there always is, however there is no doubting IS is a nasty group of people. As said before, there is no negotiating with them so little choice but to act.

Also as said airstrikes alone will not stop them.

 

the elephant in the room with all this stuff is exactly who finances them,

who gives them logistical support - where do the ammo/arms/ come from

the seem to have a sponsorship deal with Toyota for starters

I can't imagine a load of desert goat herders in Africa causing this much fvcking agro, unless they has access to 10/100's of millions of dollars

 

$2 million a day from oil sales. Makes the ransoms and jizya and the other nonsense seem like petty cash.

 

I agree, there is no doubt from anyone in the UK that IS needs to be wiped out.

For me, the problem is, how do you do that without killing loads and loads of innocent people, families and kids :-(

For me, it seems as though the government are overly keen to proceed with air strikes, without giving any details of an overall plan, and how to stamp IS out.

From life experience, when info is with held, its because there is something that you are not supposed to know. But that could just me be overly suspicious.

But, it also seems as though there is no game plan other than air strikes, which is why i wouldnt be confident in voting for air strikes.

I also feel like i just dont know enough about everything thats gone on, and has gone on, and how we got to this point to just jump on the band wagon for strikes, or not.

I was lisenting to the radio on the way to work, and it was clear that most people (including me) dont understand all the in's and out's, as well as know of lessons of the past before thinking we should or shouldnt go ahead with air strikes.

Does anyone know when/what time the result of the vote will be released?

 

i expect that's because of the very nature of IS it will be targets of opportunity rather than a set rolling plan.

Press always set their own agenda so you wont get the full picture in the media anyway so you wont know whats going on

 

Cameron talks about air strikes in the context of "a broader strategy"

does anyone know what that broader strategy is, in really simple Janet and John language

 

local troops on the ground basicly

 

I would vote NO.


The vote is just about bombing without troops and will just act as a recruiting drive for extremists.


I do wonder whether, as EC members, we have a legal obligation to do more to help France who have asked a fellow member for help.


I also reflect on the fact than no one in the Commons knows the outcome so might as well toss a coin with kids lives at stake.


What a f,ucking mess.


dl

 

If Hollande hadnt gone in to this guns blazing in the first instance ( to bolster his ratings ) i do wonder where we'd be now , as it is hes going to chase his tail for ever

along with us now !

 

Not sure what the answer is. Obviously bombing them draws more to their cause. Not bombing them (or tackling them militarily on the ground) leaves an extremely brutal regime in place over hundreds of thousands of people. Just because they are not in the UK, should we really leave those people to that sort of existence?


Ultimately, IS need to be got rid of. How that is done is not easy, diplomatically, economically or militarily.


Whatever happens, you can be sure it will be a mess!

 

If there were the case, I don't see any military invertention being proposed to tackle Boko Haram. Bombing ISIS is amounts to little more than a symbolic gesture.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6737761.html

 

I can see a problem with that

it took approx 300 Isis fighter to overrun a town that had thousands of Iraqi army defenders


"Military deserters have painted a devastating picture of the inability of the Iraqi army to stand and fight, telling The Telegraph how entire divisions surrendered Mosul, Iraq's second city, without firing a single shot."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...IS-forces.html


we have been training the Iraqi army for the past 13 years - maybe they should ask for their money back

it would be tempting to think Cameron knows something we don't - but I suspect he has no fvcking clue

 

there is claimed 70k troops ready to move, not sure which bag of pixie dust they are comign form though

 

forwards or backwards?

 

sounds like in all different directions lol

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't we backing the "Rebels/ Freedom" fighters at one point.

Remember, one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.

Just remind me, How did Asama Binladin get started again.

 

well its a nonsense

the so called 70k will be made up of loads of small units, some with the same strategic aims, some conflicting

some trained some not, some armed to the teeth, some not

delusional claptrap

I can't work out if they actually believe what they spout - you think no one can be that stupid and ill informed

but then you see them repeat the same mistakes over and over again

and you think maybe they are

after all Cameron wrote to his local conservative council asking why they were making all these cuts to local services

the council leader simply wrote back explaining they were a direct result of governments cuts

 

“A man does not have himself killed for a half-pence a day or for a petty distinction. You must speak to the soul in order to electrify him.”

– Napoleon Bonaparte

 

Oh I agree that the west has huge double standards and they only take on who it suits, but the discussion is about IS.


It is quite shocking that the world seems to be motivated to 'tackle IS' because 129 Parisians were killed, but don't give a hoot about several thousand blacks being butchered in Africa.

 

If youre desperate youll fight for whoever is providing the food , happened all down the centuries

 

If Boko Haram, were a threat to us and/or the Nigerian government requested our help, then I expect we'd be having a simialr debate.

You are right this intervention is a symbolic gesture, I would suggest it's an important one

 

yes, I watched this last night - very good, a powerful film

thanks for posting

available on BBC iplayer

 

Not sure I follow your meaning

 

I think this basically boils down to a decision on supporting our allies, which in itself is a pretty good reason

 

so the "a broader strategy" is simply backing our Allies?

surely at some point we have to start looking at the actual issues and reasons why the middle east is a basket case

 

Nope - that's one of the compelling immediate cases for intervention

I believe the plan is (for what it's worth) to disrupt ISIS beyond the border with Iraq, cut off their money, and work with the regional powers to create a longer term plan for Syria.

 

The Middle East is a basket case because of decades appalling goverance across the region, which as brutalised some and denied opportunity to most.

The reasons for this are of course complex, and we're not exactly innocents

 

I'd vote yes

 

Centuries.

 

Do the power house of Europe the Germans get involved in supporting their allies?