[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The idea that bombing will reduce ISIS numbers is frankly ridiculous. We can't bomb as fast as they can recruit. The more we bomb the easier it is FOR them to recruit. And their leadership neither has, nor needs, any particular skillset beyond a bit of rhetoric, and so is completely disposable. It's not like they're military generals who are desperately needed to plan and coordinate... ISIS attacks are crude and scattered. A 10 year old could plan one. 10 year olds probably DO plan some.

The idea the bombs and bullets will beat back ISIS is so naive that it makes me actually cringe. They will be defeated slowly, intelligently and diplomatically or not at all. Probably the latter, because we are too bloodthirsty and vengeful to consider the former.

Well while you're cringing - please enlighten us all as to just WHAT your solution is?

By the amount of people doing it on here, it seems it is the easiest thing in the world to keep popping up dissing and ridiculing other debaters ideas without actually ever actually proffering an alternative.

The IS bastards themselves in Palmyra are living proof of how easy it is to knock things down with no attempt at building.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Since 9/11 there has been a threat to us from various groups the taliban, al qaeda, hezbollah, jihadists, ISIS, ISIL.

How would bombing reduce that threat?

Seriously, you have forgotten Afghanistan already? They were a threat, and action was taken. ISIS is another example

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Seriously, you have forgotten Afghanistan already? They were a threat, and action was taken. ISIS is another example

Hang on you just said that Afghanistan was an unsubstantiated threat.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Hang on you just said that Afghanistan was an unsubstantiated threat.

I said Saddam was trumped up, that's not Afghanistan

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

I said Saddam was trumped up, that's not Afghanistan

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

I said Saddam was trumped up, that's not Afghanistan

Wasn't that trumped up during the gulf war in 1990 when Major was PM?

[Livia]

What's the alternative? We sit back and let other people do our defending for us.

[Kizzy]

So he was a threat in 1990 but not in 2003?

And it wasn't Major as PM in in 1990 my mistake, it was Thatcher.
Or both haha

[bots]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

So he was a threat in 1990 but not in 2003?

Completely different things. Kuwait, a neighbour of Iraq was invaded by them. A multi national force took back Kuwait. Years later Blair said Saddam could hit the UK with WMD's that he had in his possession. It was all false

Do I really need to go through every event?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Completely different things. Kuwait, a neighbour of Iraq was invaded by them. A multi national force took back Kuwait. Years later Blair said Saddam could hit the UK with WMD's that he had in his possession. It was all false

Do I really need to go through every event?

Well no you don't not sure why you are.
I wouldn't say that at any stage there has not been a threat in varying degrees since that point.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Well no you don't not sure why you are.
I wouldn't say that at any stage there has not been a threat in varying degrees since that point.

People have been comparing the decision to bomb Syria with Tony Blair's decision on Iraq. The point I am highlighting is that Blair bombed on false information. Bombing ISIS is not based on conjecture, events have already happened that show the threat ISIS is. They are not the same and should not be compared

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

People have been comparing the decision to bomb Syria with Tony Blair's decision on Iraq. The point I am highlighting is that Blair bombed on false information. Bombing ISIS is not based on conjecture, events have already happened that show the threat ISIS is. They are not the same and should not be compared

And the bombing in 2011, what was that based on?

[Livia]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

People have been comparing the decision to bomb Syria with Tony Blair's decision on Iraq. The point I am highlighting is that Blair bombed on false information. Bombing ISIS is not based on conjecture, events have already happened that show the threat ISIS is. They are not the same and should not be compared

You're right, the two are incomparable.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

People have been comparing the decision to bomb Syria with Tony Blair's decision on Iraq. The point I am highlighting is that Blair bombed on false information. Bombing ISIS is not based on conjecture, events have already happened that show the threat ISIS is. They are not the same and should not be compared

They are simlar in that we would be declaring war on someone who hasnt attacked us, yet.

[DemolitionRed]

ISIS know that Bush's previous war on terror was their biggest recruitment programme in modern terrorist history. Every one of those beheading videos was a very deliberate plan to draw us into exactly what we are doing now. We the West, have played right into their murderous hands.

The more we bomb, the faster their armies will grow.

ISIS was born out of the bombing of Iraq. This article was written back in 2006 before we had a name for them http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/sep/24/usa.iraq

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

ISIS know that Bush's previous war on terror was their biggest recruitment programme in modern terrorist history. Every one of those beheading videos was a very deliberate plan to draw us into exactly what we are doing now. We the West, have played right into their murderous hands.

The more we bomb, the faster their armies will grow.

ISIS was born out of the bombing of Iraq. This article was written back in 2006 before we had a name for them http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/sep/24/usa.iraq

[user104658]

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.

[joeysteele]

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.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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.

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.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by MTVN

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.

[MTVN]

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!

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by MTVN

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.

[bots]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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.

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.

[MTVN]

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.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by MTVN

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.

Totally agree.