Parliament Recalled-How do you want your elected MP to vote re IS in Iraq

pastafarian · Sep 25, 2014

its very simple isnt it. They will vote friday

should the Uk join the coalition and air strike IS in Iraq

will NSC reflect how they actually vote

goldstone · Sep 25, 2014

ISIS needs to be dealt with and crushed, BUT it is not our responsibility. Let the Arab states deal with the problem. They have plenty of troops, military equipment, money. It's an arab problem which should be sorted out by the arabs.

We should stay well away.

pastafarian · Sep 25, 2014

anyone have a list of the countries that have joined the coalition?

Superphil · Sep 25, 2014

I want my mp to vote no. I don't want them to commit our forces to this. When a number of other countries have agreed to do so, then maybe we could commit an appropriate small number of planes to support. We don't have the money, we've decimated our airforce due to austerity , it's time for other European countries and even the likes of Pakistan and India to join this fight to save the world. Why does it always have to be us?

Oh, and it a vote for it will be the death sentence for that British aid worker.

Westdene Seagull · Sep 25, 2014

Superphil said:
Oh, and it a vote for it will be the death sentence for that British aid worker.

Given we're using our forces to assist the co-ordination of the air strikes, intelligence gathering, special forces on the ground and giving weapons to the Kurds I'd suggest his death is guaranteed regardless of Fridays vote.

Superphil · Sep 25, 2014

Westdene Seagull said:
Given we're using our forces to assist the co-ordination of the air strikes, intelligence gathering, special forces on the ground and giving weapons to the Kurds I'd suggest his death is guaranteed regardless of Fridays vote.

It that really was the case, he'd be dead already. The British government voting for air strikes will be what makes them do it.

virtual22 · Sep 25, 2014

No, wind our nicks in and keep out of it. We've got ourselves in way too deep in far too many other of these types of situations in recent years. Let the countries in the region deal with it.

It won't come down to what the public want anyway, it will be down to what your MP's mates want, if it's good for the arms trade, good for British exports and someone can make money out of selling something or advising on something as a result of a yes vote, that'll be the way it goes.

Bwian · Sep 25, 2014

Superphil said:
it's time for other European countries and even the likes of Pakistan and India to join this fight to save the world.

Good idea, get Pakistan, that peace loving 'friend of the West' nation which has no links to world terrorism involved. They'll sort things out.

Superphil · Sep 25, 2014

Bwian said:
Good idea, get Pakistan, that peace loving 'friend of the West' nation which has no links to world terrorism involved. They'll sort things out.

I trust you appreciate the context in which I posted that? Apparently ISIS threatens the entire WORLD, but china, Russia, India, Japan, pakistan, Indonesia aren't joining in the fight to save the WORLD, and they all have significant, and in some cases Vast military air power.

It's not a world problem, it's a problem, that our governments have helped I create, for reasons they have never been honest about. Personally I think we should steer clear, I just hope those in Westminster vote that way tomorrow.

Bwian · Sep 25, 2014

Superphil said:
It that really was the case, he'd be dead already. The British government voting for air strikes will be what makes them do it.

Being what they are will be what makes them do it-they will choose their timing regardless of what the West does.

It is clear that IS will not enter into negotiations, nor are they interested in peaceful co-existence with non-Muslims. They have one agenda and it isn't peace. Unfortunately, there would appear to be only one option available and it is the one most of us would prefer to avoid.

It is a very difficult decision for Parliament to make. They can't win this one.

Superphil · Sep 25, 2014

Bwian said:
Being what they are will be what makes them do it-they will choose their timing regardless of what the West does.

It is clear that IS will not enter into negotiations, nor are they interested in peaceful co-existence with non-Muslims. They have one agenda and it isn't peace. Unfortunately, there would appear to be only one option available and it is the one most of us would prefer to avoid.

It is a very difficult decision for Parliament to make. They can't win this one.

Wise words, sums it up pretty much perfectly, sadly. That's why, IMO, if it's a World problem, then let the world work to solve it, we are not a major force like we were for the gulf wars, we've damaged our forces so much, we can't offer as much as other countries any more. India has all our Harriers, they could be ideal in this conflict, so why isn't the worlds latest Mars spaceship owning orbiting global superpower chucking it's hat in the ring?

