FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Syria Airstrikes

Syria Airstrikes

Jump to: Newest in thread

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Cameron putting the case for UK Airstrikes to Parliament now.

The Government case is clear - but do you agree?

Keep it balanced please and refrain from abuse..

Me? I think we need to stand up and fight ISIS. But of course it's not me going to war

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Corbyn asked 7 very valid and measured questions, but I think Cameron has answered them all very well.

Well worth reading the full statement and Q&As

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *obbytupperMan over a year ago

Menston near Ilkley

The world needs to combine to defeat the murderous cult of I.S. Otherwise they will destroy any freedoms we enjoy.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Corbyn asked 7 very valid and measured questions, but I think Cameron has answered them all very well.

Well worth reading the full statement and Q&As "

Say one thing about Dangerous Dave he can field a question eloquently. Didn't need any props either.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Cameron putting the case for UK Airstrikes to Parliament now.

The Government case is clear - but do you agree?

Keep it balanced please and refrain from abuse..

Me? I think we need to stand up and fight ISIS. But of course it's not me going to war"

i hate the thought of it but they have to be stopped

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

Its a symbolic gesture, the involvement of our limited contribution is more political than militarily effective given that the US have been launching 2 sorties an hour for 15 months albeit not all will have used their ordnance..

said over a year ago that a global task force involving ground troops, maybe under the UN/Arab league involving other nations etc is the only way to destroy and remove them from Syria and Iraq though they will still be a threat..

post that a political solution in the region is needed but that may well be the hardest to achieve..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *dwalu2Couple over a year ago

Bristol

"Corbyn asked 7 very valid and measured questions, but I think Cameron has answered them all very well.

Well worth reading the full statement and Q&As

Say one thing about Dangerous Dave he can field a question eloquently. Didn't need any props either. "

Unlike last week, when George Osborne had to whisper them in his ear.

Dave must have been practising all week!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

Bombing something (terrorists/towns/wedding parties/some mountain/mountain goats) looks GREAT in the news - WE'RE DOING SOMETHING, DAMMIT!

But, as any ful kno, to win a war you must have boots on the ground.

Any volunteers?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

All that scares me is what's the retaliation going to be like??

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"All that scares me is what's the retaliation going to be like?? "

Such as...?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Cameron putting the case for UK Airstrikes to Parliament now.

The Government case is clear - but do you agree?

Keep it balanced please and refrain from abuse..

Me? I think we need to stand up and fight ISIS. But of course it's not me going to war"

Go for it! I'll get some overtime in then!!! Xx

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *dwalu2Couple over a year ago

Bristol

"All that scares me is what's the retaliation going to be like?? "

Not bothered about the innocent civilians who are going to be killed?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Tbh even if we don't agree to any of it, it will happen

A very complicated situation again

After being in many war zones on a humanitarian role I am packing already

Monkey x

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Cameron putting the case for UK Airstrikes to Parliament now.

The Government case is clear - but do you agree?

Keep it balanced please and refrain from abuse..

Me? I think we need to stand up and fight ISIS. But of course it's not me going to war

Go for it! I'll get some overtime in then!!! Xx"

Been involved in two wars...whats another one.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" Such as...? "

Something like what happened in France or 7/7 in london?

"All that scares me is what's the retaliation going to be like??

Not bothered about the innocent civilians who are going to be killed?"

Well yes of cause, but what about the innocents that could be harmed in the reliation?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I personally think it's very sad that we haven't learned that violence and war is not going to solve this particular problem.

There was a great article in the Gaurdian by a former prisoner of Isis arguing that violence is exactly what they want. Its worth a read.

-Courtney

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *dwalu2Couple over a year ago

Bristol

" Such as...?

Something like what happened in France or 7/7 in london?

All that scares me is what's the retaliation going to be like??

Not bothered about the innocent civilians who are going to be killed?

Well yes of cause, but what about the innocents that could be harmed in the reliation?"

They are unquantifiable, and there may not be any.

On the other hand, innocent civilians will definitely be killed in bombing raids.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

As a parody..You have to break an egg or two to make an omlette..inevitably, there will be some civilian casualties,, these however, must be kept to a minimum.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iverpool LoverMan over a year ago

liverpool

"As a parody..You have to break an egg or two to make an omlette..inevitably, there will be some civilian casualties,, these however, must be kept to a minimum."

even one innocent cilvilian life lost is one too many.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" Such as...?

Something like what happened in France or 7/7 in london?

All that scares me is what's the retaliation going to be like??

Not bothered about the innocent civilians who are going to be killed?

Well yes of cause, but what about the innocents that could be harmed in the reliation?

They are unquantifiable, and there may not be any.

On the other hand, innocent civilians will definitely be killed in bombing raids."

I suppose your right. I honestly don't think it's a good choice to start the raids but as been said before the days of ground troops are numbered plus with the government reduction in funding for the armed forces means they wouldn't be very effective.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"As a parody..You have to break an egg or two to make an omlette..inevitably, there will be some civilian casualties,, these however, must be kept to a minimum."

Right.

I *might* have misunderstood you but what you seem to by saying is that jihadi fucks killing 130 or so is the reason you're sooooo frightened you think it ok for 'us' to bomb the crap out of another country... what did you say...?

'You have to break an egg or two to make an omlette[sic.]...'

*pauses*

If people kill people it's justifiable to kill more people? I just don;t get it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *dwalu2Couple over a year ago

Bristol

"As a parody..You have to break an egg or two to make an omlette..inevitably, there will be some civilian casualties,, these however, must be kept to a minimum."

That will be a real consolation to them, I'm sure.

"You are an egg, so you must be broken. But look at the omelette we made though! It's FUBAR flavour."

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ethnmelvCouple over a year ago

Cardiff

At the moment, and since ISIL started their campaign, many innocent civilians have been tortured, injured and killed.

It is quite clear that airstrikes on their own will not end the conflict, but it might give the forces on the ground (predominantly local muslim) the chance to fight back.

It would be far better for this to be a UN operation - yes it is flawed, but at least it becomes a global attempt to solve it rather than purely Russia & the West.

Ultimately this has to be solved politically, but that will only get closer when the ground was is resolved. ISIL, Al Qaeda and Boko Harem all need to be dealt with.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icky999Man over a year ago

warrington

"As a parody..You have to break an egg or two to make an omlette..inevitably, there will be some civilian casualties,, these however, must be kept to a minimum."

its perfectly justifiable to kill people to save more in the long run.

these challenging you know it. they also know people are being bombed today.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *anchestercubMan over a year ago

manchester & NI

Any innocent civilians killed are as innocent as the people in Paris were.

The thousands of innocent Iraqis who were killed show that some people are considered more dispensable than others.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I wonder how soon Dangerous Dave can get his new rapid reaction "SCOUT" brigades formed and kitted out with hardware.

No coincidence they were broached yesterday. Prepare for mission creep.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *dwalu2Couple over a year ago

Bristol

"As a parody..You have to break an egg or two to make an omlette..inevitably, there will be some civilian casualties,, these however, must be kept to a minimum.

its perfectly justifiable to kill people to save more in the long run.

these challenging you know it. they also know people are being bombed today.

14 years of bombing in the Middle East have proved that more won't be saved in the long run.

The fact is that thousands more innocents will die than ever be 'saved'.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icky999Man over a year ago

warrington

"At the moment, and since ISIL started their campaign, many innocent civilians have been tortured, injured and killed.

It is quite clear that airstrikes on their own will not end the conflict, but it might give the forces on the ground (predominantly local muslim) the chance to fight back.

It would be far better for this to be a UN operation - yes it is flawed, but at least it becomes a global attempt to solve it rather than purely Russia & the West.

Ultimately this has to be solved politically, but that will only get closer when the ground was is resolved. ISIL, Al Qaeda and Boko Harem all need to be dealt with."

is it that clear? isis are retreating on all fronts and resorting to last ditch terrorist attacks.

iraq, hezbola and assad have half a nillion troops. thats a miiiiiillion boots.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"Ultimately this has to be solved politically, but that will only get closer when the ground was is resolved. ISIL, Al Qaeda and Boko Harem all need to be dealt with."

