News1 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: 14:59 Thu 21st Nov 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.If bombing IS makes sense in one place then calling for the bombing of them in another is not 'going to war' or other such hyperbole.
The real enemy of the nay-sayers is the PM and his party who they hate more than IS, Assad,AQ and all put together.
They should be less obvious and even approach some modicum of moral consistency by calling for an end to the RAF's bombing of anyone anywhere ever again.
The real enemy of the nay-sayers is the PM and his party who they hate more than IS, Assad,AQ and all put together.
They should be less obvious and even approach some modicum of moral consistency by calling for an end to the RAF's bombing of anyone anywhere ever again.
There's a lot of sense in that colm : I am at a loss to understand why so many people are making such a big issue out of Syria simply on the grounds of 'going to war' We 'went to war' some time ago, so protest about that or explain why the bombing in Iraq is different. Yes, we were 'invited' to bomb Iraq, but that is no excuse if one is worried about bombing per se
before we bomb, I would like to know what the UK hopes to achieve by doing so. What is our objective and how does bombing get us to that position.
Because I cannot see that itwill achieve anything positive. It will not defeat ISIS. So it will not make us safer. It may in fact make us less safe.
The UK can never get what it wants from joining this war, because there are too many other players, International and local. Cameron wants to crash a party, but the party is terrible.
Because I cannot see that itwill achieve anything positive. It will not defeat ISIS. So it will not make us safer. It may in fact make us less safe.
The UK can never get what it wants from joining this war, because there are too many other players, International and local. Cameron wants to crash a party, but the party is terrible.
Why exactly is this being debated? Undoubtedly because of the attacks in Paris. What new information did that give us? Well, not much. It taught us that IS are capable of launching a terrorist attack in Europe. Which we knew already.
Will airstrikes "contain" IS? It's hard to see how. They're certainly not doing so in Iraq. It's hard to see how airstrikes will do anything other than spill blood and gold.
I know this is severely unpopular because it's not in line with everybody's feelings at the moment.... but in my opinion the best we can do is nothing. The world is going to be a more dangerous place for a while and our resources will be better spent adapting to it rather than being wasted on the fantasy that we can solve the root-and-stem problem. That adaption involves investing in the security services, and using diplomacy (god forbid) to strengthen the regional groups actually doing real harm to IS - particularly the Kurds.
Will airstrikes "contain" IS? It's hard to see how. They're certainly not doing so in Iraq. It's hard to see how airstrikes will do anything other than spill blood and gold.
I know this is severely unpopular because it's not in line with everybody's feelings at the moment.... but in my opinion the best we can do is nothing. The world is going to be a more dangerous place for a while and our resources will be better spent adapting to it rather than being wasted on the fantasy that we can solve the root-and-stem problem. That adaption involves investing in the security services, and using diplomacy (god forbid) to strengthen the regional groups actually doing real harm to IS - particularly the Kurds.
Svejk, //Cameron is a conceited fool. He repeatedly refuses to apologize for his ridiculous slander that 'Anyone that doesn't vote with/for him is a friend of terrorism'.//
He didn't say that. See here:
http:// www.the answerb ank.co. uk/News /Questi on14599 77.html
… at 14.00 today.
He didn't say that. See here:
http://
… at 14.00 today.
Kromovaracun, I've always supposed Isis could launch attacks in Europe (anyone with access to a gun can), but have they actually done so before? As far as I can tell, most of their emphasis so far has been on taking over land which they can define as a caliphate, unlike al-Qaeda, who can spring up and form cells anywhere.