Jeremy Corbyn 'cannot support UK air strikes in Syria'

[arista]

Meanwhile

PM Calls Syria Airstrikes Vote For Wednesday

David Cameron is accused of "bulldozing" the issue through Parliament after rejecting Jeremy Corbyn's call for a two-day debate.

http://news.sky.com/story/1597291/pm-calls-syria-airstrikes-vote-for-wednesday

[smudgie]

Meanwhile

PM Calls Syria Airstrikes Vote For Wednesday

David Cameron is accused of "bulldozing" the issue through Parliament after rejecting Jeremy Corbyn's call for a two-day debate.

http://news.sky.com/story/1597291/pm-calls-syria-airstrikes-vote-for-wednesday

That sounds ok to me.
He has had long enough to write letters and wring his hands.
Get in with it.

[Kizzy]

What a surprise, I'm surprised he called a vote at all.

[Kizzy]

'Numerous reports claim that Russia has dropped deadly white phosphorus on civilians in northwest Syria, as its intensive bombing campaign against ISIS continues.
The chemical weapon is banned under the Geneva Convention, because it is highly toxic and can burn through flesh and bone.
White phosphorus, an incendiary also known as WP, is used by armies to illuminate targets during the night or as a smokescreen during the day.
Shocking images posted to Twitter show the sky allegedly filled with the potentially deadly weapon, as it rains down on the de-facto capital of ISIS, Raqqa.

But while Raqqa may be an ISIS stronghold, activists on the ground claim that civilians were caught up in airstrike, which was described as a ‘war crime’.
Human rights organisations have claimed that Russian airstrikes have killed more civilians than ISIS fighters.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3340056/Is-Russia-breaking-Geneva-Convention-using-deadly-white-phosphorus-Syria-Claims-images-footage-incendiary-dropped-civilians.html#i-fb2e8e612ce4b96b

[joeysteele]

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2015/11/30/433141/default/v1/metro-p1-dec-1-1-563x750.jpg

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2015/11/30/433145/default/v1/teleg-1-442x589.jpg

So now from those headlines,if this goes pear shaped and is a disaster,Corbyn and Labour will likely get a hefty part of the blame for now enabling the supporting the action by a number of Labour MPs.

How many have said it should be a free vote for MPs yet not a single bit of condemnation against Cameron for not giving his MPs a free vote.

Honestly,you couldn't make it up.

Anyway, this will get passed obviously now,on balance I still just about support the action and yes the PM in his efforts to deal with this,I just hope we do hear this week more clarity as to what we will be doing, how far we will be going, that his hoped for regime change is 'not' still his agenda too but more importantly exactly and clearly what his end strategy is as to the aftermath of what may be termed any success.

All things he failed to satisfy in his speech to the Commons last week.

[bots]

Jeremy Corbyn has granted Labour MPs a free vote on UK air strikes in Syria.

Mr Corbyn had wanted Labour to oppose air strikes, but was forced to back down by his shadow cabinet.

David Cameron later said there would be a Commons debate and vote on Wednesday, saying he believed there was growing parliamentary support for action.

BBC chief political correspondent Vicki Young said she was told Mr Corbyn was given a "thorough kicking" at the meeting with his shadow cabinet.

He had previously suggested he wanted to agree a united position within his shadow cabinet and for Labour to approach the question "as a party". The free vote means Labour MPs will not be ordered to vote with the leadership.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34967024

[lostalex]

It;s insane to me that he has to "grant" a free vote.

all MP's should ALWAYS BE FREE TO VOTE HOWEVER THEY LIKE. THEY ARE ELECTED BY THE EPOPLE, NOT BY JEREMY CORBAN. WHAT A SELF-RIGHTEOUS prick to think he can "grant them" the right to vote freely. wtf is wrong with the labour party???

[user104658]

:facepalm: We have 'been at war' from the first day ISIS declared it on us with their very first beheading, bombing and slaughter of innocent people. What you are deluding yourselves about is that Cameron REALISES that we are under attack and WANTS to FIGHT BACK, while terrorist appeasing anti-UK Corbyn DOES NOT WANT US TO FIGHT BACK.

Cameron is NOT to blame here - ISIS are.

The UK did not start this war - ISIS did.

Keep 'slapping each other on the back' and maintaining your mutual delusion, but it is all coming across as a little bit false and hollow.


This is as always a gross oversimplification Kirk. I'm sure it makes things easier to process and opinions easier to form to stick to things like this as dogmatic "truth" but the waters are so much murkier. We've been "at war" with the Middle East for a thousand years. Everyone "side" has blood on their hands.

And again, as always, I'm not defending ISIS. ISIS are awful; they are disgusting. They deliberately target innocents because they can't take on anyone with the means to fight back. They have more fresh blood - or at least more fresh innocent blood - on their hands thand anyone else currently. They are a problem, on that needs to be taken care of (but won't be, in my opinion as you know. We will fail spectacularly to eradicate them.)

So yea... who started "this" war? There's no snappy one-liner answer to that. You could write a thesis on it. Are ISIS the good guys? No, they are metaphorical "monsters". Who are the good guys? That's where it gets messy. There are "worse guys" and "slightly better guys". There AREN'T any good guys. It's not Star Wars; it's the real world where everyone falls somewhere between "completely awful" and "quite sh*t".

[joeysteele]

It;s insane to me that he has to "grant" a free vote.

all MP's should ALWAYS BE FREE TO VOTE HOWEVER THEY LIKE. THEY ARE ELECTED BY THE EPOPLE, NOT BY JEREMY CORBAN. WHAT A SELF-RIGHTEOUS prick to think he can "grant them" the right to vote freely. wtf is wrong with the labour party???

The Conservative MPs are not having a free vote for their MPs,David Cameron has not granted that.
A free vote has to be dictated by the govt when putting the motion forward,such as when we have a vote on the death penalty.
Or the leader/hierarchy of the Party have to give a free vote on certain divisive issues,to their MPs which Corbyn has and Cameron has not.

That is sadly, our out of date and really non representative parliamentary procedure in the UK.
We will be getting a true reading now of how the Labour MPs see this as to action now but the Conservative party will be a forced whip vote.
Any Conservative MP who really wanted to vote against this, has to weigh up does he want to lose the privileges and possible prospects of advancement in the party, so many will not be able to vote with their conscience.
Unlike now the labour MPs who can.

For me, every vote for action as to intervention, conflict or war should always be a free vote scenario for all MPs of all Parties.
So I am in full agreement with you on that.

[Kazanne]

No wonder our country is not Great Britain as it was,it was once a proud and brave country ,now , we are just expected to bend over and take the hits from all corners of the world, because we 'don't want to fight' no one WANTS to fight ,but sometimes you have to treat like with like.

[joeysteele]

No wonder our country is not Great Britain as it was,it was once a proud and brave country ,now , we are just expected to bend over and take the hits from all corners of the world, because we 'don't want to fight' no one WANTS to fight ,but sometimes you have to treat like with like.

It is sometimes the case that when we take the fight to the Middle East particularly,such as Iraq and Libya that we actually end up making things worse not better, that is why some people, myself included, hesitate and think before sending more parents sons and daughters to their deaths now.
Especially in very rushed and badly planned strategies, that is if we even have a strategy at all that will make things better at all.

I would just about support the PM and the action now but I want to hear a load more that is more clarified,quantified and qualified as to the action we will be involved in and what our plans are for the end mess that will need sorting out.
Nothing of which I have heard much of, can you enlighten me please as to what the PMs end plans are for the mess that will be left for instance.
You are someone I massively respect so convince me on what we should and will be doing as to that end mess for instance from all you know.
Because I haven't a clue what the PMs plans are on that one.

[lostalex]

The Conservative MPs are not having a free vote for their MPs,David Cameron has not granted that.
A free vote has to be dictated by the govt when putting the motion forward,such as when we have a vote on the death penalty.
Or the leader/hierarchy of the Party have to give a free vote on certain divisive issues,to their MPs which Corbyn has and Cameron has not.

That is sadly, our out of date and really non representative parliamentary procedure in the UK.
We will be getting a true reading now of how the Labour MPs see this as to action now but the Conservative party will be a forced whip vote.
Any Conservative MP who really wanted to vote against this, has to weigh up does he want to lose the privileges and possible prospects of advancement in the party, so many will not be able to vote with their conscience.
Unlike now the labour MPs who can.

For me, every vote for action as to intervention, conflict or war should always be a free vote scenario for all MPs of all Parties.
So I am in full agreement with you on that.

If the people elect someone to represent them in the parliament, that representative should vote however they personally feel or how they feel their constituency would want them to vote. but just following on party lines even if it doesn't match with their own personal opinion or the opinion of their constituency that elected them, seems insane to me. and it's a total betrayal to the democratic process.

[bots]

If the people elect someone to represent them in the parliament, that representative should vote however they personally feel or how they feel their constituency would want them to vote. but just following on party lines even if it doesn't match with their own personal opinion or the opinion of their constituency that elected them, seems insane to me. and it's a total betrayal to the democratic process.

its how governments work though, you identify with a political party, and are also voted in because of that allegiance.

However, if the subject is a matter of conscience, like the decision on going to war, abortion, the death penalty etc., whether we remain or exit the EU, it should be a free vote

[user104658]

No wonder our country is not Great Britain as it was,it was once a proud and brave country ,now , we are just expected to bend over and take the hits from all corners of the world, because we 'don't want to fight' no one WANTS to fight ,but sometimes you have to treat like with like.

The simple simon salt-of-the-earth guy in the pub who starts throwing his fists around when a gang is hassling people is not "brave", he's stupid. Anyone can throw a haymaker. Believing that it's better to plan, and fight smart, than to react with blunt force, is not cowardly.

[lostalex]

its how governments work though, you identify with a political party, and are also voted in because of that allegiance.

However, if the subject is a matter of conscience, like the decision on going to war, abortion, the death penalty etc., whether we remain or exit the EU, it should be a free vote


not in the US. democrats and republicans cross party lines all the time. there are some of democrats who are against tax increases, and there are some republicans who are pro-abortion. every vote in the US congress is a free vote, yes their party tries to influence their vote, but in the end it is always a free vote, and it never is directly down party lines in the US.

[MTVN]

Truth is we can't guarantee what will happen in the long run and there's not much point in trying to draw up a neat little itinerary of how things should go. In part that's because it won't depend on us that much: we are going to be a relatively minor partner in this coalition and are not going to decisively shape Syria's future on a military or a political level. We can't conjure up a political settlement now because that is going to be an ongoing process that will require prolonged discussions and negotiations between both Russia, Western powers, regional partners and, like it or not, the Syrian government and probably some opposition groups as well. But there can be no political settlement without IS being defeated militarily so that has to be the priority right now. I think the government are deluding themselves when they talk about 70,000 'moderates' and I think Cameron's message is quite incoherent but I also think this vote is more about the general principle of whether we are involved in the international response to ISIS or we aren't. If we are not then there really is no point in talking about political settlements in Syria or long-term plans because we are not going to play any part in that if we leave the messy and uncomfortable action to the US, Russia, France etc. while we stand by and watch.

[bots]

Truth is we can't guarantee what will happen in the long run and there's not much point in trying to draw up a neat little itinerary of how things should go. In part that's because it won't depend on us that much: we are going to be a relatively minor partner in this coalition and are not going to decisively shape Syria's future on a military or a political level. We can't conjure up a political settlement now because that is going to be an ongoing process that will require prolonged discussions and negotiations between both Russia, Western powers, regional partners and, like it or not, the Syrian government and probably some opposition groups as well. But there can be no political settlement without IS being defeated militarily so that has to be the priority right now. I think the government are deluding themselves when they talk about 70,000 'moderates' and I think Cameron's message is quite incoherent but I also think this vote is more about the general principle of whether we are involved in the international response to ISIS or we aren't. If we are not then there really is no point in talking about political settlements in Syria or long-term plans because we are not going to play any part in that if we leave the messy and uncomfortable action to the US, Russia, France etc. while we stand by and watch.

That's the crux of it. I would add that there is zero point in us taking action in Iraq if we are not doing the same in Syria. The ISIS state doesn't respect the Iraq/Syria border. They don't suddenly behave themselves in Syria.

Like it or not, in terms of an outside influence, Russia is one of the main drivers, and the USA is a minor player. We need to accept that if we are going to tackle ISIS

[lostalex]

Truth is we can't guarantee what will happen in the long run and there's not much point in trying to draw up a neat little itinerary of how things should go. In part that's because it won't depend on us that much: we are going to be a relatively minor partner in this coalition and are not going to decisively shape Syria's future on a military or a political level. We can't conjure up a political settlement now because that is going to be an ongoing process that will require prolonged discussions and negotiations between both Russia, Western powers, regional partners and, like it or not, the Syrian government and probably some opposition groups as well. But there can be no political settlement without IS being defeated militarily so that has to be the priority right now. I think the government are deluding themselves when they talk about 70,000 'moderates' and I think Cameron's message is quite incoherent but I also think this vote is more about the general principle of whether we are involved in the international response to ISIS or we aren't. If we are not then there really is no point in talking about political settlements in Syria or long-term plans because we are not going to play any part in that if we leave the messy and uncomfortable action to the US, Russia, France etc. while we stand by and watch.


eggggsactly. For some reason, Corbyn thinks in order to engage militarily, there must be some GARUNTEE that everything will go EXACTLY according to plan. he can't even make things perfect in his own party, a stupid beurocratic political party, but expects the military to give garuntee's things will go perfectly? He's an idiot. He's a disgrace. He's a hypocrite.

