Would you vote for bombing ISIS in Syria?

[JC Footy Genius]

No. I wouldn't go that far. The security services do a great job to help keep us safe. I'm just struck how 70 years on, the hawkish narrative is broadly similar.

PG

In broad terms the same could also be said for the doveish narrative then.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

 

[symyjym]

View attachment 70412

It's the fanciful strategy of working with the 50 factions of 70,000 so called moderate groups that was mind blowing.

If Cameron went to have a meeting with them they would cut his head off and stick it on a spike.

 

[GingerBeerMan]

View attachment 70412

Clear proof you have no understand of this conflict. Iraq and Syria are two different beasts despite their proximity.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Clear proof you have no understand of this conflict. Iraq and Syria are two different beasts despite their proximity.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Clear proof you have no understand of this conflict. Iraq and Syria are two different beasts despite their proximity.

There are differences and similarities but that picture does parody some of the absurd over reaction to 'war in Syria'. I doubt many people who decided to oppose the air strikes were even aware we were already bombing ISIS in Iraq or flying recon missions and using drone strikes in Syria.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

No I had no idea please tell me what the fundamental flaws are in that YouGov poll and what you base your opinion that a clear majority are against air strikes is based on.

Well for a start you assume that the opinions of 1600 people represent 64 million. That's 0.002% of the population. That math alone should make you question the polls validity and certainly make you think twice about making such sweeping statements (especially if that poll is what you're going from). I base my opinion solely on the fact I'd imagine most people would be against another campaign that has no clear outcome, no end in sight and wastes billions of pounds.

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

Well for a start you assume that the opinions of 1600 people represent 64 million. That's 0.002% of the population. That math alone should make you question the polls validity and certainly make you think twice about making such sweeping statements (especially if that poll is what you're going from). I base my opinion solely on the fact I'd imagine most people would be against another campaign that has no clear outcome, no end in sight and wastes billions of pounds.

Certainly if they had understood, as admitted by Cameron in recent days, that the campaign will last for at least 3 years with no clear goal. The general public just have no idea on the scale of this task and think a few bombing runs will sort this lot out. But the fact is they are more brutal and a lot better funded thank Al Qaueda ever were and are able to draw money from donors, black market oil and goods, including the vast millions they have plundered in antiques. A few bombing runs is pissing in the wind.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Well for a start you assume that the opinions of 1600 people represent 64 million. That's 0.002% of the population. That math alone should make you question the polls validity and certainly make you think twice about making such sweeping statements (especially if that poll is what you're going from). I base my opinion solely on the fact I'd imagine most people would be against another campaign that has no clear outcome, no end in sight and wastes billions of pounds.

You can clearly read but obviously have difficulty in absorbing new information. I'll give it one last try.

http://www.marketresearchworld.net/content/view/85/76/

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/01h8o2ulwm/YouGov-Record-May-2015.pdf

As representative as you may think your opinion and imagination are I expect most people consider a military response to an ongoing terrorist threat is a reasonable course of action.

PS Maybe you should change the first line of your signature as it rather contradicts your world view.

 

[GT49er]

Well for a start you assume that the opinions of 1600 people represent 64 million. That's 0.002% of the population. That math alone should make you question the polls validity and certainly make you think twice about making such sweeping statements (especially if that poll is what you're going from). I base my opinion solely on the fact I'd imagine most people would be against another campaign that has no clear outcome, no end in sight and wastes billions of pounds.

The maths alone should be enough to show you how untenable that stance is. A sample of 1600 people may only be 0.002 of the population, but it's 1600 times bigger than your one! Especially as your opinion is based on the fact of what you imagine most people think!

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

You can clearly read but obviously have difficulty in absorbing new information. I'll give it one last try.

http://www.marketresearchworld.net/content/view/85/76/

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/01h8o2ulwm/YouGov-Record-May-2015.pdf

As representative as you may think your opinion and imagination are I expect most people consider a military response to an ongoing terrorist threat is a reasonable course of action.

PS Maybe you should change the first line of your signature as it rather contradicts your world view.

If you want to take opinion polls as gospel that's your funeral (I wonder what your stance would be if the OP went against your own personal view). I don't think my opinion is representative. I approached the subject with caution, unlike you who went straight in with a sweeping statement based on a poll, something that will always be open to scrutiny.