The Spanish · Sep 25, 2014

Superphil said:
Wise words, sums it up pretty much perfectly, sadly. That's why, IMO, if it's a World problem, then let the world work to solve it, we are not a major force like we were for the gulf wars, we've damaged our forces so much, we can't offer as much as other countries any more. India has all our Harriers, they could be ideal in this conflict, so why isn't the worlds latest Mars spaceship owning orbiting global superpower chucking it's hat in the ring?

possibly because its in a nuclear stand off with pakistan, at a guess

pastafarian · Sep 25, 2014

Mustafa said:
There is already an army of 250,000 troops in Syria. With Western support, they could defeat the IS in that country.

As I've said in other threads, bombs will not defeat the IS, but it will exacerbate the problem. It's an idiotic & irresponsible thing to do.

what a weird rant,the question is yes or no

Bwian · Sep 25, 2014

Mustafa said:
tl;dr No, but there are other solutions that are being ignored.

You mean like the extremist IS toning down its actions and rhetoric then joining the rest of the world in the 21st century? I suspect though that they are too happy living in their 15th century Utopia to want to leave it so other solutions need to be considered.

We are not dealing with people who want to engage in peaceful co-existence so what would your solution be?

pastafarian · Sep 25, 2014

Mustafa said:
There is already an army of 250,000 troops in Syria. With Western support, they could defeat the IS in that country.

As I've said in other threads, bombs will not defeat the IS, but it will exacerbate the problem. It's an idiotic & irresponsible thing to do.

I do agree on your stance of keeping Assad in power though
forget the fact his troops commit war crimes or rape children or bomb civilians,i would much prefer this freak in power than a possible uber freak if he was deposed .....better the devil you know etc...............sod human rights!

Gazwag · Sep 25, 2014

I wish somebody important would just decide what acronym to use then we can decide what to do

dingodan · Sep 25, 2014

I'm pretty impressed with the amount of "no" votes on this poll, all things considered.

This is a circumstance in which reasonably we could be argued to be threatened, I would not say greatly, but the will to cause us harm is probably greater than ever, and the means now too.

Having said that, I have to emphasize that violence leads to violence. It's silly, it's almost a cliche, but we continue to do the same things, hoping for different results. Every bomb we drop to "destroy radical Islam", has the effect of - radicalizing Islam. Until we recognize this, these circumstances will continue in perpetuity.

I heard a debate on the news this morning and I noticed that there is one thing never ever considered when to comes to this particular enemy. Dialogue. Diplomacy. Talking to your enemy, as much is it might feel uncomfortable, it's necessary. We might think that it takes a strong leader to drop bombs and commit troops, it actually takes a stronger one not to. The aim should be peace.

Buzzer · Sep 25, 2014

[tweet]515080174464139264[/tweet]

[tweet]515080620121526272[/tweet]

supaseagull · Sep 25, 2014

I'm not usually one for a conspiracy, but it was mentioned a while ago was that certain parts of the US Security forces were funding militia groups in Syria to help topple Assad.

It was said that they would then use these groups as a pretext to invade Syria and topple Assad and to put in place their preferred choice of government.

Whilst it may be a conspiracy, the Americans have form in Afghanistan and Libya.

Hotchilidog · Sep 25, 2014

supaseagull said:
I'm not usually one for a conspiracy, but it was mentioned a while ago was that certain parts of the US Security forces were funding militia groups in Syria to help topple Assad.

It was said that they would then use these groups as a pretext to invade Syria and topple Assad and to put in place their preferred choice of government.

Whilst it may be a conspiracy, the Americans have form in Afghanistan and Libya.

And look how well that all turned out.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Parliament Recalled-How do you want your elected MP to vote re IS in Iraq

Should Uk Forces join a coalition in Air Strikes against IS in Iraq

Yes Bomb Them

No Dont Bomb Them

i still believe rainbows,fairies and possibly puppies will save the day

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Dismember

aka Cap'n Carl Firecrotch

Dismember

Well-known member

Kiss my (_!_)

Dismember

Kiss my (_!_)

Dismember

Well-known member

Well-known member

Kiss my (_!_)

Well-known member

5 millionth post poster

New member

Languidly Clinical

Well-known member

Well-known member

Share this page