The Sun poll found that 57% supported air strikes in Iraq....So lets do our own poll.

Why would you just let ISIS murder tens or hundreds of thousands of people and gain in strength so they could pose a bigger threat in future?

Do you support them?

Best to ignore this attention seeking mug.

Yes I do. Support airstrikes in Iraq not ISIS.
Wouldn't support ground troops though and would need more convincing about airstrikes in Syria.

No here. I'm going there on holiday and flying is the easiest.

You're going to Iraq on holiday ?       

I know a thing or two about the jihadists they're a bunch of liars and wrigglers, give 'em a bit of stick.


Yes.

You're going to Iraq on holiday ?

There are some great caravan sites in Iraq and now that Disney have opened it's getting more and more popular.

Thousands of Brits went there last year.

When you be heading out ?

Bring us all back a stick of rock please.

I like aniseed flavour with "Baghdad" all the way through.

beware though if you ask where the donkey rides are. Different culture.

It's a no from me btw, as it was for Libya. These things sort themselves eventually, the west interferes too much.

yes..on humanitarian grounds

I think IS are doing bad things in N.Iraq/Syria

Stickyvicky

Yes.

yes and ground forces and make sure we take no prisoners kill the fckers

Yes deal with Isis first then go after the others.

isis are the new nazis

No

It will achieve nothing and just get us bogged down in another open ended conflict lasting years just like afghanistan

The Taliban are still going strong in Afghanistan afet 13 years of war and it may well be the same story with isis

Canmeron has said many times its a war which may well go on for years

We have done enough damage already and wasted enough money and lives by intervening in the middle east and its now time for us to go away and leave it to the locals

Having said that I would certainly arm and support Iran,Syria and maybe Turkey if they want in as they are the main regional players with strong armies and air forces

Yes. But I expect being the cowards they are, they will soon move their weapons to civilian areas leading to the normal dilemma of the lives of innocent victims.

Yes. Let's Roll.

As long as the US of A does all the heavy lifting as per usual.

The chances of the English hostage now being released looks as remote as remote can get :-(

This morning in a lively sauna, one of the old boys brought up ISIS...feck me!
A bloke in there was an Iraqi...he went on a 5 minutes rant about Britain, namely Blair and how he brought all this on and should be charged with war crimes etc...

He then reeled off the number of british soldiers needlessly killed and the knock on effect it had on their families and named several Iraqi factions i'd never even heard of.

While he agreed Saddam was an evil dictator he also said these factions never stepped out of line until...

Well done Tony! A thoroughly well deserved peace award

What a mess! Politicians to lead from the front. At the head of front line Cameron, Milliband, Clegg, and Blair - The 4 horseman!

Also joining the ground troops into battle...Murdoch clan, daily mail, both George Bush's and Obama...The majority of the cabinet to follow.

Why were the atrocities in Syria ignored for so long?

To answer the OP's question - NO.

Yes

Why were the atrocities in Syria ignored for so long?

If you are referriong to isis.al mustra.al qeeda etc atrocities the west was not bothered as they are fighting the wests number one enemy in the region President bashir al assad of syria

However when isis went in to iraq and starting beheading westerners there the west were forced to do something

Every cloud has a silver lining for the west however as they now have an entry in to syria and can now go after assad

do u support air strikes in the usa - considering theyre by far the most terroristic nation on earth? or do u want another scapegoat? world war coming up - have to have an enemy, Russia? iran? Iraq? Syria? china?(oh no, they're bailing the us economy out)

divide and rule, old ploy, no one knows any more who the real enemies are, but it'll be thick, gullible people who'll suffer as usual.

Go and lie down in a dark room. You will soon feel better.

Tony has issues with both himself and the world.

oh - and add me to the winning side of this vote please

absolutely not. it's sheer madness

i simply don't believe the government - any government - when they say there will be attacks in britain if we don't deal with them now

NO

I hate cameron

Strikes? Just drop the Atomic bomb and be done with it ...

Can't we bomb Bradford instead.

Look at  the savings on fuel...

we're sending 6 jets they say,

....we "will" play our little part

I would say yes, with one caveat.
No "Collateral damage".

The thought of the killing of yet more innocent people is awful.

That's a NO then.
It's not a one-to-one fight to the death in a boxing ring.

The more we get involved the more it affects the British Isles,maybe we need to concentrate on removing all the extremists from our country and pumping up our border patrols to exclude the one's who want to do the west harm whilst wearing Nike trainers,drinking Coca Cola and claiming they are persecuted in their own country's.


If we need to send aircraft it's to Calais.


