Today's HOC Vote

woody69 said:
A lot of people on this thread seem to be saying that bombing does nothing? Well that simply isn't true. ISIL has shrunk by almost a third since air strikes in Iraq started. In the 14 months we have been providing air support in Iraq we have seriously hampered ISILs advance (can people not remember the reports of them being only 40kms from Baghdad)? Without the air strikes the Kurdish fighters would not have been able to liberate Kobane, Sinjar and the Mosul Dam. When IS took Mosul they had the ability to move large forces across Syria and Iraq, they've lost that ability and now, as a result, IS forces in a city like Ramadi are completely cut off from reinforcements.

RAF Tornado's are responsible for around 60% of the tactical intelligence gathered over Iraq and they are equipped with Brimstone missiles. Brimstones are more sophisticated than the weapons currently being used by the US, Russia and Assad. The USA is using Hellfire's, which generate a large field of shrapnel when they explode, Russia is simply dropping bombs on targets without any guidance and Assad's barrel bombing everything and everyone. Brimstone's are designed to destroy its target with a contained explosion that generates relatively little debris. The RAF would most likely be tasked with attacking IS's upper tier leadership and command posts, most of which will be in Raqqa. The RAF is the best and least risky option for hurting IS's ability to command without inflicting massive civilian casualties.

No-one pretends that this is a total solution. Isis will not be defeated from the air but they can be damaged and restrained. No-one believes that a lasting solution can occur without co-operation between the regional powers as envisaged by the Vienna talks. No-one thinks that peace will not be sustainable without prolonged humanitarian and political support for some time.

IS needs territory, they want to build a viable state right now - not only to keep alive the idea of a caliphate but also because that's where most of their wealth comes from. That's being undermined, especially after they lost control of Iraq's largest oil refinery. If Western ground troops were taking back towns, cities and refineries then IS could spin it as Christian crusaders occupying Muslim lands but it's their fellow Muslims that are on the ground taking back IS occupied territory.

Some will join IS because of our intervention but given how brutal IS have been to the people they've occupied I'd imagine many times more of the local population will be happy to see the fight being taken to IS and will greet the Peshmerga/Syrian Kurds/FSA/Iraqi army with open arms when they come to kick IS out, similarly to how many Europeans greeted the Allies when they started to push back the German army in the mid-1940s.

We have no idea how long the diplomatic effort to end the Syrian civil war will take, the Vienna talks have barely got off the ground and peace talks have been on and off since 2011. Cutting funding and arms to IS will only have a limited effect as IS draws an income from taxing the people it occupies and has thousands of pieces of equipment they captured from the Iraqi army when they took Mosul. Airstrikes aren't a perfect solution, but the alternative appears to be to leave the Kurds, Syrians and Iraqis to duke it out with IS with neither side having an advantage. Military action to push back and contain IS while the politicians attempt to broker an end to the civil war is surely the only way to go.
Click to expand...
Finally a concise and well put together post that actually talks sense!
 
A question to all the "don't bomb" people.
Under what circumstances would you advocate bombing or fighting Daesh?
How bad would it have to get? What would they have to do before enough was enough?
Or put simply, if they were marching up the Mall would you simply put your hands up and ask how we can serve them best?
Serious question, because I think everyone has their tipping point. They have already passed mine. What's yours?
 
Sweep said:
A question to all the "don't bomb" people.
Under what circumstances would you advocate bombing or fighting Daesh?
How bad would it have to get? What would they have to do before enough was enough?
Or put simply, if they were marching up the Mall would you simply put your hands up and ask how we can serve them best?
Serious question, because I think everyone has their tipping point. They have already passed mine. What's yours?
Click to expand...

You are asking the wrong question. The right question is what is the plan?

If it was as simple as punching the co-ordinates of IS HQ into a computer and a clever set of missiles heading their way, that would be fine. But it isn't, and the risk is that a ham-fisted engagement will only recruit loads more radicals, some already living in the UK and other western countries, and convince them that this is a crusade against Islam. And you can bomb IS all day long, and more funding from Saudi will still keep them going.

