“UK lawmakers have voted 397-223 to join the international military campaign against the Islamic State.”
The old tricks are the best tricks, and it seems sadly the only tricks world governments know.
I’m sure there’s no way this can go wrong. Good job, everyone.
Corbyn will be gone by Christmas. The party members might support him, but most of his MPs are in the wrong party. I can’t see how his position is tenable.
Tony Benn must be rolling in his grave.
I didn’t get to vote.
Given that I missed the July 7th tube bombings by one minute, I’m a little bit annoyed I wasn’t asked about this.
But given the inevitable, let’s consider some metrics to mark progress by: Syrian orphans given healthy lives. Syrian civilians given rebuilt homes. Functioning economy. Dictator with the funny face removed. Just - let’s keep an eye for those positives.
Like with Iraq. Or Afghanistan. The outcome of bombings and attacks is always so flower-ful.
It’s not so much that it’s tenable as no-one else with any charisma really wants it.
Seems like Hillary Benn was auditioning for it tonight.
Then he can parachute his useless niece into a safe seat at the third time of asking.
How about we get Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Kuwait to bomb Syria?
So the FT argues this vote is a relief to Cameron as he failed to get agreement in his wish to bomb the other side before.
So Cameron just wants to bomb somebody. One side or the other. Don’t matter much. Just bomb. Makes you look strong.
Why has the entire western world handed over foreign policy to Internet Tough Guy?
I literally do not know anybody who thinks this is a good idea. Friends, family, acquaintances, the guy at the corner shop. All from different backgrounds, heritage, rich, poor, liberal, conservative. I do not know a single person in my life who agrees with this course of action.
Ahhh but the government have more intelligence to hand than us mere plebs, afterall they knew about weapons of mass… oh. Oh, right.
That’s one of the completely incoherent things about UK and US foreign policy on this one. They still can’t back down from the previous assertion that they want to oust the Syrian government, so we’re bombing one set of islamic fundamentalists, while arming a different set- the “moderate” rebels who merely eat the hearts of their enemies rather than all the “extremist” stuff that IS do.
It’s all a huge mess. As far as I can see, the only way back towards supporting some sort of sane policy in the region would involve:
Giving up on the whole regime change thing. Trying to overthrow the actual recognised government of Syria, when they’re one of the few forces actually fighting IS , and backed by a nuclear power is plain stupidity.
Helping the millions of refugees that are in the middle east. The current European and US response is at best “help people who almost kill themselves to get to our doorsteps”. Help the UNHCR take care of the people who have fled to Jordan, to Lebanon and to Turkey, rather than waiting and seeing how many are willing to trust themselves to the winter seas of the Mediterranean before helping them.
Provide aid to the Kurdish people, who have been the region’s forgotten cause for the past century-
Get serious about cracking down on the flow of guns and money to the region- we need to take a proper look at the arms trade, the funding of violence through the financial system, and our “friends” who help out the likes of IS and al-Nusra.
But all that stuff is difficult- I’m sure a few more bombs dropped into the fray looks easier.
I’m curious, how much have people here heard about what this strategy is even supposed to be?
The plan attacking Iraq was a mix of ideological blindness and criminal optimism, but it was pretty clear what the Bush administration were at least planning as the outcome. I don’t think it would be right not to call it short-sighted. But the recurrent message here seems to just be that ISIS are a threat, so we need to keep bombing, without any mention of aims.
Is this about trying to replace ISIS with something else, to contain them and deny them resources, protect others from them, or what? You’d think after the disasters of the last decade, even hawks might appreciate that defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win. Instead it’s even more just “they’re baddies so fighting”.
That means at a very minimum getting rid of Erdoğan. Which is feasible, seeing as Putin is pretty pissed off at him right now, but there’s nothing to indicate a successor would be any more Kurd-friendly, and afaik Russia doesn’t give a shit about them either.
My country went to war in the region by a 5 to 4 decision once.
From the moment this motion was mentioned I have been firmly against bombing Syria but one of the things which swung the vote was the speech by Labour’s Hilary Benn and it is well worth spending 14 minutes of your day to listen to his impassioned and impressive speech in favour…
Two hours. That’s how long it took before RAF jets were in the air.
Oh, and my MP “Couldn’t attend” the vote. Nice work there
Do you think that will result in more or less civilian casualties?
- Keep ISIS from winning.
- Find someone else capable of winning. Help them.
Not ideal, but the alternatives are doing nothing or sending ground troops.
But if we don’t use our bombs, then how will we justify buying more bombs?
Has that ever been the point of a bombing campaign?