Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

UK MPs Authorise Syria Air Strikes Against Islamic State

posted by cmn32480 on Thursday December 03 2015, @04:45PM   Printer-friendly
from the joining-the-coalition dept.

azrael writes:

BBC reports:

MPs have overwhelmingly backed UK air strikes against so-called Islamic State in Syria, by 397 votes to 223, after an impassioned 10-hour Commons debate.

Four Tornado jets took off from RAF Akrotiri, Cyprus, after the vote. Their destination has not been confirmed.

A total of 66 Labour MPs sided with the government as David Cameron secured a larger than expected Commons majority.

The PM said they had "taken the right decision to keep the country safe" but opponents said the move was a mistake.

...

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn argued that the case for war "does not stack up" - but his party was split, with senior Labour figures, including members of the shadow cabinet voting with the government after they were given a free vote.

The 66 MPs who backed military action was equivalent to 29% of the parliamentary party.

[Editor's Note: For non-Brits, MP="member of parliament"]

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
UK MPs Authorise Syria Air Strikes Against Islamic State | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 66 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday December 03 2015, @04:51PM

    by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Thursday December 03 2015, @04:51PM (#271432) Homepage

    Just in time for the S-400s and Sukhois now carrying air-air missiles.

    I feel sorry for any forces from Western nations going in that hellhole to "fight" the "Islamic State" not knowing that they're being sent in to aid terrorism and being dangled as bait to start devastating war.

    Why aren't allied nations bombing Turkey and Saudi Arabia?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by SanityCheck on Thursday December 03 2015, @04:55PM

    by SanityCheck (5190) on Thursday December 03 2015, @04:55PM (#271436)

    Like it or not, Turkey is a member of NATO. Bombing a NATO member is a no-no, especially for another member of NATO.

    There is plenty of "facts" out there about Turkey's dealing with ISIS. Some of the "facts" may in fact be facts... but I wouldn't give credence to any of them.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 03 2015, @05:11PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 03 2015, @05:11PM (#271445) Journal

      It's been an open secret for nearly a year that Daesh is funding it's activity by selling oil. There aren't a lot of routes from Syria to the market. The secret that Daesh recruits are entering the country through Turkey has been just as open. And, Turkey's other little secret, about hating Kurds, isn't much more closely held than the first two secrets. But, what's a little genocide, among NATO members?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2015, @08:04PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2015, @08:04PM (#271530)

        Daesh

        Ebin meem broseph.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2015, @10:06PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2015, @10:06PM (#271582)

          Go back to 4chan, you worthless filthy normie.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @02:36AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @02:36AM (#271662)

            >implying

      • (Score: 2) by inertnet on Friday December 04 2015, @12:59AM

        by inertnet (4071) on Friday December 04 2015, @12:59AM (#271640) Journal

        Not just oil, but also archaeological treasures. They blow up anything that's too big to move, the rest is transported out and sold on the black market.

  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday December 03 2015, @04:56PM

    by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Thursday December 03 2015, @04:56PM (#271438) Journal

    Why aren't allied nations bombing Turkey and Saudi Arabia?

    Turkey is in NATO.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]

  • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by takyon on Thursday December 03 2015, @05:08PM

    by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Thursday December 03 2015, @05:08PM (#271442) Journal

    Pentagon To Announce Women Are Allowed In Frontline Ground Combat Positions [npr.org]

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2015, @05:13PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2015, @05:13PM (#271446)

      "You too can be a tool of the USG. Don't think about it, the Army thinks for you!"

    • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday December 03 2015, @05:35PM

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Thursday December 03 2015, @05:35PM (#271454) Homepage

      > MUH equality

      MUH bodies. Especially angry lesbians with something to prove, who're always pets of Democratic governments.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2015, @08:17PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2015, @08:17PM (#271540)

      I am surprised by this, considering the most egalitarian branch: the marines, just completed testing some months ago that showed how bad of an idea this was. They were pushing hard for equality and still are, but testing shows mixed units under-performing all-male units by double-digit percentages. (The discrepancy comes from physical activities like carrying a wounded service member for miles at a time or throwing a combat laden pack over a 12 foot wall during an emergency evac.)

      Ever since many news organizations have been lambasting the marines as misogynists. Odd considering they were the first branch to want women in combat roles and the only one for some time (still are?) that had equal testing criteria. The top marine commanders believe the only thing that matters is ability. Very nerdy of them.

      • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday December 04 2015, @01:32AM

        by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Friday December 04 2015, @01:32AM (#271653) Journal

        That study has faced legit criticism. I think it will turn out that only the top performing women make it to the front lines. That could mean physical strength, good aim, or maybe translating ability. It's not hard to imagine certain drugs bridging the gap.

