People say that we are killing civilians, and should therefore not bomb Syria. The other option is that instead, we should let ISIS indefinitely kill civilians.
I do agree in part with those who say Putin's doing enough, but we should still help out with intelligence, Spec Ops, etc. And although there is the risk of giving ISIS propaganda, if we don't bomb we look weak to our allies and lose support in a crucial region of the world. America can make it without too much outside oil, but Britain is reliant on imports, and with Russian tensions as they are, they need to keep OPEC happy. Th best anti-Isis propaganda we can get is destroying them.

in fact France themselves killed 700 innocents in 'revenge'

Bullshit

Edited 12/5/2015 15:14:12

Maybe not 700 but there French dogs have carried out more than 20 air strikes which is bound to kill more innocents than the Paris attacks.

There is so much hypocrisy in this chat right now....the same people who mourned the 'tragedy' of the Paris attacks. Thinks it is right and just to bomb hundreds of innocents in Syria. It only matters when it's close to home

double post due to lag

Edited 12/5/2015 17:02:34

so far since paris attacks, 7 civilians have been killed by french airstrikes, and these death haven't actually been verified, but was reported by the group Raqqa is Being Slaughtered silently (not fans of the bombing), so lets say "at most" 7 have been killed. Wich is still 100 times less than the number you pulled out of your ass, and you talk about hypocrisy, that's rich.
Most bombing takes place on carefully selected targets, like training camps, and oil facilities controled by ISIS, center of commands. Of course there is gonna be civilian casualties, but there are gonna be civilian killed wether we bomb isis or not, most likelly more if we let assad and isis fight each other, with innocent people caught in the middle. In fact the US only started recently to bomb oil facilities controled by ISIS, because they use civilians to work for them there. Assad is believed to have killed more that 180,000 of his own people since 2011, and ISIS is killing relentlessly and purposefully everyone in their path, including civilians, and including children. According to Syrian Network for Human Rights, Assad killed 7,894 civilian between january and july of this year, while isis killed 1,131. The international coalition have killed 251 civilians since 2011.
And you think that the US and french bombing of syria is the big threat to innocent civilians? please...
I am not saying i'm a fan of the bombing in general, but if it is done smartly, by hitting strategic target and avoiding as much as possible civilian casualty, then i am all for it. Of course this alone is not enough, we need to support the kurds who are fighting on the ground (and not random groups of rebels who are likely as radicalized as ISIS), and use special forces to kill important targets (in the isis chain of command). If we can get an internationnal coalition composed of western nations, AND Russia, China, and most importantly the arab nations in the area, this would be our best shot at getting rid of ISIS.

Edited 12/5/2015 23:06:19

Blind Frenchy

Noone really answered my frain - do you really think that countries are going to "intervene" since it's morally the right thing to do, or that countries won't "intervene" but want the best for the site? Really?

Do you really think that countries are going to "intervene" since its morally the right thing to do

No I don't. I think your questioning of this is sound. I see America's eagerness to get into greater military involvement in Syria as a conduit to counter a supposed growing Russian influence in the Mid-East (which is completely unfounded in my opinion and highly speculative). I however do not understand what geopolitical advantage Germany gains by showing itself as the great humanitarian of the world by accepting so many Syrian refugees? Same with France and England - most people don't consider them great military powers, but everyone agrees they are great economic and social powers. Is the French and English objective to showcase their military power?

Well, no bloody wonder. It's not really about economic policy - I like the SNP's plans on that, but it is for the country of Scottish folk, that advocates Scottish independence, isn't precisely being voted on by Englishmen, nor Welsh (they have their own Welsh Party). You live in America, right? Well, you're not going to be voting for Algonquian Nationalist Party, are you? And folk'd be pretty miffed if ANP was overrepresented.

Well this isn't really a good analogy. Regionalism in the US is really contained to a North-South rivalry as a left-over tension from Civil War era ideologues. There are of course no regional parties in the US and I doubt there ever will be - unless the Texas Nationalist Movement gains major ground in the next decade. And lets say that there was regionalism in the US...my voting decision would be more likely based on the larger political-social-economic-cultural forces driving the party platform. Even if the ANP was biased in their favoritism of their region, if they promoted social or foreign policy objectives which I overwhelmingly agree with I would strongly consider voting for them...even if I didn't live in their sphere of regional influence.

Edited 12/6/2015 01:39:24

*Britain not England

sorry my bad.

Tis fine

Please do not generalize SirSalty thanks. Do you really believe every French supports the bombings in Syria? Not at all.

First of all I really blame our current government (Hollande's government + the former of Sarkozy) acting like warmongers. France should have behaved like in 2003: No War. Everything started with Irak (see post Saddam Irak, half the country now being ruled by Daesh), war is not the right answer and wont resolve anything.

Read a few articles. How many more cou tries will join to bomb syria!! This war wont stop because assad is beinf supported and so is tje rebelling against assad, then ISIS is also being supported so its innocent syrians that are dying.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23849587http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26116868http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/hostage-held-captive-islamic-state-6938997
There are reasons why USA, Russia and other parties are in Syria the supposed gulf gas pipe line is it read this ...http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/is-the-fight-over-a-gas-pipeline-fuelling-the-worlds-bloodiest-conflict/news-story/74efcba9554c10bd35e280b63a9afb74

Edited 12/6/2015 13:12:20

Do the civilian counts include ISIS truck drivers?

Edited 12/6/2015 19:56:38