ramboacdc Posted 3 December 2015 Posted 3 December 2015 Leicestershire MPs and how they voted (just keeping it local.) all the conservatives towed the party line but 2 labour MP's went for the motion. David Tredinnick (Con, Bosworth) voted for the motion. Edward Argar (Con, Charnwood) voted for the motion. Sir Edward Garnier (Con, Harborough) voted for the motion. Keith Vaz (Lab, Leicester East) voted for the motion. Jonathan Ashworth (Lab, Leicester South) voted against the motion. Liz Kendall (Lab, Leicester West) voted for the motion. Nicky Morgan (Con, Loughborough) voted for the motion. Andrew Bridgen (Con, North West Leicestershire) voted for the motion. Sir Alan Duncan (Con, Rutland and Melton) voted for the motion. Alberto Costa (Con, South Leicestershire) voted for the motion.
Captain... Posted 3 December 2015 Posted 3 December 2015 How do we stop our oil buds Saudi Arabia and Qatar funding them tho Airstrikes! The solution to everything.
Darkon84 Posted 3 December 2015 Posted 3 December 2015 At least we aren't rushing in and taking a more considered approach this time... Oh wait, how long did they wait after the vote to launch the first air-strike? Looks like we are doomed to make the same mistakes over and over again in the Middle East. Rush in, cause chaos, leave, repeat. I highly doubt they waited until the motion and then just went....yay bomb stuff! There will have been weeks, months of preparation, locating targets, working out enemy movements etc. The RAF will have the safety of it's pilots to think about. If you just send them in without thought, they are in danger of being shot down immediately. To think the air strikes weren't considered and planned, is just stupid.
Buce Posted 3 December 2015 Posted 3 December 2015 If the targets hit by the RAF were so vital, why haven't the active coalition already hit them? Did they really need to wait for the extra four aircraft from us? It's merely symbolic, and of no practical use. This doesn't make the UK safer. Quite the opposite.
Darkon84 Posted 3 December 2015 Posted 3 December 2015 If the targets hit by the RAF were so vital, why haven't the active coalition already hit them? Did they really need to wait for the extra four aircraft from us? It's merely symbolic, and of no practical use. This doesn't make the UK safer. Quite the opposite. The point still stands, the jets won't have been sent in on a knee jerk reaction. they will still have been planned strategically and knowing the location of opposition forces to best protect the pilots etc. For all we know, this could have been a pre-agreed strike after conversing with the other allied countries. OK, it could easily have not, but we don't have the full information. The UK is already well up the list of Daesh targets, as the recent foiled plots would suggest. Going in with jets won't make any difference to that, so I just can't see the argument that us going in there, makes the UK more at risk.
Thracian Posted 3 December 2015 Posted 3 December 2015 It's not going to make an immediate impact. IS have got lots of money already and will keep receiving more in donations. It's a minor long term annoyance for them, it doesn't make Syria any safer today or tomorrow or next month, but it's apparently our primary concern after rushing to war. It's not going to make an immediate impact. IS have got lots of money already and will keep receiving more in donations. It's a minor long term annoyance for them, it doesn't make Syria any safer today or tomorrow or next month, but it's apparently our primary concern after rushing to war. All the money imaginable won't help much if their accessible oilfields are out of action and their lines of transportation are cut. It's an expensive operation too, running an army, and harder when you're needing to use coerced soldiers or hostages. IS have already executed some of their own deserters as a warning to others but that very fact suggests difficulties. Other supplies get harder too with IS having reportedly resorted to the use of donkeys using hill and mountain paths to help keep supply lines open. IS is a determined and resourceful organisation but inevitably under pressure and, with the Russians having arrived in Syria and the ally mandate having been granted, it seems the military pressure will grow and IS may well turn towards more guerilla terrorism of the kind used in Paris. That would do so many things I don't want to talk about. Things that would emphasise why it is - and has long been - imperative to close borders to the uninvited so helping to stop potential trojan horses becoming embedded, both here and in other countries. In truth the doors should never have been opened in the first place but that's no reason not to close them now. And I'm still concerned about the end game. Because I'm no longer sure the Nearer Middle East is capable of looking after itself and the West doesn't want a potentially increasing threat or problem building up on its doorstep. There needs to be a proper and far-seeing strategy, but getting the consensus for one seems unlikely not least because there's so many different groups, so many opposed ambitions and so many agitators rabble-rousing and manipulating people's minds on the internet.
lgfualol Posted 3 December 2015 Posted 3 December 2015 did anyone see what Cameron said on 4th October 2015? "Russia bombing campaign will lead to further radicalisation and terroism". I think he was jealous everyone else was bombing them and wanted to join in. What a slimey ****. Can't wait to see the back of him and his rich "we're all in it together hard working families but we were all born into wealthy families so we dont actually have any connection to you plebs" friends.