He holds everyone else to a higher standard than he holds himself to.

[user104658]

Truth is we can't guarantee what will happen in the long run and there's not much point in trying to draw up a neat little itinerary of how things should go. In part that's because it won't depend on us that much: we are going to be a relatively minor partner in this coalition and are not going to decisively shape Syria's future on a military or a political level. We can't conjure up a political settlement now because that is going to be an ongoing process that will require prolonged discussions and negotiations between both Russia, Western powers, regional partners and, like it or not, the Syrian government and probably some opposition groups as well. But there can be no political settlement without IS being defeated militarily so that has to be the priority right now. I think the government are deluding themselves when they talk about 70,000 'moderates' and I think Cameron's message is quite incoherent but I also think this vote is more about the general principle of whether we are involved in the international response to ISIS or we aren't. If we are not then there really is no point in talking about political settlements in Syria or long-term plans because we are not going to play any part in that if we leave the messy and uncomfortable action to the US, Russia, France etc. while we stand by and watch.

Seriously MTVN; "we are not going to decisively shape Syria's future on a military or a political level."? No of course we're not... because no one is. Because it doesn't work. Because it is not possible. People's memories CANNOT be this short. Neither we, not the US, nor any other of these countries have ever successfully shaped the future of any country and yet we keep bloody trying over and over again. This is serious deja-vú. We were so sure that we could successfully mould Iraq into a democracy, everyone was so bloody proud of themselves for about 5 minutes... and look at Iraq today. Just... look.

I guess we do shape it, in a way, much as an unskilled pottery student might "shape" a lump of clay not into a vase but into amorphous blob of chaotic nothingness. We will wreck Syria and then, like a phoenix from the ashes, ISIS under yet another name will rise up more hateful than ever.

I am bewildered that people can't see this coming. It's like when you start watching a sequel movie and you've figured out the twist in the first 15 minutes, and then at the end when it happens, the guy next to you is like ":omgno: did NOT see that coming", and you're like "...eh? It's exactly the same twist as the first film!"

:shrug:

[Livia]

Truth is we can't guarantee what will happen in the long run and there's not much point in trying to draw up a neat little itinerary of how things should go. In part that's because it won't depend on us that much: we are going to be a relatively minor partner in this coalition and are not going to decisively shape Syria's future on a military or a political level. We can't conjure up a political settlement now because that is going to be an ongoing process that will require prolonged discussions and negotiations between both Russia, Western powers, regional partners and, like it or not, the Syrian government and probably some opposition groups as well. But there can be no political settlement without IS being defeated militarily so that has to be the priority right now. I think the government are deluding themselves when they talk about 70,000 'moderates' and I think Cameron's message is quite incoherent but I also think this vote is more about the general principle of whether we are involved in the international response to ISIS or we aren't. If we are not then there really is no point in talking about political settlements in Syria or long-term plans because we are not going to play any part in that if we leave the messy and uncomfortable action to the US, Russia, France etc. while we stand by and watch.

That's the crux of it. I would add that there is zero point in us taking action in Iraq if we are not doing the same in Syria. The ISIS state doesn't respect the Iraq/Syria border. They don't suddenly behave themselves in Syria.

Like it or not, in terms of an outside influence, Russia is one of the main drivers, and the USA is a minor player. We need to accept that if we are going to tackle ISIS

eggggsactly. For some reason, Corbyn thinks in order to engage militarily, there must be some GARUNTEE that everything will go EXACTLY according to plan. he can't even make things perfect in his own party, a stupid beurocratic political party, but expects the military to give garuntee's things will go perfectly? He's an idiot. He's a disgrace. He's a hypocrite.

He holds everyone else to a higher standard than he holds himself to.

My thoughts are an amalgamation of these posts...

[Northern Monkey]

It is sometimes the case that when we take the fight to the Middle East particularly,such as Iraq and Libya that we actually end up making things worse not better, that is why some people, myself included, hesitate and think before sending more parents sons and daughters to their deaths now.
Especially in very rushed and badly planned strategies, that is if we even have a strategy at all that will make things better at all.

I would just about support the PM and the action now but I want to hear a load more that is more clarified,quantified and qualified as to the action we will be involved in and what our plans are for the end mess that will need sorting out.
Nothing of which I have heard much of, can you enlighten me please as to what the PMs end plans are for the mess that will be left for instance.
You are someone I massively respect so convince me on what we should and will be doing as to that end mess for instance from all you know.
Because I haven't a clue what the PMs plans are on that one.
Considering there is no plans of regime change on the table.What mess do you forsee by removing ISIS from the equation?

Assad is already killing the Syrian people and blowing his own towns and cities to pieces.Would you rebuild a city and wait for Assad to destroy it again?

Does it make sense that we are currently fighting ISIS in Iraq but cannot follow them into Syria when they flee or we can't hit them at their heart in Raqqa?

Should we not support our allies in France after the devastating attack in Paris as we would hope they would us?

Should we not take some responsibility for our own security rather than letting our allies do it for us?

These are the reasons that i whole heartedly support airstrikes against ISIS.

[joeysteele]

If the people elect someone to represent them in the parliament, that representative should vote however they personally feel or how they feel their constituency would want them to vote. but just following on party lines even if it doesn't match with their own personal opinion or the opinion of their constituency that elected them, seems insane to me. and it's a total betrayal to the democratic process.

They should be able to I agree,
However in the UK any manifesto policy has to be supported on party lines.
The problem with that is,that in the manifesto the fine detail of policy is more often than not very vague and not fully outlined.

This action as to Syria was not in the Conservatives manifesto, therefore the MPs of the govt and indeed all of the Commons should have been a free vote.
Now this PM wants to limit the debate to a day, this week, now in an almighty rush to get it through.

I agree with MTVN, it is hard to work out strategies as to end results normally, however we are now well versed with Middle east intervention and have made bad mistakes in at least 2 areas.
So we should at the very least have learned something from that and have some basic even plan for the aftermath.
That can be explained to us to convince us we are not charging in again just hoping things will turn out right in the end.

let's see what the PM says this week but I hope he doesn't come out with the nonsense of 70,000 moderates fighting there that we should support, the truth is as with Libya, we haven't a clue how many 'moderates' are there and those we assisted in Libya turned out to be worse or at least certainly not better than what was there before.

Before I expected anyone's sons and daughters to go off to war in the Middle east again, I would prefer to see at least some assurances, we have some plans and ideas of what we expect and what to do in the end to rebuild the area too afterwards.

Furthermore,public opinion may have tipped into support for this action at present, however if it all goes wrong and people start coming home in body bags again,then that opinion, since is highly fickle and volatile, will disappear in a flash.

I cannot however disagree with you that our parliamentary system needs a shake up and with more Parties represented in Parliament now,there does need to be a shift to more consensus politics and constituency based politics.
Rather than the whip style of politics where men and women end up becoming more like voting robots rather than people with minds and feelings.

[MTVN]

Seriously MTVN; "we are not going to decisively shape Syria's future on a military or a political level."? No of course we're not... because no one is. Because it doesn't work. Because it is not possible. People's memories CANNOT be this short. Neither we, not the US, nor any other of these countries have ever successfully shaped the future of any country and yet we keep bloody trying over and over again. This is serious deja-vú. We were so sure that we could successfully mould Iraq into a democracy, everyone was so bloody proud of themselves for about 5 minutes... and look at Iraq today. Just... look.

I guess we do shape it, in a way, much as an unskilled pottery student might "shape" a lump of clay not into a vase but into amorphous blob of chaotic nothingness. We will wreck Syria and then, like a phoenix from the ashes, ISIS under yet another name will rise up more hateful than ever.

I am bewildered that people can't see this coming. It's like when you start watching a sequel movie and you've figured out the twist in the first 15 minutes, and then at the end when it happens, the guy next to you is like ":omgno: did NOT see that coming", and you're like "...eh? It's exactly the same twist as the first film!"

:shrug:

Well it's just as silly to expect every intervention to be a carbon copy of the previous one. I've always opposed our involvement in the Middle East before and not to be smug but you can look at my posts in the run up to the Libya bombing where I did say that forcing the overthrow of Gaddafi would lead to chaos and it did. What we have right now is different for several reasons. Previous interventions were generally about forcing regime change and overhauling the state system: this one would not be. There is an international consensus on this right across the UN: that's something we've never had before. We have powers as diverse as France, the US, Russia, Iran and even the Saudis united against IS (I know that this is pretty murky in the case of Saudi Arabia and some other countries but the potential of a united response is there). And finally, ISIS are a lot different to any previous organisation. They are not Al Qaeda reborn, they're a different monster altogether. They're not an underground, guerilla force, they control a lot of territory and do operate as a state in a fairly conventional way which means that there is a lot that we can do to combat them. You might not defeat the ideology but you can defeat the way in which it operates and manifests itself.

[joeysteele]

Considering there is no plans of regime change on the table.What mess do you forsee by removing ISIS from the equation?

Assad is already killing the Syrian people and blowing his own towns and cities to pieces.Would you rebuild a city and wait for Assad to destroy it again?

Does it make sense that we are currently fighting ISIS in Iraq but cannot follow them into Syria when they flee or we can't hit them at their heart in Raqqa?

Should we not support our allies in France after the devastating attack in Paris as we would hope they would us?

Should we not take some responsibility for our own security rather than letting our allies do it for us?

These are the reasons that i whole heartedly support airstrikes against ISIS.

I support action against IS, I would if I were an MP with a very heavy heart likely vote for this action.
Once I heard some solid assurances from this PM, not his Party, most of them are as in the dark as we are as to his planned strategy.

I want to hear him say he will work with all those in the action in Syria, his still hostility to Russia makes him come across as if his agenda once there will be very different.
2 years ago 'all' he wanted was Assad gone,now really my belief is we need to actually work with him to get rid of IS.
Much as in the Russian ideal.

Are you convinced, the PM will take that on board totally,because I am not and the mess could be with the Nations involved in action in Syria the mess could be those nations ending up causing problems for the others.
If that happened,what an almighty mess that would then be and leave too.
I have heard not a thing to re-assure me on that one either.

[Northern Monkey]

People are just thinking 'war is war' and comparing this with Iraq and Libya without looking at the details.Syria is a totally different ball game.We are not currently planning on regime change.That would more than likely be an impossibility with Russia building air bases in Syria and backing Assad.This is about destroying an evil terrorist organisation and stopping them increasing the borders of their self made state which is currently crossing the borders of Syria and Iraq and growing like a tumour.They will not stop trying to expand their new territory which knows no borders unless the world stops them.We have an important role to play in this and should support our neighbours in trying to remove this cancer.

[Kizzy]

eggggsactly. For some reason, Corbyn thinks in order to engage militarily, there must be some GARUNTEE that everything will go EXACTLY according to plan. he can't even make things perfect in his own party, a stupid beurocratic political party, but expects the military to give garuntee's things will go perfectly? He's an idiot. He's a disgrace. He's a hypocrite.

He holds everyone else to a higher standard than he holds himself to.

He wants a reason... I would've thought any reasonable person would.
The reasons he has given so far are inadequate and that has been reported regularly, it is not some off the wall reaction to expect this from a PM on the eve of war.
Of course he can't make things go perfectly, he has been leader a matter of weeks and is pushing against years of alternative views... if it was that easy there would be no wars.
He never stood a chance against the war machine.

[Northern Monkey]

I support action against IS, I would if I were an MP with a very heavy heart likely vote for this action.
Once I heard some solid assurances from this PM, not his Party, most of them are as in the dark as we are as to his planned strategy.

I want to hear him say he will work with all those in the action in Syria, his still hostility to Russia makes him come across as if his agenda once there will be very different.
2 years ago 'all' he wanted was Assad gone,now really my belief is we need to actually work with him to get rid of IS.
Much as in the Russian ideal.

Are you convinced, the PM will take that on board totally,because I am not and the mess could be with the Nations involved in action in Syria the mess could be those nations ending up causing problems for the others.
If that happened,what an almighty mess that would then be and leave too.
I have heard not a thing to re-assure me on that one either.I agree that we need to work with Russia in this objective but we have to do this with an air of suspicion and not take our eye off the ball.Russia imo are not just in this to destroy ISIS.They have bigger plans imo.I don't think regime change would be an option now that Russia are dug in deep in Syria.
I agree that with all the nations involved that Syria is a melting pot and much care needs to be taken so as not to heighten East/West tensions.
I still believe we have a big role to play and need to do our part.

[joeysteele]

People are just thinking 'war is war' and comparing this with Iraq and Libya without looking at the details.Syria is a totally different ball game.We are not currently planning on regime change.That would more than likely be an impossibility with Russia building air bases in Syria and backing Assad.This is about destroying an evil terrorist organisation and stopping them increasing the borders of their self made state which is currently crossing the borders of Syria and Iraq and growing like a tumour.They will not stop trying to expand their new territory which knows no borders unless the world stops them.We have an important role to play in this and should support our neighbours in trying to remove this cancer.

I don't see Syria as completely different, our PM said he wanted Assad gone,we were not initially going into Iraq to assassinate Hussein, we went in to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction.

