http://www.bbc.co.uk/news

Personally, I'm undecided.

 

I would vote yes, do you think sitting on the fence will change anything? Think how the people who have lost ones will be affected for the rest of there lives.

 

Hi,
It's a really difficult one.
Daesh only apparently number 30,000 people - so it should be easy to round them up, put them in a field and bomb the bas***ds (I think that was a Kenny Everett saying!)
Unfortunately, bombing alone won't actually do the trick. It will need troops on the ground to finish the job.
This means that if MPs vote yes to bombing now - there is very likely to be "mission creep" to ground troops within 3 to 6 months.
That wil be harder to justify and get approved (just look how hard fought territory is being retaken by the bad guys in Afghanistan).
Cheers
Steve

 

I'd vote no.

 

I would vote no for airstrikes but yes for ground offensives. Airstrikes alone will not work. I would however vote yes if the question was "shall we use airstrikes to blow **** out of the Turkish routes being used to transport Daesh-bag oil?"

 

You can cut their supplies off , a bit

How are you going to changed their mentality ?

We were in the rhodes nyanga hotel 3 weeks ago , we were alone other than a couple americans discussing their roles in afghanistan . You didnt want to pry into their conversation, but it was obvious the older guy was some kind of facilitator between the army and some ngo , the younger guy may still been employed there.
under the guise of helping the locals it was completely obvious to me on hearing the way the old fart was yarning it was as much about contracts and enforcing the merican will on the country
semi nauseating

 

We already have 2 world super powers and France bombing in Syria, what can the UK add with its bombs? You can bomb property, you can bomb vehicles, you can bomb the people but you can't bomb something intangible. Bombing and reducing the country to rubble won't stop the people fleeing Syria, it's more likely to encourage it swelling the number of refugees. How much more blood does the UK want on its hands? This will only encourage more to join ISIS and make the UK an even bigger target for terrorism. Remember "victory" was declared in Iraq in 2003!! With that in mind and also with Russia's involvement complicating matters, this will inevitably have unpredictable consequences for the rest of the world.

 

Problem is if we do nothing, IS will just keep growing and expanding. They wont just stop at a border. They can not be reasoned with, anyone thinking they can be is delusional.

We are already hitting targets in some country's so i can't see it making huge difference to the security situation.

Will bombing targets actualy make a difference? well depends. bear in mind the current bombing is supporting local troops so there is a ground war already going on. If they have they targets to hit then it could well help. On it's own it wont be a solution.

We pulled out of iraq to early to make it a perminent state.

So should bombing happen? IMO yes it should, given its just an expansion of whats already happening already.

 

Better would be to target those who fund ISIS. Not militarily but through sanctions, seizing assets of donors and those buying oil from ISIS, targeting arms smugglers supplying ISIS, freezing assets and bank accounts and thus reducing the capacity and ability to arm itself.

 

Just bomb the fu** out of them, send in the ground troops to mop up end of - these scum need to be irradicated any which way possible.

 

Nuke the fcoooki img lot off the face off this earth end of... Only reasoning there is it ain't bout religion or colour just brainwashing scums of this earth that want control over others COWARDS

 

No: On the basis there is no real "plan" and it seems the Turks, USA and Ruskies are supplying half of them with arms without even knowing if they are friend or foe. And as Corbyn pointed out...who is bankrolling IS?

So unless it involves two keys and a big red button...no other form of bombing will work.

 

Notwithstanding some of the good points made already, I'm a yes on this.

We're already bombing them, so are our allies.

I appreciate that the long run strategy is not cohesive, and that how this ends is uncertain; but for now a strategy of 'doing as much damage as possible to IS in Iraq and Syria' works for me.

This is one of the great challenges of our time, I fear that if we don't deal with this now, we'll inevitably have to in the future anyway.

 

Nobody is suggesting we stand by idly and do nothing, I think bombing the cr@p out of a country is not the answer. Never worked in the past, why should it work now? I think cutting off their money supply complete will drastically reduce their capability. Far less chance of collateral damage.

