Would you vote for bombing ISIS in Syria?

IMO a large reason for the existence of ISIS in the first place has been the bombing and military intervention in Iraq etc. over the past 10+ years which has fostered the environment for these scumbag jihadi groups to grow. More bombing will not solve the issues and would not make us any safer, quite the opposite.

It a No. I would like to believe it is the way to go but I really don't see it removing the ISIS caliphate. That can only be done on the ground. If what we simply want to show is solidarity - then I understand it. But is that a good enough reason ?

It is a mess of course - so there probably is no right answer.

IMO the most effective way to remove the threat of violence from ISIS would be through other means; such as sanctions against the states that fund these jihadi organisations (not selling arms to Saudi Arabia for example) and ensuring that they cannot sell oil that they control on the black market etc.

i'm a No because there is no strategic objective, its more about being involved because everyone else is, than actually addressing the problems in Syria. not that you can negotiate a solution all the time Assad is in power and backed by Russia, the whole situation is a big fustercluck.

No, our MPs however are unfortunately cowards, any of them voting for can join the 70,000 rebel forces if they desire war so much.

Yes

1.) We are already bombing them in Iraq why stop at a non existent border.

2.) We are already flying recon missions and used drones in Syria.

3.) Our Allies want our help if the recent attack had been in our capital we would expect them to stand by us militarily.

4.) The making us more unsafe argument is at best dubious and at worst letting terrorism win.

5.) ISIS are an abomination and hate everything about the west anything that degrades and restricts their ability to wage war is a plus.

6.) Ignoring them won't make them go away.

7.) It's complicated isn't an excuse for not confronting barbaric extremism. There is rarely a nice straightforward goodie baddie war get over it.

8.) They want us to bomb them/ will lead to more recruits, good flush them out + more targets.

9.) Because we f***** up in the past we shouldn't act now argument when does this excuse run out?

10.) Air Strikes in Syria are supported by a clear majority of the British public.

pb21 said:

IMO the most effective way to remove the threat of violence from ISIS would be through other means; such as sanctions against the states that fund these jihadi organisations (not selling arms to Saudi Arabia for example) and ensuring that they cannot sell oil that they control on the black market etc.

Click to expand...

Absolutely spot on. America, SA and Turkey all have alterior motives in this conflict, wiping out ISIS is secondary at best for all three. Why commit ourselves when our 'allies' will be supporting them underhandedly?

Yes

JC Footy Genius said:

Yes

1.) We are already bombing them in Iraq why stop at a non existent border.

Click to expand...

Yep. It is a mess for sure.

2.) We are already flying recon missions and used drones in Syria.

Click to expand...

So we are already helping our allies.

3.) Our Allies want our help if the recent attack had been in our capital we would expect them to stand by us militarily.

Click to expand...

The type of thinking that got us into Iraq. How did that work out ?

4.) The making us more unsafe argument is at best dubious and at worst letting terrorism win.

Click to expand...

Agreed. These people have attacked us already and will do so again regardless.

5.) ISIS are an abomination and hate everything about the west anything that degrades and restricts their ability to wage war is a plus.

Click to expand...

Better to use our resources to best effect.

6.) Ignoring them won't make them go away.

Click to expand...

Agreed, Is anyone saying that ?

7.) It's complicated isn't an excuse for not confronting barbaric extremism. There is rarely a nice straightforward goodie baddie war get over it.

Click to expand...

Yes - but would you confront a chip pan fire with a bucket of water ? It needs calm and an achievable objective, and working together with our allies.

8.) They want us to bomb them/ will lead to more recruits, good flush them out + more targets.

Click to expand...

That is madness.

9.) Because we f***** up in the past we shouldn't act now argument when does this excuse run out?

Click to expand...

"Doing something" rarely works. Let's have a plan, and work together to achieve it.

10.) Air Strikes in Syria are supported by a clear majority of the British public.

Click to expand...

So is capital punishment we hear. Sometimes our elected representatives are the best people to make this type of decision.

JC Footy Genius said:

Yes

1.) We are already bombing them in Iraq why stop at a non existent border.

The border is arbitrary but increasing bombing will make the situation worse.

2.) We are already flying recon missions and used drones in Syria.

Drone attacks against small specific targets are not the same as full scale bombing.

