Guest MattP Posted 27 September 2014 Posted 27 September 2014 Does anyone think this will actually end ISIS though? Intervening in the middle east doesn't result in fewer deaths, these things will probably just create a common enermy and increase ISIS numbers. I'm certainly not convinced this is a war we should be fighting and not convinced it will make us safer. This is pretty much what Nigel Farage said yesterday. I real can understand both of the arguments for this, if I was MP I'd be devastated about having to take us to war again but I'm not sure I could live with myself voting against it given what I've seen happens to the innocents over there at the hands of ISIL. We will have to prepare for retaliation from our home grown jihadis though unfortunately. Can see a bomb or a couple of public beheadings coming our way.
Guest MattP Posted 27 September 2014 Posted 27 September 2014 Well going to war in election year worked for Maggie but I am sure that thought has not entered Camerons head. If it gets rid of some nasty foreigners then the £60,000 per hour to keep a jet fighter in the air will be money well spent and even those in the NHS waiting queues will be cheering our boys on. At least it will give the flag manufacturing business a boost. Given it's 12.12pm I'm assuming you are still moderately sober. Is this post actually serious? Do you actually understand anything that is going on in Iraq and Syria at the minute and that has been for the last 3-4 years? Election year is 2015 and to compare it to the Falklands where our territory and people were invaded is beyond ludicrous. You do realise the Iraqi government has ASKED US to do this don't you?
Rincewind Posted 27 September 2014 Posted 27 September 2014 I am agreeing with you Matt. Just saying it in another way.
Guest MattP Posted 27 September 2014 Posted 27 September 2014 How would you have voted in the commons yesterday?
Stadt Posted 27 September 2014 Posted 27 September 2014 If we don't intervene they'll swell in numbers and only grow stronger so IS need to be disrupted and it's probably a war that will never be won but IS will 'win' if they're just left to it.
Fox92 Posted 27 September 2014 Posted 27 September 2014 Don't understand why we get involved. Can't we just leave them to it? Cameron was saying these extremists pose a threat to the UK, but surely that's because we always follow America and get involved in all this?
Webbo Posted 27 September 2014 Posted 27 September 2014 Well going to war in election year worked for Maggie but I am sure that thought has not entered Camerons head. If it gets rid of some nasty foreigners then the £60,000 per hour to keep a jet fighter in the air will be money well spent and even those in the NHS waiting queues will be cheering our boys on. At least it will give the flag manufacturing business a boost. It's very good of America, France, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and others to start it off just to help out the tories. I never realised they knew about the bedroom tax let alone cared.
ADK Posted 27 September 2014 Posted 27 September 2014 Considering the number of other nations now involved we have no choice really but to offer a few jets and surveillance aircraft. I'd actually support a proper ground intervention with efforts to cut off ISIS funding and a commitment to tackle extremism in Europe.
Ghost Troop Posted 27 September 2014 Posted 27 September 2014 Considering the number of other nations now involved we have no choice really but to offer a few jets and surveillance aircraft. I'd actually support a proper ground intervention with efforts to cut off ISIS funding and a commitment to tackle extremism in Europe. Would that include going in theatre and fighting yourself?
Steven Posted 1 October 2014 Posted 1 October 2014 How to radicalise people. Moazzam Begg to be released as terror charges dropped http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29442623
bovril Posted 1 October 2014 Posted 1 October 2014 Would that include going in theatre and fighting yourself? Why would you fight in a theatre? ISIS hate culture.
Steven Posted 1 October 2014 Posted 1 October 2014 Why stop at Isis when we could bomb the whole Muslim world?Humanitarian arguments, if consistently applied, could be used to flatten the entire Middle East http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/30/isis-bomb-muslim-world-air-strikes-saudi-arabia
Harry - LCFC Posted 1 October 2014 Posted 1 October 2014 Why stop at Isis when we could bomb the whole Muslim world?Humanitarian arguments, if consistently applied, could be used to flatten the entire Middle East http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/30/isis-bomb-muslim-world-air-strikes-saudi-arabia I've heard this kind of view a few times now - people who think there's something immoral about bombing ISIS. There isn't. Killing Jihadists is a good thing. I didn't expect any to disagree with that notion and yet I've seen a couple of people call it "murder" as well as this article labelling it a "Western Crusade." Now, I'm quite happy to listen to the practical argument against bombing because there is the possibility of our actions not delivering the results we want. But how people manage to oppose bombings on principle really baffles me. As for the writer's comparisons with other Middle Eastern countries, would he also have been against going to war with Nazi Germany? After all, the Soviet Union were executing people and we weren't stopping them so it'd be plain hypocrisy to pick on poor Adolf!
