Skip to main content
Skip to main navigation
Skip to talk navigation

Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Flip

1 2 3 4

AIBU?

To think air strikes on Syria will be the biggest political mistake of Cameron's life.

88 replies

TheoriginalLEM · 02/12/2015 12:23

If you could tell me that no civilians would be hurt/killed and we would stop Daesh then I'd get in a plane myself (well i wouldn't but you know what i mean). Id be behind it 100%

Neither of those things are going to happen.

More innocent people are going to die.

Not just in Syria - lets face it, we are painting a fucking great target on the UK by doing this is. A bigger one than there already is.

There has to be a more intelligent way of doing this, we have intelligence don't we? we have drones? we have troops? Loathe as i am to send our troops in on the ground, it is fairer surely? Civilian casualties can be managed? Bombing is indescriminate and well, i doubt that any leading ISIS figures are in Raqqa just now.

It is futility in its greatest form and going to help no-one.

OP posts:

Report

megletthesecond · 02/12/2015 12:33

Tbh it won't affect him at all. He's off at the next election anyway. He won't be bombed. He's got security and employment for life

I don't know what the answer is. We're at risk now, and will still be at risk if we bomb ISIS. From what I understand we should probably choke off ISIS oil funding as well as some sort of military action. It's a bloody mess.

ComposHatComesBack · 02/12/2015 12:35

Of course it is. It has disaster written all over it.

Anyone with an ounce of self awareness can see that this is the aquiculture of lobbing petrol onto a burning building.
But Cameron wants to play with the big boys toys, pretend he's a player on the world stage and act the statesman.

Unless he's vainglorious and idiotic to think he can bomb Syria into peace and stability.

Pointlessfan · 02/12/2015 12:36

I agree with you. I don't like Cameron anyway but why is it pms always seem to want to wage war? People allied to ISIS are all over the world, communicating online, not sure how bombing will hall really.

megletthesecond · 02/12/2015 12:38

Yep compo "lobbing petrol onto a burning building" .

DinosaursRoar · 02/12/2015 12:45

No, not at all. It might well be a moral mistake, but it's not a political one at all. Look how neatly he's managed to highlight the split in the Labour party. Look at the issue this has caused Corbyn (who's always voted with his beliefs and ignored the party line regularly) - Corbyn can't offer a free vote for the Labour party for every major vote, and his history means no one's all that fussed about doing what he says. It's makng a weak opposition leader look even weaker.

Strikes will happen anyway as said, we'll be a minor partner in this and it's not commiting to a full war like Iraq, it will be relatively easier for us to pull back and leave it to the French and Americans if it turns into a mess.

We already have a fucking massive target on us and it's not really going to make much difference to that.

Cameron is leaving anyway in a few years, he's not going ot be ousted from his job because he's already said he'll resign, so even if it all goes tits up and the public turn against action in Syria, he won't be trying to win an election after this, and his successor can smile and say they backed their then leader's decision but might well have made a different one if they were Prime Minister then... (The Tories don't have a free vote, gives them a great opt out for not having voted against it, the Labour MPs will be expected to justify their voting decision).

There's a lot of public sympathy for standing shoulder to shoulder with the French, even if what they are doing is a crap idea. The details will get lost by a lot of the public, France asked us to step up and help them and we did. Good neighbours, that's us....

It's actually a very good political move. It's just a crap one if your aim is to actually do something that'll work about the situation in Syria.

ComposHatComesBack · 02/12/2015 12:51

Dinosaurs In the short term yes, it might play well for Cameron, but in the medium term, less so. I get the sense that after the Iraq and Afghanistan misadventures, the public are too clued up to buy the standing shoulder to shoulder with France line. If Britain gets bogged down in Syria, the Paris attacks will be a dim and fading memory.

howtorebuild · 02/12/2015 12:54

Not just his life, the life of all who become collateral damage as a consequence too.

OneFlewOverTheDodosNest · 02/12/2015 12:54

Now Scameron is clearly lowest of the low, but Bliar knowingly took us into Iraq on false pretences and he seems to be doing all right for himself - the Chilcott report still hasn't been finished and he's off swanning round the ME whilst taxpayers have to pay for his heightened security as an ex-PM.

Take a look at what he's been doing post-premiership if you want an idea of how much bombing Syria will damage Cameron.

DinosaursRoar · 02/12/2015 12:57

That's the advantage of not being one of hte key partners for a war in Syria - if France, US and possibly Russia are taking the lead, it will be easier to step back and not get bogged down. Not putting troops on the ground is important, it's harder to step back from that.

This has the advantage of having 'been there' when France 'needed us' but then also not getting stuck in with troops.

Troops on the ground might well be far more effective, but you have to stay there until you've completed your aim or it's a failure. Air strikes are easier, you've hit the targets you said you would. It's been done. Easier to not do the next step than to remove troops without the war being 'won'.

I don't think this will work to solve the problems, but it doesn't mean that politically this is a mistake. Which is sad on a number of levels.