3.) Our Allies want our help if the recent attack had been in our capital we would expect them to stand by us militarily.

We can help them, just not be making the situation worse.

4.) The making us more unsafe argument is at best dubious and at worst letting terrorism win.

It’s true, and I wouldn’t suggest doing nothing so terrorism wouldn’t win.

5.) ISIS are an abomination and hate everything about the west anything that degrades and restricts their ability to wage war is a plus.

Dropping nuclear bombs would restrict their ability, but that wouldn’t be a plus.

6.) Ignoring them won't make them go away.

I know, I don’t think ignoring them is a good idea.

7.) It's complicated isn't an excuse for not confronting barbaric extremism. There is rarely a nice straightforward goodie baddie war get over it.

I am not saying to not confront the issue, just there is a more effective method available.

8.) They want us to bomb them/ will lead to more recruits, good flush them out + more targets.

Then there will be more, and then more and then more.

9.) Because we f***** up in the past we shouldn't act now argument when does this excuse run out?

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different result

10.) Air Strikes in Syria are supported by a clear majority of the British public.

Do they and if they do that doesn’t mean it is necessarily a good idea.

Click to expand...

I have added some comments to your comment above.

I'm a no. It needs a system in place like we have in Iraq, where we bomb the hell out of ISIS and the Iraqi Army and Kurdish Militia take back the ground.

Unfortunately with Syria, there is such a mess on the ground with so many factions of rebels and Assad's troops fighting with each other too, will only lead to a blood bath.

This was posted on another site and I found it interesting, perhaps it'll add to the debate:

Of course - the mass media is war propaganda pure and simple. The mass media is doing the same thing that it did in 2003 on the Iraq War. Covering up that the warmongers are telling a complete load of lies and that going to war is detrimental to UK interests.

Every single sentence of Cameron's statement to the Commons was total Bullshit and Lies. Cameron's statement to the House was strongly reminiscent of Tony Blair's complete Bullshit and Lies in 2003.

While Corbyn's position of there being better options is spot on - stop the arms and funds being supplied to ISIS by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey. Our so called "allies". Stop ISIS from selling their oil to Erdogan's son Bilal in Turkey. You could also vastly reduce the circa $500m a year that ISIS are currently making from trafficking drugs out of Afghanistan.

There are ZERO upsides to the UK bombing Syria and LOADS of downsides - and Cameron knows it.

Bombing Syria with a few Tornado's won't make the slightest difference to ISIS in Syria, except to assist them in their recruitment drives, especially to radicalize some of the more susceptible Muslim youths in the UK and turn them into Jihadis and terrorists.

It will waste another 100 million pounds or more on dropping a few bombs, mostly in the desert, and paying for the aircraft missions.
The UK debt is already totally out of control with the largest deficit since 2009 being recorded in October.
It will of course fatten up the profits of Cameron cronies like BAE systems at taxpayer expense, rather than say invest in British schools or the NHS. Is this a benefit to you?

Bombing Syria will greatly increase the risk of a terrorist attack in the UK (just as invading Iraq did and we got the 7/7 attacks and the murder of Lee Rigby). Expect some more, in a while, if Cameron bombs Syria - see Paris.

The US and UK has been bombing brown people in the Middle East for 14 years. There are now well over 100,000 more terrorists than before the fake / phoney "War on Terror" began in 2001.

There are also now significant numbers of Wahhabi terrorists in numerous countries that there weren't before - Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Egypt, Tunisia, Mali, Nigeria, Pakistan, Turkey, Paris, UK, Europe, Australia, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Chechnya, Dagestan, Uzbekistan etc. etc. etc.

The fake, phoney "War on Terror" was always designed to recruit more terrorists, its been a GREAT SUCCESS.

The recruitment of more terrorists cannot be accidental. If it were accidental and an honest mistake the US and UK would have stopped bombing brown people in the Middle East years ago. The only rational conclusion therefore is that both the US and UK governments want to recruit more terrorists. Cameron now wants to recruit some more in the UK by bombing Syria.

I said in September 2014 that the reason the US "Declared War" (fake phoney war) on ISIS was to increase the strength of the ISIS recruitment drive and make them stronger - which is exactly what it did. ISIS have now got more territory and 50,000 more fighters than they had in September 2014, when the US declared "War".

