Arguments for and against the UK joining the strikes on ISIS in Syria

[Jack Knave]

I think the best argument for bombing was done by David Davis, pity for that side he's against it. It would be symbolic and that would have meaning. That ties into the idea of revenge. It also lets the lack of a coherent plan going forward be a non argument since the initial action is justified in its own terms.

There have been hints of this on the Bomb side; Johnny Mercer 's worry that we are over analysing. But then that harks back to the whole neocon idea of defining our own reality.

I'm against bombing but the logical answer for those pro-bombing would be to bomb both ISIS and Assad, as they are both against our 'moderate' rebels, murdering bastards and against our 'good' democratic ideas.

[Jack Knave]

There is an odd skittishness about doing something symbolic. Cameron could have said this is not about improving things and it is a shot in the dark but I will stand by France and against the murdering thugs who shot up the Bataclan in order to say No, Non. There is a notional line in the sand that is the Syria/Iraq border, a line that the evil members of Da'esh, Isis, so called Muslims, whatever you want to address them as, ignore. A line on which either side they kill, burn, behead people. Christians, Muslims, Atheists . People of all faiths and none. But we will make a metaphorical line that you will cross at the peril of full prosecution, of nations far stronger in ways that you haven't begun to imagine, and we will stop your killing, stop your raping, stop you. That line is a symbol, a symbol of our strenth, a symbol of your weakness and one which we will enforce. Not only will you not pass, you will be become a failed memory, a lost thuggery, and the attempts you make to attack us will be like a literal line in sand, gone with wind and forgotten for all time.

I don't understand this thing about the boarder. Assad is slaughtering his people, so on what grounds should we recognise his leadership and governess? We should have bombed his military bases yonks ago. Though my reservation with this is that our leaders can't help themselves but grab a massive dose of mission creep.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't understand this thing about the boarder. Assad is slaughtering his people, so on what grounds should we recognise his leadership and governess? We should have bombed his military bases yonks ago. Though my reservation with this is that our leaders can't help themselves but grab a massive dose of mission creep.

And that, given the last couple of years, could have lead to something like Da'esh been in govt. Creating political vacuums hasn't got a great history. 

[Nearly Sane]

Rereading my faux speech for Cameron, if I had flung in a couple of historic struggles against fascism, it might have been Hilary Benn's speech

[Jack Knave]

And possibly worse some of the 70,000 that Cameron talked of comprise of the Popular People's Front of Judea, and the People's Front of Judea etc etc

It's worse than that. This 70,000 includes about 50 tribal groups who are more interested in protecting their people in their little corner from Assad than doing Cameron's bidding and going out to territories they don't know to face ISIS who they probably don't full disagree with.

[Jack Knave]

Agreed. I have no idea which group actually carried out various terrorist attacks and beheadings and explosions or whether they are united under an actual leadership or whether they just come together for photo-calls and videos to post on YouTube for propaganda purposes.

If that is the case then putting pressure on them and depleting their resources should make them fight amongst themselves.....? Though history shows us they just melt away and re-emerge.

[Jack Knave]

You are making a category mistake here of those who joined for the leadership election, which was about 250,000, a small number in overall electoral terms but huge in terms of political parties, and those elaborate joined following.

But I thought the issue raised was how General Electable Corbyn was. It might get him power in his little Labour bubble but if the masses don't care for him then he and Labour are dead in the water.

[Jack Knave]

it's nearly as bad as UKIP

Not really....

[Jack Knave]

Well, come on, be fair ...

... it ended before Christmas 1918.

OK, this Syria thing will end before Christmas 2040.....I think.

[Jack Knave]

So if the ally thing is crucial, that's why France helped us invade Iraq? Hmmm

I don't understand all this solidarity with France, France are selfish bastards in the EU - let the stupid fuckers suffer is what I say!!!

[Jack Knave]

Excellent speech by Hilary Benn

Bollocks!!! It was pretty much all emotional claptrap and very little substance.

[Jack Knave]

The UN request to intervene, the UN case that the situation there is unacceptable. What we do is a strategic and tactical decision, but that we do something happens under that UN mandate.
---------------------------------------
Not even all of the rest, just some of them. That's why the relatively indiscriminate tactic of arial bombardment in isolation is, I think, unjustifiable.

Whilst there are times when lecturing is an effective form of education (not the the most effective, generally), that tends to be in situations where you are delivering facts, not those situations where you are attempting to build a rapport and foster understanding and respect. Too often, I'd agree, the bravado of 'we're right' gets the in the way, from both sides.

