The Syria poll

With the debate and vote coming up tomorrow on whether or not to allow British bombs to reign down on Syria I thought I would conduct this poll to gage the views of the forum on this very important issue. For me I do not think we should bomb Syria, in fact I think we should stay out of it completely.

No thickos, tree huggers or racists please.

its a yes from me

its a yes from me

Why?

its a yes from me

Why?

because i personally feel that leaving them alone isnt going to do anything. granted an attack like we saw in Paris inst as likely to happen in London, but i think they need eradicating.

This isnt like Iraq, where we entered the country under lies and false pretenses. ISIS are quilty of killing citizens of many european countries including ours and i think we can do our bit to help make them stop.


Can i ask why you are a no?

With the likes of Russia, America and France now bombing IS in Syria I don't see how us chipping in will make much of a difference and the only difference it will make will be to increase the risk of killing innocent Syrians. IS have a labyrinth of tunnels which they use in the event of air strikes and are increasingly using schools and hospitals as bases as they know they are unlikely to be targeted. For once lets not be the worlds policemen and let other countries pay and do the work, Russia and France were not involved in the previous Iraq wars, so really they do not have the right to call us into this mess.

Finally I don't want us to take in any more refugees from Syria and bombing them is only going to attract more over here. For me you are a massive hypocrite if you don't want refugees to come here but then want our government to bomb the shit out of them over in their countries.

What are really Camerons motives? I'm not sure but would like some suggestions. He keeps coming out with the line that we need to bomb them to keep us safe over here. That ignores the fact that a lot of these terrorists are over here already.

No brainier, we are bombing the Iraq side of ISIL already yet ISIS just move military production into the Syria part of ISIL. They then rely on the 'Western part of their operation ' namely the left wing elements within the European nations, to apply pressure to those countries governments to vote against the bombing of the Syrian part of their country. They don't respect the former border between Syria and Iraq and neither should we until we defeat them

There's another good point, we've been bombing them in Iraq for two years to zero effect. Bombing in Syria as well is not needed, let other countries do the work and save some money. We did this in Libya and look what happened there, now in the control of extremists and much worse than what it was under Gadaffi,

It is impossible to be fully on one side. We can look back with hindsight eventually but either way a large amount of people will die.

But I think the only reason we are not helping Russian & Syria are the Saudi's.

It may be far-fetched but I think we are fast on the way to a Iran-Saudi war. And the Saudi's are yesterdays news with fracking etc.

Yemen has already been taken over by Irans houthis or whoever they are, and SA are desperately trying to bomb them.

Iran, Syria, Russia and Hezbollah will wipe ISIS off the map. They don't need our help. But it will be symbolic if we agree to to bomb them.

For me it is a no as when the dust settles we won't have a stake in the region.

------------------------

Looks like germany are in https://www.rt.com/news/324097-germany- ... a-support/

The decision to commit to the fight against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) was taken by Chancellor Angela Merkel’s cabinet on Tuesday, according to a government official cited by Reuters.

-----------

It also looks like we are the only country that put it to a vote?.

It's a NO from me.

Many questions remain unanswered and I believe that air strikes would not only further destabilise Syria and the surrounding region but also make our communities at home less safe. With the shadow of failed past interventions looming large, how will us entering into another bombing tirade help the region. Another war built on false promises and lies.

The Prime Minister mentioned during his speach, that he's been told by intelligence that there are 70,000 Members of the Free Syrian Army currently in Syria fighting against Assad & ISIS. Yet his Defence Secretary has said that there is no where near that amount in Syria, and the figure is closer to 10,000.

Austrialia have recently pulled out of air raids in the area, due to growing concerns of casualties to civilians. There's safer, more efficient ways of battling ISIS/ISIL. Blocking their supply routes, cutting off any country that deals with them for Cheap Oil & Gas. Stop selling arms the Saudis, who are then selling them on.

In 10 years time, we don't want another inquest like the one we have with Iraq at the moment.

Let us hear the findings from the Chilcott inquiry before we go storming into another war. The fact we may be making the same mistakes again and are holding back a report that may prove this is shocking. ISIS will not be defeated by more air strikes, I think the past couple of years have told us that which have seen them grow to become a feared force across the world able to bring down planes and kill over 100 people in a major capital city.

With the likes of Russia, America and France now bombing IS in Syria I don't see how us chipping in will make much of a difference and the only difference it will make will be to increase the risk of killing innocent Syrians. IS have a labyrinth of tunnels which they use in the event of air strikes and are increasingly using schools and hospitals as bases as they know they are unlikely to be targeted. For once lets not be the worlds policemen and let other countries pay and do the work, Russia and France were not involved in the previous Iraq wars, so really they do not have the right to call us into this mess.

Finally I don't want us to take in any more refugees from Syria and bombing them is only going to attract more over here. For me you are a massive hypocrite if you don't want refugees to come here but then want our government to bomb the shit out of them over in their countries.

What are really Camerons motives? I'm not sure but would like some suggestions. He keeps coming out with the line that we need to bomb them to keep us safe over here. That ignores the fact that a lot of these terrorists are over here already.

