Would you support an extension of Air Assaults to include IS in Syria not just Iraq

pastafarian · Oct 11, 2015

Its quite possible this question might soon arise again in parliament, it would have to have cross party support as per previous vote but it seems the initial rumblings of another vote are being discussed.

Our history in recent times in the area is admittedly not great but in this one specific instance of specifically targeting Islamic State in Syria as well as Iraq with airstrikes can we really stay out,not get involved and hope for the best.

How will the imprisoned peoples of Syria judge our non involvement in the history books?

HantsSeagull · Oct 11, 2015

pastafarian · Oct 11, 2015

HantsSeagull said:
Yes

poll now available speedy

deletebeepbeepbeep · Oct 11, 2015

What will it achieve? Is it an effective action? Unless you can provide a cognate and justified answer to the above then no. It seems to me that checking bombs at ISIS wont achieve anything, apart from more dead innocents.

Herr Tubthumper · Oct 11, 2015

deletebeepbeepbeep said:
What will it achieve? Is it an effective action? Unless you can provide a cognate and justified answer to the above then no. It seems to me that checking bombs at ISIS wont achieve anything, apart from more dead innocents.

Quite. I'm in the no camp until I can be convinced of the ultimate and final results of military action being positive.

pastafarian · Oct 11, 2015

deletebeepbeepbeep said:
What will it achieve? Is it an effective action? Unless you can provide a cognate and justified answer to the above then no. It seems to me that checking bombs at ISIS wont achieve anything, apart from more dead innocents.

i agree its a difficult one with regard to what can actually be achieved as its impossible to quantify,my personal opinion is how can we sit back and do nothing without trying with regards to Syria when so many people are being slaughtered and brutalised ........it would be a shocking stain on our nation if we just stood by and watched these monsters carry on and we didnt lift a finger.......imo

pastafarian · Oct 11, 2015

Herr Tubthumper said:
Quite. I'm in the no camp until I can be convinced of the ultimate and final results of military action being positive.

in fairness how does anyone know for certain what the final results of any military action are or can be.

the point in this particular instance is surely "having a go" and at least try to help these poor buggers under IS rule.......it may well go balls up but surely making an effort is better than watching the slaughter and doing nothing?

Herr Tubthumper · Oct 11, 2015

pastafarian said:
i agree its a difficult one with regard to what can actually be achieved as its impossible to quantify,my personal opinion is how can we sit back and do nothing without trying with regards to Syria when so many people are being slaughtered and brutalised ........it would be a shocking stain on our nation if we just stood by and watched these monsters carry on and we didnt lift a finger.......imo

I agree with what you're saying but the government has to put forward a convincing case of what they plan to do, why they want to do it, how they will do it, who will be allies and what they believe the end game will be. I've heard little from anyone.

Previous, and in my opinion wrong, military action now makes me feel like this.

I'd feel happier if it was a UN decision.

pastafarian · Oct 11, 2015

Herr Tubthumper said:
I agree with what you're saying but the government has to put forward a convincing case of what they plan to do, why they want to do it, how they will do it, who will be allies and what they believe the end game will be. I've heard little from anyone.

Previous, and in my opinion wrong, military action now makes me feel like this.

I'd feel happier if it was a UN decision.

i think everyone would love a UN sanctioned world coalition fighting IS.......but when it comes to the UN this will not happen.

i know what you are saying,but this is not an invasion like Iraq with regime change and the complexities that follow,thats reading too much into what is being proposed.....,whats on the table is immediate air support in the hope some of the suffering can be alleviated

pastafarian · Oct 11, 2015

Mustafa said:
Bombs achieve nothing

they do ......and have done

otherwise they wouldnt exist

Bob! · Oct 11, 2015

Mustafa said:
Bombs achieve nothing - they only destroy, kill and cause even more devastation... and more enemies.

This.

We are an insignificant little country. Stay out of it.

Herr Tubthumper · Oct 11, 2015

pastafarian said:
they do ......and have done

otherwise they wouldnt exist

If you're trying to justify the pro case you're not doing it very well. You can't just say this and expect waverers to convert. Try again.

pastafarian · Oct 11, 2015

Herr Tubthumper said:
If you're trying to justify the pro case you're not doing it very well. You can't just say this and expect waverers to convert. Try again.

not looking for waverers or to convert people at all......i like a good political argument i admit.....and this looks likely to be a political question raised again in the house

are you also in the camp then bombing has never ever worked?... like mustafa

Hastings gull · Oct 11, 2015

pastafarian said:
they do ......and have done

otherwise they wouldnt exist

Sadly, at times bombs do bring people to the table - did it not cause Serbia to have a re-think over the Kosovo situation. Of course the danger is one of making more enemies when one bomb malfunctions and hits, say a hospital, but targeted attacks at IS might just be justifiable. We are not attempting a regime change, just supporting the Kurds to fend off the barbarians. Did not US bombing of ISIS positions help to keep that Syrian border town out of ISIS's clutches?

beorhthelm · Oct 11, 2015

no. there is not a clear strategic objective and bombing has no purpose other than to be seen to be involved. leave it to the Russians, they have set themselves a military goal (supporting Assad) so they can take the flak politically and at home if it comes to it. the west cant continue with a "any one but Assad, oh expect ISIL" policy in Syria, it serves no real purpose except address some unfounded obligation to support anyone who opposes those we oppose. its not our fight, let them get on with it.

sir albion · Oct 11, 2015

Mustafa said:
Bombs achieve nothing - they only destroy, kill and cause even more devastation... and more enemies.

You can't discuss either....What's the answer ?
I'd leave Syria to Assad and the Russians as this is more than likely to work far better.

gregbrighton · Oct 11, 2015

More bombing. Further destruction and innocent lives lost. More refugees fleeing. Conflict and bitterness for impoverished people provides further recruitment for terrorist organisations.

Who stands to benefit from all this war?

Not you or I, or the thousands of our kids sent to the killing fields without the prospect of a proper exit strategy.

This conflict transcends political and national borders. It needs a political solution through negotiation on all sides. Military action will only further spread the conflict and pain .within the region.

The only winner of all this is the military-industrial complex who have corrupted and bribed our politicians to use our taxes to buy into their ideology and expensive hardware thus lining the arms industry and contractors pockets.

JC Footy Genius · Oct 11, 2015

Our current non military intervention policy (with the exception of drones) is hardly the moral high ground with millions displaced and tens of thousands dying in Syria and in the Med. Do we really need to see a few more children's bodies washed up on beaches or mass beheadings before considering military intervention ?

A case could be made for bombing Isis on the simple grounds that such a vile and cancerous organisation should be opposed with every available asset. Considering their stated goals are a direct threat to our national security and we seem to have a steady trickle of home-grown Jihadists going there and some returning, is it really wise to leave this problem to others/simply ignore it ? We are bombing them in Iraq why not Syria ?

The US gets a lot of flack for it's foreign policy, rightly so in some cases but we seem far to eager to let them do the dirty work while we moan on from the sidelines. Now we're even leaving it to the Russians whose motivation and aims are very different to ours.

I'm still not sure a vote to bomb Isis would be little more than a gesture, probably achieving very little with our limited capability. So on balance I think this is one of those decisions that I can honestly say I have no idea which way to vote.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Would you support an extension of Air Assaults to include IS in Syria not just Iraq

Would you support an extension of Air Assaults to include IS in Syria not just Iraq

Yes send in the RAF

No stick to current non-lethal military aid

I really dont know

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Coffee Buyer

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

A. Virgo, Football Genius

New member

New member

Bringer of TRUTH

Share this page