        Assessment Of Female Marines Kept Secret As Critics Blast Methods [npr.org]

        ELLE HARING: It was a flawed design from the get-go.

        BOWMAN: That's retired Army Colonel Ellen Haring who has leaked several hundred pages of the report and wrote an analysis.

        HARING: It wasn't looking to establish minimum qualification standards and then see who could meet them. Instead it was a competition.

        BOWMAN: Haring complained that the study showed that some women performed on par or better than men, but that was not mentioned in the Marine report.

        HARING: But you've got some really super outlier women in there that consistently performed at the top level of the top men.

        BOWMAN: So the bottom line is there are some rock star women in this study that should be able to serve in Marine ground combat.

        HARING: Absolutely.

        BOWMAN: The Marines are privately frustrated they can't release their own report or even answer critics. A memo from Secretary Carter says none of the military services can talk about their findings on women in combat, even though only the Marines are seeking to bar women from infantry units. The Marines say they did not spotlight any high-achieving women because they work as teams, not as individuals. And women may do well on physical tests, the Marines say, but the study found they tired more easily than men, took longer to complete a combat exercise and had far more injuries. Secretary Carter told reporters he would focus on all the details the Marines lay out.

        (SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

        CARTER: I'm going to make this decision on the basis of the facts of the analysis, and if there's good analysis in the report to which you refer, that'll be important to me.

        BOWMAN: Sources say General Dunford, now Joint Chiefs chairman, is not just concerned that combat effectiveness will be degraded with women in the infantry ranks. He also worries that injuries might force [some] women out of the Corps. So Dunford's recommendation, based on the study, says all infantry jobs, as well as combat engineers and forward artillery observers, should remain closed to women - roughly one-third of the jobs in the entire Marine Corps. Not everyone sees the Marines' study on gender integration as flawed.

        ANDREW LOERCH: I think I would give them an A for effort. It's probably a solid B-plus in execution.

        BOWMAN: Andrew Loerch is a professor in the department of systems engineering and operations research at George Mason University. He peer-reviewed the study for the Marine Corps, watching several dozen training events.

        LOERCH: I thought that this was as objective an exercise as it could be.

        BOWMAN: Congressman Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, a Marine combat veteran, liked what he heard about the study. He was among the lawmakers on the House Armed Services Committee who were briefed by Marine leaders last month on the report's methodology.

        SETH MOULTON: I was impressed by the approach that they have taken, but we really need to see the results of the study so we can examine this in the most transparent way possible.

        Congressman Reacts To Marine Corps Report On Women In Combat [npr.org]

        MOULTON: Well, I served four tours in Iraq, two on a small male-female team working with the Iraqi security forces and two in an all-male infantry combat unit. On the small team, we survived because we learned how to build cross-culture relationships and get the best intel on whom to trust. And my teammate Anne (ph), who's one of the best Marines I know, made us safer and more combat effective because she gave us access to half of the Iraqi population whom we otherwise weren't even allowed to talk to as males.

        Now, in the front-line infantry platoon, we were breaking down doors, living in foxholes, facing mortar and machine gun fire head on. We survived by working hard to be the best-trained, most physically fit combat unit we could be. Now the Marine Corps is looking at whether women in the infantry will make our military more combat effective. And for any issue that affects our national security and the lives of young Americans on the front lines, we have to make an unbiased data-driven decision.

        SIEGEL: Do you sympathize at all with those who say that this is a political end that's being forced upon the services and that it's not about combat effectiveness; it's first about becoming gender-neutral?

        MOULTON: Well, I have heard that, and I think it's very important that we hold the line. You know, when I went down to Fort Benning to watch the first women go into Ranger School, that's something I heard consistently from all the women. They said don't change the standards. They don't ever want to be in a combat unit and have their fellow soldiers think they got there because they met lower standards than everybody else.

    • (Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday December 03 2015, @11:59PM

      by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Thursday December 03 2015, @11:59PM (#271620) Journal

      Ach, I should have included this link in the story I just submitted. Not expecting it to post for a few days if at all (might be best to wait for a slow news day), but I guess if you're editor on duty when it comes up, feel free to add it!

      (A friend linked me a story about a Canadian model joining the Kurdish militia yesterday, and then I was floored when I saw this topic on Google news earlier.)

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @12:25AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @12:25AM (#271630)

      The Kurds are doing pretty well with female fighters because the enemy cowers in fear, believing that being killed by a woman will send them to Hell. Two other methods are contact with a pig at the time of death (been used before, with lard-greased bullets) and being killed by a lefty.

      The ultimate of course is a left-handed woman firing lard-greased bullets. All of our frontline troops should meet this specification.