Today's HOC Vote

Liverpoolphil said:
Key words - allegations and opinion but that still doesn't mean his personal opinion confirms all the speculation




There were no WMD when they got to the sites

That doesn't mean when the intelligence was gathered they weren't there - could and maybe we're moved or destroyed.

You suggested or stated that the CIA knew there were none - proven fact or speculation ?

ISIS did take advantage of a situation in Iraq -

But then there is no way to suggest that they could have happened anyway even if we didn't go in

Again all speculation
Click to expand...

The CIA have stated publicly that there weren't links and the Senate Intelligence committee agreed. The CIA said this to Cheney, so he bypassed them. That is not speculation either.

So you are a big fan of facts and evidence. Good.

What is the evidence that this bombing campaign can work, and that it will save lives?
 
Ethan said:
What is the evidence that this bombing campaign can work, and that it will save lives?
Click to expand...

And that is the crux.

It feels good to avenge Paris, but are we laying the foundations for more attacks in future. Treat the cause, not obliterate the symptom.
 
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...
Well, everyone else seemed to understand it. Neither do I think its a "stupid" question as you said in a following post. The question was clear. When would you take action? It isn't a trap or a trick question. Just a polite enquiry.
For example. Before WW2 the UK government tolerated Nazi Germany, had talks, received assurances and their tipping point came when Germany, despite assurances to the contrary, invaded Poland.
If your answer is that you would not take action under any circumstances, that is fine. I was only asking. If you similarly said, if they murdered all the Christians in Raqqa ( probably already have) that's fine too. Again, I was only asking.
If you read the question again, you will see that I said "bomb or fight" not just bomb.
You see, for me I think they need to be wiped out now, just like the Nazis. Hillary Benn quite cleverly referred to them as Fascists. Others, including you, clearly haven't reached that point yet. So when would you, if at all? Would you let them create a state? Would you let them build an Arsenal, an army, an Air Force? Are you OK with them beheading, crucifying, murdering, raping, destroying their way to power in Iraq and Syria? Would it be OK if they did the same in Europe?What about Paris? maybe only if it was London?
Do you think we should stand shoulder to shoulder with France on this? A separate question, would you like us to play a strong role in Europe? How can we remain in the EU if we don't stand as one with our EU partners against such evil?
As I say, not comfortable questions to answer, but if you don't want our nation to take on this evil, answer them you must.
 
Hacker Khan said:
I see that The Times reported today that Isis had invaded Afghanistan. Looks like the bombing campaign is going well then....
Click to expand...
Or... Maybe they are strong enough to invade because we didn't bomb them soon enough?
Maybe you and your fellow lefties would like us to hold off and see if they invade another country before we start taking out this evil in ernest?
 
Sweep said:
Well, everyone else seemed to understand it. Neither do I think its a "stupid" question as you said in a following post. The question was clear. When would you take action? It isn't a trap or a trick question. Just a polite enquiry.
For example. Before WW2 the UK government tolerated Nazi Germany, had talks, received assurances and their tipping point came when Germany, despite assurances to the contrary, invaded Poland.
If your answer is that you would not take action under any circumstances, that is fine. I was only asking. If you similarly said, if they murdered all the Christians in Raqqa ( probably already have) that's fine too. Again, I was only asking.
If you read the question again, you will see that I said "bomb or fight" not just bomb.
You see, for me I think they need to be wiped out now, just like the Nazis. Hillary Benn quite cleverly referred to them as Fascists. Others, including you, clearly haven't reached that point yet. So when would you, if at all? Would you let them create a state? Would you let them build an Arsenal, an army, an Air Force? Are you OK with them beheading, crucifying, murdering, raping, destroying their way to power in Iraq and Syria? Would it be OK if they did the same in Europe?What about Paris? maybe only if it was London?
Do you think we should stand shoulder to shoulder with France on this? A separate question, would you like us to play a strong role in Europe? How can we remain in the EU if we don't stand as one with our EU partners against such evil?
As I say, not comfortable questions to answer, but if you don't want our nation to take on this evil, answer them you must.
Click to expand...

"Answer them you must". Who do you think you are - Winston Churchill?

Comparisons with Nazi Germany are fodder for the popular media but are pretty uninformative. Whether IS is a fascist movement or theist autocracy doesn't really matter. Fascists tend not to be ideologically religious. The Nazis said they wouldn't invade Poland but they did. What exactly did IS say they wouldn't do but did? Nazi Germany was a discrete entity. IS isn't.

