Today's HOC Vote

It's pointless bickering about who voted what or why. The decision has been made and we're on this path now. Terrorists seek to exploit political, philosophical and national divisions and the more we internally divide ourselves along those lines the more powerful they will become. We can only beat terrorism through action as a united opposition stood together.

I don't agree with how we got into this position but now that we are in it we have to fight to the very best of our capability and give all our support to those doing it.
 
drive4show said:
At one time I would have yes, send the RAF in but now I'm more inclined with agree with the above. I would even go as far as deporting the so called 'British' citizens that support the extremists and send them to the region of their choice as they are clearly not British or have the best interests of Britain at heart. To hell with their so called human rights, I have a right to live peacefully and harmoniously in my own country.
Click to expand...


I agree with this.

Not in favour of the decision to bomb Syria in a general sense although given that we sent a couple of Tornadoes last night to bomb several oil wells, it doesn't seem such a big deal really.

However, I would support sending special forces and suspect that they are already there anyway. The reason being that I am hugely in favour of executing child raping, history defacing, mutilating, decapitating, body skinning, murderous, jihadist monsters with extreme prejudice. Be they in Syria, IS, Africa or anywhere else.
 
I feel that Hilary Benn encapsulated our responsibilities far better than anyone on here or in Parliament yesterday.

Yes, I am in favour of bombing, but that doesn't mean the result of the vote didn't leave me with a very heavy heart. And I would like to think that now David Cameron has the green light for bombing, he will also be pushing for cohesive plans to support the Syrian people that will suffer from the collateral damage it will undoubtedly cause.

For me it is the lesser of two evils, not right but very wrong not to.
 
Hilary Benn was superb - very impressive speech

First time in a long time that a MP has impressed me. Why didn't he go for Labour leadership - think Labour would be a extremely credible opposition to the Tories
 
Val said:
These pills need taken with a pinch of salt as I don't believe they offer a fair cross section of what public opinion is. It's interestin that I've never been asked to participate in these pills and I really don't know anyone who has.

There are 12 people in my office and no-one objects to bombing them. Does that mean 100% agreement of Scots?
Click to expand...
Try taking them with a glass of water instead. They'll go down easier! ;)
 
Interesting parallel

In 1990 I was dragged along to a speech by Tony Benn at Imperial College to heckle him when the first Gulf War was starting. He was talking anti-war. He completely changed my politics that day. He was an impressive, logical and sensible speaker. He took a lot of heckling that day, treated all the hecklers respectfully and put forward a compelling argument for anti-war.

Interesting to see his son doing the polar opposite last night.

As I say, just an interesting parallel.
 
And so off we go - to join a risky military expedition against an enemy we don't really know; at the behest of allies who don't want to be in it by themselves; with objectives we can't really state; with an exit strategy if it goes wrong that no-one knows - but let us be clear - that is essential for the defence of the UK - and as the primary role of a UK government is the safety of the UK people. So off we go.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
And so off we go - to join a risky military expedition against an enemy we don't really know; at the behest of allies who don't want to be in it by themselves; with objectives we can't really state; with an exit strategy if it goes wrong that no-one knows - but let us be clear - that is essential for the defence of the UK - and as the primary role of a UK government is the safety of the UK people. So off we go.
Click to expand...

And you would prefer us to do what exactly instead ? Stand by and do nothing ?
 
Liverpoolphil said:
And you would prefer us to do what exactly instead ? Stand by and do nothing ?
Click to expand...
It's a bit disingenuous to suggest that not wanting to start bombing is the same as not wanting to do anything. Everyone wants to stop Isis. Everyone agrees that they're an evil organisation. We just disagree on the exact course of action put forward by the government.
 
Liverpoolphil said:
And you would prefer us to do what exactly instead ? Stand by and do nothing ?
Click to expand...

Not nothing - but not this. I do not see what is being undertaken will have any noticeable affect whatsoever on destroying or degrading Daesh. Even if UK bombing does not kill any civilians all that happens is that the UK becomes guilty by association for any civilian deaths brought about by bombimg by our allies. The colleagues, countrymen, friends and family will neither know nor care who among the allies perpetrated the deaths of innocents.
 
bluewolf said:
It's a bit disingenuous to suggest that not wanting to start bombing is the same as not wanting to do anything. Everyone wants to stop Isis. Everyone agrees that they're an evil organisation. We just disagree on the exact course of action put forward by the government.
Click to expand...

I've got no problem with those that disagree with bombing but I am yet to hear a coherent alternative from any of them. I think it was Ethan that said we needed to get Saudi and Jordan involved (apologies if it wasn't him) but what are we supposed to do up to that point? Do we just wait and hope that our security services don't miss something? I can't see how bombing IS targets in Syria will make us more of a target than we already are with our current missions attacking them in Iraq. I'm sure IS would love to launch a Paris style attack on the UK mainland and it only takes MI5 or MI6 to get it wrong once and we could easily be counting the bodies in London.

So in response to the bit in bold what exact course of action would you suggest?
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
Not nothing - but not this. I do not see what is being undertaken will have any noticeable affect whatsoever on destroying or degrading Daesh. Even if UK bombing does not kill any civilians all that happens is that the UK becomes guilty by association for any civilian deaths brought about by bombimg by our allies. The colleagues, countrymen, friends and family will neither know nor care who among the allies perpetrated the deaths of innocents.
Click to expand...

Same question to you as to bluewolf then. If not this then what action are you suggesting?
 
Liverpoolphil said:
And you would prefer us to do what exactly instead ? Stand by and do nothing ?
Click to expand...

Oh come on Phil, no-one is saying that we should do nothing and stick our heads in the sand. It's a valid statement to say that this course of action (bombing without any coherent plan) is dumb, while still believing that we should take some form of action. Even Cameron said in yesterday's debate, "I respect the fact that we’re all discussing how to fight terrorism, not whether to fight terrorism."
 
And to those saying "well what would you do then?" - I don't know. I don't have an answer. Syria in general is an incredibly complex situation which has umpteen protagonists and roots deep in history, and this particular set of murdering extremists has both taken advantage of it and grown because of it.

But not having an answer of my own doesn't mean that I don't have the right to look at someone else's proposed answer, and say out loud that I think it won't work.
 
Oxfordcomma said:
And to those saying "well what would you do then?" - I don't know. I don't have an answer. Syria in general is an incredibly complex situation which has umpteen protagonists and roots deep in history, and this particular set of murdering extremists has both taken advantage of it and grown because of it.

But not having an answer of my own doesn't mean that I don't have the right to look at someone else's proposed answer, and say out loud that I think it won't work.
Click to expand...

Quite. I can be lost and a friend might offer to show me the way - but I don't follow him if I suspect his way leads over a cliff. What I do is advise the friend that, even though I don't know the way, his way may not be the right way and certainly not a way I wish to walk with him if he persists.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top