Bombing Syria

[Reg Smeeton]

I did, yes (vote for Farron).

Nothing wrong with a split, even with just 8 MPs.  If anything, I'm slightly suspicious of the SNP who - according to Stewart Hosie - managed to achieve complete unanimity among their 50+ MPs without even needing to resort to the whip.  That either demonstrates an extraordinary degree of unity in the party, or a complete absence of internal political debate.

Or their MP's are sensible.

[singingiiiffy]

Well it's pretty inevitable now, isn't it? Another Paris in London probably. Human beings getting killed in Europe and the Middle East. I mean really, what the fuck? People's families and lives. On the whim of fucking nutters.

Exactly. History is supposed to educate to not repeat the mistakes of the past. Yep, keep poking that hornet's nest. Brilliant...

Your very much suggesting that a terrorist attack in this country will be because of the decision to bomb in Syria. This vote will not make one bit of difference. It's a positive that everyone in europe is united in trying to wipe these bastards out, its a shame there is no easy way to do it. I don't think bombing in Syria will destroy them but I am not sure what difference not doing it would either. Its an impossible war based on religious hatred

[Sippo]

Britain will be on ISIL's radar. Always will be, even before the bombing decision was made.

It's a matter of when, not if unfortunately.

[herthab]

Your very much suggesting that a terrorist attack in this country will be because of the decision to bomb in Syria. This vote will not make one bit of difference. It's a positive that everyone in europe is united in trying to wipe these bastards out, its a shame there is no easy way to do it. I don't think bombing in Syria will destroy them but I am not sure what difference not doing it would either. Its an impossible war based on religious hatred

If it's not going to make any difference then what's the point in doing it? The financial cost, not to mention the 'collateral damage' which will no doubt be significant, for what? An empty and futile gesture?

[Arriba]

It could make a difference though. People that maybe are not against Europe may see innocent civilians getting blown up and may then join the cause.
Only takes a few to bring utter chaos as we have already seen.

[Reg Smeeton]

If it's not going to make any difference then what's the point in doing it? The financial cost, not to mention the 'collateral damage' which will no doubt be significant, for what? An empty and futile gesture?

The armaments industries are quite keen, as are their shareholders and salesmen, none of whom are to be found in Parliament 

Saudi Arabia, has just about run out of munitions after pounding Yemen...so has recently placed some fat orders for a re-stock.

[Skinny Pete]

It could make a difference though. People that maybe are not against Europe may see innocent civilians getting blown up and may then join the cause.
Only takes a few to bring utter chaos as we have already seen.

What about the innocent civilians Isis have murdered? People need to get their heads out of their arse if they think this is going to go away by doing nothing. Isis won't stop unless they are forced to do so. If that means wiping them out entirely, so be it. Collateral damage is unavoidable. Tough.

[Ardiles]

Very few are advocating 'doing nothing' though.  Most (but not all) opponents of airstrikes have opposed them because it's a half-arsed solution that is extremely unlikely to achieve its objective.  If you're going to do a job, do it properly.  That means troops on the ground - sadly.

[Flashheart]

It's not hitting ISIS that people are objecting to, but the method that is being chosen. Bombs alone won't do the job.

[herthab]

What about the innocent civilians Isis have murdered? People need to get their heads out of their arse if they think this is going to go away by doing nothing. Isis won't stop unless they are forced to do so. If that means wiping them out entirely, so be it. Collateral damage is unavoidable. Tough.

No one has said do nothing. Bombing doesn't work, we've seen that countless times.

And it's easy to dismiss collateral damage when you're not living in the areas being bombed, doubt you'd be quite so blasé about it if you or your family lived there.

[Skinny Pete]

Not being flippant about it but what' the alternative?

It's not like the IRA where there was the possibility of a political solution/compromise. These fuckers don't want anything we've got - they just want to kill us all.

[herthab]

Not being flippant about it but what' the alternative?

It's not like the IRA where there was the possibility of a political solution/compromise. These fuckers don't want anything we've got - they just want to kill us all.

A truly international ground force, using shared intelligence? Sanctions against those countries that sponsor IS? I don't have the answers, but I can't see how bombing will eradicate the threat.

[Talk Talk]

The armaments industries are quite keen, as are their shareholders and salesmen, none of whom are to be found in Parliament 

Of course they are, that's what the industrial-military complex is all about. The idiots who keep these politicians lubricated. It's a win-win for them.

[Skinny Pete]

Get the feeling the 'recreational' bombing is just a prelude to ground troops going in.

The Russkies have a big part to play in all this

[horlock07]

A truly international ground force, using shared intelligence? Sanctions against those countries that sponsor IS? I don't have the answers, but I can't see how bombing will eradicate the threat.

Its not got so bad that we have to get Tommy Walsh and Charlie Dimmock involved!