Bombing Syria

[BerwickMad]

Whilst you choose to criticize only 1 side for doing it

I'll happily criticise both sides and have done on here.

[doulikefish]

I'll happily criticise both sides and have done on here.

Smashing,just you do that

[Ivo den Bieman]

Thought this story was a good one about salmond.

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/8706508?1449146541

Hilary's speech was disingenuous right wing shit. And Emily needs to keep her profile up for a shot at being an MP in the future (she;s failed twice already but I'm sure her very Labour-credentialed job as an investment banker will console her). Add in Straw junior, and Euan Blair, and multiple Kinnocks, and all of a sudden the Labour party seems to be operating on the same principles as Tsarist Russia.

Given where its politics are these days, that seems quite appropriate. What is telling about the debate and its aftermath is that Hilary Benn's speech is laughably being described as a "great piece of oratory" (without its glib, right-wing, pro-war falsehoods being examined in any detail) whilst those who dare to dissent from it are being taken to task for the tone of their remarks.

[Fide]

You have to laugh at Yoons claiming they'll criticise both sides.

They're a myopic wee bunch.

[NotThePars]

Didnt realise king eck mentioned getting the knives out,must listen to the broadcast again

If Salmond tweeted something along the lines of "when man sees you in the ends" with some knife emojis I'd be really confused tbf.

[southernshandy]

Salmond is a knob viva John Terry

[Savage Henry]

Greetin about hypocrites whilst being a hypocrite.

He's a politician. All politicians are, to a greater or lesser degree, hypocrites. Just because I give my vote to one of whatever hue, I still think they're pretty much lying through their teeth half the time.

[ScotSquid]

He's a politician. All politicians are, to a greater or lesser degree, hypocrites. Just because I give my vote to one of whatever hue, I still think they're pretty much lying through their teeth half the time.

Of course. And they are self serving careerists .

Which is the point I was making earlier. Why some idiots choose to deify one lot of rosetted chancers while castigating another is beyond me.

[southernshandy]

Viva John Terry

[printer]

^^^ head's gone

:lol:

No idea what happened yesterday.

[Ad Lib]

The right decision was made in the House of Commons earlier this week and Hilary Benn's speech was excellent.

Public opinion should have zero bearing on the calculus of what multinational conflicts we should be involved in militarily.

Strikes have been working extremely well in Iraq, helping both the Iraqi Government and the Kurdish forces in the North to repel Daesh from the territory they grabbed beforehand, and were largely what forced ISIS to retreat towards its nerve centre in Raqqa. The proposal here isn't to carpet-bomb Raqqa, as people like Alex Salmond have implied. It is to cut-off the oil supply lines, stop the access to new arms, to destroy the heavier duty military kit they liberated from Assad and can't easily replace, and to weaken them so that the Kurds and FSA stand a better chance of beating them on the ground. The use of Brimstone missiles will also mean that existing Coalition bombing can be more precise and run lower risk of casualty, and that it can be marginally extended to areas where previously they were unwilling to bomb because US or French missiles would encounter an unacceptable civilian casualty risk.

They don't respect the border between Syria and Iraq. Assad has no effective means of control over these parts of Syria so is no more likely to restore order and some semblance of the rule of law than the Kurds or the Free Syrian Army such as it is. The longer the West allows Russia to dictate the terms of airstrikes the more likely it is that this civil war is reduced to a two-sided one where we have to make a diplomatic choice between backing Assad or tolerating the existence of a lynch-mob caliphate.

There hasn't been a single report of civilian casualties resulting from an RAF action in the Iraqi bombing campaign. That's a significant indication both as to our attitude as to what kind of targets we should be aiming at, and the strategic advantage of Brimstone, that neither the Americans nor the French have. When you consider that Daesh and Assad are killing hundreds, nay, thousands, of Syrian civilians, starving off the supply lines and making life more difficult for them is a worthwhile goal in and of itself even if the Vienna talks break down and there ceases to be any prospect of a meaningful diplomatic solution in the foreseeable future.

This isn't Iraq War 2.0. We are not disrupting a country that was previously stable; it is already largely destroyed by a prolonged and brutal civil war. We are not acting without authority from the international community; there is a specific UN resolution calling for both military action and effective sanctioning against Daesh and a stepping-up of diplomatic efforts with respect to the civil war as a whole. This is not just "America and its chums"; 4 out of the 5 members of the UN Security Council are directly involved in the bombing campaign, six members of the European Union (Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and now Germany adding to France and the UK), two other western nations (Canada and Australia), 7 countries from the Middle East are directly involved in the bombing campaign either in Iraq, Syria or both (Jordan, Qatar, Morocco, Bahrain, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Turkey), Iran is involved on the ground along even with Hezbollah affiliates, Egypt is caught-up fighting affiliate IS groups both in its own territory and in Libya.

