No

Our ideas of who are the good guys and who are the bad guys are contradictory from country to country in the middle east and we change our minds every few months. The place is a mess and aside from bombing Japan in WW2 I don’t think air attack has ever been effective and complete.

Oh and we can’t afford it when it comes to any other form of national cost

Anyone remember when Assad was the bad guy? Will we bomb him next once we’re finished with ISIS?

If we do bomb Assad then we will be in direct conflict with the Russians…

No.

Well, not without a clear UN mandate and a strategy that everyone involved at least agrees on.

Putin is doing his own thing, which is basically looking after Russian interests (Russian Naval Base in Syria and access to the Med)
The more parties involved (doing their own thing) the more chance there is of mistakes and people being taken out by friendly fire etc.

I’m pretty sure the UK public won’t be convinced it was a good idea when captured British pilots are being burned alive in ISIS promo videos.

The UK sending in a few missiles from a couple of Tornadoes will make no practical difference.

ISIS (and more importantly their ideology) need to be wiped from the earth, but I think the house of Saud aren’t far behind in the human rights stakes and we’re mates with them…
ISIS isn’t just confined to Raqqa either, they seam to be doing pretty well in Libya, and their sister organisations Boko Haram and Al-Shibab also need wiping out.

I think we’d be better off spending our money strengthening Turkeys border with Syria, strengthening our own borders, and taking in plenty of (carefully screened) refugees.

Sir Richard Dannatt made an interesting point earlier this week – He felt we should train and arm some of the Refugees coming out of Syria, then help them to reclaim their own county, prior to any British blood being spilt in Syria.

I feel this is the Arab worlds problem to sort out – or at least to prove they are committed to doing their bit, which they aren’t at the moment.

besides, if we’ve got money to spend, and bullets to use up, i’d rather we killed a few poachers and safeguarded the future of some African wildlife.. we ain’t going to run out of Arabs anytime soon.. not so sure about Rhinos though.

All those who believe we should not bomb Isis. Is it because you believe it will encourage them to attack Britain.

On the contrary, I believe they already want to attack the UK, and think another attack like 7/7 or Paris is inevitable. Bombing them will probably make it more likely, but only a fraction more likely than it already is, so bombing them is irrelevant in terms of preventing attacks here.

Yes, yes, yes to synchronize squadron of swan like B-52 heavy bombers with bunker busting cluster napalm bombing Vietnam style.

Hang on … you don’t have B-52 you have tiny planes … Boss, the plane! The plane! 😆

Oh well … pussy footing precision bombing then …

You Do Not bomb Assad.

Russia Must stay otherwise Western political correctness will wipe out mankind and we will see the rise of ZM.

But what do you bomb?

Al-Quaeda relied on sponsorship for funding whilst ISIS relies on oil for its funds. It currently generates $1.5m per day from oil production.

The tanker queues at the oil refineries are 6km long and yet since the start of the air strikes in 2014, of the 10600 strikes only 196 have been against the oil production.

The stark problem is that the rebels and ordinary Syrians rely on ISIS for their oil. A mad state of affairs!

So what do you bomb?

Amazing how these ZMs seem to get everywhere Chewky!.

wittonweavers – Member
But what do you bomb?
So what do you bomb?

Opps! My bad … I mean carpet bombing the lot but not Assad and his mates.

Or if you are using precision bombing then make sure you get the loudest bang for bucks … where ever make the loudest explosion that is your target … oil tankers? Ya, that too …

But please Do Not harm the animals.

Nobeerinthefridge – Member
Amazing how these ZMs seem to get everywhere Chewky!.

They are everywhere … I/we are surrounded by them.

Really really surprised at the strength of the no vote on here as i fully expect the vote to be yes in Parliament.

Yes, but they’re in politics so they’ll agree to something even if they disagree with it.

Although maybe someone won’t:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34939109

Yes i was just reading the BBC news page and marvelling at the independence of our national broadcaster.

Have just read 169 posts from 84 different posters in this thread and the vast majority says NO which i would reasonably deem to be a fairly good representation of the UK as a whole.

THe BBC leads with JC saying he cant support air strikes and makes a direct link to possible shadow cabinet resignations. Beneath this is a statement – “Syria air strikes will ‘make the UK safer’.”

