Would you vote for bombing ISIS in Syria?

[highway61]

Out of interest, and a general thought. Whichever side one stands on, I'd be interested to know what it would take for you to change your mind, no to yes or yes to no? Or are you deeply embedded in your stance?

 

[pastafarian]

Someone needs to explain the end game. We bomb Syria then what? Until a case is made we should hold off.

this is very crucial and important

but when people are being butchered in front of your eyes how do you equate wanting to get everything perfect and sorted out before you even contemplate getting involved with stepping in and trying to save lives today......i cant be the only person who feels these poor people under this barbaric rule deserve our combined allied action now before we cross the t`s and dot the i`s for our own guilty satisfaction

 

[daveinprague]

Our 'allies' in the middle east should put up some fight against these people. Saudis and Emirate states spend billions on military equipment. Fecking use it.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Out of interest, and a general thought. Whichever side one stands on, I'd be interested to know what it would take for you to change your mind, no to yes or yes to no? Or are you deeply embedded in your stance?

I am happy to change my mind if it can be explained as an important part of an overall strategy to attain an achievable goal. But the justification that we must do something does not really come close.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Out of interest, and a general thought. Whichever side one stands on, I'd be interested to know what it would take for you to change your mind, no to yes or yes to no? Or are you deeply embedded in your stance?

ISIS to tell us what they want in return for ending hostilities, and for us to find it acceptable?

 

[pastafarian]

I think the point is there is more than one way to destroy ISIS. Bombing isn't the answer, as has been proven many times in the past. ISIS are being funded by someone and get their recruits from somewhere. Stop these two things and we won't need bombs..

These two things wont make them go away though,they will only be defeated by a military option,our airstrikes are crucial to that,its the eventual ground force option that will mop them up that is the key,the nations in the surrounding areas should be the ones to exterminate them on the ground,like Saudis,Iranians Turks and Jordanians

 

[vegster]

This is going to end up as the mother of all messes. How Russian,French, US, Syrian and UK planes can work together as a "coalition " despite having support for different factions with differing agendas is beyond me.

 

[Kevlar]

Nothing against killing the soldiers of the caliphate BUT and it is a big but the
problem is mission creep .Remember many of those (including the pm) who advocate
bombimg the caliphate were advocating bombing the Syrian government before and
still no doubt wish to.
Taking sides against the caliphate and its foreign fighters is I think the right thing to do
but taking sides in the Syrian civil war means becoming embroiled in a wider and very
dangerous geo political conflict.Saudi Arabia against Iran,Sunni v Shia ,the US v Russia
and that we should be worried about.
Wishful thinking in Afghanistan,Iraq, and Libya has not produced liberal democracies.Their
governments still cannot rule over all of their nations.
So it is only yes for me in a very narrow context.

 

[pastafarian]

Out of interest, and a general thought. Whichever side one stands on, I'd be interested to know what it would take for you to change your mind, no to yes or yes to no? Or are you deeply embedded in your stance?

i would change my mind if someone proved to me that its really true the RAF will be abandoning its targeting strategy it uses in Iraq and will switch to indiscriminate bombing in Syria as claimed not just on here but also by some politicians that claim women and children are going to die in their thousands upon thousands due to some radical shift in how the RAF conducts itself.

That wont happen though as its a pure lie

 

[Dave the OAP]

Yes...nuke the buggers

 

[pastafarian]

This is going to end up as the mother of all messes. How Russian,French, US, Syrian and UK planes can work together as a "coalition " despite having support for different factions with differing agendas is beyond me.

im fairly sure Syrian jets do not feature in our coalition against Islamic State

i do know those countries that are part of the coalition in Iraq have been working very well together though,hopefully this will transpire over to the Syrian theatre

 

[JC Footy Genius]

It's not a mistake in the past though is it? The mistake is happening right now as it has done for many years. Even Tony sodding Blair admits that there are 'elements of truth' in that Iraq lead to the rise of ISIS. So what do we do? Carry on as before.

If people subscribe to the 'we helped created ISIS' view then I would argue that what we are doing is taking responsibility for past mistakes rather than leaving them to face the consequences of our actions.

But in Syria it is worth remembering the chaos was caused by Assad's response to the Syrians people demonstrations for more freedom. Leading to civil war. The mass exodus of refugees was not caused by foreign air forces bombing but by Syrian army atrocities including using chemical weapons on civilians. Cameron wanted to intervene then but couldn't' get a vote through. Our washing our hands of this crisis hasn't worked so far I can't see why it would now.

 

[scamander]

Strong no from me, sadly this is being twisted by some sections of the media (and even the PM) into meaning that you wouldn't mind ISIS popping round for a cup of tea and a chat.

