Would you vote for bombing ISIS in Syria?

[Dick Knights Mumm]

1.) We are already bombing them in Iraq why stop at a non existent border.

Sorry, just to come back on this. National boundaries do matter. The fact that ISIS ignores them does not mean that we should. One important difference is that we believe in international law. It may not be perfect but we can't just ignore it. At the same time it is not black and white - hence it is a mess.

 

[nicko31]

Why on earth do people feel the need at times like this to equate matters of defence spending with spending on the general public sector

These are two entirely different budgets

If you really want to go down this costing route and push this idea by posting this picture perhaps you will also share some further costings and equate them fully into your budget.

what price do you put on a prepubescent Yazidi girl sold into sex slavery
what price do you put on the gay man thrown to his death from a tall building
what price to you put on simply being executed because you don’t agree
what price do you put on being executed for being an apostate
what price do you put on being burnt alive
what price do you put on being gang raped then killed for being a whore
what price do you put on mass graves
what price to you put on being publicly crucified
what price do you put on each civilian killed by those who take the deathcult message abroad
what price do you put on the stress of all the families whose members have been butchered

how does your budget look now?

Our era of colonial power is ended. We need to get a grip and stop thinking we are the world's police force and moral guardian. Its not just us its most of the western world.

Cameron thinks bombing and then chucking aid at the problem justifies his action. What an earth do they teach at Eton?

 

[Machiavelli]

Pleasantly surprised by how the vote is going on this thread. Here's my twopenneth worth:
-- there is far more legitimacy to this than Iraq, given the UN authorisation (although it was a general, rather than a specific, statement) last week
-- IS/ISIS/Daesch are a mutation out of other clandestine Islamic groups (al-Qaeda, etc); their emergence is very much linked to the 'coalition of the willing's' response to September 11th, which was a trap that Bush, Blair, etc jumped into with glee; IS, etc differs from their predecessors in that they're no longer (merely) a clandestine organisation but are attempting to enact Bin Laden's (and, probably, Sayyad Qutb's) aim of establishing a caliphate: the clue is there in the name of Islamic State
-- the West's meddling in the Middle East didn't begin in Iraq (2003 Iraq that is): the victorious powers after WW1 took over from the Ottoman Empire and helped carve up that part of the world, and given the majority of the oil reserves are in this part of the world the West has retained a special interest thereafter
-- Saudi Arabia is arguably the key power in this part of the world, and along with Israel, the US' key ally in the Middle East; the Saudis could play a more positive regional role but given the way they're structured, that's hardly likely; the US could exert greater influence over Saudi but, again, that's hardly likely
-- there are so many lessons that the machismo bombers could learn from Afghanistan, Libya and, especially, Iraq, but the most must be: what happens after bombing? Cameron's expectation that a coalition of the Kurds and the Syrian Official Opposition will fill a post-IS vacuum is JUST FULKING NAIVE
-- all this illustrates how corrupt and bankrupt our world is, and how we need to radically re-organise it

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

Why on earth do people feel the need at times like this to equate matters of defence spending with spending on the general public sector

These are two entirely different budgets

If you really want to go down this costing route and push this idea by posting this picture perhaps you will also share some further costings and equate them fully into your budget.

what price do you put on a prepubescent Yazidi girl sold into sex slavery
what price do you put on the gay man thrown to his death from a tall building
what price to you put on simply being executed because you don’t agree
what price do you put on being executed for being an apostate
what price do you put on being burnt alive
what price do you put on being gang raped then killed for being a whore
what price do you put on mass graves
what price to you put on being publicly crucified
what price do you put on each civilian killed by those who take the deathcult message abroad
what price do you put on the stress of all the families whose members have been butchered

how does your budget look now?

If you really want a direct answer I put an unbelievably high value on the shocking barbarity happening in Syria, as I do in many death pots around the world. Not a day goes by when I do not thick of people trapped in death camps in countries like North Korea. I feel very happy to live in Brighton at this time, when we have great freedoms and are free from many tyrannies in a time of great scientific knowledge.

I have put forward my views and especially put forward the views of Syrians living in Raqqua (many who have come to the horrendous ends you have listed) who do not want us to bomb, they are the only people who can perhaps pursuade you, but will hopefully take control back of their communities.

I am lucky in my life to have lived without a war immediately around me, however the people in my life who have experienced it, all are against any type of bombing. As many have said what is the end game and plan after and during any bombing, its poor.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Sorry, just to come back on this. National boundaries do matter. The fact that ISIS ignores them does not mean that we should. One important difference is that we believe in international law. It may not be perfect but we can't just ignore it. At the same time it is not black and white - hence it is a mess.

