MPs support UK air strikes against IS in Iraq

MPs support UK air strikes against IS in Iraq


The UK Parliament has backed British participation in air strikes against Islamic State extremists in Iraq.
After a seven-hour debate, MPs voted for military action by 524 votes to 43.
The Conservatives, Lib Dems and Labour leaderships all backed air strikes although some MPs expressed concerns about where it would lead and the prospect of future engagement in Syria.
The BBC's political editor Nick Robinson said RAF planes could be called into action as early as Sunday.
Speaking after the vote, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said a long campaign lay ahead and there would not be a "series of immediate hits".
'Brutal organisation'He told the BBC the priority would be to stop the "slaughter of civilians" in Iraq and the UK and its allies would continue to be guided by Iraqi and Kurdish intelligence in identifying targets.
About 24 Labour MPs are thought to have voted against air strikes and a number of Conservatives abstained or voted against action.



MPs vote to approve air strikes against Islamic State militants in Iraq by 524 votes to 43

Earlier, Prime Minister David Cameron told MPs that intervention at the request of the Iraqi government was "morally justified" to combat a "brutal terrorist organisation" and was clearly lawful.
He won support from Labour leader Ed Miliband who said inaction would lead to "more killing" in Iraq, large swathes of which are controlled by Islamic State.
But shadow education minister Rushanara Ali, MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, resigned from the party's front bench in order to abstain in the vote.
Labour MP Iain McKenzie has been sacked as an aide to shadow defence secretary Vernon Coaker for failing to back air strikes.

In other developments:

• The Pentagon said four IS tanks had been destroyed during the latest US raids in Syria
• Denmark and Belgium say they will contribute seven and six fighter plans respectively to the international coalition. The UK is contributing six Tornado strike aircraft.
• Speaking in a separate debate in the House of Lords, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, supported action but called for "an ideological and religious" solution rather than a military one.
• The widow and daughter of murdered British aid worker David Haines back RAF air strikes

Addressing MPs, Mr Cameron insisted Britain had a clear "duty" to join the campaign, saying IS was a direct threat to the UK and he was not prepared to "subcontract" the protection of British streets from terrorism to other countries' air forces.

'Same mistakes'

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said it was "impossible to reason with" Islamic State and the UK should not be "paralysed" by the legacy of the 2003 Iraq War.

Analysis by BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus

Six additional aircraft - RAF Tornadoes operating out of Cyprus - is hardly a massive deployment of air power, but the British role is nonetheless significant - both politically and militarily.
The key success of the US-led coalition is to have so many Arab states as active participants.
But western military contributions are also vital; with France, Australia and the Netherlands already on board, Britain adds another weighty player.
The RAF Tornadoes bring very advanced targeting capabilities but their significance to the ever growing coalition is also about sustainability.
So far - despite much misleading commentary in the press - this is a relatively low level air campaign.
The numbers of aircraft involved is not huge. But the problem for the coalition is to sustain their activities over time.
This campaign against Islamic State could potentially go on for years.
Each country's contribution (leaving aside the Americans) may be small, but together they make up a force that could continue operations almost indefinitely.


And Mr Miliband - who a year ago forced the prime minister to abandon plans for air strikes against the Syrian regime by inflicting a Commons revolt on the issue - said the UK "cannot simply stand by".
Speaking after the outcome of the vote, Labour MP John McDonnell - who voted against air strikes - said previous interventions in Iraq was one of the causes of the emergence of the jihadist movement.
"We seem to be making the same mistakes without any alternative strategy," he told BBC News.Failure to act in Iraq will make the situation even worse than the already "catastrophic consequences" of IS's advance there, Ed Miliband warned

The US began a series of air strikes in Iraq last month, and on Monday it began attacks on targets in Syria. Jets from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have joined US forces in the attacks, and the US says more than 40 countries have offered to join the anti-IS coalition.
The government has said it would seek separate Parliamentary approval for the extension of air strikes to Syria but reserved the right to act without consulting MPs in the event of a humanitarian emergency.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29385123

On a day when this gets buried in the main news

UK cuts to last five more years, ex-civil service boss says

he outgoing head of the civil service has predicted another five years of UK government spending cuts - and he said making the cuts would be "even harder".

Sir Bob Kerslake said one of the difficulties was that "easier" savings had already been made.
He said the "sense of urgency" would be reduced and the need for cuts would be hard to explain to public sector staff.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29373230



Fucking explain to me CUNTERON why we need to be spending billions of tax payers money on bombing ISIS ?

When we have several OIL RICH nations already doing it and it doesn't cost us fuck all.

You fucking put ten of thousands of armed forces on the dole in the name of austerity.

The only reason you are doing this you cunt is so you can get a massive boner and have your upper crust ego pandered too.

These muppets dont represent me! I dont think they represent the majority of people wtf are we doing paying for another waste of money phoney war. The yanks supplied ISIS (make no mistake a re branded Al Qaeda) with 600 tonnes of weapons last year to overthrow that evil President Bashar al-Assad. It will only be a matter of time before Syria shoot down a drone and the US will declare war on them thus getting what they have wanted all along. It was a proud moment for me when it was voted in parliament not to attack Syria last year but this will be another disaster costing the UK taxpayer even more when we are broke as a nation (not to mention our brave troops). The US and UK madmen really are in charge and this will cause more terrorism as a result. The VAST MAJORITY of people I have talked to wouldn't of voted yes for any of this fight we cant win.............deeep breath...............:angry:

I just wish our politicians were honest about why we are going to war. Rather than this 'ISIS is a danger to Britain' bollocks, just tell us the fucking truth. If Cameron, or any of the main party leaders, stood up and treated us like adults and told us that unless we killed these cunts petrol would be £10 a litre within 5 years, I'd respect them a lot more.

Instead they feed us a line of bullshit a fucking child has trouble swallowing. Why? Maybe we can't handle the truth? If the politicians didn't make the reasons palatable enough we'd have to examine our own actions. Maybe then we'd realise that when all said and done, we'd rather have cheap petrol rather than show any kind of compassion for the thousands of innocent men, women and children who die as a result of our greed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4me2

UK and its allies would continue to be guided by Iraqi and Kurdish intelligence in identifying targets.

---

So basically we're participating in gang warfare.

Artical 51 of the UN Charter:-
Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml

Can someone explain self defence and or pre-emptive strike?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billynoguts

Artical 51 of the UN Charter:-
Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml

Can someone explain self defence and or pre-emptive strike?

---

Just use Israel as a guide, if they do it then it's self defence

This was interesting this week, Galloway attacking that pustule Jacqui Smith and then when asked what SHOULD be happening gives the reasoned reply.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29376769

He got it bang on in the last few sentences in my opinion.