bovril Posted 1 October 2014 Posted 1 October 2014 I've heard this kind of view a few times now - people who think there's something immoral about bombing ISIS. There isn't. Killing Jihadists is a good thing. I didn't expect any to disagree with that notion and yet I've seen a couple of people call it "murder" as well as this article labelling it a "Western Crusade." Now, I'm quite happy to listen to the practical argument against bombing because there is the possibility of our actions not delivering the results we want. But how people manage to oppose bombings on principle really baffles me. As for the writer's comparisons with other Middle Eastern countries, would he also have been against going to war with Nazi Germany? After all, the Soviet Union were executing people and we weren't stopping them so it'd be plain hypocrisy to pick on poor Adolf! Well essentially it is hypocrisy. We defeat one tyranny with the help of another. The point he makes is valid, we seem to pick and choose which evils are worth fighting depending on how the interfere with our interests.
Harry - LCFC Posted 1 October 2014 Posted 1 October 2014 Well essentially it is hypocrisy. We defeat one tyranny with the help of another. The point he makes is valid, we seem to pick and choose which evils are worth fighting depending on how the interfere with our interests. I don't think it's a good reason not to respond. It wasn't before. Having an "everyone or no-one" attitude would mean war would always be wrong.
leicsmac Posted 2 October 2014 Posted 2 October 2014 I don't think it's a good reason not to respond. It wasn't before. Having an "everyone or no-one" attitude would mean war would always be wrong. Isn't it? War may sometimes be necessary, but I can't ever see it being 'right'.
Rincewind Posted 2 October 2014 Posted 2 October 2014 Isn't it? War may sometimes be necessary, but I can't ever see it being 'right'. I was heavily criticised for posting a poem that said war wrong. It is the innocent ordinary people that suffer the most. That is a humanitarian viewpoint not a political one and I am not ashamed to think that.
PAPA LAZAROU Posted 2 October 2014 Posted 2 October 2014 Don't understand why we get involved. Can't we just leave them to it? Cameron was saying these extremists pose a threat to the UK, but surely that's because we always follow America and get involved in all this? Sounds just like Nevil Chamberlin talking about Winston Churchill, When Churchill warned parliament about appeasing the Nazis.
leicsmac Posted 2 October 2014 Posted 2 October 2014 Sounds just like Nevil Chamberlin talking about Winston Churchill, When Churchill warn parliament about appeasing the Nazis. That doesn't mean we should take satisfaction or pleasure in it, or not feel shit because it probably has to be done.
PAPA LAZAROU Posted 2 October 2014 Posted 2 October 2014 That doesn't mean we should take satisfaction or pleasure in it, or not feel shit because it probably has to be done. Sorry Mac I wasn't aware I sounded like I was getting any satisfaction or taking any pleasure in war at all ? don't know how you came to that conclusion. I was merely pointing out the dangers of appeasement and ignoring world events that will if left unchallenged become our problem eventually.
leicsmac Posted 2 October 2014 Posted 2 October 2014 Sorry Mac I wasn't aware I sounded like I was getting any satisfaction or taking any pleasure in war at all ? don't know how you came to that conclusion. I was merely pointing out the dangers of appeasement and ignoring world events that will if left unchallenged become our problem eventually. I hear that. I guess I've heard too many people be smug about all of this and I'm reading it as showing satisfaction that we're going to have to go to war again, and it irritates me. That's not the case with you then, evidently. Totally agree that something should be done sooner rather than later, but I'd really rather us play a strictly supporting role in this one.
PAPA LAZAROU Posted 2 October 2014 Posted 2 October 2014 I hear that. I guess I've heard too many people be smug about all of this and I'm reading it as showing satisfaction that we're going to have to go to war again, and it irritates me. That's not the case with you then, evidently. Totally agree that something should be done sooner rather than later, but I'd really rather us play a strictly supporting role in this one. Agreed. I'm fairly sure using our air-force is as for as we will go. I don't think after Iraq and Afghanistan the public have any stomach for the use of ground troops and long may that last.
Jon the Hat Posted 2 October 2014 Posted 2 October 2014 No doubt special forces are on the ground and have been for some time, either helping the Kurds or the Iraqis. Given the very limited air power of both of those groups, having this international support is key, but they have to win it on the ground. This is not going to be easy. To be honest though, if you think we should just leave Iraq to be over run by IS you are an immoral arse. Who left them with the limited military might they now have?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.