Now we are again being told this is not to bring about regime change, although it was all it was about 2 years ago for this PM.
That now it is to root out and destroy IS.

Doesn't sound a great deal different to me from Iraq and if we make the same mistakes here as we did there, this time real chaos will be the result.

I also disagree with you MTVN, I am not convinced Saudi has a wish to do anything to remove IS and I have even less faith in Turkey.
also I do not believe we would ever take any action against Saudi or seek to offend it either.
Despite all the atrocities that go on in Saudi Arabia.

What is needed is the Saudi's,other Arab Nations and even moreso Iran too to pledge to help in the fight against IS then we may stand greater success.
None of that is really forthcoming however at all.

[Northern Monkey]

I don't see Syria as completely different, our PM said he wanted Assad gone,we were not initially going into Iraq to assassinate Hussein, we went in to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction.

Now we are again being told this is not to bring about regime change, although it was all it was about 2 years ago for this PM.
That now it is to root out and destroy IS.

Doesn't sound a great deal different to me from Iraq and if we make the same mistakes here as we did there, this time real chaos will be the result.

I also disagree with you MTVN, I am not convinced Saudi has a wish to do anything to remove IS and I have even less faith in Turkey.
also I do not believe we would ever take any action against Saudi or seek to offend it either.
Despite all the atrocities that go on in Saudi Arabia.

What is needed is the Saudi's,other Arab Nations and even moreso Iran too to pledge to help in the fight against IS then we may stand greater success.
None of that is really forthcoming however at all.I believe the government and US are now hoping that Assad will just quietly dissapear or die or step down.I don't believe the UK and US would attempt regime change now that Russia have dug their heels in.

[DemolitionRed]

It;s insane to me that he has to "grant" a free vote.

all MP's should ALWAYS BE FREE TO VOTE HOWEVER THEY LIKE. THEY ARE ELECTED BY THE EPOPLE, NOT BY JEREMY CORBAN. WHAT A SELF-RIGHTEOUS prick to think he can "grant them" the right to vote freely. wtf is wrong with the labour party???

There's a clear misunderstanding here ^

[MTVN]

I also disagree with you MTVN, I am not convinced Saudi has a wish to do anything to remove IS and I have even less faith in Turkey.
also I do not believe we would ever take any action against Saudi or seek to offend it either.
Despite all the atrocities that go on in Saudi Arabia.

What is needed is the Saudi's,other Arab Nations and even moreso Iran too to pledge to help in the fight against IS then we may stand greater success.
None of that is really forthcoming however at all.

The Saudis bear some responsibility for stoking extremism in the Middle East imo, but I do think they are quite terrified of ISIS now and have unleashed a monster they can't control: the Saudis might preach an extreme form of Islam but they're also a stable nation state and ISIS threaten that. They need to do more I agree but at least they are engaged in the process and there is the potential there for a coordinated effort. We never saw a meeting or a statement like this before of so many countries united in their opposition to ISIS: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2015/11/249511.htm

Meeting in Vienna on November 14, 2015 as the International Syria Support Group (ISSG), the Arab League, China, Egypt, the EU, France, Germany, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United Nations, and the United States to discuss how to accelerate an end to the Syrian conflict. The participants began with a moment of silence for the victims of the heinous terrorist attacks of November 13 in Paris and the recent attacks in Beirut, Iraq, Ankara, and Egypt. The members unanimously condemned in the strongest terms these brutal attacks against innocent civilians and stood with the people of France.

[Kizzy]

'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 causalities; 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.'

Motion on Syria.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/dec/01/syria-vote-corbyn-cameron-isis-to-war-because-his-case-is-falling-apart-politics-live

[arista]

Tomorrows PMQ's is now cancelled - the buggers

Due to the Day of "Self Defense - Bombing Syria Debate and Vote "

[Livia]

I don't see Syria as completely different, our PM said he wanted Assad gone,we were not initially going into Iraq to assassinate Hussein, we went in to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction.

Now we are again being told this is not to bring about regime change, although it was all it was about 2 years ago for this PM.
That now it is to root out and destroy IS.

Doesn't sound a great deal different to me from Iraq and if we make the same mistakes here as we did there, this time real chaos will be the result.

I also disagree with you MTVN, I am not convinced Saudi has a wish to do anything to remove IS and I have even less faith in Turkey.
also I do not believe we would ever take any action against Saudi or seek to offend it either.
Despite all the atrocities that go on in Saudi Arabia.

What is needed is the Saudi's,other Arab Nations and even moreso Iran too to pledge to help in the fight against IS then we may stand greater success.
None of that is really forthcoming however at all.

Saudi has already taken part in the US-led coalition air campaign against IS. Many of those air strikes started from Turkish air bases. I've personally seen what's happening in Jordan, not only do they back the West's anty IS stance, they have taken 80% of the refugees that have fled from Syria.

[joeysteele]

Saudi has already taken part in the US-led coalition air campaign against IS. Many of those air strikes started from Turkish air bases. I've personally seen what's happening in Jordan, not only do they back the West's anty IS stance, they have taken 80% of the refugees that have fled from Syria.

There seems to be a lot of criticism still levelled as to Saudi Arabia's true ideal as to IS from all circles.
However you, I do accept and recognise, have a greater insight as to the area than certainly I do for one.
So I take what you say above fully on board.

[Kizzy]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2015/dec/01/six-alternatives-to-bombing-isis-airstrikes-syria-video

[Johnnyuk123]

The ISIS flag is black and white. What else on here is also in black and white?

[Johnnyuk123]

Corbyn is on the news right now worried about civilian casualties BUT not in this country. All of us here (the ones who ACTUALLY voted for him) he does not give a shyte about at all. :nono:

[joeysteele]

Corbyn is on the news right now worried about civilian casualties BUT not in this country. All of us here (the ones who ACTUALLY voted for him) he does not give a shyte about at all. :nono:

Oh for goodness sake.
Parliament are not debating and voting on whether to bomb here, they are voting on whether to bomb in Syria.
That is what Corbyn is addressing.

[Johnnyuk123]

Oh for goodness sake.
Parliament are not debating and voting on whether to bomb here, they are voting on whether to bomb in Syria.
That is what Corbyn is addressing.

Corbyn was elected here by the british public. Why is he more concerned about the death of people in other countries than his own country and of the people who actually voted him in? Explain....

[Johnnyuk123]

What will Corbyns response be when the UK is hit by ISIS????

[joeysteele]

Corbyn was elected here by the british public. Why is he more concerned about the death of people in other countries than his own country and of the people who actually voted him in? Explain....

He is bothered about the civilians in Syria because I say again, that is the country we will be helping bomb not here in the UK.
We are all or should be bothered about people being killed in other countries whether that is from us bombing, or others or them being killed by their own governments.
It is called compassion.

[joeysteele]

What will Corbyns response be when the UK is hit by ISIS????

It was on the cards to happen and I think us now joining the bombing in Syria will escalate even further that happening.
As to Corbyns response, that will have to be seen if and when it happens but hopefully it doesn't.

[Johnnyuk123]

He is bothered about the civilians in Syria because I say again, that is the country we will be helping bomb not here in the UK.
We are all or should be bothered about people being killed in other countries whether that is from us bombing, or others or them being killed by their own governments.
It is called compassion.

France would have a very different point of view on that, Do we wait until it happens here before saying lets do something about it or do we smile and shake their hand and try to get them sat around a table knowing that no matter what is said we are infidels and must be killed? Are you ok with risking UK lives because you would like to debate with muderers who have no intention of debating with you?

[Johnnyuk123]

The question in here that folk should answer honestly is... Are you for or against UK citizens being blown up. Yes or no. It's that simple.

[Johnnyuk123]

Kizzy said...He wants a reason... I would've thought any reasonable person would???
We know that these people are NOT reasonable that we are dealing with.
They do NOT want a chat and have a cup of tea. They simply want to kill all infidels. So when the bomb goes off on a UK street killing UK residents you will then say..Lets bomb them? It's ok now?

[bots]

Its not a simplistic issue.

First, i think its worth pointing out that there is nothing wrong in itself with not wanting to attack another human being. Some people will not fight back under any circumstances, no matter what the threat is to themselves. Again, that's fine.

Where things begin to change is where you have the protection of your family to consider. Is it still ok to sit back and do nothing, when a child that is dependent on you, needs you for protection. At that point, it becomes a responsibility.

For a politician, the people of the country are in effect an extended family, so they need to make their decision based on looking after the family.

To be a pacifist and potentially the prime minister, I think are mutually exclusive. Not being a pacifist does not equate to a war monger, but being a pacifist in that position automatically puts the leader/prime minister at a disadvantage because those who would do us harm know that they can do as they want with impunity.

With leadership comes responsibility, and not just looking after ones own interests. I think Corbyn has shown that he will always put his own interests first, and that this vote tomorrow will be yet another element that hastens his departure.

[arista]

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2015/12/1/433343/default/v1/metro-edit-1-992x558.jpg

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2015/12/1/433351/default/v1/guardian-edit-1-992x558.jpg

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2015/12/1/433339/default/v1/telegraph-edit-1-992x558.jpg

[Kizzy]

Shocking accusation from the PM, embarrassing outburst.

[joeysteele]

Shocking accusation from the PM, embarrassing outburst.

Had I been a Labour MP and my inclination would be to support the PM in the Commons vote if I had been, just, on this issue.
After this despicable outburst,I would have likely voted against.

He may well need the leader of the opposition and the opposition parties,if this goes terribly wrong once we are fully involved, and what he has done here is lump Labour MPs who vote against,the SNP,Plaid Cymru,the SDLP and the Green into this ridiculous and unnecessary description.
Very unstatesmanlike.

No doubt he will be hailed for this as well however on here but thankfully not by me and I am sure not you either.

[bots]

Shocking accusation from the PM, embarrassing outburst.

He spoke the truth if you are referring to the terrorist sympathiser comment. Corbyn has a history of being a terrorist sympathiser over numerous occasions and his behaviour recently does nothing to dispel that.

[Ammi]

...it's like one of those really, really difficult decisions that you may be faced with in life and you can see all the reasons why this and why that, type thing...and people sometimes say to you...well, how would you feel if this was how it was/if that was the thing you decided on..?..all I know and what my heart tells me is that I'd feel much happier with the thought of a no than with the thought of a yes...


...what will be, will be I guess...

[kirklancaster]

He spoke the truth if you are referring to the terrorist sympathiser comment. Corbyn has a history of being a terrorist sympathiser over numerous occasions and his behaviour recently does nothing to dispel that.

I agree. No amount of PR can conceal the truth when Corbyn himself continues to commit one 'faux pas' after another. He is what he has always been, and what he will always be - a terrorist sympathiser.

[DemolitionRed]

I agree. No amount of PR can conceal the truth when Corbyn himself continues to commit one 'faux pas' after another. He is what he has always been, and what he will always be - a terrorist sympathiser.

When a person doesn't want to go to war...and that's what this is...but try and find other routes/methods to this madness, that doesn't make them a terrorist sympathiser. If he is a sympathiser, like yourself and all the right wing press propaganda keep pointing out, that makes me a sympathiser too. It makes Kizzy and Joey terrorist sympathisers and it makes the many thousands of us that marched against this war terrorist sympathisers.

Without exception, those keenest on the war, if they were in parliament, voted for the occupation of Iraq in 2003, widely regarded as the worst foreign policy disaster since Suez.

Hundreds of thousands of civilians died and the country was plunged into the very chaos from which Isis emerged.

Those voting for that war include David Cameron, Michael Fallon, Philip Hammond and George Osborne for the Tories and leading figures of the minority hawks in Labour, Hilary Benn, Tom Watson, Yvette Cooper, Maria Eagle and Angela Eagle.

Almost all the key players voted for the catastrophic bombing of Libya which led to the deaths of up to 50,000 people and created a failed state, now recognised as a breeding ground for terrorism.

All the above named Tories also voted for Britain to bomb the other side in the Syrian civil war in 2013 - a move that would undoubtedly have strengthened Isis.

This record not only raises fundamental questions about these leaders' judgements on matters of war, it also puts the whole drive to war into context. The main promoters of the war plan are people with a strong commitment to Britain's role as a global military player,and as an unquestioning junior partner to the US as global policeman, whatever the concrete situation.

This is the reason why the weakness of the case for war - the fact that it is based on mythical troops on the ground, that there is no political plan for the aftermath of the bombing, that there is no evidence bombing can work - is not deterring them.

Let their record speak for them, we should not follow them into another catastrophe.
http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/news/let-mps-examine-the-record-of-failure-before-voting-for-new-war-on-syria.

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/List_of_UK_MPs_who_voted_for_Iraq_War

[joeysteele]

...it's like one of those really, really difficult decisions that you may be faced with in life and you can see all the reasons why this and why that, type thing...and people sometimes say to you...well, how would you feel if this was how it was/if that was the thing you decided on..?..all I know and what my heart tells me is that I'd feel much happier with the thought of a no than with the thought of a yes...


...what will be, will be I guess...

It is a very hard thing to decide on and it should be too, no one should be gung ho about this and deriding others for their stance.
That is why I hail the free vote for labour MPs in that it is a free vote and
no way should those who vote against have the shocking judgement of being termed as terrorist sympathisers as the PM put it,just because they do not support war and action.
At least all Labour MPs will be voting as and with their consciences tonight which is more than can be said for the government MPs.