It is a mistake to think that things couldn't be worse than the current bad situation. Things can get a great deal worse and this bombing campaign may be the trigger.
 
Ethan said:
You are asking the wrong question. The right question is what is the plan?

If it was as simple as punching the co-ordinates of IS HQ into a computer and a clever set of missiles heading their way, that would be fine. But it isn't, and the risk is that a ham-fisted engagement will only recruit loads more radicals, some already living in the UK and other western countries, and convince them that this is a crusade against Islam. And you can bomb IS all day long, and more funding from Saudi will still keep them going.

It is a mistake to think that things couldn't be worse than the current bad situation. Things can get a great deal worse and this bombing campaign may be the trigger.
Click to expand...

I agree. Off to London this weekend and can't help feeling a tad nervous following this weeks events. Can't let it dictate what you do but it's a tiny nagging worry given Paris. I do think the bombings will trigger a response and not just one off attacks but something more consolidated and sustained.
 
Ethan said:
You are asking the wrong question. The right question is what is the plan?

If it was as simple as punching the co-ordinates of IS HQ into a computer and a clever set of missiles heading their way, that would be fine. But it isn't, and the risk is that a ham-fisted engagement will only recruit loads more radicals, some already living in the UK and other western countries, and convince them that this is a crusade against Islam. And you can bomb IS all day long, and more funding from Saudi will still keep them going.

It is a mistake to think that things couldn't be worse than the current bad situation. Things can get a great deal worse and this bombing campaign may be the trigger.
Click to expand...
No, I am asking my question. It's a perfectly valid question. If you want to ask a different question, that is up to you. If you choose not to answer my question, that's fine. Though I suspect that may be because you might not be too comfortable with your answer.
 
HomerJSimpson said:
I agree. Off to London this weekend and can't help feeling a tad nervous following this weeks events. Can't let it dictate what you do but it's a tiny nagging worry given Paris. I do think the bombings will trigger a response and not just one off attacks but something more consolidated and sustained.
Click to expand...
And to me that is a good reason to do everything possible to take the terrorists out as quickly as possible. Why should we live in fear?
Bombing in Syria won't make any difference to the chances of us being attacked. They have tried before and they will try again. Being scared is no reason not to go after them. They will try to attack and the stronger we let them become the easier it will be for them to attack. If they think we won't retaliate then its a no brainer for them.
 
This got shared on FB earlier by someone I do not know. To me, it makes perfect sense, and I do believe air strikes are required. We can't just sit around and do nothing.
So, I'm laying in bed having my early morning scroll through Facebook, looking at the various reactions to the commons vote last night and the general consensus seems to be that it's a very bad thing that we are going to conduct air strikes in Syria.

To an extent, I agree. War is bad. But further intervention in Syria is vital in the on going efforts to wipe out those nutters who call themselves ISIS.

I've seen a lot of comments about children and families waking up in terror because there is now war in Syria. I found myself face palming at this. Syria and Iraq are pretty much hell on earth on at the moment (along with Libya and swathes of sub-Saharan Africa. Pretty much anywhere where fanatics fighting under the guise of religion to extend their own power. Anyway I digress). And if anyone thinks that our bombing efforts will change the day to day lives of the people of Syria in the short term you really are misinformed.

The civil war there has been raging for years. Hundreds of thousands dead. Millions displaced. Anyone remember the picture of the little boy on the beach? Well his family didn't try and escape Syria because it was a nice peaceful place to be. They fled because they face horror on a daily basis and they'd rather risk their lives escaping than staying in that hell hole. The way people have been talking tonight it's as if we are starting a conflict against an unknowing population. We are not. We are fighting against the evil scum who have somehow managed to get a foot hold in their country.

