How your MP voted on Iraq strikes

[Blaven]

You make a pretty good case for military action against Israel.

And Crimea?

[AUFC90]

I love this idea that the UK somehow has a large armed forces . When was the last time we managed to win a war on our own ? The Falklands ? Only because we managed to disable the Argies missiles. The UK does not have a large military. If we had went into Afghanistan on our own we would've got the shite kicked out us. We're the equivalent of the wee guy who kicks someone on the ground once his best friend has battered them. In short, the UK gov are a bunch of fannies trying to act the big man.

[SodjesSixteenIncher]

We are not an aggressive perpetual war machine.

keep telling yourself that champ.

[AUFC90]

Someone get the map out that shows which countries we haven't invaded

We've been a perpetual war machine for centuries Libby

[AllyM]

7. Switzerland are fucking cowards.

Or perhaps they've just become more civilised over the years.

Cursory wikipedia search reveals:

"Swiss mercenaries were valued throughout Late Medieval Europe for the power of their determined mass attack in deep columns" (i.e. close man-to-man combat, for the most part, probably armed with little red knives)

They "....developed a reputation throughout Europe as skilled soldiers......."

They had an intense ".......pride in the reputation of the Swiss as soldiers; and..........a pure love of combat and warfighting in and of itself"

Part of the reason as to why Switzerland has enjoyed peace for so long is, paradoxically, because they were so violent in the past. Their soldiers were so well trained and feared throughout Europe through regular fighting as mercenaries, that Switzerland was not regarded as a good target for invasion. Perhaps this is best illustrated by the Pontifical Swiss Guard at the Vatican (now the only mercenaries that modern-day Switzerland will allow) not a Pontifical Scottish, English or even Italian Guard.

[Granny Danger]

7. Switzerland are fucking cowards.

You're the epitome of cowardice.

[Ad Lib]

Or perhaps they've just become more civilised over the years.

The cowardice I was talking about was geopolitical, not military.

Switzerland is a fucking dreadful example of how internationalists should conceive of the role of our states in the international community. You say they have "become more civilised". On the contrary, the Swiss approach to international relations is, to borrow a phrase from the West Wing, like being the guy who goes into 7-11 to grab Satan a packet of cigarettes.

[Confidemus]

Make room in your inbox!

^^^ Ad Lib's chat up line, imo

[BerwickMad]

^^^ Ad Lib's chat up line, imo

Mind, it's pretty obvious when the debate gets too complicated for you.

[Ad Lib]

Mind, it's pretty obvious when the debate gets too complicated for you.

Usually because it involves words with more than two syllables.

[Confidemus]

Mind, it's pretty obvious when the debate gets too complicated for you.

Usually because it involves words with more than two syllables.

^^^ seething No voters x 2

[Dunning1874]

This isn't abstraction. If the US is a solitary Western actor, it puts them entirely in control of practical considerations in the brokering of peace agreements, gives a much stronger message to civilians and enemy combatants that it is "the American imperialists" intervening instead of, you know, the international community legitimately acting to stop horrible people.

2. They don't like ISIS either, because they're slaughtering their families. Air-strikes, supported by Kurdish forces with our weapons and strategic assistance can and already are starting to, hold back ISIS on the Northern frontier. And yes, the Iraqi army won't become competent overnight. But ask yourself this: is it better to stand by and do nothing while ISIS capture Baghdad and set their sights a little further, leading to a full-on Caliphate fighting Saudia Arabia, and at that a Caliphate bordering NATO, or to give the Iraqi Government at least *SOME* chance of mustering a moderately competent defence force? Doing nothing has a catastrophic price.

This is what it comes down to for me: it's entirely correct to say that doing nothing has a catastrophic price, but this isn't a choice between the UK doing something and nothing being done at all. Something's being done even if the UK doesn't join the airstrikes. Indeed, whether the UK chooses to intervene or not here makes a negligible difference to the scope of this operation.

This is undoubtedly a case where liberal intervention is necessary, but just because intervention is necessary doesn't mean that the UK taking part is necessary. You make the point that, if the US was the sole Western actor, this could be perceived by the Arab world as military action by 'American Imperialists' rather than the international community: do you actually believe that the UK tagging along changes that perception? The US leads a campaign in the Middle East post-2003, that's how it will be seen whether the UK, France and Denmark are also involved or not.

With that in mind I feel it would have been far better to let the other states in the region take the lead. Yes, there are deeply unpleasant states involved and we don't want to be handing power to barbaric states like Saudi Arabia, but with Western states leading the operation then it's likely that we'll only end up with yet more people radicalised, when you could still have airstrikes successfully weakening IS in an operation led by Middle Eastern states with Western support.

We should offer any support we can short of joining the bombing ourselves, but with the airstrikes already underway, involving states with vastly larger air forces than the UK, the difference we can make in terms of firepower is negligible and I don't see what we actually achieve by contributing.