Ah yes. Boko Haram.

There's a group we tend to forget about as they're contained within some of the browner parts of the world and do not attack nasty Westerners (much).

However, in 2014 their actions led to the deaths of 6,347 civilians in Nigeria and Central African Republic (CAR) and South Sudan rose by 30% last year to 13,508 deaths.

But they stay well away from Paris night clubs so lets not worry about them too much.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"As a parody..You have to break an egg or two to make an omlette..inevitably, there will be some civilian casualties,, these however, must be kept to a minimum.

its perfectly justifiable to kill people to save more in the long run.

these challenging you know it. they also know people are being bombed today.

14 years of bombing in the Middle East have proved that more won't be saved in the long run.

The fact is that thousands more innocents will die than ever be 'saved'."

Should have bought shares in arms manufacturers, luv

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"At the moment, and since ISIL started their campaign, many innocent civilians have been tortured, injured and killed.

It is quite clear that airstrikes on their own will not end the conflict, but it might give the forces on the ground (predominantly local muslim) the chance to fight back.

It would be far better for this to be a UN operation - yes it is flawed, but at least it becomes a global attempt to solve it rather than purely Russia & the West.

Ultimately this has to be solved politically, but that will only get closer when the ground was is resolved. ISIL, Al Qaeda and Boko Harem all need to be dealt with.

is it that clear? isis are retreating on all fronts and resorting to last ditch terrorist attacks.

iraq, hezbola and assad have half a nillion troops. thats a miiiiiillion boots. "

You seem like a good strong, patriotic sorta fella - ever consider joining up ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"As a parody..You have to break an egg or two to make an omlette..inevitably, there will be some civilian casualties,, these however, must be kept to a minimum.

even one innocent cilvilian life lost is one too many.

Yes. And I agree with you.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *imply_SensualMan over a year ago

warrington

As a country, we have already been targets, yes those attempts have been foiled by our security services, but it is naive to think they will stop every attempt. For each attempt we foil, more time is given to IS to grow its resources in the UK, either through recruitment or propaganda.

We hear of political attempts, but although the situation in Syria is not repairable, that is a very long term solution, which places more people at risk in the short term.

I would prefer to see something tangible from both western government and the hierarchy in the the rest of the middle east coming to some solution to cut off the resources of IS. They are selling oil to somebody after all -what is happening intuit regard to stifle their income? No cash = less ability to fight.

That is only one strategy to adopt, unfortunately, airstrikes might be another because hand in hand, they will provide the best opportunity of success.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I wonder how soon Dangerous Dave can get his new rapid reaction "SCOUT" brigades formed and kitted out with hardware.

No coincidence they were broached yesterday. Prepare for mission creep. "

We have "mission creep" already. Initially we were dropping food..then we were flying recon flights...then we started combat patrols....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ancs MinxWoman over a year ago

Burnley

Being the mother of a sniper i dread the thought of another war....but not sure if there is another viable alternative...fingers crossed there is!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

there are just two options with isis we kill them or we surender and let the run the world. know which i would go for,

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"As a parody..You have to break an egg or two to make an omlette..inevitably, there will be some civilian casualties,, these however, must be kept to a minimum.

its perfectly justifiable to kill people to save more in the long run.

these challenging you know it. they also know people are being bombed today.

14 years of bombing in the Middle East have proved that more won't be saved in the long run.

The fact is that thousands more innocents will die than ever be 'saved'."

Which is why Dithering Jihadi Dave needs to act now to minimize it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The munitions manufacturers must be already booking their summer holidays.

At $27000 each, smart bombs are quiet expensive.

Boeing can not afford for anyone to run short and will no doubt be stepping up production and profit forecasts.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Being the mother of a sniper i dread the thought of another war....but not sure if there is another viable alternative...fingers crossed there is!"

I hope he/she comes back safe. Though being in much the same business..we do take calculated risks.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *anchestercubMan over a year ago

manchester & NI

"As a parody..You have to break an egg or two to make an omlette..inevitably, there will be some civilian casualties,, these however, must be kept to a minimum.

its perfectly justifiable to kill people to save more in the long run.

these challenging you know it. they also know people are being bombed today.

14 years of bombing in the Middle East have proved that more won't be saved in the long run.

The fact is that thousands more innocents will die than ever be 'saved'.

Which is why Dithering Jihadi Dave needs to act now to minimize it."

Well he has a majority in the Commons, with is party behind him he'll have no problem.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icky999Man over a year ago

warrington

"As a country, we have already been targets, yes those attempts have been foiled by our security services, but it is naive to think they will stop every attempt. For each attempt we foil, more time is given to IS to grow its resources in the UK, either through recruitment or propaganda.

We hear of political attempts, but although the situation in Syria is not repairable, that is a very long term solution, which places more people at risk in the short term.

That is only one strategy to adopt, unfortunately, airstrikes might be another because hand in hand, they will provide the best opportunity of success."

did you know isis had a power plant and weresupplying juice to assad? assad sent his eengineers to work in them.

*pop fact

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *dwalu2Couple over a year ago

Bristol

"there are just two options with isis we kill them or we surender and let the run the world. know which i would go for,"

The third option is of course to leave the people who live in the region to it. That would not result in ISIS running the world, but rather collapsing in on itself.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icky999Man over a year ago

warrington

"Being the mother of a sniper i dread the thought of another war....but not sure if there is another viable alternative...fingers crossed there is!

I hope he/she comes back safe. Though being in much the same business..we do take calculated risks."

back? from where? comments like this set the zeitgeist and even on a forum like this can lead to a yes vote.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ancs MinxWoman over a year ago

Burnley

"Being the mother of a sniper i dread the thought of another war....but not sure if there is another viable alternative...fingers crossed there is!

I hope he/she comes back safe. Though being in much the same business..we do take calculated risks."

yes my son knows the risk......and thanks.......

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"At the moment, and since ISIL started their campaign, many innocent civilians have been tortured, injured and killed.

It is quite clear that airstrikes on their own will not end the conflict, but it might give the forces on the ground (predominantly local muslim) the chance to fight back.

It would be far better for this to be a UN operation - yes it is flawed, but at least it becomes a global attempt to solve it rather than purely Russia & the West.

Ultimately this has to be solved politically, but that will only get closer when the ground was is resolved. ISIL, Al Qaeda and Boko Harem all need to be dealt with.

is it that clear? isis are retreating on all fronts and resorting to last ditch terrorist attacks.

iraq, hezbola and assad have half a nillion troops. thats a miiiiiillion boots.

You seem like a good strong, patriotic sorta fella - ever consider joining up ?

I signed on the line 29 years ago...and still doing it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iverpool LoverMan over a year ago

liverpool

"As a parody..You have to break an egg or two to make an omlette..inevitably, there will be some civilian casualties,, these however, must be kept to a minimum.

its perfectly justifiable to kill people to save more in the long run.

these challenging you know it. they also know people are being bombed today.

so wait ... 3000 deaths in 911 resulted in over 1 million innocent civilians killed in iraq.

your argument is invalid.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The best thing to begin with would be to call these people terrorists. Nothing they do should be associated with the religion they pretend to represent. Put simply they do not and have hijacked it to suit their insane views.

If there is not a vote in favour to stop them, by whatever means, they will simply continue. Coming to a cafe, holiday resort, hotel near you. Perhaps then those against will still remain ambivalent. I hate the idea of all of this but I've not heard any sensible solutions.

We are lucky to be ourselves as 70 yrs ago another mental ideology tried to remove all but the chosen.

Sadly people die but rather the few than the many, harsh as they may sound .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *anchestercubMan over a year ago

manchester & NI

"As a parody..You have to break an egg or two to make an omlette..inevitably, there will be some civilian casualties,, these however, must be kept to a minimum.

its perfectly justifiable to kill people to save more in the long run.

these challenging you know it. they also know people are being bombed today.

so wait ... 3000 deaths in 911 resulted in over 1 million innocent civilians killed in iraq.

your argument is invalid."

