[Archived] The General Election 2015

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

I always think if you are asking people to risk their lives on your behalf you should be prepared to risk yours also. How many of these MP's voting for bombing have kids in the RAF or even the armed forces.

I agree that Western values are worth fighting for and if it came to it I'd fight. I'm not a pacifist by any means. I just don't think bombing on it's own is the way go about defending our values.

Take your point but don't you think those who oppose the bombing are asking the forces in the area currently fighting IS to risk their lives more (by attempting to take or defend positions without air support)? And also asking civilians in any country that are on IS' radar to risk their lives more as well by allowing IS an unchallenged base from which to organise terrorist attacks? IS aren't gonna bomb Blackburn so I'd say your position puts lives at risk that aren't your own as much as mine does. I'd say the only difference is with my position more of those lives are British ones. But when France have asked us for help it seems very lacking in empathy to effectively say no thanks we'd rather their focus stay on you, the Kurds, the FSA etc.

There's also the point that we're currently bombing IS in Iraq so what's the difference to also doing it in Syria? I can't see any whatsoever personally. Surely the argument must be don't bomb them in either country or bomb them in both? Not bombing them in either country and just supplying arms etc to non-IS forces is what we were doing to begin with during IS' long series of victories and expansion, so in my opinion there's no way we can go back to doing that. IS have enormous funding and would take both countries within a year. And if we're not gonna bomb them then why should we expect the Americans or anyone else to do it for us?

I'm not a warmonger, the Iraq war made me realise that its just not in our best interests for us to go round fixing the world's problems if we can ignore them instead. But we can't ignore IS, and I've yet to hear anyone come up with a viable alternative to dealing with IS that doesn't involve fighting them.

[yoda]

Take your point but don't you think those who oppose the bombing are asking the forces in the area currently fighting IS to risk their lives more (by attempting to take or defend positions without air support)? And also asking civilians in any country that are on IS' radar to risk their lives more as well by allowing IS an unchallenged base from which to organise terrorist attacks? IS aren't gonna bomb Blackburn so I'd say your position puts lives at risk that aren't your own as much as mine does. I'd say the only difference is with my position more of those lives are British ones. But when France have asked us for help it seems very lacking in empathy to effectively say no thanks we'd rather their focus stay on you, the Kurds, the FSA etc.

There's also the point that we're currently bombing IS in Iraq so what's the difference to also doing it in Syria? I can't see any whatsoever personally. Surely the argument must be don't bomb them in either country or bomb them in both? Not bombing them in either country and just supplying arms etc to non-IS forces is what we were doing to begin with during IS' long series of victories and expansion, so in my opinion there's no way we can go back to doing that. IS have enormous funding and would take both countries within a year. And if we're not gonna bomb them then why should we expect the Americans or anyone else to do it for us?

I'm not a warmonger, the Iraq war made me realise that its just not in our best interests for us to go round fixing the world's problems if we can ignore them instead. But we can't ignore IS, and I've yet to hear anyone come up with a viable alternative to dealing with IS that doesn't involve fighting them.

How sure are you about that, a person from Blackburn has been charged with IS related acts.

Someone suggested the other day (not on the MB) that the way to deal with IS is to cut off their funding and impose sanctions, OK I said, how would you go about that, still waiting for an answer.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

I think we need more than empathy with what were referred to as " Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys " not long ago, to go to war. Let's get things straight, that's effectively what this vote will be all about. The next thing you know the demand will be for ground troops being sent in. Our military are already making murmurings along these lines. Before we go down that road I'd like to try other tactics. Cut off the supply of funds to them, tell Saudi Arabia their fortune in this respect, jail the people who are selling/buying the oil that ISIL are benefiting from.

What is the rest of Europe doing ? What is the USA doing ? Not a lot and I don't think this is going to change any time soon.

[speeeeeeedie]

How sure are you about that, a person from Blackburn has been charged with IS related acts.

Someone suggested the other day (not on the MB) that the way to deal with IS is to cut off their funding and impose sanctions, OK I said, how would you go about that, still waiting for an answer.

Blow up all their oil trucks. If they can't sell bootleg oil they won't have any money.