No

No

People need to think a little more deeply. How did ISIS come out of nothing, have only 20,000 or so fighters driving round in humvies and every one seems so petrified? Why when they want to control the levant(includes Israel) don't israel seem concerned in fact why didn't they want america to get involved? Why are saudi and qatar two countries effectively the 51st state of America funding ISIS. If the US told them to stop the funding these countries would say when yet the US haven't done this. Why are the us and Iran co-operating when for the last decade Iran was apparently the most dangerous nation on earth? Looks to me that the puppet master is looking to create a sunni shia war.

Why do we need to send 6 fighter jets to the region when the saudis have hundreds?  The three beheadings seem to have been the catalyst that turned the public to supporting this. Yet our allies the saudis have behead far more people in the last month.

mad mad moon    26 Sep 14 15:53 
Yes. But I expect being the cowards they are, they will soon move their weapons to civilian areas leading to the normal dilemma of the lives of innocent victims.

\Of course they will move in to civilian areas. They are not likely to sit out in broad daylight waiting for the brave US fighter jets to bomb them are they? You would have thought that those contemplating my have foreseen this potential glitch in the plan. What we will have social network presentation of the slaughter of thousands of innocent people with children getting a special plug. This will only serve to radicalise more alienated people and act as a calling card for more people to head to region or carry out attacks in their country of residence.

The US have been bombing in Iraq for six weeks and made virtually no impact on the territory ISIS hold. In fact they took a town 30 miles from baghdad this week which include a military station.

ISIS need wiped out.

I would say yes, with one caveat.
No "Collateral damage"

Unfortunately as stated by mw above massive collateral damage is almost inevitable

I would love to say yes, but I would prefer GB drew back from international involvement. Spend the savings on restoring our flagging infrastructure, NHS etc.

Sep 26, 2014 -- 12:41PM, call me a taxi wrote:

Can't we bomb Bradford instead.Look at  the savings on fuel...

Scotland don't want to be part of this, maybe Scotland needs to do an Independence referendum or something and see if the people of Scotland want away from the UK ?

No.

The analysts are saying there is no point without troops on the ground, and there are no troops on the ground.

yes

The analysts are saying there is no point without troops on the ground, and there are no troops on the ground.

In fact there are syrian army and iranian troops on the ground who have been fighting these terrorist group for years.

Unfortunately the west has been arming and supporting those terrorist groups

Perhaps they meant our troops.  I admit I'm barely following this issue as I've been busy shelving out mu garage.

probably best to concentrate on doing something useful like that stevie rather than wasting time on here obesessing about UK foreign policy issues

Ron-Russian

we're sending 6 jets they say,

....we "will" play our little part

But what you don't realise Ron...that without those 6 jets IS would blow the entire US air force out of the sky

We are vitally needed Ron

LOL!

The reason we are needed is when the USA does something wrong

it can then say we were not the only ones.....crafty eh?

our leaders always fall for it

although I am not sure in this case what else we can do

We support the USA come what may because one day we may need them to return the favour. It's a sort of insurance policy.
The US need a coalition to give them legitimacy in their actions even though militarily they could do the job themselves.
Pretty straightforward I think.

A year ago both Cameron and Obama wanted to go to Syria to fight on the side of the bad guys that they now want to fight against. They can't even make their minds up whose side they're on - it took them a year to change sides. Cameron does not represent Great Britain and Obama does not represent the USA (OK, I'll agree that Cameron was actually voted in by the British electorate, but Obama was never a legitimate President, and there is evidence that the last elections there were ****). As much as the Iraqi people need all the help they can get, Why not Nigeria? Why not Sudan? Why not North Korea? Why not umpteen other countries where atrocites are being committed? To Cameron and Obama, right and wrong, good and evil, means nothing! Human life means nothing! It's all about political expediency! Who'll get the most votes for our party? Which country can give us the most oil? How can we retain power?

The question posed on this thread is: Should we support air strikes in Iraq? I seem to remember the same question being posed in around 1990! This is 24 years later. I'd like to counter that by asking my own question. What good has Britain or the USA done in Iraq in the last 24 years?

Then word that came up as "****" in my last post was the word "riggged".

The US need a coalition to give them legitimacy in their actions

Which must mean their actions are NOT legitimate....that is my objection to this

although in this case I think they are

Of course as our NATO allies we need their protection, does not mean we have to do everything they ask
would they withdraw from NATO? , I don't think so

In this case I agree though

Foinavon

Harold Wilson did NOT commit us to Vietnam

Blair committed us to Iraq, but in my opinion that was illegal, so it was wrong

We are NOT bound to do everything the USA asks, we should only do it when it is LEGITIMATE

We have another constraint, we have a Muslim population of our own

Who do you think they side with?, easy, other Muslims

Which is why when we intervene in the M.East we must be scrupulously fair

It is ok in N.Iraq I feel, we are removing IS so other Muslims can live their lives in peace

We will still IS sympathizers here, but hopefully not too many, that reduces the risk of terrorism to us

Cameron says there will be attacks in Britain if we don't go to war, it's an absolute insult to our intelligence, 7/7 happened 2 years after we went into Iraq, and now the terror threat at home is even greater thanks to him, people here were already being radicalised but were travelling to Syria to fight, now what do you think their going to do, they'll fight here, there will be more Lee Rigby's, probably more tube bombings, and God knows what else. The best thing we could have done is said no, unfortunately, 0.00086427457% of the population took the over 99.9991357254% of the country to war, a country heavily in debt that imposes bedroom taxes and benefit cuts at the same time! they're not doing it in my name anyway. Blair was responsible for hundreds of British soldiers dying, and now Cameron seems desperate to follow his hero.

