Do we bomb Syria and Islamic State?

While MP's are voting on whether we should bomb IS in Syria, I feel it is only right we have our poll on the matter so the simple question is

Should be bomb IS in Syria or not? I am sure this question is going to dominate the news for the next few days at least and I am sure many of us will feel strongly about what we should do I personally feel that we should bomb IS simply because of their barbaric methods but I would feel many more feel we can only defeat IS if we put troops on the ground as well but I am sure we would once again require a UN resolution to do so. Those
that marched last night and oppose the idea I understand their position on this vote, but to me IS pose the biggest single threat to the world since Hitler. If we do nothing, will we see IS attacks not increasingly become more barbaric in Europe to the levels they are in Syria & Iraq & Libya?

It is not necessary for the UK to become involved in the bombing of Syria, what will adding our few planes to the mix do that Russia, France and USA are not already doing? Over the last few years successive labour and conservative governments have cut our armed forces to the bone and yet they are still expected to get involved in conflicts that do not concern us. Cameron has been itching to get the Uk involved in a military conflict so he can emulate his idol tony blair and strut about the world stage.

(02-12-2015 13:15 )lancealot790 Wrote:  Cameron has been itching to get the Uk involved in a military conflict

We're involved already. We've been bombing Iraq for a year. Didn't you notice?

If we think this problem is going to go away if we don't get involved I'm afraid that won't happen. Our Security Services have foiled 7 recent terrorist attempts sponsored by ISIL it seems. ISIL have almost achieved the unthinkable of uniting Russia, France, Germany, USA, various Middle Eastern countries & ourselves in opposing them. They are an organisation that kill & maim people of all faiths & all nationalities. Humanitarian aid workers, homosexuals, families where if the woman drives a car her husband is taken and threatened with being thrown off a tall building. The world is uniting against them and we should stand alongside our allies.

Cameron was wrong to say what he did last night about terrorist sympathisers & Corbyn is wrong to have set his attack dogs on his own MP's. Neither of them have apologised when they should have.

I also note that Corbyn has refused to say that he would not seek to get a change to the already agreed military action in Iraq.

This is as difficult a decision as any MP could ever have to make & I wish MP's of all persuasions well as they wrestle with their consciences.

First of all i am well aware of our involvement in Iraq but this is about cameron,s determination to bomb Syria, it was only 2 years ago he was hell bent on attacking Assad to support the very people he now wants to bomb. Of course ISIL won,t go away if we leave them alone but i really can't see what difference our few planes are going to make compared to whats already out there, Putin alone has comitted tens of thousands of troops and hundreds of planes to destroy ISIL, will our small airforce really help the cause that much?

Have u noticed that so called pacifists are very aggresive especially on the internet

This whole situation has come about because of previous interference and military adventures in the region creating the conditions for IS to evolve and flourish. Obviously its very tempting to say lets bomb the shit out of them, revenge is a natural emotion, but from a practical point of view it is pointless. The US has been bombing IS in Iraq and Syria for more than12 months , France and Russia have now launched numerous bombing raids , the RAF have also been bombing IS in Iraq for months. Does any body feel more or less safe than a year ago? The only way you could possibly destroy IS is with troops on the ground and no government is going to find that politically acceptable any time soon. All that bombing will achieve is that yes you may kill some IS fighters but you will create far more recriuts around the world. Does any one seriously believe there will be no civilian casualties as Cameron would have you believe? Simply don't trust Cameron who is desperate to remove the Assad regime and replace it with a more pro western government to limit himself to IS targets.

(02-12-2015 15:42 )HannahsPet Wrote:  Have u noticed that so called pacifists are very aggresive especially on the internet

No but I have noticed that those most vociferous about closing the door to Syrian refugees seem desperate for us to have the opportunity to try and create a few thousand more

The situation is totally and utterly fucked imo.

How do you hope to sit and come to a peacful resolution with people whose own mantra is (can't remember where I read this) is to kill anyone who believes in any religion other than Islam and to destroy any country or body of people who stand with democracy? But then on the other hand, how do you fight someone to a conclusion where for every missile you fire and every boot you put on the ground you just provide propaganda to recruit a hundred more fanatics.

I understand and agree that we should stand with our allies and provide support but I feel we should go after their funding and supply routes. But that might uncover some truths that the world couldn't bear to know...

You see, totally fucked

^ I agree bombing is only part of the solution. I'd be looking very carefully at where the oil is going and of course the bombing could be used to disrupt that.

They are not only attacking non-Muslims - if you don't follow their strict interpretation of being a Muslim then you are just as likely to be punished as a member of any other faith. If you saw the interviews with some families fleeing Syria it was because they were terrified of being killed because the wife drove a car.