The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[nirvana]

Funny stuff I thought

[rfgqqabc]

I'm not in the situation to listen to the speeches. Can anyone give me a very simple list if pros for bombing. So many of our allies are already, I'm not sure we add anything. I don't understand why Boko Haram is being ignored by everyone. It's going to be hard to defeat a multinational organisation by bombing one country. Is it just that the public feels like something should be done now? I thought the public had quite an anti war rhetoric, have the recent attacks changed that?

Boko Haram haven't been ignored, we have already intervened, boots on the ground no less: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11306242/British-troops-to-help-fight-against-Boko-Haram-as-SAS-target-Isil.html.  Pretty sure they are still there.  As are the yanks http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-34533820 . 

After a shambolic few years, the Nigerian army and the multinational force seem to be improving http://www.cbsnews.com/news/multinational-force-frees-900-hostages-held-by-boko-haram/

But the reality is that the Civil War in Syria is more damaging in size (quarter million deaths already), produces more refugees near our shores and has the most potential to drag the whole region in.  ISIL are also a bigger threat to us than Boko Haram.  I guess it is easier to bomb Syria as it isn't far from Cyprus.  No idea who's air bases we will have to use uf we started bombing Nigeria. 

Whatever you read on twitter, Nigeria produces much more oil, albeit in the part of Nigeria away from where Boko Haram are active.

FWIW We were already bombing one country, Syria was the second one. 

Thanks for the links Doobs. The cbs link had a link that said Boko Haram were more dangerous.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/boko-haram-isis-worlds-deadliest-terrorist-group-study/

I think it might be a more effective way of fighting anyway. My friend wrote this post on facebook and I think he managed to express my opinion better than I could.


Basically, I strongly disagree with the Government's decision to commence bombing in Syria. It has been proven that airstrikes alone never win wars The ground forces in Syria are fragmented, and certainly not 'moderate'. They lack the strength to destroy the Daesh and without NATO troops, their are no willing suitable replacments available to step in.
Furthermore, as has been well documented, our recent middle-eastern interventions have all been disastrous, failing to stabilize the region, and creating a self-perpetuating cycle of the rise of Islamist terror groups, each arguably worse than the last.
Every Pro-bombing speech I have heard has been very heavy on sentiment and feeling, but lacking a strategic vision. Common phrases and themes I've heard include 'we must act' or 'we must stand with our allies' or 'what if the attack was in London'. Whilst I totally agree with this sentiment, it doesn't take a 5-star general to know that sentiment doesn't win wars.... Strategy does. And there doesn't seem to be a lot of thought that has gone into this. The last time we blinding followed our allies into a foreign intervention didn't have very good results. Also, airstrikes are too extreme to be a 'default' action. Frankly, it strikes of a lack of imagination, if nothing else.
I agree that IS have to be combated in some way, but there are many avenues that could lead to more positive results, with less damage caused, that haven't been explored. For example, winning the propaganda war to stop fighters travelling to Syria ( we have expertise in media after all). Or even convincing our allies to stop funding radical Islam (Saudi Arabia/Barain). Or to stop buying IS' oil on the black market (Turkey). Also, we are about to enter talks with Assad (also an absolute monster) and the Syrian opposition. Our position in those talks would be significantly enhanced if we weren't enagaged in strikes. Those talks could be paramount in destroying these fanatics.
Thousands of civilians will die in this, for little strategic benefit. This is tragic. But also, we are playing exactly into Daesh's 'Western aggressor' narrative. We will turn civilians in Syria into members of the Islamic state, further perpetuating the cycle stated above.
Finally, even forgetting the human cost, the financial cost to us is astronomical. That money could not only be spent on a better NHS/Schools etc, but could also provide better ways to protect this country and the world from terror attacks. For example, our armed police budget has been cut by 25%, meaning we wouldn't be able to resond in the same way as the French did after the Paris attacks (several UK Police and Crime Comissioners have voiced this concern)
So in conclusion (and also, tl, dr), I don't think that bombing Syria will help, and furthermore, there is a real danger that this will increase the chance of the world fighting Islamic extremism (not just Daesh) for decades. I hope I'm wrong, but that's my feeling.

[neeko]

Thousands of civilians will die in this, for little strategic benefit. This is tragic. But also, we are playing exactly into Daesh's 'Western aggressor' narrative. We will turn civilians in Syria into members of the Islamic state, further perpetuating the cycle stated above.
Finally, even forgetting the human cost, the financial cost to us is astronomical. That money could not only be spent on a better NHS/Schools etc, but could also provide better ways to protect this country and the world from terror attacks.

This quote is used a lot in comments about this and it is unclear as to what is being said, i think it means thousands of civilians will be killed accidentally by RAF bombers in Syria only. This won't happen.