Blackburn won't get bombed either. It's not a "high value" target.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

I think we need more than empathy with what were referred to as " Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys " not long ago, to go to war. Let's get things straight, that's effectively what this vote will be all about. The next thing you know the demand will be for ground troops being sent in. Our military are already making murmurings along these lines. Before we go down that road I'd like to try other tactics. Cut off the supply of funds to them, tell Saudi Arabia their fortune in this respect, jail the people who are selling/buying the oil that ISIL are benefiting from.

What is the rest of Europe doing ? What is the USA doing ? Not a lot and I don't think this is going to change any time soon.

Ok more than empathy, how about our incredibly close alliance (e.g. Nato)? Did you approve of the decision of the US not to enter WW2 until Pearl Harbour? Do you think they should have stayed out of WW1 altogether and let millions more die in an endless stalemate? Should we have stayed out of WW2 and said to Hitler you have Europe and leave us alone and we'll leave you alone? If the good guys never team up, as you seem to be suggesting regarding France, then sometimes the bad guys will win.

Lets get things straight indeed, we're already at war. We're already in military combat with IS in Iraq, all this vote is doing is saying lets attack them on another front as well. We won't send ground troops in unless everyone else (or at least the Nato countries) do, which makes it more unlikely as the public in 5-10 different countries need to be convinced instead of just in 1.

I would have thought that if we could use the tactics you suggested, we would do. The bombing campaign, dubiously effective though it is, must be costing every country involved an absolute fortune. If it was a matter of saying "pack it in" to Saudi Arabia or anyone else that may be secretly funding IS and them actually listening to us, I'd imagine that's the first thing we'd have tried to do. As it is I suspect taking that tone with them would result in them saying prove it, getting immediately hugely offended and creating a serious diplomatic incident, they are officially flying their own bombing missions against IS after all. They also have the 3rd highest military budget of any country in the world, they're really not an enemy we directly want to make (even if by proxy they currently might be).

[Gav]

Glad Corbyn has decided to allow a free vote and not whip the party into voting no.

Yes he was voted in on a peace ticket but it's the right call in my eyes.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Glad Corbyn has decided to allow a free vote and not whip the party into voting no.

Yes he was voted in on a peace ticket but it's the right call in my eyes.

He was damned if he did - Not showing real leadership blah, blah, blah.

And damned if he didn't! - Anti democratic, dictatorial blah, blah, blah.

A no win situation. Are the Tories having a free vote ? Or the SNP ?

It's probably a wise decision on the whole. If the motion to extend the air campaign is carried at least his hands are clean. Let's see how many Labour MP's have already forgotten the lessons of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc.

Cameron should have been able to carry the day on his own bat, he's got a majority after all.

[yoda]

Looks like Putin has upped the ante on IS oil

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34970121

you can't trust any off these Johny foreigners

[Rover-the-Top]

He was damned if he did - Not showing real leadership blah, blah, blah.

And damned if he didn't! - Anti democratic, dictatorial blah, blah, blah.

He had the third option: listen to his shadow cabinet, particularly those he's appointed to positions to deal with situations like this, and use the whip to support the consensus. That would show he is capable of making uncomfortable decisions, can concede to opinions other than his own, and could possibly be strong enough to lead after all. Of course, he made it clear on Friday night that he wouldn't do that, leaving himself with two choices he'd be wrong over whichever he went for. It's not a surprise because he has a reputation for being contrary, he's just living up to the expectations of those who think he'd be a nightmare as PM and will decimate the Labour party's wider support amongst the electorate. It's great to know that if any of us were unfortunate enough to be held at gunpoint during a terror attack, he wouldn't be "happy" with taking out the gunmen to save us...

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

He had the third option: listen to his shadow cabinet, particularly those he's appointed to positions to deal with situations like this, and use the whip to support the consensus. That would show he is capable of making uncomfortable decisions, can concede to opinions other than his own, and could possibly be strong enough to lead after all. Of course, he made it clear on Friday night that he wouldn't do that, leaving himself with two choices he'd be wrong over whichever he went for. It's not a surprise because he has a reputation for being contrary, he's just living up to the expectations of those who think he'd be a nightmare as PM and will decimate the Labour party's wider support amongst the electorate. It's great to know that if any of us were unfortunate enough to be held at gunpoint during a terror attack, he wouldn't be "happy" with taking out the gunmen to save us...

What makes you think that a majority of the Shadow Cabinet are in favour of strikes ?

