In the news

Cameron going full Trump

Politics here is going full of 'Merica. Talk 'bout demeaning the office. Another steerike to Dave.

Just in case anyone has forgotten when this all started.... http://youtu.be/HfXmpJRZPYI

A good speaker - Yes.

Bombing ISIS in Syria is not at all the same as bombing Iraq was though.

I went on an anti-Iraq war demonstration in February 1998 and as I recall Tony Benn was the only politician who turned up. I may just not have recognised other politicians who may have been there, though. He stood on something, possibly a soapbox, and spoke to a small crowd. It was already perfectly clear even then that they were going to attack Iraq at some point.

Is the effect the bombs have on the Syrians and Iraqis they land on not the same?

Jesus. That ham faced pig fucker really is an abysmal cunt. We deserve better than this.

I was mistaken. Thought that clip was 1991, but if 1998 it must have been before the Desert Fox bombing. There's been a lot of bombing over the years (and it's still a fucking mess, although the oil price has been largely protected).

Good speech, serendipitous for Corbyn to be one of the few people in the background.

Emailed my (Tory) MP last night with the boilerplate from stop the war ( http://act.stopwar.org.uk/lobby/stopbombingsyria ).

Will be interesting to see the lists of who voted for/against later on tonight.

poor little lambs. won't someone think of their fee fee's !?

No, Britain First weren't about to let us know that everyone in Syria is a terrorist back in the day so we we had to be alright with murderising lots of innocent civilians. Now, thanks to the hard work of Britain First and other upstanding patriots like them, we can rest easy in the knowledge that nobody from the Middle East is innocent of the horrific crime of hating traditional British values. If you don't vote to bomb the fuck out of them, you're letting down the Queen, England, the cast of Eastenders, the winner of this years X Factor, cheap microwave meals for one from Aldi, Wetherspoons and you're probably an immigrant. You heard it from Britain First first.

The war in Iraq is a bad analogy for the war against ISIS. The war against Hitler is possibly also an inadequate analogy, but helpful to understand the thinking of those who want to extend the bombing. Many blame the rise of fascism in Germany on the Allies treatment of Germany after WWI: they had territory confiscated, were banned from raising an army, and were economicaly destroyed. This created an athmosphere in which a violent, nationalistic cult could easily be stirred up.

Perhaps it was wrong of the Allies, britain in particular, to destroy Germany the way it did after WWI, and they were to blame in a sense for the second war. That is not an argument for allowing the nationalist, expansionist, racist, genocidal group that followed a free rein to destroy Europe.

I personally do not think Bombing ISIS will make them more of a threat to us as a recruiting tool etc. However I don't believe it will solve anything long term either. It is possible we can co-ordinate with syrian troops on the ground, but unlikely. I don't know enough to judge that issue, which I think is what the decision hangs on.

Deselection beckons for Stella Creasy - http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2015/12/stella-creasy-targeted-deselection

There are lots of things we don't know that influence what the "right" decision is, but one outcome that is certain is that airstrikes would kill a significant number of civilians. Surely this should be more than a minor consideration.

and euphemisms like 'collateral damage' don't help this.

It's a grim choice to have to make. I'm glad it's not my decision.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/isis-terror-group-executed-over-10000-men-women-children-syria-iraq-1521094

Someone on my fb feed today posted a thing about IS throwing homosexuals off roofs and stoning them, commenting that "they must be stopped!", in response to a comment of "and airstrikes will help how?" they said "but what other option is there? we have to do something!".

It's not a choice between action (airstrikes) and inaction (no airstrikes). It's bullshit to present it that way. "We must be seen to do something!" leads to more political mess, more death, injury and terror adding to the daily horror of living in that region.

You're right - it's complicated and difficult. So let's not do something basic and crude?

I find it pretty horrifying how a couple of weeks ago the media food was "Cameron doesn't have enough support" and how rapidly that changed to "Cameron is going to win this vote". The situation hasn't really changed. Paris? That hasn't changed anything except public opinion, malleability, fear. It hasn't actually changed the overall situation - an attack like that could've happened at any time in the last few years. How many similar attacks have been prevented? Nothing has changed.

Don't dress it up as us "saving" the people from IS. That won't be a serendipitous by-result.
It's basic revenge. Except the people that will suffer aren't the enemy.

Well said.

Nailed it.

People are stupid... What a bloody mess...

What's the feeling over there? Will Dave get this through? Shirley not?

Why must Tory PMs insist on having a war on their CV? Bliar included...

Because dish face doesn't want the other boys to laugh at his winkle in the changing rooms. Again.

Media are now presenting it as absolutely done. "He wouldn't have called a vote if he wasn't sure he would win" is what the BBC said yesterday... Makes me sick.

Oh, that's how it's going to be. Oh well, no point thinking or talking or writing to my MP then. Jolly ho, off to war we go!

I personally do not think Bombing ISIS will make them more of a threat to us as a recruiting tool etc.

Can you explain your rationale for this?

My thinking is that it isn't about anyone reacting by deciding that, having been bombed, ISIS are the people that they want or need to support. It's about the narrative that ISIS will paint from what happens during and after the bombings. The narrative where the deaths of brave warriors and innocent muslims is both an insult to Islam and an outcome that Western Imperialists are more than happy to have. The narrative where the destruction of their homeland is paired with the abuse of Muslims across the western world. The narrative where only ISIS truly cares about their life and spiritual well being and the bombings clearly demonstrate this. It's their narrative, it's clearly laid out in their magazine and the majority consensus, on both sides, is that they're continuing with this narrative because it works. Why do you think it doesn't?

You're right - it's complicated and difficult. So let's not do something basic and crude?

This really is the crux of the issue. Is there a place in this conflict for the use of well planned and even better informed precise tactical airstrikes on defined military targets with a fully risk assessed analysis of the impact on non-combative people and facilities to bring that as close to zero as possible? Probably, and that there is the very difficult decision to make. Bomb Syria: yes or no? Is not that thing though.

It's easy though. You can reply the footage of the bombing and you can count a literal stack of dead bodies. Its tangible, it feels real, its something that you can be seen to have done. It's far harder to do something where you try to count who's still living because of what you've done, particularly where some people won't want to believe you.

Cameron said he wouldn't hold a vote if he wasn't sure he could win it. He has called a vote. Ergo he must be sure he can win it. It's not media bias. It's just following the story.

Re bombing Daesh - there was a recent move to bomb their oil smuggling operation, after first dropping leaflets warning the drivers to scarper.

These kinds of operations make sense to me - starving Daesh of funds, while not handing it the propaganda victory of killing civilians with airstrikes on urban areas. And of course, not killing civilians is generally a good thing.

Would the anti-bombing crowd be able to countenance such targeted actions?