PirateSmile · 02/12/2015 13:04

I've just been watching the debate on BBC2 and I agree with Jeremy Corbyn's position. I can't believe how people are unable to comprehend how bombing (with inevitable collateral damage) will make things worse for our security.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 02/12/2015 13:07

I don't know why Cameron thinks all these Syrians (70,000?!) are going to help him.

howtorebuild · 02/12/2015 13:08

JC gave a good argument. What a disgraceful way of behaving from some Male Tory MP's.

Drew64 · 02/12/2015 13:44

Because the United Nations in resolution S/RES/2249 calls for;

"member states to take all necessary measures on the territory under the control of ISIS to prevent terrorist acts committed by ISIS and other Al-Qaida affiliates."

The UK is a member of the United Nations, why would we not support a resolution?

Please don't kid yourselves, we are a bloody big target.
Please be prepared, there WILL be collateral damage.

What other course of action do you suggest?

Do nothing - Well I'm sure you are all aware that something needs to happen? Something needs to change. Doing nothing will not stop them targeting the UK and murdering innocent civillians. Doing nothing will not stop them persecuting, torturing, displacing and murdering innocent moderate Muslims who have lived in the region for thousands of years.

Seek peace through talks - I really don't think that Mr Terrorist is going to sit down and have peace talks with the western world. Peace is NOT what ISIS want though.
-Firstly they want to expand their Caliphate with little regard for those that live there and don't support them.
-Secondly they want to want to restore the early Islamic empire called the caliphate and eventually take over the whole world.
-ISIS's obsession, though, is not the caliphate but the apocalypse. The group's leaders, by every indication, earnestly believe that their role is to help usher in the final days and the end of the world.

So come on! Doing nothing or having peace talks clearly won't change a thing.

What do you want us to do given that the Arab states clearly don't have the gut for a battle with them to sort out their own problems.

howtorebuild · 02/12/2015 13:50

Air strikes are not the only answer.

DrDreReturns · 02/12/2015 13:54

Air strikes are not the only answer. What are the other answers then?

TheoriginalLEM · 02/12/2015 14:58

Do you know what sickens me?

That when president Assad was waging war on his own people, we turned the other way. Now we are jumping in line with him.

We should have done something about Syria years ago. But unlike iraq thete was nothing to be gained. no oil

OP posts:

TheoriginalLEM · 02/12/2015 15:00

Drdre whilst a agree - doing nothing and peace talks wont achieve anything. I don't think air strikes will achieve anything either. Other than making things worse.

OP posts:

Backawaynow2 · 02/12/2015 15:04

I think Dinasourus is spot on.

As for the Syrian people Caught between allied bombs. Assad and Daesh just poor poor buggers.

PausingFlatly · 02/12/2015 15:04

Do you actually have any argument for air strikes that isn't:

"Something must be done; this is Something, therefore let's do it"?

You do realise it matters quite a lot what the outcome is, don't you? More than the doing Something?

NewLife4Me · 02/12/2015 15:05

We are sitting ducks and if the intelligence that cameron has been given isn't correct then we will pay the price hugely in this country.
Think I may move somewhere neutral.
It's scary times.

PausingFlatly · 02/12/2015 15:08

The "Something must be done" is a classic pastiche of inadequate management.

When you find it being used as an instruction manual by statesmen in the face of an international conflagration, it's not fucking funny.

PausingFlatly · 02/12/2015 15:14

We do actually have to be clever in the face of threats like ISIS, and use the UK's considerable experience and intelligence in the face of military and idealogical threats to work out what outcomes we want, and how we're most likely to get there.

Not behave like a sodding sixth-former trying to get elected Head Boy with soundbites.

ElfontheShelfIsWATCHINGYOUTOO · 02/12/2015 15:18

That when president Assad was waging war on his own people, we turned the other way

Cameron wanted to do something!!!!!! He is ashamed we didnt step in as are many MP's including Labour.

Did anyone see News night last night? Assad gassed sleeping dc, Cameron wanted to go in then, Parliament said no.

We were going to arm the rebels, thank goodness we didn't!

As for biggest mistake, no look at Blair. But surely Blair has to be the biggest slimiest man to ever hold office in the UK.

We are already a target, this is what I dont understand that people dont understand.

we have not had huge atrocity because our intelligence stops them!

As far as I can see bombing is a token gesture, we are already bombing!! Just a mile away in Iraq!

Its a token gesture to help get us round the table for diplomatic talks.

ElfontheShelfIsWATCHINGYOUTOO · 02/12/2015 15:19

new where will you move, I am struggling to think of a country thst is safe from ISIS.

PausingFlatly · 02/12/2015 15:26

Of COURSE we understand that the UK is already a target to some people. But it matters how much support the view of targetting the UK has. The more supporters of that view, the more funding and volunteers, the greater the danger.

Does that explain it to you?

Bring who round the table for diplomatic talks? Seriously? Do you have any idea who ISIS are, and what they want? They will not be interested in diplomatic talks.

Flip

1 2 3 4

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.