Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ambitious1999)
    1) The airstrikes in Syria seem to have very little effect against ISIS. The terror organisation is still very active. The US has withdrawn support for the Kurdish forces at the request of Turkey, so effectively there is no effective trustworthy ground opposition against Daesh.

    2) Airstrikes have caused significant damage and loss of life such as the 5 year old boy who was the victim of an airstrike. We should stop this when it causes lost of innocent lives! Just what are we gaining by hitting civilian targets?

    3) Airstrikes are very expensive. With massive cuts to NHS, welfare, disability benefits pip, policing etc, money would be better spent on our public services instead of an ineffective air campaign, that's causing more damage and loss of life than its preventing.

    4) Time to let other countries sort the mess in Syria. Turkey seems overly keen all of a sudden, let them deal with Syria.

    5) Airstrikes encourage more terrorism as revenge and our involvement in Syria is only putting us in more danger not less, RE point 1. They're having no effect!

    6) Airstrikes are only adding to the refugee crisis as people leave Syria to avoid our bombing raids! Then we tell them they can't come to Britain, is that fair?
    We need to bomb them more if there all dead DAESH won't be able to attack us
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reachin4TheStars)
    The question we should be asking is why don't we stop the airstrikes in Syria, because all it's doing is killed thousands and millions of innocent adults and children who have nothing do with the likes of ISIS.
    Please tell me this is sarcasm. All the evidence points to the complete opposite regarding the RAF strikes*
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ambitious1999)
    Once again ISIS are losing in Iraq but not in Syria. That's simply because the US supports Iraqi Kurds who are led by Barzani who loves Erdogan.

    The reason why ISIS are winning in Syria is because the US does not support Syrian Kurds and sees the YPG as a socialist organisation who are upsetting their best friend Erdogan.

    The Syrian Kurds YPG are on their own now and there is now no effective ground force to fight Daesh. The only option for YPG is some sort of deal with Assad because Tbh both sides don't really have much choice.

    1) The YPG gets military support from Assad and Russian air forces to claim back what they are now losing to ISIS and stop advance of ISIS and thus help cut off supply routes to ISIS. That will save the regime from losing more territory to Daesh.

    2) YPG helps retake Manbij and take Al Bab and Raqqa from ISIS.

    3) The Kurdish North is given autonomy in a federal Syria in the same way that Iraqi Kurds enjoy autonomy.

    Both Assad and YPG can be winners if this happens.
    Can you direct me to any news source that backs up what you are claiming?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ambitious1999)
    1) The airstrikes in Syria seem to have very little effect against ISIS.
    Not true at all. Around 45,000 ISIS terrorists have been killed in Western airstrike, and around 1,500 civilians. Those civilian deaths are tragic, but are far less than the number of civilians that would have been killed by ISIS if those 45,000 terrorists had been allowed to live.

    Furthermore, to claim airstrikes have been ineffective against ISIS in Syria is simply untrue. No serious commentator disputes that US airstrikes were the lynchpin in the Kurdish defence of Kobane. Around 3,000 ISIS members went to their deaths in US airstrikes in Kobane, preventing the fall of that city which was believed to be a fait accompli prior to US intervention. US airstrikes have also been crucial in allowing the Kurds to take Manbij, and many other cities in Northern Syria. We know this because we can not only see the results, but the Kurds have told us exactly how vital this support is.

    The US has withdrawn support for the Kurdish forces at the request of Turkey
    The US has done no such thing. YPG is still receiving support from the US, both overt and covert. The US suggestion to the YPG to withdraw east of the Euphrates is not a withdrawal of support.

    2) Airstrikes have caused significant damage and loss of life such as the 5 year old boy who was the victim of an airstrike. We should stop this when it causes lost of innocent lives! Just what are we gaining by hitting civilian targets?
    So we should refrain from an air campaign that saved whole Kurdish cities if even one civilian dies? And even in light of the fact that letting a Kurdish city fall to ISIS would result in far more deaths?

    The civilian death rate in Western airstrikes is around 3%, which makes it the cleanest air campaign in the history of air warfare. As for the five year old boy, perhaps you are confusing the Western air campaign against ISIS with the Russian/Syrian air campaign against rebels in Aleppo?

    3) Airstrikes are very expensive. With massive cuts to NHS, welfare, disability benefits pip, policing etc, money would be better spent on our public services instead of an ineffective air campaign
    Except that the air campaign hasn't been ineffective; all the evidence shows it has been extremely effective, in fact indispensable, in turning the tide against ISIS and allowing the Kurds and Iraqis to catch their breath and regroup especially during those early days in late 2014 and early 2015.

    As for cost, the US air campaign has cost around $3 billion for each year of the campaign. The US defence budget is around $500 billion, so it's a tiny fraction of military spending. And the air campaign has allowed us to clip 45,000 ISIS terrorists, with only three US deaths of combat personnel. The cost is well worth paying insofar as it permits us not to send in large numbers of ground troops, and also saves many Kurds and Iraqis from being flattened by the ISIS horde.

    The cost of the RAF campaign is a similarly small proportion of our annual defence budget. It's not like the cost of those air missions has meant we had to cut 20% of the NHS budget; they have nothing to do with each other.

    that's causing more damage and loss of life than its preventing
    You have no evidence for that claim. And the claim is contradicted by actual events on the ground, as well as what the Kurds themselves tell us.

    4) Time to let other countries sort the mess in Syria. Turkey seems overly keen all of a sudden, let them deal with Syria.
    Forgive me if I would prefer not to leave the Kurds and Iraqis to their fate.

    5) Airstrikes encourage more terrorism as revenge
    An ISIS member can't attack us if they're dead.

    They're having no effect!
    You keep making that claim, without any evidence and contrary to all information about what has actually happened since the airstrikes started.

    Airstrikes are only adding to the refugee crisis as people leave Syria to avoid our bombing raids!
    You are totally confused. If you don't even understand the difference between the Western air campaign against ISIS on the one hand, which uses specifically targeted smart bombs and missiles against identified targets, and the Russian/Syrian air campaign (which drops masses of unguided bombs in the general vicinity of the target, resulting in large numbers of civilian deaths), then you're probably not qualified to comment on this subject.

    It seems very clear that your level of actual knowledge about this conflict is extremely low, and most of what you say is just platitudes and unsupported assertions likely picked up from laughably biased "news" sources like RT. Come back when you've taken the time to do some serious research into this conflict and have read up so that you understand the most basic distinctions between the different players in the conflict
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Clearly the US Supports ISIS they call themselves the "strongest army in the world" but cant defeat a terrorist group. Top jokers lool.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WolfzWay)
    Clearly the US Supports ISIS they call themselves the "strongest army in the world" but cant defeat a terrorist group. Top jokers lool.
    So they support ISIS and are bombing them at the same time? I suppose the Zionists are behind it all as well?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    So they support ISIS and are bombing them at the same time? I suppose the Zionists are behind it all as well?
    Bombing them or the innocent civilians?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WolfzWay)
    Bombing them or the innocent civilians?
    Both. Not intentionally in the case of civilians.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.