Setting conditions for intervention don't depend only on what triggers there are. They also depend on what the objectives and plans are. With Nazi Germany, and a uniformed army to fight, that was a bit more defined. We didn't have a situation where the enemy was located across two countries, one of whose leaders we were also in dispute with, and who in turn had a bunch of other enemy forces against him, some of which we agreed with, some we didn't and some we don't know.

Others, like me, as you put it, agree that IS should be dealt with. The difference is that you have a blithe or naive belief that it is possible to achieve that and avoid what has happened with every Middle East adventure in the last 20 years, and possibly going back to 1954 when the CIA engineered a coup in Iran, and kicked off the modern domino effect, and that is to cause a bunch of other effects that were worse than the problem you were trying to fix in the first place. We others don't think it will run as smooth as that. Now that it has started, we hope it works, but we fear it won't.

On Europe, I will vote yes to stay in Europe and think it would be unthinkable and crazy to come out. But the UK has a detached relationship with Europe, the most obvious example of which is the Euro. Funny enough, Europe paints a good example of the political class in the UK. Cameron has promised all sorts (of unnecessary gesture politics) but everyone knows he would not possibly suggest coming out. The UK engagement in this is not to placate EU partners.
 
Last edited:
Ethan said:
"Answer them you must". Who do you think you are - Winston Churchill?

Comparisons with Nazi Germany are fodder for the popular media but are pretty uninformative. Whether IS is a fascist movement or theist autocracy doesn't really matter. Fascists tend not to be ideologically religious. The Nazis said they wouldn't invade Poland but they did. What exactly did IS say they wouldn't do but did? Nazi Germany was a discrete entity. IS isn't.

Setting conditions for intervention don't depend only on what triggers there are. They also depend on what the objectives and plans are. With Nazi Germany, and a uniformed army to fight, that was a bit more defined. We didn't have a situation where the enemy was located across two countries, one of whose leaders we were also in dispute with, and who in turn had a bunch of other enemy forces against him, some of which we agreed with, some we didn't and some we don't know.

Others, like me, as you put it, agree that IS should be dealt with. The difference is that you have a blithe or naive belief that it is possible to achieve that and avoid what has happened with every Middle East adventure in the last 20 years, and possibly going back to 1954 when the CIA engineered a coup in Iran, and kicked off the modern domino effect, and that is to cause a bunch of other effects that were worse than the problem you were trying to fix in the first place. We others don't think it will run as smooth as that. Now that it has started, we hope it works, but we fear it won't.
Click to expand...
If you don't want to answer the question, don't answer it. And no, I don't think I am Winston Churchill, thanks for your rude comment. Usually when people start being pig ignorant, it tends to mean they have lost the argument.
The simple point is, do nothing. Watch them rise. Watch more people suffer and die and live with your conscience. Quite obviously, the sooner we stop them, the less people will suffer, collateral damage from bombing or not.
As they say, evil only prospers when good men do nothing. I actually think you are probably a good man. Ignorant and rude, but a good man nevertheless. And you are for doing nothing. Are you getting the picture?
 
Ethan said:
On Europe, I will vote yes to stay in Europe and think it would be unthinkable and crazy to come out. But the UK has a detached relationship with Europe, the most obvious example of which is the Euro. Funny enough, Europe paints a good example of the political class in the UK. Cameron has promised all sorts (of unnecessary gesture politics) but everyone knows he would not possibly suggest coming out. The UK engagement in this is not to placate EU partners.
Click to expand...

Nice to see you want to be part of Europe. I wonder how many European nations are involved militarily in Syria? So you want to be part of Europe but...
 
Sweep said:
If you don't want to answer the question, don't answer it. And no, I don't think I am Winston Churchill, thanks for your rude comment. Usually when people start being pig ignorant, it tends to mean they have lost the argument.
The simple point is, do nothing. Watch them rise. Watch more people suffer and die and live with your conscience. Quite obviously, the sooner we stop them, the less people will suffer, collateral damage from bombing or not.
As they say, evil only prospers when good men do nothing. I actually think you are probably a good man. Ignorant and rude, but a good man nevertheless. And you are for doing nothing. Are you getting the picture?
Click to expand...

What an arrogant and offensive post.

How dare you accuse me of wanting more people to suffer by not joining the sofa brigade calling for bombing of a distant land and people, blithely disregarding the civilian casualties and misplaced bombs, and the knock on effect on recruitment. You may get the chance to regret those words. I hope not, but I fear you will.
 
Ethan said:
What an arrogant and offensive post.