I go along with that,there's enough planes in the air at the moment from other country's who have sat on the fence and not got involved over recent years.I would supply them with intelligence ,but keep our bombers on the ground.

We should be hitting ISIS in cyberspace to stop their propaganda, recruitment and radicalisation and putting presssure on those who supply the weapons and finance like Saudia Arabia. Apparently there are so many planes flying over Syria that John Baron, a conservative MP on the defence select committee is claiming they often can't find enough targets to hit and return to base fully laden with thier bombs. He intends voting against extending bombing and I wouldnt describe him as some wet liberal.

Britain's political elite desire to be at the top table shows no stopping. The country doesn't want to be one of the main players, we understand our place in the world.

Cameron- If you are so driven by conviction send the army in, boots on the ground, and then see how the country feels.

Just posturing for his own ego

No brainier, we are bombing the Iraq side of ISIL already yet ISIS just move military production into the Syria part of ISIL. They then rely on the 'Western part of their operation ' namely the left wing elements within the European nations, to apply pressure to those countries governments to vote against the bombing of the Syrian part of their country. They don't respect the former border between Syria and Iraq and neither should we until we defeat them

That may make sense if it wasn't for one small matter - France, USA and Russia are already bombing in Syria.

It's a no from me too. It would be nothing short of idiotic not to learn lessons from the previous interventions in the Middle East. IS are not a conventional armed force, there are only so many targets that can be bombed, and they are not all based in Raqqah but spread throughout the region. Something has to be done, but it has to be led by Middle Eastern powers like Iran and Saudi Arabia supported by a broad coalition. IS has to feel like the whole worid is against them.

No way. The French yesterday said we hit ISIS (Midnight attacks) training camps but camps are in the desert and ISIS fighters were tucked up in bed with their 9 yr old wifes.

Britain should take responsibility as bush and Blair crested this mess in the middle east. We can't just abandon them after destabilising the entire region.

I say arm the kurds to their teeth. They're the only force making gains.

Oh and sod the turks why they're in nato I'll never know.

A good friend of mine travelled through the middle east in 2010 I think it was. Said Syria was an amazing country and very friendly towards travellers. I think a lot of the world heritage sites that was a big attraction in the country have been wrecked/looted by ISIS.

The only personal fact I know, without watching news on Syria and all the propaganda, that country was a safe place for travellers when Assad had his kingdom, before the destabilisation and western support of militias working to destroy it.

-MPs to debate and vote on whether UK should begin bombing IS targets in Syria
-The debate will begin at 11:30 GMT, culminating in a vote at about 22:00 GMT
-David Cameron urges Tory MPs to 'take a stand' against so-called Islamic State
-But the prime minister is criticised for branding Jeremy Corbyn a "terrorist sympathiser"
-Despite Tory rebels PM expected to win, helped by votes of some Labour MPs, the Lib Dems and DUP

Wow I wasn't expecting this result, I was sure to be in the minority. Listening to the debate on the radio now, Cameron is lying through his teeth with every question. I am just hoping his pathetic comments last night regarding everyone being against bombing Syria are "terrorist sympathisers" persuades many to vote against in protest.

The country needs to be stabilsied and sadly the only way that is possbile is for us to combine forces with Assad or the oppositon to firtsly defeat ISIS.

A bombing campaigm combined with troops on the ground can achieve this - but not UK troops.

Then when that is done get the other warring factions to negotiate terms for a ceasefire and allow non Western UN forces to oversee a transfer of govt, which will allow Assad and his cronies to leave Syria and the people to elect a democratic alternative.

At the same time we need to tell the Saudis etc to stop their citizens from supporting ISIS etc.

The country needs to be stabilsied and sadly the only way that is possbile is for us to combine forces with Assad or the oppositon to firtsly defeat ISIS.

A bombing campaigm combined with troops on the ground can achieve this - but not UK troops.

Then when that is done get the other warring factions to negotiate terms for a ceasefire and allow non Western UN forces to oversee a transfer of govt, which will allow Assad and his cronies to leave Syria and the people to elect a democratic alternative.

At the same time we need to tell the Saudis etc to stop their citizens from supporting ISIS etc.

Exactly. An Arab League force should be sent in to monitor a ceasefire or just take control of the country until a government and stability is in place.

I'm close to coming to the conclusion that Assad is the only option.

Turkey can frankly do one:

Russian 'evidence'

Russia's defence ministry has accused the family of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of being directly involved in the trade of petroleum with the Islamic State group.

The defence ministry cited satellite images that it said showed oil tankers travelling from IS-held territory to Turkey.
The trucks, it said, travelled to three locations - including refineries - in Turkey and some was then moved on to a third country.
Russia said it was producing only "part of the evidence" for now.

-------------------------------------------

Assad is happy to allow the kurds to exist, turkey are not. Turkey simply do not care about ISIS. They allow them to prosper to hurt syria and the kurds.

I'm close to coming to the conclusion that Assad is the only option.

