Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP

I'm against the bombing, but get the feck out of a city if you know it's going to be flattened.
It's horrible that people would have to ditch their homes but it seems ridiculous to stay.
Someone said 'and go where?' last time I said this. I think anywhere is better than under an airstrike.
It's hard to leave when every road leads to almost certain death and everywhere else is a desert where your children will starve.
 
Guardian are hailing it as a great speech (probably because they see it as anti-corbyn) but it was the same clichéd simple one liners without any consideration of the actual complexities at hand.

Yes I agree. It was very powerfully spoken, but there was nothing in it that I thought had much substance aside from the stuff about the UN.

Out of the speeches I heard I thought the best was that of David Davis.
 
Hilary Benn is now 2/1 to be next Labour leader at William Hill. Can't see the same Labour membership that voted Corbyn in voting for Benn though.
 
SPpGd45.jpg
 
Quite a few people seem to be against the bombing campaign. I don't think I have heard a single one of them with any alternative solutions though.

Perhaps they think these mad cnuts are going to negotiate or something? Hug a suicide bomber, to coin a phrase, perhaps?
 
More likely to be deselected than become leader after undermining the bases main man.

I'd hope that doesn't happen but I definitely wouldn't want him as leader either at this point. It's a shame he's never done such a passionate speech until an occasion when he disagreed with the majority of his party (in this case we can include the PLP), and at a time of crisis for the party when he's knows he's undermining his leader. Fair enough if it's purely because he believes so much in these strikes - the cynic in me is doubtful of that - I just hope that we will see similarly passionate speeches on issues that the whole party can get behind in future. If he manages that then maybe he could indeed make a good Labour leader.
 
Quite a few people seem to be against the bombing campaign. I don't think I have heard a single one of them with any alternative solutions though.

Look again, there's plenty on this thread. Or to save yourself time listen to David Davis' speech in the commons today.
 
I'd hope that doesn't happen but I definitely wouldn't want him as leader either at this point. It's a shame he's never done such a passionate speech until an occasion when he disagreed with the majority of his party (in this case we can include the PLP), and at a time of crisis for the party when he's knows he's undermining his leader. Fair enough if it's purely because he believes so much in these strikes - the cynic in me is doubtful of that - I just hope that we will see similarly passionate speeches on issues that the whole party can get behind in future. If he manages that then maybe he could indeed make a good Labour leader.
If this campaign goes tits up then it's over for him. That speech will forever taint him as the defiant warmonger as it did for Blair circa 2003. He's at the very least lost the support of Corbyn's core base, which itself was heavily loyal to his own father.
 
Quite a few people seem to be against the bombing campaign. I don't think I have heard a single one of them with any alternative solutions though.

Perhaps they think these mad cnuts are going to negotiate or something? Hug a suicide bomber, to coin a phrase, perhaps?

Says more about your ignorance than anyone else.
 
Yes I agree. It was very powerfully spoken, but there was nothing in it that I thought had much substance aside from the stuff about the UN.

Out of the speeches I heard I thought the best was that of David Davis.
Solid enough, agreed and he was gracious in applauding people on both sides of the debate.
DD is my home MP. Never known what quite to maje of him, but they love him back in East Yorkshire.
Guardian are hailing it as a great speech (probably because they see it as anti-corbyn) but it was the same clichéd simple one liners without any consideration of the actual complexities at hand.
The Mirror has a poll going asking whether it was 'the greatest speech in parliament ever'. Feck Churchill.
 
If this campaign goes tits up then it's over for him. That speech will forever taint him as the defiant warmonger as it did for Blair circa 2003.

True. I really hope I'm massively wrong about all of this.
 
So how do all the pro-missile members of this forum feel about MPs cheering and laughing about the decision to drop bombs?

fecking despicable.
 
Collymore ain't too happy. Not sure cutting up your membership card when the majority of Labour MPs actually agreed with you is the wisest thing!

 
So assuming this backfires, will the posters here banging the drums of war put their hands up and admit they were horribly misinformed?

