Today's HOC Vote

ColchesterFC said:
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?
Click to expand...
I've detailed my preferred course of action in a previous post. It may seem a long term view, but I'm not sure that what we're doing now is going to make any difference in the short term. In fact, our chosen course of action could actually make things worse in the short to medium term.
As an aside, I've seen alternative actions detailed several times in this thread, yet I still see the same question pop up repeatedly. "If not bombing, then what?" I've said more than once that I'm open to being persuaded. I hope that Pro bombers have the same mind set.
 
bluewolf said:
I've detailed my preferred course of action in a previous post. It may seem a long term view, but I'm not sure that what we're doing now is going to make any difference in the short term. In fact, our chosen course of action could actually make things worse in the short to medium term.
As an aside, I've seen alternative actions detailed several times in this thread, yet I still see the same question pop up repeatedly. "If not bombing, then what?" I've said more than once that I'm open to being persuaded. I hope that Pro bombers have the same mind set.
Click to expand...
If you are referring to your wish to attacking their funding and equipment pipelines, then of course you do that. In tandem with attacking them wherever they are. In fact you could argue that bombing the oil field they control within hours of the vote was doing exactly that.
Again, nobody said that bombing alone will solve this crisis, but to not go after them is to allow them to rise and become a bigger and bigger danger, as if they are not dangerous enough already.
Other than that I have heard no alternative whatsoever from those who are against this.
 
Oxfordcomma said:
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."
Click to expand...

Then what do you want to do ?

Some like Bluewolf and Ethan have at least come up with alternative courses of actions

If no other action has been offered then the assumption is to do nothing

For the last 18 months we have been bombing strategic targets against ISIS in Iraq - all we have done now is moved across the border and now bombing strategic targets against ISIS in Syria . First target an oil refinery controlled by ISIS and used to help them fund their terrorist activities - a specific target part of a coherent plan

This article is pretty good

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ority-in-opposing-this-campaign-a6758621.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Forgive me if I'm wrong but America have been bombing Syria for around a year already. What exactly are we going to achieve that they haven't/can't. And I don't buy the line, our aircraft have better equipment (guided bombs etc) than the USA.
 
Last edited:
Lanark_Golfer said:
Forgive me if I'm wrong but America have been bombing Syria for around a year already. What exactly are we going to achieve that they haven't/can't. And I don't buy the line, our aircraft have better equipment (guided bombs etc) than the USA.
Click to expand...
"Buy the line" ?

It's factually correct.
 
Sweep said:
If you are referring to your wish to attacking their funding and equipment pipelines, then of course you do that. In tandem with attacking them wherever they are. In fact you could argue that bombing the oil field they control within hours of the vote was doing exactly that.
Again, nobody said that bombing alone will solve this crisis, but to not go after them is to allow them to rise and become a bigger and bigger danger, as if they are not dangerous enough already.
Other than that I have heard no alternative whatsoever from those who are against this.
Click to expand...
And yet "bombing alone" is what the vote was about. If there is a long term strategy that evolves from the dropping of bombs then it needs to be detailed.

Isis are making up to $100m per day selling oil. Who to? They are heavily armed. Who by? Someone, somewhere is making a hell of a lot of money from this conflict. I'd like to know where this money is going. I'd like transparency. I'd like to know if "Western" companies are profiting, and if so I'd like them to be stopped.

I hate everything that Isis stand for, but I hate that someone is profiting from it even more.
 
So, we bombed an oil refinery. The Americans have been bombing for six months, and even with their next to useless kit, they couldn't have bombed this particular target if it was important? I think they could have, quite easily.
 
bluewolf said:
And yet "bombing alone" is what the vote was about. If there is a long term strategy that evolves from the dropping of bombs then it needs to be detailed.

Isis are making up to $100m per day selling oil. Who to? They are heavily armed. Who by? Someone, somewhere is making a hell of a lot of money from this conflict. I'd like to know where this money is going. I'd like transparency. I'd like to know if "Western" companies are profiting, and if so I'd like them to be stopped.

I hate everything that Isis stand for, but I hate that someone is profiting from it even more.
Click to expand...
Bombing alone is not what this debate is all about. Defeating the terrorists is what it's about. Bombing is just part of it. We had to debate bombing in Syria because we always have to tie one arm behind our back when we go into any conflict. We actually had to debate flying over the fictitious Syrian border to continue what we have been doing successfully in Iraq, even though we have been asked by the UN and by our allies. We were actually debating while our friends were still burying their dead.
 
murphthemog said:
So, we bombed an oil refinery. The Americans have been bombing for six months, and even with their next to useless kit, they couldn't have bombed this particular target if it was important? I think they could have, quite easily.
Click to expand...
You are right. It wasn't important at all. They only make a billion pounds per month from oil. So let's just leave it to the Americans. Maybe when they come to London to kill us we can complain to Obama he didn't do enough.
 
murphthemog said:
So, we bombed an oil refinery. The Americans have been bombing for six months, and even with their next to useless kit, they couldn't have bombed this particular target if it was important? I think they could have, quite easily.
Click to expand...

they could also very easily have bombed the oil trucks that are transporting the oil to Turkey (allegedly). In fact, the Americans could have destroyed the ability of Isis to fund itself via oil sales, but they haven't. Someone, somewhere is not telling us the whole truth.
 
Sweep said:
Bombing alone is not what this debate is all about. Defeating the terrorists is what it's about. Bombing is just part of it. We had to debate bombing in Syria because we always have to tie one arm behind our back when we go into any conflict. We actually had to debate flying over the fictitious Syrian border to continue what we have been doing successfully in Iraq, even though we have been asked by the UN and by our allies. We were actually debating while our friends were still burying their dead.
Click to expand...