Turkey can frankly do one:

Russian 'evidence'

Russia's defence ministry has accused the family of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of being directly involved in the trade of petroleum with the Islamic State group.

The defence ministry cited satellite images that it said showed oil tankers travelling from IS-held territory to Turkey.
The trucks, it said, travelled to three locations - including refineries - in Turkey and some was then moved on to a third country.
Russia said it was producing only "part of the evidence" for now.

-------------------------------------------

Assad is happy to allow the kurds to exist, turkey are not. Turkey simply do not care about ISIS. They allow them to prosper to hurt syria and the kurds.

This.

Turkey, I wouldn't be surprised if Erdogan wants to recreate the ottoman empire. There has also been videos on the Internet of Daesh fighters talking to Turkish soldiers on the border. Laughing and receiving weapons.

Turkey should be kicked out of nato and not let in the EU. Plus we should arm the kurds to the teeth. But ofcourse our agenda is to replace assad with a western backed government.

Wouldn't be surprised if Daesh are yet another creation of the Cia.

Assad summed up ISIS brilliantly when he said "The Islamic state not from Syira, they have grown in Iraq under American supervision". The Americans let ISIS and other barbaric groups some of which are fighting for the FSA grow unchecked because they were serving them a purpose. Now they have grown into this worldwide terror group and the Americans can't control the monster they helped create.

I don't like Assad but we need to bite the bullet and back him for now, like the Russian have. The lesser of two evils indeed. What I find ridiculous is that people are saying that we need to remove Assad because he used chemical weapons against his own people, this did not happen, it was proved not to be him. Is Assad worse than other leaders? Mugabe? Saudi Arabia? The basket cases that are Libya and Iraq?

I ask again, what are Camerons true motives here? I haven't heard him put up a credible argument yet beyond the fact that it may keep us safe here (bullshit) and that France have asked us to help them, where were France in 2003!

Assad summed up ISIS brilliantly when he said "The Islamic state not from Syira, they have grown in Iraq under American supervision". The Americans let ISIS and other barbaric groups some of which are fighting for the FSA grow unchecked because they were serving them a purpose. Now they have grown into this worldwide terror group and the Americans can't control the monster they helped create.

I don't like Assad but we need to bite the bullet and back him for now, like the Russian have. The lesser of two evils indeed. What I find ridiculous is that people are saying that we need to remove Assad because he used chemical weapons against his own people, this did not happen, it was proved not to be him. Is Assad worse than other leaders? Mugabe? Saudi Arabia? The basket cases that are Libya and Iraq?

I ask again, what are Camerons true motives here? I haven't heard him put up a credible argument yet beyond the fact that it may keep us safe here (bullshit) and that France have asked us to help them, where were France in 2003!

Here is a great video for people if they have the time (it's an hour long) where Assad talks openly about ISIS, where they came from, the different countries involved, rebels etc.

We don't need to bomb them. In fact bombing them could create more terrorists.

Here's a question. What has the airstrikes achieved so far?

Saw something say that the US CentCom actually changed their own reports and haven't even mentioned the territorial gains Daesh have made. They're still making more gains.

We don't need to bomb them. In fact bombing them could create more terrorists.

Here's a question. What has the airstrikes achieved so far?

Saw something say that the US CentCom actually changed their own reports and haven't even mentioned the territorial gains Daesh have made. They're still making more gains.

Cheers Daniel, I will watch that later. I believe Assad to be a right c**t but no worse than other dicators around the world and certainly not the monster he's been painted as in the western media.

Bridgend bluebird, any suggestions as to what Camerons motives are here? I can't for the life of me understand why he's so desperate to get further involved than we already are.

A no from me, not our place to be there, protect our land and our borders. Those who decide to go to Syria and fight for Daesh should not be allowed back in. If the Argies invaded the Falklands would any other country help us, would they bollocks.

Protect Our Land Protect our Borders

We don't need to bomb them. In fact bombing them could create more terrorists.

Here's a question. What has the airstrikes achieved so far?

Saw something say that the US CentCom actually changed their own reports and haven't even mentioned the territorial gains Daesh have made. They're still making more gains.

Cheers Daniel, I will watch that later. I believe Assad to be a right c**t but no worse than other dicators around the world and certainly not the monster he's been painted as in the western media.

Bridgend bluebird, any suggestions as to what Camerons motives are here? I can't for the life of me understand why he's so desperate to get further involved than we already are.

Yes. The west wants more influence in the region and unfortunately for the Syrian people assad is a staunch ally of Moscow. Its not just about oil or other resources. Even though they're a big part of it.

Syria is a proxy war between saudi arabia vs iran and obviously nato vs Russia. The cold war never ended it's just resurfaced. This is yet another creation of America.

A no from me, not our place to be there, protect our land and our borders. Those who decide to go to Syria and fight for Daesh should not be allowed back in. If the Argies invaded the Falklands would any other country help us, would they bollocks.

Protect Our Land Protect our Borders

In fact the French helped them by selling Argentina weapons.