Are we ignoring it? (International law)

The Security Council determined today that the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant/Sham (ISIL/ISIS) constituted an “unprecedented” threat to international peace and security, calling upon Member States with the requisite capacity to take “all necessary measures” to prevent and suppress its terrorist acts on territory under its control in Syria and Iraq.

Unanimously adopting resolution 2249 (2015), the Council unequivocally condemned the terrorist attacks perpetrated by ISIL — also known as Da’esh — on 26 June in Sousse, on 10 October in Ankara, on 31 October over the Sinaï Peninsula, on 12 November in Beirut and on 13 November in Paris, among others. It expressed its deepest condolences to the victims and their families, as well as to the people and Governments of Tunisia, Turkey, Russian Federation, Lebanon and France.

http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sc12132.doc.htm

Even the Lib Dems are supporting air strikes and cite the UN mandate as one reason for their decision.

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

I did open and read the link and dismissed it as nearly worthless. So, in short,

1 Stop bombing

2 Promise no forces on ground

3 Talk

4 Talk

5 Talk

They, ISIS, have no desire to talk, good luck everybody.

You have quoted multiple times about talking with ISIS and many times I have put forward that this is not how diplomacy works. The Talk, talk, talk, you are obviously mocking this part, vital to any end game and what is needed prior to any bombing, the list of evolved parties is endless in this conflict.

Take the Good Friday agreement it only came around from both sides communicating, stopping some hardliners (some still unhappy but have been starved of their capabilities) without any direct contact, someone speaks to someone who speaks to someone else, as listed above the Sunni Iraqi generals need to know whats is their fate if ISIS are defeated or attacked, they hold the key to holding it all together, for one example get them to change sides and you have a different, if by no means not a perfect scenario.

History shows too many failed campaigns that bomb first then worry about the mess left behind after.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Are we ignoring it? (International law)

I thought you were suggesting we should ignore the non-existent border. Anyway - whatever happens no-one knows for sure whether it will improve or inflame things. I just wish I had more confidence in our political classes. We are led by political pygmys. But that is another debate.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

The initial unrest in Syria had a number of reasons, the idea that it was simply a bunch of chaps who wanted more freedom doesn't really explain it fully. Syria was and is a very contested area in the geopolitical context, then there's the pipeline which is often overlooked (http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/is-the-fight-over-a-gas-pipeline-fuelling-the-worlds-bloodiest-conflict/news-story/74efcba9554c10bd35e280b63a9afb74)

As for the Syrian refugees, this is an odd situation at best. Most of the time the initial movements occur very soon after the start of a civil war, people don't wait around much. The recent influx is more likely surrounding states and countries exerting political pressure through threatening or actually forcing refugees out. The chap whose son was photographed on the beach had lived in Turkey for a couple of years, he wasn't freshly out of Syria.

Assad's a monster make no doubt, but the horrible realisation is that the ones fighting him are easily as bad. The FSA have been caught out using chemical weapons and behaving as badly as anyone else in the region. My overarching concern is that this isn't respected in the debates we've been having, instead Cameron simply repeats ambiguous statements.

The simplification of the reasons for the clusterf**k in Syria was just pointing out the difference with our supposed culpability for the mess in Iraq. My underlying point that inaction has consequences too remains.

Agree that Cameron makes some ambiguous statements as do his opponents. They also continually shift their threshold for what would be justifiable or shift the bar to such an unachievable height that it could never realistically be reached.

In truth many of the No bombing lobby are hiding behind the legitimate concerns of some people and would never vote for any intervention under any circumstances.

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

Looks like the vote is won and the government has the numbers, so bombing will happen.

However support has dropped over night in polls from 58% support to 48% support once it has been discussed in the wider public, I would imagine that this figure may even keep falling.

It would have been good to have discussed the Chilcot report as well prior to bombing. I will be very happy to be proved wrong and shamefully called a terrorist sympathiser if bombing works and all these problems are solved by these actions.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I thought you were suggesting we should ignore the non-existent border. Anyway - whatever happens no-one knows for sure whether it will improve or inflame things. I just wish I had more confidence in our political classes. We are led by political pygmys. But that is another debate.

That was my argument yes. Yours was we should act in accordance with international law, the UN mandate provides that legitimacy.

Very true no one knows for sure. There are consequences to action and inaction and yes the politicians are often pilloried but I know I wouldn't relish having to vote (for real) on such a hideously complex situation.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Yours was we should act in accordance with international law, the UN mandate provides that legitimacy.

It wasn't actually. It was simply that we should not ignore national boundaries.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

Interesting poll results so far, with the "no's " far outnumbering the "yes's".... I am in the camp of those who have seen such things all before and it does not solve the problem. Putting aside my natural aversion to the bombing of another country and warfare in general... A rational person asks: "What is the end game?" "Where is the strategy for follow up? " I have no faith in Cameron's 70,000 moderate fighters to materialise.

