Bombing ISIS in Syria

[Hope]

WITHOUT getting into the debate about the validity of bombing ISIS, full stop, I'd be interested in folks' view of Parliament's allowing bombing in Iraq but not Syria.  I seem to remember a related thread a while back, but possibly before the General Election.

[floo]

ISIS needs eliminating but whether bombing it in either Iraq or Syria is open to question. Too many innocents get killed in these bombing raids, hence the migrant crisis.

[Bubbles]

WITHOUT getting into the debate about the validity of bombing ISIS, full stop, I'd be interested in folks' view of Parliament's allowing bombing in Iraq but not Syria.  I seem to remember a related thread a while back, but possibly before the General Election.

I think the gov got its fingers burned in the bombing of Iraq and whether that war was justified.

So they are a bit wary this time.

[Hope]

ISIS needs eliminating but whether bombing it in either Iraq or Syria is open to question. Too many innocents get killed in these bombing raids, hence the migrant crisis.

Floo, the bombing raids started about 18 months ago.  The migrant crisis has been going on for about 6 years.

[Hope]

I think the gov got its fingers burned in the bombing of Iraq and whether that war was justified.

So they are a bit wary this time.

Rose, the government's thinking is that, since ISIS do not recognise the Syria/Iraq border our recognition of it enables ISIS to have a 'safe' area of land (yes, I realise that the Americans and Russians are bombing in Syria).  They would like to treat ISIS-held land as one and the same, whichever side of the official border it may be.  The question was whether folk here agree with that assessment.

[floo]

ISIS needs eliminating but whether bombing it in either Iraq or Syria is open to question. Too many innocents get killed in these bombing raids, hence the migrant crisis.

Floo, the bombing raids started about 18 months ago.  The migrant crisis has been going on for about 6 years.

And has got a lot worse!

[Rhiannon]

Presumably this will end with recognition of an IS state. Its leadership will happily settle down with a few oil rigs and palaces whilst its stupid adherents terrorise its populace.

[Udayana]

Not sure that can happen given the ISIL ideology, which they are also attempting to spread around the world.

To have such a state the leadership needs to be able to maintain control with the support of loyal troops - but the Jihadi fighters can't be  be relied on in that way.

[Jack Knave]

WITHOUT getting into the debate about the validity of bombing ISIS, full stop, I'd be interested in folks' view of Parliament's allowing bombing in Iraq but not Syria.  I seem to remember a related thread a while back, but possibly before the General Election.

It's a legal answer, Hope. Whether we should be doing it is another question.

[Jack Knave]

I think the gov got its fingers burned in the bombing of Iraq and whether that war was justified.

So they are a bit wary this time.

Rose, the government's thinking is that, since ISIS do not recognise the Syria/Iraq border our recognition of it enables ISIS to have a 'safe' area of land (yes, I realise that the Americans and Russians are bombing in Syria).  They would like to treat ISIS-held land as one and the same, whichever side of the official border it may be.  The question was whether folk here agree with that assessment.

For the government they would like to be playing with all the rest in Syria to be up with the big boys. In reality if we did that nothing would really change as we don't have much firepower left and so it would change very little in the fight against ISIS. Also, in theory we have troops on the ground in Iraq with the 'wonderful' Iraqi army but in Syria we have near to nothing - as appose to Russia who do have supporting troops on the ground in Syria. So all in all it would be pointless, just face saving for Cameron and his band of twats.