SE23.com - The Official Forum for Forest Hill & Honor Oak, London SE23
Online since 2002  -  10,000+ members

Home | SE23 Topics | Businesses & Services | Wider Topics | Offered/Wanted/Lost/Found | Site Feedback | Advertising | Contact
Geddes Hairdressing & Barbering Studio One Armstrong & Co Solicitors


Post Reply  Post Topic 
Pages (2): « First < Previous 1 [2] Last »
Should UK bomb Syria ?
Author Message
crassbelch
Banned Troll

Posts: 130
Joined: Nov 2013
Post: #21
29-11-2015 09:35 PM

[Post removed due to abuse -admin]

Find all posts by this user Reply
ForestHillier


Posts: 490
Joined: Jul 2010
Post: #22
30-11-2015 10:37 AM

I dont know why I bother as every post you send gets taken over with some nonsense which has no relevance to original post

Find all posts by this user Reply
Deano


Posts: 179
Joined: Oct 2011
Post: #23
30-11-2015 10:59 AM

And to think, our defence chiefs might have to do without the input from the forest hill forum.

Find all posts by this user Reply
crassbelch
Banned Troll

Posts: 130
Joined: Nov 2013
Post: #24
30-11-2015 11:07 AM

[Post removed due to abuse -admin]

Find all posts by this user Reply
ForestHillier


Posts: 490
Joined: Jul 2010
Post: #25
30-11-2015 11:27 AM

No problem - thanks for all your contributions

Find all posts by this user Reply
John Daker


Posts: 47
Joined: Apr 2015
Post: #26
30-11-2015 02:51 PM

Its unfortunate really as this seems to be a more worthy cause than the recent ones we have followed the US into.
As I think others said above air strikes are not much use without troops on the ground to make use of them and at present there seems to be few of those we fancy siding with. Was it four the US had drummed up at the last count?

Find all posts by this user Reply
P1971


Posts: 816
Joined: Feb 2009
Post: #27
02-12-2015 07:39 PM

ForestHillier I agree with your OP #1 and say no to the UK bombing Syria. Guess we'll find out tonight what will happen.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Azira


Posts: 33
Joined: Mar 2014
Post: #28
02-12-2015 08:52 PM

Quote:
When Labour took us to war last time they toppled the secular dictator, leaving a power vacuum to be filled by religious nutters.


To be fair, it's not just religion that breeds nuttiness.


Did someone say fox?

This post was last modified: 02-12-2015 08:52 PM by Azira.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Erekose


Posts: 553
Joined: May 2010
Post: #29
02-12-2015 10:30 PM

One of those Republican types was on the wireless earlier thanking us for joining in and pointing out that our contribution would be of no value.....

Find all posts by this user Reply
PVP


Posts: 271
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #30
03-12-2015 08:26 AM

Are ISIS an abomination?

Yes, everyone agrees on that.

Will bombing Syria solve the problem of ISIS?

Not clear - the evidence says no if you look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen etc.

I would rather a genuine effort is made to discover where the funding, training, logistics, etc come from and deal with it that way. Oh wait, the Russians have been attacking the ISIS oil trade in the last few weeks, a trade the US managed to do nothing about. for the last year plus.

So who does fund / train / support ISIS... Hmmm. Problem. We would put sanctions and bomb Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey etc who are our allies....

Overall I think the plan has always been to get rid of Assad and b****r the consequences (see Libya, Iraq, etc). None of our past actions have meant the people of said country have a better life and instead we have obliterated and semblance of normal life. Why should anything change now? I would be very pleasantly surprised if it turned out differently this time.

This post was last modified: 03-12-2015 08:27 AM by PVP.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Londondrz


Posts: 1,538
Joined: Apr 2006
Post: #31
03-12-2015 11:18 AM

There is no way to win this at all. Too many factions, too much to lose by Assad. This is an area where the lines are so blurred and change so often as to be different between one day and the next.