If all innocent civilians were considered to have the same value.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icky999Man over a year ago

warrington

"As a parody..You have to break an egg or two to make an omlette..inevitably, there will be some civilian casualties,, these however, must be kept to a minimum.

its perfectly justifiable to kill people to save more in the long run.

these challenging you know it. they also know people are being bombed today.

so wait ... 3000 deaths in 911 resulted in over 1 million innocent civilians killed in iraq.

your argument is invalid."

I think your a bit confused.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I personally think it's very sad that we haven't learned that violence and war is not going to solve this particular problem.

There was a great article in the Gaurdian by a former prisoner of Isis arguing that violence is exactly what they want. Its worth a read.

-Courtney"

Couldn't agree more Courtney.

We need a political solution, and every Western bomb in the region seems to take us further from that.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Isis was created to serve a purpose. Thanks to Russia that purpose won't materialise.

Funny how real journalism has not been able to ask the questions which should be asked.

Why do the "moderate" head cutters have US made manpads?

Why does Turkey offer shelter to islamists and murder Kurds?

Why is Russia the only one taking these jihadis to task?

I've been following this from the start and it is nothing short of mass murder perpetrated by foreign interests to remove Assad and instill some sort of regime who would exploit Syria's position and resources.

And to say killing these jihadis doesn't work...lol. Russia is not restrained by our soft liberal nature and will purge Syria of every throat cutter they can get their hands on.

You just watch these parasites scurry back to Turkey and then onto Europe.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Isis was created to serve a purpose. Thanks to Russia that purpose won't materialise.

Funny how real journalism has not been able to ask the questions which should be asked.

Why do the "moderate" head cutters have US made manpads?

Why does Turkey offer shelter to islamists and murder Kurds?

Why is Russia the only one taking these jihadis to task?

And to say killing these jihadis doesn't work...lol. Russia is not restrained by our soft liberal nature and will purge Syria of every throat cutter they can get their hands on.

You just watch these parasites scurry back to Turkey and then onto Europe.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

I find this situation like the question being asked a complete and utter joke.

There is a protostate called IS, not ISIL or ISIS or Socalled IS. IS is at war with us, it is using propaganda to disaffect and recruit our own people to fight that war and kill us. And for some bullshit reason our politicians have left it expand secure and fortify more than half the territory it controls claiming that we had no right to attack them because they were inside Syria.

The fact is under article 51 of the UN charter we have had the right to attack IS anywhere, and the question that should be getting asked are:

'Why are our government not using our right to self defence to attack IS everywhere?'

And

'What idiot decided to take us into a conflict that we could never win because of the restrictions we were placing on ourselves?'

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I find this situation like the question being asked a complete and utter joke.

The fact is under article 51 of the UN charter we have had the right to attack IS anywhere, and the question that should be getting asked are:

'Why are our government not using our right to self defence to attack IS everywhere?'

And

'What idiot decided to take us into a conflict that we could never win because of the restrictions we were placing on ourselves?'"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inaTitzTV/TS over a year ago

Titz Towers, North Notts

I think bombing ISIS, or whoever the bombs land on, is more about being seen to be tough on terrorism than getting results. I doubt there is much worth bombing that will make a big difference.

I'd rather go for the root causes that fuel the recruitment of people who would cause harm.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"I think bombing ISIS, or whoever the bombs land on, is more about being seen to be tough on terrorism than getting results. I doubt there is much worth bombing that will make a big difference.

I'd rather go for the root causes that fuel the recruitment of people who would cause harm.

I think they're trying to make the rubble bounce :/

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rabness92Man over a year ago

Netherlands

"Cameron putting the case for UK Airstrikes to Parliament now.

The Government case is clear - but do you agree?

Keep it balanced please and refrain from abuse..

Me? I think we need to stand up and fight ISIS. But of course it's not me going to war"

It's hard to defeat them when they'r using British and American weapon X.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Kinda stupid to do it. The West fund them, arm them, train them and bombing them won't do anything at all.

You may kill some, but you'll also make innocent people homeless, dead, loose their family etc, so they either decide to leave the country or due to their hate towards the west decide to join the bad guys whether it be Isis or some other new terrorist group.

It doesnt end.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ophieslutTV/TS over a year ago

Central

Stupid, unless you have an armed protection squad with you at all times.

Expect any stirring of fear to be coupled with increasing liberty violations and someone making some dish from arms.

Recent history shows that we are targeted by IS etc due to our military actions over the last decade or so. Dumb.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eavenNhellCouple over a year ago

carrbrook stalybridge

"Cameron putting the case for UK Airstrikes to Parliament now.

The Government case is clear - but do you agree?

Keep it balanced please and refrain from abuse..

Me? I think we need to stand up and fight ISIS. But of course it's not me going to war

It's hard to defeat them when they'r using British and American weapon X."
isnt this cameron who was stating " the answer does not come from dropping bombs from drones " last year ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ratty_DamselWoman over a year ago

Greater London

Will it act as a recruiting sergant for IS?

This is a war that cannot be won by force, in my humble opinion.

I don't think we should up the ante at the moment however. Diplomacy channels should be kept open and used however distasteful.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ratty_DamselWoman over a year ago

Greater London

Maybe the 'West' should be more careful & less greedy about interferring in affairs that don't concern them.

The list of whom gains financely from these disputes would be an interestibg read to, I bet!

Just a thought.....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

We can arm and train all those fighting against "IS" Then when they are defeated, we can then bomb those we just armed because we fell out with them not doing as we want in their own country.

How can it possibly go wrong !!!!!!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *alandNitaCouple over a year ago

Scunthorpe

"Will it act as a recruiting sergant for IS?

This is a war that cannot be won by force, in my humble opinion.

I don't think we should up the ante at the moment however. Diplomacy channels should be kept open and used however distasteful. "

That's the problem though isn't it.... I personally don't think that adding our own airstrikes to the ongoing campaign will make any difference, but I also can't see any diplomatic solution. The lunatics who are running ISIL don't seem to be wanting to talk. They just want to punish everyone who's not in support of them.

Cal

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oo hotCouple over a year ago

North West

Tha RAF adding more aircraft to the air campaign looking for dwindling targets in Syria, will not achieve the desired results. The bombing justification is that our intelligence services foiled 7 plots last year. Unfortunately those plots were spawned from an ideology, not a country. The Madrid, 9/11 and 7/7 bombers did not have territory, they too were ideologically driven and It is simply impossible to bomb an ideology out of existence.

There are additional factors that will make any kind of successes on the ground extremely difficult because because of the complexities on the ground and the countries who back and oppose the various sides. Some opposition groups are at war with each other as well as with Assad. Other opposition groups are supported and/or targeted by adjoining nations. For example, as we saw this week Turkey overtly supports the Turkman opposition but is doing everything it can to disrupt the Kurdish fighters. Hezbollah and Iran are supporting Assad whom everyone is against and then there are the so called "moderate" opposition who are being supported by the West and being bombed by Russia.

Islamic extremism is a huge problem for the world, but my personal opinion is that the UK should be fighting a "nerd" war against this enemy by taking on and challenging its propaganda electronically. Daesh have more cell phones and Twitter accounts than they have guns and it shows by just how effective is their propaganda. The UK can and should take ownership of this type of battle and work to completely discredit the ideological nonsense that all of these extremist Jihadists broadcast.

Winning that war will save hundreds of thousands of lives across the world.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

"All that scares me is what's the retaliation going to be like?? "

Yeah, it is scary; they may gun down another 100 people in restaurants. Best not to do anything which might get them angry

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *alandNitaCouple over a year ago

Scunthorpe

"All that scares me is what's the retaliation going to be like??

Yeah, it is scary; they may gun down another 100 people in restaurants. Best not to do anything which might get them angry "

Yes.... they're so chilled out at the moment.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"This is a war that cannot be won by force, in my humble opinion.

I don't think we should up the ante at the moment however. Diplomacy channels should be kept open and used however distasteful. "

What absolute tosh!

The ONLY way to win a war is by use of overwhelming force!

I challenge anyone to name a single war any time in history that has been won by diplomacy! Or even to name a single time in history where pacifism or appeasement has worked.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

"This is a war that cannot be won by force, in my humble opinion.

