SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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"]
(Score: 5, Informative) by azrael on Thursday December 03 2015, @05:20PM
I listened/watched the day-long parliamentary debate (on and off) and there were many many interesting speeches/debates. There are a lot of things to worry about on both sides of the debate - the risks of action and inaction.
One very interesting point is that the UK has been bombing Isis/Isil/Daesh for a while in Iraq, but has been unable to continue just over the border in Syria. This is a border that is essentially meaningless as Daesh holds territory on both sides and their HQ is within what we still call Syria.
Why allow continued bombing one side of the imaginary line and not the other?
One argument in favour was that there is a force of 70,000 moderate fighters on the ground able to take and hold ground if we bomb Daesh out of it. A counter to that is that the number is disputed and 'moderate' is not, in some cases, all that moderate - just less extreme (currently) than Daesh.
An interesting point is that the UK has brimstone air-to-ground missiles which are better for high-accuracy minimal collateral damage than those of the US/France/others involved in the fight and would be a significant contribution. This was countered by the fact that Soudia Arabia (also involved on 'our side') also happens to have brimstone (UK and Saudia Arabia seem to be the only countries in the world to possess this particular missile). Surely better to have UK brimstone missiles hitting valid targets potentially near civilians than alternatives?
Another interesting point made was that while the UK's rules of engagement were classified they were "among the most restrictive in the world" and "Bringing British discipline, British skills and British precision weapons to bear will save lives as we prosecute this campaign. We will minimise civilian casualties. "
Anyone interested can read Hansard at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm151202/debtext/151202-0001.htm#15120254000002 [parliament.uk]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2015, @05:38PM
Ha ha, precision weapons. On the other side of the pond, Trump is talking about killing the families too. So yeah, you Brits shoot a few dinky holes in some buildings then America will come in and mop up everything else just to make sure.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2015, @05:45PM
He's just living up to his rhyming slang.
http://www.cockneyrhymingslang.co.uk/slang/select.aspx?order=slang-english&page=1&mode=letter&letter=D&SlangEnglishRepeater=5_20 [cockneyrhymingslang.co.uk]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2015, @05:47PM
I doubt that. Putin will take care of it, because no one currently in office in DC has any balls. Trump might, but he's not in office yet.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 03 2015, @06:49PM
'Fortune favors the bold', and Putin is bold. Which of the gods, or fates, or whatever, favor whining no-balls sacks of shit? I've never heard of one, but I suppose that there must be.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday December 04 2015, @01:10AM
A lot of lefties secretly (even as a secret they won't admit to themselves) hope that Putin will come in a commit genocide. They get to blame the big bad dictator, keep a clean concious, deflect most of the blame to Russia, and yet benefit from the genocide.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2015, @08:40PM
were many many interesting
One very interesting point
An interesting point
Another interesting point
Anyone interested can read
It is interesting to note that you are not in favour of a solution, but a continuation of conflict and inclusion of more people willing to fight for Daesh.
It is also interesting to see that states prepare for the last war, not the next. No one is dumb enough to fight in trenches any more, you know.
It would be interesting to see a diplomatic solution which does not involve bombs and civilians and soldiers dying. There is always a solution, but war is good for business, isn't it?
(Score: 1) by azrael on Saturday December 05 2015, @01:53PM
I was trying hard to note that the points were interesting rather than correct/incorrect. I may have gone over the top :D