Every single vote and the way anyone is really able to vote as to their conscience for me has to be respected.
I have gone to and fro on this issue for weeks, had a referendum been held, I would have had the same dilemma as many decent MPs have in the Commons from all parties.

I need to hear the full motion but if there really was little or nothing as to plans for the clean up afterwards and for that to be acceptable plans too, I think myself I likely after the terminology now being thrown about at people who are against action that I could have leaned more to voting against it.

I feel sorry for the MPs having to vote on this tonight,those who have not a free vote on the issue, will have to vote even against their own wishes and conscience and likely even against the wishes of their constituents too to follow the whip on Party lines only.
That should not be right as to a decision as to war or conflict.

We had rammed at us on here the other day an opinion poll saying the public supported air strikes in Syria by the UK,as if that should herald the result of this vote, I put little faith in polling nowadays at all, however in the Times today is a poll saying the public are just against the action now.
Over 3 days 2 totally different results.
We will not hear much on here about the Times poll so I have thrown it in for balance and good measure.

If the plans are flawed and in any way not planned to near perfection, all this can go really wrong for the UK in a greater way possibly than even Iraq.
This is a decision I have no envy for MPs on,I care less as to now how the Labour MPs vote as they all have the freedom to do as their conscience dictates, for the other MPs they have my sympathy that they are thought of as non thinking and non feeling to just have to follow a Party whip and support this PM in his,in my view, rushed and desperate move to get this vote done as hastily as possible.

I'd have wanted a 3 day debate on this,not 2 days as Corbyn asked for but was refused,I would want to hear from every single MP elected to Westminster as to how they felt,that is how they really felt,and then have the vote at the end of all that.
A free vote for all because this to me is wrong how this is being done tonight, on such a personal,risk taking and dangerous decision having to be made as to the action we now send our forces again to try to sort out.

As you say, what will be will be I guess but often we reap what we sow and I still hold partly the view this is another Middle east mistake we will end up making and far from making things better,could make things far worse in the area itself and here at home too.
I hope that part of my thinking is wrong but it wasn't as to Libya so I have little confidence this is going to be a positive move by the UK.

[joeysteele]

When a person doesn't want to go to war...and that's what this is...but try and find other routes/methods to this madness, that doesn't make them a terrorist sympathiser. If he is a sympathiser, like yourself and all the right wing press propaganda keep pointing out, that makes me a sympathiser too. It makes Kizzy and Joey terrorist sympathisers and it makes the many thousands of us that marched against this war terrorist sympathisers.

Without exception, those keenest on the war, if they were in parliament, voted for the occupation of Iraq in 2003, widely regarded as the worst foreign policy disaster since Suez.

Hundreds of thousands of civilians died and the country was plunged into the very chaos from which Isis emerged.

Those voting for that war include David Cameron, Michael Fallon, Philip Hammond and George Osborne for the Tories and leading figures of the minority hawks in Labour, Hilary Benn, Tom Watson, Yvette Cooper, Maria Eagle and Angela Eagle.

Almost all the key players voted for the catastrophic bombing of Libya which led to the deaths of up to 50,000 people and created a failed state, now recognised as a breeding ground for terrorism.

All the above named Tories also voted for Britain to bomb the other side in the Syrian civil war in 2013 - a move that would undoubtedly have strengthened Isis.

This record not only raises fundamental questions about these leaders' judgements on matters of war, it also puts the whole drive to war into context. The main promoters of the war plan are people with a strong commitment to Britain's role as a global military player,and as an unquestioning junior partner to the US as global policeman, whatever the concrete situation.

This is the reason why the weakness of the case for war - the fact that it is based on mythical troops on the ground, that there is no political plan for the aftermath of the bombing, that there is no evidence bombing can work - is not deterring them.

Let their record speak for them, we should not follow them into another catastrophe.
http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/news/let-mps-examine-the-record-of-failure-before-voting-for-new-war-on-syria.

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/List_of_UK_MPs_who_voted_for_Iraq_War

I agree with all you said and am used to the happy generalising as to people opposed to certain views on here, so it was little surprise to see such strong and hailed support for the PM from Kirk and others after this shocking outburst from a serving PM.
Had Corbyn called those voting for the action warmongers or anything else, there would have been uproar at how he should curb his language as a lader of a party.
However the PM calling those who vote against the lobbies terrorist sympathisers is acceptable.
Despicable,that is all it was and any fair minded person would agree it was too in my opinion.

My Father talking to me late last night likened it to Churchill in 1945, after working with the Attlee led opposition Labour party during the war, in the election campaign of 1945,he was likening Labour as to the Nazi's.

Although my Dad is a usual Conservative supporter, he was,(thankfully) disgusted with Cameron's comment last night.


Brilliant and fair post again Demolition Red.

[arista]

PM Criticised Over 'Terrorist Sympathisers' Jibe
http://news.sky.com/story/1598091/pm-criticised-over-terrorist-sympathisers-jibe

a Covert reporter got that.

[smudgie]

The comments don't really bother me as he said it in a private meeting of Conservatives. (1922 committee). However it won't do him any good at all.
Had he made it a personal slur to one individual it would have been worse.
I am not at all sure how I feel about the vote, other than I am pleased they are having one.
Obviously the thought of targeting IS is fine, but I worry for any innocents involved.

[bots]

Corbyn's proposed solution to ISIS is to find a political agreement with them.

How exactly does one come to a political agreement with people whose only wish is to enslave, torture and murder anyone that doesn't subjugate themselves to their will.

ISIS cannot be negotiated with, Corbyn is a pacifist fool

[Kizzy]

Yes by that logic that would make Cameron a warmonger, and all those who agree with him warmonger sympathisers.
Excellent points DR and Joey, there is no substance to anything from the govt on this, none.
Even on the eve of the vote last night the situation was described as 'fluid' on the news as nobody knows what to do for the best.
All this bluster, insults and hot air gives no credence to the situation, it smacks of frustration is all and as stated from Corbyn he is a party leader not a dictator. This is why the free vote is the fairest option, ridiculous accusations like that are best left as right wing headlines as that's all they appear to be. Dysphemism is another example of doublespeak and is instantly recognisable as such.

[Kizzy]

The comments don't really bother me as he said it in a private meeting of Conservatives. (1922 committee). However it won't do him any good at all.
Had he made it a personal slur to one individual it would have been worse.
I am not at all sure how I feel about the vote, other than I am pleased they are having one.
Obviously the thought of targeting IS is fine, but I worry for any innocents involved.

It was, it was a direct insult at Corbyn and an indirect insult at anyone who agrees with him.

[kirklancaster]

When a person doesn't want to go to war...and that's what this is...but try and find other routes/methods to this madness, that doesn't make them a terrorist sympathiser. If he is a sympathiser, like yourself and all the right wing press propaganda keep pointing out, that makes me a sympathiser too. It makes Kizzy and Joey terrorist sympathisers and it makes the many thousands of us that marched against this war terrorist sympathisers.



Not so Red - None of your actions, words and deeds are on irrefutable public record over the past 30 years defining yourselves as 'terrorist sympathisers', and being 'anti-war' is not the same thing at all.

Dave Cam might be at fault for saying what he did, where he did, and when he did, but that does not mean that what he said was false.

[MTVN]

I'm sure Corbyn constantly uses terms like 'warmonger' when he's amongst like-minded colleagues. He was after all chair of the Stop of the War coalition until very recently, an organisation that claimed Paris 'reaped the whirlwind' of French foreign policy by having dozens of its citizens slaughtered and he is best pals with Ken Livingstone who blames Blair for four extremists blowing themselves up in central London.

[Northern Monkey]

No lies spotted from Cameron.He only said what everyone else knows.

[smudgie]

It was, it was a direct insult at Corbyn and an indirect insult at anyone who agrees with him.

More a case of if the hat fits then wear it I think.

[Kizzy]

More of a case of 'oh it's only Corbyn'... If he was shot it seems many would say he threw himself in front of the bullet :/

[Kazanne]

I really don't think this will get passed,there seem to be so many against it, I just hope it doesn't come back and bite us in the arse.as for what Cameron said it's just another stick to beat him with,it wasn't so terrible,they are big blokes they can take it!

[kirklancaster]

Yes by that logic that would make Cameron a warmonger, and all those who agree with him warmonger sympathisers.
Excellent points DR and Joey, there is no substance to anything from the govt on this, none.
Even on the eve of the vote last night the situation was described as 'fluid' on the news as nobody knows what to do for the best.
All this bluster, insults and hot air gives no credence to the situation, it smacks of frustration is all and as stated from Corbyn he is a party leader not a dictator. This is why the free vote is the fairest option, ridiculous accusations like that are best left as right wing headlines as that's all they appear to be. Dysphemism is another example of doublespeak and is instantly recognisable as such.

We are already at war. A war thrust upon us by the inhuman acts of ISIL - not Dave Cameron.

You seem to have great difficulty in differentiating between 'Warmongering' and defending ourselves to preserve our way of life and life itself.

You cannot 'reason' with or appease these evil bastards no more than you can appeal to their human sensibilities - they are inhuman and do not possess any.

I have SEEN the true evil of what these demons do daily to innocent HUMAN beings - EVIL which transcends the headlines and is utterly beyond comprehension. From playing football and tenpin bowling with severed heads, to dancing mockingly with the freshly beheaded body of a little girl of about 12 years old while her bloodied head is on the floor at their feet, to MUTILATING THE GENITALS of children as young as 3 years old while they ARE STILL ALIVE.

You think Corbin is right to propose TALKING to such inhuman scum?

Not on my watch sister.

[Kizzy]

I'm sure Corbyn constantly uses terms like 'warmonger' when he's amongst like-minded colleagues. He was after all chair of the Stop of the War coalition until very recently, an organisation that claimed Paris 'reaped the whirlwind' of French foreign policy by having dozens of its citizens slaughtered and he is best pals with Ken Livingstone who blames Blair for four extremists blowing themselves up in central London.

As a statesman, as THE top statesman I would say you should temper your language to address issues correctly. Being the leader of a political party and indeed the country is a little different to being the leader of an organisation which represents your own views on one issue.
I believe Corbyn has done this, he has given a free vote whilst maintaining his own stance, there is nothing in either parties manifesto on airstrikes therefore neither can be accused of going against the party line.
Of course the conservative MPs will be expected to vote for as they are not afforded their own conscience on this situation.

[kirklancaster]

I really don't think this will get passed,there seem to be so many against it, I just hope it doesn't come back and bite us in the arse.as for what Cameron said it's just another stick to beat him with,it wasn't so terrible,they are big blokes they can take it!

All the anti-Government pro-Corbyn supporters in this country bleat continually about 'Right Wing Media' and 'Right Wing Propaganda', when REALLY - it is the Anti-Government, anti-Democratic, pro-Terrorist Appeasers and Apologists who CONTROL this PC infected country.

It is THEIR propaganda machine which sways the public.

[Livia]

I think there is much more support for Corbyn on this forum than there is in the country. The support here is disproportionate, in my opinion. I think the vote will be to join the air strikes, I'd be ashamed of us as a country if we turned our backs on our allies.

[kirklancaster]

More of a case of 'oh it's only Corbyn'... If he was shot it seems many would say he threw himself in front of the bullet :/

IF ONLY.

[Livia]

As a statesman, as THE top statesman I would say you should temper your language to address issues correctly. Being the leader of a political party and indeed the country is a little different to being the leader of an organisation which represents your own views on one issue.
I believe Corbyn has done this, he has given a free vote whilst maintaining his own stance, there is nothing in either parties manifesto on airstrikes therefore neither can be accused of going against the party line.
Of course the conservative MPs will be expected to vote for as they are not afforded their own conscience on this situation.

That's why they're Conservative MPs and not independents. It's nothing to do with being afforded their own conscience. If Corbyn had asked that his MPs stuck to the party line no one would have blamed him for that. But of course, he couldn't do that. He's a weak leader who has tried, and failed, to impress his own views on the whole party.

[kirklancaster]

I think there is much more support for Corbyn on this forum than there is in the country. The support here is disproportionate, in my opinion. I think the vote will be to join the air strikes, I'd be ashamed of us as a country if we turned our backs on our allies.

I so hope you are correct Liv. Why should WE allow other countries to fight IS and do NOTHING?

Most of the 'No War' lobby on here seem to be the same ones who do not want us to exit the EU because it means us being 'Isotaionist' - they do not seem to be concerned about 'Isolationism' when it comes to this matter though.

[Livia]

I so hope you are correct Liv. Why should WE allow other countries to fight IS and do NOTHING?

Most of the 'No War' lobby on here seem to be the same ones who do not want us to exit the EU because it means us being 'Isotaionist' - they do not seem to be concerned about 'Isolationism' when it comes to this matter though.

I don't think the feeling on here is reflective. Maybe about Big Brother, but not about this.

[Kizzy]

We are already at war. A war thrust upon us by the inhuman acts of ISIL - not Dave Cameron.

You seem to have great difficulty in differentiating between 'Warmongering' and defending ourselves to preserve our way of life and life itself.

You cannot 'reason' with or appease these evil bastards no more than you can appeal to their human sensibilities - they are inhuman and do not possess any.

