[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33358267[/url]
[quote]The defence secretary has paved the way for air strikes on Islamic State targets in Syria, saying the terrorists needed to be targeted "at source".
But Michael Fallon said no action would be taken without a Commons vote and a "consensus" among MPs.
The UK does not need the backing of MPs to launch raids but Mr Fallon has said they will have the final say.
Labour has indicated it would not block military action in Syria as it did in 2013.[/quote]
FYI Britain currently only conducts air strikes in Iraq, which is something I had forgotten
What does Britain gain from this? (Not making a point, actually asking) I find it hard to believe that it'd be a response to the Tunisia attacks.
They haven't already? I'm surprised.
[QUOTE=Baron von Hax;48102443]What does Britain gain from this? (Not making a point, actually asking) I find it hard to believe that it'd be a response to the Tunisia attacks.[/QUOTE]
I am guessing its a safety thing, the attack in Tunisia probably will not be the last ISIS (or at least inspired) attack.
[QUOTE=Baron von Hax;48102443]What does Britain gain from this? (Not making a point, actually asking) I find it hard to believe that it'd be a response to the Tunisia attacks.[/QUOTE]
The government has probably wanted to bomb them in Syria for a while now, but wanted to make sure that they'd actually win the vote this time after the embarrassment in 2013 when MPs refused to back strikes against Assad.
After Sousse I think there's a feeling that it's time to try again and that it would probably pass now.
[QUOTE=download;48102485]They haven't already? I'm surprised.[/QUOTE]
The UK govt tried to go for the "Assad is evil, the people attacking him need our help" route. A few years ago they tried (and failed due to a vote in parliament) to actually support what has become ISIS with air strikes..
[QUOTE=Jsm;48102495]The UK govt tried to go for the "Assad is evil, the people attacking him need our help" route. A few years ago they tried (and failed due to a vote in parliament) to actually support what has become ISIS with air strikes..[/QUOTE]
I highly suspect some point down the line once ISIS starts to decline, the bombing missions will start to target Assad forces, Cameron has been aching for it since he failed last time.
Surely bombing targets in Syria will just rile up the terrorists even more.
[QUOTE=Baron von Hax;48102443]What does Britain gain from this? (Not making a point, actually asking) I find it hard to believe that it'd be a response to the Tunisia attacks.[/QUOTE]
David Cameron gets another go at being a hero.
[editline]2nd July 2015[/editline]
We should definitely get involved in the Middle East again. It worked out so great the last time(s).
[QUOTE=lazyguy;48102642]David Cameron gets another go at being a hero.
[editline]2nd July 2015[/editline]
We should definitely get involved in the Middle East again. It worked out so great the last time(s).[/QUOTE]
I think Libya is a better case study for comparison than Iraq. Iraq we tried the whole stay there and throw money at making it better. Libya was just in and out and leave them to sort themselves out. In both cases it was a tragedy.
Finally
Also can we now start sending more than four clapped-out tornadoes?
[editline]2nd July 2015[/editline]
And actual JTAC parties to make actual effective use of those aircraft would be nice
[QUOTE=Mallow234;48102726]Finally
Also can we now start sending more than four clapped-out tornadoes?[/QUOTE]
Yeah sure, lets spend more millions on fuel, bombs and paper work. Definitely the best way to spend our taxes.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;48102748]Yeah sure, lets spend more millions on fuel, bombs and paper work. Definitely the best way to spend our taxes.[/QUOTE]
You think it's a waste of money to save lives by destroying those who would take them?
You think it'd be a waste of money to prevent ethnic cleansing?
You think it'd be a waste of money to prevent heinous crimes?
[QUOTE=Mallow234;48102849]You think it's a waste of money to save lives by destroying those who would take them?
You think it'd be a waste of money to prevent ethnic cleansing?
You think it'd be a waste of money to prevent heinous crimes?[/QUOTE]
Cute.
Civilian casualties from drone strikes in pakistan
[url]http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan[/url]
[quote]It is stated in a Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) report that of all the drone attack victims since 2004, more than 76% of the dead fall in the legal grey zone, 22% are confirmed civilians (included 5% minors) and only the remaining 1.5% are high-profile targets.[44] A classified Pakistani government report obtained in July 2013 by the BIJ shows details of 75 drone strikes that occurred between 2006-09. According to the 12-page report, in this period alone, 176 of the 746 reported dead were civilians, with a further 200 regarded as probable non-combatants.[45][/quote]
22% confirmed civilian with 76% being possible civilians/not confirmed identity.
Children dead from US strikes in Syria [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-32840132[/url]
52 dead from US strikes in Syria [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-to-investigate-deaths-of-52-civilians-in-airstrikes-carried-out-against-isis-in-syria-10222183.html[/url]
We get the impression that air strikes are somehow clean and without collateral damage. We're told smart bombs and targeting stops civilians dying. Its bullshit. And when some kid sees their entire family blown up by the US/UK they'll grow up remember "it was the US/UK who killed my family" not ISIS. Also lots of the civilians in the area fear the other rebels or assad or the iraqi government more than they fear isis. There's been reports of shia militias, kurd forces, assad forces, iraqi forces carrying out atrocities on the sunnis.
If you're serious about "stopping genocide" you'd support boots on the ground. Gaining and holding ground, rather than bombing ground, enemies retreat and either the ruins of the town are left empty or the enemy move back in the next day. Boots on the ground might also stop our allies from messing up the sunnis, whom many blame for supporting ISIS/being sunni/being in ISIS occupied territory.
Ps I don't support boots on the ground unless it was done VERY differently from Iraq.
A few airstrikes won't make much difference and will just waste money. It's a political gesture.
Help one group, mess up the other. Picking one side means you are also picking a side to go against.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;48102942]Cute.
Civilian casualties from drone strikes in pakistan
[url]http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan[/url]
22% confirmed civilian with 76% being possible civilians/not confirmed identity.
Children dead from US strikes in Syria [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-32840132[/url]
52 dead from US strikes in Syria [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-to-investigate-deaths-of-52-civilians-in-airstrikes-carried-out-against-isis-in-syria-10222183.html[/url]
We get the impression that air strikes are somehow clean and without collateral damage. We're told smart bombs and targeting stops civilians dying. Its bullshit. And when some kid sees their entire family blown up by the US/UK they'll grow up remember "it was the US/UK who killed my family" not ISIS. Also lots of the civilians in the area fear the other rebels or assad or the iraqi government more than they fear isis. There's been reports of shia militias, kurd forces, assad forces, iraqi forces carrying out atrocities on the sunnis.
If you're serious about "stopping genocide" you'd support boots on the ground. Gaining and holding ground, rather than bombing ground, enemies retreat and either the ruins of the town are left empty or the enemy move back in the next day. Boots on the ground might also stop our allies from messing up the sunnis, whom many blame for supporting ISIS/being sunni/being in ISIS occupied territory.
Ps I don't support boots on the ground unless it was done VERY differently from Iraq.
A few airstrikes won't make much difference and will just waste money. It's a political gesture.
Help one group, mess up the other. Picking one side means you are also picking a side to go against.[/QUOTE]
God I get tired of hearing this crap. Comparing accidental civilian casualties as a result of targeted bombing missions to the slaughter of thousands of people as a deliberate act is the height of stupidity.
I'd support boots on the ground - ISIS are a cancer that must be destroyed.
Just fucking bomb them already.
Not sure how I feel about it
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
