Jetpilot Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 So looks like there will be a vote in the house of commons, thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stutopia Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 This'll be an interesting one. Not for me, I think this requires more eyeball to eyeball contact if they are to be beaten. I don't think it can be done from the air alone. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted November 30, 2015 Author Share Posted November 30, 2015 I am not adverse to air strikes, but, I feel there needs to be a clear, concise plan with everyone (varying nations) in agreement of a course of action to complete the task of eliminating isis, not, well lets see what happens with joining the airstrikes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grundy Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Yes. Plain and simple. All this pussy footing around. Regardless if we bomb or not, we are at threat. Just deal with them and end it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irn Bru Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 There are TEN countries currently bombing the @*!# out of Syria as we speak, do we really need another country dropping bombs ??? There is so much inter faction / country conflict going on in this mess, not for me............... just remember Iraq and Afghanistan, years of blood letting and then we pull out and the Taliban and Al Queda move straight back in, followed by Daesh. Sorry but we've been meddling in the middle east for too many decades without ever actually achieving the objectives....... peace. But having said that, no matter what is done, the middle east will always be a war zone, always has been........ for thousands of years in fact, do you honestly believe bombing in Syria will solve it, I know it won't. Only thing that will stop the wars in the middle east is to turn it to glass via the A bomb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetSet Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 This'll be an interesting one. I don't think it can be done from the air alone. Not unless they nuke them . Seriously though the only positive thing airstrikes will achieve is to soften them up/demoralize them, Troops will have to go in at some stage, Just like previous wars, you bomb the hell out of them, then send the troops in (WW2, Kosovo, Kuwait, etc). Doing nothing isn't an option with this bunch of perverted scumbags. Pete 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Whether or not we can actually defeat ISIS by air strikes alone is a bigger question (I sincerely doubt it), but I cannot see how bombing the shite out of them can do anything other than hurt them and help us. We spent a fortune developing all this tech that lets us kill the bad guys from a distance, so what's the point if we're never going to use it? We're already doing it in Iraq where it makes a little bit of difference, so why on earth would we not do it in Syria? Do the airstrikes, then send the lads in from all the countries engaged in warfare and do the job properly. If it takes ten years, so be it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stutopia Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 If stage 2 is ground based, it makes sense. If stage 2 is get bored and give up, all we're doing in the meantime is feeding their propaganda machine, whilst the really dangerous people (to us) are already running around mad as lorries inside Europe 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieran O'Quick Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 The Prime Minister is obviously trying to change the government of Syria. His last attempt to justify this was based around chemical weapons scares but it got voted down by parliament. Two years later he's trying a new angle. ISIL need to be destroyed he says. Even though he supported them previously. According to the Prime Minister it's worth bombing because we can then coordinate the 70,000 strong local army to finish the job. Presumably this army will then be backed to fight against the Syrian government and Russia. Somebody please tell me why the change of government in Syria is so important to our government? What's the angle? I don't believe the altruistic, saving people from barrel-bombing line they're all on message with. If that was true we'd have a peace keeping force in Yemen. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snjur Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 http://oil-price.net/en/articles/oil-prices-and-syrian-civil-war.php Sent from my SM-G850F using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snjur Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Someone is benefiting from this situation in Middle East. If you look unit 9/11 there was not much news from that side of the globe. They where keeping to them self there was no terrorism on glabal scale. Someone ignited this barrel of oil for their own interest. Sent from my SM-G850F using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nissanman312 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 I just don't know any more. its madness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted December 1, 2015 Author Share Posted December 1, 2015 The Prime Minister is obviously trying to change the government of Syria. His last attempt to justify this was based around chemical weapons scares but it got voted down by parliament. Two years later he's trying a new angle. ISIL need to be destroyed he says. Even though he supported them previously. According to the Prime Minister it's worth bombing because we can then coordinate the 70,000 strong local army to finish the job. Presumably this army will then be backed to fight against the Syrian government and Russia. Somebody please tell me why the change of government in Syria is so important to our government? What's the angle? I don't believe the altruistic, saving people from barrel-bombing line they're all on message with. If that was true we'd have a peace keeping force in Yemen. With so many other countries already carrying out air strikes I am not so sure its an agenda just with our pm and the Uk. What with Iraq and all the hype with weapons of mass destruction scandal are we now dubious of "motives", has the Afghan conflict soured