Fairly clear that the BBC continue to kiss Dave’s arse.

Have just read 169 posts from 84 different posters in this thread and the vast majority says NO which i would reasonably deem to be a fairly good representation of the UK as a whole.

😆

wittonweavers – Member
Have just read 169 posts from 84 different posters in this thread and the vast majority says NO which i would reasonably deem to be a fairly good representation of the UK as a whole.

Crikey, fairly good representation? 😯

THe BBC leads with JC saying he cant support air strikes and makes a direct link to possible shadow cabinet resignations. Beneath this is a statement – “Syria air strikes will ‘make the UK safer’.”

You do know that people might misinterpret JC as Jesus Christ so the correct way writing is JC(not Jesus Christ). 😀

wittonweavers – Member
Yes i was just reading the BBC news page and marvelling at the independence of our national broadcaster…

The BBC is just a propaganda slut trying to get by on its reputation for impartial virginity of a few decades ago.

epicyclo – Member
The BBC is just a propaganda slut trying to get by on its reputation for impartial virginity of a few decades ago.

What! You don’t say … I have so much faith in media speaking the truth you know …

They are the truth!

All hail media the truth!

😛

Yes.

It’s been a very clear mistake not to have struck IS in Syria two years ago, one which has cost many many lives in Syria and Iraq

@chip, you are quite correct in that the rushed exit from Iraq was the earl error but given Obama’s determination to be different from Bush it was inevitable.

It’s my belief the vote will be a clear Yes with many Labour MPs supporting action. Given the pages of No’s here it shows how unrepresentative are the views of the typical STW poster to a char forum thread

Typical STWer – Capable of stringing a sentence or two together. Reasonably well informed with a healthy cynisism towards the media/gutter press, capable of some critical thinking. Mostly graduates or at least capable of graduate level intelligent discussions. Relatively affluent, but (with obvious exceptions) neither mega rich nor in poverty. Does not believe stuff purely because it is written in the Daily Mail or the Sun. May have the a weak spot for the Grauniad or the Torygraph. Does not think very much of ‘reality TV’. Likes posh coffee, sneers at fast food.

So, not typical of the UK public at all!!!

wittonweavers – Member

THe BBC leads with JC saying he cant support air strikes and makes a direct link to possible shadow cabinet resignations. Beneath this is a statement – “Syria air strikes will ‘make the UK safer’.”

To be fair to the BBC, they also show the full text of Corbyn’s very considered letter, which I think is going to put them in the minority.

😀

We have a few trying to bring us back down to tabloid levels of analysis though where wars solves things – massively ignoring the actual causes here- and make us safer.

100% NO

Continue to lobby my MP to little success sadly

Paris has/will lead to bad policies and infringements on personal liberty. A very bad period…….

NO,

I don’t see how more bombs is going to help, surely if bombing was going to work it would have already solved the problem or at least shown some sort of improvement. If some sort of plan can be put forward with a defined success criteria and how we will actually bring stability to Syria then maybe. Historical references say that this is unlikely.

you are quite correct in that the rushed exit from Iraq was the earl error but given Obama’s determination to be different from Bush it was inevitable.

US withdrawal from Iraq began 2 years before Obama became president – he merely continued with Bush’s policy.

And Bush originally thought it was all over in 2003 :

The spectacular growth of ISIS in Iraq has nothing to do with withdrawal and everything to do with a corrupt Western-backed sectarian government in Baghdad.

And the spectacular growth of ISIS in Syria has everything to do with a Western sponsored civil war.

This has probably been covered, but I can’t find it anywhere- why isn’t something like this every put to the public vote?!

jonba – Member
Historical references say that this is unlikely.

What history are you referring to?

why isn’t something like this every put to the public vote?

Because in our ‘democracy’, we vote for a representitive to speak/vote on our behalf. Which is lovely.

Bombing is the wrong response to an ideology. We need to undermine the recruitment and motivation of ISIS.

I’ve had messages from current and ex members of the military who think the only way to sort out IS is boots on the ground and they are keen to get out there.

Had lunch with a very considered American friend of mine who said Bataclan is Europe’s 9/11, things will not be the same again. The “do nothing” argument is history.