 

 

Jonc, I'm pretty sure the plan is not to 'bomb the crap' out of Syria - we can leave that tactic to Assad

 

OK say we do bomb them, what do you think it will achieve? Drive them out of Syria, where next? Bomb northern Iraq? Eradicate ISIS? We tried “eradicating” the Taliban and Al Qaeda pretty much all of the last decade, what did it achieve? Did we eradicate the Taliban? No. Did we eradicate Al Qaeda? No. Not even with our combined Western military might and massively superior air and ground offensive. What make you think we can eradicate ISIS? Bombing ISIS in Syria will quite possibly lead to a long drawn out war with Syria and possibly with Russia and Iran. ISIS wants to bring about the end of days, lets not grant them that wish. We should learn from our past mistake and not let history repeat itself. A different strategy is need to tackle this, not bombs.

 

I too think irradicating them is highly unlikely.

Making life harder for them though is probably a good idea

 

LOL - Read that at a glance as 'irradiating them is highly likely'...... hahahaha

 

How? I will just vote by saying the word 'No'.

End of.

 

I'm all for it, means more work for me after Christmas

 

 

has this thread been moderated?

 

Bomb them

 

In warfare, going back to when aircraft first became weapon systems, bombing has often been the opening gambit employed to soften up the enemy. Generally, the larger the target the less effective the bombing, and here we are talking about several countries.

The act of bombing, whilst relatively safe for the bombers, can have the opposite effect to that intended. It often toughens the resolve of those being targeted and, in the case of ISIS, will attract more converts to their cause. To make sense bombing should precede an invasion of troops, usually requiring a ratio of 3 to 1 to ensure a victory. That would be 100,000 men or more. Then a large occupation force would be required. Sound familiar?

The Iraq war was criticised for having no exit strategy, indeed the allies didn't look beyond defeating the Iraq army. What followed was a disgrace, and having played a small part in it I wouldn't want to witness anything similar again.

So after all this waffle I would agree that something needs to be done, and chucking a few bombs about is arguably better than nothing. But barely.

 

We cannot let barbarians get a foothold first and then a state and then a nuke and then, well , you know what comes next... , we seem to have no option but to stamp them out,the UK should do its bit in Syria too , it's not as if we aren't doing it in Iraq already.

It's not like we're bombing normal soldiers , like in a 'normal war' (( fukngi hell, what a world we live in.... a ****iiig 'normal war' ffs)) , these have lost the plot and are as blind and brainwashed as can be, wtf are they thinking , not just Paris but the medieval barbarity in Syria, Iraq ,and beyond, is just beyond cruel, they have signed their own death warrent, sad to say.

They won't accept 'mental health care' or be talked out of it ,the majority anyway. We must not risk bieng cowed at the percieved threat of an attack if we bomb them in Syria , we already ARE bombing them so why stop at an arbitrary line in the sand owned by a vile dictator (assad)

If isis or isil have a state in the long term the west will deffo get nuked/terrorised ....to.... F**K



...anyway ....have a lovely evening

 

Other than being part of the gang l can't see the point

The Americans will have satellite views of Syria and spend a lot of money in the towns trying to identify what to bomb and they can't hit the people and targets required, we will just add more pointless bombs to the equation.

If you were unfortunate enough to live in Syria or in fact had escaped to Europe and then got word your non Isis supporting family had been killed in a bombing raid, l think you might suddenly become open to trying to get a bit of revenge.

I doubt there is an appetite for ground troops which would probably get better results but would undoubtably result in losses on our side and we still wouldn't wipe them out.
I think our leaders like the PlayStation idea of lets bomb them without taking casualties

 

I say it all sounds rather familiar to me, nasty man with some nasty weapons killing his own people, so we go in and kill him and a load more of the people that live there, in the name of what exactly, I'm not too sure.

One thing I am sure about though is it became a cluster **** for all involved and here we are again some 10/15yrs later contemplating doing the same thing all over again.

Like it or not these so called dictators kept the people of these places under control and killed/ displaced way less than the "west" have and now we are trying to save them from what exactly, being bombed on mass and and having to roam across europe begging for hand outs.

Leave em to it, when there is a coherent government back in control, then we either deal with them or not, but medaling in the affairs of other countries when we already have enough problems of our own is a fools errand, we have already seen what happens when we get involved.

 

Ditch

We're not going after Assad, so your post doesn't really make sense.

 

I have to be honest and say i don't know. Like in the past there feels (and i could be wrong) like there other agenda's at play too.