Will there be innocents caught up in the bombing? Undoubtedly yes. But on a very small scale - one innocent victim is one too many but it will happen. We are not carpet bombing their already obliterated cities. These will be precision strikes. We have been bombing against the same enemy in Iraq for over a year and I can't recall many reports of collateral damage from British bombing. And I pay attention to the subject all year round and not when it's just topical.

Air strikes can be good. Look at the genocide which was avoided last year. The Yazidis were about to become a foot note in history. Air strikes saved them. And it was air strikes which allowed the Kurds to retake the Yazidis homes from IS just last month. Which again reminds me, I don't remember the same outrage at the vote to commence air strikes in Iraq last year.

So this is why I'm in favour of the air strikes. As a start to the solution. Fundamentally the only way to prevent further wars in the future is to invest in education. IS show what is achievable when you have a medieval mind set but access to modern technology - terror.

Anyone unconvinced just do a quick google image search of Raqqa. I'd recommend you don't because the images will haunt you. But that's is what we are fighting against.
Click to expand...
 
Ethan said:
You are asking the wrong question. The right question is what is the plan?

If it was as simple as punching the co-ordinates of IS HQ into a computer and a clever set of missiles heading their way, that would be fine. But it isn't, and the risk is that a ham-fisted engagement will only recruit loads more radicals, some already living in the UK and other western countries, and convince them that this is a crusade against Islam. And you can bomb IS all day long, and more funding from Saudi will still keep them going.

It is a mistake to think that things couldn't be worse than the current bad situation. Things can get a great deal worse and this bombing campaign may be the trigger.
Click to expand...
Things can also get a whole lot better, we are not standing alone, we are in no more danger than before the we started bombing Syria, do you think IS have turned a blind eye to us bombing them in Iraq. We are a target, we'll remain a target, so best we destroy those doing the targetting.
Homer, they are already here and planning, whether you choose to go to London or not will have no impact on them, just be aware of your surroundings and if you see anything suspicious report it.
 
Sweep said:
No, I am asking my question. It's a perfectly valid question. If you want to ask a different question, that is up to you. If you choose not to answer my question, that's fine. Though I suspect that may be because you might not be too comfortable with your answer.
Click to expand...

Wel, your question was a rather incoherent one. What is the tipping point before bombing IS?

That presupposes a couple of things, none of which are reasonable. It assumes that bombing IS is likely to result in anything beyond some Old Testament vengeance, that there is a coherent plan for what to do, and that everyone has some personal trigger number , tipping point, as you put it, for the number of deaths that will make them say OK, lets bomb. That would be a moronic approach, so I don't play that game because nobody with an ounce of sense could or would answer it.

Therefore I offered an alternative question, but you were unable/unwilling to answer it.

What is the exchange rate for deaths these days? How many IS are needed to be bombed per Paris death? What is the permissible death rate in collateral terms and in numbers of UK military? If you can't answer those questions, then your question just becomes even more absurd, because when bodies of RAF, and soon, ground troops, start arriving back in the UK, you will have to say they were a price worth paying, until, of course, you reach another tipping point.
 
Sweep said:
A question to all the "don't bomb" people.
Under what circumstances would you advocate bombing or fighting Daesh?
How bad would it have to get? What would they have to do before enough was enough?
Or put simply, if they were marching up the Mall would you simply put your hands up and ask how we can serve them best?
Serious question, because I think everyone has their tipping point. They have already passed mine. What's yours?
Click to expand...

Interesting questions.

To your first one, two answers. When it isn't civil war, and becomes genocide. And when it impacts on us and our allies. As Dame Margaret Beckett said, if it was us we'd ask France for help. I don't subscribe to the "I'm all right Jack, pull up the ladder."

To answer your next two questions, see above.

As to them marching up the Mall. Metaphorically speaking, they already have. Ask Homer about his fears of going into London. They are no doubt already here, and armed, they just haven't done anything horrendously spectacular yet.

As to a tipping point. Some may actually need to have a bomb go off in their own dining room, whilst others are already doing something about the situation.
 
