Wilky1878 Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Corbyn is letting the MPs have a free vote. So, it's a certainty we're killing civilians. Cheers Britain. Rule Britannia and aw that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 We should have taken our chance of independence last September. 55% of Scots genuinely voted for our country to be an incorporated region of a nation run by this laughable Punch and Judy show. How stupid must Scots think their fellow Scots are that the majority believe we're better off living under a system with these childish, incompetent, directionless pantomime clowns at the helm. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zetterlund Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 We should have taken our chance of independence last September. Disassociating ourselves from corrupt, warmongering, American sock-puppet status is the main reason I'm pro-independence. Not surprised at all to see it appears we've lasted a little over a year before getting involved in another Middle Eastern omnishambles on a false humanitarian pretext. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudge Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 For those who object to bombing in Syria, what would you suggest instead? Do nothing - let ISIS spread and gain members and territory Enough countries are bombing already - let them do our dirty work. The actions of other countries may neutralise them with out the risk of prompting attacks in the UK 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 For those who object to bombing in Syria, what would you suggest instead? Do nothing - let ISIS spread and gain members and territory Enough countries are bombing already - let them do our dirty work. The actions of other countries may neutralise them with out the risk of prompting attacks in the UK So you acknowledge that other countries are bombing already. Has bombing stopped ISIS? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enigma Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 For those who object to bombing in Syria, what would you suggest instead? Do nothing - let ISIS spread and gain members and territory Enough countries are bombing already - let them do our dirty work. The actions of other countries may neutralise them with out the risk of prompting attacks in the UK What are the US and French bombing raids doing now that we couldn't. Cameron wants a chair at the table when it come to deciding what to do once peace comes. Imperial prestige is the motive, not fighting terror. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Bombing ISIS-controlled oil production sites and legitimate military targets "in the field". I could probably get behind. Bombing Raqqa and other population sites. I can't support. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zetterlund Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 For those who object to bombing in Syria, what would you suggest instead? Do nothing - let ISIS spread and gain members and territory Enough countries are bombing already - let them do our dirty work. The actions of other countries may neutralise them with out the risk of prompting attacks in the UK Leave the military action in Syria to those doing it legitimately, and stop ploughing weapons into Syrian militias opposing the government, so the government forces can concentrate on stabilising their country against what we're told everyone agrees is the main threat. The UK has a role in Iraq so wouldn't be doing nothing. The only reason Cameron should be so determined to get stuck into Syria too is to add weight to the 'campaign to get rid of Assad. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 (edited) For those who object to bombing in Syria, what would you suggest instead? Do nothing - let ISIS spread and gain members and territory I wouldn't say "do nothing", but I would much rather engage in sanctions which are designed to cripple them financially. As the old saying goes, as long as you continue to feed the lion, it will stay. The problem is, the military industrial complex is deeply embedded in government, and they have plenty of shill politicians and useful idiots who'll do their bidding. Sadly, whats good for military contractors works against everyone else's common interests. Edited November 30, 2015 by Fotbawmad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudge Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 So you acknowledge that other countries are bombing already. Has bombing stopped ISIS? I suspect a bombing campaign would take years to have the desired effect. I wouldn't expect otherwise What are the US and French bombing raids doing now that we couldn't. Cameron wants a chair at the table when it come to deciding what to do once peace comes. Imperial prestige is the motive, not fighting terror. There's more fire power, the quicker ISIS will likely be neutralised. I don't think this is some sort of Imperial prestige to show we're still at the big boys table. I see it as using our military capabilities to work alongside our allies to try and defeat ISIS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 For those who object to bombing in Syria, what would you suggest instead? Do nothing - let ISIS spread and gain members and territory Enough countries are bombing already - let them do our dirty work. The actions of other countries may neutralise them with out the risk of prompting attacks in the UK Just tell Putin he can fucking keep it. Let him spend a shit load of men, money and materiel rebuilding the Assad regime while his economy is in bits and just fund whichever rebels look the most competent that week, in syria, in the Ukraine, wherever. Bleed the post-commie b*****ds dry. The winter will take care of most of the refugee crisis and it wouldn't put UK servicemen in the position of accidentally starting WWIII or bombing a nursery / hospital / puppy orphanage. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enigma Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 (edited) Why Fudge, then, do you not support (apologies for assuming you don't) 'boots on the ground' too as surely this would be more effective? Edited November 30, 2015 by Enigma 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudge Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 (edited) Why Fudge, then, do you not support (apologies for assuming you don't) 'boots on the ground' too as surely this would be more effective?I happily would. I realise this is not going to happen though as it would result in a significant loss of life for the British /American army and be seen as 'repeating the mistakes' of the last 12 years in Afghanistan etc. I believe the army/soldiers are mercenaries /Cannon fodder. I would prefer the allies had a huge boots on the ground advance through Syria completely wiping out ISIS even though it would result in relatively speaking a large loss of men Edited November 30, 2015 by Fudge 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 I happily would. I realise this is not going to happen though as it would result in a significant loss of life for the British /American army and be seen as 'repeating the mistakes' of the last 12 years in Afghanistan etc. I believe the army/soldiers are mercenaries /Cannon fodder. I would prefer the allies had a huge boots on the ground advance through Syria completely wiping out ISIS even though it would result in relatively speaking a large loss of men If we do decide to 'wipe them out' then this would be my preference. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudge Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 If we do decide to 'wipe them out' then this would be my preference. That approach won't happen hence why I see bombing as a 'happy' medium. In saw some Tory chap on generic UK politics show saying that our bombing in Iraq has caused no civilization casualties, such is our missile precision. I think the idea that we're (UK) routinely missing the target and wiping out schools, hospitals, civilian neighbourhoods is well wide of the mark 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 If the bombing question was put to the public in a referendum I reckon we'd see a large majority voting against it. A parliamentary vote will likely see a majority for it. British democracy in a nutshell. That's how democracy works everywhere. If the public were given a referendum we'd probably have capital punishment back. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enigma Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 I happily would. I realise this is not going to happen though as it would result in a significant loss of life for the British /American army and be seen as 'repeating the mistakes' of the last 12 years in Afghanistan etc. I believe the the army soldiers are mercenaries /Cannon fodder. I would prefer the allies had a huge boots on the ground advance through Syria completely wiping out ISIS even though it would result in relatively speaking a large loss of men I too would support boots on the ground but as a proper UN cooperation, I think our Turkish friends set this back somewhat. The huge problem is what happens once Isis are gone? Would we bomb Assad? The Kurds, if they start fighting Turkey? Or would it be job done and let them fight for the scraps? I think it's safe to say the Turkmen, Kurds, Shia, Sunnis won't be keen on sharing a country and Russia will want to do the opposite of the US et all. Syria would be Korea'd or Bosnia'd down ceasefire lines unless everybody comes round a table and comes up with an endgame solution. Until that happens and without international support I can't support an all-guns-blazing 'shoot first, ask questions later bombing campaign'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enigma Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 That approach won't happen hence why I see bombing as a 'happy' medium. In saw some Tory chap on generic UK politics show saying that our bombing in Iraq has caused no civilization casualties, such is our missile precision. I think the idea that we're (UK) routinely missing the target and wiping out schools, hospitals, civilian neighbourhoods is well wide of the mark I saw some Tory chap say nobody would be worse off by cutting tax credits. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudge Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 My answer is 'I don't know'. I honestly can't claim to be too clued up on the politics of the area more than your moderately interested news reader. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Wonder if he was in favour of bombing the ROI, when the IRA were active. Were active? There were terrorists trying to murder police officers with an assault rifle three days ago! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.