Should the UK bomb Syria? Yes or no thread.

[AnotherEffingOrangeRevel]

Shall we have a little vote, here and now?

It's a big "no" from me.

Let's just say that the response here reflects in some way the belief of the general population (I am well aware of the 'Mumsnet is full of lefties' mantra). Isn't it an absolute joke that the people we have elected to represent our views appear to be doing the exact opposite? The fact that half the shadow cabinet is threatening to resign on the basis that their leader is saying exactly what their voters believe makes a complete mockery of the democratic process. We elected them to represent our views ffs! I am disgusted that the only man who appears to have a moral compass and is expressing what most of us (here at least) believe looks likely to fall victim to backstabbing by his own party members who we mistakenly trusted to make the right decisions on our behalf.

Does anyone know of any independent surveys have been conducted into whether or not voters actually support bombing Syria?

Article on the opinion polling. Looks like there is a lot of confirmation bias in the questions that have been asked though. Support DM headline figure of 60% + but behind the numbers this goes down to closer to 15% if it is a stand alone decision.

www.rt.com/uk/322695-cameron-syria-airstrikes-poll/

Interesting, thanks howabout. I don't know much about Survation or ComRes, but the fact that the ComRes one was carried out for the DM makes me wary. I did see that headline in the news stand a few days ago and thought

No

"They've already tried supporting and arming the locals. They all defected and sold their arms to ISIS."

Really now. Is that what the Kurds and the Turkmen are doing, in your opinion?

No

I agree Lion. Judging by most information other than the Daily Mail poll, the population of the UK does not want us to bomb Syria. The MPs, on the other hand, appear to be generally up for it. I think there are all sorts of subtle and not-so-subtle pressures put on MPs to vote in favour of the bombing (I think the term "air strikes" makes it sound too sanitary. It is bombing, and it is brutal killing of the innocent).

What gets me about this is that clearly we (the people of the UK) generally don't buy Cameron's stated reasons for the bombing, and don't support it. The stated reasons (protecting the UK, etc.) just do not add up. So we know that there are quite different unstated reasons, and we know that these are pretty unacceptable to the masses, because that is why we're not told them. Essentially, the motivations for doing this are likely to benefit the super-rich, arms dealers, etc. etc.. People who hold enormous sway at Westminster.

I'm quite heartened, in any case, that such a large proportion of the population does not seem to be believing the shite we're being told about this.

I am disgusted that the only man who appears to have a moral compass and is expressing what most of us (here at least) believe looks likely to fall victim to backstabbing by his own party members who we mistakenly trusted to make the right decisions on our behalf

^Yes, this. It's ridiculous. And likely to be literally fatal to thousands, if not millions in the longer term.

No

Corbyn's moral compass only ever points one way. Which is to say away from the use of military force, pretty much regardless of the arguments advanced.

No.

Corbyn's moral compass only ever points one way. Which is to say away from the use of military force, pretty much regardless of the arguments advanced

Totally agree.

I understand why people are questioning have we not learnt from Iraq I think we have we now see that this is a long term issue it is not going to be solved within six months and that it might lead to another group similar to ISIS we either fight them or let them get on with it which we have and look at the destruction they have caused within such a short space of time but it has to be done with support of the UN and collectively and to deal once and for all with the financial support these fraction groups are receiving

No.

Corbyn's moral compass only ever points one way. Which is to say away from the use of military force, pretty much regardless of the arguments advanced
This is why I find it hard to trust his decisions.

Its ideology first regardless of the circumstances.

I just e-mailed my MP. Have others done this?

Well it wouldn't be a moral compass if it wobbled about in different directions according to peer pressure, would it?

The fact remains that if the majority of the UK population is currently against bombing Syria, whatever their reasoning, then Corbyn appears to be the only person representing the current will of the electorate.

It is bombing, and it is brutal killing of the innocent

But what of the Syrians?

I have seen two reports in favour of bombing to help liberate them.

Its Russia who bombs indiscriminately -its Russia who is getting in everyones way with their support of Assad.

US are in league with civilians on the ground, for instance they know the oil tanker drivers were innocent Syrians and gave then an hours warning to get out of the way when they bombed their lorries.

little

yes of course it would, he is a politician and politics and the dangers we face right now, are of an un precedent nature. As a politician you have to look at each case separately and respond accordingly and be fluid!

Not blanket each and every new crisis.

Having said that I am pleased he is putting up a fight, and an objection.

I think the skies are crowded above Syria and hope we can add something else to this pot in terms of diplomacy etc

So we know that there are quite different unstated reasons, and we know that these are pretty unacceptable to the masses

I disagree.

If anything I think its more to do with Putin than even ISIS.

I don't trust Putin. Maybe they wouldn't want the public to know that because they don't actually want Putin to know it, because we are trying to get him in on an alliance.

Look how volatile he is, look how volatile Turkey situ is. Putin said Turkey had planned it.I cant but help feel Putin did, tested and tested and tested the patience of Turkey to get this result to be able to move in more heavy armory into Syria.

For what purpose.

I haven't Another as there is literally no point. My MP has a long history of treating the electorate with utter contempt and, having had one or two altercations with him in the past, is likely to see my name and press 'delete' on the email. His voting record speaks for itself too.

God no!

No.

Drastic he's not experienced in front bench politics and therefore doesn't fit the mould of a typical front bench politician/ leader of the sitting party who have been used to the cut and thrust and compromise required to govern. He can maintain his position, morally, and allow a free vote among members, which I suspect is the way he will go. I accept that this probably wouldn't work, or be desirable, were he PM rather than opposition leader though. His moral compass is one that he can currently just about afford, but will probably be the undoing of him in the not too distant future.

Really unsure so have to go with No

My basic objection is that we are being presented with a choice between:

a) bombing a mixture of terrorists and civilians without having a clear idea of who is who and this will stop the murderous rampages in the region and reduce the risk of terrorism in the West; or

b) doing nothing and letting genocide continue and becoming more at risk in the West as time passes.

What if the bad bits of a) and the bad bits of b) both happen as a result of bombing?