Talk

Advanced search

Bombing Syria - could somebody explain the argument for?

(117 Posts)
RedMapleLeaf Fri 27-Nov-15 13:12:47

Just that really. All I've heard from Cameron is "I am fully convinced about the argument for strikes against Syria" which isn't a very strong argument.

claig Fri 27-Nov-15 13:19:30

To help our allies and join in with them.

ClashOfUsernames Fri 27-Nov-15 13:24:08

Doesn't even Cameron admit jut combing won't help, but he won't put ppl on the ground which is what would actually help?
(I am against the bombing btw)

claig Fri 27-Nov-15 13:24:13

Also as Crsipin Blunt said on Newsnight last night, it gives us more clout around the table when the political negotiations start if we are part of the bombing with the other allies.

RedMapleLeaf Fri 27-Nov-15 13:26:01

Which allies? Help them with what?

How does bombing in Syria help?

"Join in with them"? Why?

On today's World at One the argument was "The UK is under threat of an imminent terrorist attack" but I don't understand how investing our limited resources in bombing Syria helps protect us.

OhYouBadBadKitten Fri 27-Nov-15 13:26:17

Do we have enough troops to go on the ground any more? Genuine question.

claig Fri 27-Nov-15 13:28:02

RedMapleLeaf, I agree with you but I am giving the arguments for.

I think ground troops should be sent in because I want Isis to be defeated swiftly as our generals said could be done within 14 days if we sent tanks and troops in.

RedMapleLeaf Fri 27-Nov-15 13:28:17

it gives us more clout around the table when the political negotiations start if we are part of the bombing with the other allies

I'm not convinced. We are not a powerful negotiator compared with Russia, the US and China.

What are the costs of bombing Syria? We can see what the consequences are from how France was targeted.

claig Fri 27-Nov-15 13:29:17

'Which allies? Help them with what? '

France and America. It is about showing solidarity as a major power when an ally like France is doing it.

RedMapleLeaf Fri 27-Nov-15 13:29:50

RedMapleLeaf, I agree with you but I am giving the arguments for.

I thought you may be smile I am 100% against bombing Syria but I am 100% unconvinced as to why we should.

RedMapleLeaf Fri 27-Nov-15 13:30:30

I think ground troops should be sent in because I want Isis to be defeated swiftly as our generals said could be done within 14 days if we sent tanks and troops in.

Have we learned nothing from Afghanistan or Iraq?

It is about showing solidarity as a major power when an ally like France is doing it.

We can, and should, do that. Why does that involve bombing Syria?

claig Fri 27-Nov-15 13:33:06

'I'm not convinced. We are not a powerful negotiator compared with Russia, the US and China. '

Nor am I, but it does make sense that we would be taken more seriously, and be able to more effectively have our input considered, if we are involved in changing the situation in Syria by bombing Isis in Syria, not just in Iraq.

'What are the costs of bombing Syria? We can see what the consequences are from how France was targeted'

I don't know, that is why I want ground troops to finish Isis off quickly rather than just bombing as the US has been doing for a year now and which hasn't stopped Isis.

claig Fri 27-Nov-15 13:39:20

'I am 100% against bombing Syria but I am 100% unconvinced as to why we should.'

I agree with you and the Tory MPs in teh debate yesterday who called the Free Syrian Army a ragbag group. I think it is a mistake for us to just bomb, I think we all need to defeat Isis with ground troops.

'Have we learned nothing from Afghanistan or Iraq?'

Iraq was a mistake because it was attacking a government and the attempt to get support for bombing Syria was a mistake because it was attacking a government. But Isis are themselevs a ragbag group of terrorists who have been funded by neighbouring countries and they can be defeated as our generals have said. We have to defeat them because terrorism spreads and will affect us in Europe if we don't eradicate the terrorists.

'We can, and should, do that. Why does that involve bombing Syria?'

Probably because when the leaders get together, they ask each other what they are doing and clearly committing miliitary force and expenditure to the joint attack on Isis means that a country is taken more seriously in any subsequent negotiations.

OhYouBadBadKitten Fri 27-Nov-15 13:44:26

ISIS has grown hugely since the US started. I'm not sure how our planes would turn things around. All that has changed is the number of displaced Syrians has jumped hugely.

claig Fri 27-Nov-15 13:45:52

You're right, OhYouBad

RedMapleLeaf Fri 27-Nov-15 14:56:16

Iraq was a mistake because it was attacking a government and the attempt to get support for bombing Syria was a mistake because it was attacking a government. But Isis are themselevs a ragbag group of terrorists who have been funded by neighbouring countries and they can be defeated as our generals have said.