I have SEEN the true evil of what these demons do daily to innocent HUMAN beings - EVIL which transcends the headlines and is utterly beyond comprehension. From playing football and tenpin bowling with severed heads, to dancing mockingly with the freshly beheaded body of a little girl of about 12 years old while her bloodied head is on the floor at their feet, to MUTILATING THE GENITALS of children as young as 3 years old while they ARE STILL ALIVE.

You think Corbin is right to propose TALKING to such inhuman scum?

Not on my watch sister.

We are not at war, the war ended in 2014.

What was the point in the descriptive language there, do you think that anyone against war is in favour of barbarism?

I don't think war is the answer, and I don't think it will make us any less of a target that is the bottom line.

[Kizzy]

I think there is much more support for Corbyn on this forum than there is in the country. The support here is disproportionate, in my opinion. I think the vote will be to join the air strikes, I'd be ashamed of us as a country if we turned our backs on our allies.

If you support Corbyn you don't support the country?.. Heard it all now.

[kirklancaster]

We are not at war, the war ended in 2014.

What was the point in the descriptive language there, do you think that anyone against war is in favour of barbarism?

I don't think war is the answer, and I don't think it will make us any less of a target that is the bottom line.

Which 'WAR' ended in 2014?

And what do you mean 'What is the point of the descriptive language'; How else does one communicate what one has seen WITHOUT descriptors?

"I don't think war is the answer": Perhaps then - just for once - one of the pacifists on here will actually tell me just WHAT the answer is?

[Kizzy]

That's why they're Conservative MPs and not independents. It's nothing to do with being afforded their own conscience. If Corbyn had asked that his MPs stuck to the party line no one would have blamed him for that. But of course, he couldn't do that. He's a weak leader who has tried, and failed, to impress his own views on the whole party.

What line?..... Where is the line on this issue, there isn't one. Which is why the vote was free, if Corbyn had insisted MPs follow his personal view there would've been uproar.
I feel Cameron is weak he would rather dictate to his MPs than give them the right to vote with their conscience.
His insulting, cajoling and pressuring shows he is struggling to make his case for airstrikes.

[kirklancaster]

If you support Corbyn you don't support the country?.. Heard it all now.

How did you educe that from what Livia ACTUALLY said? :shrug:

[bots]

I think there is much more support for Corbyn on this forum than there is in the country. The support here is disproportionate, in my opinion. I think the vote will be to join the air strikes, I'd be ashamed of us as a country if we turned our backs on our allies.

Well said Livia

[kirklancaster]

What line?..... Where is the line on this issue, there isn't one. Which is why the vote was free, if Corbyn had insisted MPs follow his personal view there would've been uproar.
I feel Cameron is weak he would rather dictate to his MPs than give them the right to vote with their conscience.
His insulting, cajoling and pressuring shows he is struggling to make his case for airstrikes.

Corbyn has not DONE one single thing which he has not been FORCED to do by others, and his facial expressions, body language, U turns, and historical record ALL attest to this.

[bots]

and for the record, Cameron is not forcing his party to vote for air strikes, he is not threatening anyone with losing the whip. He is aware some may vote against taking action and is trying to persuade them otherwise. Pretty fair if you ask me.

[Northern Monkey]

I think there is much more support for Corbyn on this forum than there is in the country. The support here is disproportionate, in my opinion. I think the vote will be to join the air strikes, I'd be ashamed of us as a country if we turned our backs on our allies.

Me too:clap1:

[Kizzy]

Which 'WAR' ended in 2014?

And what do you mean 'What is the point of the descriptive language'; How else does one communicate what one has seen WITHOUT descriptors?

"I don't think war is the answer": Perhaps then - just for once - one of the pacifists on here will actually tell me just WHAT the answer is?

The last war we were involved in Kirk... Afghanistan.

One doesn't need to foist visuals in an attempt to make a clumsy point.

The answer is we don't make preemptive strikes, we haven't been asked by NATO to join, we haven't been attacked, the rest of the world and his dog are already there...Again I think it would reinforce us as a target.

[Kizzy]

How did you educe that from what Livia ACTUALLY said? :shrug:

'there is much more support for Corbyn on this forum than there is in the country'

Logically then if this is so some people who support Corbyn don't support the country... yes?

[Kizzy]

Corbyn has not DONE one single thing which he has not been FORCED to do by others, and his facial expressions, body language, U turns, and historical record ALL attest to this.

He can't even put his face and body in the right shape for you now?....

[Northern Monkey]

The last war we were involved in Kirk... Afghanistan.

One doesn't need to foist visuals in an attempt to make a clumsy point.

The answer is we don't make preemptive strikes, we haven't been asked by NATO to join, we haven't been attacked, the rest of the world and his dog are already there...Again I think it would reinforce us as a target.We are already a target!
It is only because of our extremely good security services that seven attempts to kill is have been stopped in the last few months.We are already under attack.The fact that you don't see it is only testament to our intelligence services.

[kirklancaster]

The last war we were involved in Kirk... Afghanistan.

One doesn't need to foist visuals in an attempt to make a clumsy point.

The answer is we don't make preemptive strikes, we haven't been asked by NATO to join, we haven't been attacked, the rest of the world and his dog are already there...Again I think it would reinforce us as a target.

Afghanistan! :laugh: The terrorist war has moved on since then but it is a war still.

I take offence at your denigration of my post as a 'clumsy point' - Had I said that about your post I would have had my post removed and received yet another infraction.

My posts are NEVER clumsy. Unlike the confused and confusing posts by your good self.

And AGAIN - but par for the course - you have NOT answered my question:

"I don't think war is the answer": Perhaps then - just for once - one of the pacifists on here will actually tell me just WHAT the answer is?

I'm still waiting.

[Kizzy]

We are already a target!
It is only because of our extremely good security services that seven attempts to kill is have been stopped in the last few months.We are already under attack.The fact that you don't see it is only testament to our intelligence services.

I know we are, we never weren't to some degree...
The question is will that threat go away if we resume airstrikes?... No.

[kirklancaster]

We are already a target!
It is only because of our extremely good security services that seven attempts to kill is have been stopped in the last few months.We are already under attack.The fact that you don't see it is only testament to our intelligence services.

Absolutely spot on Paul.

[Kizzy]

Afghanistan! :laugh: The terrorist war has moved on since then but it is a war still.

I take offence at your denigration of my post as a 'clumsy point' - Had I said that about your post I would have had my post removed and received yet another infraction.

My posts are NEVER clumsy. Unlike the confused and confusing posts by your good self.

And AGAIN - but par for the course - you have NOT answered my question:

"I don't think war is the answer": Perhaps then - just for once - one of the pacifists on here will actually tell me just WHAT the answer is?

I'm still waiting.

You speak as if it were ages ago... It was last year.

I've given my response, if you can't grasp it that's your issue.

[kirklancaster]

He can't even put his face and body in the right shape for you now?....

If that is REALLY what you think I have just said in my post Kizzy - then you have a real problem on a Serious Debates forum.

[Tom4784]

There's no reason beyond pure hysteria to get involved at the moment. IS has been bombed to hell at this point for months by other countries to no success, what difference would our bombs make?

Cameron only wants to get involved because he's thinking of the next election and that's it, there's nothing we can do that isn't already being done by other countries. If we start bombing Syria the only thing we'll be helping is Cameron's re-election campaign.

[kirklancaster]

You speak as if it were ages ago... It was last year.

I've given my response, if you can't grasp it that's your issue.

It's an impossibility to grasp what isn't there. It is yet more skirting and deflection to conceal the fact - that once again - someone who delights in 'tearing' something down has NO viable alternative at all -- NOTHING to replace it with.

[Kizzy]

It's an impossibility to grasp what isn't there. It is yet more skirting and deflection to conceal the fact - that once again - someone who delights in 'tearing' something down has NO viable alternative at all -- NOTHING to replace it with.

'don't make preemptive strikes, we haven't been asked by NATO to join, we haven't been attacked, the rest of the world and his dog are already there...Again I think it would reinforce us as a target.'

Isn't this saying what Dezzy has.. that there is plenty of intervention already?
How else do you want me to explain it, via interpretive dance?

[kirklancaster]

'don't make preemptive strikes, we haven't been asked by NATO to join, we haven't been attacked, the rest of the world and his dog are already there...Again I think it would reinforce us as a target.'

Isn't this saying what Dezzy has.. that there is plenty of intervention already?
How else do you want me to explain it, via interpretive dance?

I don't WANT you to explain anything. I was reasonably asking if you could give me YOUR view on WHAT the answer is, seeing as how you continually stress that WAR is NOT the answer (Altough we ARE already at war anyway) But if you do not have an andwer just say so - no need for a deflectionary dance with hollow urelated words.

[Tom4784]

It's kind of funny how the people who say 'We're at WAR! We gotta bomb them! Death to IS' sound kind of similar to IS themselves. IS wants a Ragnarok styled war at the end of the world, why should we help them achieve that dream?

There's nothing we can do that isn't already being done. All we'll be doing is pissing away money and helping Cameron for no reason. Re-evaluate the situation if it escalates but until then our involvement is not necessary.

[bots]

There's no reason beyond pure hysteria to get involved at the moment. IS has been bombed to hell at this point for months by other countries to no success, what difference would our bombs make?

Cameron only wants to get involved because he's thinking of the next election and that's it, there's nothing we can do that isn't already being done by other countries. If we start bombing Syria the only thing we'll be helping is Cameron's re-election campaign.

This is simply not true. Russia has asked for assistance as there are just not enough resources involved.

This has nothing to do with Cameron's re election as he has already stated this is his last term as prime minister.

It seems those who have been persuaded that bombing is the wrong action, don't understand the concept of targeted bombing of specific ISIS resources. We are not proposing to carpet bomb the Syrian people, we are specifically targeting strategic ISIS assets, be the terrorists or strategic resources.

[Tom4784]

This is simply not true. Russia has asked for assistance as there are just not enough resources involved.

This has nothing to do with Cameron's re election as he has already stated this is his last term as prime minister.

It seems those who have been persuaded that bombing is the wrong action, don't understand the concept of targeted bombing of specific ISIS resources. We are not proposing to carpet bomb the Syrian people, we are specifically targeting strategic ISIS assets, be the terrorists or strategic resources.

I understand well and my view still stands. There is no reason for us to get involved at this point.

[bots]

I understand well and my view still stands. There is no reason for us to get involved at this point.

I completely disagree and my view still stands too. We must not tie our hands behind our backs when taking action against these murderers

[Kizzy]

I don't WANT you to explain anything. I was reasonably asking if you could give me YOUR view on WHAT the answer is, seeing as how you continually stress that WAR is NOT the answer (Altough we ARE already at war anyway) But if you do not have an andwer just say so - no need for a deflectionary dance with hollow urelated words.

How would I know, that would make me more informed than the majority of the commons wouldn't it?...
You seem to think we're at war, in which case there would be no question of extending strikes, the fact is we're not...yet.
If anything can be don't to avoid this then that would be better, it can't be suggested though that my opinion against strikes is invalid as I don't have all the answers to this nihilistic debate.

[Gusto Brunt]

What Cameron said about people supporting terrorists if you don't want the bombing, is just plain terrible.

Really bad thing to say.

[Tom4784]

I completely disagree and my view still stands too. We must not tie our hands behind our backs when taking action against these murderers

We shouldn't be led into a conflict prematurely by bloodlust and emotion either. Now's not the time for it.

[Tom4784]

What Cameron said about people supporting terrorists if you don't want the bombing, is just plain terrible.

Really bad thing to say.

Exactly, why would we want someone who's using such childlike logic to lead us into a war in which only he'll benefit from?

[bots]

We shouldn't be led into a conflict prematurely by bloodlust and emotion either. Now's not the time for it.

there is no bloodlust and emotion here, simply a deeper understanding of the issues involved than many with an uninformed opinion.

[Kizzy]

there is no bloodlust and emotion here, simply a deeper understanding of the issues involved than many with an uninformed opinion.

Where are these experts and how did they get inside information on military strategy?

[bots]

Where are these experts and how did they get inside information on military strategy?

I can only speak for myself, and I have extensive knowledge of military and political strategy

[Livia]

There's no reason beyond pure hysteria to get involved at the moment. IS has been bombed to hell at this point for months by other countries to no success, what difference would our bombs make?

Cameron only wants to get involved because he's thinking of the next election and that's it, there's nothing we can do that isn't already being done by other countries. If we start bombing Syria the only thing we'll be helping is Cameron's re-election campaign.

Considering the cluster **** that any conflict could turn into, no politician in his right mind would choose to go to war. Who would want to go to war for the sake of it? Apart from Tony Blair, obviously...

[arista]

Parliament Live

A Attack on the BBC who keeping using I.S.

[Livia]

What Cameron said about people supporting terrorists if you don't want the bombing, is just plain terrible.

Really bad thing to say.

What other option is there to deal with IS?

Negotiation? They despise us, they don't want anything we have, they don't need anything we have. They will never negotiate. So, what are you going to do ? Allow them to continue their murderous campaign? Raping, enslaving, mutilating...?

Thank God this country didn't shy away in 1939 after negotiations with a murderous regime failed.

[arista]

Jeremy pushing the PM for a Apology
over what he said in private


Ref: Parliament Live

[smudgie]

Jeremy pushing the PM for a Apology
over what he said in private


Ref: Parliament Live

:laugh::laugh: They all look Pretty petty asking for an apology every time they stand up when he started the day off by firstly apologising.
Just wastes time.