Hardly any at all, it would seem.

I don't think we're alone in that. I don't see much in the way of a welcoming hand in France's ban on burquas, for instance, or in the US Republican candidates speaking of creating a register of Muslims in the country... but they are playing for the attentions of a slightly racist population. The down-side of democracy is that power, ultimately, lies in the masses who aren't necessarily equipped for the magnitude of the decisions.

From the a strategic decisions of trying to fight last century's wars, to the 'moral' case of only fighting back once 'we' have been attacked, because Syrian lives don't matter as much as, say, French...

O.

Not much to reply to there as much of it is in my ballpark, except the first bit which was about policing the world not the specific case of Syria.

[Jack Knave]

I agree with his point that what little air strikes that Britain can muster can hinder ISIS supply lines, troop movements and positions so can be considered an action in line with the UN resolution to dismantle their self-declared  state. If ISIS lose territory, that is a propaganda coup but as in Afghanistan any territory gains against ISIS would have to be defended on an on-going basis.

The big plan is to get the rebels and Assad to become best of friends and form a coalition politically and then join together to fight ISIS with Allies' air cover. Sounds, uh.....great 

So any ground taken will 'definitely' be in safe stable hands.   

[Jack Knave]

And he's been arguing in this same way for several weeks now, JK.  I recognized the similarity several weeks ago.

But this was an extra polished turd version for the big debate, as Blair did it.

[Jack Knave]

JK, there is a Climate Change conference going on in Paris, whilst in Syria we potentially have burning oil wells!!

As I said wait for them to process it and nick in transit as they delivery it. Saves all that wasted, burning oil.

[Hope]

As I said wait for them to process it and nick in transit as they delivery it. Saves all that wasted, burning oil.

Unfortunately, the some of the UK's planes bombed part of it last night!!

[Hope]

But this was an extra polished turd version for the big debate, as Blair did it.

I found what he said yesterday somewhat subdued in comparison with some of the stuff he's been saying since the party conferences.

[Jack Knave]

And that, given the last couple of years, could have lead to something like Da'esh been in govt. Creating political vacuums hasn't got a great history.

I meant as well as bombing ISIS.

[Nearly Sane]

Bollocks!!! It was pretty much all emotional claptrap and very little substance.

Which at times is what makes an excellent speech. To finish the debate, it struck a chord for those voting yes, and made the best case they had, the symbolic one with ladles of emotion. Previously on here, I pointed out to Alan (Alien) that William Lane Craig's debates which he generally wins in the impression given, do not mean anything about him being right. Same here. Doesn't mean I cannot admire the skill, and careful fitting of the speech to the moment.

[Jack Knave]

Unfortunately, the some of the UK's planes bombed part of it last night!!

I know. I was just saying that they could have had less of a gung-ho, two faced attitude and waited for the delivery.

[Nearly Sane]

I meant as well as bombing ISIS.

Except you were arguing for bombing Assad from a time when Da'esh barely existed, if at all, and now you are just arguing random bombing until something works
 I suggest you go back and listen to Julian Lewis' speech.

[Jack Knave]

I found what he said yesterday somewhat subdued in comparison with some of the stuff he's been saying since the party conferences.

Well, he was less rude; as I said polished.

Was Blair ever rude and blunt?

[Jack Knave]

Which at times is what makes an excellent speech. To finish the debate, it struck a chord for those voting yes, and made the best case they had, the symbolic one with ladles of emotion. Previously on here, I pointed out to Alan (Alien) that William Lane Craig's debates which he generally wins in the impression given, do not mean anything about him being right. Same here. Doesn't mean I cannot admire the skill, and careful fitting of the speech to the moment.

I had to reach for the vomit bag!!!

[Jack Knave]

Except you were arguing for bombing Assad from a time when Da'esh barely existed, if at all, and now you are just arguing random bombing until something works
 I suggest you go back and listen to Julian Lewis' speech.

I'm in the no bombing camp, but we could have used that time to hit Assad's military bases. The fact that ISIS was just a twinkle in our eyes then didn't change the fact that Assad was bombing civilians which I believe is a fair reason, under UN law etc., to help out.

[Nearly Sane]

But this was an extra polished turd version for the big debate, as Blair did it.

You see this is quite interesting because I thought Cameron was quite poor, certainly in comparison to Blair on Iraq which was a bit of a tour de force. Cameron doesn't do 'sincerity ' anywhere near as good as Blair.