The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Bomb Syria? Vote

This poll is closed

Should the UK bomb IS in Syria?

Yes 25%
No 61%
Undecided14%
Total votes: 998
As your probably aware there is a petition going around to say no to bombing syria.

So whats your thoughts? write explain you reasoning

Scroll to see replies

Theyre bombing innocent civilians ofc they shouldnt
I'm torn between the two but it's time we eliminated ISIS from the levant so yes?
Our intervention may not be needed in Syria, given the fact that there are so many actors operating within it already.

Call me a cynic but I can't help just think that Cameron will use the British support in Syria as a means of pressing France (and the EU) when it comes to supporting whatever reforms he wants to pursue for renegotiation of EU membership, prior to the Referendum being promised before the end of 2017.
I've lobbied my MP to make sure he votes in favour of bombing. Glad to say he will.
Original post by Maira Jay
Theyre bombing innocent civilians ofc they shouldnt


Evidence?
We need a petition to stop the creation of more of these threads about the exact same topic.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Maira Jay
Theyre bombing innocent civilians ofc they shouldnt


ISIS deliberately target civilians, including large scale killings and attempting to wipe out certain ethnic and religious groups in areas they control.

Western countries occasionally kill a few civilians by accident in air strikes.

Which of those is worse for Syria's civilians?
Can't believe so many people want to bomb Syria. Do any of you remember Iraq? We bombed them, had a full scale invasion and killed their dictator yet we still didn't bring lasting peace. We need to approach this cleverly and install a government that will bring lasting peace to the region, instead of leaving a gaping hole for insurgents and extremists to fill again. We need to put our heads together and decide whether we need boots on the ground or whether to approach it peacefully. In my eyes bombing is never an option, as civilians, already terrorised by IS will inevitably be caught in the cross-fire. As for proof, it was only the other week that a US jet bombed a civilian wedding in Yemen, killing 100+ civilians and no insurgents.
Original post by RF_PineMarten
ISIS deliberately target civilians, including large scale killings and attempting to wipe out certain ethnic and religious groups in areas they control.

Western countries occasionally kill a few civilians by accident in air strikes.

Which of those is worse for Syria's civilians?


And Assad targets the mice of Aleppo and Raqqa? Why do you think the FSA and it's affiliates want to fight Assad and not IS?

Apparently, in an American recruitment to fight IS, only 4-5 recruits actually showed up.
It's a no from me.

1. Increased home grown radicals
2. We won't stabilise the region
3. Air strikes will create more not less terrorists
4. ISIS will simply move into iraq and then pakistan etc especially the leaders
5. More flow of refugees across the world
6. Increased likelihood of confrontation with Russia (we are not ready they would wipe the floor with us)

Bill.
No without a complete plan we will not achieve anything
Original post by RF_PineMarten
ISIS deliberately target civilians, including large scale killings and attempting to wipe out certain ethnic and religious groups in areas they control.

Western countries occasionally kill a few civilians by accident in air strikes.

Which of those is worse for Syria's civilians?


Western air strikes radicalise what would have been a moderate or friendly population, perpetuating the problem.
Original post by nuttynatty999
We need to approach this cleverly and install a government that will bring lasting peace to the region


I agree with your sentiment but didn't we do this in Iraq and Afghanistan with equally dismal results?

It seems to me that this is a war of words, stories and propaganda. The odd bomb here or there simply rallies support one way or another. If they bomb us, we all rally together, so if we bomb them we simply help their recruitment campaign.

Somehow some think that if we bomb them, they will give up. Yeah right! Like we would give up if they kept bombing us?
Original post by nuttynatty999
Can't believe so many people want to bomb Syria. Do any of you remember Iraq? We bombed them, had a full scale invasion and killed their dictator yet we still didn't bring lasting peace. We need to approach this cleverly and install a government that will bring lasting peace to the region, instead of leaving a gaping hole for insurgents and extremists to fill again. We need to put our heads together and decide whether we need boots on the ground or whether to approach it peacefully. In my eyes bombing is never an option, as civilians, already terrorised by IS will inevitably be caught in the cross-fire. As for proof, it was only the other week that a US jet bombed a civilian wedding in Yemen, killing 100+ civilians and no insurgents.


When has there ever been lasting peace in the Middle East?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Bill_Gates
It's a no from me.

1. Increased home grown radicals
2. We won't stabilise the region
3. Air strikes will create more not less terrorists
4. ISIS will simply move into iraq and then pakistan etc especially the leaders
5. More flow of refugees across the world
6. Increased likelihood of confrontation with Russia (we are not ready they would wipe the floor with us)

Bill.


Agree with your points, it's not as simple as bomb and leave, and I'm shocked at the PMs words of calling opponents to bombing in syria as 'terrorist sympathisers', it seems history is repeating itself, people who are in support of the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions have learnt nothing..

Original post by RF_PineMarten
ISIS deliberately target civilians, including large scale killings and attempting to wipe out certain ethnic and religious groups in areas they control.

Western countries occasionally kill a few civilians by accident in air strikes.

Which of those is worse for Syria's civilians?


Uh:lolwut: watch this..
Original post by ByEeek
I agree with your sentiment but didn't we do this in Iraq and Afghanistan with equally dismal results?

It seems to me that this is a war of words, stories and propaganda. The odd bomb here or there simply rallies support one way or another. If they bomb us, we all rally together, so if we bomb them we simply help their recruitment campaign.

Somehow some think that if we bomb them, they will give up. Yeah right! Like we would give up if they kept bombing us?


Not necessarily. Imagine you're living in a country where the military is oppressing you, killing your family, friends etc. But then another military kills these who have been oppressing you and but doesn't target you, your family, friends etc. Who are you more likely to support?
The bombing proposal lacks clarity and will achieve little. We are risking innocent lives for what is simply a gesture and as such we simply shouldn't do it. However I would support ground invasion to remove ISIS.
I vote yes.

You can't show solidarity using words alone. Actions speak louder than words, and this is all about helping the international effort against a common enemy.
Original post by getfunky!
Agree with your points, it's not as simple as bomb and leave, and I'm shocked at the PMs words of calling opponents to bombing in syria as 'terrorist sympathisers', it seems history is repeating itself, people who are in support of the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions have learnt nothing..



Uh:lolwut: watch this..


Think it's mostly to do with ego for Dave, They're gagging for some sort of sick war legacy.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you