Should we bomb Syria?

[GS]

To the entire Syrian war? I don't have one, other than to say that a negotiations should be progressed without every medium and large power with any influence in the region trying to achieve its own selfish ends.

To ISIS? Force the Turks and the Saudi's to seal the borders and stop the funding. Ensure that the Kurds in particular are freed up and given international support up to fight them on the ground. Stop pretending that Al-Nusra and other jihadis are moderates. Deal with the refugees properly.

How do you encourage relevant countries in the region to put their own selfish ends to one side to reach agreement? A realistic solution, not an idealistic one.

With reference to ISIS, how do you seal the border with Turkey? How do you bring the Turks along in overlooking the Kurdish role? How do you stop the Saudis funding ISIS without running the risk of undermining the monarchy and allowing something worse to take its place? What form should international support take? Military and arms? Presumably Jez wouldn't support sending arms to the Kurds, so what's your view on him if this scenario took hold?

How do you deal with the refugees properly?

I'm not being truculent, but that response ignores reality and practicality as you so often do.

You need Turkey to deal with the refugee crisis, accept a Kurdish role and yet you presumably advocate strong-arming them ("force them") into sealing the border. How the fuck does that work for Turkey?

[phonics]

I'm not being truculent, but that response ignores reality and practicality as you so often do.

Says the bloke who wanted to create 8 states and bus people to the states based on their religion. You also forgot to state who would be doing it because you said 'Who said it would be The West?'.

[Henry]

How do you encourage relevant countries in the region to put their own selfish ends to one side to reach agreement? A realistic solution, not an idealistic one.

With reference to ISIS, how do you seal with the border with Turkey? How do you bring the Turks along in overlooking the Kurdish role? How do you stop the Saudis funding ISIS without running the risk of undermining the monarchy and allowing something worse to take its place? What form should international support take? Military and arms? Presumably Jez wouldn't support sending arms to the Kurds, so what's your view on him if this scenario took hold?

How do you deal with the refugees properly?

I'm not being truculent, but that response ignores reality and practicality as you so often do.

The west has plenty of leverage on the Turks and Saudi's. If fighting ISIS is the priority, then using such leverage is not "unrealistic". If cosy political relationships because of NATO or oil or whatever are more important, then admit that we don't give enough of a fuck to put in the required effort , stop bitching about ISIS and stay the fuck out of it all.

[GS]

Says the bloke who wanted to create 8 states and bus people to the states based on their religion. You also forgot to state who would be doing it because you said 'Who said it would be The West?'.

It's one option - and one which has been tried before. There are lessons to learn from history. Would Pakistan/India/Bangladesh be better places if we'd maintained a united India? I doubt it.

[GS]

The west has plenty of leverage on the Turks and Saudi's. If fighting ISIS is the priority, then using such leverage is not "unrealistic". If cosy political relationships because of NATO or oil or whatever are more important, then admit that we don't give enough of a fuck to put in the required effort , stop bitching about ISIS and stay the fuck out of it all.

You need Turkey on-side as there is nothing whatsoever to stop them from letting refugees flood into the Greek islands from their western borders or to continue turning a blind eye to ISIS fighters crossing into Syria from the south. They're nervous about a Kurdish role.

You need to bring them along - not strong arm them and leverage them. They have a nationalistic, borderline dictator, in charge in Erdogan. How do you think it goes down with the Turks if the Imperialist West start strong-arming them into action, one which is potentially perceived as propping up a problematic minority in the Kurds who could threaten Turkish security? Erdogan would use it to prop up his own vote and the West would get fucking nowhere.

Give your head a rattle.

[Henry]

Turkey is "on-side" right now. Fat fucking good it's doing - they are the reason ISIS is enduring. If you have way to stop them from continuing in this role by playing nice, then perhaps you'd share it. But right now, what they're at is totally unacceptable and it needs to stop one way or another.

[GS]

Turkey is "on-side" right now. Fat fucking good it's doing - they are the reason ISIS is enduring. If you have way to stop them from continuing in this role by playing nice, then perhaps you'd share it. But right now, what they're at is totally unacceptable.

We buy them off by giving them a lot of money and telling them we will look favourably upon future cooperation in trade and security matters which will lead to us giving them more money.

[Henry]

Okay then, I'd go in for that - if they close the border and so forth.

[Lee]

Fuck Syria, a peaceful settlement has just been reached between GS and Henry.

[Lewis]

If the question is simply to bomb a few ISIS cunts into the ground then I'm inclined to say yes on the basis that we're doing them in Iraq anyway and because we should probably be standing with France. But as far as what the government put forward, with its political settlement (has anything referred to as a 'roadmap' ever succeeded?) and seventy-thousand 'moderates' and obvious susceptibility to mission creep, then lol no thanks I'm with Jezza. The Russians have taken complete control of the situation and they're welcome to it.

