Bombing Syria - could somebody explain the argument for?

[RedMapleLeaf]

Just that really. All I've heard from Cameron is "I am fully convinced about the argument for strikes against Syria" which isn't a very strong argument.

'Have they someone in mind to lead the Muslim region like an EU type leader?'

Lots of analysts are saying that they have probably promsed overlordship of the region to Turkey and Erdogan as a new Sunni Ottoman style Empire. He probably thinks that is the case, but they are very clever and I think they will stitch him up and form an independent Kurdistan and turn on Erdogan eventually. Erdogan has helped in the takedown of Syria, but my guess is his turn will probably come soon too.

They don't want anyone too strong in the region, that is why they took down Iraq and are trying to take down Syria. I don't think they will let Turkey off the hook. They want weak dependent statelets who will do as they are told.

They don't want anyone too strong in the region. They want weak dependent statelets who will do as they are told. Just like weak European statelets.

wow Fourmummy, what A BILDERBERG list!

"so what is Cameron trying to do"

distract people from the growing problems at home by whipping up anti-islamic and anti-immigrant hysteria I think. It's working so far.

'distract people from the growing problems at home by whipping up anti-islamic and anti-immigrant hysteria I think'

No, he is not whipping anything up. This has all come about after the attack on Paris and after the Russian intervention in Syria. Cameron is under pressure to go along with our allies.

so what is Cameron trying to do
Chop off snakes heads, apparently. I don't know if this is for his personal collection at home along with the pigs head?
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3339200/Kill-b-ds-Furious-Cameron-vowed-ISIS-maniacs-Labour-MPs-offered-tea-terrorists-briefing-Tories-ahead-Syria-vote.html

Have you read the comments to that Daily Mail article?

Have you read the comments to that Daily Mail article? I think that many, many people now have the measure of everything that's going on- but why are there no protests like there were for Iraq?

That is the Daily Mail, a conservative paper and readership, and nearly every comment doesn't have confidence in what is being done. There were some Stop the War protests but most people have just given up and know that the politicians and Labour Shadow Cabinet will do what they want even if 75% of Labour members are against bombing, and everyone is wondering why the funders of Isis aren't being stopped.

Corbyn has opted for PLP free vote not whipped. Further 2 day discussion in parliament obligatory. The press will paint this as a sign of Corbyn weakness, but it is a sign of conviction to democracy. Cameron is looking weak now.

David Cameron knows that the only thing that bombing Syria will achieve is yet more refugees. But wait. George Soros, that well-known expert in international policy, no wait, I meant genius in finance, but wait, he has a 2006 criminal conviction for insider trading billionaire has stated that Europe needs to take 1 million refugees every year for the foreseeable future at a cost of 10k stlg per year for each refugee. It's interesting that his view of the world is that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, where US and Russia were kept peaceful via MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), a space was created for global policing population control. America was reluctant (from Soros' perspective) to take on the role of global policeman militarily because this counteracted their basic principles such as liberalism. However, the world clearly needs policing so they do it financially (it's interesting to observe his almost benevolent-peternalistic attitude in his interviews). And he has his other Bilderberg compatriots to help in the decision-making:

Bill Gates $63.4 Billion
Warren Buffett $49.8 Billion
Larry Ellison $40.7 Billion
Bernard Arnault $29.8 Billion
Jeff Bezos $24.1 Billion
George Soros $21.6 Billion

He's obviously as well qualified as Bill and Melinda Gates to comment on matters of population control (everyone else calls it 'Washington's Wars'). Good to see all the world's expertise in international policy come together. They should hold a conference - and disseminate the findings in the spirit of knowledge exchange.

*paternalistic

What I don't understand is why aren't we/they following the money?

ISIS is very well funded due to oil sales. Here it is reported that ISIS are selling oil to Assad!!

uk.businessinsider.com/isis-selling-oil-to-biggest-enemy-2015-11?r=US&IR=T

So Assad is funding ISIS. Fantastic. And we think throwing more bombs around is going to get positive results?

www.ft.com/cms/s/2/b8234932-719b-11e5-ad6d-f4ed76f0900a.html#axzz3t4qmKUCc

If you want to solve a big problem following the money and cutting income and ammunitions off from ISIS is likely to get better results than bombing random civilians.

And how will the bombing of Syria help UK's Allie France, control and monitor their home grown terrorists? Or those born in neighbouring Belgium or even UK?

and ISIS will be fighting back using weapons and ammunition made by NATO countries and their allies.

Who benefits? - arms manufacturers and arms dealers.

It is all totally fucked up. As was said up thread, nothing makes sense. The UK getting involved in another totally fucked no plan war is not the answer to anything.

On the Daily Politics, Mary Creagh cheerleading for the UK to join bombing ISIS held areas in Syria stated how isis were barbaric because of how they treated gay people, people trafficking etc. She is right in this being barbaric, but the state dictates the death penalty for homosexuality is in KSA, Yemen Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan too. Among others.

www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/02/24/here-are-the-10-countries-where-homosexuality-may-be-punished-by-death/

Think there are systems akin to slavery still operating in some countries too.

Should the bombing vote tomorrow include these other countries if that is the criteria? Along with any country which decrees the death penalty for apostasy and blasphemy.

There is no more a plan now than there was before Paris. There is a lot of talk about allies, but why no official invoking of NATO countries. A manufacturing of 70,000 ground forces gives memories of Iraq. Chicott mark 2?

Maybe Cameron wants to show case the UK weapons industry to increase revenue. They could sell a few extra to KSA who could then kill a few more Yemenis. Or Turkey could use them to continue running with the hare while declaring themselves to be hunting with the hounds.