I don't think we should up the ante at the moment however. Diplomacy channels should be kept open and used however distasteful.

What absolute tosh!

The ONLY way to win a war is by use of overwhelming force!

I challenge anyone to name a single war any time in history that has been won by diplomacy! Or even to name a single time in history where pacifism or appeasement has worked."

This one is different

Once we find out the root cause through psychobabble as to what these otherwise peace-loving folk are requesting, everything will be fine

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"This is a war that cannot be won by force, in my humble opinion.

I don't think we should up the ante at the moment however. Diplomacy channels should be kept open and used however distasteful.

What absolute tosh!

The ONLY way to win a war is by use of overwhelming force!

I challenge anyone to name a single war any time in history that has been won by diplomacy! Or even to name a single time in history where pacifism or appeasement has worked."

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have read on here so far. It is impossible to show examples of when diplomacy 100% won out over war because it is counterfactual. However, there are countless examples of war ending through diplomacy. You want one example? The US involvement in Korea.

I can give other examples of diplomacy averting war, as well. One example, some would argue, is the deal reached not to long ago between the US and Iran.

Diplomacy works, sometimes. Violence works, sometimes. The question is what would be best here. I think past experience should, but will not, guide us.

-Courtney

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oo hotCouple over a year ago

North West

"This is a war that cannot be won by force, in my humble opinion.

I don't think we should up the ante at the moment however. Diplomacy channels should be kept open and used however distasteful.

What absolute tosh!

The ONLY way to win a war is by use of overwhelming force!

I challenge anyone to name a single war any time in history that has been won by diplomacy! Or even to name a single time in history where pacifism or appeasement has worked."

How can you win a war against an ideology? It has to be challenged. Killing someone because you find their beliefs distasteful (and of course they are distasteful) will not stop the ideas spreading.

The only way to stop the ideology is to openly challenge the message and to weaken its impact on the outside world.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

"This is a war that cannot be won by force, in my humble opinion.

I don't think we should up the ante at the moment however. Diplomacy channels should be kept open and used however distasteful.

What absolute tosh!

The ONLY way to win a war is by use of overwhelming force!

I challenge anyone to name a single war any time in history that has been won by diplomacy! Or even to name a single time in history where pacifism or appeasement has worked.

How can you win a war against an ideology? It has to be challenged. Killing someone because you find their beliefs distasteful (and of course they are distasteful) will not stop the ideas spreading.

The only way to stop the ideology is to openly challenge the message and to weaken its impact on the outside world. "

What is their message?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"This is a war that cannot be won by force, in my humble opinion.

I don't think we should up the ante at the moment however. Diplomacy channels should be kept open and used however distasteful.

What absolute tosh!

The ONLY way to win a war is by use of overwhelming force!

I challenge anyone to name a single war any time in history that has been won by diplomacy! Or even to name a single time in history where pacifism or appeasement has worked."

Off the top of my head ;

- ww1. Not ended/won by force alone , but a negotiated agreement. Aka diplomacy? Or arguably just surrendering, but there were terms involved. As opposed to marching into Berlin .

- Stalingrad - as above.

- the suez crisis that didn't explode.

- the whole shebang over Cuba and those missiles?

Ireland.

Korea I think

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ust RachelTV/TS over a year ago

Horsham

"The world needs to combine to defeat the murderous cult of I.S. Otherwise they will destroy any freedoms we enjoy.

I agree with you whole heartedly, it makes you think what the next group of terrorist will be like though

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ratty_DamselWoman over a year ago

Greater London

"This is a war that cannot be won by force, in my humble opinion.

I don't think we should up the ante at the moment however. Diplomacy channels should be kept open and used however distasteful.

What absolute tosh!

The ONLY way to win a war is by use of overwhelming force!

I challenge anyone to name a single war any time in history that has been won by diplomacy! Or even to name a single time in history where pacifism or appeasement has worked."

Was NOTHING LEARNT FROM EIRE & the NI conflict....?!

No, of course not.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ratty_DamselWoman over a year ago

Greater London

Beliefs cannot be changed by force.

If the West continue in war-mode, only the undertakers, arms companies, etc win

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *alandNitaCouple over a year ago

Scunthorpe

There are no winners in any war.

There were about 950,000 British soldiers killed in ww1 and over 700,000 killed in ww2. These were wars that "We Won"

Cal.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"There are no winners in any war.

There were about 950,000 British soldiers killed in ww1 and over 700,000 killed in ww2. These were wars that "We Won"

Cal."

* shell manufacturers, munitions and supplies companies, suppliers of uniforms &c &c &-bloody-c.

War is good business.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 26/11/15 21:00:35]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

My naive thought for the day is :

If they come to these shores, strike them down by all possible means

If they are a thousand miles away let someone else sort 'em out

Responsible world citizens always seems to fall to a handful of nations when it comes to armed conflict.

There are just 200 countries on this globe yet it falls to about 5% of them to sort everybody elses shit out.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"This is a war that cannot be won by force, in my humble opinion.

I don't think we should up the ante at the moment however. Diplomacy channels should be kept open and used however distasteful."

I said:

What absolute tosh!

The ONLY way to win a war is by use of overwhelming force!

I challenge anyone to name a single war any time in history that has been won by diplomacy! Or even to name a single time in history where pacifism or appeasement has worked.

"This is one of the most ridiculous things I have read on here so far. It is impossible to show examples of when diplomacy 100% won out over war because it is counterfactual. However, there are countless examples of war ending through diplomacy. You want one example? The US involvement in Korea.

I can give other examples of diplomacy averting war, as well. One example, some would argue, is the deal reached not to long ago between the US and Iran.

Diplomacy works, sometimes. Violence works, sometimes. The question is what would be best here. I think past experience should, but will not, guide us.

-Courtney"

Lets start with Korea, that war is still going on! Korea is the most heavily fortified and militarised border in the world. And every few months the N. Koreans attack and kill someone south of the border, however we only hear about the attacks that are so big they cant be hidden.

As for your comments about Iran they are a total red herring. There has been NO WAR between the USA and Iran.

"Off the top of my head ;

- ww1. Not ended/won by force alone , but a negotiated agreement. Aka diplomacy? Or arguably just surrendering, but there were terms involved. As opposed to marching into Berlin .

- Stalingrad - as above.

- the suez crisis that didn't explode.

- the whole shebang over Cuba and those missiles?

Ireland.

Korea I think "

Really how could anyone quote WW1 as a war that was not ended by force. The simple fact is that WW2 was round 2 of WW1 and would never have happened if WW1 had been prosecuted to the end. The decision to agree to the armistice resulted in a further 50 million + deaths over the next 27 years!

As for your naming Stalingrad and Berlin, they were battles and prove my point. At Stalingrad like Leningrad or Moscow Germany FAILED to bring enough force to bare in order to defeat and knock the USSR out of the war. However the USSR did bring enough force to bare against the Germans in late April early May 45 to finally knock Germany (an already defeated country) out of the war. And just to be clear, the cost of that battle was at least 50,000 Russian troops (buried in 5 mass graves in Treptow), no one counted how many Berliners died in the battle!

As for the Suez crises, we lost! The Egyptians took the Suez canal by force!

And also remember that the Soviets withdrew all their missiles from Cuba BECAUSE the USA deployed and were willing to use ultimate force.

Now as I said, name 1 WAR that has not been won by the use of overwhelming force.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Cameron putting the case for UK Airstrikes to Parliament now.

The Government case is clear - but do you agree?

Keep it balanced please and refrain from abuse..

Me? I think we need to stand up and fight ISIS. But of course it's not me going to war"
Dont you all get it yet

Air strikes and war with the west helps their cause and only makes them stronger....You cannot defeat someone who wants to die in battle with the west.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"There are no winners in any war.

There were about 950,000 British soldiers killed in ww1 and over 700,000 killed in ww2. These were wars that "We Won"

Cal.

* shell manufacturers, munitions and supplies companies, suppliers of uniforms &c &c &-bloody-c.

