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

To Bomb or Not to Bomb

Discussion in 'Scotland - education news' started by subman68, Dec 7, 2015.

  1. subman68

    subman68 Occasional commenter

    Thought I would take this to a new thread rather than the SNP thread.

    So do we bomb Syria. My initial reaction is no how can that help. When you then look at the issue you can understand that it can help. IS is being depleted of resources both in terms of hardware and "troops". The UK has bombed an oil field twice. I am ok with this, it is a legitimate target as IS are gaining funds from selling oil. I would like to know who is buying the oil and what we are doing with them. IS then have funds to buy hardware, not just guns but explosives and armour. I want to know who is selling it to them and what we are doing about it? It is not UK/USA arms as these are more sophisticated than the weapons IS are using.

    If you deplete troops and resource from an air campaign it means the people on the ground. Troops from Kurds, Iraq, Iran will have a better chance of taking on IS. this is happening with some success in northern Iraq.

    If you bomb, you will kill people. be it IS fundamentalist troops or some of the 400 from the UK that have gone to fight with them. (I would prefer no one to die, but this is not going to happen)

    I think we would all agree that IS/Dash/Deash or what ever we call them is not a group of people that should be in charge of a country/state. They believe that democracy is wrong and evil. They subjugate women, they kill people that are gay. They live and work in a barbaric way. They also want to have the entire world run this way.

    Do we bomb or do nothing? just let these people get on with that they want to do. We are now having first hand witness accounts of the barbarity (it is not just violence) We have people now living in this country that have had family beheaded and raped in the name of IS.

    Reasons not to bomb.
    Mharia Black thinks if we bomb them we might make them angry and they might try and bomb/harm us. She is young she might not remember the ejjits that tried/did bomb Glasgow airport. Also is that what we tell kids in the class, try not to upset the bully, that way they will pick on someone else not you?

    If the UK bomb there is a probability that innocent people will be hit and die. Is the man driving the IS oil tanker innocent? For me he is and that is an issue I have.

    IS will attack the UK, they have attacked: Beirut, Paris, Boston, Varies USA states. Various African nations. should they be allowed to do this? is hitting back just and angry reaction?

    Should we do something? or nothing.
    I think we should bomb, I have lots of friends shouting "not in my name" but they are not saying what should be done. Our central belt schools now have families that have been victims of IS should we just take them in, feed them and tell them to forget about their country?
     
    Freddie92 likes this.
  2. bigjimmy2

    bigjimmy2 Lead commenter

    Looks like nobody wants to continue, subs.

    I think we should go in. We have a responsibility not to do nothing. Innocent people get killed in wars, that's a simple fact. Humans have been killing each other since we took a wee gander out of Africa a few thousand years ago. We have a responsibility to the innocent people who are being slaughtered and turned into refugees on an industrial scale.

    People like Corbyn, and I do admire him, will never agree to any sort of military action under any circumstances and his views, like many of that ilk, will never change regardless of how persuasive the argument. Ditto many of the pro-war brigade.

    The whole middle east is a bloody mess. You'd think people in these countries would use the old gray matter and realise that they should use their oil wealth for the benefit of everyone. Instead, we see people who were desert nomads eighty years ago using an awful lot of their oil wealth settling tribal scores from a few hundred years ago.

    Oh, and don't tell me that truck driver doesn't realise what he's doing, and what the risks are.
     
  3. bigjimmy2

    bigjimmy2 Lead commenter

    Looks like nobody wants to continue, subs.

    I think we should go in. We have a responsibility not to do nothing. Innocent people get killed in wars, that's a simple fact. Humans have been killing each other since we took a wee gander out of Africa a few thousand years ago. We have a responsibility to the innocent people who are being slaughtered and turned into refugees on an industrial scale.

    People like Corbyn, and I do admire him, will never agree to any sort of military action under any circumstances and his views, like many of that ilk, will never change regardless of how persuasive the argument. Ditto many of the pro-war brigade.

    The whole middle east is a bloody mess. You'd think people in these countries would use the old gray matter and realise that they should use their oil wealth for the benefit of everyone. Instead, we see people who were desert nomads eighty years ago using an awful lot of their oil wealth settling tribal scores from a few hundred years ago.

    Oh, and don't tell me that truck driver doesn't realise what he's doing, and what the risks are.
     
