Editor....can We Have One Of Your Little Vox Pops Please !

[mikey4444]

On whether we should extend military action into Syria.

[Marshwarble]

It would be quite interesting to know.

[Marshwarble]

I think the horse has bolted on "extend military action on Syria" though. "Attack potential ISIS targets in Syria" maybe?

[ichkeria]

""extend military action on Syria"

Extend INTO Syria (from Iraq) - there's quite a difference

If AB is going to do that it should be more than "YES/NO" as there are several very different reasons that some oppose military action

[Baldric]

Surely this should be in Ed's Blog and not News?

[DTCwordfan]

I'll preempt the answer and say, 'yes' - burqa or a pseudo-homonym this represents to Tom and Jerry.

[sandyRoe]

Cameron seems as determined to take the nation to war as Blair was when he was an acolyte of Bush.
The alarums are sounding too through the AB halls. I think we all know how the vote here would go.

[mikey4444]

I am quite happy to leave the actual wording up to Ed !

[Quizmonster]

Having whined for twelve years about the coalition of countries which invaded Iraq for having no plan for the aftermath, what exactly is Cameron's plan for what will happen after the bombing of Syria is over? (It will be one day.)
If his 2011 bombing of Libya is any guide, Syria will be even more of a shambles than it already is.
The only bombing that ever succeeded in ending hostilities was in Japan in 1945 and then only because it was atomic!

[Gromit]

Should we attack ISIS in Syria - 100% Yes
Should we attack Assad in Syria - 100% No.

Cameron is making no distinction of who our enemy is in any attacks. We should be wary that they are using ISIS's atrocities as a lever to get our agreement to bring about regime change and install a puppet of the West.

[andy-hughes]

QM - //Having whined for twelve years about the coalition of countries which invaded Iraq for having no plan for the aftermath, what exactly is Cameron's plan for what will happen after the bombing of Syria is over? (It will be one day.)
If his 2011 bombing of Libya is any guide, Syria will be even more of a shambles than it already is.
The only bombing that ever succeeded in ending hostilities was in Japan in 1945 and then only because it was atomic! //

Indeed!

Undneath Call-Me-Dave's misty-eyed concept of standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies - all very laudable - is essential plan for what happens next.

We blundered into Iraq without a plan, and blundered out again without really being able to say if we did any good or not - and now we appear to be heading for the same scenario over again.

[Mosaic]

Quizmonster makes an interesting parallel with Japan.
Certainly Iraq like Japan was pumped full of aid money in the aftermath.
But Japan wasn't a fractured society already full of fault-lines waiting to pull apart - quite the opposite, a highly close-knit society that prized fitting in above all (still does). So the nuking and nursing of Japan worked.
It's terrifying to think of that technology being used anywhere now.

[mikey4444]

I don't think anybody is making a case for ISIS to be destroyed by a nuclear bomb, or at least I hope not !

Its been reported for a while now that ISIS receives substantial income from the sale of its oil. As there doesn't seem to be any way that we can stop this blood oil from being mixed and dispersed amongst legitimate oil, can we not bomb the oil refineries under ISIS control ? If we did, would that not strike a blow against ISIS finances ?

[Tizzi24]

I didn't agree with the war in Iraq, but do think we should take action against ISIS.

[Gromit]

RAF Tornadoes have flown more than 1,600 missions over Iraq and carried out over 360 air strikes. Yet during this period, ISIS has expanded in numbers and geographically into Syria, Libya, Egypt and Lebanon. Bombing on its own does not work.

[Quizmonster]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
The Telegraph operates a pay-wall as regards accessing its articles, but the above link reveals a headline showing that Germany is planning to send troops as well as aircraft to deal with ISIS. This "boots on the ground" element is the only rational choice of action. Bombing alone will achieve nothing...it never has, as I explained earlier above!

[youngmafbog]

Bombing does achieve something, but it wont solve the problem alone.


However I'm pretty much with Gromit on this one

[naomi24]

//The only bombing that ever succeeded in ending hostilities was in Japan in 1945 and then only because it was atomic!//

That is indeed the only type of bombing that will eradicate IS, but it won’t cure the problem permanently because others of a similar mind-set will continue to rise elsewhere, as they are doing now, and we'll be back to square one. I’ve just listened to Jeremy Vine interviewing Jeremy Corbyn who, as usual, was waffling on about diplomatic and peaceful solutions, seemingly failing hopelessly to understand that this is a philosophy the like of which the world has never previously encountered - but, in fairness, I don’t believe he’s alone in that. None of the western politicians seem to recognise it. These people don’t fear death, they have no objection to dying, they make no effort to preserve life, and their ambition is not peace - it is Islam. There are no diplomatic solutions. IS will not talk, it will not stop, and there is no compromise to be had.