If we should drive them out of Syria they will go somewhere else. NB Al Queda & the Taliban were supposedly defeated but they are still with us and the ideology is stronger than ever.

I could rant all day but the final straw was our P M calling me a "terrorist sympathiser" because I question his strategy. That is gutter politics . So I am NO.

 

[Czechmate]

Looks like the vote is won and the government has the numbers, so bombing will happen.

However support has dropped over night in polls from 58% support to 48% support once it has been discussed in the wider public, I would imagine that this figure may even keep falling.

It would have been good to have discussed the Chilcot report as well prior to bombing. I will be very happy to be proved wrong and shamefully called a terrorist sympathiser if bombing works and all these problems are solved by these actions.

No wonder support has dropped calling MP´s who go against the bombing as terrorist sympathiser´s , i like Cameron but this is the american attitude coming out !

i don´t agree with bombing , it is too rushed and we have no end goal . Troops on the ground is the only way with all the other countries involved , have the western countries not learned from bombing , especially the Yanks , obviously not !

Another point is what is the difference from the Yanks invading Syria with troops without permission from the ruling government any different from the Russians in Ukraine . Both in the interest of National security !

 

[Simster]

I just wish I had more confidence in our political classes. We are led by political pygmys.

Ain't that the truth. I can't think of a time we've had a more gutless, untrustworthy bunch of clowns on the front benches.

The piggy-eyed prat leading the Tories, flanked by his moral-free Chancellor chum look set to send rockets into a country thousands of miles away, based on "reasoning" that amounts to pure flannel. And as for Labour, they too are morally corrupt, with a proven track record of being unwilling to make unpopular decisions, prefering to shy away to the safety of airy-fairy feeble sound bites, often heard in the sixth form common rooms.

It's all so depressing.

 

[jimhigham]

Corby is often accused of practicing "student politics" and there is a degree of truth in that remark however; Cameron has cheapened the debate enormously with his suggestion that anybody voting against military action is a terrorist sympathiser. One thing that is clear from Syria is that the situation on the ground is an absolute mess, with myriad different groups vying for power. Add to that the fact that even the "allies" cannot agree upon a consistent position as to what to do with Assad and you have more than enough room for doubt and caution.

Cameron's remarks leave no room for nuance or even calm and considered thought. It is the kind of comment I would expect out of the Republican Party in the States but had hoped not to see here.

Bad David!

 

[El Presidente]

North Stand Chat is clearly the home of a bunch of TERRORIST SYMPATHISERS ((c) David Cameron). I'm glad this is an open poll as I'm going to ABUSE my mod powers and send all the names of those who voted 'NO' to CI5. You'll be quaking in your Tofu slippers when Bodie and Doyle pay you all a visit, pinko leftie scum.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

It wasn't actually. It was simply that we should not ignore national boundaries.

Apologies for misrepresenting your view I thought you were suggesting ...

Sorry, just to come back on this. National boundaries do matter. The fact that ISIS ignores them does not mean that we should. One important difference is that we believe in international law.

... we should be better than terrorists and adhere to international law ie respect boundaries.

The UN mandate provides legal legitimacy for action in Syria and Iraq so on your criteria box ticked.

 

[El Presidente]

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.

 

[scamander]

The simplification of the reasons for the clusterf**k in Syria was just pointing out the difference with our supposed culpability for the mess in Iraq. My underlying point that inaction has consequences too remains.

Agree that Cameron makes some ambiguous statements as do his opponents. They also continually shift their threshold for what would be justifiable or shift the bar to such an unachievable height that it could never realistically be reached.

In truth many of the No bombing lobby are hiding behind the legitimate concerns of some people and would never vote for any intervention under any circumstances.

JC - cheers for the response. I agree that inaction has consequence, however, the problem with this is that (i) it posits that anything other than bombing is inaction (ii) the consequences of our inaction doesn't mean the situation will remain unresolved. Our involvement will be to balance out the Russians, it's more a diplomatic gesture than a reasoned military one.

As for Cameron, the onus is on him to justify a case, hence my concern with his vague statements (I would be making the same point were it a Labour government looking to justify). Last week he cited both the Raptor Module and the Brimstone Missiles as decisive difference making options we could bring to the conflict (thus justifying our involvement). When he was asked to clarify if Saudi Arabia possessed the latter (they do) he didn't respond.

 

[Eeyore]

To describe people who have grave reservations about the effects of bombing, and the suffering and instability it may cause innocent people in the long term, as 'terrorist sympathisers' defies belief.

It's like Iraq again, the conflict that dominoed the present one.