1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Should the UK get further involved militarily in Syria?

Discussion in 'Personal' started by lanokia, Nov 24, 2015.

?

Should the UK commit military forces to the Syrian conflict?

  1. Yes, against ISIS only.

    27.6%
  2. Yes, against ISIS and Assad [bearing in mind Russia is an ally]

    3.4%
  3. Yes, to create safe zones for refugees to be repatriated

    6.9%
  4. Yes, to any action the USA sees fit in the combat theatre

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. No, there should be no change to our present level of involvement

    17.2%
  6. No, and we should withdraw any UK military personnel in the region already [advisors etc]

    3.4%
  7. No, and we should fully withdraw and cease all aid to any combatant force.

    27.6%
  8. Other

    13.8%
  1. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    Simple enough Poll... the government is looking to get us involved with the USA/French ...

    But in light of events with Russia and Turkey, should we?
     
  2. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

  3. GLsghost

    GLsghost Star commenter

    My 'other' is that we needed to take decisive action against ISIS and Assad from the outset. Had we shown strong leadership in the beginning and the PM followed military advice, we would have acted in the beginning, protected the homes and livelihoods of those who live in Syria and would not now be witnessing the appalling stateless wandering of desperate refugees.
     
    lapinrose likes this.
  4. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    GLSghost answered my question already! Great minds!
     
    GLsghost likes this.
  5. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    Do you know how many groups there are in what was Iraq, and Syria now? It's much more complicated than "we" thought. Even identifying who we're fighting against is very problematical indeed. Who will replace Assad? Who gets to choose who replaces Assad? What will all the other groups of very angry people do if they are not happy with the replacement - which they won't be!
     
    kibosh likes this.
  6. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    That's the thing... on the 'Free Syrian Army' side they have the Al-Nusra front , which opposes ISIS but is a fundamentalist Islamic group, also it's Al-Queda in Syria.

    Then you've got Hezbollah, fighting ISIS in Iraq and protecting the Assad regime in Damascus but they are also enemies of Israel, a country which we call an ally in the region.

    You've got Iran propping up the Baghdad and Damascus governments with Iranian troops operating in both countries while certain US Republican presidential wannabes are happily promising full scale war upon Iran [or something like that]...

    It's all very complex.
     
    colpee likes this.
  7. Orkrider2

    Orkrider2 Star commenter

    That's the problem isn't it? 10 different sides with 20 different allegiances.
     
  8. les25paul

    les25paul Star commenter

    The RAF (and UK special forces I expect) are already hitting Daesh targets in Iraq. UK military resources are not unlimited and if they open a second front in Syria its very likely to be at the expense of Iraq operations.

    Also bearing in mind today's news the skies over Syria are very crowded and confused, adding another player to the party could only make things worse.

    Wouldn't it be better if the UK concentrated its efforts in Iraq and allowed other countries to take the lead in Syria?
     
    colpee likes this.
  9. Vladimir

    Vladimir Senior commenter

    Cameron can't wait to bomb them! If we bomb them and win, does that mean the remainder of the 20,000 supposed refugees on the way won't be coming to the UK?
     
  10. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    Sorry to breath life into an ISIS thread but I am actually interested to know what people think for the poll... so ... bump
     
  11. NellyFUF

    NellyFUF Lead commenter

    The news on TV last night stated
    "As we prepare for war with Syria.....!"
    What?
    Let's not. We would not know why anyway. Around November 11th I suggested the vast and sentimental coverage by the media of Remembrance Day was designed to get us in the mood for more war.

    Instead of "going to war" we could each and every one of us knit or make a nice Christmas present for a Syrian which the RAF could air lift to Syria on Christmas Eve. Shower them with egg cosies. Pacemats, draught excluders, that sort of ting. We could add something handwritten, perhaps about living in peace with your neighbour?

    Let's go to Peace with Syria. Not war.
     
    grumpydogwoman likes this.
  12. FairyHoneyPeaches

    FairyHoneyPeaches Occasional commenter

    Make love, not war.
     
  13. Morninglover

    Morninglover Star commenter

    We should either nuke the whole region or not do anything at all - I'd prefer the latter. The evidence from Syria (and before that Libya, Iraq & Afghanistan) is that western intervention does more harm than good.
     
    lexus300 likes this.
  14. grumpydogwoman

    grumpydogwoman Star commenter

    The news on TV last night stated
    "As we prepare for war with Syria.....!"
    What?
    Let's not. We would not know why anyway. Around November 11th I suggested the vast and sentimental coverage by the media of Remembrance Day was designed to get us in the mood for more war.


    Instead of "going to war" we could each and every one of us knit or make a nice Christmas present for a Syrian which the RAF could air lift to Syria on Christmas Eve. Shower them with egg cosies. Pacemats, draught excluders, that sort of ting. We could add something handwritten, perhaps about living in peace with your neighbour?

    Let's go to Peace with Syria. Not war.

    Thanks @NellyFUF

    Syria isn't even an entity.

    Funny how we can locate Jihadi John and take him out without collateral damage but such precision isn't possible in any other instance.

    Much better just to get all jingoistic, fly the flag, take a few photos of Dave by an aircraft and look like we're doing something shoulder-to-shoulder with our playground pals. We have no more idea of what we're doing than we did in Iraq or Afghanistan.
     
    kibosh likes this.
  15. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    Fascinating reading some of the attempts to justify Syrian intervention in the media...

    William Hague writing in the Telegraph for example...

    LINK - CLICK HERE

    He draws a comparison to action taken in Iraq and inaction taken in Rwanda. While, seemingly unaware that the French did intervene in Rwanda, on the side of the Hutu. After that it just seemed to be a series of excuses for why one intervention worked [Sierra Leone] followed by why one didn't [Libya, it was the locals that dunnit, nothing to do with us].
     
  16. lapinrose

    lapinrose Star commenter

    No way, we have interfered too much in the M.E., if we do start bombing Syria, we lay our country open to more terrorist attacks!!
    What we need to be doing is finding the reasons why terrorism exists and removing the reasons!!
     
    kibosh likes this.
  17. GLsghost

    GLsghost Star commenter

    ...and Daesh will be making an existential change to our way of life, while we spend time hypothesising about why it happened!

    6 million Jews were murdered as a consequence of the failure to take decisive and early action against the Nazis and we came that close to losing the war against them. 'Lest we forget' - does it mean nothing?
     
    kibosh likes this.
  18. grumpydogwoman

    grumpydogwoman Star commenter

    I have a handy rule of thumb. If this man says (and I quote) that we should 'bomb the hell out of ISIS'? I would tend to think it's not a good idea.

    upload_2015-11-25_15-30-41.png
     
    kibosh likes this.
  19. GLsghost

    GLsghost Star commenter

    The prospect of this man essentially leading the western world fills me with foreboding.

    But we do need to take decisive action against Daesh, though five years ago would have saved a lot of trouble for everyone.
     
  20. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    We took decisive and early action in Iraq. Twice.

    That went well.

    As a result, we now have Daesh/ISIS/IS etxc and a whole host of other loons. What is our position towards the multitude of other groups fighting in the region?
     

Share This Page