[bots]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

'Moderates' how can that term ever be applied to anyone who votes to go to war?...
If the govt were so confident in the success of their bloodlust vote then it would be cut and dried by now, but baby it ain't over till it's over.

So moderate people must be pacifist?

Plenty moderate people understand that to stop their families being murdered they need to protect themselves. If that means bombing terrorists before they get an opportunity to inflict more murder, then so be it.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Thankfully the Labour moderates are going to support the government on this and it will be a humiliating defeat for Corbyn and his narrow-minded, factional ideologues

What about the nation? Are the high percent of British citizens who don't support the government stance on this also narrow minded too? Are 18 towns and cities across the country holding mass protests narrow minded?

It feels as though the country as a whole are against this, so if the vote comes out as a firm 'yes', Corbyn won't look a fool and certainly won't be humiliated. If anything this will lead to more Labour support in this country.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

What about the nation? Are the high percent of British citizens who don't support the government stance on this also narrow minded too? Are 18 towns and cities across the country holding mass protests narrow minded?

It feels as though the country as a whole are against this, so if the vote comes out as a firm 'yes', Corbyn won't look a fool and certainly won't be humiliated. If anything this will lead to more Labour support in this country.

No they are not narrow minded at all,no way.
Good post again DR.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

So moderate people must be pacifist?

Plenty moderate people understand that to stop their families being murdered they need to protect themselves. If that means bombing terrorists before they get an opportunity to inflict more murder, then so be it.

If you believe our tiny intervention in Syria is going to help stop ISIS then you rock on with those thoughts but don't for one moment believe you're in the majority.

Edited to say: The more we get involved, the more danger there is of terrorists atrocities happening on our own turf.

Edited to change 'your' into 'you're!!

[bots]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

If you believe our tiny intervention in Syria is going to help stop ISIS then you rock on with those thoughts but don't for one moment believe your in the majority.

Actually, I know I am in the majority. If you look at the number of pacifists in any country they are by far the minority.

[DemolitionRed]

You're wrong. I work in a place that is full of Conservative supporters; a place I rarely debate politics for the simple fact that I'm hugely outnumbered. They all appear to be shaking their heads atm about Cameron's absurdity in this. The right wing papers they read seem to be influencing these thoughts or at least making them question what the hell we are doing. The main chit chat in the office coffee shop is about what this could do to the Conservative party in the long term.

My world is just a tiny fraction of society but what I'm seeing is what's going on across the length and breadth of Britain right now.

[bots]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

You're wrong. I work in a place that is full of Conservative supporters; a place I rarely debate politics for the simple fact that I'm hugely outnumbered. They all appear to be shaking their heads atm about Cameron's absurdity in this. The right wing papers they read seem to be influencing these thoughts or at least making them question what the hell we are doing. The main chit chat in the office coffee shop is about what this could do to the Conservative party in the long term.

My world is just a tiny fraction of society but what I'm seeing is what's going on across the length and breadth of Britain right now.

I am not wrong, but carry on believing as you do. A couple of vocal people on a forum unwilling to see reality does not make a majority in any language.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

I am not wrong, but carry on believing as you do. A couple of vocal people on a forum unwilling to see reality does not make a majority in any language.

Of course not but with Google at our fingertips we can easily enough see how the country feel about this.

Out of interest, what do you think we can achieve by bombing Syria?

[bots]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Of course not but with Google at our fingertips we can easily enough see how the country feel about this.

Out of interest, what do you think we can achieve by bombing Syria?

My ideal approach would be for MP's to have a free vote from all parties, I've said this several times already. That provides the best indication of a consensus. Forcing a party to vote for 1 thing or another makes a mockery of having a vote at all.

I've also stated what can be achieved by bombing many times already too. I don't have time, or feel the need to repeat myself

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

So moderate people must be pacifist?

Plenty moderate people understand that to stop their families being murdered they need to protect themselves. If that means bombing terrorists before they get an opportunity to inflict more murder, then so be it.

Brilliantly put again BOTS - Wish I'd said this.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Thankfully the Labour moderates are going to support the government on this and it will be a humiliating defeat for Corbyn and his narrow-minded, factional ideologues

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

So moderate people must be pacifist?

Plenty moderate people understand that to stop their families being murdered they need to protect themselves. If that means bombing terrorists before they get an opportunity to inflict more murder, then so be it.

Really.
How odd, from the other angle, I have spoken to some of those I know and don't know who had their Sons and Daughters sent to Iraq and Afghanistan who are dreading the thought of any of then going again to the Middle east or indeed anyone elses Sons and Daughters too.
Especially on a policy of what appears to be at best patchwork as outlined by the PM last week.
I also have 3 much older brothers all who served in the Forces, who also are dead against any more of our action in the Middle East, they believe, the Middle east is already riddled with our failed attempts to sort things out for the better.

My mind is now being swung against action and after the preposterous claim by the PM that there are 70,000 moderates in Syria waiting to be helped by us, which even his own MPs dispute and see and as pie in the sky, I think this may well be another big mistake.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

What about the nation? Are the high percent of British citizens who don't support the government stance on this also narrow minded too? Are 18 towns and cities across the country holding mass protests narrow minded?

It feels as though the country as a whole are against this, so if the vote comes out as a firm 'yes', Corbyn won't look a fool and certainly won't be humiliated. If anything this will lead to more Labour support in this country.

This is just wrong.A quite recent YouGov poll showed that the majority of British people are in favour of airstrikes against ISIS in Syria.

From YouGov


"A majority of the British public support intervention in Syria with air power, special forces and advisors. But voters are still waiting for 'straight talk' on military action from both the Government and Opposition."

