Should The UK Go To War With ISIS In Syria?

[AB Editor]

 

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%

See final stats

Stats until: 17:00 Thu 21st Nov 2024 (Refreshed every 5 minutes)

© AnswerBank Ltd 2000 - 2024. All Rights Reserved.

[weecalf]

No ,by bombing the government will be signing the death warrants of thousands at home and across the world .Saying your sorry years later will not wash .Should we not be asking how we got to this stage and set about resolving even if it involves losing face .

[naomi24]

weecalf, there is no resolution. IS will not compromise and it will not stop.

[Togo]

I wonder how the troops would feel about being part of a 'boots on the ground 'strategy. Would they not, quite reasonably, wonder if they were liable to get a prison sentence for their trouble.

[mikey4444]

Togo...why would our troops get a prison sentence ?

Naomi and others are right here. ISIS will not negotiate a settlement, and force is the only way to combat them.

[naomi24]

Mikey, http://www.itv.com/news/2015-09-11/marine-convicted-of-murder-says-he-has-been-made-a-scapegoat/

We can't defeat them - we can only contain them.

[dannyk13]

I think that we could defeat them if the UN got involved with a strategy for putting sufficient boots on the ground to overwhelm Daesh.

[naomi24]

Danny, we could flatten them in Syria but other groups will always rise elsewhere - as is happening. With a philosophy such as theirs we can only ever contain them.

[Old_Geezer]

Bombing will likely find some innocents also maimed or killed; but no major apology should be necessary as not bombing is likely to cause more maiming, deaths, and abuse from the control freak power groups who are already expanding their influence.

We are looking to the lesser of a number of evils here, and not demanding a perfect solution.

Meanwhile we either stand by the countries who are trying to fix the situation and end the troubles, or we are insignificant worriers of the personal consequences and cower in our own home country trying to build defences for when the bad guys get powerful enough to look further than their present local area: and hope that someone else ensures that doesn't happen.

[Old_Geezer]

Do the UN involved themselves in that sort of thing ? I see them as being able to put in troops where peace already exists, to dissuade hostilities breaking out, and then if hostilities actually resume, pulling the troops out again.

[Cloverjo]

Bombing the country is not going to help the situation. Innocents will be killed, and the bad guys will still flourish. Unless you flatten the whole country and kill everyone, there will be someone left to carry on the terror.

[Old_Geezer]

That is not a true reflection of the situation. Bombing is not indiscriminate, it is targeted to cut resource lines and destroy military facilities, communications, camps, and suchlike. The idea is to cripple the enemy's ability to operate. But this has to be backed up after with troops forcing the bad guys back and out of the area. Bombing alone is not enough, it is the first stage, and should have been more efficient and on to the next stage by now.

Maybe that's the problem with leaving it to others, and they in an uncoordinated manner too.

[dannyk13]

Cloverjo.We are not talking about saturation bombing here. We have smart bombs that can pick out a single truck or building.

[anotheoldgit]

To all those advocating 'boots on the ground'.

What will your reaction be when these murderous heathens have captured a group of our young servicemen, and take the opportunity to make yet another propaganda video, by lining up those troops and beheading them?

[Khandro]

//What will your reaction be when these murderous heathens have captured a group of our young servicemen, and take the opportunity to make yet another propaganda video, by lining up those troops and beheading them?//

In such a dreadful eventuality my reaction would be the same as to the previous atrocities, and yours too no doubt. All the more reason to but a stop to these barbarians.

[Old_Geezer]

One of the risks of war. Should out military all hide away and avoid taking the risk ? All the more reason to get the strategy & tactics right so it isn't likely to occur.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.independent.co.uk/#

[anotheoldgit]

Sorry that link does not show the Daily Cartoon, one needs to scroll down.

[jim360]

Was this the cartoon you meant, AOG?

http://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_large/public/thumbnails/image/2015/12/01/23/Daily-cartoon-20151202.jpg

[Old_Geezer]

The poll sample may be small, but it is amazing how divided the group is for all options. Every one twenty something percent at this point.

[jim360]

If the vote in the Commons is for extended air strikes to Syria, I feel it's almost inevitable that there will be some level of mission creep. There almost has to be -- as others have opined, it's not going to be enough to rely on airstrikes if we want to do anything other than contain ISIS on the ground. What we've seen in Iraw is that airstrikes are only effective if coordinated with a larger-scale military action involving conventional army forces.

Preferably such a force should be made of locals wherever possible. In the long run, though, the way to defeat ISIS -- and, far more importantly, to solve the problems that led to their rise in the first place -- will require a sustained global effort, focusing not just on Syria and the Middle East but in places such as Libya, too, where ISIS-related forces are on the rise.

A vote for Syrian airstrikes, anyway, ought to be made only in full expectation of where it will have to lead. More action, more involvement. And, sadly, more bloodshed. This, anyway, is the vote I went for.