Should there be Air Strikes in Syria? (Poll)

[Kailash]

wasn't sure if this had been asked or not
with the recent events the government looks like they want to vote again on military action in syria

Syria: Why the mood among MPs is changing - BBC News

i'm still not sure we should be. it's exactly what isil want isn't it, to provoke war?
hope it's worded ok etc

 

[Koeman2021]

Yes

 

[BB3Lions]

No to boots on the ground.

If air strikes Yes.

 

[raduv1]

I believe the question should be what plan of action before, during and after will be put in place this time around before deciding military action.

 

[Sonic67]

So far we have bombed Syria with drones and bombed Syria with UK pilots attached to US forces. We already are doing it. This is to ask if eight Tornados with RAF pilots in them can join in as well. Sad that out of a few hundred actual combat aircraft in the inventory it's all we can actually provide now.

 

[Kailash]

So far we have bombed Syria with drones and bombed Syria with UK pilots attached to US forces. We already are doing it. This is to ask if eight Tornados with RAF pilots in them can join in as well. Sad that out of a few hundred actual combat aircraft in the inventory it's all we can actually provide now.

argh, won't let me change the question,
should the UK be making air strikes like you say

 

[raduv1]

I voted not sure , mainly because I'm not sure what air strikes will acheve apart from more innocent collateral damage. At the same time though a plan of action is needed to defeat IS in its strongholds. History has taught us that an enemy cant be defeated solely by bombing the crap out of them although it can be weakened for ground troops ( hmmm ) that seems to be off the table ATM.

I also don't like rush descisions made based on our human nature of revenge as we have had plenty of time and warnings to nip IS in the bud before they became the threat ( to us ) they now are.

 

[pandemic]

I'd prefer we follow the money trail, find out exactly where the funding came from to get IS from being a bunch people talking over the internet to a well equipt, trained outfit that now controls a decent chunk of the region. Then bomb the crap out of them... but I guess they could turn out to be one of our supposed allies.

 

[Mshulla]

I'd prefer we follow the money trail, find out exactly where the funding came from to get IS from being a bunch people talking over the internet to a well equipt, trained outfit that now controls a decent chunk of the region.

It's no secret, USA, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey. No doubt others as well.

 

[Sloppy Bob]

No to boots on the ground.

If air strikes Yes.

Problem is what will that actually achieve. We're not fighting an army with operational bases, ammo depots, brigades of troops and a mechanised force.

I don't know what the answer is and I don't want British troops out there boots on the ground but I don't see airstrikes alone as achieving very much other than taking out a few ISIS units here and there and potentially killing more civilians, thus swelling their ranks further.

 

[hutch]

They are going to have to put troops on the ground if they want to win this, no choice

 

[phillyd1981]

Ain't Russia sending 150k troops in?

 

[johntheexpat]

I voted no because while solidarity with the others would be nice, what difference would it make? France is currently " hammering" ISIS in Raqqa, but the truth is one mission a day with maybe ten planes. The Russians flew 2000 missions in the last month. No idea how many missions the US fly nor any of the others. But if the UK matches the French strike rate it will still be relatively insignificant on the scale of things. ( unless you believe UK bombers are an order of magnitude more accurate and effective than others, which they aren't).
My view is than any UK effort would be better applied elsewhere. Intelligence or training or whatever. A few more bombers in the skies of Syria would be showing solidarity but ineffective overall. IMO

 

[simonlewis]

I voted yes because these ba$$tards need to be eradicated permantly.

 

[krish]

I'd prefer we follow the money trail, find out exactly where the funding came from to get IS from being a bunch people talking over the internet to a well equipt, trained outfit that now controls a decent chunk of the region.

They are not new (as Blair would have us believe), they're just the re-branded Al Qaeda in Iraq, originally led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (killed by the US in 2006), who became a problem from the start of the Iraq war over a decade ago, especially when they started beheading orange jumpsuited western workers like Ken Bigley.

 

[SteakAndCake]

Against ISIS yes, not against Assad. Russia is right, you need a strong local force to govern that country. Until the country is ready to overthrow Assad themselves and elect a strong replacement with majority support, removing Assad and leaving a power vacuum is wrong.

The West need to suck it up, admit they made a mistake trying to remove Assad and support him along with Russia in destroying ISIS.

 

[IronGiant]

argh, won't let me change the question,
should the UK be making air strikes like you say

@cruiser27 I've changed it for you.

 

[Naqv]

No. The existing French, US, Saudi, UAE bombing has had little effect on ISIS; only the Russians have had an effect, however, that is due to Air Strikes coupled with Syrian Army boots on the ground.

If you are going to do it, do it properly, major air strikes, with huge numbers of troops on the ground.

 

[damo09]

Level the country. Then send them all back and let them get on with it.

 

[RicksonGracie1972]

I don't see what difference a few British fighter jets will do when the US, Russia, France etc are already involved. I'd rather we kept out of it.

 

[nheather]

No to boots on the ground.

If air strikes Yes.

You need some boots on the ground to support the air strikes - usually they are special boots.

Cheers,

Nigel

 

[nheather]

I don't see what difference a few British fighter jets will do when the US, Russia, France etc are already involved. I'd rather we kept out of it.

By that argument we would keep out of everything. The environment, world poverty and health, human rights etc. viewed on its own, the UK's contribution is just a blip.

Will be interesting to see what China's response to the latest execution/murder will be.

Cheers,

Nigel

 

[RicksonGracie1972]

By that argument we would keep out of everything. The environment, world poverty and health, human rights etc. viewed on its own, the UK's contribution is just a blip.

Cheers,

Nigel

I know where you're coming from, I guess I'm just concerned that getting involved may make us more of a target for ISIS.

 

[nheather]

I know where you're coming from, I guess I'm just concerned that getting involved may make us more of a target for ISIS.

I think we are already near the top of desired targets - but being a small and well patrolled island with strong gun laws makes us pretty difficult to attack.

Cheers,

Nigel

 

[RicksonGracie1972]

I think we are already near the top of desired targets - but being a small and well patrolled island with strong gun laws makes us pretty difficult to attack.

Cheers,

Nigel

I hope you're right.