  4. Freddie92

    Freddie92 Occasional commenter

    I agree with Sub.

    No-one wants to bomb anyone. It is the most simplistic notion to believe that any Prime Minister or US President want to bomb their way back into office. I honestly do not believe they do wish anything of the sort. In fact Dubya was once hit by protesters in Sweden duing a G8 conference early in his first term because he didn't want to get involved in foreign affairs and wanted a new period of American isolationism. Then September 11 happened and the rest is history. Bush is now demonised, yet he really didn't want to get involved in world affairs.

    So I do believe no-one wants to kill or bomb anyone.

    However, the RAF are already attacking IS military targets in Iraq, so to not do so in Syria is silly. IS do not recognise the border, so why should any Allied forces?

    Sub is also correct in that the air attacks have destroyed artillery, tanks etc which has enabled local ground forces to take ground back from IS.

    I do not know the answer, but we have already had UK nationals murdered on the beaches of Tunisia, and aid workers beheaded too. I don't think we can just stand back and do nothing. What kind of message does that send out? Perhaps akin to Bill Clinton after the US embassy bombings in Africa, to which he sent a couple of Tomahawk strikes into Afghanistan to try and take out Bin Laden. It was a very weak response to hundreds of fatalities. Many say it emboldened Bin Laden as he thought the US did not have a stomach for a fight, and this weak response by Clinton possibly caused Bin Laden to up the stakes and lead to 9/11.

    Terrorism is whack-a-mole. You know another group will pop up, but that is life I am afraid. In the 1970s and early 80s the world were in fear of the PLO and similar groups hijacking planes. Now the terrorists from the same region (but with different agendas) have taken the terror campaigns up a notch.

    I do believe the West do need to engage with the Arab nations to take on this threat, which it does seem like they are doing.

    I just hope that as we near Christmas, we have some hope in the world in terms of peace. But I am not holding my breath.
     
  5. Potatoes005

    Potatoes005 Occasional commenter

    I agree with Subman's original comment, and most of what's been added. In fact probably all of it.

    At the end of the day, this romantic notion that we can all sit back and do nothing just doesn't wash. Neither does putting a t-shirt on saying "Peace not Bombs" although that child MP seems to think it does.

    The notion of world peace is wonderful, but at 65 I won't see it in my lifetime if I live to double my age. Which, considering my current wine intake is highly unlikely.
     
  6. BillyBobJoe

    BillyBobJoe Lead commenter

    Doing nothing may not be pleasant but, given the effect of needing to be seen to do something over the last 2 decades it may be the better option. The even better option, of course, is pursuing diplomatic and humanitarian solutions.
     
  7. Marco82

    Marco82 Established commenter

    I cannot agree with the pro bombing contributors here and for many reasons. But to make just one point in reply to Freddie92, who writes about Bin Laden, have you forgotten or are you unaware of the fact that Bin Laden, like Gadaffi, like Saddam Hussein, was "our" friend for years? He is in large measure a creature of the CIA, of American imperialism, and was funded, supported, armed by the USA as it used him and his movement against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. "Our" record in the Middle East, indeed, throughout the former colonial world, is of support for brutal dictatorships from the Shah of Iran to the current regime in Saudi Arabia. We only discover that these people are "evil" when they start to do things opposed to "our" economic and strategic interests. I fully share your opposition to cut throats and mad men that make up ISIS but I would say to you that you need to see the broad picture. "We" do not intervene to promote democracy or human rights, "we" simply use these arguments better to fool the public and disguise the real interests at stake. One final thought, Cameron and his clique wanted to bomb Syria two years ago to overthrow the current regime, that is, to aid the fundamelalists of ISIS "we" are now supposed to be opposing.
     
    Geoff Thomas likes this.
  8. bigjimmy2

    bigjimmy2 Lead commenter

    Politics is dirty.
    The Soviet Union was by far the biggest threat to the West during the cold war, so we backed anyone who would be "against" the USSR.
    That meant supporting appalling dictatorships.
    Politics is dirty.
     
  9. Marco82

    Marco82 Established commenter

    Everyone knows that politics is dirty, that is exactly the point I was making above, i.e. that British imperialism always tried to conceal its naked greed behind a smokescreen of concern for democracy and human rights. Their hypocrisy is and always has been nauseating.
     

Share This Page