[Scary Bear]

Because:

1. Israel isn't genocidal.

2. Bombing Israel, a major strategic partner in the Middle East, would be a flagrant act of aggression that would cause significant escalation, undermine our diplomatic relations with most of our closest allies, making our country less safe without doing anything to stop any excesses of aggression by Israel against Gaza.

3. The State of Israel has a legitimate right to defend itself against rockets fired at it by a terrorist group, which uses civilians as shields and hides rockets in UN schools and hospitals.

We should have.

In back-channels we did urge them to be restrained. And actually, Israel has been far more restrained than, say, Assad against his own civilians or ISIS against Iraqis.

There is nothing random about this bombing and it has f**k all to do with empire.

There is clear evidence that these conflicts, irrespective of whether or not we get involved, provide propaganda and radicalisation towards young Muslims in the UK. The key words are "irrespective of whether or not we get involved".

The justification for intervention isn't simply that it will make us safer, though undoubtedly a Middle East where groups like ISIS are weak and minorities rather than dominant regional forces would be a world with less radicalisation and fewer threats to Western civilians, but that the lives of ordinary Iraqis will be immeasurably improved by not being refugees to a theocratic paramilitary organisation committing war crimes and that we can significantly help their efforts in that respect.

We can't intervene everywhere that needs a strong military power to destroy evil people. I wish we could. But we should intervene wherever we can to the maximum extent to which we have reason to believe we can have a positive effect.

You wish we could get involved everywhere and destroy evil people? How much would that cost? Weren't ISIS some of the rebels that we were thinking of helping out when they were fighting the government in Syria? Were they good guys then? When did you turn into such a warmonger? Previously you wouldn't say boo to a goose and were the burglars friend.

Why don't the UK and USA work to make the UN more effective, instead of taking matters into their own hands?

[Ad Lib]

^^^ seething No voters x 2

Fail. I voted Yes!

This is what it comes down to for me: it's entirely correct to say that doing nothing has a catastrophic price, but this isn't a choice between the UK doing something and nothing being done at all. Something's being done even if the UK doesn't join the airstrikes. Indeed, whether the UK chooses to intervene or not here makes a negligible difference to the scope of this operation.

This is undoubtedly a case where liberal intervention is necessary, but just because intervention is necessary doesn't mean that the UK taking part is necessary. You make the point that, if the US was the sole Western actor, this could be perceived by the Arab world as military action by 'American Imperialists' rather than the international community: do you actually believe that the UK tagging along changes that perception? The US leads a campaign in the Middle East post-2003, that's how it will be seen whether the UK, France and Denmark are also involved or not.

With that in mind I feel it would have been far better to let the other states in the region take the lead. Yes, there are deeply unpleasant states involved and we don't want to be handing power to barbaric states like Saudi Arabia, but with Western states leading the operation then it's likely that we'll only end up with yet more people radicalised, when you could still have airstrikes successfully weakening IS in an operation led by Middle Eastern states with Western support.

We should offer any support we can short of joining the bombing ourselves, but with the airstrikes already underway, involving states with vastly larger air forces than the UK, the difference we can make in terms of firepower is negligible and I don't see what we actually achieve by contributing.

Okay here's my problem with this. I think every state has a moral obligation to intervene here and just because others could do it without us doesn't mean we are morally excused. I think our presence does make a difference. Diplomatically, we have the capacity to build support with other states collectively that the U.S. does not always have.

It is also a myth that we are taking the front seat here militarily. Regional actors are. The U.S. strikes are happening with Saudi, Jordanian, UAE and Turkish assistance. Christ, we've even brought Iran within the diplomatic tent on this one. This coalition-building is much harder when it's just the US and we set the ball rolling for others to muck in.

There is also negligible evidence that Western involvement actually has a strong connection to radicalisation. The genie has long since been out of that bottle and the mere non involvement of the UK in these conflicts won't stop extremist groups recruiting under the ruse that the governments they are fighting are Western Imperial Puppets. The choice is not radicalise or don't radicalise. It's let them radicalise without giving the secular leaders the multinational support to refute it in a very real and practical way, or let them radicalise and take over entire States.

By being participants in the bombing we show and emphasise that the bombing campaign is a direct response by the international community collectively to a specific request by the legitimate government of Iraq for defensive assistance and not simply the US going "right that's it we're going to carpet bomb this place and put our guys in".

You wish we could get involved everywhere and destroy evil people? How much would that cost? Weren't ISIS some of the rebels that we were thinking of helping out when they were fighting the government in Syria? Were they good guys then? When did you turn into such a warmonger? Previously you wouldn't say boo to a goose and were the burglars friend.

Why don't the UK and USA work to make the UN more effective, instead of taking matters into their own hands?

You are platitude central today.

International human rights are more important than who foots the bill.

