Ernest
Stupid IDIOT
No, not until we sort who are funding IS by buying their oil and supplying their weapons, if they couldn't do either they wouldn't be able to function
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Would you vote for bombing ISIS in Syria?
- Thread starter pb21
- Start date
YES maybe not in the stronhold territories but the point I was making was. Would Politicians vote to bomb Syria if they had a son or daughter working or living there in any capacity and the answer would almost certainly be NO
JC Footy Genius
Bringer of TRUTH
- Jun 9, 2015
- 10,568
Your faith in the RAF and it's targeting policy is disappointing. How many civilians have they killed in Iraq when targeting ISIS?
Fair enough what should we do?
Silly point made to avoid mine.
No our action will make little if no difference to their numbers IMO
Each conflict is different it is convenient and lazy to extrapolate one failure to all similar situations.
Yes they do, true but it gives democratic legitimacy.
We do know.....They are largely funded by Soudi Arabia but they are a Western Ali and contribute Billions to the UK Economy. The Soudi's will never admit to it but the UK Government know they do. They just choose to turn a blind eye.
You can say what you like about Jeremy Corbyn but at least he has morals. Clare Short and Robin Cook were the only mainstream Politicians who stuck to their principles the last tome we went to war. I hope there are a lot more Robin Cook's and Clare short's this time around
Frampler
New member
6000 airstrikes in the last 18 months haven't done the job, another 10,000 are unlikely to finish it.
I would, however, be in favour of boots on the ground, assuming that a plurality of international support can be mustered. The war needs to be won, rather than continuing on in a bloody stalemate that steadily empties Syria of its population.
I would, however, be in favour of boots on the ground, assuming that a plurality of international support can be mustered. The war needs to be won, rather than continuing on in a bloody stalemate that steadily empties Syria of its population.
Ninja Elephant
Doctor Elephant
- Feb 16, 2009
- 18,855
Bombing might appease a lot of people, but will it do any good? There's no proof of it doing anyone any favours so far.
GingerBeerMan
3-0
- Dec 29, 2011
- 8,026
Russia support the Kurds and there was talk yesterday of providing arms. Turkey are bombin the Kurds and are using the fight against ISIS as a cover for wiping out their enemy. Russia want to (have?) give the Kurds SAMs, something Turkey will hate.
Lincoln Imp
Well-known member
- Feb 2, 2009
- 5,964
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.
sir albion
New member
This would be as idiotic as before and will be as pointless as before.
Cameron is nothing but a "follow me leader" type and has no strategy what's so ever...How Many countries do you need to bomb Syria? As many have mentioned this will do nothing but encourage more to be brainwashed within the European Union and Isis will probably welcome this as an early Xmas present.
The French have stormed in for revenge after the Paris attacks exactly as the states did for 911.
You can drop a nuke on Syria and that would do absolutely nothing also...These terrorists are everywhere and well organised with money to burn...while all these countries are in Syria dropping bomb after bomb we have people in this country with their feet up planning attacks as we speak.
Solution is not easy as I still blame the USA for starting all this shite and destabilising these countries.
Stop migrants from fleeing into Europe
Cut the funding and focus fully on this
Root out internal hate preachers within Europe...it's clear we have thousands here alone who would bolt off to die for virgins because of these preachers.
Stop being so bloody soft on sentences for those who commit treason.
You can also take this option...
Pull out of the Middle East completely and that's everyone and just solely focus on protecting your own countries as at the moment we're bombing these countries and giving them easy access into Europe thanks to merkel...How dumb is this?
I'd suspect that while we all bomb Syria many Isis would have already slipped into another country....why stay in Syria when you can kill in Europe?
Cameron is nothing but a "follow me leader" type and has no strategy what's so ever...How Many countries do you need to bomb Syria? As many have mentioned this will do nothing but encourage more to be brainwashed within the European Union and Isis will probably welcome this as an early Xmas present.
The French have stormed in for revenge after the Paris attacks exactly as the states did for 911.
You can drop a nuke on Syria and that would do absolutely nothing also...These terrorists are everywhere and well organised with money to burn...while all these countries are in Syria dropping bomb after bomb we have people in this country with their feet up planning attacks as we speak.
Solution is not easy as I still blame the USA for starting all this shite and destabilising these countries.
Stop migrants from fleeing into Europe
Cut the funding and focus fully on this
Root out internal hate preachers within Europe...it's clear we have thousands here alone who would bolt off to die for virgins because of these preachers.
Stop being so bloody soft on sentences for those who commit treason.
You can also take this option...
Pull out of the Middle East completely and that's everyone and just solely focus on protecting your own countries as at the moment we're bombing these countries and giving them easy access into Europe thanks to merkel...How dumb is this?
I'd suspect that while we all bomb Syria many Isis would have already slipped into another country....why stay in Syria when you can kill in Europe?
symyjym
Banned
Not sure on Cameron’s fantasy of being able to organise all the rebel groups to work together in fighting Daesh is guaranteed on the grounds of UK airstrikes happening. Not sure if it is wishful thinking on his part, or trying to fool the British public to get his way.
If it was pre-agreed that the Syrian 90,000 regime soldiers would be fighting alongside the 70,000 rebel groups, and Kurds, Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq and Turkey to encircle, starve and destroy Daesh with a political settlement and a transition process designed, including a new secular and democratic Syrian constitution that all parties agreed with, I wouldn't hesitate to back airstrikes.
