Syria- Is it time we re-assessed who we support?

Sonic67

Where the parties stand:

What's the UK doing about Syria: 11 key questions answered - BBC News

While the majority of Conservative MPs would support UK military action in Syria, there are about 20 expected to oppose it.

Labour is split. Leader Jeremy Corbyn is opposed to military action, but about 20 to 30 of his MPs are thought to be in favour - including members of his shadow cabinet.

The SNP remains "unconvinced" and wants to see clear UN legal authorisation for air strikes. The Liberal Democrats have said they are not yet persuaded.

The Greens, Plaid Cymru and UKIP are expected to vote against extending air strikes to Syria. The DUP has indicated it could vote in favour.

Seems once again he isn't bothered about where his cabinet is on it.

Jeremy Corbyn 'cannot support UK air strikes in Syria' - BBC News

Mr Corbyn's decision to write to MPs before the shadow cabinet had reached agreement was criticised by a senior shadow minister, who told BBC assistant political editor Norman Smith: "There will be resignations among senior members of the shadow cabinet over this."

He said Mr Corbyn's letter had led to a breakdown of trust within the shadow cabinet, which had not been consulted before it was sent.

nabby

To me, the more interesting point from today's events was when Cameron said that the Saudis fully backed his proposals for taking action in Syria.  Hmmm, it seems we now have a new puppet master that we are beholden to. That'd be the Saudi regime that has done nothing so far to stem the fighting or try and broker peace or help with the refugee crisis.

Does anyone else think Cameron is only keen now because of Putin and Russia going in on the side of Assad? And how is this not regime change by another name?

I accept that not taking further action in Syria doesn't guarantee that we become less of a target than we possibly are now (and BTW does anyone really think that ISIS has a Top 5 target countries list lying around that they use as their planner when deciding where next to promote an act of terror?), but conversely, taking action in Syria doesn't, in my mind at least, guarantee that we become safer either.

As for Corbyn's remarks, he's showing some mettle and leadership by stating his position hasn't changed, and especially not on some flimsy evidence presented in Parliament that all of a sudden and unbeknownst to anyone previously there are now 70,000 Free Syria Army fighters who we can possibly trust to fight on the ground on our behalf.  Having said that, things will get interesting if he can't convince the shadow cabinet members that seem to want to vote for military action and then tries to enforce the whip.

Sonic67

French defence minister wants us:

France appeals directly for Britain to join war against Isis in Syria

Britain, France needs you in this fight against Isis | Jean-Yves Le Drian

johntheexpat

Will someone please explain to me why or how a few missions flown by the RAF over Syria rather than Iraq will make any difference at all.
I'm all in favour of taking the fight to daesh and will unequivocally support bombing them into oblivion.  But the Russians the Syrians the French and the Americans are bombing Syria back to the twelfth century or earlier so why is a relatively insignificant increase in this wave of destruction so important?  Why can't the UK concentrate its effort on something that may have a significant effect?  The Germans have the right idea, a small but noticeable boost to the fight in Africa.  It will make a difference, unlike the UK in Syria.

Sonic67

If it really came to it the US could probably do everything on their own. US taxpayers might not be happy but they probably could. Coalitions are about politics.

"It's not us against you it's all these countries."

Militarily we probably wouldn't add much. Politically it would be solidarity, another country standing shoulder to shoulder etc.

Aside from that there's the fact we have Cyprus. We are offering that to France. It would be odd if French aircraft can use it to attack Syria and UK aircraft couldn't.

Edit: From the last time the vote was rejected:

US to act in its 'best interests' over Syria crisis - BBC News

The vote in London is likely to send shock waves through the Obama administration, the BBC's North America editor Mark Mardell says.

He adds that Britain has tended to march alongside the US, and that this rejection of President Obama's argument will leave the administration bruised.

If you want another reason.

It looks like something is being done.

robel

Now I have the Dad's Army theme tune in my head...

Fred Quimby

Never thought of adding that. LOL.
How old are you.

weaponx031277

The thing for me that i have severe doubts about is Cameron going on about these 70000 rebels that we could work or do buisness with. Now the Kurds yes possibly but how much is that going to iritate Turkey? The rest? Well we only have to see what happend with the CIA's vetting programme and what happend there a few weeks ago. There groups out there that are very militant islamic leaning and affiliated with Al Qaedea. There also doubts over massive parts of the FSA.

Also they keep saying about going on about a new government and elections. How can they seriously think about that when there is so much fighting going on around the country. Its complete madness. Surley they must degrade IS to some lower kind of level before even considering that?

Fred Quimby

The thing for me is 70000 Turks pouring into the UK, if Turkey gain admittance to the EU.  However that seems very unlikely  to happen.

Sve

Compared to 70000 Spainards, Germans, French, Poles, Greeks or any other nation in the EU?