"This could even pass muster. In-depth polling for the YouGov Centre at Cambridge University, conducted just before Russia's latest intervention and now published here, shows firm support from British voters for upping the military ante. Nearly two thirds expressed support for UK fighter jets being used to strike Isil targets in Syria, with stronger support still for doing so with drones. There is little appetite for deploying regular troops but roughly half of respondents backed the use of UK special forces to fight Islamist forces on the ground in Syria and almost 60 per cent supported sending UK military personnel to advise Western-backed rebels there."
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/10/06...Syrian_action/

On top of that.A YouGov representative was on the Sunday Politics and confirmed that although Labour members are unsurprisingly on Corbyns side the majority of Labour voters support airstrikes in Syria.

[bots]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Really.
How odd, from the other angle, I have spoken to some of those I know and don't know ho had their Sons and Daughters sent to Iraq and Afghanistan who are dreading the thought of any of then going again to the Middle east or indeed anyone elses Sons and Daughters too.
Especially on a policy of what appears to be at best patchwork as outlined by the PM last week.
I also have 3 much older brothers all who served in the Forces, who also are dead against any more of our action in the Middle East, they believe, the Middle east is already riddled with our failed attempts to sort things out for the better.

My mind is now being swung against action and after the preposterous claim by the PM that there are 70,000 moderates in Syria waiting to be helped by us, which even his own MPs dispute and see and as pie in the sky, I think this may well be another big mistake.

I sympathise strongly with those families who have lost loved ones in times of conflict, but the majority of those lost in such conflicts are ground troops. The PM is seeking approval for air strikes, its a completely different scenario

The strategy put forward by the PM so far with respect to ground troops is an evolving scenario. That is not our fight, we are relying on an international coalition. Some come from syrian rebels, some come from other arab soldiers. No-one is suggesting the UK send ground troops at this stage it is for arab countries to fill that role, So questioning that part at this stage is premature because it requires international cooperation.

This vote is on the UK's contribution ... the potential to bomb IS in Syria, nothing more, nothing less

[arista]

http://news.sky.com/story/1595691/wh...ria-airstrikes

[joeysteele]

[QUOTE=bitontheslide;8322390]I sympathise strongly with those families who have lost loved ones in times of conflict, but the majority of those lost in such conflicts are ground troops. The PM is seeking approval for air strikes, its a completely different scenario

The strategy put forward by the PM so far with respect to ground troops is an evolving scenario. That is not our fight, we are relying on an international coalition. Some come from syrian rebels, some come from other arab soldiers. No-one is suggesting the UK send ground troops at this stage it is for arab countries to fill that role, So questioning that part at this stage is premature because it requires international cooperation.

This vote is on the UK's contribution ... the potential to bomb IS in Syria, nothing more, nothing less[/QUOTE]

Have you seen the motion yet as no one else has with respect, lets see what other options are disguised in the motion when it comes forward.
Do you not think pilots bombing can get shot down,captured and killed too.

[bots]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Have you seen the motion yet as no one else has with respect, lets see what other options are disguised in the motion when it comes forward.
Do you not think pilots bombing can get shot down,captured and killed too.

Joey,the chances of losses as a result of air strikes is much much less than putting troops in on the ground.

The vote is about air strikes, not about ground troops.

[DemolitionRed]

NorthernMonkey The pole was done back in August and there has been a huge turn around since then.

All of Yougove's opinion poles is contradictory because they can only be taken by people who have access to the internet. Online samples can never be an accurate analysis.

This is also a site which showed huge bias towards the Conservatives in the general election.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

NorthernMonkey The pole was done back in August and there has been a huge turn around since then.

All of Yougove's opinion poles is contradictory because they can only be taken by people who have access to the internet. Online samples can never be an accurate analysis.

This is also a site which showed huge bias towards the Conservatives in the general election.

And since then we've had the Paris attacks.Public opinion won't have shifted that much.Infact it is more likely to be more in favour of airstrikes.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

So moderate people must be pacifist?

Plenty moderate people understand that to stop their families being murdered they need to protect themselves. If that means bombing terrorists before they get an opportunity to inflict more murder, then so be it.

'Moderate' has become synonymous with 'agreeing with conservative thinking, anything else is 'militant'.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Actually, I know I am in the majority. If you look at the number of pacifists in any country they are by far the minority.

It's not the tub thumpers in the countries that have the vote is it?
If there was so much support then why hasn't the vote been cast and the MPs voting as their constituents would want..

[bots]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

'Moderate' has become synonymous with 'agreeing with conservative thinking, anything else is 'militant'.

Absolute rubbish

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Absolute rubbish

As is your claim that the electorate support airstrikes imo.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/113064

Ian Mearns MP ✔ @IanMearnsMP
@BBCPolitics @BBCNews Why is dissent in the Labour Party more important than dissent in the Tory Party Where has Cameron's majority gone?

Ian Mearns MP ✔ @IanMearnsMP
Why can't I stop thinking - the stance being taken, in supporting Cameron on Syria, by some in the PLP has nothing to do with Syria at all?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...-politics-live

[MTVN]

A clear majority of British people support RAF air strikes on Syria – and across all of Europe people say their country should being doing more to combat ISIS within Iraq and Syria

New research for the YouGov-Cambridge symposium on Syria and the EU confirms strong and continued public support for RAF air strikes on ISIS in Syria.

Public support, now at 59% to 20% in opposition, has been steady throughout 2015, even in the wake of the Paris attacks – suggesting the public have settled on a position, with support unlikely to deteriorate in the near future.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/11/25...strikes-syria/

[user104658]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Brilliantly put again BOTS - Wish I'd said this.

I don't think you're in a position to be commenting on what "moderate people" do or don't understand, Kirk. You're not trying to imply that you are one, are you? I mean, I know I'm not either, but I fully accept that.