And then there's the various states, 12 European, 3 Gulf/Middle East, providing military aid to troops on the ground and financial and logistical support to the bombing effort.

It is difficult to think of a military intervention in living memory where so much of the international community was directed and acquiescent towards a specific objective. Now it's absolutely true that there are problems as to the unity within that broad coalition both in terms of strategy and end goals. Russia and Turkey in particular pose different problems in terms of how best we can support and sustain the viability of a non-ISIS anti-Assad grouping in Syria. But it seems like people have forgotten that, when we intervened in Bosnia, Kosovo and Sierra Leone, the supposed unity of the international community was scarcely if at all any better. Have people forgotten how, when Kosovo was liberated, we came remarkably close to direct conflict between NATO and Russian troops over Pristina airport? War is a risky business regardless and it's going to happen with or without our involvement.

This speaks to all of the blowback arguments, and how this is going to increase radicalisation. We are already involved in Iraq. At the invitation and request of the Iraqi Government and Peshmerga Kurdish forces. Any propaganda gain Daesh have against us has already been locked in. Do you really think that if we respect the Syria-Iraq border or withdraw from RAF bombing in Iraq that they're suddenly going to redirect their internet propaganda or cell network away from attacking the United Kingdom? Even if what you care about is so squalid and parochial as the marginal threat to British lives of terrorism, and not the thousands of Muslims Daesh are killing every day under their proto-state, this vote is trivial as to the nature and extent of that threat.

TL;DR Even if this bombing expedition fails, it doesn't place either us or Syria in any worse a position had the British not been involved.

[doulikefish]

The right decision was made in the House of Commons earlier this week and Hilary Benn's speech was excellent.

Public opinion should have zero bearing on the calculus of what multinational conflicts we should be involved in militarily.

Strikes have been working extremely well in Iraq, helping both the Iraqi Government and the Kurdish forces in the North to repel Daesh from the territory they grabbed beforehand, and were largely what forced ISIS to retreat towards its nerve centre in Raqqa. The proposal here isn't to carpet-bomb Raqqa, as people like Alex Salmond have implied. It is to cut-off the oil supply lines, stop the access to new arms, to destroy the heavier duty military kit they liberated from Assad and can't easily replace, and to weaken them so that the Kurds and FSA stand a better chance of beating them on the ground. The use of Brimstone missiles will also mean that existing Coalition bombing can be more precise and run lower risk of casualty, and that it can be marginally extended to areas where previously they were unwilling to bomb because US or French missiles would encounter an unacceptable civilian casualty risk.

They don't respect the border between Syria and Iraq. Assad has no effective means of control over these parts of Syria so is no more likely to restore order and some semblance of the rule of law than the Kurds or the Free Syrian Army such as it is. The longer the West allows Russia to dictate the terms of airstrikes the more likely it is that this civil war is reduced to a two-sided one where we have to make a diplomatic choice between backing Assad or tolerating the existence of a lynch-mob caliphate.

There hasn't been a single report of civilian casualties resulting from an RAF action in the Iraqi bombing campaign. That's a significant indication both as to our attitude as to what kind of targets we should be aiming at, and the strategic advantage of Brimstone, that neither the Americans nor the French have. When you consider that Daesh and Assad are killing hundreds, nay, thousands, of Syrian civilians, starving off the supply lines and making life more difficult for them is a worthwhile goal in and of itself even if the Vienna talks break down and there ceases to be any prospect of a meaningful diplomatic solution in the foreseeable future.

This isn't Iraq War 2.0. We are not disrupting a country that was previously stable; it is already largely destroyed by a prolonged and brutal civil war. We are not acting without authority from the international community; there is a specific UN resolution calling for both military action and effective sanctioning against Daesh and a stepping-up of diplomatic efforts with respect to the civil war as a whole. This is not just "America and its chums"; 4 out of the 5 members of the UN Security Council are directly involved in the bombing campaign, six members of the European Union (Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and now Germany adding to France and the UK), two other western nations (Canada and Australia), 7 countries from the Middle East are directly involved in the bombing campaign either in Iraq, Syria or both (Jordan, Qatar, Morocco, Bahrain, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Turkey), Iran is involved on the ground along even with Hezbollah affiliates, Egypt is caught-up fighting affiliate IS groups both in its own territory and in Libya.