Hobbit said:
As to a tipping point. Some may actually need to have a bomb go off in their own dining room, whilst others are already doing something about the situation.
Click to expand...

What an ignorant remark. That is like Cameron accusing anyone against bombing of being terrorist sympathisers. That was also a disgraceful remark.
You are sitting on your sofa here in the UK justifying bombs falling on Syria and in doing so, accept a certain amount of collateral damage and when ground forces go in, as they surely will, you also accept some casualities. How brave and patriotic of you.

Every time the UK has gone into someplace in the Middle East in a so-called limited and focussed campaign, it has always become less limited and totally unfocussed, and each disastrous adventure causes a bigger problem than the one before. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria.

You would have to be a fool or a blind optimist to think this will be any different. It is easy to make a stupid remark about bombs going off in living rooms, but the exact opposite argument to yours is that this bombing will cause precisely that.
 
If Islamic State was just trying to establish a territory without terrorist attacks on Westerners and genocide of local Christians and other 'non-believers', then I for one wouldn't have a problem with them. However they are are doing all these things in the name of twisted and evil religious philosophy, so really we have no choice in confronting them!
 
Ethan said:
Wel, your question was a rather incoherent one. What is the tipping point before bombing IS?

That presupposes a couple of things, none of which are reasonable. It assumes that bombing IS is likely to result in anything beyond some Old Testament vengeance, that there is a coherent plan for what to do, and that everyone has some personal trigger number , tipping point, as you put it, for the number of deaths that will make them say OK, lets bomb. That would be a moronic approach, so I don't play that game because nobody with an ounce of sense could or would answer it.

Therefore I offered an alternative question, but you were unable/unwilling to answer it.

What is the exchange rate for deaths these days? How many IS are needed to be bombed per Paris death? What is the permissible death rate in collateral terms and in numbers of UK military? If you can't answer those questions, then your question just becomes even more absurd, because when bodies of RAF, and soon, ground troops, start arriving back in the UK, you will have to say they were a price worth paying, until, of course, you reach another tipping point.
Click to expand...

It seems a bit hypocritical to refuse to answer a question from someone and then have a pop at them for being "unable/unwilling" to answer the question you asked in return.
 
Ethan said:
What an ignorant remark. That is like Cameron accusing anyone against bombing of being terrorist sympathisers. That was also a disgraceful remark.
You are sitting on your sofa here in the UK justifying bombs falling on Syria and in doing so, accept a certain amount of collateral damage and when ground forces go in, as they surely will, you also accept some casualities. How brave and patriotic of you.

Every time the UK has gone into someplace in the Middle East in a so-called limited and focussed campaign, it has always become less limited and totally unfocussed, and each disastrous adventure causes a bigger problem than the one before. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria.

You would have to be a fool or a blind optimist to think this will be any different. It is easy to make a stupid remark about bombs going off in living rooms, but the exact opposite argument to yours is that this bombing will cause precisely that.
Click to expand...
So now you have a crystal ball to see the future,
What are you suggesting? The west pulls out stops interfering and allows the Countries to decide their own fate, and if that involves lunatic dictators wipeing out miliions of innocent people or the people turning on each other like Rwanda, then that's ok because it's nothing to do with us and they won't bother us.
 
Ethan said:
What an ignorant remark. That is like Cameron accusing anyone against bombing of being terrorist sympathisers. That was also a disgraceful remark.
You are sitting on your sofa here in the UK justifying bombs falling on Syria and in doing so, accept a certain amount of collateral damage and when ground forces go in, as they surely will, you also accept some casualities. How brave and patriotic of you.

Every time the UK has gone into someplace in the Middle East in a so-called limited and focussed campaign, it has always become less limited and totally unfocussed, and each disastrous adventure causes a bigger problem than the one before. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria.

You would have to be a fool or a blind optimist to think this will be any different. It is easy to make a stupid remark about bombs going off in living rooms, but the exact opposite argument to yours is that this bombing will cause precisely that.
Click to expand...