French minister Valls said a couple of days ago Europe must act to stem the flow of refugees as if they do not the people of Europe will act to end the EU. The government is working flat out to build a coalition and a plan to eradicate IS militarily. Front Nationale looks very likely to win Calais regional election.

why isn’t something like this every put to the public vote?

Can I be awarded the contract for printing the ballot paper or campaign posters etc …

If so I encourage everything to be put to the public vote … so long as I am awarded the contract for printing.

If I am awarded the contract to print I swear wholeheartedly I will vote and support JC as my Jesus Christ.

😛

@ernie, I highly recommend you read Emma Sky’s book. Obama put Malarky and Iraqi government in place in his haste to “hand over”

The discussion we are having here is as always open and informative but the events at Bataclan and the intervention of Russia makes our air strikes inevitable and a major offensive an absolute certainty. The discussion is purely academic.

jambalaya – Member

I’ve had messages from current and ex members of the military who think the only way to sort out IS is boots on the ground and they are keen to get out there.

Awesome. You know Cameron isn’t proposing this, right?

Bombing is the wrong response to an ideology. We need to undermine the recruitment and motivation of ISIS.

Yeah good luck with that.

I’ve had messages from current and ex members of the military who think the only way to sort out IS is boots on the ground and they are keen to get out there.

They’re right, but even that’s near on impossible with current ROEs, manpower and we (rightly) don’t have the stomach for another drawn out COIN operation.
Syria has all of the hallmarks of a complete gang**** which would make Iraq look like a tea party. We should leave it well alone.

JC speaking a lot of sense again. This bombing is clearly just a tokenistic knee jerk reaction – there’s blatantly no strategy.

Its a wide net you cast to be able to deliver your anecdotal appeals to authority and I am surprised to hear ex forces folk have a strong belief in the use of force and a poor grasp of what is being proposed

Fantombiker – Member
Bombing is the wrong response to an ideology.

Okay … hmmm … so does ideology just jump out of thin air to brainwash people (like a physical entity to mess with your brain) or does an ideology need a physical vessel to transmit?

We need to undermine the recruitment and motivation of ISIS.

Exactly how?

Have a new human resources department?

Bombing is the wrong response to an ideology. We need to undermine the recruitment and motivation of ISIS.

Yeah good luck with that.[/quote]

I think commonsense is required more than luck.

The “do nothing” argument is history.

Who is saying do nothing? As far as I can see most people are saying that they’re against it because lobbing bombs around is a token pointless gesture. Ken Livingstone has just been on Question Time talking about what it really requires, which is tens of thousands of troops in a broad multinational coalition, and I’m inclined to agree. But waging an all out war against IS comes at a huge cost. Not just money, which would run into billions, but also hundreds of not thousands of dead soldiers (can people stomach videos on the internet of British soldiers being beheaded and burnt?), attacks in UK cities, and all the other stuff that comes with war. It seems to me that the those clamouring for bombing want to look like they’re doing something without having to commit to the real pain and sacrifice that it would require.

But is an all out war with Isis not inevitable sooner or later.
And the later will be harder fought.

I think commonsense is required more than luck.

How the hell is anyone going to kill an ideology which spans multiple countries, let alone one? There seems to be a line of thought that if the americans stop droning, it’ll all stop!
Drone use is nothing but an excuse to justify the elimination of the kaffir by the crazies. I’m not justifying drone use in any way, but this problem runs far, far deeper and I have zero ideas of how to stop it, or if it can be stopped.

We already bomb them in Iraq this merely takes it over the border.

I thought Dave’s speach was pretty well balanced. And the BBC also just presented this as for and against in the news so I don’t see peyote gung-ho rushing in but considered approach.

But is an all out war with Isis not inevitable sooner or later.

Maybe, maybe not. The point is that it shouldn’t be the first option. There are loads of things that can be done before military action is taken. Do you honestly think those things have been tried? No of course they haven’t, because they are very hard, take a long time, and would involve addressing our own culpability and hypocrisy where the likes of Saudi Arabia and Israel are concerned. Far easier to drop a few bombs, make everyone feel a bit better, then let someone else worry about it later.

Unless the west is prepared to address the social, economic and political issues in the region after IS have been defeated then there’s not much point in letting off a few brimstones because everyone will be back there in 10 years time.