ChatterBank1 min ago
Should The UK Go To War With ISIS In Syria?
This poll is closed.
Should the UK go to/extend the war with ISIS in Syria, and to what extent?
- No, withdraw from air-strikes and other military intervention in Syria. - 29 votes
- 32%
- Yes, but no UK troops on the ground - 28 votes
- 31%
- Yes, with UK boots on the ground - 21 votes
- 23%
- No, but continue air-strikes - 13 votes
- 14%
Stats until: 23:03 Thu 31st Oct 2024 (Refreshed every 5 minutes)
© AnswerBank Ltd 2000 - 2024. All Rights Reserved.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by AB Editor. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
All Parties should have allowed a free vote on this issue. When a PM is preparing to send British military personal to war and possible death, its not the time for petty Party politics.
----------------
Indeed, in the same way that those who would reek havoc here with a Paris style attack ought to be eradicated, but JC can't bring himself to sanction even basic defences against terrorism.
----------------
Indeed, in the same way that those who would reek havoc here with a Paris style attack ought to be eradicated, but JC can't bring himself to sanction even basic defences against terrorism.
From the BBC live feed on the debate:
Labour MP Pat McFadden attacks the view that terrorism is the fault of the west. He argues that this view "infantalises" terrorists and adds that terrorists are "fully, not partially" responsible for what they do.
He says that we cannot "lie low" and avoid being attacked by terrorists.
-----------------------
Hear, hear.
Labour MP Pat McFadden attacks the view that terrorism is the fault of the west. He argues that this view "infantalises" terrorists and adds that terrorists are "fully, not partially" responsible for what they do.
He says that we cannot "lie low" and avoid being attacked by terrorists.
-----------------------
Hear, hear.
Voting on whether to drop bombs on people should not be subject to a Party Whip, and there should be a free vote so that MPs can vote with their consciences. So it is commendable that some Conservative MPs are likely to not support the Government.
// There are thought to be at least 15 who will still not back the government. Some have questioned Cameron’s claim that there are 70,000 rebel ground troops ready to occupy territory held by Isis. The doubters include former army officer John Baron, former shadow home secretary David Davis, Sir Edward Leigh, former cabinet minister Peter Lilley, and Julian Lewis, the chairman of the Commons defence committee. //
Cameron has a working majority of just 16 so more abstentions than that means Cameron needs votes from other Parties for this to be passed.
The LibDems (all 8 of them) will support Cameron (old habits die hard), but it will probably be Labour MPs who decide which way or the other. As Labour Mps have a free vote, it is likely that about 60 will not vote against bombing, so Cameron will get a majority.
// There are thought to be at least 15 who will still not back the government. Some have questioned Cameron’s claim that there are 70,000 rebel ground troops ready to occupy territory held by Isis. The doubters include former army officer John Baron, former shadow home secretary David Davis, Sir Edward Leigh, former cabinet minister Peter Lilley, and Julian Lewis, the chairman of the Commons defence committee. //
Cameron has a working majority of just 16 so more abstentions than that means Cameron needs votes from other Parties for this to be passed.
The LibDems (all 8 of them) will support Cameron (old habits die hard), but it will probably be Labour MPs who decide which way or the other. As Labour Mps have a free vote, it is likely that about 60 will not vote against bombing, so Cameron will get a majority.
Chill
The doubters include many army/military figures who are of the view that airstrikes alone will not eradicate ISIS. If no troops are on the ground to finish ISIS off, they will still be a fighting force, and our streets will be no safer.
Presumably we will send airstrikes. Presumably that will not stop ISIS. If at a future date there is an attack on UK targets, will we admit that airsrtikes have failed?
The doubters include many army/military figures who are of the view that airstrikes alone will not eradicate ISIS. If no troops are on the ground to finish ISIS off, they will still be a fighting force, and our streets will be no safer.
Presumably we will send airstrikes. Presumably that will not stop ISIS. If at a future date there is an attack on UK targets, will we admit that airsrtikes have failed?
-- answer removed --
The Russian plan is to hit ISIS repeatedly with airstrikes probably for a couple more months and weaken them. Send in the Syrian Army and Iranian and Hezbollah ground troops to finish ISIS off.
We should all support that, but we won't because the real agenda is to take Syria from assad, for ourselves, like we did (for very little if no benefit) with Iraq.
We should all support that, but we won't because the real agenda is to take Syria from assad, for ourselves, like we did (for very little if no benefit) with Iraq.
Chill
The doubters include many army/military figures who are of the view that airstrikes alone will not eradicate ISIS. If no troops are on the ground to finish ISIS off, they will still be a fighting force, and our streets will be no safer.
-------------------
Can't say I heard too many military figures with that view, if any. Everyone knows air strikes alone won't eradicate them, but will seriously impair their operations.
As for the latter, as Hillary Benn said that'll be for more localised combatants to solve.
The doubters include many army/military figures who are of the view that airstrikes alone will not eradicate ISIS. If no troops are on the ground to finish ISIS off, they will still be a fighting force, and our streets will be no safer.
-------------------
Can't say I heard too many military figures with that view, if any. Everyone knows air strikes alone won't eradicate them, but will seriously impair their operations.
As for the latter, as Hillary Benn said that'll be for more localised combatants to solve.
I support the idea of airstrikes, with the proviso that they are to disrupt their income stream, to begin with. They should have *very full coffers* by now and are not buying multi-million-dollar weapons platforms, so could last years, on light weaponry plus covert ops abroad (by which I mean on our turf).
Troops on the ground will be required to finish the job but I wonder if we should wait for their money to run out, first. What if it takes 10 years?
There is no poll answer intermediate between A and B (e.g. Troops but with a time delay or precondition of drained Daesh finances), so I have to pick an option I don't unequivocally support. All polls are like this, I find.
Troops on the ground will be required to finish the job but I wonder if we should wait for their money to run out, first. What if it takes 10 years?
There is no poll answer intermediate between A and B (e.g. Troops but with a time delay or precondition of drained Daesh finances), so I have to pick an option I don't unequivocally support. All polls are like this, I find.
Two things concern me here - one is the wording of the OP.
It is a legitimate question, insofar as the media and the politicians use the word 'war' frequently about this issue, but I question if it is actually a 'war' per se. There is no country, or indeed state to be at war with, rather we are fighting an amorphous mass of individuals who are spread all over the world, and I wonder if the perceived notion that bombing specific targets is actually going to achieve the desired objective.
Secondly, there is the still-debated question of what we do next?
History has taught us that launching military action in Africa without the benefit of a proper middle and end strategy is seriously flawed, and I have yet to hear anything approaching a proper strategy for what we do in the coming weeks and months.
The government has been keen enough to get us into bombing - fighters in place within an hour of the vote - are they equally keen to find a way out?
It is a legitimate question, insofar as the media and the politicians use the word 'war' frequently about this issue, but I question if it is actually a 'war' per se. There is no country, or indeed state to be at war with, rather we are fighting an amorphous mass of individuals who are spread all over the world, and I wonder if the perceived notion that bombing specific targets is actually going to achieve the desired objective.
Secondly, there is the still-debated question of what we do next?
History has taught us that launching military action in Africa without the benefit of a proper middle and end strategy is seriously flawed, and I have yet to hear anything approaching a proper strategy for what we do in the coming weeks and months.
The government has been keen enough to get us into bombing - fighters in place within an hour of the vote - are they equally keen to find a way out?
