Should Britain Now Take Military Action Against Is?

[naomi24]

Just caught a bit of the television news where someone said public opinion is changing and the people of this country are now generally in favour of Britain taking military action against IS. What do you think? Yes or no?

[SpikeyBush]

If Saddam Hussain was still alive and in charge of Iraq then ISIS would have only lasted five minutes. Tony Blair should have been careful what he wished for. Better the devil you know springs to mind too. Blair and Bush should be tried for warcrimes IMO as they are responsible for stirring up the hornets nest that is the middle east.

[ludwig]

Yes.

[sammmo]

i watched a film of muslims kicking over war graves last night. they were also trying to knock down the cross at the cemetry. they have absolutely no respect. i would support an all out war against these xxxxx. sooner the better

[TTG]

I am on the fence really. On one hand we all want these fanatics removed from sight but unfortunately it will probably compromise the security of the country for years. We will be declaring (as Isis will probably call it and possibly other groups watching) a 'holy war'. A war which cannot be won.

[Kromovaracun]

No I'm not convinced military action will help anyone.

Let's say we intervene. We go in, obliterate IS, and go home. The Iraqi govt is in control of the country again.

Except after we leave, Iraq will *still* be protected by a military which everybody knows fled from a force of only a few thousand. The surrounding instability will not go away, and someone else will take the opportunity.

And then we'll be back here again

I'm sorry to say it, but Iraq is going the way of a failed state and it is too late for us to really do anything about it. This, as we know, has terrible implications for us as it has already made the country less safe. I think at this stage the best thing we can do is batten down the hatches and try to increase our anti-terror forces' co-operation with as many other governments as we can.

[naomi24]

Krom, //The surrounding instability will not go away, and someone else will take the opportunity.//

That’s true – but will that someone else be working to a similar agenda, ie with the specific intention of spreading a barbaric and uncivilised philosophy far beyond the borders of Iraq - even as far as Europe? We can, as you say, batten down the hatches and increase security, but that’s not a solution to the long term problem that these people will create if left to their own devices. IS is a malignant cancer and like all malignant cancers, unless removed it is highly likely to migrate - with devastating effect.

[Kromovaracun]

I'm by no means an expert, but yes I think it's highly, highly likely that there are a huge number of groups with a similar death-worshipping agenda that will step into the breach (or, more aptly, infect the wound) left by our intervention.

[naomi24]

Krom, so because there might be other similarly barbaric groups eager to step into the breach, we do nothing and allow IS the widespread victory they’re intent on? That leaves us with a very bleak prospect for the future.

[Kromovaracun]

Well, the bleakness of the situation has nothing to do with how true it is. I see no reason to think that intervening will solve the problem it is supposed to solve, because that problem has been caused by a weakened Iraqi state that will not go anywhere.

I'm sorry if that's too bleak for you, but I think that's the truth

[kvalidir]

I imagine you might be right Krom, however that is not a reason not to do it. If your scenario transpires it just means we'll have to do it several times. If you punch someone in the face long enough eventually they realise not to put their face where you will punch it.
100% not a war lover or Muslim hater but sometimes there are exceptions, and this needs dealing with quickly.

[naomi24]

Krom, examining causes does not provide a solution to the current situation. Now we have to deal with the consequences of whatever the causes were, and if we don’t the outlook will be bleak for more than just the people of Iraq.

[Zacs-Master]

//Now we have to deal with the consequences of whatever the causes were//
What the heck does that mean?

[naomi24]

It means that regardless of the causes, we now have to address the here and now.

[Zacs-Master]

Ah, like Hiroshima then?

[sandyRoe]

Back to Iraq?

[naomi24]

zacs, I'm not a military strategist, so I don't know. How do you think we should proceed?

[Zacs-Master]

I've no idea. You stated that we should address the here and now, not me. If you come up with such a bold statement I would have thought you would have a modus operandi in mind.

[bibblebub]

The Americans reckon that it will take 3 years to destroy the IS http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/islamic-state-battle-to-end-isis-could-take-three-years-9715564.html but quite how they can eliminate them is not clear.

One aspect of this situation is that the IS now has a presence in the Golan Heights. If they turn their sights on Israel after the main objective of Syria, would the Israelis stick with conventional weapons or would they consider nuclear arms against this barbarous swarm?

[jomifl]

Just keep using drones to pick off the leaders and their irreplaceable assets. Lots of jobs for drone makers and no risk to us or US.

[sandyRoe]

Re-invade Iraq. Set up elections and hope a government will be elected that will serve all of the people and not favour one faction over another.
Back Assad in Syria.
If we did that many of the Jihadists would soon be scuttling back to the safety of the UK.