General News UK parliament votes to launch air strikes on Syria

Democracy is a flawed system. People get to select representatives to give the illusion of individual power, but at the end of the day the people have no say in anything.

 

It's a silly knee-jerk reaction to a very serious problem. They want to do something for the sake of something, even if the impact is uncertain. In reality our presence in Syria makes no difference because the Tories have severely diminished our airstrikes capability. What it does do, however, is increase the potential risk of a Paris-style attack in one of our major cities in relation to our involvement.

What's also scary is that we will have four major powers in tight airspace bombing unknown targets. What happens if the Americans accidentally target the Russians? What if they retaliate by doing the same thing? Are these people really this stupid?

As time goes on, I'm more and more in favour of ground troops being deployed to Syria, even though I typically take a non-interventionist stance. These airstrikes are not going to end well for anyone - and those in favour should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. I have no respect for them at all.

 

I think that the UK should stay out but if a British city gets bombed, then they can airstrike. Suppose I dont have much of a say since I am not from the UK

 

Remember our air campaign in support of moderate rebels in Libya? How'd that work out for you Dave?

 

Why? Why have you done this you fools???? Whhhhyyyyyyyy?????

 

I'm pretty disappointed about this vote. I think we should try and keep out of Islamic State's business as much as possible because it's simply nothing to do with us. All these wars we've got involved in, in the past, don't seem to have helped. Not to mention these air strikes will also kill innocent civilians.

I say, it's their country- let them have their fascist ways and we'll stick to our culture. It's simply not our duty to bomb anything we don't like. A better solution would be to find an effective way to seal off our borders and defend our country as bombing the foreigners will just make them more angry.

 

I have mixed feelings about this. The Royal Air Force has been bombing ISIS/Daesh targets in Iraq for some time, so it's really not the case that we (the UK) have been standing idly by on the sidelines doing nothing. It wouldn't be unreasonable for us to maintain this as our position.

On balance, I can just about support the decision to extend the campaign into Syria, but air strikes alone will not rid the world of ISIS/Daesh. If the point is to further weaken and degrade the capability of this hideous death cult as a precursor to a ground offensive, I can see the reasoning behind it, but I don't know if anyone is thinking along those lines - yet. At some point the international community may need to.

 

Why do we always have to get ourselves involved? Not all people who live in Syria are ISIS members, for Christ's sake. Already, 2 hospitals and 3 primary schools have been destroyed by bombs and airstrikes.

---------- Post added 3rd Dec 2015 at 08:20 AM ----------

I agree. Attacking them might cause them to start attacking us.

---------- Post added 3rd Dec 2015 at 08:21 AM ----------

I agree. Attacking them might cause them to start attacking us.

 

^^^^this

 

This makes me sad.

 

Most people I've spoken too are in favour or unsure, and polls show at least a large proportion of the UK (some say a majority) is too so it as not as if MPs have acted with zero mandate here. The antiwar protestors and Labour supporters may be the most vocal, but they are not necessarily the voice of the people.

Myself? I don't think air strikes are "the" answer, as "the question" of Syria is much too complicated with Assad involved.

BUT I think the airstrikes do have benefits:
1. It shows a great unity with France (even if just as a gesture)
2. It may act to demoralise or wear ISIS down. We have the advantage here - global support, better weaponry etc
3. At worst it acts as a distraction for ISIS and they will spend more time defending themselves/being careful and hopefully less time committing glamorized atrocities.

Plus:
1. We are already involved in airstrikes anyway
2. We are already a major target for ISIS anyway

When they are bombing and gunning people down in major capitals in Europe it is very much something to do with us.

If we decided against air strikes ISIS wouldn't just stop attacking Europe. Hell, France was largely attacked not due to airstrikes, but due to cultural issues and its high-profile nature and to make a statement. The message wasn't a hopeful "stop bombing us or else", it was "this is the beginning", a debut if you will.

But ISIS are already killing innocent people, and lots of them. Air strikes or not people are not safe in Syria.

Gay people are like us are being chucked off building rooftops. I just can't help thinking seeing those photos - what if we could have taken out those executioners first, or reduced their numbers. These people might have been saved, or they might have had a better chance of survival.