Both the FBI and CIA are against Obama's proposals to tackle ISIS because they won't work. They will only succeed in recruiting more Terrorists. Congress approved them anyway. http://ian56.blogspot.com/2014/09/httpclerk.html

If you want to defeat ISIS you cut off their supplies and funds and use the local forces to fight them - Syrian government, Iraqi Shias, Kurds, Iranian forces, Hezbollah, Iraqi Army. Russia has now joined the fight against ISIS. China will join if required because the spread of Wahhabi terrorism (which is being spread by Turkey among others in Asia) is a threat to them too.

No. Use sanctions, cut off money, oil and arms supplies to and from ISIS throughout the region first, Seek a political solution that includes a humanitarian priority so people can return to their homelands.

Bombing will only:

1. kill more innocent civilians
2. Displace more Syrians from their homes
3. Provide recruitment towards ISIS
4. Make the arms trade the winners
5. Destabilise the region even further

Does anyone think bombing will work, seriously?

How much collateral damage is acceptable?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/21/kunduz-hospital-attack-even-in-20-years-we-wont-get-such-a-hospital-again

Dick Knights Mumm said:

Yep. It is a mess for sure.

Click to expand...

Not really an answer to the point made is it.

So we are already helping our allies.

Click to expand...

Yes we are but they have requested further assistance. Your saying non.

The type of thinking that got us into Iraq. How did that work out ?

Click to expand...

See point 9. Each case on it's merits.

Agreed. These people have attacked us already and will do so again regardless.

Click to expand...

Well they will try

Better to use our resources to best effect.

Click to expand...

Best effect being leave them in the hangar.

Agreed, Is anyone saying that ?

Click to expand...

Some people are.

Yes - but would you confront a chip pan fire with a bucket of water ? It needs calm and an achievable objective, and working together with our allies.

Click to expand...

Targeted bombing is not a bucket of water and has specifically been requested by our Allies as one part of a multi faceted approach to confronting ISIS.

That is madness.

Click to expand...

I don't believe it would create many more recruits but if it did my previous answer stands.

"Doing something" rarely works. Let's have a plan, and work together to achieve it.

Click to expand...

We are following the UN 'plan' taking ALL necessary measures to confront ISIS.

So is capital punishment we hear. Sometimes our elected representatives are the best people to make this type of decision.

Click to expand...

Was just pointing out there is clear democratic legitimacy for this action. A clear majority of our elected representatives will vote for air strkes tomorrow.

No I most certainly wouldn't vote to bomb Syri, or anywhere else for that matter.

All these politicians who are going to vote YES. Would they still all vote YES if per say they had a son or a daughter working as a Doctor or a Nurse for someone like Medicines son Frontiers in Syria at the moment in time...................I think NOT

Western Politicians see the lives of the civillian people in that region as ''cheap'' in comparison to the lives of our own civillians

A reluctant Yes because many of the reasons for saying No are good. For the sake of liberal western values we have to stand shoulder to shoulder with the French, and hope that the bombing is just part of a wider strategy involving Islamic countries. Not least of the complications is the attitude of the Turkish government to the Kurds. If that could be solved the future would be clearer.

NooBHA said:

No I most certainly wouldn't vote to bomb Syri, or anywhere else for that matter.

All these politicians who are going to vote YES. Would they still all vote YES if per say they had a son or a daughter working as a Doctor or a Nurse for someone like Medicines son Frontiers in Syria at the moment in time...................I think NOT

Western Politicians see the lives of the civillian people in that region as ''cheap'' in comparison to the lives of our own civillians

Click to expand...

There are nurses working for western aid agencies in Isis territories?

No.

Bombing them will breed more extremism and hatred. Fire with fire isn't usually the way to go.

I agree with other posters; take diplomatic actions against the countries harbouring and funding them.

Lincoln Imp said:

A reluctant Yes because many of the reasons for saying No are good. For the sake of liberal western values we have to stand shoulder to shoulder with the French, and hope that the bombing is just part of a wider strategy involving Islamic countries. Not least of the complications is the attitude of the Turkish government to the Kurds. If that could be solved the future would be clearer.

Click to expand...

Very much this - the Kurds are actually fighting ISIS on the ground, and it is outrageous that the Turkish government (and the Russians, I believe) are, at best, hindering them.