[Gav]

He had the third option: listen to his shadow cabinet, particularly those he's appointed to positions to deal with situations like this, and use the whip to support the consensus. That would show he is capable of making uncomfortable decisions, can concede to opinions other than his own, and could possibly be strong enough to lead after all. Of course, he made it clear on Friday night that he wouldn't do that, leaving himself with two choices he'd be wrong over whichever he went for. It's not a surprise because he has a reputation for being contrary, he's just living up to the expectations of those who think he'd be a nightmare as PM and will decimate the Labour party's wider support amongst the electorate. It's great to know that if any of us were unfortunate enough to be held at gunpoint during a terror attack, he wouldn't be "happy" with taking out the gunmen to save us...

He's given them a free vote, that seems the most sensible decision he could have made under the circumstances. He himself would stay out of the bombings, he's made no secret of that, but he's the leader and is leading.

Using the whip is just petty point scoring for me, and given the seriousness of the situation I feel MP's and the shadow cabinet should be given the right to vote with their true feelings and more importantly the feelings of their constituents.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Just heard Peter Hitchen on a radio show from earlier today. He's a maverick right wing columnist who writes for the " Mail On Sunday ", not someone who I would agree with about much in the normal run of things. He basically demolished Cameron's arguments regarding the bombing. His thesis was the only people capable of really taking on the ISIL on the ground were the alliance of Assad, the Syrian army, the Syrian Kurds, Hessbolah and the Russians. And we should get behind them. Expecting any other forces to do much at all was just posturing.

David Davies ( Tory MP, ex SAS territorials ) was equally opposed to escalating the conflict this morning on Radio 4.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

So by getting behind them then, to quote a Blackadder joke, you mean get about 3,000 miles behind them?

[JAL]

Both Alex Salmond and John Swinney the finance secretary said that saving Ferguson shipyard was an absolute priority, they came out fighting.

So if we take things back to basics and just go off those comments alone.

Have you heard Cameron and Sajid Javid coming out with the same Rhetoric?

In fact Cameron said in PMQ's yesterday it wasn't the governments position to get involved, but we're ok because Javids getting together a 'working group' or was a few weeks ago, since then Caparo has announced 1200 job losses, he's just incompetent.

You can't build a Northern Powerhouse without a steel industry.

All this so called Northern powerhouse could mean is the the South or outsiders having all of the City of London with it your future pensions and shares to itself.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

So by getting behind them then, to quote a Blackadder joke, you mean get about 3,000 miles behind them?

Peter Hitchen's words not mine. Makes as much sense as anything in this morass though. I never understood why we were so keen to oust Assad in the first place. Maybe he was too friendly with the Russians.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Cameron's remarks about Labour MP's who are against the bombing being ' terrorist sympathisers ' are disgraceful. There plenty of people from all strands of the political world who haven't been convinced by the arguments. It shows him in his true colours, the smarmy tosser.

[Rover-the-Top]

What makes you think that a majority of the Shadow Cabinet are in favour of strikes ?

The same thing that lets me know Corbyn opposes them.

[RibbleValleyRover]

Cameron's remarks about Labour MP's who are against the bombing being ' terrorist sympathisers ' are disgraceful. There plenty of people from all strands of the political world who haven't been convinced by the arguments. It shows him in his true colours, the smarmy tosser.

It was a mistake by Cameron to label in a group that people against air strikes are terrorist sympathisers, but I have no doubt in my mind that there are terrorist sympathisers among them and one of them is the leader of the Labour party. You only have to look at his track record with the IRA, Hamas and Hezbollah.

I see the Corbynista led momentum group have been intimidating MP's that don't share the same viewpoint as their leader. Liz Kendall in particular getting a lot of abuse on social media and a group gathered outside Stella Creasey's house this morning facing intimdation and threats of de-selection. Corbyn's response? People should be treated with respect, not stop doing this immediately. The new politics how nice.

I'm in favor of air strikes, I believe that ISIL and their ilk should be wiped off the face of the earth. With a UN mandate and a broad coalition of support I feel that we should be a part of this movement to end ISIL, the UK is already at the high est level of risk and I don't see how air strikes are going to make us less safe. But I do accept that air strikes alone won't eradicate them, air strikes are more of a contain and wear down strategy and to fully defeat them there needs to be boots on the ground. Unless we see another 9/11 level of event it won't be western troops involved so if we want to destroy them we do need to get some of the regional powers in the area to provide the ground forces.

