:clap1:

For a start we need to stop being played.
We must stop training and arming these so called moderate mercenaries who then turn their guns back on us.
We need to better align ourselves with Russia and allow Russia to lead this.
We need to look towards Rojava for solutions and stop worrying about Turkey's hatred of the curds.
We need to consider the outcome in Iraq and Libya and use that knowledge to work tactically and strategically.

:laugh: I was actually asking T.S but you have answered and I cannot fault what you're saying.

I don't have a solution Kirk. Human beings are violent warmongers... It's what we do, it's what we always have done since Ugg threw the first rock at Grogg for stealing his dinner, and Grogg responded by beating Ugg's children to death with a stick.

The only major difference is that we now have guerilla fighters and raiders who can cross the globe in under a day instead of having to crawl across it in wooden ships, and weapons tech that can vaporise a village (or half a country) at the press of a button. This was inevitable. War tech will continue to advance and that will be the death of the short-lived, terrifyingly violent human race. There isn't a solution.

Merry Xmas.

Oh yes that's right too, attack is the best form of defence seemingly.

Not sure about that really: IS have gone way beyond the stage of scattered attacks. We don't like to call them a state but reality is they possess a huge amount of territory which they control very effectively with all the hallmarks of a country: they have a military, taxation, an education system and they even control things like rubbish collections in their areas. The Paris attacks were conjured in Syria and were directed from there with quite a high level of sophistication and coordination. They have defeated the Iraqi army several times despite being well outnumbered because they are better trained and more motivated. They are extremely powerful and should be treated as such. No we can't kill their ideology, but we can try and prevent that ideology becoming so potent.

Sorry I don't feel the two are comparable.

What I would like to know is why are the Conservative party so worried about the vote on Syria that they need to be ringing Labour MPs to try to persuade them to vote for it.

This Conservative party did get an overall majority in May, it has a 12 overall majority,increased to 16 since Sinn Fein do not take their seats at Westminster,,increased again to 17 since Labour have the Oldham seat vacant at present.
Then they are getting the votes of the DUP, which will bring the majority to 33 at least.
Since UKIPs Carswell will surely support them too.

How many of their own number are they terrified that will not vote for this to be so worried about not winning the vote,they should walk it if the Conservative MPs are to be forced to support same.
Never mind Labour divisions on this, it seems the Conservatives feel sure that without Labour support they will possibly lose the vote when it comes due to their own MPs dissent.

i agree with this, If we cripple their oil processing for example, we reduce their income. This means that they can't fund the campaigns that they are currently running. Destroy their heavy weaponry and they then become more vulnerable to attacks from the kurds and other arab forces.

These are standard techniques. We alter the odds so that they are in our favour. That's what targeted bombing does. No-one is suggesting we can beat ISIS by bombing alone. Its 1 element of an entire campaign

There has always been a strand in the Conservative party that values isolationism though, and is sceptical about any intervention. There probably is a majority for this action now even if the whole of Labour votes against but the PM is being extra cautious because of the 2013 vote. There were 30 Tory rebels then so they are probably working on the assumption that there will be at least that many again even though I think that intervention now is a lot less controversial than it was back then. The Labour rebels - which there will be a lot of - will just make doubly sure that this passes with a comfortable majority and not be a very nervy vote for the government.

I know that but the point is there are not just divisions in the Labour party on this but also in the Conservative party too.
Which few pay reference to only highlighting Labour divisions, while actually also overlooking too that over 100 Labour MPs voted against the Iraq intervention when Labour was in govt. at that time.

Well the Conservative party aren't anywhere near as divided though are they. The Tory divisions amount to a few backbenchers, the Labour party has half the shadow cabinet opposed to their leader and that includes the shadow foreign secretary!

Labour had divisions as I said when the Iraq vote was taken, I think around 130 voted against Blair on that.
There has always been divisions as to war fronts with Labour.

Cameron has an effective already on the surface of at least a 34 majority, so he must be worried that quite a good number of his MPs will not be supporting him to have his Cabinet ringing up Labour MPs.

I personally think that pathetic, all MPs should be left to consult their constituents, and then make their own minds up calmly,alone and then be able to vote with their conscience intact.
Cameron has either made the case good enough for our involvement or he hasn't, no one should be pressured either way on this in my view.

I also feel that Corbyn should and hopefully will allow Labour MPs a free vote on this, now I would like to see the same come from Cameron as to a free vote for his MPs too and lets see what is really the view of 'all' MPs.

Being in the shadow cabinet or even the actual govts cabinet should not mean you are forced to vote against your will and conscience on an issue like this.