Of course there is a risk of them being hit by a bomb, but what would we want if we were in that situation? Would we want the world to "try" to take out these executioners (even if there is a small risk to our safety), or would we want these men freely operating on the street where we could be snatched and executed at a moments notice.

I think you've nailed it on the head Patrick. This isn't (unlike many have tried to make out) an either/or thing. We can have airstrikes AND a holistic strategy (protecting borders, limiting trade/arms etc), they are not incompatible. I think with a good plan in place we can at least make things very difficult for ISIS.

I just don't think the alternative proposed by Corbyn (talks/diplomacy) hold any weight in this situation. What would we talk to ISIS about, the weather? They want death and a global caliphate, what is there to bargain?

 

Talking to them isn't going to work - and the problem with airstrikes isn't that they're necessarily wrong, more that there is absolutely no intention of serious military involvement in the Middle East to deal with IS. Airstrikes by British Tornadoes is nothing more than a happy gesture to make it look like we're doing something for an ally and close friend, but ultimately our involvement will not change anything. It's laughable that we seem to think that the French, Americans and Russians actually need us. They don't. They just need some show of support to make it look like their decision to bomb Syria was the right one.

Unless something serious is done - and by serious I'm talking a full-scale invasion with thousands of troops deployed to both Iraq and Syria - IS are not going anywhere, no matter how many bombs we drop. Simple as that. The recent strikes will not make us any safer here, nor will it significantly help Syrian civilians, if at all.

Plus, there is so much hypocrisy it's nauseating. We get people like Hilary Benn (my local MP, much the pity) chanting for airstrikes because IS are a threat to our values and way of life, they're barbaric, they murder people - but they seem to forget that the strand of Islam that IS support is also supported - and exported worlwide - by Saudi Arabia, who help fund the building of mosques in the West in order to promote Wahhabism, which is seriously regressive. The similarities are just striking - the only difference is Saudi Arabia isn't actively trying to take over the world, but the people who live there face the same treatment as they do in IS.

This is where our leaders and elected representatives are exposed.. if they were really serious about dealing with this threat they wouldn't be having dinner and tea with leaders of countries that either directly or indirectly fund death cults and terrorist organisations - but economics trumps everything, and cheap oil is far too lucrative.

 

This is not enough. To defeat ISIS America and her allies need to put troops on the ground. ISIS don't care a huge amount about airstrikes they just go into their bunkers. The only reason ISIS still exists is because the troops on the ground are weak.

The only solution to ISIS is destruction. This guys are not interested in discussions. They are a state systematically attacking nations all over the world and they need to be destroyed. ISIS is actually a bigger issue than Syria (which is itself a big issue). The global international community can not sit back and let a state attack countries at will for no reason often than relgious hatred.

 

I do agree.

For clarification. I don't think airstrikes will massively help, but nor do I think they will endanger us or civilians in Syria any more than the current state of play. As such I'm pretty neutral. I do think the symbolic support of France (even if just short term is quite important) though.

Like you say the only solution is a full invasion (not going to happen post Iraq) + tackling other middle Eastern issues (Assad, Saudi Arabia) (doomed to fail) + a serious discussion on Islam (not going to happen).

As such I don't see Syria (or rather this new global problem) is going anywhere soon. But in the meantime I just think we might as well do something, on the hope that inaction does not lend a sense of legitimacy or permanency to ISIS.

 

I'm afraid boots on the ground will be necessary. Syria and the Middle East are so fractured though, how do you put Humpty Dumpty together again

 

I'm disappointed. Latching onto Hollande's belligerent coattails doesn't actually mean a resolution for the Syrian conflict.

I recently wrote a response in another thread as to why I think this sort of action is premature or at least very shallow.

I detest ISIL, but even these attempts at destroying ISIL aren't really effective in ensuring a long-term solution. We can't ignore the latter and use the former to pretend we're contributing to proper solutions.

 

I'm disappointed. Latching onto Hollande's belligerent coattails doesn't actually mean a resolution for the Syrian conflict.

I recently wrote a response in another thread as to why I think this sort of action is premature or at least very shallow.

I detest ISIL, but even these attempts at destroying ISIL aren't really effective in ensuring a long-term solution. We can't ignore the latter and use the former to pretend we're contributing to proper solutions.

 

It annoys me that we have a big fuss over elections which are civil matters REALLY.. but not over whether we should bomb people.

Its wrawwwnngg