ... probably a carefully party scripted one written well in advance

    A vote for military action is the heaviest decision Parliament can take, but the scale of the threat that we face from extremists is unprecedented. As well as the horrific atrocities in Paris, we know there have been seven terrorist plots to attack the UK in the last year, which mercifully have been disrupted by our police and security services; every one of them was either linked to or inspired by ISIL-Da’esh. Britain and Britons are already targeted.

    In the wake of the Paris atrocities, the international community's resolve has been strengthened and we now have the unanimous UN Security Council resolution which calls on Member States with the requisite capacity to take “all necessary measures” to prevent and suppress terrorist acts on territory under its control in Syria as well as Iraq. I have pasted the text of the clause below.

    The UK is already part of a coalition of many nations committed to dismantle the capability of ISIL-Da'esh and British forces have been conducting airstrikes over Iraq against ISIL targets. Clearly, ISIL do not recognise a distinction between Iraq and Syria; to be effective against them, neither should we. The key headquarters of the organisation is in Ar-Raqqah, Syria.

    There is a line of thinking which says others are already bombing targets in Syria, so we don’t have to. I understand that line of thinking but I do not subscribe to it. First because our security has always been based on alliances, allies stand together and have the greatest weight when most united; second, because we have specific capability and expertise to contribute. Both our French and American allies, and Arab nations in the region, ask us to intervene.

    It is a terrible fact that there is always in war a risk of civilian deaths. This is mitigated by the strict rules of engagement that British forces operate under and the precision ability of weaponry, which is not perfect, but is better than ever before. We can never be complacent aboutthis, but as the Prime Minister has reported, a year and three months into the Iraqi operations, we have not had any reports of civilian casualties. The risk is also to be set against the certainty of continued suffering and death among civilians as a result of unchecked ISIS action.

    There is also a point that many have made that air strikes without ground troops (“boots on the ground”) will be insufficient. This is true. Ultimately forces on the ground will be needed to defeat ISIL. But these should be forces from the region; the presence of US/UK troops would be likely to inflame the situation. The Joint Intelligence Committee have made an assessment of the number and typology of troops in Syria with whom it would be possible to work. In the meantime, there are a number of objectives that can be achieved through airstrikes alone, such as work to disrupt finance sources by hitting strategic oil assets.

    Alongside this, we need to deploy the full range of tools available to us, not just weapons. This includes international work to cut off illicit financial flows to and from the self-styled caliphate, and to disrupt communications; and further work against radicalisation and propaganda here at home. Needless to say, the rapists and murderers of ISIL are abhorrent to the vast majority of Muslims, in Britain as elsewhere.

    As Ban Ki-moon has said, missiles may kill terrorists but only good governance can kill terrorism. We need a lasting political settlement in Syria and a proper plan for reconstruction and development. There has been a vast amount of refugee emigration from Syria, and for a bright future for the country, eventually people need to be attracted back. To quote the Prime Minister, "The aim is clear … a transitional Government in six months, a new constitution … the key elements of a deal are emerging … the key players—America and Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran—and key regional players such as Turkey all in the room together … hitting Da’esh does not hurt this process; it helps". He has also committed UK funds for Syria’s reconstruction with initial priorities around security, stabilisation and basic services, with the focus shifting over time to wider infrastructure and institutions, with reconstruction funds allocated against a plan agreed between a new, inclusive Syrian Government and the international community.

    Thank you again for getting in touch.

    Kind regards,

    Damian Hinds
    vanorak and Dicky like this.
  6. [​IMG]
    Dear Christopher

    I wanted to set out as fully as I can my stance ahead of tomorrow’s vote on airstrikes against ISIS in Syria, and explain why I have decided to vote against the Government’s motion.

    A vote on military intervention is one of the hardest, and loneliest, for an MP to make. We have been asked to take a decision that could be a matter of life and death for civilians we will never meet, and whose lives (and suffering after more than four years of civil war) cannot be reconciled to our own experiences. I felt I owed it to my constituents and myself to consider the arguments for and against intervention before reaching a position.

    There has been no shortage of information, advice, or correspondence - and I am, truly, grateful for the time that many of you have taken to set out your views. There have been passionate and well-reasoned contributions on both sides, and I have weighed the arguments as carefully as I can. Ultimately, however, this is a decision that must be taken on the basis of individual conscience.

    There is no doubt that ISIS (also known as ISIL or Daesh) represents an existential threat to everyone who holds humane values in the West, the Middle East, and the other areas of the world to which the group’s reach extends. This is an organisation that seeks to exterminate minorities, subjugates women, and has ruthlessly suppressed the history, culture and freedoms of all those that it perceives as standing in its way.