[MTVN]

Cameron gave way a lot more than Corbyn has. Can tell Jezza is in his element here though after all those years as a backbencher where he was lucky to get a 20 second contribution in a debate like this

[smudgie]

Cameron gave way a lot more than Corbyn has. Can tell Jezza is in his element here though after all those years as a backbencher where he was lucky to get a 20 second contribution in a debate like this

He would make a better job of it if he could take his head out from his notes and look up, then again he stumbles over his words even when reading them.
Hopefully he is leader of the opposition long enough to improve on this.

[Johnnyuk123]

He doesn't know what he's doing.

[MTVN]

672033493950550017

[smudgie]

Borefest:sleep::sleep:

[Johnnyuk123]

Why is Corbyn wearing a UKIP tie?

[smudgie]

If he does ever decide to give way instead of insisting on his speech..the penny might drop that it is meant to be a debate.:joker:

[bots]

Corbyn is trying to make this about Syria and a political settlement there. That doesn't affect ISIS and the terror acts that they commit. The guy is a fool

[joeysteele]

I really don't think this will get passed,there seem to be so many against it, I just hope it doesn't come back and bite us in the arse.as for what Cameron said it's just another stick to beat him with,it wasn't so terrible,they are big blokes they can take it!


That is all fine and dandy for you with respect when you are not one of the people being termed a terrorist sympathiser when you are not.
Your glorious PM said terrorist sympathisers,plural.

If you think that worthy behaviour and response from a serving Prime Minister of the UK on the eve of such a vital, soul searching debate on going to 'war' again.
Then that is for you obviously, for me it is massively insulting and he should have apologised and in fact been made to apologise unreservedly.

[joeysteele]

I think there is much more support for Corbyn on this forum than there is in the country. The support here is disproportionate, in my opinion. I think the vote will be to join the air strikes, I'd be ashamed of us as a country if we turned our backs on our allies.

That's a surprising flippant generalisation as to what the Country may think with respect, no doubt it will get many claps from many on here.

I have no idea what the Country may think as to this, nor would I guess too, we had an opinion poll fired at us on here 3 days ago which said the Nation was well in favour, we have today a poll saying they are against.

I also think it a disgrace that the Conservative MPs cannot vote with their consciences and I am sure you know many as I do that would have loved to be able too as well.

I actually could think the support the PM gets tonight will actually be likely disproportionate to really what the UK citizens feelings might be as to this but that doesn't matter as long as he gets his way.

I heard nothing today from the PM to clear the reservations I have,if I was in the Commons as an MP which I am not before you say it,I would now at this moment be leaning to vote against.

I hope to hear from people like Rory Stewart and people of his more consensual and decent approach from all Parties,who actually have experience and knowledge of the Middle East.
No one should be forced to vote for conflict or war except with their own consciences,I will never agree any other vote is the right way to debate and vote on this.

[Crimson Dynamo]

what cameron said was pretty disgusting really

[joeysteele]

There's no reason beyond pure hysteria to get involved at the moment. IS has been bombed to hell at this point for months by other countries to no success, what difference would our bombs make?

Cameron only wants to get involved because he's thinking of the next election and that's it, there's nothing we can do that isn't already being done by other countries. If we start bombing Syria the only thing we'll be helping is Cameron's re-election campaign.

Yes, I agree and I also think even moreso after hearing his speech today, that he is still intent in regime change, if he can find a way to sneak it in, thereby being at odds with Russia at this time in that instance.

What's that saying about too many cooks spoiling the broth sometimes there can be too many around doing things and things then get worse or ruined.

[kirklancaster]

How would I know, that would make me more informed than the majority of the commons wouldn't it?...
You seem to think we're at war, in which case there would be no question of extending strikes, the fact is we're not...yet.
If anything can be don't to avoid this then that would be better, it can't be suggested though that my opinion against strikes is invalid as I don't have all the answers to this nihilistic debate.

You and others keep maintaining that we are not at war but I am sure that you are all not only well aware that ISIS has long and repeatedly DECLARED WAR on all HUMANITY, but also aware that war does NOT have to be multilaterally declared for war to be existant.

If you TRULY do not believe that IS are at war with us, then please try walking into IS controlled territory and tell them that you are a Jeremy Corbin supporter and not at war with them, I am sure that they will agree and serve you with tea and cucumber sandwiches.

[bots]

only 7:30 mins debate to go ...

[arista]

They are saying the Vote is at 10PM

[joeysteele]

They are saying the Vote is at 10PM

That is when it was announced it would be held arista, you are right.

[MTVN]

The obvious answer to the 'troops on the ground' question is the one that nobody is prepared to face up to: the Syrian army. They are the ones who have done the most fighting against ISIS and are the best placed force to defeat them. They are not going to be defeated by this ragtag group of supposed moderates which contains dozens of different factions who are simply not going to transform into a united and credible force to defeat both ISIS and Assad.

[joeysteele]

The obvious answer to the 'troops on the ground' question is the one that nobody is prepared to face up to: the Syrian army. They are the ones who have done the most fighting against ISIS and are the best placed force to defeat them. They are not going to be defeated by this ragtag group of supposed moderates which contains dozens of different factions who are simply not going to transform into a united and credible force to defeat both ISIS and Assad.



I agree but that is the people the PM and this motion wants to concentrate on as to helping.
So where is that going to lead.

I also don't believe there are 70,000 moderates among them anyway.
The best speech on this so far has come from John Baron,Conservative.

[arista]

The LibDem Leader is voting
for Bombing

[MTVN]

Alan Johnson: "I've found this decision as difficult as anyone to make, I wish I had the self-righteous certitude of our finger-jabbing representatives of our 'new and kinder' type of politics who will no doubt soon be contacting those of us who support this motion"

:clap2:

[joeysteele]

The LibDem Leader is voting
for Bombing

Got to be honest that stunned me. I never had any doubt the DUP would be.

[kirklancaster]

Alan Johnson: "I've found this decision as difficult as anyone to make, I wish I had the self-righteous certitude of our finger-jabbing representatives of our 'new and kinder' type of politics who will no doubt soon be contacting those of us who support this motion"

:clap2:

He makes excellent points.

[Tom4784]

Considering the cluster **** that any conflict could turn into, no politician in his right mind would choose to go to war. Who would want to go to war for the sake of it? Apart from Tony Blair, obviously...

It benefits him because his public approval can't go any lower, if we go to war and win that'll provide a huge boost for him. If I remember right, there's not been many occasions in which a PM has not retained his position in times of war.

Isis are on borrowed time with or without our involvement, Cameron's determined to go to war because it's the only hope he has of staying in office and that's obvious by his pathetic 'Do as I say or you're a terrorist sympathiser' approach to Corbyn. War is the only way the Tories are going to stay in power in the next election.

[bots]

It benefits him because his public approval can't go any lower, if we go to war and win that'll provide a huge boost for him. If I remember right, there's not been many occasions in which a PM has not retained his position in times of war.

Isis are on borrowed time with or without our involvement, Cameron's determined to go to war because it's the only hope he has of staying in office and that's obvious by his pathetic 'Do as I say or you're a terrorist sympathiser' approach to Corbyn. War is the only way the Tories are going to stay in power in the next election.

Churchill lost the election after the war .....

I think Cameron's timing on his comment was inappropriate, but there is plenty information out there showing Corbyns sympathies.

I have no issue with an individual being a pacifist which I am sure Corbyn is, but it is not appropriate for a potential future Prime Minister. He puts the country at an automatic disadvantage in any political or military conflict

[arista]

I think at 10PM
the Vote will be Yes to Air Bombers

"Labour Big-Hitters Defy Corbyn On IS Airstrikes"

[Northern Monkey]

Russia are a problem.BBC news showing a map and the moderates are currently pinned down by Assad and Russian bombers.There could be disputes over this.

[MTVN]

I wonder if any of the SNP will vote with the government? They seem to be capable of much greater unity than any other party, probably because they hate the Tories so much

[arista]

I wonder if any of the SNP will vote with the government? They seem to be capable of much greater unity than any other party, probably because they hate the Tories so much


2 are so far

[MTVN]

"Labour MPs used their speeches to parliament to speak out against the pressure some Labour MPs have come under to oppose airstrikes. Former Labour home secretary Alan Johnson said he had found the decision to vote in favour very difficult, adding: “I wish I had frankly the self-righteous certitude of the finger-jabbing representatives of our new and kinder type of politics.” John Woodcock MP said: “I think that some of the people on the front bench now, and the people heckling behind me, need to think very carefully about the way in which they have conducted themselves over recent weeks.” Ahead of the debate, Labour MPs like Stella Creasy complained about the abuse and threats of deselection that they were receiving."

#newpolitics

[Samuel.]

I think there is much more support for Corbyn on this forum than there is in the country. The support here is disproportionate, in my opinion. I think the vote will be to join the air strikes, I'd be ashamed of us as a country if we turned our backs on our allies.

Actually TiBB is the most anti-Corbyn place I keep up to date with. Other forums and social media are heavily in support of Corbyn in my experience. Not that that proves anything substantial about the overall support he has but it's an indication that it's not just a small minority.

[kirklancaster]

"Labour MPs used their speeches to parliament to speak out against the pressure some Labour MPs have come under to oppose airstrikes. Former Labour home secretary Alan Johnson said he had found the decision to vote in favour very difficult, adding: “I wish I had frankly the self-righteous certitude of the finger-jabbing representatives of our new and kinder type of politics.” John Woodcock MP said: “I think that some of the people on the front bench now, and the people heckling behind me, need to think very carefully about the way in which they have conducted themselves over recent weeks.” Ahead of the debate, Labour MPs like Stella Creasy complained about the abuse and threats of deselection that they were receiving."

#newpolitics

Corbyn's Labour Party 'democracy' in action uh?

[Northern Monkey]

"Labour MPs used their speeches to parliament to speak out against the pressure some Labour MPs have come under to oppose airstrikes. Former Labour home secretary Alan Johnson said he had found the decision to vote in favour very difficult, adding: “I wish I had frankly the self-righteous certitude of the finger-jabbing representatives of our new and kinder type of politics.” John Woodcock MP said: “I think that some of the people on the front bench now, and the people heckling behind me, need to think very carefully about the way in which they have conducted themselves over recent weeks.” Ahead of the debate, Labour MPs like Stella Creasy complained about the abuse and threats of deselection that they were receiving."

#newpoliticsYes i read something similar yesterday.Some Labour MP's have faced great pressure.

[bots]

2 are so far

i think that may be 1 tory and 1 lib dem. The SNP are voting on mass I believe

[arista]

i think that may be 1 tory and 1 lib dem. The SNP are voting on mass I believe


No 2 SNP
are for it.


The Leader confirmed

[bots]

No 2 SNP
are for it.


The Leader confirmed

its a changing scenario then as last night all SNP were to be voting against. At least we will know one way or another in just over 3 hours.

[arista]

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2015/12/2/433492/default/v1/cegrab-20151202-173929-828-1-352x198.jpg


http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2015/12/2/433488/default/v1/composite-1-736x414.jpg

[joeysteele]

Well at least all Labour MPs can stand up in the Commons today and say what they really feel and 'want' to do on this issue.
Which is a great deal more democratic than for the MPs on the Conservative side who are threatened with all sorts if they dare to vote against the whip and not for the motion.

This debate is a good one but not long enough, again MPs are having the time they can have to make their points reduced yet again, ridiculous.

[lime]

Well at least all Labour MPs can stand up in the Commons today and say what they really feel and 'want' to do on this issue.
Which is a great deal more democratic than for the MPs on the Conservative side who are threatened with all sorts if they dare to vote against the whip and not for the motion.

This debate is a good one but not long enough, again MPs are having the time they can have to make their points reduced yet again, ridiculous.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

[smudgie]

Well at least all Labour MPs can stand up in the Commons today and say what they really feel and 'want' to do on this issue.
Which is a great deal more democratic than for the MPs on the Conservative side who are threatened with all sorts if they dare to vote against the whip and not for the motion.

This debate is a good one but not long enough, again MPs are having the time they can have to make their points reduced yet again, ridiculous.

Who exactly have been threatening the Tories if they vote against.
10/15 are expecting to vote against. Not heard much about the whips in the Tory party unlike labour.:shrug:
The only reason Labour got the free vote was because it softens the blow for Mr. Corbyn when his lot vote against his wishes.
So much underhanded threats etc and emails...not good at all:nono:

[smudgie]

Jacob Rees-Mogg for the next Labour leadership...if he learns to cut down his monologues.
(Yes I know he is Tory...but I feel he could do better than Mr. Corbyn at the minute.
Alan Johnson would be great as well.

[Johnnyuk123]

Cameron should NOT apologize for dropping truth tea on the matter. :nono:

[smudgie]

:laugh: I love the drama of the division bell.

[kirklancaster]

Bravo Hilary Benn - A True Patriot and a Great Orator. :clap1::clap1::clap1::clap1::clap1:

[smudgie]

Bravo Hilary Benn - A True Patriot and a Great Orator. :clap1::clap1::clap1::clap1::clap1:

Indeed, he would be my third choice for a new leader....if and when they are looking for one of course:laugh:

[Johnnyuk123]

The only thing now left for Corbyn to do is this...
https://media.giphy.com/media/102ybEW2mMWJ9K/giphy.gif

[smudgie]

397 223
Wow, great result.