For a leader to openly disagree with his shadow foreign and defence secretaries is on a different level to Labour divisions over Iraq or to Tory divisions over Syria IMO. If MPs were always to make their own minds up then we would have a parliament full of independents but we don't: in a political party you have got to broadly be singing from the same hymn sheet especially amongst the party leadership. It's important to have that coherent and united party view or the party means very little. Corbyn himself realised this because he tried to force his party to vote against strikes but that has backfired miserably. Corbyn can't just be granting free vote after free vote because that will either make his position as leader untenable or it will make a lot of his shadow cabinet's positions untenable: something will have to give.

Cameron only wants the vote if it is 100% certain to be carried. In those circumstances, they need to go round all those who will be voting to see which way they are going to vote

if the numbers aren't there, the vote will just disappear into silence.

As I've said before. I think the US/UK strategy sucks at the moment, but if there is an enemy to fight, I would give them agreement in principle and then argue out the details later. To do anything else is effectively tying our forces hands behind their backs and then telling them to go off and do something about ISIS.

We either have a threat or we don't. If the threat is agreed, then no-ones hands should be tied.

How come Corbyn is getting flack for trying to influence his MPs and yet Cameron contacting Labour MPs to request support is ok?

I really didn't think that labour could find someone worse than David Millband to represent them. i was wrong.

Totally agree.

The 'joke' won't last very long Alex. Thankfully.

MOST of them are NOT Corbyn's MP's - as will eventually become transparent come 'the ides of March' and that 'Et tu Brute?' moment which we are all looking forward to.

You couldn't make it up, we do elect parties to govt as to their manifesto,nothing however in the Conservative manifesto was to extend UK bombing into Syria.

It is true parties make decisions near all the time as govts,however as to things like foxhunting, the death penalty , those things usually have a free vote, no matter what govt is in power.
This is another issue where I say all MPs should have a free vote on it.
As for Labour,I find it personally appalling so many Labour MPS are actually 'eager' to support this.
Learning nothing from Iraq and also in Libya too after this PMs disastrous intervention there.

If I was a Labour MP at present,then I would lean myself to supporting the PM, if he makes a far better case for it than he did last week however.
Were i to get a phonecall from a Conservative MP, trying to manipulate how I would vote then I would put the phone down and vote against it.

It is the shadow cabinet too who are ringing up Labour MPs,so desperate are they on this,yet no one could alter their thinking.
Pompous arrogance and it stuns me that parliament seems ready again to accept going into a conflict that we have no plans as to what takes place after.
You were right to compare this with Iraq, 'in that' we went into Iraq with no concrete or even decent plan for what happens after we did, and from what we heard last week, this PM is hell bent on getting involved in this mess now also and again with no decent concrete plan for the after effects.

I still say, it should be a free vote for 'all' MPs,and from 'all' parties too, and anyway,even if 80 or more Labour MPs vote in support, then that still means more Parties in parliament representing their constituents are against us being involved.
If this PM manipulates his tiny majority to force the UK into this conflict further, then ends up in the same chaos we had after Iraq and also Libya. not giving a free vote, then he should be politically damned for all time.


As for Labour's defence secretary and Foreign secretary being for it,well that is for their consciences, and if Corbyn gives a free vote to Labour MPs, that is healthy and good in my view that they can still then vote as to their will and conscience and also him as to his.
Perfectly fair and reasonable.

As reported on the BBC website http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34956795

There are not enough yes votes to allow for Jeremy saying all labour must vote no

Jeremy needs to make up his mind on allowing a free vote or not. This is a very critical moment for Jeremy. He is quoted as saying "we will come to a decision as a party" which implies it will not be a free vote

I would be very surprised indeed now if Labour MPs do not have a free vote on the issue.
I hope they think carefully however before they support it as if it all goes the way of Iraq and Libya, they will be seen as learning nothing from the past.
Although I could be persuaded to support the motion myself, just and with great reservations however and distrust of the PM too.
I do think we are being misled again by another PM as to war issues, since I will never believe Cameron's main aim is not about regime change as much as anything to do with IS,as it was 2 years ago too.
Cameron's claim of 70,000 moderates in the area,is in my view as even a Conservative MP said so last week in the Commons, virtually pie in the sky.

Its interesting for sure. He is saying that the No votes must be heard, but, each constituency voted for their MP, so allowing that MP a free vote is the most reflective of communities. Its all well and good saying No should be heard, but if it is being elevated beyond what the public reflect, it can only lead to problems down the line.

David Milliband would have been perfect IMO. The issue was Ed was chosen instead..