I disagree. I think there are still plenty of factors in common, such as action on sovereign ground, political and cultural structures that differ when we can only see things from a democratic perspective etc.

We have to defeat them because terrorism spreads and will affect us in Europe if we don't eradicate the terrorists.

How has terrorism ever been eradicated though? By talking. One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter and all that.

RedMapleLeaf Fri 27-Nov-15 14:57:05

And apologies for the glaring omission in my earlier comment. It should say, I am not 100% against bombing Syria but I am 100% unconvinced as to why we should.

claig Fri 27-Nov-15 15:07:35

'I disagree. I think there are still plenty of factors in common, such as action on sovereign ground, '

Yes, but everyone has ignored that it is Syrian sovereign ground. I think there are some questions about the legality of bombing in Syria without the Syrian government's agreement, but most countries stopped caring about that long ago. The fact that they would be bombing Isis, who are not a sovereign government, may make some difference.

'How has terrorism ever been eradicated though? By talking. One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter and all that.'

This is where I disagree with Corbyn's "kinder" policy. Isis have been funded and backed by neighbouring countries as a terrorist force to take down a sovereign country. You can't negotiate with them, they have not just cause at all. You have to get every last one of them and all of their funders and backers and then they will cease to exist.

RedMapleLeaf Fri 27-Nov-15 15:10:44

You have to get every last one of them and all of their funders and backers and then they will cease to exist

I agree that this is one option, I just don't think it's feasible. It didn't work in Ireland, it didn't work in Vietnam, it didn't work in Spain, it didn't work in Afghanistan and it's not working in Israel/Palestine.

claig Fri 27-Nov-15 15:11:37

Don't forget Isis were only created and funded over the past few years. They have no long-lasting cause of any type. They are not a nation or a people, they have no history of any cause at all. They are pure and simple terrorists. I am against bombing them, because our 6 planes won't make any difference to the US planes that have been bombing them for over a year. I would prefer ground troops to get every last one of them.

claig Fri 27-Nov-15 15:16:57

'I just don't think it's feasible.'

They are not like the IRA was. The IRA was a long-standing movement that grew out of other movements.

The London DJ rappers and Belgian drug takers and disaffected Jihadis are not part of a cause, they are a funded terrorist gang. It is very feasible to defeat them. If France sends the French Foreign Legion in together with local troops on the ground and if their resupply lines via Turkey are cut, Isis will be finished within weeks. The DJ rappers are no match for the French Foreign Legion.

claig Fri 27-Nov-15 15:25:29

'It didn't work in Ireland, it didn't work in Vietnam, it didn't work in Spain, it didn't work in Afghanistan and it's not working in Israel/Palestine.'

Those are nearly all national causes of a people with an identity. The Belgian drug takers and London DJ Jihadis aren't a national grouping or a people, they have nothing to hold them together apart from the funding they receive.

RedMapleLeaf Fri 27-Nov-15 15:46:30

* It is very feasible to defeat them. If France sends the French Foreign Legion in together with local troops on the ground and if their resupply lines via Turkey are cut, Isis will be finished within weeks. The DJ rappers are no match for the French Foreign Legion.*

I am ignorant about these details, but if you're right why isn't this happening? Why isn't our government supporting this rather than air strikes?

claig Fri 27-Nov-15 15:53:09

I don't know. Lots of our military say that air strikes can't defeat Isis, some Tory MPs disagree with the strikes because they think they will not work in defeating Isis and that the plan is not good enough to defeat them.

I don't know why Cameron has recommened this (apart from a valid reason of supporting our allies) but I had no idea why Cameron advocated bombing Assad a few years ago which would have weakened Assad who was in a battle against Isis.

lordStrange Sat 28-Nov-15 10:47:03

The London DJ rappers and Belgian drug takers and disaffected Jihadis are not part of a cause, they are a funded terrorist gang. It is very feasible to defeat them. If France sends the French Foreign Legion in together with local troops on the ground and if their resupply lines via Turkey are cut, Isis will be finished within weeks. The DJ rappers are no match for the French Foreign Legion.

Well put Claig. I amm also curious as to why we are plan a bombing campaign - aside from blowing up Isis property, oil trucks and the like - rather than routing them on the ground. There is surely enough intelligence to point the troops at them and they really wouldn't stand a chance.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now