Bombing isn't an effective way of dealing with a non-structured army. ISIS are far better countered through stopping their funding and denying them PR as well as developing a response in the region from other Islamic factions. I'd argue that the Paris attacks in part were designed to bring the West more directly into the war. The whole ideology behind ISIS is a confrontation with the West in Syria, something they are not currently getting.

Exactly what we can offer in terms of air support seems ambiguous, David Davis said on R4 that the US are flying a maximum of 7 missions a day because they have so few targets to hit.

First airstrike by the UK will be met with the ISIS PR department gleefully announcing the death of several kids at a school/house. We'd be far more effective getting Turkey and Syria to stop buying oil from ISIS, in the case of the former it's the President's son whose company (BMZ - read here http://www.mintpressnews.com/211624-2/211624/) are the ones moving it. Chances are ISIS have moved their headquarters somewhere much safer (eastern Libya) but they'll ensure Raqqa is stacked with lots of civilians who aren't allowed to leave just so their press department have plenty to work with.

The other aside is that leaves us with a slight possibility of boots on ground becoming an eventual option.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Learn the lessons of the past - work out the aims and EXIT STRATEGY first.

 

[spring hall convert]

On a more serious note, anyone who thinks a political solution that doesn't involve ISIS is possible is living in cloud cuckoo land.

It's not. Very difficult because it has to involve Assad but it's not cloud cuckoo land. Something similar had to happen in Iraq and that has created a more unified force that is fighting IS on the ground with a far greater level of success in Syria.

Without a political agreement between the non IS parties in Syria, who is actually going to fight them? Without a force on the ground the bombing isn't going to be a great deal of use. A political solution needs to involve Russia, Turkey and The Gulf States as well.

Otherwise Syria is Libya mk.2.

 

[Hastings gull]

]If people subscribe to the 'we helped created ISIS' view then I would argue that what we are doing is taking responsibility for past mistakes rather than leaving them to face the consequences of our actions.[/B]
But in Syria it is worth remembering the chaos was caused by Assad's response to the Syrians people demonstrations for more freedom. Leading to civil war. The mass exodus of refugees was not caused by foreign air forces bombing but by Syrian army atrocities including using chemical weapons on civilians. Cameron wanted to intervene then but couldn't' get a vote through. Our washing our hands of this crisis hasn't worked so far I can't see why it would now.[/QUOTE

I think most folk acknowledge that errors were made in Iraq,but it is all too convenient to blame the West for everything. When the last American general left that country, I recall the lengthy interview with him, when he said that the Shiite leader post occupation was strongly urged to involve the Sunnis in government, but refused to do so, presumably because of age-old enmity. This decision might have been just as responsible for the rise of ISIS.

 

[vegster]

im fairly sure Syrian jets do not feature in our coalition against Islamic State

i do know those countries that are part of the coalition in Iraq have been working very well together though,hopefully this will transpire over to the Syrian theatre

I'm pretty sure Syrian jets have bombed IS as and when they threaten Syrian assets, although it suits Assad to have them running amok causing havoc amongst the Syrian opposition.
It is already a mess over there and I really can't see what our 8 extra planes will achieve.

 

[gripper stebson]

You can't bomb an ideology.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

You can't bomb an ideology.

Tell that to ISIS.

 

[scamander]

If people subscribe to the 'we helped created ISIS' view then I would argue that what we are doing is taking responsibility for past mistakes rather than leaving them to face the consequences of our actions.

But in Syria it is worth remembering the chaos was caused by Assad's response to the Syrians people demonstrations for more freedom. Leading to civil war. The mass exodus of refugees was not caused by foreign air forces bombing but by Syrian army atrocities including using chemical weapons on civilians. Cameron wanted to intervene then but couldn't' get a vote through. Our washing our hands of this crisis hasn't worked so far I can't see why it would now.

The initial unrest in Syria had a number of reasons, the idea that it was simply a bunch of chaps who wanted more freedom doesn't really explain it fully. Syria was and is a very contested area in the geopolitical context, then there's the pipeline which is often overlooked (http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/is-the-fight-over-a-gas-pipeline-fuelling-the-worlds-bloodiest-conflict/news-story/74efcba9554c10bd35e280b63a9afb74)

As for the Syrian refugees, this is an odd situation at best. Most of the time the initial movements occur very soon after the start of a civil war, people don't wait around much. The recent influx is more likely surrounding states and countries exerting political pressure through threatening or actually forcing refugees out. The chap whose son was photographed on the beach had lived in Turkey for a couple of years, he wasn't freshly out of Syria.

Assad's a monster make no doubt, but the horrible realisation is that the ones fighting him are easily as bad. The FSA have been caught out using chemical weapons and behaving as badly as anyone else in the region. My overarching concern is that this isn't respected in the debates we've been having, instead Cameron simply repeats ambiguous statements.