War is good business. "
Wonder how many tory politicians have their snouts deep in the trough as directors etc in the arms business

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"My naive thought for the day is :

If they come to these shores, strike them down by all possible means

If they are a thousand miles away let someone else sort 'em out

Responsible world citizens always seems to fall to a handful of nations when it comes to armed conflict.

There are just 200 countries on this globe yet it falls to about 5% of them to sort everybody elses shit out. "

Right, now there talks the voice of appeasement...

Wait till the enemy is at the door and then watch your own people die because that is easier than destroying your enemy in their land!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

"My naive thought for the day is :

If they come to these shores, strike them down by all possible means

If they are a thousand miles away let someone else sort 'em out

...

and strike them down before they get a chance to kill some of us. Better still, don't let them come here in the first place

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"You cannot defeat someone who wants to die in battle with the west. "

Actually you can, in fact it is a very simple thing to do.

KILL THEM or THEY WILL KILL US!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

"My naive thought for the day is :

If they come to these shores, strike them down by all possible means

If they are a thousand miles away let someone else sort 'em out

Responsible world citizens always seems to fall to a handful of nations when it comes to armed conflict.

There are just 200 countries on this globe yet it falls to about 5% of them to sort everybody elses shit out.

Right, now there talks the voice of appeasement...

Wait till the enemy is at the door and then watch your own people die because that is easier than destroying your enemy in their land!"

ever thought of taking a turn at speakers corner..?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

"You cannot defeat someone who wants to die in battle with the west.

Actually you can, in fact it is a very simple thing to do.

KILL THEM or THEY WILL KILL US! "

There is another thing we can do. We can sing to them. I don't think it will work but its worth a try

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"You cannot defeat someone who wants to die in battle with the west.

Actually you can, in fact it is a very simple thing to do.

KILL THEM or THEY WILL KILL US!

There is another thing we can do. We can sing to them. I don't think it will work but its worth a try"
What has bombing solved over the years...iraq,Afghanistan etc,it only creates more enemies.

Bomb them bomb them uttered by some bloke with his cock out on a swinging site i recon would only make them laugh...and then grow stronger

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"You cannot defeat someone who wants to die in battle with the west.

Actually you can, in fact it is a very simple thing to do.

KILL THEM or THEY WILL KILL US! "
Why not join up and go in yourself?...its an option if you feel that strongly about it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

"You cannot defeat someone who wants to die in battle with the west.

Actually you can, in fact it is a very simple thing to do.

KILL THEM or THEY WILL KILL US! Why not join up and go in yourself?...its an option if you feel that strongly about it."

armchair field marshals tend not to get off their arses..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

"You cannot defeat someone who wants to die in battle with the west.

Actually you can, in fact it is a very simple thing to do.

KILL THEM or THEY WILL KILL US!

There is another thing we can do. We can sing to them. I don't think it will work but its worth a tryWhat has bombing solved over the years...iraq,Afghanistan etc,it only creates more enemies.

Bomb them bomb them uttered by some bloke with his cock out on a swinging site i recon would only make them laugh...and then grow stronger "

Are you speaking to me???

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I agree 100% with the airstrikes.

100% boots on the ground.

However isis, boko haram,etc..are very much like the hydra.

Cur one head off and two will grow in its place.

Unfortunately this is not the movies and good does not always win.

Fortunately neither does evil.

Depending on which side you are on, as to who is evil and good.

I rather be in a joint coalition of the world's superpowers, than sitting on the fence waiting for something else bad to happen to UK citizens before joining in.

Look people can discuss this till the cows come home.

We are in the targets of isis coalition or not. So rather take it to them than sit and wait.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"This is a war that cannot be won by force, in my humble opinion.

I don't think we should up the ante at the moment however. Diplomacy channels should be kept open and used however distasteful.

I said:

What absolute tosh!

The ONLY way to win a war is by use of overwhelming force!

I challenge anyone to name a single war any time in history that has been won by diplomacy! Or even to name a single time in history where pacifism or appeasement has worked.

I can give other examples of diplomacy averting war, as well. One example, some would argue, is the deal reached not to long ago between the US and Iran.

Diplomacy works, sometimes. Violence works, sometimes. The question is what would be best here. I think past experience should, but will not, guide us.

-Courtney

As for your comments about Iran they are a total red herring. There has been NO WAR between the USA and Iran.

That is news to me about Korea. The last I checked, the USA and China are not at war. The border might be militarized, but a few small incidents now and then is hardly comparable to a major conventional war.

And regarding Iran, THAT WAS MY WHOLE POINT. If diplomacy is ever valuable, then certainly it is in averting war between countries that don't get along well. That was my entire point about it being counterfactual. Diplomacy works when war DOESN'T happen.

And the examples don't stop there. There are plenty of instances where war, or at least escalation, has been averted due to diplomacy.

-Courtney

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"You cannot defeat someone who wants to die in battle with the west.

Actually you can, in fact it is a very simple thing to do.

KILL THEM or THEY WILL KILL US!

There is another thing we can do. We can sing to them. I don't think it will work but its worth a tryWhat has bombing solved over the years...iraq,Afghanistan etc,it only creates more enemies.

Bomb them bomb them uttered by some bloke with his cock out on a swinging site i recon would only make them laugh...and then grow stronger

Are you speaking to me???"
No petal...just generalising

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"You cannot defeat someone who wants to die in battle with the west.

Actually you can, in fact it is a very simple thing to do.

KILL THEM or THEY WILL KILL US! Why not join up and go in yourself?...its an option if you feel that strongly about it.

armchair field marshals tend not to get off their arses..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The munitions manufacturers must be already booking their summer holidays.

At $27000 each, smart bombs are quiet expensive.

Boeing can not afford for anyone to run short and will no doubt be stepping up production and profit forecasts.

Boeing? Err Boeing makes fuck all of its money from munitions

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"There are no winners in any war.

There were about 950,000 British soldiers killed in ww1 and over 700,000 killed in ww2. These were wars that "We Won"

Cal.

* shell manufacturers, munitions and supplies companies, suppliers of uniforms &c &c &-bloody-c.

War is good business. "

It's really not, look at the net profit margins of the companies you are talking about

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

"You cannot defeat someone who wants to die in battle with the west.

Actually you can, in fact it is a very simple thing to do.

KILL THEM or THEY WILL KILL US!

There is another thing we can do. We can sing to them. I don't think it will work but its worth a tryWhat has bombing solved over the years...iraq,Afghanistan etc,it only creates more enemies.

Bomb them bomb them uttered by some bloke with his cock out on a swinging site i recon would only make them laugh...and then grow stronger

Are you speaking to me???No petal...just generalising"

I don't think bombing them or any of the others will help as they are hardly in any position to fire nukes at us. This is not a conventional war; we are not likely to watch the 'ISIS Airforce' in our skies

And I guess that is why they are called terrorists as they are cowards who send idiots with small explosives strapped around their waist to kill a few hundred of us

If they ever had a message then it is lost. Unless the message is that all of us should be subjected to sharia law

Close our borders and whenever we find one of them here, hand him/her over to the Americans. They have this wonderful resort in Cuba where they solve these little problems and let them loose for some R'n'R after

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"There are no winners in any war.

There were about 950,000 British soldiers killed in ww1 and over 700,000 killed in ww2. These were wars that "We Won"

Cal.

* shell manufacturers, munitions and supplies companies, suppliers of uniforms &c &c &-bloody-c.

War is good business.

It's really not, look at the net profit margins of the companies you are talking about"

Look beyond arms companies. Dave has promised a huge amount of cash post crisis and judging by some share prices today those rebuilding, training and security contracts are as good as awarded.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"There are no winners in any war.

There were about 950,000 British soldiers killed in ww1 and over 700,000 killed in ww2. These were wars that "We Won"

Cal.

* shell manufacturers, munitions and supplies companies, suppliers of uniforms &c &c &-bloody-c.

War is good business.

It's really not, look at the net profit margins of the companies you are talking about

Look beyond arms companies. Dave has promised a huge amount of cash post crisis and judging by some share prices today those rebuilding, training and security contracts are as good as awarded.

Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

No proper plan, no long-term strategy, no proof that bombing is actually having much effect. Nothing but raw rage - the very worst time to take such decisions.

I can't see anything different from when the vote was roundly defeated last time.

I pray we don't get involved.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oachman 9CoolMan over a year ago

derby

"This is a war that cannot be won by force, in my humble opinion.

I don't think we should up the ante at the moment however. Diplomacy channels should be kept open and used however distasteful.

What absolute tosh!

The ONLY way to win a war is by use of overwhelming force!

I challenge anyone to name a single war any time in history that has been won by diplomacy! Or even to name a single time in history where pacifism or appeasement has worked.

How can you win a war against an ideology? It has to be challenged. Killing someone because you find their beliefs distasteful (and of course they are distasteful) will not stop the ideas spreading.

The only way to stop the ideology is to openly challenge the message and to weaken its impact on the outside world. "
And how long is a piece Of string, openly challenge the message with dialogue, at the same time no doubt their terror cells or Individuals are carrying out acts of violence, how long do you think it would take before people turned against that Idea, your Idea is the most peaceful one I agree, but now these dangerous people are spread across europe no doubt and looking at here too, at times like this its hard to Imagine dialogue comeing into it, because its going to take a lot more than that, these terrorists mean business on a world wide scale and their proveing that now, the elders or preachers that brainwashed this Information into their skulls were the Instigators into all this madness probabily pals of bin laden, they have Already got half the world against them as enemys, and they are useing their religion as a shield as someone earlier said, the only thing they believe in his madness, you,d have a better chance talking to the devil than them, it was certainly him who sent them on this tirade of terror.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *its_n_piecesCouple over a year ago

"The munitions manufacturers must be already booking their summer holidays.

At $27000 each, smart bombs are quiet expensive.

Boeing can not afford for anyone to run short and will no doubt be stepping up production and profit forecasts.

Boeing? Err Boeing makes fuck all of its money from munitions"

CIM-10 Bomarc

LGM-30 Minuteman

AGM-69 SRAM

AGM-86 ALCM Cruise Missile

MGM-118 Peacekeeper

UUM-125 Sea Lance

AGM-131 SRAM II

Boeing Ground-to-Air Pilotless Aircraft

Harpoon (missile)

Standoff Land Attack Missile

AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER

all made by boeing, it arms sales accounts for aprox 40% of the companys income

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oachman 9CoolMan over a year ago

derby

"The world needs to combine to defeat the murderous cult of I.S. Otherwise they will destroy any freedoms we enjoy.

I agree with you whole heartedly, it makes you think what the next group of terrorist will be like though"
I agree but if terrorists have got it in for the world and non believers like the Cancer they are you have little choice (usually) but to retaliate.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *funtimes.Man over a year ago

Preston

General Wesley Clark has all the answers and told us all about this back in 2001

time people take notice of General and whistle blowers

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ratty_DamselWoman over a year ago

Greater London

The bombing will NOT stop at Syria. Then which country do 'we' bomb?

However in the meantime IS will become more popular due to innocents being 'collatral damage'.

The West have reaped what they have sown by greed, interference and finally killing. We never bloody learn,do we!!

The people making decisions and looking after vested interests sure as hell won't be getting their family members back in body-bags.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *andS66Couple over a year ago

Derby

"there are just two options with isis we kill them or we surender and let the run the world. know which i would go for,

The third option is of course to leave the people who live in the region to it. That would not result in ISIS running the world, but rather collapsing in on itself."

You're absolutely right... and exactly what we should have done in 1939.... Germany would surely have self-imploded... think of all those innocent lives that would have been saved.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *andS66Couple over a year ago

Derby

"This is a war that cannot be won by force, in my humble opinion.

I don't think we should up the ante at the moment however. Diplomacy channels should be kept open and used however distasteful.

I said:

What absolute tosh!

The ONLY way to win a war is by use of overwhelming force!

I challenge anyone to name a single war any time in history that has been won by diplomacy! Or even to name a single time in history where pacifism or appeasement has worked.

I can give other examples of diplomacy averting war, as well. One example, some would argue, is the deal reached not to long ago between the US and Iran.

Diplomacy works, sometimes. Violence works, sometimes. The question is what would be best here. I think past experience should, but will not, guide us.

-Courtney

As for your comments about Iran they are a total red herring. There has been NO WAR between the USA and Iran.

And the examples don't stop there. There are plenty of instances where war, or at least escalation, has been averted due to diplomacy.

-Courtney "

So are you saying that the Nazi ideology could have been dealt with by negotiation and diplomacy?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Air strikes in Syria won't work, just like the air strikes in Iraq didn't work, it's all a waste of time, camoron needs to let them rot and let the Middle East sort themselves out, if Isis become a caliphate like they want then we'll have WW3, you can't fight little skip rats that hide in shadows......and right now that's what they are

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The munitions manufacturers must be already booking their summer holidays.

At $27000 each, smart bombs are quiet expensive.

Boeing can not afford for anyone to run short and will no doubt be stepping up production and profit forecasts.

Boeing? Err Boeing makes fuck all of its money from munitions

CIM-10 Bomarc

LGM-30 Minuteman

AGM-69 SRAM

AGM-86 ALCM Cruise Missile

MGM-118 Peacekeeper

UUM-125 Sea Lance

AGM-131 SRAM II

Boeing Ground-to-Air Pilotless Aircraft

Harpoon (missile)

Standoff Land Attack Missile

AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER

all made by boeing, it arms sales accounts for aprox 40% of the companys income "

Yeah nice try, so total arms sales are less than half and munitions are what % of that?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"No proper plan, no long-term strategy, no proof that bombing is actually having much effect. Nothing but raw rage - the very worst time to take such decisions.

I can't see anything different from when the vote was roundly defeated last time.

I pray we don't get involved."

There is a difference between NATO bombing and Russian bombing.

Russia carpet bombs and doesn't acknowledge human shields.

We do.

It's pretty effective at ending a threat. Nothing left alive or whatever is alive is crippled.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I wonder if the government can still justify the 20000 members of the armed forces that lost there jobs due to government cuts. I'm sure we have seen all this before

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iverpool LoverMan over a year ago

liverpool

"No proper plan, no long-term strategy, no proof that bombing is actually having much effect. Nothing but raw rage - the very worst time to take such decisions.

I can't see anything different from when the vote was roundly defeated last time.

I pray we don't get involved.

There is a difference between NATO bombing and Russian bombing.

Russia carpet bombs and doesn't acknowledge human shields.

We do.

It's pretty effective at ending a threat. Nothing left alive or whatever is alive is crippled."

tell that to the millions of civilians that have died since the "war on terror" began 14 years ago.

NATO and allies have killed more innocent civilian life than any terrorist has.

NATO also gave its backing to turkey to shoot down that russian plane.

NATO is not the good you may think it is.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otlovefun42Couple over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

Would Britain getting involved in the bombing make a difference militarily? Probably not a lot.

However if your neighbour was in trouble and needed help, would you try in whatever small way to help them or just stand and watch them struggle?

Britain must show solidarity with France (and others) to defeat what is a common enemy and at the moment bombing them is the only realistic option available.

It is also about time that Germany and quite a few other EU countries got down from the fence and decided whose side they are on, instead of (in Germany's case) hiding behind the rules of the 1945 surrender treaty.

I also fail to understand the obsession of western leaders in removing Assad.

Like him or not (I don't BTW) he is the only one who can fill the vacuum in Syria when ISIS are finally defeated. Remove him and the result will be another Libya. It is all very well for Cameron and Obama to bang on about democracy but the Islamic world just doesn't do it. Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya should have taught us what creating a power vacuum does in the region. It just wont work.

It is time to put all the human rights nonsense to one side and support Assad.

When faced with a common enemy we allied ourselves to arguably the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century (Stalin) to defeat Nazi Germany, and we must do the same again.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"This is a war that cannot be won by force, in my humble opinion.

I don't think we should up the ante at the moment however. Diplomacy channels should be kept open and used however distasteful.

I said:

What absolute tosh!

The ONLY way to win a war is by use of overwhelming force!

