Should the UK bomb Syria? Yes or no thread.

[AnotherEffingOrangeRevel]

Shall we have a little vote, here and now?

It's a big "no" from me.

baring in mind NATO is backing all the extremist groups fighting Assad including ISIS. I think the opposition to Cameron's bloodlust, presented by Corbyn has been impressive.

Cameron has completely failed to make explicit how exactly UK bombing raids would be more effective than the existing French and US strikes.

No. Absolutely 100% no.

No.

Isis will just move to another country.

Can't fight an asymmetric threat with a symmetric bombing campaign (cites Vietnam, Afghanistan (Russian and US campaigns) etc).

Isis is an ideological threat that is becoming the Starbucks of terrorism, much like A-Q. Anyone with Internet access can start up a franchise.

No

No

Bombing civilian populations doesnt work, apart from anything else, so on practical grounds alone it is a stupid idea.

TelephoneIgnoringMachine
Booyaka - there were around 20,000 signatures on it, when I posted the link. 27,000 signatures in 23 hours isn't too bad.

Thanks for posting that link, Telephone. It's heartening to see the rapid increase in numbers - currently nearly 70,000 have signed. I'm thinking the 100,000 mark might be reached by tomorrow.

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/113064

No

An interesting article in today's Telegraph saying that we only have 2-4 Tornados to use should DC get his way well that's going to scare them

Nobody should bomb anybody ever. Force is not the only solution, though it often seems to be the preferred option. Nothing noble about airstrikes, not in my name an' all that.

Otto they won't be bombing civilian populations. They will be targeted strikes on terrorist military installations identified by drones beforehand.

How will they do that dementedma given that ISIS have scattered themselves amongst the civilian population? The US dont seem to be very successful with that - just ask MSF about the hospitals.

Yes. With boots on the ground.

Leaving the Syrian people to suffer the effects of our stupidity isn't fair. We got involved before and should go back to be part of the cleaning-up process. Many Syrians cannot understand why we haven't come to their aid years ago, back when they were first under siege from Assad and ISIS were taking them town by town. It's convenient to say that air strikes will turn the nation against the West, but in fact many of them already feel deeply betrayed that we have failed to intervene before now.

How are we to make a dent on this situation, except through military intervention? And what right to we have to keep our soldiers out of harm's way when vulnerable people there are suffering as a result of our actions? Perhaps we would not defeat ISIS (perhaps nothing could, now) but Syria could certainly be reclaimed. (Who to hand these liberated towns to is another matter.)

Yes, the Syrians in Raqqa and elsewhere will be put in more dangerous circumstances than they are already, even if our air strikes are carefully targeted. But there are no easy answers here. As we all know, there are many Syrians living and dying in dreadful conditions outside the country, waiting for the opportunity to go home and rebuild.

Roundles Please elaborate on the alternative solutions to force. I would genuinely love to know.

demented We may as well acknowledge that Syrian civilians have already been killed in targeted air strikes (children included) and more will die.

ohyoubadkitten We may not be able to tell ISIS from the general population but we could install a new 'regime'.

we could install a new 'regime'

Unless you want to declare war on Russia/Iran that "new regime" would have to be the old regime ie Assad.

Yes, some Syrian civilians may be injured or killed. As civilians at holiday resorts, on aeroplanes, in cafes and theatres are being killed. And what about the thousands of Syrian civilians now homeless and starving because of ISIS. Don't they deserve help?
Do we just turn a blind eye to their suffering and ask ISIS politely to play nicely?

No

it'sallgoing The uncertainty about what comes next is not a good reason to do nothing. We do not want ISIS to be the default option. I agree it's an impossible situation though.

The uncertainty about what comes next is not a good reason to do nothing.

Of course it is! Attempting to bomb ISIS could well make things worse.

Unsure, air strikes alone won't accomplish a thing.

No , also can't believe there are people trying to get Corbyn to stand down as he won't agree to war!

The ridicule he is getting for his opinion makes me love him more when he says he not going anywhere.

No.

The vast majority of displaced Syrian refugees are because of Assads bombing campaign, not ISIS. Remember two years ago, the vote was about bombing Assads regime.

Doing nothing is not an option. We need to destroy Supply routes,oil wells, infrastructure.

I get that it's very complex. And that Assad is another kind of bastard.

But we cant just do nothing. What's the alternative?

We should never have been in Iraq. We should never have been in Afghanistan - I marched against both wars.

But this is here and now. We are under substantial threat. Serious, serious threat.

The government petition now stands at over 87,000.