[K-Hod]

We need to get rid of ISIS, but even if we use airstrikes and boots on the ground, what's stopping a new group from emerging from the ashes elsewhere? This is only a short-term solution imo.

Fundamentally it's the ideology that needs to be destroyed long term.

[den]

If not wanting to drop bombs in Syria makes you a terrorist sympathiser RVR, then more than half the population are in that bracket. There are people in the world (not just the Labour Party,) who simply don't go along with war. Does that mean they support terrorism - no, not at all.

It's a really, really poor attack by Cameron.

[K-Hod]

BTW- on this subject, not sure if anyone saw the Channel 4 documentary 'My Son The Jihadi', about a white lad who ended up joining a terror cell in Somalia. A bit of an eye-opener.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

More than half the population den? Not sure about that. Maybe the noisy third, just as its been the noisy third marching about austerity.

I agree with you and RVR. Its a poor attack by Cameron but I agree with RVR in that I've no doubt there are terrorist sympathisers (even terrorists full stop), amongst the anti-war contigent. You only have to look at Unite Against Facism over the last decade to be convinced of that. One of Lee Rigby's murderers spoke at a UAF rally, and whenever they organise counter-demonstrations against the EDL etc, they behave in a far more violent and lawless manner of the 2 groups. And then there's the StoptheWar tweet, "Paris reaps worldwind for western support of extremist violence in the middle east". I mean my god, that could have come off Jihadi John's twitter account.

Obviously its a tiny minority of the anti-war campaigners in general but its potentially dangerous to ignore. I'm pretty sure if there was a evidence of a neo-Nazi hardcore in UKIP then the political left would be eager to highlight it.

[den]

More than half the population den? Not sure about that. Maybe the noisy third, just as its been the noisy third marching about austerity.

I agree with you and RVR. Its a poor attack by Cameron but I agree with RVR in that I've no doubt there are terrorist sympathisers (even terrorists full stop), amongst the anti-war contigent. You only have to look at Unite Against Facism over the last decade to be convinced of that. One of Lee Rigby's murderers spoke at a UAF rally, and whenever they organise counter-demonstrations against the EDL etc, they behave in a far more violent and lawless manner of the 2 groups. And then there's the StoptheWar tweet, "Paris reaps worldwind for western support of extremist violence in the middle east". I mean my god, that could have come off Jihadi John's twitter account.

Obviously its a tiny minority of the anti-war campaigners in general but its potentially dangerous to ignore. I'm pretty sure if there was a evidence of a neo-Nazi hardcore in UKIP then the political left would be eager to highlight it.

Polls (yes, I know, polls) this morning say less than half of the population support air strikes. Of course there are people who support terrorism - terrorists or potential terrorists. I don't think anyone else does. I'm fairly certain I could walk around Leyland and find many people undecided about air strikes, but doubt I'd find one person who sympathises with ISIL.

BTW, Cameron coming under intense pressure from all parties including his own, to apologise for his comments during the commons debate but refusing.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Polls (yes, I know, polls) this morning say less than half of the population support air strikes. Of course there are people who support terrorism - terrorists or potential terrorists. I don't think anyone else does.

The one I just looked at said 54% support it in England. Its far less than that in Scotland but that doesn't surprise me. As with immigration, Scotland rarely if ever has to deal with the consequences of these big, external decisions so can afford an entirely non-pragmatic approach.

Something related that's really getting on my nerves at the moment, "Don't bomb Syria". What a sack of manipulative, biased bull that phrase is. When Britain and America began the push into Europe, were we bombing France? In the Bosnian war was NATO bombing Bosnia? When Gaddafi was ousted were we bombing Libya?

Nobody's bombing bloody Syria, they're bombing IS. Yes its literally impossible to avoid civilian casualties in any conflict but all the targets are specifically IS ones. How else do you get an invading army out of a country? Are the Kurds invading Syria? I assume we all invaded South Korea a while back by this ridiculous way of describing things.

[Rover-the-Top]

Polls (yes, I know, polls) this morning say less than half of the population support air strikes. Of course there are people who support terrorism - terrorists or potential terrorists. I don't think anyone else does.

Are you referring to the yougov poll? 48% in favour, but only 31% against. It would be dishonest to count the "don't knows" as being opposed to either view