Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Air Strikes On Syria

I was all in favour and fell for it last time when we went to war in Iraq, and given time found out it was an illegal war, as well as being a puppy dog for America, but I really don't feel happy with bombing the hell out of Syria, I thought the country was broke?


Surely we've been going on about this in the media for weeks now, and the terrorists will have moved somewhere else?
And are we storing up more troubled for the future, in terms of stirring up even more hatred and revenge in the future.

I'm happy to be corrected, and sorry if people have got completely opposing how people feel about it, I just can't understand it, and wouldn't want blood on my hands of innocent people.

Isn't this just a knee jerk reaction to what happened in Paris?

I know people might say if we don't him them, they'll hit us, but let's be honest, after Paris, I thought it might only be a matter of time before London got hit.

Why do we always have to get involved in a ruck, and then face the music further down the line, when will we learn.
«13456712

Comments

  • edited December 2015
    The terrorists can't move elsewhere though. It is a caliphate. It requires land. No land, no caliphate. It's fundamental to Daesh.
  • It must be ground troops
  • It must be ground troops

    How are they going to secure the oil fields (to cut some money supply) without them?
  • How many if any civilians are going to get killed, how long and how much will it cost to put the country back together?
  • edited December 2015
    Democracy has spoken.
    I am disappointed but accept the result of course, now it is up to Cameron to deliver on his strategy.
    I think it is wrong to paint those who voted against as terrorist sympathisers, and Cameron was wrong in that, but what he said is not the major issue, and it ought to be put behind us. The new situation is that we are going into another theatre of war in what amounts to no mans land. The only option is to win, but how victory will be defined is still a massive question.
  • We don't want to be reactive, for when atrocities hit us in UK. Many plots have been foiled. Doing this is being proactive.

    However I think the solution isn't to just bomb, and/or boots on the ground. The aftermath is crucial. Trying to force democracy in a country anywhere in that region is tricky. I just hope, the plan is thought out, and well planned, unilaterally and not just in the interests of certain countries.

    On the flip side, bombing will cause, inevitably, innocent civilians killed. No matter what the intention, if a country bombed us, and it turned out my innocent family members, friends and fellow citizens are killed innocently, I'm going to have a lot of hatred for that country, regardless whether they had the right intentions.

    I'm no middle eastern expert and some of you, may have a more detailed and thorough analysis of it all. But in conclusion, the phrase "caught between a rock and hard place" springs to mind.

    Ultimately, something has to give, doesn't it...?
  • Sponsored links:


  • It worked in iraq daesh have been pushed back from being nearly in bagdad

    Innocent people are being killed by these bstds all over the middle east and in Europe to do nothing is not defending our citizens and doing nothing to assist an allied country is unacceptable
  • There was no easy decision with this, though I'm surprised so many MPs seemed to have their mind made up long ago.

    NLA is right that we have a duty to stand by our allies. Imagine if what happened in Paris had happened in London, and the French had refused to help...

    Then again....I also fear that the chances of some sort of London based retaliation from ISIS just went up drastically. I was worried before but even more so now. Something will happen.
  • To turn our back on a direct request for help in bombing Daesh in Syria by France would be the wrong thing to do an alliance formed over decades and history fighting together.

    Now Is the time to strike these bstds hard

    So we've effectively been peer pressured into this decision to save face with France? Who were obviously right with us when we went into Iraq.

    Dropping bombs on an urban population will lead to many civilian deaths, and if you don't wipe out the whole family then there will be thousands of bitter Syrians who will then go and join ISIS.

    It was always eventually going to come down to military action due to the nature of the beast but political arrangements need to be sorted first to unite the world against them and to cut of their supplies. Because now this looks like a Western Invasion in the middle east = exactly what Isis want.
  • I think his comment worked and made those voting understand how they could be viewed
  • There's no easy option the easiest was to do nothing. You can't negotiate you can't do it politicaly with words the whole of the European union need to join together and hit them and hit them hard,

  • ultimately this is all about getting rid of assad because he doesn't go along with what the west wants. But nobody seems to ask what the Syrian people want.
  • Sorry I've just seen boots have been ruled out?
  • _nam11 said:

    Sorry I've just seen boots have been ruled out?

    For now.

  • Sponsored links:


  • How long have we been bombing in Iraq ? How many RAF bombs have killed civilians there ?
  • But there is a mandate from the United nation to strike this time, the French was right on Iraq

    It's not illegal this time, and the time is now
  • Taken out of context that quote dammo,
  • CAFCdamo said:

    image

    Oops

    That comment was based on Russia not targeting ISIS but the rebels we are backing.
  • Why are people forgetting that Syria has a government and is a sovereign country, how can we conduct air strikes without the Syrian governments permission?
  • It worked in iraq daesh have been pushed back from being nearly in bagdad

    Innocent people are being killed by these bstds all over the middle east and in Europe to do nothing is not defending our citizens and doing nothing to assist an allied country is unacceptable

    I know what your saying NLA, but didn't France stay back when we went into Iraq because it was illegal, and we just went in anyway?

    I just hope we don't regret this, I'm sick of war.

    We are already at war. Bombing Isis in Syria is simply an extension of the current policy.

    All these people saying 'let's not go to war etc' obviously fail to see that there have been 7 failed terrorist attempts in London this year. We are at war and they are coming for us whether we bomb them or not.

    Just bombing them isn't the answer. We need to back up bombing with political and economic policy, but not bombing would be completely irrisponsible
  • It worked in iraq daesh have been pushed back from being nearly in bagdad

    Innocent people are being killed by these bstds all over the middle east and in Europe to do nothing is not defending our citizens and doing nothing to assist an allied country is unacceptable

    True, and now an alliance including UK fighters is going to kill innocent citizens, is that any better?

    Doing nothing is not an option. And I am convinced that we have not been anywhere near close to doing nothing since 7/7. We have no idea how many terror plots have been foiled by the security forces, I would not be surprised if it runs to three figures. Killing innocent people isn't a solution either mate. It just breeds further resentment as nam11 says, and it helps the cause of daesh.

    Targeting a specific force in a specific theatre and preventing them from reaching a specific target is not the same as this proposal NLA.

    Still, a democratic decision has been made, so we go in.
  • Because the sovereign state are not able to deal with them and we need to intervene,
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!