the UK has voted in favour of Syrian air strikes.

a reply to: andy06shake

Would you have been saying all the same stuff just before ww2?.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: stumason

Do you really think our ordinance has the ability to distinguish the difference between who is innocent and who is a legitimate target?

Using Brimstone's in conjunction with the Raptor pods and the ROE the RAF uses, yes, for the most part. But this is War and people will get killed who won't be the target. You seem to be under the impression we're just lobbing 2,000lb bombs into the middle of markets, which is just absurd. Even the bombs we dropped on the refineries last night were only 500Lbers. If you genuinely expect me to believe that women and children are just sat about an Oil refinery, you're having a laugh. And if they are, well, that's their own tough luck, I'm afraid.

originally posted by: andy06shake
Innocent woman and children will indeed perish down to the weapons we unleash. Thats pretty much a given. It may indeed be part of war but if you ask me it does not make it any more palatable.

No, it isn't. But what is the alternative? Talk them to death? Send a strongly worded letter? Give Quiche a chance?

originally posted by: andy06shake
The fact that our first target were indeed oil fields speaks volumes if you ask me.

How so? I've already explained the rationale. One the one hand, you're bitching and whining like a hippy who stood on an ant about "civilian" casualties yet also bemoan the fact we've gone after infrastructure targets, where no women and children were killed, that directly finance these bastards?

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: andy06shake

Would you have been saying all the same stuff just before ww2?.

I do wonder....

He says we "never learn from history", yet provide an actual historical example of how well appeasement works and he ignores it.

Ironic...

a reply to: boymonkey74

I have no idea how many will perish under ISIS rule, what i do know is that people will perish down to our intervention and our bombing campaign will solve nothing.

Do i think i would what if we do nothing?

a reply to: andy06shake

Well, we already know what happens under IS rule. Just look at the mass graves being found in that Yizidi town recently taken back...

But no, let's just leave them to it...

And, in 10 years time when they've taken over the ME, what then?

a reply to: andy06shake

If we do nothing you have a massive area under isis for maybe decades.
You want to do nothing?. Leave them be?.

a reply to: stumason

Nothing that we are doing regarding the situation is rational Stu. Our nation is simply once again jumping on the warmongering band wagon. Time will tell!

And on that note, i bid you all a good afternoon, im afraid i have stuff to do.

As far as I can see, innocent women and children are already suffering in Daesh controlled territory. I've lost count of the number of slave I've read about who have killed themselves rather than continue their awful existence there.

As long as the bombing doesn't turn into an anti Assad thing, then I don't have a problem with it.

originally posted by: andy06shake

As to public opinion being split, this is certainly not the case regarding anyone i interact with.

As the saying goes .... Birds of a feather flock together

I am 100% against this.

Its just more of Britain desperately trying to prove we are still a world power, holding on to a long gone time when Britannia ruled the sea's. Its actually really quite sad.

There is zero benefit I can see to the UK getting involved in this, other nations are now hitting ISIS in Syria there is no reason that the UK also has to get involved when this is only going to paint a bigger target over London in the sights of ISIS.

Its sickening that this government is going to spend millions upon millions in this new campaign when they are making cuts to the NHS, police, social welfare and so on.

a reply to: SprocketUK

I don't think it will, now. I think it is accepted that Assad will be around for a while and the focus is on IS - once they're taken care of then I think the focus will be then on getting the moderates and Assad sat down together for a comprehensive peace deal. You just can't have one right now with this group controlling half of Syria and Iraq.

There is no justification for bombing Assad and there is no legal permission to do so, either from Parliament or the UN. We've missed that boat with the Russians on board with them properly now.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with leaving Assad in place to help with a transition once IS is taken care of. He is a brutal monster himself, but better the devil you know and at least he is willing to sit down and negotiate.

Just incase anyone missed it, here's the full speech by Hillary Benn.
Speech

For those that don't know, he is a traditional left winger, born of a father who lived and breathed socialism His dad was born into the nobility, but renounced his title).

