Why we shouldn't bomb IS in syria Watch

TomatoLounge
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
So the defence secretary wants Britain to bomb IS in Syria as well as Iraq.. But what's the point? It seems unlikely we could win a war against IS simply through airstrikes so there isn't much point. Didn't we arm them in the first place? Seems like the only people winning here would be BAE.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33358267
0
reply
$100Bill
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
(Original post by TomatoLounge)
But what's the point? It seems unlikely we could win a war against IS simply through airstrikes so there isn't much point.
It's all PR, also an excuse to increase military spending.
0
reply
RF_PineMarten
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
(Original post by TomatoLounge)
So the defence secretary wants Britain to bomb IS in Syria as well as Iraq.. But what's the point? It seems unlikely we could win a war against IS simply through airstrikes so there isn't much point. Didn't we arm them in the first place? Seems like the only people winning here would be BAE.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33358267
Airstrikes alone will not win the war, but any approach that doesn't include air strikes will fail miserably as well. Air strikes combined with a capable ground force has brought successes in both Syria and Iraq, and it makes sense for us to do more.

Even in locations when there isn't a ground force to advance against ISIS, air strikes still degrade ISIS' military strength over time and reduce their ability to go on the attack.

We didn't arm ISIS directly. Some western weapons given to Syrian rebels ended up in ISIS hands through defections and ISIS capturing them from western backed groups.
0
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
(Original post by TomatoLounge)
So the defence secretary wants Britain to bomb IS in Syria as well as Iraq.. But what's the point? It seems unlikely we could win a war against IS simply through airstrikes so there isn't much point. Didn't we arm them in the first place? Seems like the only people winning here would be BAE.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33358267
We never armed ISIS.

If you do not support bombing ISIS in Syria then I assume you do not support the current air strikes either? There is no point hitting an enemy in one area if they can simply regroup in a safe haven elsewhere. It is part of the reason the Taliban remained so strong, they could regroup in Pakistan.

Furthermore what exactly do you propose we do to deal with ISIS? If we leave them alone they will simply get stronger and start launched attacks here.
0
reply
TomatoLounge
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by Aj12)
We never armed ISIS.
If you do not support bombing ISIS in Syria then I assume you do not support the current air strikes either? There is no point hitting an enemy in one area if they can simply regroup in a safe haven elsewhere. It is part of the reason the Taliban remained so strong, they could regroup in Pakistan.
Furthermore what exactly do you propose we do to deal with ISIS? If we leave them alone they will simply get stronger and start launched attacks here.
Well we definitely armed rebels in Syria. At the time the criticism was that a lot of the rebels were Islamists. It seems to me like that turned out to be true.

I'm not saying I know how to defeat IS. Just that airstrikes seem essentially pointless. We've been bombing the region for quite a while and it doesn't seem to have "fixed" it.
0
reply
A5ko
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
We need to approach the X-Men at this point.

We could use Cerebral to kill all the IS fighters.
0
reply
caravaggio2
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by TomatoLounge)
Well we definitely armed rebels in Syria. At the time the criticism was that a lot of the rebels were Islamists. It seems to me like that turned out to be true.

I'm not saying I know how to defeat IS. Just that airstrikes seem essentially pointless. We've been bombing the region for quite a while and it doesn't seem to have "fixed" it.
Dont worry, youre not alone. I am yet to see one person that decries tackling Islamic State head on militarily propose a workable alternative.
0
reply
TomatoLounge
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by A5ko)
We need to approach the X-Men at this point.
We could use Cerebral to kill all the IS fighters.
Preach.
0
reply
Snagprophet
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
I would be in favour of bombing them, as long as it can't be used to blame us for something in the future. Thousands are being killed and something needs to be done about this.