The original French Mandate for Syria and Lebanon would be a good basis for partition.

[Boydy]

Fuck Syria, a peaceful settlement has just been reached between GS and Henry.

I'm with Jezza.

The world turned upside down.

[Cord]

A little bit of bombing here and there seems like about the worst thing we can do. I can't imagine it'll cause that much disruption to Isis and it'll cause enough dead probably not involved locals to keep Isis in useful propaganda magazine articles for eternity.

On the other hand we've proved recently that all out invasion and pumping a shitload of money into a rebuild doesn't work (though I suppose we could try not to make a total arse of it this time), and since then we've also rather let the genie out of the bottle out of the whole prop up a local strong man thing. But then on the other hand they aren't going to leave us alone, even if we did completely withdraw from the whole thing, as they are nutters.

In other words, fuck knows. I'm off to have a sandwich and a cry.

[Dquincy]

I know only 15 people have voted,but i didn't expect an 80:20 split in favor of 'No'.

[Davgooner]

I've heard that those ISIS cunts don't even have a legit version of InDesign.

I don't see the need for us to get involved in Syria. On a military level we're just not needed and it's a lot of money and effort just to make Cameron feel more important on the world stage. We should be using western special forces to find and capture/kill specific individuals and groups linked to acts like Paris; all other ground action needs to remain in the hands of the locals. The air campaign can't really be intensified beyond the current effort without knowingly smashing civilians, so let's hope the twats on the right in America don't force some move in this direction.

[Reg]

No.

What is it about ISIS' ideology or past actions that has made anyone think that bombing them would be a good idea?

[Davgooner]

Well, because it annihilates them. This isn't just a place for soapy-titwank politics and diplomacy, you still need to smash the fuck out of the cunts. You just need to make sure you're doing it in a targeted way.

[Reg]

Nobody can bomb them like they would a country. ISIS aren't sitting around in one group waiting to be hit.

Edit- which your last sentence acknowledges to be fair. I just don't see how that could be done, though, away from any moral arguments.

[Lewis]

Target that.

[Spoonsky]

It's pointless us voting to 'bomb' Syria given that America are too cowardly to do anything meaningful as per. Obama has been an absolutely terrible President, one of the worst in history.

That last claim is obviously ludicrous, but I do agree that foreign policy has been Obama's biggest weakness. I'd bet it will be the biggest weakness of the next president too. US foreign policy at large has been a pile of piss since the end of World War 2; we've become the "leaders of the world" without really having any idea what to do with that. I don't know what to do about it either, Glorious Isolation doesn't seem so bad to me but it does seem anachronistic in 2015.

[Davgooner]

Nobody can bomb them like they would a country. ISIS aren't sitting around in one group waiting to be hit.

Edit- which your last sentence acknowledges to be fair. I just don't see how that could be done, though, away from any moral arguments.

This isn't 1940. We're hitting specific targets. The real issue is getting the opposition forces better equipped to engage them in prolonged warfare; they'll be more exposed and the air power will be more effective.

[Spoonsky]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...vilians-report

There's a reason people become radicalized. If we're doing it to destroy terrorism it seems pretty counterproductive.

[ItalAussie]

Says the bloke who wanted to create 8 states and bus people to the states based on their religion. You also forgot to state who would be doing it because you said 'Who said it would be The West?'.

I'd assumed that was parody.

You don't get to pick at why other solutions might be impractical when you propose something like that. Log/mote in the eye situation there.

The truth is, if there were any solution with any degree of workability, we'd have found it by now. The only way to proceed in the Middle East is trying to find the least worst option. It's messed up.

[Yevrah]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...vilians-report

There's a reason people become radicalized.

While that's true (and I've said many times I disagree with solely bombing) it's not the sole reason these nutjobs are taking up arms, or being joined by wannabe badasses from Walthamstow.

[elth]

It's pointless us voting to 'bomb' Syria given that America are too cowardly to do anything meaningful as per. Obama has been an absolutely terrible President, one of the worst in history.

Settle down there, Breitbart.

[elth]

While that's true (and I've said many times I disagree with solely bombing) it's not the sole reason these nutjobs are taking up arms, or being joined by wannabe badasses from Walthamstow.

Yup. ISIS are killing way more of their people than bombing is, but nobody is getting anti-ISIS radicalised by that.

Bombing civilians doesn't help, of course, but it's only one reason in a whole cacophony of issues that contribute to radicalisation.

[Pepe]

Foreign policy. Shit goes on for whatever reason, whoever is the US president is blamed. Good stuff.