Assad has killed tens of thousands of his civilians, daesh thousands as well, this is tragic. Any loss of life is bad.

daesh do not need bombing as an excuse to kill, Tunisian beach killings were because bikinis were being worn not burkas,

They are also against Shia Muslims as well, not just the CofE, although I doubt they can explain the difference between CofE and Catholicism.(mind I can't and neither could most people in the uk)

The financial marginal cost to the UK for adding bombing to Syria is relatively tiny. uK annual govt spending is about £600bn, the marginal cost of flying 12 jets (already paid for and salaries paid for) will be in the tens of millions. This is less than govt spends on the NHS between breakfast and lunchtime today.

Am I in favour of adding Syria to the counties where we can bomb daesh, meh - it's irrelevant, they hate us either way, and the UK bombing will make no strategic difference. The issue is important but not significant in the greater scheme of things.

[titaniumbean]

Thousands of civilians will die in this, for little strategic benefit. This is tragic. But also, we are playing exactly into Daesh's 'Western aggressor' narrative. We will turn civilians in Syria into members of the Islamic state, further perpetuating the cycle stated above.
Finally, even forgetting the human cost, the financial cost to us is astronomical. That money could not only be spent on a better NHS/Schools etc, but could also provide better ways to protect this country and the world from terror attacks.

This quote is used a lot in comments about this and it is unclear as to what is being said, i think it means thousands of civilians will be killed accidentally by RAF bombers in Syria only. This won't happen. 

Assad has killed tens of thousands of his civilians, daesh thousands as well, this is tragic. Any loss of life is bad.

daesh do not need bombing as an excuse to kill, Tunisian beach killings were because bikinis were being worn not burkas,

They are also against Shia Muslims as well, not just the CofE, although I doubt they can explain the difference between CofE and Catholicism.(mind I can't and neither could most people in the uk)

The financial marginal cost to the UK for adding bombing to Syria is relatively tiny. uK annual govt spending is about £600bn, the marginal cost of flying 12 jets (already paid for and salaries paid for) will be in the tens of millions. This is less than govt spends on the NHS between breakfast and lunchtime today.

Am I in favour of adding Syria to the counties where we can bomb daesh, meh - it's irrelevant, they hate us either way, and the UK bombing will make no strategic difference. The issue is important but not significant in the greater scheme of things.

Some of this post is spot on, some seems not so.


The highlighted bits I just cant agree with.

The first bit seems like 'no you' playground response. Suggesting we definitely wont cause collateral damage when nations are suddenly 'finding new targets' when weeks and thousands of bombs have already been dropped seems really hopeful. We seem to have no concern for any negative consequences whilst merely politically posturing to make ourselves feel like we're one of the big boys.


You realise once we drop bombs, we then have to replenish the stockpile? Therefore we have to outlay shit tonnes of money, our super special doesn't hurt civilians bomb when it explodes having been dropped from a very big height cost alot of money. We then enjoy dropping them and cropping clips of them exploding for war porn and we get excited, and we can feel less worry about collateral damage so we find more targets drop more bombs, need more bombs, outlay more money and the cycle repeats.


I still dont get why anyone thinks WE can suddenly do more with our bombs than the guys who have more practice than us? are our bombs more polite and going to win the hearts and minds with berets?

[nirvana]

What Neeko said, I think, was - thousands of civilians will die whether or not we 'accidentally' kill a few as well with bombs.

[neeko]

I am sure the RAF will kill some civilians in Syria, but if it was shown that the civilian casualties got over a couple of hundred the political pressure would force them to stop, they would never get to '000s. There have been many raids against daesh in Iraq but no one is shouting about civilian casualties by the RAF, so they must be choosing targets relatively well.

Yes bombs are expensive but not that expensive, the marginal cost is relatively small. There are many reasons to be against bombing Syria (well the daesh bit) but money is not a good one.

[MANTIS01]

If the case to not bomb Syria is so compelling, so logical, why are we bombing Syria? It's either because the case isn't very compelling or it's because Corbyn is so ineffectual he couldn't mount a convincing argument.

[kukushkin88]

If the case to not bomb Syria is so compelling, so logical, why are we bombing Syria? It's either because the case isn't very compelling or it's because Corbyn is so ineffectual he couldn't mount a convincing argument.

Even accepting that their majority is tiny and there were bound to be rebels..... The 3 line whip from the government might have been a factor?

This was not Conservative vs Labour, it was just democracy in action. There's no sound reason at all it has to be about Corbyn, he is just one of 223 MP's who voted against.

