Would you vote for bombing ISIS in Syria?

[NooBHA]

I respect your reply and I'm not looking for a row. You may well be right in thinking that a politician would avoid making a decision he thought was correct in principle but which would impact on a member of his family. I think I would. But that doesn't make it right. A national decision, for right or wrong, shouldn't depend on family considerations. There were a million reasons that could have been put forward for not invading Iraq, but if George Bush's sister in law had been living in Baghdad that shouldn't have been one of them.

What national decision? A piece of land that will be there long after we are all gone. Who cares. We should put people above a piece of land. Thousands died in every region all over the world over a piece of land. We are condemning others for fighting to govern their own land . That's another double standard. It is time people put people before land and if we did all did that the world would be a better place.

I am not unsympathetic about the need to do something about ISIS but slaughtering people in my opinion is not the solution. Put pressure on the Saudi Government not to fund and arm them in the first place. That would be a start. Exhaust these sort of Avenues before dropping bombs. Then maybe just maybe when all other Avenues fail then fighting and killing is a last option and not an easy option.

There is no true compassion without sacrifice and it seems that the VOTEYES POLITICIANS are sacrificing nothing. Indeed the shame of the Labour politicians, some of them are using it to try and bring down the Labour Leader and this is coming from someone who has never voted for any other party apart from Labour. Shame on them who are doing it for that reason

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

No, not this time.

Of course it appeals to my inner First-Person-Shooter, but for once let's learn some lessons.

We do not have an Exit Strategy here.

Stick to the achievable aim of kicking ISIS out of Iraq, and securing the border, giving air support for the Iraqi army.

Send naval vessels to support the French aircraft carrier, if needed.

Forget the bombing, no achievable good will come of it at this time.

 

[GT49er]

We need to put a political solution first and develop a long-term strategy that will foster reconciliation.

I'm all in favour of peace rather than war wherever possible, but with many people clamouring for a 'political settlement' on here I must ask, just what sort of 'political settlement' do they think would satisfy ISIS?
They're not like the Kurds, the Jews, the Palestinians etc., who just want a bit of the world to be theirs, for them to have independent home rule in it and live at peace (more or less) with their neighbours.
They want to kill all Christians, In fact, you don't even have to be a Christian to qualify for being killed - atheists, Buddhists, Jews - even the 'wrong sort of muslims' - are on their death list. So presumably the deal would have to be we all convert to their sort if Islam, force our wives and daughters into burkhas and start learning the Qoran (and not just in English either), with stringent tests at regular intervals to make sure we were keeping up (with appropriate ISIS penalties for failure.
Those who cannot accept these conditions to present themselves to their newly established local ISIS community centre to be beheaded.
All those in favour........?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I don't know but any use of explosive weapons in populated areas is bad news for civilians. For example: http://www.unicef.org/protection/Devastating_Impact_low_res.pdf

The RAF will likely be bombing in Raqqa which has a lot of civilians. There is no way to avoid the likelihood of civilian deaths if using explosive weapons in these places.

I think the RAF has a better track record on accuracy and target selection than the air forces currently bombing Raqqa but I agree it is unlikely there will be no civilian casualties. On the other hand we know that the hundreds probably thousands of ISIS fighters killed by Air strikes have terrorised, brutalised, raped, crucified and killed tens of thousands of civilians. Unfortunately there are no easy zero sum solutions in this conflict.

 

[gregbrighton]

Tony Benn 1992 speech: Labour MP's address to Commons about Britain's wars in the Middle East



Still relevant twenty-three years on.

 

[wigman]

Yes, we need to send a message that we are not a soft touch.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

What national decision? A piece of land that will be there long after we are all gone. Who cares. We should put people above a piece of land. Thousands died in every region all over the world over a piece of land. We are condemning others for fighting to govern their own land . That's another double standard. It is time people put people before land and if we did all did that the world would be a better place.

I am not unsympathetic about the need to do something about ISIS but slaughtering people in my opinion is not the solution. Put pressure on the Saudi Government not to fund and arm them in the first place. That would be a start. Exhaust these sort of Avenues before dropping bombs. Then maybe just maybe when all other Avenues fail then fighting and killing is a last option and not an easy option.

There is no true compassion without sacrifice and it seems that the VOTEYES POLITICIANS are sacrificing nothing. Indeed the shame of the Labour politicians, some of them are using it to try and bring down the Labour Leader and this is coming from someone who has never voted for any other party apart from Labour. Shame on them who are doing it for that reason

I don't know why you posted this as a response to my point - you've gone off on an entirely new angle. I'll let you get on with it, simply referring you to GT49's point above.

 

[Tarpon]

It appears that a significant proportion of people on here are terrorist sympathisers...

 

[The Birdman]

We are bombing them already so why restrict our armed forces not goinging over the boarder Isis don't respect boarders.

 

[Bruntburger]

No, save the money and increase tax credits.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

No, save the money and increase tax credits.

I suspect bombing Syria, will actually mean bombing Iraq less.

Same budget, the Government won't want to up the bill

 

[Bold Seagull]

It appears that a significant proportion of people on here are terrorist sympathisers...

Well done on the most idiotic post so far. *not Tarpon though....

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

No. These buggers are already hiding in tunnels under schools and hospitals. They WANT the evil imperialists to bomb them. It attracts every Muslim misfit and malcontent to their colours when Arab babies are getting blown to bloody bits.

It won't get rid of the beards. It will just make us cover our hands in innocent blood.

 

[Peter Grummit]

A No from me. I was genuinely surprised to see a majority of NSC against. Logic over jingoism.

PG

 

[Tarpon]

Well done on the most idiotic post so far.

Oh I am so sorry I forgot to quote the source...

David Cameron has appealed to Conservative MPs to give him an overall parliamentary majority in favour of military action in Syria by warning them against voting alongside “Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers”.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Oh I am so sorry I forgot to quote the source...

David Cameron has appealed to Conservative MPs to give him an overall parliamentary majority in favour of military action in Syria by warning them against voting alongside “Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers”.

Whoops sorry, I see what you've done there. Well done our PM on the most idiotic comment so far...

 

[The Spanish]

No, not this time.

Of course it appeals to my inner First-Person-Shooter, but for once let's learn some lessons.

We do not have an Exit Strategy here.

Stick to the achievable aim of kicking ISIS out of Iraq, and securing the border, giving air support for the Iraqi army.

Send naval vessels to support the French aircraft carrier, if needed.

Forget the bombing, no achievable good will come of it at this time.

iraq as a nation state is finished, things will not return to the pre gulf war status quo. looking to revert to what were in the first place arbitary borders, that on the ground dont really exist, is not a solution no matter how attractive and noble that appears compared to the reality of being involved in a massive power vacuum south and east of central anatolia quite a way into the arabian peninsula. if we are debating whether to get involved, it helps to know where we are really getting involved in.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

A No from me. I was genuinely surprised to see a majority of NSC against. Logic over jingoism.

PG

There are valid points on all sides and no easy solutions. Labelling people with a different view is easy to do. eg Appeasement over realism .. but I would never stoop to that level

 

[Mackenzie]

It's a conundrum that's for sure. We can't let these IS chaps get away with murdering all and sundry though.

 

[Hampster Gull]

No, not yet. The USA and Fance should have it covered this time