Are you advocating that the decision to go to War should be made without a vote?
 
The Americans and others have been bombing for six months odd. There shouldn't be any obvious infastucture targets left by now, or what the heck have they been doing?
 
A scenario; a column of truck with ISIS "troops" crosses from Iraq, where we were bombing, into Syria, where we weren't. Our pilot decides not to bomb the column because it fails to meet the rules of engagement, i.e. its crossed into Syria. A day later that column arrives at a village/town and starts the ritual of beheadings, crucifixtions and rape let alone displacing so many more refugees.... but don't worry, we've cut off their funding and their propaganda.

Today, because of the vote to extend bombing, that column might not reach the village/town because the rules of engagement have changed. I wonder what the Syrians would prefer?

Yes, but we've made Britain less safe by bombing ISIS in Syria. We're already bombing ISIS in Iraq...do you think that by doing what we're already doing makes us less safe?
 
murphthemog said:
So, we bombed an oil refinery. The Americans have been bombing for six months, and even with their next to useless kit, they couldn't have bombed this particular target if it was important? I think they could have, quite easily.
Click to expand...

We could have let the Americans bomb it - we could have let all those other nations carry on without us and stood back.
 
Hobbit said:
A scenario; a column of truck with ISIS "troops" crosses from Iraq, where we were bombing, into Syria, where we weren't. Our pilot decides not to bomb the column because it fails to meet the rules of engagement, i.e. its crossed into Syria. A day later that column arrives at a village/town and starts the ritual of beheadings, crucifixtions and rape let alone displacing so many more refugees.... but don't worry, we've cut off their funding and their propaganda.

Today, because of the vote to extend bombing, that column might not reach the village/town because the rules of engagement have changed. I wonder what the Syrians would prefer?

Yes, but we've made Britain less safe by bombing ISIS in Syria. We're already bombing ISIS in Iraq...do you think that by doing what we're already doing makes us less safe?
Click to expand...
The Americans and French are already bombing in Syria. Are we thinking that the Americans and French aren't good enough without us Brits? Obviously they are. Your scenario is overly emotive and not really logical.
Also, I don't think the decision has made any difference to our domestic safety. We were already targets.
 
Hobbit said:
A scenario; a column of truck with ISIS "troops" crosses from Iraq, where we were bombing, into Syria, where we weren't. Our pilot decides not to bomb the column because it fails to meet the rules of engagement, i.e. its crossed into Syria. A day later that column arrives at a village/town and starts the ritual of beheadings, crucifixtions and rape let alone displacing so many more refugees.... but don't worry, we've cut off their funding and their propaganda.

Today, because of the vote to extend bombing, that column might not reach the village/town because the rules of engagement have changed. I wonder what the Syrians would prefer?

Yes, but we've made Britain less safe by bombing ISIS in Syria. We're already bombing ISIS in Iraq...do you think that by doing what we're already doing makes us less safe?
Click to expand...

A scenario, a bomb from the RAF misses its target and kills 25 innocent children. One of the fathers of the children is so incensed he vows to take revenge on the west. A few years later he sets off a dirty bomb in the underground in London killing 100s of commuters and tourists.

Anyone can come up with hypothetical and fanciful situations that you can make as far fetched as you want to to try and justify an argument.
 
Last edited:
Hobbit said:
A scenario; a column of truck with ISIS "troops" crosses from Iraq, where we were bombing, into Syria, where we weren't. Our pilot decides not to bomb the column because it fails to meet the rules of engagement, i.e. its crossed into Syria. A day later that column arrives at a village/town and starts the ritual of beheadings, crucifixtions and rape let alone displacing so many more refugees.... but don't worry, we've cut off their funding and their propaganda.

Today, because of the vote to extend bombing, that column might not reach the village/town because the rules of engagement have changed. I wonder what the Syrians would prefer?

Yes, but we've made Britain less safe by bombing ISIS in Syria. We're already bombing ISIS in Iraq...do you think that by doing what we're already doing makes us less safe?
Click to expand...

bluewolf said:
The Americans and French are already bombing in Syria. Are we thinking that the Americans and French aren't good enough without us Brits? Obviously they are. Your scenario is overly emotive and not really logical.
Also, I don't think the decision has made any difference to our domestic safety. We were already targets.
Click to expand...

But what happens if our pilot spots the column and has to ring the French our Americans on his iphone because they just don't to be patrolling that bit of sky? How many towns do you think the ISIS troops have turned up at with bunches of flowers? The genocide is well documented - I don't think that makes it overly emotive. If we save one Syrian from beheading, or half a village, its worthwhile... alternatively we can attack their laptops and shutdown their propaganda.
 
Hobbit said:
But what happens if our pilot spots the column and has to ring the French our Americans on his iphone because they just don't to be patrolling that bit of sky? How many towns do you think the ISIS troops have turned up at with bunches of flowers? The genocide is well documented - I don't think that makes it overly emotive. If we save one Syrian from beheading, or half a village, its worthwhile... alternatively we can attack their laptops and shutdown their propaganda.
Click to expand...

And if we kill 5 Syrians in the process, and get no nearer to destroying Isis?

I genuinely wish that I was as certain as yourself Brian. I wish that I could say that what we are doing is the best option, but I genuinely don't think it is.. I suspect that it could turn out to be about the worst option.. Turn off the money. Turn off the supply of fighters.. Inhibit the viability of their allies, be they states or companies.. Starve them of publicity. And most importantly, stop giving them exactly what they want..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top