No mention of Thatcher sending a few thousand men to their deaths all for a bit of land that We didn't really need(and still don't)
But she was in power and felt the need to try to win votes.
Please don't make out Blair was the first to do it.

They really are clueless morons,about time dave resigned I think it won't be far away anyway!!The time is nigh.

I couldn't give a toss if Cameron goes.I'm not Pro him.
I'm just stating facts about what happened in history.

If you look back far enough you will realise while at the time people thought Maggie was making the Country a better place,she actually wrecked it for millions of people.
The Witch is gone,but her spell lives on!

I don't remember making out he was the first, I am against war full stop, falklands war was about protecting British people being invaded on a British owned Island by a country that should give up the land they invaded (argentina) before they start invading ours, it was different as we were protecting ourselves, this and Iraq 03 is an international problem in which we have given more than our fair share of blood and money. As foinavon says, it's a a political move dressed up as necessary, for the sake of British people LOL, he really think we'er all a bit thick. I am no fan of thatcher btw. or the tories.

If he see's the way I spell 'we're', then he really will think I'm a bit thick

Whereabouts are the Falkland Islands ?
What claim did England have to them,and why ?
Because Maggie said so ?
"Protecting British People" wasn't ours to start with,and how many do you think the Falklands was inhabited by both then and now ?
Do you think that was a worth while War ?
I'm from Southern England by the way,so it's not like I'm a bitter Northerner for hating her(although I totally get why they do so much)
She ruined this Country.
Full stop!

@ss
History and facts aren't your strong point I see.

Firstly England doesn't have any claim to the Falkland Islands but the UK does.
Secondly  we were defending the Falklands from an illegal invasion.
Thirdly the Falkland Islands have been under UK control since before Argentina existed as an independent country.
And finally the Islands are self governed, the UK only being responsible for foreign affairs and defence, and the inhabitants voted almost 100% to remain British.

Would be good if you knew what you were talking about before attacking.

Is there not an equivalent of Gowdwin's law that states that whatever disaster or misfortune befalls the world, as an internet discussion on said disaster grows longer, the probability that someone will blame Maggie approaches 1?

And people forget the stranglehold that the communist controlled unions had on the UK when MT came into power.

stewarsenquirey

You are obviously quite young and do not remember the falklands war but that is really no excuse for coming on here and spouting total bollox presented as 'facts'

Your distortion history is jaw dropping

The poll on CC is an overwhelming NO

100% NO


http://bit.ly/1uVTckD

BOMB THE LOT OF THEM.

what nationality are the big bad ISIS again?

probably a no from me, but now they've been given a job let me wish the RAF Tornado crews Godspeed, good luck & good hunting. Tally ho!

Sep 27, 2014 -- 3:53AM, EastofEden wrote:

The analysts are saying there is no point without troops on the ground, and there are no troops on the ground. In fact there are syrian army and iranian troops on the ground who have been fighting these terrorist group for years.Unfortunately the west has been arming and supporting those terrorist groups

Problem now is that there are so many factions fighting, that it is impossible to tell who is the "freedom fighter" and who is the terrorist and al-Assad is presumably well aware of how he can use that to his advantage in Syria.

Well yes whilst the terrorist groups are fighting and killing each other and not president assad the divide and conquer principle should make it easier for the Syrian army to retake control of there country

However the best solution in my view to eventiually get rid of all these terrorist groups from the area would be to leave it to the syrian army and thetr allies the iranians who have the boots on the ground and the will and the legitimacy to defeat these terrorists in syria

That of course will not happen because the west ultimately wants rid of the present syrian and iranian governments and to install western puppets in those countrys so they will continue arming the rebels and pouring more petrol on the flames

In the meanwhile the casualty list is ever increasing and the war drags on ....

Yes.
Good to see that cruise missiles on the Aircraft carriers have moved in closer just in case it  gets out of hand.

The simple answer is to give Syria the opportunity and arms to do the job on the logic that they can do the dirty work that we recoil from. Anything else will only encourage the ISIS mob to kill and murder more innocent civilians.

meanwhile at the conference.