us to the actual point and effectiveness of "war". Personally had we gone into Afghan and smashed the Taliban out of park we as a population would be more positive of results and has the Afghan conflict also sent a message to Isis and others that us being involved wont end up in their impending extinction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock_Steady Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 We bomb the crap out of Syria we kill ISIS/ISIL. Somebody else comes along and takes their place. We bomb the crap out them. We Kill them. Somebody else comes along and takes their place. We bomb the crap out of them.......and so on and so fourth. With an under paid military who risk their lives for a pittance and for what? A nation that is semi saved and semi hates us. It just a big mess with no answer. We're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't IMO. For them it's a holy war for us it's not. It'll always be a holy war to them and there will always be some nut who'll translate our actions as anti-Islamic rather than anti-terrorist. It's a no win situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Someone is benefiting from this situation in Middle East. If you look unit 9/11 there was not much news from that side of the globe. They where keeping to them self there was no terrorism on glabal scale. Someone ignited this barrel of oil for their own interest. Ignoring that the website is horrendously biased in its editorial, the list of facts on this this page demonstrate that there were many attacks on the US prior to 9/11: Clicky The trouble is you're trying to rationalise with the irrational. It's like arguing with a 3 year old as to why they can't eat the shampoo just 'cos it's a pretty colour, completely pointless. There is no sitting around the negotiating table, or sending a peace envoy. At this point, there is simply a them or us, and that's how it is. We cannot live in peace with these people, it's just never going to work so eradication is the only route. Let's not forget that we're talking about this purely for our own selfish needs of not wanting to be a terrorist target: There's thousands of Muslims being killed every day by ISIS, simply because they want to live a normal Islamic life rather than the strict one ISIS want. We have a moral duty to help them as much as anything else. It was just two weeks ago we all stood here and said that we stand with France as an ally, and that these people must never be allowed to win. Are we that terrified of reprisals that we're now going to sit back and assume that we'll be fine because we're not going to bomb them? I hope we're not. Will it keep happening again in the future as a cycle of violence? Perhaps. Until the world matures enough to stop believing in magical sky fairies then there will always be tension, but until then we can only defeat what is in front of us. ISIS are a bigger problem right now than the actual Syrian government, so let's sort one problem out before we get involved in that one. Folks seem to forget the scenes of delight when Allied soldiers cleared towns in Iraq and Afghanistan of Saddam and Taliban forces, the look of joy in the face of the people who were genuinely happy to be free from their rule. There's still many, many people in those areas that feel that way, and are glad that they have a chance to actually live in something other than fear today. All this tinfoil nonsense about war and oil and people doing it for the money has got to stop. Of course someone is going to profit from it at some level, that's how life works! Ultimately it's a politician's choice, and politicians as a rule love power. The only way they can stay in power is by doing things that make people want to vote for them, so they're not going to do anything that makes them less popular unless they absolutely have to. A politician with no power is just a man, after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snjur Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 (edited) Truth can not be seen form mainstream media. I assume people are much more happy now in Iraq, Libya and Syria under so called new democracy that was implemented to them. Well if it isn't because of oil and all why it never occured for democracy leader to start implementing democracy in Saudi by all means this is also a one big tyrant rulling country with people having no rights specially women. Arab spring was started in Bahrein also but was very shortly turned out withou any media coverage and police together with aramy was sent on streets. Turkey also a country on verge of EU doors with curent PM on power is a fine piece of "democracy" but no one is sticking their nose there. Libya was awarden by human right award just a year b4 all hell broke loose there. What happened in 1 year of time that can trigger that. Not maybe that 20 year of explanation of oil was coming to a deadline where it needed to be paid. Syria and Libya didnt have a dime of credit to world monetary bank. I dont know for you but i have been in most of this countries due to my job. To understand that you needed to understand their culture. And because of people interfering in name of democracy there will be no peace there during our life time. Everybody has right to their own opinion. Mine is not base on mainstream media Sent from my SM-G850F using Tapatalk Edited December 1, 2015 by Snjur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The G Man Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 It would be interesting to know from those that advocate bombing another sovereign nation and, especially those that advocate 'stage 2' (WTF!) which of you have actually been a 'boot' on the ground, I have. I don't come on here a lot, lots of reasons, but if I could offer my thoughts: Irn Bru, Snjr and Rock_Steady get it. Let's deal with the air strikes. Anyone think seriously that by bombing some sh1thole of a desert that a Paris style bombing will not take place anywhere in Europe? As far as I'm aware, most of those terrorists were indigenous, as were all of the 7/7 terrorists that murdered those poor souls in London. Bombing someone 2000 miles away isn't going to stop this, better control of borders might mitigate against it. But there's something else that, call me radical, can be tried. Read on...... Iraq and Afghanistan, instead