I'm kind of in favour of sending our extremists there because it means they can get caught in the firebomb too and we don't have to worry about them.
0
reply
yelllowribbon
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
The whole thing is such a mess...first backing the rebels against Assad, many of whom are now working with ISIS. So if you're going to bomb ISIS in Syria, it's effectively helping Assad, who hasn't exactly been the best of leaders recently, has he?
0
reply
flibber
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by yelllowribbon)
The whole thing is such a mess...first backing the rebels against Assad, many of whom are now working with ISIS. So if you're going to bomb ISIS in Syria, it's effectively helping Assad, who hasn't exactly been the best of leaders recently, has he?
Actually, many of the rebels are working not with ISIS, but with Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda. But it still gives a gloomy scenario in a post-Assad Syria.
0
reply
yelllowribbon
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by flibber)
Actually, many of the rebels are working not with ISIS, but with Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda. But it still gives a gloomy scenario in a post-Assad Syria.
Okay fair enough, but still not a particularly great bunch of people to be backing with arms
0
reply
flibber
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by yelllowribbon)
Okay fair enough, but still not a particularly great bunch of people to be backing with arms
The West doesn't really arm the Islamist rebels anymore. The rebels which work with al-Qaeda get their funding from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. But it is true that many of the rebels which once belonged to moderate factions supplied by the West defected to the Islamist factions when they sensed that they weren't getting enough help from them, inevitably carrying their American-supplied arms with them.
0
reply
yelllowribbon
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by flibber)
The West doesn't really arm the Islamist rebels anymore. The rebels which work with al-Qaeda get their funding from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. But it is true that many of the rebels which once belonged to moderate factions supplied by the West defected to the Islamist factions when they sensed that they weren't getting enough help from them, inevitably carrying their American-supplied arms with them.
Isn't it kinda like the Mujahideen in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?
0
reply
flibber
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by yelllowribbon)
Isn't it kinda like the Mujahideen in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?
Almost. Many of the mujahideen were Islamists from the start (and many of them later became the Taliban), while in Syria there was a large secular faction (which initiated the uprising in the first place) at the start but many drifted to more Islamist factions when they sensed that the Americans weren't doing enough to defend them from Assad, whereas the Islamist factions had the more enthusiastic support of Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. But you're right that many of the American-supplied weapons could, as with the Afghanistan Mujahideen, end up in the hand of al-Qaeda (which cooperates with the Islamist factions), and be used against the West.
0
reply
yelllowribbon
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by flibber)
Almost. Many of the mujahideen were Islamists from the start (and many of them later became the Taliban), while in Syria there was a large secular faction (which initiated the uprising in the first place) at the start but many drifted to more Islamist factions when they sensed that the Americans weren't doing enough to defend them from Assad, whereas the Islamist factions had the more enthusiastic support of Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. But you're right that many of the American-supplied weapons could, as with the Afghanistan Mujahideen, end up in the hand of al-Qaeda (which cooperates with the Islamist factions), and be used against the West.
Yeah this is what I meant, in terms of weapons from the west being used against them
0
reply
flibber
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by yelllowribbon)
Yeah this is what I meant, in terms of weapons from the west being used against them
Yes, but for the moment, the leader of al-Qaeda in Syria has said that he will not use Syria as a base to launch attacks on the West, as he wants to focus his efforts on removing the Assad regime. But if Assad is toppled, then you're right, I believe individual nations may need to intervene militarily in Syria to remove al-Qaeda.
0
reply
AverageExcellence
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
We need to send ground troops in and drive them out of Iraq, the governments are only being complacent in Syria because they want to let ISIL weaken the Assad government so they can allow the Fake Syrian Army swoop in and take power..
0
reply
SeaPony
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
U.S or the UK or in fact any country in the middle east region does not want to destroy ISIS. That is why they are still around! They want Assad gone and to split Iraq into 3.
0
reply
interact
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by TomatoLounge)
So the defence secretary wants Britain to bomb IS in Syria as well as Iraq.. But what's the point? It seems unlikely we could win a war against IS simply through airstrikes so there isn't much point. Didn't we arm them in the first place? Seems like the only people winning here would be BAE.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33358267

Yes despite knowing ISIS would be created:

https://medium.com/insurge-intellige...t-b99ad7a29092
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Are you tempted to change your firm university choice now or on A-level results day?

Yes, I'll try and go to a uni higher up the league tables (131)
19.55%
Yes, there is a uni that I prefer and I'll fit in better (64)
9.55%
No I am happy with my course choice (379)
56.57%
I'm using Clearing when I have my exam results (96)
14.33%

Watched Threads

View All