Jon the Hat Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 can someone please tell me why we are looking at bombing them when it has done a great lot of ****all in recent times? seems like all we are doing is spending a lot of money to look more busy than we actually are. like someone who makes it look like they are sweeping up without sweeping. They are evil bastards - as Dan Jarvis put it - the fascists of our time They actually want to take over the world, and they wont stop until someone stops them They are a threat to our and our allies national security - and I mean you and me, not the government or the armed forces It is pathetic to sit back and watch our allies take the fight to them There are people on the ground fighting them, and they welcome our air support Some stupid bastards from the UK are over there doing evil things and frankly we don't want them to come back unless they are in a body bag This doesn't stop us pursuing diplomacy with the factions in Syria we can talk to, and other parties inc Russia They already want to kill us, and increasing our campaign from Iraq to Syria wont change that We have some tech that no one else has for pinpoint strikes, which will save lives vs French or US bombs We bear some responsibility for creating the space for them to expand, so we should close it down Just off the top of my head.
Darkon84 Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 Bombs are about to go past their 'use by' date. Pilots not had any decent training for a few years. Got to keep them battle-ready EDIT.... Scrap what I put, Jon just covered most of it.
Guest MattP Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 can someone please tell me why we are looking at bombing them when it has done a great lot of ****all in recent times? seems like all we are doing is spending a lot of money to look more busy than we actually are. like someone who makes it look like they are sweeping up without sweeping. I was replying to his but JTH has pretty much covered it. I read his piece on the news statesman yesterday and it's probably the only piece that has convinced me that this bombing campaign has to be done. In fact, he's one of the only people who could get Labour back in any sort of power. He could, fortunately for the Tories when he announces he'll run for leader the Labour membership will probably vote for Diane Abbott instead.
Bettsj2 Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 They are evil bastards - as Dan Jarvis put it - the fascists of our time They actually want to take over the world, and they wont stop until someone stops them They are a threat to our and our allies national security - and I mean you and me, not the government or the armed forces It is pathetic to sit back and watch our allies take the fight to them There are people on the ground fighting them, and they welcome our air support Some stupid bastards from the UK are over there doing evil things and frankly we don't want them to come back unless they are in a body bag This doesn't stop us pursuing diplomacy with the factions in Syria we can talk to, and other parties inc Russia They already want to kill us, and increasing our campaign from Iraq to Syria wont change that We have some tech that no one else has for pinpoint strikes, which will save lives vs French or US bombs We bear some responsibility for creating the space for them to expand, so we should close it down Just off the top of my head. Great post but are you suggesting that if military action isnt taken, ISIS have the capability to take over the world?
ramboacdc Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 They are evil bastards - as Dan Jarvis put it - the fascists of our time They actually want to take over the world, and they wont stop until someone stops them They are a threat to our and our allies national security - and I mean you and me, not the government or the armed forces It is pathetic to sit back and watch our allies take the fight to them There are people on the ground fighting them, and they welcome our air support Some stupid bastards from the UK are over there doing evil things and frankly we don't want them to come back unless they are in a body bag This doesn't stop us pursuing diplomacy with the factions in Syria we can talk to, and other parties inc Russia They already want to kill us, and increasing our campaign from Iraq to Syria wont change that We have some tech that no one else has for pinpoint strikes, which will save lives vs French or US bombs We bear some responsibility for creating the space for them to expand, so we should close it down Just off the top of my head. Great post but are you suggesting that if military action isnt taken, ISIS have the capability to take over the world? cheers jon. Firstly ^ This Secondly, we do not know where they are in syria, so all we would be doing is randomly throwing explosives into the desert and it aint cheap. If we were to just invade and stop them that way we would sort the problem a lot quicker. I do understand they need to be stopped but when you smash an ants nest they will run away and make a new one, then you have to find it. flush them out and destroy them where they are means they cant run away and the problem is gone.
Webbo Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 Great post but are you suggesting that if military action isnt taken, ISIS have the capability to take over the world? Probably not but they're still committing genocide against the Yazidis ,raping, selling people into slavery, throwing gays off buildings and beheading aid workers. In other words they're vile cvnts and the world would be a better place if they were all dead.
Guest MattP Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 That's twice today I've read we are going to be randomly throwing things into the desert. Do people realise how the military works?
Guest Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 Where are capitalists decapitating people and throwing Homosexuals off buildings? Bomb those ones. so are those the only bad/evil things that should be punished?
Webbo Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 Just confirms my opinion about these hard left trolls. Not only are they awful people but they're as thick as shit too.
Guest Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 Cameron and Corbyn both having a pretty tough time of it at the minute, we've had nearly two hours of this so far and we have gone barely anywhere. In hindsight Cameron should have just apologised and Corbyn should have answered the question on Iraq, the result of not doing both has cost about 45 minutes in shouting time. Democracy in action and politicians wonder why people are disinterested.
Guest MattP Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 Oh god someone didn't actually send that to Dan Jarvis? That is unbelievable. Liz Kendall was being told she needed to be gassed last night by Corbynistas. It's no wonder Labour haven't mentioned the Tory bullying scandal.