He makes a very good case for bombing and gives the lie to those who think that just because they are labour members, that they should oppose air strikes.

I think this is the first sign of the next labour leader.


Stumason, I agree with you there. He (Assad) is definitely the lesser of those evils.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
I am 100% against this.

Its just more of Britain desperately trying to prove we are still a world power, holding on to a long gone time when Britannia ruled the sea's. Its actually really quite sad.

There is zero benefit I can see to the UK getting involved in this, other nations are now hitting ISIS in Syria there is no reason that the UK also has to get involved when this is only going to paint a bigger target over London in the sights of ISIS.

If we don't support our allies, how can we expect them to support us

when we need them?

Its sickening that this government is going to spend millions upon millions in this new campaign when they are making cuts to the NHS, police, social welfare and so on.

We wont need any of those (NHS, police, welfare etc.) when ISIS gets here!

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
I am 100% against this.

Its just more of Britain desperately trying to prove we are still a world power, holding on to a long gone time when Britannia ruled the sea's. Its actually really quite sad.

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant, Britain IS a World Power. In an equidistant war, the UK could take on and defeat China simply down to our ability to project power and the systems we have available. Only wishy-washy lefties ever go on about Britain being a "has been" and that is usually said from a position of ignorance.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
There is zero benefit I can see to the UK getting involved in this, other nations are now hitting ISIS in Syria there is no reason that the UK also has to get involved when this is only going to paint a bigger target over London in the sights of ISIS.

Oh, so that's how it works is it? We won't bother to act to defend ourselves, our allies or our interests because someone else will do it? Jeebus....

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Its sickening that this government is going to spend millions upon millions in this new campaign when they are making cuts to the NHS, police, social welfare and so on.

And even with increased Defence spending, it pales in significance to the amount spent on Social Welfare, the NHS and the Police. (£45 Billion on Defence compared to £134 Billion for the NHS, £14 Billion on Police/Courts/Prisons and £207 Billion on Social Welfare - total: £355 Billion )

By the way, there are no cuts with the NHS - spending has risen year on year.

a reply to: Dwoodward85

It is a pointless debate if you're not willing to put your own plan across instead of just poo pooing everyone else's.

You're just about the only one pointlessly debating the Main stream news, military and official government position here.

"Everyone else" has had enough of that ISIS crisis so bomb Syria so Assad will go delusional line of BS.

originally posted by: intrptr
"Everyone else" has had enough of that ISIS crisis so bomb Syria so Assad will go delusional line of BS.

You're the delusional one - no one is bombing Syria to get rid of Assad.

And considering your a staunch Pro-Putin lover, what say you to Russia flattening large parts of Syria - and not even targetting IS for the most part? Oh, we know the answer already, don't we? You're wholly in support of it, as evidenced by your posting in those threads.

Hypocrite.

Here was me thinking us brits stand up for whats is right and our need to help others.
Good job these attitudes in this thread were not a majority during ww2.

a reply to: stumason

Oh, so that's how it works is it? We won't bother to act to defend ourselves, our allies or our interests because someone else will do it? Jeebus….

No actually the real problem is that argument is used to attack other countries (like Syria) who haven't attacked you, your allies or anyone else for that matter.

The lies generated in the name of "interests" are cover for conquest to dominate and control whole nations and their peoples for no justifiable reason whatsoever.

Thats why you have to make up these "causes" to invade other countries. "Defense", "Allies" and "Interests".

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: andy06shake

How many will perish under ISIS rule?.
Do you think you would if we do nothing?.

LOL. Been military pounding toyota pick up trucks in the desert for over a year, if we can't defeat a rag tag army like that, might as well just give up…

The Road to Basrah was a one night stand. Do go on about "ISIS ruling the world".

a reply to: intrptr

Newsflash - no one is attacking "Syria". Assad has been left entirely untouched by UK (and Western) aircraft. No one is "conquering" anyone, or trying to control anyone. In fact, the West took little interest in the Syrian War until floods of refugees and psycho Islamists started arriving.

What point are you so badly trying to make? You need to stop watching RT - it's rotting your brain.