proxy war

It's good to help your neighbour out. If you saw your neighbour beating his wife to death, would you be ashamed of stepping in to stop him?

Would this "Helping out" involve the murder of their children and their other neighbours who are innocents? Nope, i didn't think so either.

But that's what the bombs are doing already.

Boots on the ground is evil, airstrikes are evil. What do you people suggest we actually do about ISIS? Nothing?

ISIS will continue running rampant over the Middle East, slaughtering innocent people and gaining strength, until they're stopped. I can understand a reluctance to go to war, but someone will have to get their hands dirty if ISIS is to ever be defeated.

This shell-shocked isolationist attitude is the same thing that allowed Nazi Germany to advance as far as it did during the 1930s-40s.

@Eklipse, saying you want to defeat IS is all well and good, but you do you want to take over the land currently under their de facto control? No one in favour of these air strikes has come up with a sensible answer to this yet.

just wait until The Caliphate eradicates your puny nation

I am supposedly a Tory, and I support the Prime Minister's decision to expand the fight against ISIL to Syria, and I would also support a further expansion into Libya.

ISIL are a terrorist organisation, and should be fought against with tooth and nail, and I am proud that Britain is one of the few countries alongside the US, Australia and France with the testicles to support the Muslim countries of the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Jordan reclaiming their honour and religion.

"We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the other possibilities."
~Winston Churchill

What ! All this will accomplish is an attack on London. Because we bombed the shit out of innocent civilians

My new profile picture explains it all

What ! All this will accomplish is an attack on London. Because we bombed the shit out of innocent civilians

Well, ISIS already hates all of Europe, so bombing Syria won't change anything in that regard.

saying you want to defeat IS is all well and good, but you do you want to take over the land currently under their de facto control? No one in favour of these air strikes has come up with a sensible answer to this yet.

It's a tough question. The best thing would be to give control back to the Iraqi government, only this time prop up their infrastructure and education to make the country more stable. There's still no guarantee they won't fall apart again, but with the right tools we can make it far less likely for another terrorist group to gain this kind of ground.

Destroy IS, rebuild the country, hope for the best. It's a far superior option than the alternative of just sitting idly by and watching events unfold.

Well, ISIS already hates all of Europe, so bombing Syria won't change anything in that regard.

This^. Europe and the United States are already primary terrorist targets. Groups like ISIS despise our existence with a fury and nothing is going to change that. Even if you ignore them, they won't ignore you.

Edited 12/3/2015 16:11:20

Ahh the Paris attacks remember that but 10 times worse on a daily basis.

Ahh "kill all infidels" remember that? It would have happened regardless.

It's a tough question. The best thing would be to give control back to the Iraqi government, only this time prop up their infrastructure and education to make the country more stable. There's still no guarantee they won't fall apart again, but with the right tools we can make it far less likely for another terrorist group to gain this kind of ground.

So hand Syria over to Iraq when all this fighting ends?

We shouldn't be involved. I admire Jeremy Corbyn, however, for allowing his party to have a free vote. He holds his opinions highly to himself, and he is perfectly happy for his party members to hold their opinions highly to themselves. Unlike fucking David Cameron who will get somebody out of work if they go against him with his whole EU shit.

@Ox, Jeremy Corbyn is allowing his party a free vote on everything, not just air strikes. Also, the majority of Labour MPs voted against it. Also, how Labour voted didn't matter because the Tories used their majority to win the vote.

On the other hand, look how cleverly the SNP voted. (As usual)

Edited 12/3/2015 21:43:41

You're right. Smart move by the SNP. If this bombing campaign stretches on indefinitely they can use it in the next elections to push for another referendum or at least demand even greater devolutions of power. At the same time I fear a reprisal attack on UK by ISIL/Daesh like the one committed against France in retaliation for the bombings. If that happens, then that could throw the current party alignments into flux. But in reality if the citizens of UK want a committed party against European foreign adventurism while standing strong for UK unity then UKIP is probably a good bet :P

Either way I don't understand why Western Europe and America want to waste tax payer dollars on a bombing campaign that Putin is more than willing to do for us.

Either way I don't understand why Western Europe and America want to waste tax payer dollars on a bombing campaign that Putin is more than willing to do for us.

What you said is probably one of the reasons why.

What you said is probably one of the reasons why.

That implies that Putin and Russia is a greater or equal existential threat to Western Nations than ISIL, and I don't think any rationally minded person could 1) argue this and 2) justify it.

Does anyone actually think that their countries are going to "intervene" since it's morally honourable? No, the only grounds that they're going to intervene is to grow their own interests.

Russia and Iran help Syria since they're both good allies with Syria, which they need as a strategic site to have allies and to make sure that every country that isn't "allied" with America in the Middle East is wrecked aside from Iran.

The American and the like are to insure that the SAR gets wrecked, some Kurdestan independence and other good potential war-starters amongst already divided common opposition front. Some more chaos in some boroughs like Dimashq, Halab, and Homs? Wonderful.

Afghanistan: Wrecked.
Arabia: Allied.
Bahrain: Allied.
Egypt: Serious internal problems in 2011, now most seen in Sinai. Strong enough to resist better.
Emirates: Allied.
Iran: Managed to stop most American strikes before it got serious, but is constantly bullied by America.
Iraq: Badly hurt in the Gulf War, wrecked in the Iraq War.
Israel: Allied. Mini-America of Middle East foreign policy.
Jordan: Allied.
Kuwait: Allied.
Lebanon: Hurt in great domestic violence, but as its value as a strategic site went up, less and less problems.
Oman: Allied.
Palestine: Wrecked.
Qatar: Allied.
SAR: Wrecked.
Turkey: Allied.
Yemen: Allied, but after a long campaign, the IM eventually striked revolution, and the new government? Wrecked.

Anyhow, most folk here know my opinion and arguments on this.

You're right. Smart move by the SNP. If this bombing campaign stretches on indefinitely they can use it in the next elections to push for another referendum or at least demand even greater devolutions of power. At the same time I fear a reprisal attack on UK by ISIL/Daesh like the one committed against France in retaliation for the bombings. If that happens, then that could throw the current party alignments into flux. But in reality if the citizens of UK want a committed party against European foreign adventurism while standing strong for UK unity then UKIP is probably a good bet :P

First off, SNP's not a chance outside Scotland, and as for Scotland, they've got practically as much vote as they can. But it is a good choice. Also, UKIP? They say they think the wars in the Middle East have been very bad. But they're barely not true fascism - they're far-right far-authoritarian, which typically love war. Probably will invade Nigeria or Sudan, something like that.

That implies that Putin and Russia is a greater or equal existential threat to Western Nations than ISIL, and I don't think any rationally minded person could 1) argue this and 2) justify it.

Neither is a threat, both are targets.