So the Ayes have it with 397 votes - 67 Labour MPs voted with the government and the labour FS Hilary Benn got a hearty round of applause from the Tory benches, hope he's proud of that.

 

His father would be SO proud of him!

His speech was very good, even if I don't agree with him. Certainly came across as more statesmanlike than Cameron, and er.. Corbyn.

Yeh it was statesman like is right to be fair. I'm sure he didn't appreciate the applause.

Certainly a better argument than Cameron's piss-weak "It will make Britain safer". :lol: Oh right, I'm convinced now. Bombs away Dave..

It's was a good speech but still profoundly wrong morally and politically.

So here's the break down -

 

The majority of the shadow cabinet voted against air strikes 16 against, 11 for and 67 MPs for air strikes with 152 against and 10 abstentions.

Certainly a better argument than Cameron's piss-weak "It will make Britain safer". :lol: Oh right, I'm convinced now. Bombs away Dave..

 

But what's the alternative? I keep hearing strategy, but no-one offers any insight as to what this might be. I don't think negotiating or coming to a peaceful resolution was ever going to be on the agenda, because there is no chance of it happening.

But what's the alternative? I keep hearing strategy, but no-one offers any insight as to what this might be. I don't think negotiating or coming to a peaceful resolution was ever going to be on the agenda, because there is no chance of it happening.

 

Obviously negotiating is utterly pointless.

 

We should be cutting off the oil and drug money that Turkey allows to cross its pretty pervious border with Syria, as well as donations from Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other equally dodgy neighbours. Turkey is increasingly becoming a rogue state who are using this campaign to simply bomb the PKK, and the shooting down of the Russian military jet only furthers this rather worrying fact.

But what's the alternative? I keep hearing strategy, but no-one offers any insight as to what this might be. I don't think negotiating or coming to a peaceful resolution was ever going to be on the agenda, because there is no chance of it happening.

If they're so certain of these ISIS strongholds - why haven't they bombed them before? There's no planned strategy to target ISIS solely - to me - its just going to be a random bombing of innocent people and spreading the cancer at the same time.

 

Plus the people who attacked Paris were from Belgium and France!

But what's the alternative? I keep hearing strategy, but no-one offers any insight as to what this might be. I don't think negotiating or coming to a peaceful resolution was ever going to be on the agenda, because there is no chance of it happening.

 

This is exactly the problem. My Facebook and Twitter is literally FILLED with posts about Parliament now having blood on their hands, how dare they vote for air strikes etc. But the fact of the matter is, the UK is already carrying out these airstrikes in Iraq and as Hilary Benn pointed out they have allowed the Kurds to regain territory and weaken IS there. Secondly, what's the alternative? We're dealing with a truly evil organisation here. There's no reasoning with these people, there's never going to be a peaceful solution because their sole aim is to destroy everything that stands in their way of enforcing the ideology. If we don't have military action, how do these people propose to deal with the problem of IS? Good luck being diplomatic with them because it's never going to happen.

I think UK must attack ISIS