[Johnnyuk123]

I would like to point out that his arse is pointing too Mecca.

[Kizzy]

Well it's war then, hope there's not too much celebrating some brave souls have to go and fight.

[kirklancaster]

The only thing now left for Corbyn to do is this...
https://media.giphy.com/media/102ybEW2mMWJ9K/giphy.gif

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[smudgie]

In reality not much change, already over the border now doing the same job.

[Johnnyuk123]

Well it's war then, hope there's not too much celebrating some brave souls have to go and fight.

It's ok for them to blow folk up randomly yet not ok for the uk to step in and blow up those losers who want all infidels dead?

[AProducer'sWetDream]

Wrong result, in my humble opinion of course. Disgusted by the laughs and cheers in the Commons as this was announced.

[Johnnyuk123]

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

His pic is respectful. His arse is pointing to Mecca. :wavey:

[kirklancaster]

397 223
Wow, great result.

:cheer2::cheer2::cheer2::cheer2::dance::dance::dan ce::dance::dance:

I'm not so much being jubilant that we are going to war Smudgie - more that it restores some of my faith in GREAT BRITAIN and its people.

[bots]

the correct result in my opinion

[kirklancaster]

His pic is respectful. His arse is pointing to Mecca. :wavey:

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Johnnyuk123]

Wrong result, in my humble opinion of course. Disgusted by the laughs and cheers in the Commons as this was announced.

And once the UK gets attacked by ISIS your thoughts are???

[MB.]

What a bunch of ****heads we are

[reece(:]

Vile.

[kirklancaster]

Well it's war then, hope there's not too much celebrating some brave souls have to go and fight.

Yep - The very same BRAVE SOULS who **** Corbyn TURNED HIS BACK ON.

[smudgie]

:cheer2::cheer2::cheer2::cheer2::dance::dance::dan ce::dance::dance:

I'm not so much being jubilant that we are going to war Smudgie - more that it restores some of my faith in GREAT BRITAIN and its people.

Yes, I agree Kirk.

The result is even more great when you hear of all the pressure put on the Labour voters, free vote indeed, free with loads of bullsh*t to put up with.

[Johnnyuk123]

Once it's turned into a car park all will be well.:wavey:

[Glenn.]

If what happened in Paris, happened in London people would think a lot differently about it.

I'm all for the air strikes.

[Black Dagger]

I despair at this ****ing country.

[Johnnyuk123]

Blond woman says.. it's gonna be murder? Did she not see what happened in France???

[MB.]

If what happened in Paris, happened in London people would think a lot differently about it.

I'm all for the air strikes.

France's involvement in bombing Syria was one of the main reasons behind the Paris attacks and, well, that didn't exactly defeat ISIS did it

[AProducer'sWetDream]

And once the UK gets attacked by ISIS your thoughts are???

Well this event is made even more likely by our 'symbolic' involvement in the conflict, but I don't believe that the lives of innocent Syrian civilians are worth more than the lives of innocent British civilians, and therefore I don't agree that we should fight terrorism with even more death and destruction.

[MB.]

Blond woman says.. it's gonna be murder? Did she not see what happened in France???

It's going to be murder either way, innocent people are going to die either way - bombing Syria makes a Paris-sized terrorist attack in the UK even more inevitable before the problem gets any better

[Glenn.]

France's involvement in bombing Syria was one of the main reasons behind the Paris attacks and, well, that didn't exactly defeat ISIS did it

Sitting on our backsides won't defeat ISIS either.

[MB.]

Funnily enough there's a middle ground between sitting on your backsides and going to war

[Johnnyuk123]

Well this event is made even more likely by our 'symbolic' involvement in the conflict, but I don't believe that the lives of innocent Syrian civilians are worth more than the lives of innocent British civilians, and therefore I don't agree that we should fight terrorism with even more death and destruction.

The UK are NOT attacking syrians. They are targeting ISIS.

[kirklancaster]

Sitting on our backsides won't defeat ISIS either.

:clap1::clap1::clap1: 99% of the arguments against are B.S.

[bots]

Funnily enough there's a middle ground between sitting on your backsides and going to war

yep, and that's bombing without sending in our ground troops

[Glenn.]

Funnily enough there's a middle ground between sitting on your backsides and going to war

How can there be any middle ground with an organisation that murders innocent people daily?

What are your suggestions?

[kirklancaster]

Funnily enough there's a middle ground between sitting on your backsides and going to war

Expound then - Spell this 'Middle Ground' out for us along with just how it will stop this evil pestilence which is IS. And we are ALREADY AT WAR - a war declared upon ALL HUMANITY BY THESE TURDS.

[Johnnyuk123]

ISIS do not want to sit around a table with anyone. They send out kids with belt bombs aged between 14yrs old and 17yrs old brainwashed to blow themselves up all in order to get laid by 72 virgins. Any teenager would blow themselves up to get laid just once at that age. No wonder they strap that belt on.

[kirklancaster]

Well this event is made even more likely by our 'symbolic' involvement in the conflict, but I don't believe that the lives of innocent Syrian civilians are worth more than the lives of innocent British civilians, and therefore I don't agree that we should fight terrorism with even more death and destruction.

Please outline your solutions for fighting terrorism then.

[AProducer'sWetDream]

How can there be any middle ground with an organisation that murders innocent people daily?

What are your suggestions?

Expound then - Spell this 'Middle Ground' out for us along with just how it will stop this evil pestilence which is IS. And we are ALREADY AT WAR - a war declared upon ALL HUMANITY BY THESE TURDS.

This is worth a watch:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2015/dec/01/six-alternatives-to-bombing-isis-airstrikes-syria-video

I think the fact that we are still fighting terrorism at home and abroad, still seeing instability and violence in these countries, is proof that bombing doesn't work and unfortunately it is much more complex than good against evil. Imagine you are a young Iraqi man. Over the past twelve years you have seen your country torn to shreds by Western 'crusaders'. You have seen schools, hospitals and homes destroyed by US and British bombs. You may have even lost loved ones to these atrocities. Some people in this position would be angry, and would have a deep hatred for the people who have done this to you, which makes them easier to radicalise and recruit. Now I am on no level condoning the actions of terrorists, but surely killing even more innocent civilians, and destroying even more of their 'country', will make IS, at least the ideology, stronger and put us at a greater risk?

[Livia]

We have a duty to our allies. I'd have been ashamed if the vote had gone against the government.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

[Johnnyuk123]

Well this event is made even more likely by our 'symbolic' involvement in the conflict, but I don't believe that the lives of innocent Syrian civilians are worth more than the lives of innocent British civilians, and therefore I don't agree that we should fight terrorism with even more death and destruction.

Just this year alone there have been several attacks on the uk alone. Sooner or later one will hit the uk and you wish for us to have a chat with them and a cup of tea? And more importantly this debate is in the UK you still say that syrian lives as a UK resident are MORE important than UK residents?????

[joeysteele]

Who exactly have been threatening the Tories if they vote against.
10/15 are expecting to vote against. Not heard much about the whips in the Tory party unlike labour.:shrug:
The only reason Labour got the free vote was because it softens the blow for Mr. Corbyn when his lot vote against his wishes.
So much underhanded threats etc and emails...not good at all:nono:

Sadly it seems you may well be a Conservative supporter but don't get what MPs go through if they defy a whip vote and vote against the line their party takes.

You too,stated the other day, all MPs should have a free vote but now seem happy happy to accept that Conservative MPs were denied that.
Well at least the labour MPs got a free vote which is how it should have been as to all parties.
No matter the reasons for Labour having a free vote, it was given and at least all Labour MPs who voted were able to in line with their consciences.
Which is how it should be in my view on a decision of military conflict.

[Johnnyuk123]

France and the rest of the world is applauding the UK right now.:clap1::clap1::clap1:

[Livia]

Party line or not, most MPs vote with their conscience on something as big as this and I doubt any of them voted without thinking it through.

[joeysteele]

However, I myself would have probably in the end vote in support,especially after Hilary Benn's closing speech.

It was passionate and convincing in my view and probably ensured a good number,although nothing like the 80+ predicted to,Labour MPs went through the support lobby.

[Northern Monkey]

We were already bombing ISIS in Iraq.It made no sense that we had to stop and turn around at the Syrian border instead of hitting them at their heartland in Syria.We can now support our allies in France and America just as they would do for us.

[AProducer'sWetDream]

Just this year alone there have been several attacks on the uk alone. Sooner or later one will hit the uk and you wish for us to have a chat with them and a cup of tea? And more importantly this debate is in the UK you still say that syrian lives as a UK resident are MORE important than UK residents?????

I'm not going to respond, because you've clearly either misunderstood or twisted what I have said.

[Kizzy]

We have a duty to our allies. I'd have been ashamed if the vote had gone against the government.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Good quote my fave atm...

'Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.'

[Johnnyuk123]

Treat ISIS as they treat us. Blow the fekers up asap.:thumbs:

[Livia]

However, I myself would have probably in the end vote in support,especially after Hilary Benn's closing speech.

It was passionate and convincing in my view and probably ensured a good number,although nothing like the 80+ predicted to,Labour MPs went through the support lobby.

I'm a bit of a fan of Hilary Benn. I was a great fan of his Dad, although I often disagreed strongly with him, he was a magnificent politician with real integrity.

[joeysteele]

Party line or not, most MPs vote with their conscience on something as big as this and I doubt any of them voted without thinking it through.

I am not convinced of that, I know 2 Conservative MPs who were going to vote in favour but who under a free vote would not have.
I doubt only 2 were in that position too and thinking is one part what one feels is another.
Conservative MPs were denied that and you know what it is like to cross the whips, or should do.

[Johnnyuk123]

Good quote my fave atm...

'Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.'

Kizzy how long do you think you will last face to face with ISIS? And are you up for it?

[AProducer'sWetDream]

Treat ISIS as they treat us. Blow the fekers up asap.:thumbs:

But you can't blow up an ideology.

[Johnnyuk123]

But you can't blow up an ideology.

Yes we can.

[Livia]

Good quote my fave atm...

'Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.'

Gunfight at the Quotations corral.

Actually, I think my sig is the best quotation in this event.

[EspeonBB]

I mean it's a nice idea that the UK could bomb ISIS HQ and everything will be fine but that's not the reality. So many innocent civilians will be affected and ISIS will definitely use the opportunity to radicalise them and get them onto their side :S

[joeysteele]

I'm a bit of a fan of Hilary Benn. I was a great fan of his Dad, although I often disagreed strongly with him, he was a magnificent politician with real integrity.

Well, after tonight,if any leadership challenge comes about sooner rather than later, Hilary Benn would do well to consider running for leader in my view.

[Kizzy]

Kizzy how long do you think you will last face to face with ISIS? And are you up for it?

I'm not up for answering any bizarre questions.

[AProducer'sWetDream]

Good quote my fave atm...

'Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.'

:clap2: I assume that's Orwell? Definitely agree, especially the bit in bold.

[kirklancaster]

This is worth a watch:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2015/dec/01/six-alternatives-to-bombing-isis-airstrikes-syria-video

Yes, I have watched it more than once, and would love to know the author.

We (The West) are already doing most of what this recommends, other of what it recommends is easier said than done, and some of what it recommends would actually aid the terrorists if our Nations were stupid enough to implement it.

The bombing campaign in Syria has already halted the advance of IS and cut off two of the three major routes which they have been using for supplies.

If the US/UK military intelligence and technology can pinpoint scumbag Jihadi John, track him, then take him out with needle precision, then we can also target IS with the absolute minimum of 'collateral Damage'.

[Livia]

Well, after tonight,if any leadership challenge comes about sooner rather than later, Hilary Benn would do well to consider running for leader in my view.

I agree. The Tories would have something to worry about I reckon.

[MTVN]

That's a very convincing vote: every Labour MP could have vote against and it would still have passed.

It was a long day of debate and a lot of good points made on both sides: clearly every MP had given this serious thought and those who spoke were earnest in their convictions. It is not a black or white issue and cannot be reduced down to one liners but IMO the right result was reached tonight.

[Livia]

:clap2: I assume that's Orwell? Definitely agree, especially the bit in bold.

My sig is Orwell... for you interest.

[Johnnyuk123]

ISIS believe that by blowing themselves up they go to paradise. So by the UK blowing them up we are getting them to paradice sooner. So we are doing them all a favour.

[joeysteele]

I mean it's a nice idea that the UK could bomb ISIS HQ and everything will be fine but that's not the reality. So many innocent civilians will be affected and ISIS will definitely use the opportunity to radicalise them and get them onto their side :S

Well let's hope it is not a case of here we are again, making the same errors and leaving one almighty mess that just sees another vile organisation form,that is if IS even gets eradicated.

Just got to hope now and dread any of our forces returning home again in body bags too.

[Glenn.]

Twitter makes me howl. The way everyone is talking is like we're just gonna drop bombs at random locations and hope for the best.

[bots]

I'm a bit of a fan of Hilary Benn. I was a great fan of his Dad, although I often disagreed strongly with him, he was a magnificent politician with real integrity.

I could get behind Hilary as a labour leader. I never agreed with his Dad's politics, but he was a man of integrity, principle and intelligence

[Livia]

Twitter makes me howl. The way everyone is talking is like we're just gonna drop bombs at random locations and hope for the best.

