Should we bomb De-ash/ISIS in Syria?

What is holding me back amongst other things is listening to those innocents in Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Many say that we left a worse mess than they were in before our bombing. If I could see a blueprint that showed how we intended to leave the countries under question and how we intended to achieve that including at what cost both in lives (including our young men), infrastructure and financial than I would be in a much better position to make an informed choice. As it is, how can I decide?

We are where we are though, and if ISIS is not totally destroyed By like minded countries coming together, then they will grow, take more territory as they do, more oil, more arms, become stronger etc.
How can we stand back from this , when we are already bombing them in Iraq?Do we wait until ISIS trained young Britons kill hundreds here before we join in? We do have some standing in the world, but that will vanish if we allow others to do the fighting for us.

Our RAF can do more targeted bombing, and has a lot of expertise to offer, far more than the French for instance.

Nothing diplomatic can be acheived until ISIS is either gone, or more or less Degraded.

I would absolutely agree with you rose if I could find evidence that our past activities in the area has destroyed those terrorists that we were fighting, and that those terrorists active in the UK and France were drawn from those areas, but they were home grown. I simply think that we are not showing enough intelligence in our actions.

So the alternative is......... Do nothing? don't forget, this is not about our military might ( which we don't have any more) but about showing solidarity and using the expertise we have.It's as much political and diplomatic as anything else.

A retired ambassador to Syria said bombing Syria would cause more attacks as happened in Paris .

We are speaking as if IS is only in Syria, the young men who carried out the Paris attacks were from Europe and IS released a statement following the Paris attack stating it had bern carried out because France was bombing Syria.

The more we bomb the more hatred and anger we feed . France responded to the attack in their country by heavier bombing .

Will we share intelligence ? America didn't before the Paris attack, we didn't , how can we fight together when we do not trust each other .

After we stop bombing what? America want Assad out, we will follow America as will France. Russia , China and Iran want Asaad in

Do we have the right to say who should run a country? To choose a president who we think is the right choice ?

I am no fan of Ken Livingstone- but he made total sense last night on Question Time - bombing when the enemy is not defined to a specfic area, and is mixed with a large civilian population- will only spread violence further and create more terrorists- if my family was bombed, and I saw them lose life, limbs, maimed and killed... as in Gaza- even I would fight back- and 'terrorism' may be the only way to do that for those youngsters- apart from fleeing or lying down and wait to die.

I despair Jingle - there is the right of free speech on here as long as GN guidelines are followed, so suggesting writing to your MP using a completely non-partisan website is hardly problematic (it's a pro democracy website not a petition website.)
At this moment petitions are a waste of time - it's individual MPs that matter.

Jings - members of Gransnet have been given to a link that is a means of contacting their MPs - they are just as likely to contact their MP and ask them to vote for the bombing - it is not partisan in any way.

Perhaps, instead of "if you are against the bombing please write to your mp", you should have put "please let your mp know whether you are for or against he bombing".

As it stands you are definitely trying to influence the vote in the Commons. You are using Gransnet for your own explicit political ends.

Use Facebook.

Gransnetters are quite capable of reading the facts and making their own informed opinion. No one is putting a gun to their head and making them contact their MP. Are you not, in your own way trying to influence what people think? For the record, I was against invading Iraq and Afghanistan but I am still undecided about Syria so the OP hasn't influenced me in any way even though I've always regarded myself as a pacifist up till now.

You have totally missed the point I was trying to make.

Never mind.

To answer the OP, I don't know.

But I suppose it has to be done. God help our service men and women.