I have no issue taking action. ISIS are a weed but if you want to stop them you go after the root. You go after the people that are funding and supplying them. Unfortunately that route may leed to the realisation that some of our "allies" are supplying the enemy.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

If you want to take opinion polls as gospel that's your funeral (I wonder what your stance would be if the OP went against your own personal view). I don't think my opinion is representative. I approached the subject with caution, unlike you who went straight in with a sweeping statement based on a poll, something that will always be open to scrutiny.


I have no issue taking action. ISIS are a weed but if you want to stop them you go after the root. You go after the people that are funding and supplying them. Unfortunately that route may leed to the realisation that some of our "allies" are supplying the enemy.

I don't take opinion polls as 'gospel' but I do use them to inform my opinion as the only effective method of assessing public opinion at any given moment. They consistently showed support for air strikes which you find difficult to accept for some reason. If polls had shown public opinion against air strikes obviously I wouldn't have used it in my list because it would not have supported my case. Would you have dismissed them if they showed a majority agreed with your opinions I wonder. The UN mandate calling on It's members to use ALL means to combat ISIS in Syria would have been my reserve point if needed.

You approach the subject with an alarming lack of understanding of how polling is carried out by reputable companies with a proven track record of accurately assessing public opinion.

You do have an Issue with taking military action. If we want to stop them ALL options should be used. Yes go after the root but apply a bit of weed killer to help contain the spread.

 

[pastafarian]

They are all mudering dickheads in the Middle East but if Assad left and didn't defend his people, the Alawite's, Christian's and Shia's would all be slaughtered without mercy' leaving the multi factions of rebel groups and Daesh to fight it out and probably ending up an Islamic State. You may have fled the country if you were in his position and left the people he is defending to die but that would be cowardly with far worse bloody consequences.

The way I see it, if I was dropped by plane over Syria, and had to parachute to a prefered area, I would try and guide myself to Damascus or the Kurdish held areas. That is how I decide which side I am on. Where would you want to land?

Damascus
But only because ive always wanted to visit it,being the real site of the Garden of Eden etc

 

[JamesAndTheGiantHead]

 

[cjd]

I


I have no issue taking action. ISIS are a weed but if you want to stop them you go after the root. You go after the people that are funding and supplying them. Unfortunately that route may leed to the realisation that some of our "allies" are supplying the enemy.

The "root" of this problem is their religion.........money is merely the water that helps the root grow quicker

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

I don't take opinion polls as 'gospel' but I do use them to inform my opinion as the only effective method of assessing public opinion at any given moment. They consistently showed support for air strikes which you find difficult to accept for some reason. If polls had shown public opinion against air strikes obviously I wouldn't have used it in my list because it would not have supported my case. Would you have dismissed them if they showed a majority agreed with your opinions I wonder. The UN mandate calling on It's members to use ALL means to combat ISIS in Syria would have been my reserve point if needed.

You approach the subject with an alarming lack of understanding of how polling is carried out by reputable companies with a proven track record of accurately assessing public opinion.

You do have an Issue with taking military action. If we want to stop them ALL options should be used. Yes go after the root but apply a bit of weed killer to help contain the spread.

Yeah, I hear critical thinking shows an alarming lack of understanding. Polls are, of course, useful but they open to scrutiny, and this is the point you seem to struggle with. That scrutiny is part and parcel of data handling. For the poll you have chosen to inform your opinion the sample size is too small to be a reliable insight into public opinion. You can't ask everyone in the country but with such a small sample size you could probably do that poll again and again and get a different answer every time.

Yes I do have a problem with military action. Innocents will die, it risks rallying more people to their cause, it'll cost billions of pounds and in 10 years we'll probably look back at it as another Iraq. Going after the people that fund and supply them is a much better course of action. But because of vested interests it's just easier to drop bombs.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Yeah, I hear critical thinking shows an alarming lack of understanding. Polls are, of course, useful but they open to scrutiny, and this is the point you seem to struggle with. That scrutiny is part and parcel of data handling.For the poll you have chosen to inform your opinion the sample size is too small to be a reliable insight into public opinion. You can't ask everyone in the country but with such a small sample size you could probably do that poll again and again and get a different answer every time.

Yes I do have a problem with military action. Innocents will die, it risks rallying more people to their cause, it'll cost billions of pounds and in 10 years we'll probably look back at it as another Iraq. Going after the people that fund and supply them is a much better course of action. But because of vested interests it's just easier to drop bombs.

Your arguments are mainly based on unsupported assertions, an obvious bias and appeals to emotion combined with a stubborn (deliberate?) inability to process new information. I see little evidence of 'critical thinking'.