Put UK boots on the ground and the death toll will grow on a daily basis.

You want to look like you are doing something without casualty lists in the daily papers, bombing is your only direct action.

Very sad, but very true.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Perryman


Posts: 809
Joined: Dec 2006
Post: #32
03-12-2015 12:00 PM

Good post PVP.
I find it very possible that we are actually there to play cat and mouse with Russian fighters in a proxy war, rather than making much of an impact on ISIS.

Find all posts by this user Reply
sydenhamcentral


Posts: 269
Joined: Mar 2008
Post: #33
03-12-2015 12:42 PM

All Lewisham Labour MP's including Jim Dowd voted FOR air strikes.

I wrote to JD to beg him to vote no. I know lots of others did too and as yet no-one has had a response.

Has anyone had a reply from the local representative of the New Labour Party?

Find all posts by this user Reply
Londondrz


Posts: 1,538
Joined: Apr 2006
Post: #34
03-12-2015 01:06 PM

I think they were busy yesterday.

Find all posts by this user Reply
P1971


Posts: 816
Joined: Feb 2009
Post: #35
03-12-2015 04:06 PM

Sydenhamcentral, I emailed Jim Dowd and asked him to vote no too but never got a response either.

Find all posts by this user Reply
P1971


Posts: 816
Joined: Feb 2009
Post: #36
03-12-2015 05:30 PM

Just got this reply from the email sent to Jim Dowd.

"As you are one of the very many people who have recently contacted me regarding the motion and debate on Syria, I am writing to you to confirm my views on this extremely important issue.

Below I have attached a copy of the motion and a copy my speech taken from the Official Record (Hansard). I have also attached a copy of the speech given by Hilary Benn MP, Shadow Foreign Secretary.

Motion

ISIL IN SYRIA (UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2249)

The Prime Minister
Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer
Secretary Theresa May
Secretary Philip Hammond
Secretary Michael Fallon
Secretary Justine Greening

That this House notes that ISIL poses a direct threat to the United Kingdom; welcomes United Nations Security Council Resolution 2249 which determines that ISIL constitutes an 'unprecedented threat to international peace and security' and calls on states to take 'all necessary measures' to prevent terrorist acts by ISIL and to 'eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria'; further notes the clear legal basis to defend the UK and our allies in accordance with the UN Charter; notes that military action against ISIL is only one component of a broader strategy to bring peace and stability to Syria; welcomes the renewed impetus behind the Vienna talks on a ceasefire and political settlement; welcomes the Government's continuing commitment to providing humanitarian support to Syrian refugees; underlines the importance of planning for post-conflict stabilisation and reconstruction in Syria; welcomes the Government’s continued determination to cut ISIL’s sources of finance, fighters and weapons; notes the requests from France, the US and regional allies for UK military assistance; acknowledges the importance of seeking to avoid civilian casualties, using the UK’s particular capabilities; notes the Government will not deploy UK troops in ground combat operations; welcomes the Government's commitment to provide quarterly progress reports to the House; and accordingly supports Her Majesty's Government in taking military action, specifically airstrikes, exclusively against ISIL in Syria; and offers its wholehearted support to Her Majesty's Armed Forces."

Speech to follow as this was to long to post...