of raising those countries to the ground and going in to kill everyone that looks like a terrorist or Taliban or Al Qaida or ISIS or whatever they're called, how about making their lot much better. We, as in the UK, spent @ £100 billion in 'fighting' phoney wars in these two countries, mostly spent on building infrastructure to support the military effort. While some infra was needed, it was needed more to improve the lives of those people whose country we intervened in, just to affect regime change (shock!, we were lied to). How about spending the said £100 billion on roads, sewage systems (Kabul is the only Capitol city that I know of that has no sewerage system! ), education, hospitals, power plants (I have mates that were involved with getting Kajaki up and running). If a people are more contented, then they might not look to their western neighbours with envy and jealousy, that will drive fundamentalism. It's not all that simple, but if we put the same hard work and effort into that, maybe we wouldn't be in such a mess (we'll always be in a mess in the Middle East until the Palestinian/Israeli problem is dealt with effectively). OK, the 'Stage 2' 'fans': Ground War!! Firstly, we haven't the political stomach for the casualties that would ensue, you have to ask yourself, Mrs Smiths son, who stays up the road and he's in the Army/Navy/RAF (all tri service cap badges were on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan), gets killed by an IED, should we then expose Mrs Browns son to the same, to satisfy 'our' need for a bit of 'face saving' and to show that we're doing 'something'. The reality is, we go into battle carrying up to 20kg of body armour, that's not including the ancils, ammunition, a weapon system (usually multiple systems), Valons, ECM and all this is before you include food, water or something to keep you warm/dry (yes it is wet and cold in the desert sometimes) or use as a bed, all this in 50 degC. Of course we have vehicles, many, many different types, to transport troops to the 'action', but sooner or later we have to dismount to engage. Two or three well placed IED's can hold up a division, never mind a brigade. So ask yourself, would I put myself in their sons/daughters, brothers/sisters, father/mothers position? If the answer is truly yes, hey join up, put your boots where your mouth is. I haven't even touched on the civilian casualties that such advocacy would bring. We have several great charities that help disabled servicemen/women, you'll find it difficult, but go try and find out how many disabled service people came back from Iraq/Afghanistan, that's another consideration. Apparently, we've no money in this country, for what's needed in THIS country, but we can find billions for what's NOT needed in other countries. Spend it on home security, not sabre rattling. There's lots of other gems of experience I have, that I couldn't share here. In summary, IMO, stay well clear. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 (edited) @Snjur: So we just sit back and let sh*t sort itself out? Is that your solution? Edit due to GMan posting a fraction before me. Edited December 1, 2015 by Ekona Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 So ask yourself, would I put myself in their sons/daughters, brothers/sisters, father/mothers position? If the answer is truly yes, hey join up, put your boots where your mouth is. Isn't that like saying if you wouldn't clear a blocked toilet yourself, don't expect a plumber to do it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The G Man Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 So ask yourself, would I put myself in their sons/daughters, brothers/sisters, father/mothers position? If the answer is truly yes, hey join up, put your boots where your mouth is. Isn't that like saying if you wouldn't clear a blocked toilet yourself, don't expect a plumber to do it? No, plumbers don't die clearing a toilet as far as I'm aware, soldiers do die, that I'm only too aware of. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Well, that's cleared that up. Phew, and there was me thinking I was at imminent risk of death changing a syphon this morning! You know what I mean, you're not that silly. People have a choice to joined the armed forces, and I'm pretty sure no-one joins up thinking it'll be a lovely experience sat in a nice warm office all day with coffee on tap. At least, I'm hoping none of them do. Would I ever join up? God no, I'd be an awful soldier. But then I guess some soldiers would also rather do their job than be a plumber, so swings and roundabouts. What I'm getting at is that saying people should boot their boots where their mouth is is a daft argument. Your other points are valid and well thought out, but that just doesn't hold up. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The G Man Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 It was done said to make people think twice about putting others in danger, before they would put themselves in danger, that's all. Oh there are soldiers who are plumbers . Trained by the Army Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mouthwash Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 G Man on his 'I've been in the Army' High Horse again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grundy Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Wait, so being on the brink of ww3, due to a radical terrorist group royally ****ing up the world left right and centre isn't a reason for sending the military in - because 'there might be casualties' on our side? So what reason should we have to use the military? Hand out parking fines? assist police pick pocketing crimes? As these seem a lot less life threatening than defending a country. If your point is don't send in the army due to casualties, then what is the point in having an army? As Dan said, people sign up knowing full well what they are getting into. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 I know, but that's the point: They're soldiers first. In all honesty, I would hope that when decisions are made for military reasons they don't actually think too much of the danger that they're putting the troops in. As long as the end result is worth it, then the cost is just the cost. 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.