The Doctor Posted 3 December 2015 Posted 3 December 2015 did anyone see what Cameron said on 4th October 2015? "Russia bombing campaign will lead to further radicalisation and terroism". I think he was jealous everyone else was bombing them and wanted to join in. What a slimey ****. Can't wait to see the back of him and his rich "we're all in it together hard working families but we were all born into wealthy families so we dont actually have any connection to you plebs" friends. Jealous? No. Reactionary to the Paris attacks, feeling that we needed to be seen to do something? Almost certainly.
Thracian Posted 3 December 2015 Posted 3 December 2015 If the targets hit by the RAF were so vital, why haven't the active coalition already hit them? Did they really need to wait for the extra four aircraft from us? It's merely symbolic, and of no practical use. This doesn't make the UK safer. Quite the opposite. If the targets hit by the RAF were so vital, why haven't the active coalition already hit them? Did they really need to wait for the extra four aircraft from us? It's merely symbolic, and of no practical use. This doesn't make the UK safer. Quite the opposite. Sadly I agree with that. But then grave threats don't leave much alternative. And no bombs would not have equaled no threat either to the UK or to other parts of Europe as has been demonstrated on the countless occasions that have only emphasised the folly and own-goal scoring of our foreign policy politics these last few decades.
Thracian Posted 3 December 2015 Posted 3 December 2015 did anyone see what Cameron said on 4th October 2015? "Russia bombing campaign will lead to further radicalisation and terroism". I think he was jealous everyone else was bombing them and wanted to join in. What a slimey ****. Can't wait to see the back of him and his rich "we're all in it together hard working families but we were all born into wealthy families so we dont actually have any connection to you plebs" friends. did anyone see what Cameron said on 4th October 2015? "Russia bombing campaign will lead to further radicalisation and terroism". I think he was jealous everyone else was bombing them and wanted to join in. What a slimey ****. Can't wait to see the back of him and his rich "we're all in it together hard working families but we were all born into wealthy families so we dont actually have any connection to you plebs" friends. What are you talking about? Give us some answers by all means but there's enough shit in the sewers without pretending that "class war" is the argument for everything because it's not.
Captain... Posted 3 December 2015 Posted 3 December 2015 What are you talking about? Give us some answers by all means but there's enough shit in the sewers without pretending that "class war" is the argument for everything because it's not. Ignore the Class war bit and it is clear what he is saying: Cameron: Russia launching a bombing campaign on Syria will lead to further radicalisation and increased terrorism. Bombing Syria = More terrorism 2 months later, we are bombing Syria. This is the problem with having politician's in charge of the country they will say anything to increase their popularity.
AKCJ Posted 3 December 2015 Posted 3 December 2015 Ignore the Class war bit and it is clear what he is saying: Cameron: Russia launching a bombing campaign on Syria will lead to further radicalisation and increased terrorism. Bombing Syria = More terrorism 2 months later, we are bombing Syria. This is the problem with having politician's in charge of the country they will say anything to increase their popularity. Can't agree with that at all. Before the Paris attacks I was anti bombing, now I am all for it. Opinions can change. The Paris attacks were a wake up call to London. Almost a "you're next". Sitting about waiting for IS to strike is only going to harm British people and I'm sorry but that can't happen in my opinion.
Webbo Posted 3 December 2015 Posted 3 December 2015 The Americans decided the targets as they are leading the coalition. Ignore the Class war bit and it is clear what he is saying: Cameron: Russia launching a bombing campaign on Syria will lead to further radicalisation and increased terrorism. Bombing Syria = More terrorism 2 months later, we are bombing Syria. This is the problem with having politician's in charge of the country they will say anything to increase their popularity. Russia were bombing the more moderate anti Assad opposition to keep Assad in power, that would force moderates ( I know they're not that moderate but they're better than Isis) into joining Isis or Assad.
lgfualol Posted 3 December 2015 Posted 3 December 2015 Ignore the Class war bit and it is clear what he is saying: Yeah, got a bit carried away with my dislike for Cameron there.. Hehe.
Captain... Posted 3 December 2015 Posted 3 December 2015 Can't agree with that at all. Before the Paris attacks I was anti bombing, now I am all for it. Opinions can change. The Paris attacks were a wake up call to London. Almost a "you're next". Sitting about waiting for IS to strike is only going to harm British people and I'm sorry but that can't happen in my opinion. So are you saying Cameron was wrong about Russia bombing Syria creating more radicalisation and terrorism? Russia suffered a tragedy at the hands of Daesh and so retaliated and Cameron criticised them for it, saying they are wrong and their actions will lead to more terrorism, but now France has been targeted it is time to pile in. To be honest it is not for me to say whether we are right or wrong to launch airstrikes against Syria and whether we can defeat them this way, or whether it will make us a target, but it is the weasel words from Cameron that I am just sick of and find it terrifying that this man can lead us into another war.