ISIS are a coming together of a minuscule fraction of the Syrian resistance to Assad. Virtually none of the weapons they are now using came as a result of our arms transfers in response to that conflict. That is a total red herring. Also, part of the reason we should have intervened in Syria against Assad with our own troops was so that we wouldn't have to leave our weapons in the hands of disparate groups over which we have no control. Military intervention there was an alternative to providing support to those kind of groups, not concurrent.

I have never been a pacifist. You seem to be forgetting, as I have had to point out about 40 times now, that I was *taking the piss* on the Scotrail fat man thread.

Your empty questions about the UN display a total lack of understanding about these issues and the nature of the bodies at hand. The UN is a dead duck. You can get literally nothing done without the consent of Russia and China. Even a cursory investigation into geopolitics would explain why this makes it a total non starter if you are trying to generate support for liberal internationalist causes.

[Scary Bear]

You are platitude central today.

International human rights are more important than who foots the bill.

ISIS are a coming together of a minuscule fraction of the Syrian resistance to Assad. Virtually none of the weapons they are now using came as a result of our arms transfers in response to that conflict. That is a total red herring. Also, part of the reason we should have intervened in Syria against Assad with our own troops was so that we wouldn't have to leave our weapons in the hands of disparate groups over which we have no control. Military intervention there was an alternative to providing support to those kind of groups, not concurrent.

I have never been a pacifist. You seem to be forgetting, as I have had to point out about 40 times now, that I was *taking the piss* on the Scotrail fat man thread.

Your empty questions about the UN display a total lack of understanding about these issues and the nature of the bodies at hand. The UN is a dead duck. You can get literally nothing done without the consent of Russia and China. Even a cursory investigation into geopolitics would explain why this makes it a total non starter if you are trying to generate support for liberal internationalist causes.

Just because you have a thing for being World Police, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Cost should be a factor for a nation of 60odd million that's over a trillion in debt and in a supposed period of austerity. Unless there is a direct threat to that country from another country trying to invade it.

You're just off on a rant in the next bit about weapons. I never said we gave them weapons. And our troops definitely should not have been put in there, which is probably why they weren't put in there.

Wasn't it the burglar thread where you were getting ridiculous? Then the judge came out and decided that the use of force was fine in that case. Whether the 'strongly advise' stuff was a joke or not, it's now a staple of P&B. It's right up there with 12 Ruel Street and the likes. Good effort.

The UN: committed to maintaining international peace and conflict prevention. Sounds like a great organisation. Just needs countries to work together and make it a success.

[Confidemus]

Fail. I voted Yes!

Bollocks you did.

[BerwickMad]

Just because you have a thing for being World Police, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Cost should be a factor for a nation of 60odd million that's over a trillion in debt and in a supposed period of austerity. Unless there is a direct threat to that country from another country trying to invade it.

It's the right thing to do though. You've got an evil army (movement or whatever) within a stones throw of a city of around 2 million people where a young fragile parliament sits. To just ignore IS murdering hundreds of people at a time just because they don't agree with your twisted world view would be morally indefensible.

If air strikes halt their advance and protect thousands/millions of people then we should help when Iraq request help.

Yes, some innocent people might die, and some mistakes will be made, but in some conflicts you have to do the least worst thing to protect the maximum number of people.

Let someone else deal with it is a really cowardly stance for a nation as rich as ours to take IMO.

[Scary Bear]

It's the right thing to do though. You've got an evil army (movement or whatever) within a stones throw of a city of around 2 million people where a young fragile parliament sits. To just ignore IS murdering hundreds of people at a time just because they don't agree with your twisted world view would be morally indefensible.

If air strikes halt their advance and protect thousands/millions of people then we should help when Iraq request help.

Yes, some innocent people might die, and some mistakes will be made, but in some conflicts you have to do the least worst thing to protect the maximum number of people.

Let someone else deal with it is a really cowardly stance for a nation as rich as ours to take IMO.

If we're so rich, why are we so heavily in debt?

There are other things that are 'the right thing to do.' The government doesn't do them due to budget constraints.

Iraq had an army. The fact they gave up and ran away, leaving all their arms, is why that city is in danger. If they need to hire the UK to protect them then I hope they are paying.

I'd rather we helped them with training their armed forces. As long as they paid, of course. Then we could use our budget to pay for improvements to the lives of our own citizens.

[ayrmad]

It's the right thing to do though. You've got an evil army (movement or whatever) within a stones throw of a city of around 2 million people where a young fragile parliament sits. To just ignore IS murdering hundreds of people at a time just because they don't agree with your twisted world view would be morally indefensible.

If air strikes halt their advance and protect thousands/millions of people then we should help when Iraq request help.

Yes, some innocent people might die, and some mistakes will be made, but in some conflicts you have to do the least worst thing to protect the maximum number of people.

Let someone else deal with it is a really cowardly stance for a nation as rich as ours to take IMO.

I thought we invaded in 2003 to avoid such a scenario, I also thought the tinfoil hat wearers of the day told us this would be the outcome, who knew.

[doulikefish]

Some people love bodybags