[AlunB]

Thousands of civilians will die in this, for little strategic benefit. This is tragic. But also, we are playing exactly into Daesh's 'Western aggressor' narrative. We will turn civilians in Syria into members of the Islamic state, further perpetuating the cycle stated above.
Finally, even forgetting the human cost, the financial cost to us is astronomical. That money could not only be spent on a better NHS/Schools etc, but could also provide better ways to protect this country and the world from terror attacks.

This quote is used a lot in comments about this and it is unclear as to what is being said, i think it means thousands of civilians will be killed accidentally by RAF bombers in Syria only. This won't happen.

Assad has killed tens of thousands of his civilians, daesh thousands as well, this is tragic. Any loss of life is bad.

daesh do not need bombing as an excuse to kill, Tunisian beach killings were because bikinis were being worn not burkas,

They are also against Shia Muslims as well, not just the CofE, although I doubt they can explain the difference between CofE and Catholicism.(mind I can't and neither could most people in the uk)

The financial marginal cost to the UK for adding bombing to Syria is relatively tiny. uK annual govt spending is about £600bn, the marginal cost of flying 12 jets (already paid for and salaries paid for) will be in the tens of millions. This is less than govt spends on the NHS between breakfast and lunchtime today.

Am I in favour of adding Syria to the counties where we can bomb daesh, meh - it's irrelevant, they hate us either way, and the UK bombing will make no strategic difference. The issue is important but not significant in the greater scheme of things.

Seriously? Did you not do Henry VIII at school? Or notice that old pope fella on the telly? Or sleep through the whole NI IRA thing?

This was a pretty interesting read regarding Iraq bombings and civilian casualties http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/04/is-uk-claim-zero-civilian-casualties-iraq-airstrikes-credible

[titaniumbean]

What Neeko said, I think, was - thousands of civilians will die whether or not we 'accidentally' kill a few as well with bombs.

that's not an argument nor justification to bomb though....it's an argument for having a rational plan for moving forward, who will we 'ally' with if everyone of the options is absolutely awful

[nirvana]

Thousands of civilians will die in this, for little strategic benefit. This is tragic. But also, we are playing exactly into Daesh's 'Western aggressor' narrative. We will turn civilians in Syria into members of the Islamic state, further perpetuating the cycle stated above.
Finally, even forgetting the human cost, the financial cost to us is astronomical. That money could not only be spent on a better NHS/Schools etc, but could also provide better ways to protect this country and the world from terror attacks.

This quote is used a lot in comments about this and it is unclear as to what is being said, i think it means thousands of civilians will be killed accidentally by RAF bombers in Syria only. This won't happen.

Assad has killed tens of thousands of his civilians, daesh thousands as well, this is tragic. Any loss of life is bad.

daesh do not need bombing as an excuse to kill, Tunisian beach killings were because bikinis were being worn not burkas,

They are also against Shia Muslims as well, not just the CofE, although I doubt they can explain the difference between CofE and Catholicism.(mind I can't and neither could most people in the uk)

The financial marginal cost to the UK for adding bombing to Syria is relatively tiny. uK annual govt spending is about £600bn, the marginal cost of flying 12 jets (already paid for and salaries paid for) will be in the tens of millions. This is less than govt spends on the NHS between breakfast and lunchtime today.

Am I in favour of adding Syria to the counties where we can bomb daesh, meh - it's irrelevant, they hate us either way, and the UK bombing will make no strategic difference. The issue is important but not significant in the greater scheme of things.

Seriously? Did you not do Henry VIII at school? Or notice that old pope fella on the telly? Or sleep through the whole NI IRA thing?

This was a pretty interesting read regarding Iraq bombings and civilian casualties http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/04/is-uk-claim-zero-civilian-casualties-iraq-airstrikes-credible

You'd really hope no-one actually thought there could be no civilian casualties..can't believe politicians try to peddle this (well I can obv, but do wish we could all be treated like adults)

[nirvana]

What Neeko said, I think, was - thousands of civilians will die whether or not we 'accidentally' kill a few as well with bombs.

that's not an argument nor justification to bomb though....it's an argument for having a rational plan for moving forward, who will we 'ally' with if everyone of the options is absolutely awful

I agree of course - I'm not specifically anti bombing but it seems really odd that it is considered more effective to bomb oil fields than to strangle the purchase of the oil

[neeko]

Thousands of civilians will die in this, for little strategic benefit. This is tragic. But also, we are playing exactly into Daesh's 'Western aggressor' narrative. We will turn civilians in Syria into members of the Islamic state, further perpetuating the cycle stated above.
Finally, even forgetting the human cost, the financial cost to us is astronomical. That money could not only be spent on a better NHS/Schools etc, but could also provide better ways to protect this country and the world from terror attacks.

This quote is used a lot in comments about this and it is unclear as to what is being said, i think it means thousands of civilians will be killed accidentally by RAF bombers in Syria only. This won't happen.