Thracian Posted 3 December 2015 Posted 3 December 2015 Ignore the Class war bit and it is clear what he is saying: Cameron: Russia launching a bombing campaign on Syria will lead to further radicalisation and increased terrorism. Bombing Syria = More terrorism 2 months later, we are bombing Syria. This is the problem with having politician's in charge of the country they will say anything to increase their popularity. Ignore the Class war bit and it is clear what he is saying: Cameron: Russia launching a bombing campaign on Syria will lead to further radicalisation and increased terrorism. Bombing Syria = More terrorism 2 months later, we are bombing Syria. This is the problem with having politician's in charge of the country they will say anything to increase their popularity. Yes, terrorism feeds on every possible excuse but, really, that's an opportunistic tactic not the principle driving force. IS exists to impose its own agenda whether it has a new galvanising excuse or not. I don't think the Yazidis posed a threat - except for daring to think differently to those intent on domination - but they were still brutalised. Just like Hitler, IS will simply do what best and fastest serves their end and it is entirely misguided to imagine you can sit the threat out. Neville Chamberlain would have liked to do that and what a mistake it would have been.
Captain... Posted 3 December 2015 Posted 3 December 2015 The Americans decided the targets as they are leading the coalition. Russia were bombing the more moderate anti Assad opposition to keep Assad in power, that would force moderates ( I know they're not that moderate but they're better than Isis) into joining Isis or Assad. Russia were targeting everyone but Assad to try and get his regime back in power including Daesh, to be honest Assad taking back control of Syria is the best thing that could happen at the moment, he is many unpleasant things but he is not an international terrorist and is no threat to us (selfish view point I know). Just eliminating Daesh and leaving Syria locked in civil war is not exactly solving the problem, and not going to encourage the refugees to go back home. This is my whole point about blundering in with our air strikes, we still have no plan on how to restore order to Syria, at least Russia have a plan, get Assad back in charge. Where is the diplomacy? the political discourse? who is talking to the Syrian rebels? Get them to call a truce with Assad's regime/withdraw and allow focus on Daesh. Eliminate that threat, then once order is restored then we can use political pressure to get a democratic election in Syria.
Wymsey Posted 3 December 2015 Posted 3 December 2015 The problem is that there's quite a likelihood that innocent civilians will be killed as IS seem to operate in 'public' areas. Yes, the main objective of this airstrike scenario is to destroy oil/weapons factories operated by IS - but according to what's been said the plan is to target specific people in Syria.
Fox92 Posted 3 December 2015 Posted 3 December 2015 did anyone see what Cameron said on 4th October 2015? "Russia bombing campaign will lead to further radicalisation and terroism". I think he was jealous everyone else was bombing them and wanted to join in. What a slimey ****. Can't wait to see the back of him and his rich "we're all in it together hard working families but we were all born into wealthy families so we dont actually have any connection to you plebs" friends. Yeah I saw a comparison of what he said on October 4th compared to the past week. It's unbelievable. Watching it all unfold last night and reading some of the comments on social media surprised me how many people were against bombing. I don't know why but I imagined people would want to see action. Still won't get rid of the ideology though, ISIS isn't a location.
Jon the Hat Posted 3 December 2015 Posted 3 December 2015 To be fair Russia are rather bombing the shit out of everything completely regardless of civilian life, because they don't care, and their media wont criticise them. Very different in the west.
Guest MattP Posted 3 December 2015 Posted 3 December 2015 Why do people keep saying we have been taken into another war? It's ridiculous hyperbole. We are extending air strikes, people need to get some perspective and fast.
James. Posted 3 December 2015 Posted 3 December 2015 Still won't get rid of the ideology though, ISIS isn't a location. Isn't that EXACTLY what ISIS is? If they have a weakness it's the fact their very existence depends on control over a geographical area. The caliphate is central to their entire being. Unlike Al-Qaeda for example you take that land away and they are done.
Harry - LCFC Posted 3 December 2015 Posted 3 December 2015 Why do people keep saying we have been taken into another war? It's ridiculous hyperbole. We are extending air strikes, people need to get some perspective and fast. Those who are vehemently against air strikes know they can strengthen their case by exaggerating the situation as much as possible. I think many of them understand that this isn't the major operation they're pretending it is.
Fox92 Posted 3 December 2015 Posted 3 December 2015 Isn't that EXACTLY what ISIS is? If they have a weakness it's the fact their very existence depends on control over a geographical area. The caliphate is central to their entire being. Unlike Al-Qaeda for example you take that land away and they are done. I see what you're saying and I do agree. Although in that case I was talking about the loners - in terms of the ideology - there is no doubt there will be hundreds of inspired terrorists in our Country. I know three more terrorists were arrested this week, and it's these sorts that could be influential too. Hopefully our intelligence are studying these sort of people too (I know our intelligence is very very good). And that's what I meant in terms of '[bombing] still won't get rid of the ideology'.
Guest Kopfkino Posted 3 December 2015 Posted 3 December 2015 Why do people keep saying we have been taken into another war? It's ridiculous hyperbole. We are extending air strikes, people need to get some perspective and fast. You expect far too much from people. Many people I've spoken to don't understand the distinction between bombing in Syria now and the last vote on Syria. And this whole, it makes us more of a target is nonsense. We've extended our campaign over the border into Syria, a border which ISIS don't recognise. We always were a target high on the list anyway, just fortunately for us, our intelligence services can only be matched by the US.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.