Should GB be a world power

Who are we going to have this political dialogue with? I can't see IS sitting down to discuss a peaceful way forward, or any other government in the Middle East as they all have their own agenda. The only governments in any peace negotiations are going to be western ones and putting any agreement into practice will be impossible without the collective agreement of Arab States!! How on earth do you secure that?! I would say, on balance, that you can't, it's as simple as that!
Imo, whether we bomb or whether we don't, we are still a main target for a terrorist attack, purely because we offer so much support in other ways, reconnaissance, intelligence, and, almost certainly, special forces on the ground. We are involved by association if nothing else, so deciding not to bomb, won't, imo, protect us.

Arrogance and bullying does not equal power and never did.

What do you think they can do?

ISIS is not a person its a mind set that has already infiltrated most Countries at the moment. Air strikes will not stop what's already here it will only reinforce it .which means more atrocities on home soil and in other countries the likes of we already seen. We need to talk to other 'rich' Muslim countries to sort this out.

Pogs, I thought the idea of a discussion was to give a point of view. I made it clear in the OP that I didn't think GB was a world power. My subsequent posts have made suggestions as to how I think money could be better spent. Other people have disagreed with me and given their points of view which have been responded to by people who agree, disagree or add to the discussion in some other way.

I have not put a three line whip on this thread. If people want to discuss other forms of power then that's the way the thread will go. My OP stated that I wanted to promote a discussion and I think that's what has happened.

Willmaknickersfit. I agree with you. We don't who our enemies are in this conflict there are probably more than just ISIS. The US And Russia could end up on opposite sides then what?

I understand the need for military action and that the UK must play its part in the fight against ISIL. I'm just not sure joining in because the US, Russia and France are carrying out air strikes in Syria and Iraq is a good reason for us to join in the attacks. Behind closed doors Cameron will have decided on objectives, probably agreed with the USA. Obviously it doesn't make sense to divulge those objectives because our allies will have different objectives.

Perhaps the UK as well as joining in the air strikes on Syria, should step up and offer to broker the political solution to the conflict. That would go a long way to promoting the UK as a world power.

Corbyn is right about Trident, too. We are too small a power to need nuclear weapons.
France has nuclear weapons. They did not stop it being attacked, and they will not use them despite the provocation.
Sorry if this has been said before. I have not read every page.

To answer a question asked earlier, Canada, Australia and other nations have stopped/are stopping air strikes on Syria and Iraq .

Australia was one of the first coalition countries to carry out air strikes in Syria and Iraq aagainst IS. It stopped when Russia started because air strikes because Australia supports a political solution that includes Assad being removed and Russia supports Assad. Australia was excluded from the talks in Vienna last week because Russia objected to it (and Japan) being involved.

Following a change of government last month, Canada will be withdrawing from military intervention and focussing on humanitarian aid.

Russia taking military action independently of the international coalition after its plane was brought down caused problems, not least of which is that it supports Assad. China also supports Assad and recently suffered it's first loss when a volunteer was executed.

I don't think the UK is a true world power any more, but I do think it is a world leader in many ways.

The questions asked by Jeremy Corbyn during PMQs today are the ones I think are sensible to consider before we commit our country to military intervention. The same kind of statement made by David Cameron was made before we went into Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't think this should be regarded as an all or nothing decision. The solution should be part military action and part diplomatic negotiation. I don't think our armed forces should be fighting on the ground in the countries where IS is based. We should be supporting the many groups already there (as we are at the moment).

I have never been so scared about a conflict as this one and it's because the groups/countries currently fighting against IS do not all share the same aims and many are enemies. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

I have come to this thread late and understand that it has moved on from OP . Which I have to say I agree with. Yes we may have a good ecconomy and military prowess but does that make it such that we have to be at the fore front of this conflict. Other countries 'help out' under NATO why can we not do the same? Why make ourselves stand out as a target on home soil? , because as sure as night follows day we will be if we start Joining in as a 'big player. Sometimes its better to be a team player. Than a gungho Blair or Bush

True, and for me

It's a good job we haven't got to sort it out. Too hard for me.

Jingle, perhaps because I am stuck indoors for a while so listening to too many experts! I just don't know. The countries at war are also at war with each other.

I don't. What reason do you think Cameron has in mind?

Yes Jingle, I am sure they will fight for that , but I doubt the reasons of the leaders ,

I guess they'll die to protect us and our way of life. Paris is very close.

There was nothing wrong with the question. You didn't have to answer it. Nobody's forcing you.

The families of those who fought in the two world wars knew there were two sides and why their loved ones were at war . In Iraq they thought they knew the true reasons.

Does anyone really know what troops may die for in this war? I don 't

The thread had moved on. Threads do.

Anniebach

I have not 'joined in' anything. I care not one jot about spelling nor use or words .

I have spoken honestly in both of my posts regarding your choice of words and subsequent question , nothing more, nothing less.

It's not relevant to the question of whether or not the UK should join in the war against ISIS.

I missed a bit out of that first sentence.

How they will feel.

I think the question as to how parents of the service people who will be put at risk if this goes ahead, is a very relevant one. I feel horror at the thought of what could happen, so God only knows how their families will be feeling.

Alea, I said I didn't mind a joke over me using the wrong word,

POGS, every parent of a child in war is fearful, every parent must hope and pray there will not be conflict ,if war they know it could take the life .This war really has confused me because the countries involved are fighting together but are also opposing sides. My question was asked because I really wanted to know how those so emotionally involved felt about it. That you choose to see malice where there was none is your choice , that you joined in has surprised me