    ISIS represents an assault on democratic values. It represents an assault on the internationalist values of the left. If it is allowed to thrive then it will reduce the cradle of civilisation to a wasteland, and it will continue to work to bring terror to the streets of Paris and beyond.

    The test that all MPs have been asked to consider is whether strikes against ISIS in Syria would make a meaningful contribution to ISIS’s ultimate defeat, and whether a credible plan is in place for ensuring that ISIS-held territory would not slip into chaos.

    Everyone must come to their own view. Many of my colleagues have considered the issues carefully and come to a different conclusion. I do not criticise their position. There would be consequences, including possible unintended consequences, associated with an absence of military intervention in Syria, just as there would be with action.

    The arguments are – I believe – finely balanced, and it is important that we hear both sides when Parliament considers the issue tomorrow.

    I have had to make my own decision, and I respect the views of those who disagree.

    I am not opposed to the principle of military intervention. Indeed, I accept the argument that airstrikes in Iraq have restricted ISIS’s capacity to advance, and that in co-operation with the Iraqi Army strikes have directly contributed to military reversals for the group – and the liberation of those who had been caught in its grip.

    Having listened carefully to the arguments put forward by the Prime Minister over the last week, I am not convinced that an equivalent ground force is in place in Syria. It appears that the 70,000 fighters referred to by the Government comprises the Free Syrian Army and a large number of disparate, localised groups. Their capacity to fill the void that ISIS would leave has not been proven, in my view, and the eventual scope of British intervention is therefore unclear.

    As I have not been convinced, I have concluded that I must vote against the motion tomorrow.

    I remain of the view that a combination of military and diplomatic measures are needed to fight, degrade, and ultimately destroy and discredit ISIS. There must be no loss of pressure for a political solution to the Syrian Civil War.

    I know that this has been a long post and I hope that it explains my position.

    I have received a large number of emails and messages from constituents and local Labour Party members, and I will do my best to respond to them all.

    With best wishes


    zed and fritt like this.
  7. I've given my view earlier on this thread, I'll remind you what I said

    My view is we should bomb Isis yesterday, today and tomorrow, and every time they regroup bomb them some more ,as I said before if only for the people who lost their lives in the twin towers, the London Underground, Russell Square, Tunisia, Paris, etc etc etc, most of you won't agree with my point of view but by doing nothing do you think these murderous scum are going to stop, if we, with the help of inteligence can take out their training camps surely that's better than doing nothing
    nicktuft and Dicky like this.
  8. Seems the yes vote gains momentum. I cant see any reasoned arguments being posted. I suppose we dont all like the sound of our own voices. Time for me to shut up.
    Pickles and Barry Haynes like this.
  9. I was asking for your view on Cameron you daft tart(joke). Specifically his view that you and i support terrorism as we dont agree with him!
  10. I don't agree with most of what you have to say on this subject, but I respect your views completely,
    Dicky likes this.
  11. rickyrooo1

    rickyrooo1 Hanging round like a bad smell

    camerooon is a tit.
    vanorak likes this.
  12. rickyrooo1

    rickyrooo1 Hanging round like a bad smell

    i thought i'd just put my view to the point.
    corbyn is a tit as well.
    most polititians are tits and i don't even know who mine is since i moved but he's probably a tit and tory, the last one i had was a tory tit in a wig - fabricant.
    vanorak and art b like this.
  13. rickyrooo1

    rickyrooo1 Hanging round like a bad smell

    gavin williamson - tory - i googled it
  14. rickyrooo1

    rickyrooo1 Hanging round like a bad smell

    tit ^
    vanorak and volkswombat like this.
  15. I like Cameron as a leader, he should apologise for his terrorism outburst, I think totally out of order
    bernjb56, fritt and Dicky like this.
  16. rickyrooo1

    rickyrooo1 Hanging round like a bad smell

    we're talking about a man who stuck his old chap in a pigs head....
    art b likes this.
  17. Fish

    Fish Administrator

    Stick to sensible comments. Everyone else has kept a decent take on things without causing this to be removed!
    Poptop2 and bernjb56 like this.
  18. rickyrooo1

    rickyrooo1 Hanging round like a bad smell

  19. Fish

    Fish Administrator

    Does anybody know of operation Northwoods and the plan to frame Cuba in a plot to Hijack planes and justify war...
    vanorak likes this.
  20. Poptop2

    Poptop2 Moderator

    Miss Rosie likes this.

Share This Page