Because on the chance this ends up being a success, I'll be the first to swallow my pride and admit I was wrong.
 
Does anyone have the numbers for civilians killed in air strikes so far by Russia and France? Or any estimations on how many more will be killed?
 
Quite a few people seem to be against the bombing campaign. I don't think I have heard a single one of them with any alternative solutions though.

Perhaps they think these mad cnuts are going to negotiate or something? Hug a suicide bomber, to coin a phrase, perhaps?
There is an obvious argument that random bombing of Syria will not affect sleeper cells in Paris, Birmingham or wherever and only make them more determined.
Feck knows state Syria will be in when the RAF jet off, job done, either.
 
Says more about your ignorance than anyone else.

Instead of being a smart arse, how about providing some examples?

Unfortunately, I don't have time to wade through 50 pages of posts. I only have time to catch the news of an evening, which seems to be pretty short of alternative solutions.
 
Instead of being a smart arse, how about providing some examples?

Unfortunately, I don't have time to wade through 50 pages of posts. I only have time to catch the news of an evening, which seems to be pretty short of alternative solutions.

If you can't be bothered to inform yourself on the debate then why should anyone be bothered to listen to you?
 
There is an obvious argument that random bombing of Syria will not affect sleeper cells in Paris, Birmingham or wherever and only make them more determined.
Feck knows state Syria will be in when the RAF jet off, job done, either.

I doubt it will, it's only one part of an overall approach. Intelligence agencies, such as the MIs, are also part of the approach. Local community leaders etc

It may, though, deter a typical coward/bully from going to Syria to wave a gun around and feel like a big man, if he thinks there is a good chance he might get his head blown off.
 
Instead of being a smart arse, how about providing some examples?

Unfortunately, I don't have time to wade through 50 pages of posts. I only have time to catch the news of an evening, which seems to be pretty short of alternative solutions.

So you come in to the thread and make a smarmy comment about those you disagree with. I say it highlights your ignorance, and you confirm that by saying you are in fact ignorant of what's been discussed. Not sure what you're complaining about.
 
I doubt it will, it's only one part of an overall approach. Intelligence agencies, such as the MIs, are also part of the approach. Local community leaders etc

It may, though, deter a typical coward/bully from going to Syria to wave a gun around and feel like a big man, if he thinks there is a good chance he might get his head blown off.
This is somewhat undermined by the fact that for every one of their members killed they've gained 2.
The libertarian argues against bombing:

 
Thank you for your kind response,

ffs, what's wrong with this place?
It can get a little bit annoying when people pop in this thread, clearly knowing very little about what we've been talking about, only to accuse us of having offered no arguments. If you've got a question fine, but don't ask it with contempt.
 
Shameful. Cheering for dropping bombs on people that will have little or no impact on IS and no doubt lead to more innocent deaths. No strategy whatsoever.
 
Magnificent from Benn. Attlee would've given him a solid pat on the back.
 
I give up, bunch of fecking lefties. Go suck Corbyn's balls.
Take some time to read the thread or at the very least watch the video posted above, otherwise don't bother expecting a response if you're going to jump into a thread and act like a bellend.
 
I doubt it will, it's only one part of an overall approach. Intelligence agencies, such as the MIs, are also part of the approach. Local community leaders etc

It may, though, deter a typical coward/bully from going to Syria to wave a gun around and feel like a big man, if he thinks there is a good chance he might get his head blown off.
There is that. It's s damned if you do scenario if you ask me.
 
More appropriate question is how many cuts they'd be having to make after the economy tanked with the price of oil.

On the subject of the economy its nice to know we can afford dropping bombs on a foreign country when we apparently can't afford anything else.
 
On the subject of the economy its nice to know we can afford dropping bombs on a foreign country when we apparently can't afford anything else.
Your earlier arguments were far stronger.
 
Your earlier arguments were far stronger.

Well, quite. Which is why I haven't mentioned it until now.

I think it puts a lie to a lot of the other stuff the Tories say, but its pretty much irrelevant in regards to Syria.