British government pushing for airstrikes on Syria

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34927939


David Cameron says launching UK air strikes against Islamic State militants in Syria will "make us safer".

The prime minister denied claims it would make the UK a bigger target for terror attacks, as he made the case for military action, in the Commons.

He told MPs the UK was already a target for IS and could not "outsource our security to allies".

Labour is split, with some shadow ministers backing bombing but leader Jeremy Corbyn opposing action.

David Cameron says he will hold a Commons vote on Syria air strikes if he thinks he can win it, possibly as early as next week.

He told MPs there was strong legal justification for extending the current military action in Iraq, on grounds of self-defence and the recent UN Security Council resolution.

Absolute madness.

It is all a pretext to remove the Assad regime when in reality the Assad regime is the only bulwark in the region left against radical Islamic forces. If Assad is toppled, the so-called moderate forces of the Free Syrian Army (not actually moderate as in a Liberal Democrat) will be easily overrun by the more radical elements and the bloodbath of Druize, Alawites and Christians in the region will be horrific. In addition, as the Russians are rightly backing the Assad regime, we run the risk of cross fire between the RAF and Russian Federation aircraft.

If Cameron wants to do something in the region, why doesn't he declare support for the declaration of an Alawite State on the coast (headed by Assad) with loans and weapons deals given and the recognition of a Kurdish State in the north of Iraq and Syria? That's my solution.

Thoughts?

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm surprised nobody seems interested in this. They should be.

670887950843052032

670973035835359232

670203222955573250

Why nothing from the Conservative voters on here who voted Tory in 2010 and got Libya, and voted again in 2015 who now face this disaster foisted upon us?

Deathly silence.

[abc]

Why nothing from the Conservative voters on here who voted Tory in 2010 and got Libya, and voted again in 2015 who now face this disaster foisted upon us?

Deathly silence.

Not everyone checks the forums/section daily...

This is a situation where I agree and disagree with both parties. Cameron is ridiculous in stating that “there is a credible military strategy to defeat ISIL in Syria as well as Iraq.” If this was true then Iraq would not be in the situation it currently is. However by attacking them we also make it slightly more difficult in many ways for them to try and plan attacks against us. But air strikes etc lead to civilian casualties which in turn only creates more terrorists (families who lose everything are more likely to turn to terrorism out of anger/for revenge). ISIS need to be stopped and we are one of the reasons they exist today due to which many innocent people are suffering. So we need to do something but it is difficult to determine which approach is the best way.

We just suck at wars.

[-:Undertaker:-]

@snr (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=125189); I wouldn't say we were bad at wars. The Falklands campaign and the Iraq 2003 campaign in terms of the military and operational were very good and well executed. The problem as always tends to be the aftermath of the war which is usually handled by American diplomats rather than British. When Britain in the past has intervened in places, it tended to be open and honest about it - ie the designation of colonies, protectorates - and undertook economic and social reform in these areas and for a long period of time. America on the other hand, not believing in the concept of imperialism, tends to bomb and then install a 'democracy' which simply doesn't work in these sorts of tribal and undeveloped societies and cultures. America also tends to not have the stomach for any long engagement in the country.

I read for example with Iraq in 2003 that British diplomates at one point advocated partitioning Iraq into separate states with a constitutional monarchy model of government then imposed: America vetoed it or simply didn't even consider it. Had that been the case, the states of the former Iraq could have resembled something like the Hasemite Kingdom of Jordan (itself a similar experiment) rather than the wild west it is now. Emphasis on the could though.