I challenge anyone to name a single war any time in history that has been won by diplomacy! Or even to name a single time in history where pacifism or appeasement has worked.

I can give other examples of diplomacy averting war, as well. One example, some would argue, is the deal reached not to long ago between the US and Iran.

Diplomacy works, sometimes. Violence works, sometimes. The question is what would be best here. I think past experience should, but will not, guide us.

-Courtney

As for your comments about Iran they are a total red herring. There has been NO WAR between the USA and Iran.

And the examples don't stop there. There are plenty of instances where war, or at least escalation, has been averted due to diplomacy.

-Courtney

So are you saying that the Nazi ideology could have been dealt with by negotiation and diplomacy? "

If thats what you think I said, then I worry for your grasp of the english language. Unless the Nazis had some role in Korea, or indeed with Isis, that I'm not familiar with.

I suggest you read all of my comments on the thread before commenting, as I've never advocated for pacifism or solely diplomacy.

-Courtney

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *dwalu2Couple over a year ago

Bristol

"there are just two options with isis we kill them or we surender and let the run the world. know which i would go for,

The third option is of course to leave the people who live in the region to it. That would not result in ISIS running the world, but rather collapsing in on itself.

You're absolutely right... and exactly what we should have done in 1939.... Germany would surely have self-imploded... think of all those innocent lives that would have been saved. "

Whenever anyone brings in talk of Nazis, Germany and the Second World War believing it bears any relevance to this situation, all it means is they don't understand the Second World War, ISIS, or both.

Personally, I believe it not to be ignorance, but a deliberate insult to the memory and lives lost on both sides of the Second World War.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

As I said in another thread last week, we have been bombing Syria for weeks now!.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

It's coming. I'm sure our security services and Government have got this.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"As I said in another thread last week, we have been bombing Syria for weeks now!. "

Who's 'we'? I haven't flown any planes!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *its_n_piecesCouple over a year ago

"The munitions manufacturers must be already booking their summer holidays.

At $27000 each, smart bombs are quiet expensive.

Boeing can not afford for anyone to run short and will no doubt be stepping up production and profit forecasts.

Boeing? Err Boeing makes fuck all of its money from munitions

CIM-10 Bomarc

LGM-30 Minuteman

AGM-69 SRAM

AGM-86 ALCM Cruise Missile

MGM-118 Peacekeeper

UUM-125 Sea Lance

AGM-131 SRAM II

Boeing Ground-to-Air Pilotless Aircraft

Harpoon (missile)

Standoff Land Attack Missile

AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER

all made by boeing, it arms sales accounts for aprox 40% of the companys income

Yeah nice try, so total arms sales are less than half and munitions are what % of that? "

it doesn't matter .... what matters is your idiotically naive comment of "Boeing makes fuck all of its money from munitions" is utter shite as usual.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The munitions manufacturers must be already booking their summer holidays.

At $27000 each, smart bombs are quiet expensive.

Boeing can not afford for anyone to run short and will no doubt be stepping up production and profit forecasts.

Boeing? Err Boeing makes fuck all of its money from munitions

CIM-10 Bomarc

LGM-30 Minuteman

AGM-69 SRAM

AGM-86 ALCM Cruise Missile

MGM-118 Peacekeeper

UUM-125 Sea Lance

AGM-131 SRAM II

Boeing Ground-to-Air Pilotless Aircraft

Harpoon (missile)

Standoff Land Attack Missile

AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER

all made by boeing, it arms sales accounts for aprox 40% of the companys income

Yeah nice try, so total arms sales are less than half and munitions are what % of that?

it doesn't matter .... what matters is your idiotically naive comment of "Boeing makes fuck all of its money from munitions" is utter shite as usual."

Ummm no, whats naive is that you think an areoplane company will step up profit forecasts for a product line that generates ~2% of its revenue + the majority of the missiles you listed aren't being used in Syria.

If you actually knew what you were talking about you would have said Raytheon, Lockheed Martin or MBDA.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

As someone who''s 'been there and done that' sending the bombers in or putting troops on the ground requires a lot of consideration. It''s easy to see all options as being potentially viable at some point, but we need to be sure as it's real people we send to do these things. We hear a lot of things said about 'hitting them hard', but quite often it''s those who wouldn't be doing it themselves who are the most vociferous. Also if we'really going to have to go to war again it needs the country to GENUINELY get behind and support the troops the way the American public do, rather than the lip service we have in this country. Fingers crossed it's quick and straightforward, but I doubt it. Have a great day all!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *funtimes.Man over a year ago

Preston

looks like mainstream media have done a great job with there misinformation.

ISIS are together like it or not, seems the people of Europe are struggling to even agree how this all started, never mind how to deal with it. and very few ask who's funding it!!!

only together will the world become ISIS free place, for that people need to do some homework....and stop repeating mainstream propaganda.

we have never been able to get so much information, please use it well you still can, every attack leads to new laws that don't and won't affect or stop ISIS

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Isis is like an octopus...... Never stop them but may slow them down short of a nuke!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *its_n_piecesCouple over a year ago

you said ...

"Boeing makes fuck all of its money from munitions"

....which effectively means they make £zero from munitions.

i posted this list of munitions which they manufacture....

CIM-10 Bomarc

LGM-30 Minuteman

AGM-69 SRAM

AGM-86 ALCM Cruise Missile

MGM-118 Peacekeeper

UUM-125 Sea Lance

AGM-131 SRAM II

Boeing Ground-to-Air Pilotless Aircraft

Harpoon (missile)

Standoff Land Attack Missile

AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER

along with this footnote...

"all made by boeing, it arms sales accounts for aprox 40% of the companys income "
.... which shows your claim to be blatantly incorrect

then you retorted with this ....

" you think an areoplane company will step up profit forecasts for a product line that generates ~2% of its revenue + the majority of the missiles you listed aren't being used in Syria."

"If you actually knew what you were talking about you would have said Raytheon, Lockheed Martin or MBDA."

you obviously confused my post with someone elses as i cleary said nothing of the sort.

... the upshot is that your claim that they make £zero from munitions wrong as per

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"As I said in another thread last week, we have been bombing Syria for weeks now!.

Who's 'we'? I haven't flown any planes! "

I suspect that's because your not a jet pilot!.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I have no fear of any retaliation, UK casualties are no more or less important than Syrian casualties, war causes deaths until war stops.

BUT all we are are going to do is increase the area we have been bombing already from Iraq to Syria, and so far we don't really have much to show for the bombs that have been dropped.

i would much prefer to see an IS free Iraq first to show that dropping bombs achieves something.

Also as an afterthoughtk, as the root of all this is supposed to be democracy I would like to see a law that any decision in parliament on any act of war is always a free vote.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"As I said in another thread last week, we have been bombing Syria for weeks now!.

Who's 'we'? I haven't flown any planes!

I suspect that's because your not a jet pilot!."

But I am a space cadet

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *funtimes.Man over a year ago

Preston

[Removed by poster at 27/11/15 11:44:43]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"you said ...

Boeing makes fuck all of its money from munitions

....which effectively means they make £zero from munitions.

i posted this list of munitions which they manufacture....

CIM-10 Bomarc

LGM-30 Minuteman

AGM-69 SRAM

AGM-86 ALCM Cruise Missile

MGM-118 Peacekeeper

UUM-125 Sea Lance

AGM-131 SRAM II

Boeing Ground-to-Air Pilotless Aircraft

Harpoon (missile)

Standoff Land Attack Missile

AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER

along with this footnote...

all made by boeing, it arms sales accounts for aprox 40% of the companys income .... which shows your claim to be blatantly incorrect

then you retorted with this ....

you think an areoplane company will step up profit forecasts for a product line that generates ~2% of its revenue + the majority of the missiles you listed aren't being used in Syria.

If you actually knew what you were talking about you would have said Raytheon, Lockheed Martin or MBDA.

you obviously confused my post with someone elses as i cleary said nothing of the sort.

... the upshot is that your claim that they make £zero from munitions wrong as per

Where's the dictionary definition that fuck all = zero? I've already defined fuck all as ~2%.