You have so obviously missed my point... but hey um, not in the least bit shocked by your ignorance either... they're called metaphors... that's M...E...T...P...H...O...R....S... look it up
 
Ethan said:
What an ignorant remark. That is like Cameron accusing anyone against bombing of being terrorist sympathisers. That was also a disgraceful remark.
You are sitting on your sofa here in the UK justifying bombs falling on Syria and in doing so, accept a certain amount of collateral damage and when ground forces go in, as they surely will, you also accept some casualities. How brave and patriotic of you.

Every time the UK has gone into someplace in the Middle East in a so-called limited and focussed campaign, it has always become less limited and totally unfocussed, and each disastrous adventure causes a bigger problem than the one before. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria.

You would have to be a fool or a blind optimist to think this will be any different. It is easy to make a stupid remark about bombs going off in living rooms, but the exact opposite argument to yours is that this bombing will cause precisely that.
Click to expand...
Was Cameron wrong with his remark, which I understood was that he accused SOME of those voting against the bombing being terrorist sympathisers, yes, but only because he wound some of the wrong people up and it's not the sort of thing that a PM should say but he wasn't all wrong.

Bombs in the living room, I think anyone with half a brain knew exactly what the poster was meaning.
 
Hobbit said:
You have so obviously missed my point... but hey um, not in the least bit shocked by your ignorance either... they're called metaphors... that's M...E...T...P...H...O...R....S... look it up
Click to expand...

Hilarious. Spells out a word and gets it wrong. And it is also not the right word. It would have been a metaphor if you had said 'when IS is raining down hellfire on the UK'. What you used was hyperbole.

I understood the basic point you were clumsily making, though, and it was that I disagree with. Your contention is that bombing IS makes us safer, my contention is that it does the opposite.

All the pro-bombing collective have piled in, although none address any of the big issues. I didn't answer a stupid question about what a hypothetical tipping point would be, because that is impossible to answer. In contrast, the question of what the plan is after the bombing is not only possible to answer, it is absolutely necessary, because the bombing has started, and something is going to happen after. That something will include civilian and possibly UK military casualties, and the pro-bombing collective have accepted those as a price worth paying.
 
Ethan said:
Hilarious. Spells out a word and gets it wrong. And it is also not the right word. It would have been a metaphor if you had said 'when IS is raining down hellfire on the UK'. What you used was hyperbole.

I understood the basic point you were clumsily making, though, and it was that I disagree with. Your contention is that bombing IS makes us safer, my contention is that it does the opposite.

All the pro-bombing collective have piled in, although none address any of the big issues. I didn't answer a stupid question about what a hypothetical tipping point would be, because that is impossible to answer. In contrast, the question of what the plan is after the bombing is not only possible to answer, it is absolutely necessary, because the bombing has started, and something is going to happen after. That something will include civilian and possibly UK military casualties, and the pro-bombing collective have accepted those as a price worth paying.
Click to expand...
We have been bombing ISIS for 18 months - has that made us "less safe". Would they still target us if we did nothing - yes they would

What happens after the presicion strategic targeted bombing ( thinks it's essential to understand the exact type of bombing is happening ) is undetermined at the moment. Because of the accuracy and quality of the targeted bombing in Iraq the ground troops ( Iraq army ) have been able to take back lots of cities that were under the control of ISIS. Targeted bombing have proved to be a very crucial part of those efforts.

Now in Syria with increased precision bombing starting it will effect the ability of ISIS - from cutting of the oil that they use to sell to fund their operation , to destroying training camps and ammo dumps. As those targets get destroyed it then will allow the Syria Army to take back areas under control of ISIS.

Innocent people are already dying , we need to stop that happening- that can only happen with force against ISIS.

Does it need troops from the Middle East countries - yes , will bombing alone be the answer - no , will talking to them stop them killing innocent people all over the world - no
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top