I felt his reasoning to the airstrikes proposal was weak, he didn't present a realistic long term political strategy, and he comes over as he is making it up as he goes along.
On the plus side of us joining in, if a strong strategy and a political end game was in place, our smart missiles are supposed to be very accurate.
If it was pre-agreed that the Syrian 90,000 regime soldiers would be fighting alongside the 70,000 rebel groups, and Kurds, Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq and Turkey to encircle, starve and destroy Daesh with a political settlement and a transition process designed, including a new secular and democratic Syrian constitution that all parties agreed with, I wouldn't hesitate to back airstrikes.
I felt his reasoning to the airstrikes proposal was weak, he didn't present a realistic long term political strategy, and he comes over as he is making it up as he goes along.
On the plus side of us joining in, if a strong strategy and a political end game was in place, our smart missiles are supposed to be very accurate.
Last edited:
nicko31
Well-known member
Bombing will just fuel the Isis recruitment drive. Yet again we will be going to war against the will of the public. For once Corbyn is right
pb21
Well-known member
- Apr 23, 2010
- 6,313
- Thread starter
- #32
I don't know, arguably one is too many, although I suspect the number is in the thousands.
Take measures to stop ISIS being able to sell oil and stop them receiving arms, which may well be the same ones we have sold Saudi Arabia.
Of course its silly, it was meant to be to highlight the absurdity of yours as a justification for bombing!
Not sure what point you are making here
The failure is a fundamental consequence of this type of action, its neither lazy or convenient.
I'd be interested to see the basis for suggesting that the majority of the public back bombing Syria.
GT49er
Well-known member
Fair enough - I wasn't sure what the Russians were up to exactly. I knew they were attacking some other groups as well as ISIS - if it's not the Kurds, that's good. Time the Kurds were given a home to home rule themselves in, IMHO. And Turkey (and other nations in that region who'd lose a bit of territory as a result) can lump it!
deletebeepbeepbeep
Well-known member
- May 12, 2009
- 20,959
I expect from YouGov.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/11/25/strong-and-continued-support-raf-air-strikes-syria/
Although that was a few days ago and public opinion seems to have shifted since then.
gregbrighton
New member
The Chilcott report still hasn't been published so we can learn from the mistakes in bombing Iraq. We clearly haven't learnt the mistakes from bombing Libya. It was a fiasco and made things much worse.
Going into Syria and dropping more bombs will do very little.
It's a bit disgusting really that David Cameron and the other hawks are doing the bidding for the arms trade and contractors on the backs of innocent lives being sacrificed in the ensuing bloodshed on all sides.
We need to stop this madness. We need to put a political solution first and develop a long-term strategy that will foster reconciliation and greater stability in the region.
Going into Syria and dropping more bombs will do very little.
It's a bit disgusting really that David Cameron and the other hawks are doing the bidding for the arms trade and contractors on the backs of innocent lives being sacrificed in the ensuing bloodshed on all sides.
We need to stop this madness. We need to put a political solution first and develop a long-term strategy that will foster reconciliation and greater stability in the region.
jakarta
Well-known member
Having worked in Oil & Gas for many years I'm sure I recall that Oil Refineries, Pumping Stations and Pipelines don't move about and should therefore be quite easy to take out.
Surely we know which ones are controlled by these buggers and you wouldn't even need 'clever' ordnance to destroy them.
Wouldn't be the whole answer but would be one Income Stream gone...
Surely we know which ones are controlled by these buggers and you wouldn't even need 'clever' ordnance to destroy them.
Wouldn't be the whole answer but would be one Income Stream gone...
1066familyman
Radio User
- Jan 15, 2008
- 15,185
It's worth noting that so called ISIS want an escalation to declarations of war from as many factions as possible, and the West in particular. Their aim is to draw in as many forces to war as possible in order to progress the coming of the last days that will see a decisive battle to establish the caliphate they dream of. If they themselves had a vote on whether or not we should start bombing them, I have no doubt whatsoever that they would be voting a resounding... Yes.
For that reason alone it would be a No from me, plus the many and numerous other reasons already cited as to why bombing is not the answer.
For that reason alone it would be a No from me, plus the many and numerous other reasons already cited as to why bombing is not the answer.
Prettyboyshaw
Well-known member
No but ground troops yes
JC Footy Genius
Bringer of TRUTH
- Jun 9, 2015
- 10,568
If you don't know then all your previous assertions that we would make things worse are based on what exactly?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/michael-fallon-claims-been-zero-6922729
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...year-without-causing-civilian-casualties.html
Even if the reported zero civilian casualties are wrong the thousands you suggest is wildly inaccurate. If you really are concerned about civilian casualties why is leaving the bombing to the Russians and Americans considering their reputation for inaccuracy a better option?
Is it not likely someone has already thought of interdicting their money and weapons supply? Defeating ISIS will rely on many strategies I can't see the point in ruling out the military one.
My point in the context of a thread on Air strikes was anything that degrades and restricts their (ISIS) ability to wage war is a plus. Did I really have to add a caveat 'Except nuclear war'.
Are you really saying bombing has no effect?
In what way did bombing ISIS forces advancing on Baghdad slowing then help stopping them fundamentally fail? Air power alone is not decisive but I think you underestimate the damage it can do.
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.