Guest Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 Bit silly? There are plenty of weak countries out there that we don't attack. What Isis are doing is beyond " not holding the moral standards we hold". But what has that got to do with us/the UK govt.? I'm not speaking of now, but if we hadn't gone into Iraq or Afghanistan then IS wouldn't have targetted Britain. What do you think gives the British govt. the right to invade another country's sovereign land? What right did we have to decide what is Israel and what is Palestine? Some of the same people arguing here for us to get involved in foreign extermination are the same people who are up in arms about the UK having to apply some EU law - and that's something we signed up to. It may surprise you to know that we are not the democratically elected upholder of western morals throughout the world.
Guest Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 Unbelievable really. Julian Lewis making case for ground troops. Find myself agreeing. Airstrikes followed by a huge ground force of 100,000 plus to flush them out. That worked well in Afghanistan didn't it?
Bettsj2 Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 Just confirms my opinion about these hard left trolls. Not only are they awful people but they're as thick as shit too. Fvcking idiots.
Guest Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 That was pretty brutal wasn't it?! "I wish I had the self-righteousness of our finger-jabbing colleagues who promote newer, kinder politics, who no doubt I'll be getting a few calls off tonight" You do wonder just how bad this is behind the scenes. Must be difficult not to hold the same view as the majority of your party. diddums.
Guest Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 It would work, sadly neither us or the US are going to go for it until the inevitable domestic attack. Of course it won't work. You'd need to kill every IS person and all their relatives and sympathisers. There is no way to exterminate a people let alone an ideology through "lawful" murdering.
Guest Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 If I was in charge of the Lib Dems I would be pushing hard to recruit all the sensible Labour MPs. I think they should recruit all those who hold similar views and I'd go further than that and say that Labour members who have views similar to the Lib Dems should be jumping ship.
Webbo Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 But what has that got to do with us/the UK govt.? I'm not speaking of now, but if we hadn't gone into Iraq or Afghanistan then IS wouldn't have targetted Britain. What do you think gives the British govt. the right to invade another country's sovereign land? What right did we have to decide what is Israel and what is Palestine? Some of the same people arguing here for us to get involved in foreign extermination are the same people who are up in arms about the UK having to apply some EU law - and that's something we signed up to. It may surprise you to know that we are not the democratically elected upholder of western morals throughout the world. come on, you know you're being silly now. You're just arguing for the sake of it. The whole point of the UN is to uphold international law and protect the weak. You think we should just turn a blind eye to genocide because it doesn't affect us? We shouldn't fight evil regimes because it might upset terrorists? And nobody is bombing Brussels because we want to leave the EU.
Guest Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 Probably not but they're still committing genocide against the Yazidis ,raping, selling people into slavery, throwing gays off buildings and beheading aid workers. In other words they're vile cvnts and the world would be a better place if they were all dead. You could be talking about our friends the Saudis.
Webbo Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 You could be talking about our friends the Saudis. They them to shove their oil up their arses then and see how long we last.
Guest Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 They them to shove their oil up their arses then and see how long we last. Morals? Why have we allowed ourselves to be blackmailed over oil. We should've invested in alternative energy 40 years ago when we realised it was a problem. AND we should still be doing it now.
Webbo Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 Morals? Why have we allowed ourselves to be blackmailed over oil. We should've invested in alternative energy 40 years ago when we realised it was a problem. AND we should still be doing it now. I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
Guest Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 I think it's a bit more complicated than that. No, really it's not.
Webbo Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 No, really it's not. I've been waiting for fusion energy for as long as I can remember. It was 10-20 years away when I was a kid and it still is now. Just throwing money at a problem doesn't make it disappear.
Thracian Posted 2 December 2015 Posted 2 December 2015 This is an enormously complex issue. For me it's not just about bombing Syria but about the aims of any action and the intended outcomes. And what makes that all so complex is the different aims of so many different factions involved. And the potential of those various factions to unite with allies until, eventually, you have a much wider conflict and an area much more unstable than ever it was under Assad. I really hope Cameron's on the right side over this and knows where the hell he's heading and why. Because whether IS can be firmly, finally and truly beaten or not, I can only see more and more trouble emanating from this tinderbox unless some infinite political wisdom emerges. There's not just the fight against the evil of IS or the pitiless ruthlessness of Assad. It's about the festering hatred that separates so many groups of Sunnis and Shi-ites. Turkey and Syria are Muslim countries on the borders of the West. Assad is an minority Alawite Muslim - basically attached to Shi-ite Islam. Erdogan, over in Turkey, is a Sunni who seems to detest the Shi-ites. IS are Sunni's too. President Obama was bought up a Sunni. Iran - allied with Russia in their fight against IS - is strongly Shia. Along with parts of Iraq whose residents have been so ruthlessly slaughtered by IS. And that, to me, is what everyone is really manouevering over (and why rebellion developed in Syria). Dominance within the lands of the old Ottoman empire. Assad is a pivotal figure in the Middle East. Well armed by the Russians, supported too by the Chinese for their own reasons, Assad seems to be a buffer against the advance of Sunni Muslim fundamentalism. The essentially Sunni Muslim Brotherhood would love to take his place. And they'd do so with the support of Turkey's Erdogan. The horror stories are one thing - and surely a disgrace to the human race. But outcomes are what's most important and whatever the Western allies decide in respect of Syria I really hope they talk with Russia and China with the aim of fashioning something we can all live with comfortably, rather than die for as a result of political naivity. I think it's a bit more complicated than that. I think it's a bit more complicated than that. A lot more complicated.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.