The sample size has an effect on it's accuracy but does not invalidate the findings.

In the small print of opinion polls you'll often find a ‘margin of error’ quoted, normally of plus or minus 3%. This means that 19 times out of 20, the figures in the opinion poll will be within 3% of the ‘true’ answer you'd get if you interviewed the entire population.

A poll of 1,000 people has a margin of error of +/- 3%, a poll of 2,000 people a margin of error of +/- 2%. The smaller the sample, the less precise it is and the wider the margin of error ... the margin of error is still a good rough guide to how precise a poll is, and indeed, when measured against real events like general elections most polls are indeed within the margin of error of the real result.

The main poll I referred to had a 39% margin in favour of air strikes.

Should all military actions against ISIS in Syria and Iraq be stopped then ?

Innocents are already dying at the hands of ISIS what about them? Are you suggesting the RAF air strikes will make things worse if yes what do you base that opinion on?

People have already been rallying to their cause what evidence do you have that our Air strikes will increase the numbers.

It has already cost billions of pounds/euros dealing with the effects of the ongoing crisis in Syria after we decided not to intervene last time. Plus the humanitarian crisis washing up on Europe's shores. No one knows how this will play out in the coming years.

By vested interests do you mean a major reason we are bombing is arms manufacturers profiting from conflict?

The Iraqi army knows air stikes make a difference, the Kurds fighting in the North know they make a difference the first two RAF strikes have helped degrade the oil supplies ISIS are using to fund their operations. They are not a long term solution but are one useful element in combatting ISIS here and now.

 

[symyjym]

Damascus
But only because ive always wanted to visit it,being the real site of the Garden of Eden etc

So nothing to do with avoiding decaptitation then

 

[BadFish]

Your arguments are mainly based on unsupported assertions, an obvious bias and appeals to emotion combined with a stubborn (deliberate?) inability to process new information. I see little evidence of 'critical thinking'.

The sample size has an effect on it's accuracy but does not invalidate the findings.

In the small print of opinion polls you'll often find a ‘margin of error’ quoted, normally of plus or minus 3%. This means that 19 times out of 20, the figures in the opinion poll will be within 3% of the ‘true’ answer you'd get if you interviewed the entire population.

A poll of 1,000 people has a margin of error of +/- 3%, a poll of 2,000 people a margin of error of +/- 2%. The smaller the sample, the less precise it is and the wider the margin of error ... the margin of error is still a good rough guide to how precise a poll is, and indeed, when measured against real events like general elections most polls are indeed within the margin of error of the real result.

The main poll I referred to had a 39% margin in favour of air strikes.

Should all military actions against ISIS in Syria and Iraq be stopped then ?

Innocents are already dying at the hands of ISIS what about them? Are you suggesting the RAF air strikes will make things worse if yes what do you base that opinion on?

People have already been rallying to their cause what evidence do you have that our Air strikes will increase the numbers.

It has already cost billions of pounds/euros dealing with the effects of the ongoing crisis in Syria after we decided not to intervene last time. Plus the humanitarian crisis washing up on Europe's shores. No one knows how this will play out in the coming years.

By vested interests do you mean a major reason we are bombing is arms manufacturers profiting from conflict?

The Iraqi army knows air stikes make a difference, the Kurds fighting in the North know they make a difference the first two RAF strikes have helped degrade the oil supplies ISIS are using to fund their operations. They are not a long term solution but are one useful element in combatting ISIS here and now.

You seem to be entirely convinced of the usefulness of air strike. I would be interested to see the evidence that makes you so certain. I am skeptical as it appears that Danesh still have a huge stronghold in Irag and many refugees are still leaving despite bombing in the region.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

You seem to be entirely convinced of the usefulness of air strike. I would be interested to see the evidence that makes you so certain. I am skeptical as it appears that Danesh still have a huge stronghold in Irag and many refugees are still leaving despite bombing in the region.

It was widely reported that Air Strikes helped slow then halt the ISIS advance on Baghdad while the Iraqi army regrouped.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29408101

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...es-help-halt-Isil-advance-towards-Kobane.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...air-strikes-on-isis-targets-in-iraq-and-syria

On a broader military point it is surely common sense that having total air superiority will restrict and hamper an enemy's ability to wage war.

No one has said ISIS can be defeated by air power but there is little doubt they would hold more land and have made bigger gains if it wasn't there.

http://army.newsdeskmedia.com/british-army-2011/air-power