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.

ISIS are flitting back and forth between Iraq and Syria. We're already bombing ISIS targets in Iraq, it doesn't make sense to me to only be doing half of it.

No.

No.

No.

Is anyone in Syria?
There is a pp with family there.

Regarding the US led Iraq invasion this is an excellent report from the BBC.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24547256

One of the objectives is to replace Assad with someone the West approves of whilst they bomb strategic targets so they need to get rid of him first before we drop anything on anyone or whats the point.

No, in that air strikes alone would be largely pointless unless you follow it up with a ground campaign.

But we will I think.

No, we shouldn't because if we atagonise them, there will most likely to be somebody to retaliate against us.

I missed the parlimenatry debate today, can anyone tell me if Corbyn is allowing a free vote amongst his MPs? Or is he expecting them to follow his stance?

Sorry parliamentary obviously

No.

No

No

No.

No

No. (not to say I think we should do nothing, but dropping bombs without further plans in place is sodding bad idea)

We do not know yet what Corbyn is planning to do

I totally agree that more should be done to expose where the money is coming from and the vast amount of money is coming from Saudi

Saudi are already part of the collation that are bombing Syria just not tackling those within their country that support ISIS

ISIS of course will gain more support the more they are attacked that does not mean they will gain more power, are they strong enough to gain more power under attack its estimated they have around 30000 troops. we can stop people to some extent joining them to fight out in syria and iraq we have to have better border controls and we can if other countries agree to financially make it very difficult for them they have oil to sell who is buying it

No.

They want to draw the west in. Leave the fucking horrible bastards to it.

No

If you go onto an Irish mainly young man frequented website called boards.ie, the warmongering among them is unreal. They think it's a playstation game. Where they bomb things. And nobody gets maimed or killed.

I don't know why men get excited by war but are reluctant to sign up to the army.

No.

My reason for this is purely pragmatic. The skies above Syria are too crowded. There are too many other nations operating in that theatre, and operations that involve competing large scale alliances are prone to "diplomatic incidents" that escalate.

I don't want Britain getting involved in what is already showing signs of becoming a mire for global powers. I am furious that Cameron immediately pledged military support for Turkey in the event of a Russian military action over the downed Russian plane -- it was the behaviour of a neocon hawk. He needs to be far more considered, and step carefully. Otherwise, we risk getting dragged into hell.

In my view, Cameron is turning into Tony Blair. And I am not happy about it.

No... Can someone forward this to David Cameron?

Enthusiasm "I totally agree that more should be done to expose where the money is coming from and the vast amount of money is coming from Saudi".

This is very difficult to do. It has been purposely engineered since the 80s to be difficult to do. To my mind, the best pathway is the one that is taking place: suppressing oil prices through various forces. The less money they have, the less money can make mischief. Let them go bankrupt in ten years.

I was a Yes but now I am a no, not sure .

Only because there are so many planes in the skies above Syria right now.

Personally I think British planes are there for more symbolic reasons.

yy to those who want to strangle ISIS's cash flow. As long as they're able to raise money for their weapons by selling oil and other produce they'll never be exterminated.

Anonymous Hackers - perhaps this is one you people could get onto?