How dare you accuse me of wanting more people to suffer by not joining the sofa brigade calling for bombing of a distant land and people, blithely disregarding the civilian casualties and misplaced bombs, and the knock on effect on recruitment. You may get the chance to regret those words. I hope not, but I fear you will.
Click to expand...
Where on earth did I say that? And please don't lecture me on offensive posts.
i was simply pointing out that the consequence of doing nothing will see Daesh rise. Everywhere they go, they murder, rape, ethnically cleanse, destroy, torture on a daily basis. I didn't accuse you of anything other than being unnecessarily rude. And I won't regret our air strikes, because at least we are trying to do something to confront this evil. Nobody is blithely disregarding anything.
 
Sweep said:
Where on earth did I say that? And please don't lecture me on offensive posts.
i was simply pointing out that the consequence of doing nothing will see Daesh rise. Everywhere they go, they murder, rape, ethnically cleanse, destroy, torture on a daily basis. I didn't accuse you of anything other than being unnecessarily rude. And I won't regret our air strikes, because at least we are trying to do something to confront this evil. Nobody is blithely disregarding anything.
Click to expand...

I will be blithely disregarding you from now on.
 
Ethan said:
The CIA have stated publicly that there weren't links and the Senate Intelligence committee agreed. The CIA said this to Cheney, so he bypassed them. That is not speculation either.

So you are a big fan of facts and evidence. Good.

What is the evidence that this bombing campaign can work, and that it will save lives?
Click to expand...

You said the CIA knew that there were no WMD ? Is that a proven fact ?

In Iraq the strategic bombing on IS targets has allowed Iraq army to retake control cities that ISIS controlled

Remember no one - not one single person has said that bombing alone will work - not one single person
 
Ethan said:
And what if costs more innocent lives than it saves?
Click to expand...

You can come up with every single situation possible - and there will always be risks

Your answer to the current situation is to talk to people - is talking to other Middle East states going to stop ISIS killing innocent people - it's a question asked a number of times but not answered by yourself.

Will innocent lives be put at risk by air strikes - yes there always is that risk.
 
Ethan said:
What an arrogant and offensive post.

How dare you accuse me of wanting more people to suffer by not joining the sofa brigade calling for bombing of a distant land and people, blithely disregarding the civilian casualties and misplaced bombs, and the knock on effect on recruitment. You may get the chance to regret those words. I hope not, but I fear you will.
Click to expand...

How much collateral damage has been caused by the RAF strategic bombing of IS targets in Iraq ? Or even any misplaced bombs ?

You seem to believe that this bombing will be carried out with no thought to innocent lives and just a carpet bomb across areas - you couldn't be further from the truth
 
Ethan said:
I will be blithely disregarding you from now on.
Click to expand...
Aww, and after I said I thought you were a good man.
Is it because you have lost the argument on here, or in the Commons or both?
No need to answer. I know you don't like answering questions.... And of course you are blithely disregarding me.
 
Ethan said:
I will be blithely disregarding you from now on.
Click to expand...

Taking a wee step back. You probably posted up the most erudite and thoughful opinion in the run up to the vote, it wouldn't have been out of place in the floor of the House, and I genuinely appreciated and respected it for the passion and intelligence it contained. Much of it I genuinely couldn't disagree with. It is those of similar opinion that are most desparately needed if only to act as a brake to those who would, probably, resort to the fire and forget weaponary available.

But why oh why do you treat so many people with the opposite view so disdainfully? When the debate becomes a personal argument, with insults like "ignorant" etc, it stops been one of persuasion and just becomes two cats spitting across the fence at each other.

Why not try a reasoned discussion rather than resorting to being so insulting? Your intelligence is so obvious, yet so much diluted by the langauge you resort to. We need your reasoned argument, and that of like minded people, but you do the argument a disservice by taking it into the gutter.
 
Liverpoolphil said:
How much collateral damage has been caused by the RAF strategic bombing of IS targets in Iraq ? Or even any misplaced bombs ?

You seem to believe that this bombing will be carried out with no thought to innocent lives and just a carpet bomb across areas - you couldn't be further from the truth
Click to expand...

So how many lives have been saved so far? Verifiable facts, as you demand, please.
 
Where are IS getting their funds from?
Oil sales? I've heard/read as much.
Who's buying it? Why are they being allowed to?
How are they paying for it? Does IS have a huge cave stuffed with millions of dollars(or whatever currency)?
I doubt it, so they must have bank accounts.
Can these be frozen? If not, why not? If they can, why haven't they been..?

Cut the funds - it has to be the starting point doesn't it?
The International Community needs to , collectively, starve IS of funds.
Now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top