Assad has killed tens of thousands of his civilians, daesh thousands as well, this is tragic. Any loss of life is bad.

daesh do not need bombing as an excuse to kill, Tunisian beach killings were because bikinis were being worn not burkas,

They are also against Shia Muslims as well, not just the CofE, although I doubt they can explain the difference between CofE and Catholicism.(mind I can't and neither could most people in the uk)

The financial marginal cost to the UK for adding bombing to Syria is relatively tiny. uK annual govt spending is about £600bn, the marginal cost of flying 12 jets (already paid for and salaries paid for) will be in the tens of millions. This is less than govt spends on the NHS between breakfast and lunchtime today.

Am I in favour of adding Syria to the counties where we can bomb daesh, meh - it's irrelevant, they hate us either way, and the UK bombing will make no strategic difference. The issue is important but not significant in the greater scheme of things.

Seriously? Did you not do Henry VIII at school? Or notice that old pope fella on the telly? Or sleep through the whole NI IRA thing?

This was a pretty interesting read regarding Iraq bombings and civilian casualties http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/04/is-uk-claim-zero-civilian-casualties-iraq-airstrikes-credible

I'd like to think the difference is more than can't get a divorce but I don't care enough to fully understand.

[TightEnd]

Merkel addresses the elephant in the room

German vice-chancellor accuses Saudi Arabia of funding Islamic extremism in the West

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/12035838/German-vice-chancellor-accuses-Saudi-Arabia-of-funding-Islamic-extremism-in-the-West.html?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter

[rfgqqabc]

Thousands of civilians will die in this, for little strategic benefit. This is tragic. But also, we are playing exactly into Daesh's 'Western aggressor' narrative. We will turn civilians in Syria into members of the Islamic state, further perpetuating the cycle stated above.
Finally, even forgetting the human cost, the financial cost to us is astronomical. That money could not only be spent on a better NHS/Schools etc, but could also provide better ways to protect this country and the world from terror attacks.

This quote is used a lot in comments about this and it is unclear as to what is being said, i think it means thousands of civilians will be killed accidentally by RAF bombers in Syria only. This won't happen. 

Assad has killed tens of thousands of his civilians, daesh thousands as well, this is tragic. Any loss of life is bad.

daesh do not need bombing as an excuse to kill, Tunisian beach killings were because bikinis were being worn not burkas,

They are also against Shia Muslims as well, not just the CofE, although I doubt they can explain the difference between CofE and Catholicism.(mind I can't and neither could most people in the uk)

The financial marginal cost to the UK for adding bombing to Syria is relatively tiny. uK annual govt spending is about £600bn, the marginal cost of flying 12 jets (already paid for and salaries paid for) will be in the tens of millions. This is less than govt spends on the NHS between breakfast and lunchtime today.

Am I in favour of adding Syria to the counties where we can bomb daesh, meh - it's irrelevant, they hate us either way, and the UK bombing will make no strategic difference. The issue is important but not significant in the greater scheme of things.

Some of this post is spot on, some seems not so.


The highlighted bits I just cant agree with.

The first bit seems like 'no you' playground response. Suggesting we definitely wont cause collateral damage when nations are suddenly 'finding new targets' when weeks and thousands of bombs have already been dropped seems really hopeful. We seem to have no concern for any negative consequences whilst merely politically posturing to make ourselves feel like we're one of the big boys.


You realise once we drop bombs, we then have to replenish the stockpile? Therefore we have to outlay shit tonnes of money, our super special doesn't hurt civilians bomb when it explodes having been dropped from a very big height cost alot of money. We then enjoy dropping them and cropping clips of them exploding for war porn and we get excited, and we can feel less worry about collateral damage so we find more targets drop more bombs, need more bombs, outlay more money and the cycle repeats.


I still dont get why anyone thinks WE can suddenly do more with our bombs than the guys who have more practice than us? are our bombs more polite and going to win the hearts and minds with berets?

The UK and Saudi Arabia use Brimstone missiles. They cost a 100k each and seem like a really serious bit of kit. I do wonder if they are quite as good as we seem to think, otherwise surely all our allies would be buying them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11134475/Why-the-British-Brimstone-missile-being-used-in-Iraq-is-so-sought-after-in-60-seconds.html

However, precise a weapon is, it needs to be hitting an actual ISIS target, as alluded to in the guardian article AlunB posted.

I think its possible we are bombing Syria because Mr. Cameron thinks it will be a popular decision, rather than the best decision for the country.

And even if the financial cost is marginal, that doesn't mean the money couldn't be better spent elsewhere.  

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34211979   This article is a bit scary. It definitely makes me uncomfortable.