There are so many complicated situations pertaining to IS and Syria that there is really no easy answer to any of it. For me personally after Paris things changed. I am for the drone strikes. If we do nothing after what took place in Paris, we will be 'sitting ducks'. Don't get me wrong, I have many, many family members both living and deceased who are war veterans, so I do not support bombing anyone lightly.
IS are a completely different thing, they are raping, crucifying and beheading their way through the Middle East and the numbers are growing. I spoke to two Syrian refugees from Aleppo, young men who were genuinely terrified of ISIS. One chap told me " They don't care who you are, where you come from, or what religion you are , they will just kill you, they are very bad people."
ISIS also will not negotiate with anyone, there is no reasoning with them. They don't seem to want money ,aid, food or anything else. They want us all to be Muslim and to live under Sharia law. It is us and our democracy and freedom they want rid off.
The other problem is that even some Muslim groups do not get on. Shi'ites and Sunis being a case in point,then add into the mix Kurds, Yazidis(a different religion) and these are all groups that I don't really know enough to comment on, but I sense there are many group situations that we here, perhaps do not understand enough about.
I would like to point out that I have Muslim friends, and in no way are they like anything I have spoken off here, I am not anti-Muslim.
Regarding the Iraq war, I never agreed with it. Blair and Bush were wrong and I will always believe that war was illegal, the so-called WMDs were very conveniently forgotten about. We will never be told the real truth of why we were in that country and I still have no idea why we were ever in Afghanistan.
I do not expect everyone to agree with me on this forum, if you do not agree with the drone strikes, that is your right. I wish no-one any ill - will here, as I say there is no easy answers to ISIL or what is taking place in the Middle East.

I agree with you Cher53.

They have got to be stopped.

I don't know!!

I was, however, slightly worried to hear Dianne Abbott (I think) saying that, after last night's meeting, the Shadow Cabinet will be going away to consult with their families, friends and their constituents.

Kittkylester, how else can an MP know what the public wants unless they ask and listen

This is what my DH wrote to his MP today. I thought it was quite sensible and he said he didn't mind me sharing his words:

I am writing in respect of the anticipated vote on UK military engagement in Syria.

Fundamentally, I do not believe that the argument that bombing Syria will improve security and save lives in the UK has been demonstrated in any way; neither through current evidence nor through any historical precedent.

Nor do I believe that it will improve conditions for the non-militarised Syrians still living there.

Nor will it make for a more stable and peaceful Syria in the future.

And fundamentally, I see no evidence that bombing will significantly degrade the capability of ISIS / ISIL. They will simply relocate their bases and bring death and destruction to new areas.

It seems to me that the logical endpoint of a bombing campaign in Syria is the complete destruction of the entire country - and even then, ISIS/ISIL could still operate from the ruins.

And in the meantime, the result would be more deaths; more poverty; more refugees; and more uneducated, unemployed and embittered young men and women for the militants to recruit, radicalise and exploit.

I believe that the key to undermining ISIS / ISIL is to disrupt their finances. Specifically, tackling their control over the supply of fuel throughout the region they control, but also seizing their accounts and disrupting their ability to move money around internationally. It may be less dramatic than bombing them, but it has greater potential to genuinely undermine their operation.

As for security in the UK - how many additional border staff, police officers or intelligence staff would a bombing campaign pay for in the UK? I would rather see our taxes being spent on creating jobs, improving infrastructure and developing skills in the UK rather than being instantaneously vaporised in a momentary explosion destroying someone's home in Syria.

Rather than spend billions on military action with very uncertain outcomes, why are we not building the homes needed by low income households or providing education, training and work opportunities for the underemployed - including those at risk of being radicalised and those most resentful of the arrival of refugees?

I appreciate that the fear-fuelled, xenophobic media make rational discussion - let alone decisions - difficult and that this is compounded by the justifiable anger at the atrocities wrought by individuals in Paris and elsewhere. But political decisions should not be made in anger nor from fear or the desire for revenge. Nor should they be made to satisfy the desire of editors for strident headlines.

I believe that refusing to escalate the military action would be in the best interests of the UK and, ultimately, provide the best chance of bringing peace to the middle east region. I therefore urge you to vote against any proposal to extend UK military involvement in the conflict in Syria.

I thought you said 'keep it short'.

Yopu do know they will be bombing Qattar? Not the whole of Syria?

Raqa not qattar! #ageingbrain

Anniebach, I thought their constituents should come ahead of their famil and friends.