And then there's the various states, 12 European, 3 Gulf/Middle East, providing military aid to troops on the ground and financial and logistical support to the bombing effort.

It is difficult to think of a military intervention in living memory where so much of the international community was directed and acquiescent towards a specific objective. Now it's absolutely true that there are problems as to the unity within that broad coalition both in terms of strategy and end goals. Russia and Turkey in particular pose different problems in terms of how best we can support and sustain the viability of a non-ISIS anti-Assad grouping in Syria. But it seems like people have forgotten that, when we intervened in Bosnia, Kosovo and Sierra Leone, the supposed unity of the international community was scarcely if at all any better. Have people forgotten how, when Kosovo was liberated, we came remarkably close to direct conflict between NATO and Russian troops over Pristina airport? War is a risky business regardless and it's going to happen with or without our involvement.

This speaks to all of the blowback arguments, and how this is going to increase radicalisation. We are already involved in Iraq. At the invitation and request of the Iraqi Government and Peshmerga Kurdish forces. Any propaganda gain Daesh have against us has already been locked in. Do you really think that if we respect the Syria-Iraq border or withdraw from RAF bombing in Iraq that they're suddenly going to redirect their internet propaganda or cell network away from attacking the United Kingdom? Even if what you care about is so squalid and parochial as the marginal threat to British lives of terrorism, and not the thousands of Muslims Daesh are killing every day under their proto-state, this vote is trivial as to the nature and extent of that threat.

TL;DR Even if this bombing expedition fails, it doesn't place either us or Syria in any worse a position had the British not been involved.

So your not advocating shouting at them loudly? You have changed man you have changed

oh ps the best bit about the utter pish that "i beleive in god' Farrons party man is there has been no civilian casualties

Edited December 4, 2015 by doulikefish

[Fide]

TL;DR Even if this bombing expedition fails, it doesn't place either us or Syria in any worse a position had the British not been involved.

I only read your tl;dr because f**k that.

So it doesn't place us in a worse position having been involved? That's right, we can guarantee zero civilian casualties and Tornado and Typhoon payloads are completely free of charge.

[Ad Lib]

I only read your tl;dr because f**k that.

So it doesn't place us in a worse position having been involved? That's right, we can guarantee zero civilian casualties and Tornado and Typhoon payloads are completely free of charge.

We've already incurred the expenditure for the payloads. They would merely have been used in Iraq instead of also Syria.

Any civilian casualties that happen would almost certainly have happened anyway at the hands of other Coalition bombers, the Russians, Assad or Daesh. The net effect on civilian casualties will not be substantial and may even be lower for the use of Brimstone. Again, to re-iterate: not one single civilian casualty has resulted from RAF bombing in Iraq as part of this operation.

[welshbairn]

I only read your tl;dr because f**k that.

So it doesn't place us in a worse position having been involved? That's right, we can guarantee zero civilian casualties and Tornado and Typhoon payloads are completely free of charge.

In regards as making Daesh really angry so they'll attack us here. We're already bombing them in Iraq, I'd imagine that would make them a bit miffed anyway.

[Fide]

Again, to re-iterate: not one single civilian casualty has resulted from RAF bombing in Iraq as part of this operation.

As Alberto Costa said, not one civilian "of note", eh?

Just like the Great Fire of London. No one died in that. Allegedly.

[doulikefish]

We've already incurred the expenditure for the payloads. They would merely have been used in Iraq instead of also Syria.

Any civilian casualties that happen would almost certainly have happened anyway at the hands of other Coalition bombers, the Russians, Assad or Daesh. The net effect on civilian casualties will not be substantial and may even be lower for the use of Brimstone. Again, to re-iterate: not one single civilian casualty has resulted from RAF bombing in Iraq as part of this operation.

Please post the "Civilian" detector bombs that was doing the rounds yesterday.That was ace

[Fide]

Additionally to Ad Libs point regarding having already purchased the payloads to be used on Typhoon and Tornado jets, are we therefore to assume that no additional munitions will be purchased to be used exclusively in Syria?

[doulikefish]

I do like the no civilian deaths in Iraq,they have only been blowing the shit out of the place since 2003,are there any civilians left alive since the start of blairs illegal war?

[pandarilla]

I'm sceptical about this missile stuff we're being fed. I have absolutely zero prior knowledge on the topic but the idea that Britain alone has these super duper smart bombs that only kill bad guys is not one that sits comfortably.

'smart bombs in the hands of dumb people'

B. Bragg (saw him in Perth on Wednesday and was outstanding)