Twitter is a platform for people to present to the world how light a grasp most of them have on the facts.

[kirklancaster]

I mean it's a nice idea that the UK could bomb ISIS HQ and everything will be fine but that's not the reality. So many innocent civilians will be affected and ISIS will definitely use the opportunity to radicalise them and get them onto their side :S

The only civilians who are in the same vicinity as these murdering turds are the unfortunate ones being held captive by force or fear, and those NOT already beheaded, raped and sold into sex slavery, or buried in mass graves, will despise IS and welcome being liberated - even by death if takes out their oppressors too.

[Johnnyuk123]

Yes, I have watched it more than once, and would love to know the author.

We (The West) are already doing most of what this recommends, other of what it recommends is easier said than done, and some of what it recommends would actually aid the terrorists if our Nations were stupid enough to implement it.

The bombing campaign in Syria has already halted the advance of IS and cut off two of the three major routes which they have been using for supplies.

If the US/UK military intelligence and technology can pinpoint scumbag Jihadi John, track him, then take him out with needle precision, then we can also target IS with the absolute minimum of 'collateral Damage'.

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

And he was sat on the bog at the time reading the sun newspaper apparently snorting cocain from page 3.:wavey:

[AProducer'sWetDream]

Yes, I have watched it more than once, and would love to know the author.

We (The West) are already doing most of what this recommends, other of what it recommends is easier said than done, and some of what it recommends would actually aid the terrorists if our Nations were stupid enough to implement it.

The bombing campaign in Syria has already halted the advance of IS and cut off two of the three major routes which they have been using for supplies.

If the US/UK military intelligence and technology can pinpoint scumbag Jihadi John, track him, then take him out with needle precision, then we can also target IS with the absolute minimum of 'collateral Damage'.

The collateral damage is my issue with the strategy that's been approved tonight. In the wake of the Paris attacks, the French bombing campaign certainly caused a lot of that- the pictures are harrowing (not in the TiBB slang sense of the word). If the government could assure that this would not be the case, then it would sway me more towards being in favour of the idea.

[kirklancaster]

Twitter is a platform for people to present to the world how light a grasp most of them have on the facts.

So not much different to parts of Tibb then.

[Northern Monkey]

Twitter is a platform for people to present to the world how light a grasp most of them have on the facts.

That's a very polite way of saying it.




I was going to say......

Twitter is full of *****
:laugh:

[joeysteele]

I agree. The Tories would have something to worry about I reckon.

:wavey:Well that's nice, at last you and I agree on something on this thread.

It is a truly divisive issue, for MPs and UK citizens too and really now hoping for the right outcome and supporting our forces to help achieve that has to be the order of the day for me.

[Glenn.]

So not much different to parts of Tibb then.

I'll get the kitchen roll to mop up the tea you just spilt :hehe:

[Johnnyuk123]

Right now knowing that the UK will be hit by ISIS at some point i am thinking that will the same people on here against war be still saying that once UK citizens have been blown up???

[smudgie]

Sadly it seems you may well be a Conservative supporter but don't get what MPs go through if they defy a whip vote and vote against the line their party takes.

You too,stated the other day, all MPs should have a free vote but now seem happy happy to accept that Conservative MPs were denied that.
Well at least the labour MPs got a free vote which is how it should have been as to all parties.
No matter the reasons for Labour having a free vote, it was given and at least all Labour MPs who voted were able to in line with their consciences.
Which is how it should be in my view on a decision of military conflict.

Joey, I would have loved a free vote right across the board, nothing has changed about that. I think it should be par for the course in serious matters like this.
I know all about whips and what some MPs can go through, nothing much been said from the Tory party though so far to be fair.
The irony is that Mr.Corbyn did change his mind and gave a free vote, but his party have had all the threats, hassle and nastiness...worse than a normal whip even by the looks of. It.
Threats and e- mails to individuals, MPs even having to pass comment on it in parliament today.
Oh by the way, I have been following politics since before you were born, so I am quite aware of the shenanigans of parliament... I just don't choose to shout about it..save your sadness for someone else.

[Glenn.]

Right now knowing that the UK will be hit by ISIS at some point i am thinking that will the same people on here against war be still saying that once UK citizens have been blown up???

They'd have ISIS take over before objecting I think.

[Johnnyuk123]

Good quote my fave atm...

'Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.'

You do not want too bomb Syria. So what do you want to do?

[kirklancaster]

I'll get the kitchen roll to mop up the tea you just spilt :hehe:

:laugh:

[Johnnyuk123]

They'd have ISIS take over before objecting I think.

Yup we would have to ask the immams for permission to speak first. Obviously only the men asked.:hehe:

[Ninastar]

Honestly I'm so mixed about this. I really don't know what to think. I'm not keen on the idea of innocent people being killed by these bombs, esp knowing that ISIS have build underground shelters and stuff. But I think in a way this is better than doing nothing. It shows we wont tolerate what ISIS stand for and what they are doing.

If I'm honest, I'd much rather we sent out ground forces (as I've said here a few times) because I think that far less innocent people would be killed, plus we would have a better idea of the whole situation. We could help save the innocent people and get them to a safer location whilst we (and many other places of the world, idealistically) slowly weaken ISIS.

And after all this ends, I believe we should help rebuild schools/buildings/hospitals and help with the proper education of these children/teens.

We are involving ourselves in something that will take centuries. To this day we still have forces in Germany because of what happened 50 years ago. We will need to keep an eye on all these countries for a long time, once (and if) we ever manage to 'stabilize' them.

[kirklancaster]

You do not want too bomb Syria. So what do you want to do?

:laugh:Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. :hehe:

[AProducer'sWetDream]

My sig is Orwell... for you interest.

I do agree with the quote in your sig as well. If only the world didn't work this way...

[Johnnyuk123]

Honestly I'm so mixed about this. I really don't know what to think. I'm not keen on the idea of innocent people being killed by these bombs, esp knowing that ISIS have build underground shelters and stuff. But I think in a way this is better than doing nothing. It shows we wont tolerate what ISIS stand for and what they are doing.

If I'm honest, I'd much rather we sent out ground forces (as I've said here a few times) because I think that far less innocent people would be killed, plus we would have a better idea of the whole situation. We could help save the innocent people and get them to a safer location whilst we (and many other places of the world, idealistically) slowly weaken ISIS.

And after all this ends, I believe we should help rebuild schools/buildings/hospitals and help with the proper education of these children/teens.

We are involving ourselves in something that will take centuries. To this day we still have forces in Germany because of what happened 50 years ago. We will need to keep an eye on all these countries for a long time, once (and if) we ever manage to 'stabilize' them.

Let me try to clear your mind. A guy stands infront of you, does not want to debate, he justs wants to kill you. There is a loaded gun on the kitchen table. He has a loaded gun pointing straight at you. Do you reach for the gun on the kitchen table or let him shoot you through the head? Does that help to clear things for you?

[joeysteele]

Joey, I would have loved a free vote right across the board, nothing has changed about that. I think it should be par for the course in serious matters like this.
I know all about whips and what some MPs can go through, nothing much been said from the Tory party though so far to be fair.
The irony is that Mr.Corbyn did change his mind and gave a free vote, but his party have had all the threats, hassle and nastiness...worse than a normal whip even by the looks of. It.
Threats and e- mails to individuals, MPs even having to pass comment on it in parliament today.
Oh by the way, I have been following politics since before you were born, so I am quite aware of the shenanigans of parliament... I just don't choose to shout about it..save your sadness for someone else.



I certainly will do but I still think you seem to think they just get a slapped wrist for defying a whip vote which I know full well direct from MPs of both main parties is far from the case.

You may well have followed politics since before I was born, that doesn't mean you know more than me,(just because I am younger), or I you.
I have been interested in politics since I was 10, studied it at University, am a member of a political party and have tramped the streets in all election times, European, General and Local..

I talk to supporters and MPs of all parties and still aspire to be one in the future myself too.so kindly don't belittle my knowledge of politics either.
I merely pointed out you said it should be a free vote for all then you deride the Labour free vote while ignoring the refusal of the PM to give his MPs a free vote.
Sorry but to me that's a bit of double standards with the fullest respect..

[Kizzy]

Gunfight at the Quotations corral.

Actually, I think my sig is the best quotation in this event.

Oh it's changed... I had no idea you were such a fan, maybe it's the Orwellian times we live in?

[Kizzy]

:laugh:Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. :hehe:

Ah tag teaming now? I explained my view this afternoon it hasn't changed.

[AProducer'sWetDream]

Let me try to clear your mind. A guy stands infront of you, does not want to debate, he justs wants to kill you. There is a loaded gun on the kitchen table. He has a loaded gun pointing straight at you. Do you reach for the gun on the kitchen table or let him shoot you through the head? Does that help to clear things for you?

But this man has a human shield. An innocent person will die in order for you to kill him. Furthermore, killing him will put the people you love at a high risk of revenge attacks. What do you do?

[kirklancaster]

Just in case anyone missed it. I WOULD lie to point out that I was the very first on this thread - by a country mile - to applaud Hilary Benn:

Today, 10:27 PM #406
kirklancaster
Senior Member

kirklancaster's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 6,834
Default
Bravo Hilary Benn - A True Patriot and a Great Orator.
__________________

[joeysteele]

Just in case anyone missed it. I WOULD lie to point out that I was the very first on this thread - by a country mile - to applaud Hilary Benn:

Today, 10:27 PM #406
kirklancaster
Senior Member

kirklancaster's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 6,834
Default
Bravo Hilary Benn - A True Patriot and a Great Orator.
__________________


:joker:Go on I will give you that one, you did indeed.

[Kizzy]

His father would be ashamed.

[kirklancaster]

Ah tag teaming now? I explained my view this afternoon it hasn't changed.

TAG TEAMING???? Come on. I have single handedly argued against 4 of you on here - Were you desisting because of 'Tag Teaming' then? No.

Stop with the unfair tactics and false claims.

We are discussing and my comment to him was relevant and true because you either do NOT answer at all, or NEVER give a straight answer.

Fair comment 'is all'.

And NO - you still have not answered my question from this afternoon.

[kirklancaster]

His father would be ashamed.

Why? Because he's a Labour MP who has some integrity?

[kirklancaster]

:joker:Go on I will give you that one, you did indeed.

:laugh: Thank you - NOW if HE was Labour Leader and managed to shape the party to HIS ways (not that I agree with all of them, but I do not agree with all Farage's or Cameron's either) I would probably contemplate actually voting Labour again. :laugh:

[Johnnyuk123]

:laugh: Thank you - NOW if HE was Labour Leader and managed to shape the party to HIS ways (not that I agree with all of them, but I do not agree with all Farage's or Cameron's either) I would probably contemplate actually voting Labour again. :laugh:

Noooo Kirk do not sip from that Labour tea cup. It is laced with drugs to make you smile like a corbyn runner up but then remove all your thoughts about what is going on in the real world. Just say no! Grange hill teas.:joker::joker::joker:

[bots]

[/B]

I certainly will do but I still think you seem to think they just get a slapped wrist for defying a whip vote which I know full well direct from MPs of both main parties is far from the case.

You may well have followed politics since before I was born, that doesn't mean you know more than me,(just because I am younger), or I you.
I have been interested in politics since I was 10, studied it at University, am a member of a political party and have tramped the streets in all election times, European, General and Local..

I talk to supporters and MPs of all parties and still aspire to be one in the future myself too.so kindly don't belittle my knowledge of politics either.
I merely pointed out you said it should be a free vote for all then you deride the Labour free vote while ignoring the refusal of the PM to give his MPs a free vote.
Sorry but to me that's a bit of double standards with the fullest respect..

But you must concede Joey, that people could easily have 2 or 3 times as much experience of politics and life than you. I mention life because that also shapes your political understanding

[smudgie]

[/B]

I certainly will do but I still think you seem to think they just get a slapped wrist for defying a whip vote which I know full well direct from MPs of both main parties is far from the case.

You may well have followed politics since before I was born, that doesn't mean you know more than me,(just because I am younger), or I you.
I have been interested in politics since I was 10, studied it at University, am a member of a political party and have tramped the streets in all election times, European, General and Local..

I talk to supporters and MPs of all parties and still aspire to be one in the future myself too.so kindly don't belittle my knowledge of politics either.
I merely pointed out you said it should be a free vote for all then you deride the Labour free vote while ignoring the refusal of the PM to give his MPs a free vote.
Sorry but to me that's a bit of double standards with the fullest respect..

I did not deride the Labour Party having a free vote, just stating the fact that they had the free vote but appear to be suffering the consequences of the atrocious treatment given out. Not heard much moaning from the Tories..whip and all.
As I said, I would have liked a free vote on all sides. The fact that Mr. Cameron decided against it is hardly in my hands, so no double standards here.
I think we are all fully aware of your interest in politics Joey, I myself have complimented you on it in the past.
There was no mention of me knowing more about politics than you, just the fact that I do know enough to get by, as I said, I have followed it for many years.
Who knows or even gives a damn about who knows more than anyone else on any given subject:shrug: hardly a competition is it?
One thing is for certain, you really have no idea what I think in any depth, sp pointless taking pot shots really. A I have already stated, I am aware, as are most people, of the shenanigans that go on behind closed doors when it comes to politics. Filthiest game on earth.:laugh: