Should we join in with air strikes against I.S in Syria ?
No because history shows us bombing alone does not work, you would have to send ground forces in as well
Join in?
The RAF have been conducting air strikes against IS for over a year.
Who cares. This is a truck forum not a political soapbox
dcgpx:
Who cares. This is a truck forum not a political soapbox
I’m well aware of that but normally these polls can be quite good fun so no need to get involved if you don’t want to, personally I think we should keep our distance as much as possible.
bald bloke:
normally these polls can be quite good fun
I dont think id use the word “fun” to describe them but they can make interesting reading 9 times out of ten. Usually the interesting bit stops once carryfast wades in though
yes as it starts the process of demoralizing them as long as all effort is made to avoid the innocent
It’s time to take the gloves off and show the Islamic world we mean business.Which in this case means a tactical nuclear cruise missile attack on Raqqa more as a statement of intent to Iran and Saudi than anything else.It’s my bet they’ll then get the message that they are next on the options list and call their Jihadist dogs off. 
Anything less than that why bother and what’s the point.
stevejones:
yes as it starts the process of demoralizing them as long as all effort is made to avoid the innocent
Who are the ‘innocent’ and how do you avoid them.The fact is the ‘enemy’ is taking advantage of that naive mindset.
I’ve seen a video online that shows a small villages being hit by the French military,it’s shows petrified children running around not knowing where to hide while French fighter jets fly overhead,screaming kids trapped under rubble in buildings hit by the bombs dropped and children pulled from the ruins that didn’t make it,it’s not a very nice thing to see at all and it shows the"other" side of when the French president went on TV to tell everyone they had dropped 20bombs “on ISIS”,imo dropping bombs out of planes claims far too many innocent lives and although yes Isis does need dealing with I don’t believe that’s the correct way.
The-Snowman:
Usually the interesting bit stops once carryfast wades in though
Let’s hear your solutions.Instead of having a go at others. 
I have no moral objections to bombing ISIS, but as the Russians and French are already doing a good job (with justification) Then we should just keep out of it, we really don’t have to get involved in every war that’s going… These wars are very expensive and on this one we should just keep our pennies in our pockets, and in any case we don’t even have an aircraft carrier.
xichrisxi:
I’ve seen a video online that shows a small villages being hit by the French military,it’s shows petrified children running around not knowing where to hide while French fighter jets fly overhead,screaming kids trapped under rubble in buildings hit by the bombs dropped and children pulled from the ruins that didn’t make it,it’s not a very nice thing to see at all and it shows the"other" side of when the French president went on TV to tell everyone they had dropped 20bombs “on ISIS”,imo dropping bombs out of planes claims far too many innocent lives and although yes Isis does need dealing with I don’t believe that’s the correct way.
By that logic we’d have had to ground almost the entire bombing effort of WW2 including that required on the occupied countries not just Germany.The fact is war always eventually reaches the choice where you either have to ignore the less palatable angle of collateral casualties or lose.In which case the enemy’s wives and families won’t give a zb when their husband’s sons and fathers slaughter our ‘innocents’.
Carryfast:
xichrisxi:
I’ve seen a video online that shows a small villages being hit by the French military,it’s shows petrified children running around not knowing where to hide while French fighter jets fly overhead,screaming kids trapped under rubble in buildings hit by the bombs dropped and children pulled from the ruins that didn’t make it,it’s not a very nice thing to see at all and it shows the"other" side of when the French president went on TV to tell everyone they had dropped 20bombs “on ISIS”,imo dropping bombs out of planes claims far too many innocent lives and although yes Isis does need dealing with I don’t believe that’s the correct way.By that logic we’d have had to ground almost the entire bombing effort of WW2 including that required on the occupied countries not just Germany.The fact is war always eventually reaches the choice where you either have to ignore the less palatable angle of collateral casualties or lose.In which case the enemy’s wives and families won’t give a zb when their husband’s sons and fathers slaughter our ‘innocents’.
But ISIS is not a country is it,it’s a terrorist group within a country.
atlas man:
No because history shows us bombing alone does not work, you would have to send ground forces in as well
The inconvenient fact of how VJ day came about and the loss of the Vietnam War, because Johnson didn’t have the bottle/stomach to go through with Curtis LeMay’s ideas on how to stop the VC in their tracks using strategic bombing,says otherwise.
The-Snowman:
bald bloke:
normally these polls can be quite good funI dont think id use the word “fun” to describe them but they can make interesting reading 9 times out of ten. Usually the interesting bit stops once carryfast wades in though
it’s boring now 
xichrisxi:
Carryfast:
By that logic we’d have had to ground almost the entire bombing effort of WW2 including that required on the occupied countries not just Germany.The fact is war always eventually reaches the choice where you either have to ignore the less palatable angle of collateral casualties or lose.In which case the enemy’s wives and families won’t give a zb when their husband’s sons and fathers slaughter our ‘innocents’.But ISIS is not a country is it,it’s a terrorist group within a country.
If we want to survive the inevitable onslaught that we’re facing we need to start looking at IS as just one component of a Saudi and Iranian backed wider Islamic offensive.Which,so far,uses the idea of irregular/proxy forces and hiding behind civilians as a battle tactic.The fact is maybe making an example of Raqqa now might save loads more casualties in the longer term as the thing escalates further and Saudi and Iran show more of their true colours and intentions and Israel then ( rightly ) answers accordingly.In addition to the inevitable escalating level of Jihadist activety,in our own back yard,if we don’t make the cost to the Islamic world,more expensive for them on their side to the point where it becomes untenable for them.
the only other way is usa/uk/german/french/numerous other so called eu countries to take 2 to 3 mths to surround the whole country with overwhelming ground troops weapons supplies .then give notice we going in but no one is coming out until we satisfied isis has been slaughtered along with the sympathisers then grab assad upto war crimes hague. new govt problem solved .but as uk/usa/and most other countries have lost any real wish to do it on ground it will not happen . so every few mths expect more of there killing of innocent people 
the major problem in attacking ISIS is, half of their operatives have now flooded across europe in the guise of refugees and are now sleeping comfortably on our generosity waiting for the word to go into action. Thy are terrorists not soldiers, by and large they are un-bombable.
Of course Egypt may have the solution to Isis in President Sisi … certainly a novel approach but it could work.
stevejones:
grab assad upto war crimes hague. new govt problem solved
Great we do a Saddam on one of the Arab world’s most moderate leaders then replace him with someone else.What could possibly go wrong.
The only way it would work to our advantage is if we can set up a Kurdish state which takes in a massive area of Iraq and Syria then arm the Kurds to the teeth hopefully in an alliance with Israel.In which case expect Russia,China and Turkey to show their true colours and intentions in the region.