Find all posts by this user Reply
P1971


Posts: 816
Joined: Feb 2009
Post: #37
03-12-2015 05:33 PM

Speech

6.24 pm
Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). She says she is from an RAF family; my father served in the Royal Air Force for 15 years, including all the years of the Second World War, so we have that in common. In fact, I was born at the RAF base in Gütersloh in Germany.
When Bill Clinton was first elected President of the USA, the slogan was, “It’s the economy, stupid.” That was thought to be the primary reason for people voting as they do in elections. I do not disagree with that entirely, but I believe that people have a higher consideration as well. It is the primary duty of any Government, or any party purporting to form a Government, to do anything and everything necessary to protect the people, their families and their homes. If any party, Parliament or Government do not do that, they will pay a terrible price. That is what people expect the Government to do. I am sure that everyone in the Chamber agrees with that. Perhaps the only question we have to answer is how best we can protect our citizens and communities.
Hon. Members have said that we should accept the genuine depth of feeling on this issue on both sides. I am grateful to the many constituents who have contacted me with their views. Many have sent formalised messages given to them by other organisations, but I do not dispute their belief in what they were saying and doing. I am particularly grateful to the constituents who said, “Even if you don’t agree with me, I hope you will do what you think is right,” and that is what I intend to do this evening.
Others have said that the debate is out of all proportion, because we are not talking about a new engagement. We are talking about a variation on the commitment that the House overwhelmingly endorsed not so long ago. There will of course be complications. Actually, I have some sympathy with those who have said that the effect will be only marginal. That might well be true, but the question is: is it worth doing or not? We need to decide which side of the argument to come down on.
I will certainly not vote for the amendment, for a number of reasons, not least because of the weasel words and sophistry it employs to suggest that the case has not been made. That is the kind of thing the Liberals used to say before 2010, when they had to face up to genuine responsibility. It is like when people say, “I take a principled stand on this.” They seem to be suggesting that they are principled and that anyone who opposes them is unprincipled, but that is not true. The fact is that people can have genuine, deeply held views on this matter, and we should respect their views—
Alex Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Jim Dowd: No I will not, thank you very much, because there are plenty of people waiting to get in—
Alex Salmond rose—
Jim Dowd: Oh all right, as you’ve got your gang with you. Go on!
Alex Salmond: For the hon. Gentleman’s information, the wording of the cross-party amendment is exactly the same as that of the amendment that tried to stop the war in Iraq. A lot of people think that it would have been a better thing if that amendment had been carried that day.
Jim Dowd: I do not dispute that for a moment, but I am not sure what point the right hon. Gentleman is making, so I shall move on.
People set up barriers. They say, “We must have a UN resolution.” Then, when the UN comes forward with a resolution, they say, “Oh no! That’s not good enough. We want a better-quality UN resolution. Tell it to go do its homework. Tell it to do better.” It is ridiculous. These are weasel words in the amendment; they are euphemisms. It is almost as though those who say that the case has not been made think they have a higher moral standard, a transcendent judgment superior to that of those who disagree with them.
I just want to say this to the Prime Minister: the Brimstone missile about which we have heard so much is known as a fire-and-forget weapon—[Interruption.] Well, it is known by some as that; maybe not by Conservative Members. It has been described as a fire-and-forget weapon, but the motion, which I find comprehensive and persuasive, is not a fire-and-forget motion. If we pass it tonight, we will have to come back to it and address all the issues raised in it. We must make sure that nobody is pretending that airstrikes alone will solve the problems in the Middle East. There is much more to be done, and we will need dedication, effort and application to ensure that we do as much as we can to bring peace and a degree of stability to that troubled part of the world.


Thank you for taking the time to contact me and for sharing your views.

Best Wishes

Yours Sincerely

Jim Dowd

Find all posts by this user Reply
sandy


Posts: 189
Joined: Oct 2006
Post: #38
03-12-2015 07:57 PM

Vicky Foxcroft voted against

Find all posts by this user Reply
Londondrz


Posts: 1,538
Joined: Apr 2006
Post: #39
04-12-2015 12:30 AM

Precision strikes or blanket bombing?

Sorry, response was to post 20.

This post was last modified: 04-12-2015 12:31 AM by Londondrz.

Find all posts by this user Reply
sydenhamcentral


Posts: 269
Joined: Mar 2008
Post: #40
07-12-2015 01:29 PM

I got exactly the same response from Jim Dowd. It was a blanket email. On Facebook everyone seemed to get the same response.

I write back to our MP with some questions about the bombing but have yet to get a response.

I will publish the reply if ever get one.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Pages (2): « First < Previous 1 [2] Last »

Friends of Blythe Hill Fields