38% of boeings revenue comes from defence as opposed to civil. That includes it's core products like maritime patrol aircraft, helicopters and AWACS. Munitions are a complete afterthought for Boeing and the munitions they do make aren't widely used in Syria anyway. Hence my point that a bombing campaign in Syria is noise to the profits of a company like Boeing.

To reference a company that would benefit from the campaign then I listed appropriate companies. I'm baffled why Boeing got singled out?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Another point, how many countries never get involved with these wars and how many of those ever get terror attacks.

All this war, is purely so those in power get richer.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icky999Man over a year ago

warrington

"Another point, how many countries never get involved with these wars and how many of those ever get terror attacks.

All this war, is purely so those in power get richer."

Switzerland.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

You can also see a huge difference between the papers.

Some just talking bout airstrikes and the politics, then you get trash like the Daily star WORLD WAR 3, talk about scare mongering.

Read a lil and it references Call of duty style action, all men and women without child will be conscripted, you refuse, youll face jail time

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Yep and many others, so isnt it best to just stay out of it.

Nope cuz our government and their friends wanna get richer

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"As I said in another thread last week, we have been bombing Syria for weeks now!.

Who's 'we'? I haven't flown any planes!

I suspect that's because your not a jet pilot!.

But I am a space cadet

I did have my suspicions you were lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

" Such as...?

Something like what happened in France or 7/7 in london?

All that scares me is what's the retaliation going to be like??

Not bothered about the innocent civilians who are going to be killed?

Well yes of cause, but what about the innocents that could be harmed in the reliation?

They are unquantifiable, and there may not be any.

On the other hand, innocent civilians will definitely be killed in bombing raids."

But there already has been in France the other week, in London on 7/7, in New York on 9/11, in Bali, in Kenya, in Tunisia. Were those people not innocent and where they not killed by terrorists?

It's not like if we do nothing we'll be safe, we're not safe and haven't been for nearly 20 years now.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

"As a parody..You have to break an egg or two to make an omlette..inevitably, there will be some civilian casualties,, these however, must be kept to a minimum.

even one innocent cilvilian life lost is one too many.

But 130 innocent lives lost in Paris is ok and we shouldn't do anything to try and stop it happening again?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

"Ultimately this has to be solved politically, but that will only get closer when the ground was is resolved. ISIL, Al Qaeda and Boko Harem all need to be dealt with.

Ah yes. Boko Haram.

There's a group we tend to forget about as they're contained within some of the browner parts of the world and do not attack nasty Westerners (much).

However, in 2014 their actions led to the deaths of 6,347 civilians in Nigeria and Central African Republic (CAR) and South Sudan rose by 30% last year to 13,508 deaths.

But they stay well away from Paris night clubs so lets not worry about them too much.

We can worry about the guys pointing their guns at someone else's head after we've sorted out the guys pointing their guns at our own heads. The colour of the heads involved is totally irrelevant.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igertigerCouple (MM) over a year ago

nr Letterkenny

"The world needs to combine to defeat the murderous cult of I.S. Otherwise they will destroy any freedoms we enjoy.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oo hotCouple over a year ago

North West

Typhoon jets, Hellfire missiles and Paveway bombs raining down on Syria may look like "we" are doing something - but we won't be achieving anything substantive.

Already, many coalition air sorties return with unused munitions because targets could not be identified. Ground forces are needed to flush out targets but seemingly that is not going to happen because of differences of opinion as to what the end game is going to be. The Iranians want Assad to stay. The Turks want Assad to go but they also want the Kurds to have no part of any future in Syria. The so called "moderate" Sunni's want Assad out but also want the Shia and Alawites out. Just who is going to get on the ground to reclain territory whilst flushing out IS?

Britain (and the world) would be far better served by conducting an electronic war against IS. It would not be difficult to drown the IS propoganda with collateral noise and at the same time using electronic measures to identify, pin point and root out those who are spreading the message.

Bombing alone is pointless and satisfies only those who like to watch gun camera footage on the News.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

"there are just two options with isis we kill them or we surender and let the run the world. know which i would go for,

The third option is of course to leave the people who live in the region to it. That would not result in ISIS running the world, but rather collapsing in on itself."

A rather selfish attitude. It's not going to affect you much so it's not really your problem.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oo hotCouple over a year ago

North West

"As a parody..You have to break an egg or two to make an omlette..inevitably, there will be some civilian casualties,, these however, must be kept to a minimum.

even one innocent cilvilian life lost is one too many.

But 130 innocent lives lost in Paris is ok and we shouldn't do anything to try and stop it happening again?"

Yes, we absolutely should but maybe the response needs a bit more creative thought than "bomb the bastards."

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Typhoon jets, Hellfire missiles and Paveway bombs raining down on Syria may look like "we" are doing something - but we won't be achieving anything substantive.

Bombing alone is pointless and satisfies only those who like to watch gun camera footage on the News."

I agree that airstrikes alone can't succeed.

After 9/11 billions of dollars were frozen in bank accounts linked to the funding of the attacks. Has the same happened to ISIS yet?

We should be cutting off the money and cutting off the market for their oil.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

"This is a war that cannot be won by force, in my humble opinion.

I don't think we should up the ante at the moment however. Diplomacy channels should be kept open and used however distasteful.

What absolute tosh!

The ONLY way to win a war is by use of overwhelming force!

I challenge anyone to name a single war any time in history that has been won by diplomacy! Or even to name a single time in history where pacifism or appeasement has worked.

How can you win a war against an ideology? It has to be challenged. Killing someone because you find their beliefs distasteful (and of course they are distasteful) will not stop the ideas spreading.

The only way to stop the ideology is to openly challenge the message and to weaken its impact on the outside world. "

I agree that doing so is at least as important, if not more important, than defeating ISIS militarily but either one, without the other, is probably not going to provide an adequate solution.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"you said ...

Boeing makes fuck all of its money from munitions

....which effectively means they make £zero from munitions.

i posted this list of munitions which they manufacture....

CIM-10 Bomarc

LGM-30 Minuteman

AGM-69 SRAM

AGM-86 ALCM Cruise Missile

MGM-118 Peacekeeper

UUM-125 Sea Lance

AGM-131 SRAM II

Boeing Ground-to-Air Pilotless Aircraft

Harpoon (missile)

Standoff Land Attack Missile

AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER

along with this footnote...

all made by boeing, it arms sales accounts for aprox 40% of the companys income .... which shows your claim to be blatantly incorrect

then you retorted with this ....

you think an areoplane company will step up profit forecasts for a product line that generates ~2% of its revenue + the majority of the missiles you listed aren't being used in Syria.

If you actually knew what you were talking about you would have said Raytheon, Lockheed Martin or MBDA.

you obviously confused my post with someone elses as i cleary said nothing of the sort.

... the upshot is that your claim that they make £zero from munitions wrong as per

Where's the dictionary definition that fuck all = zero? I've already defined fuck all as ~2%.

To reference a company that would benefit from the campaign then I listed appropriate companies. I'm baffled why Boeing got singled out? "

Boeing is listed as the No2 in the profit from war listings in the USA

Boeing (BA) -- aircraft, electronics, missiles, space

Arm sales: $31.8 billion, total sales: $68.7 billion

Gross profit: $4 billion, total workforce: 171,700

Boeing was the second-largest U.S. government contractor in 2011, with about $21.5 billion worth of goods contracted. The Chicago-based company makes a wide range of arms, including strategic missile systems, laser and electro-optical systems and global positioning systems. Despite all these technologies, just 46% of the company's total sales of $68.7 billion in 2011 came from arms.

Now if $21.5 billion is fuck all, then I stand corrected.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oo hotCouple over a year ago

North West

"This is a war that cannot be won by force, in my humble opinion.

I don't think we should up the ante at the moment however. Diplomacy channels should be kept open and used however distasteful.

What absolute tosh!

The ONLY way to win a war is by use of overwhelming force!

I challenge anyone to name a single war any time in history that has been won by diplomacy! Or even to name a single time in history where pacifism or appeasement has worked.

How can you win a war against an ideology? It has to be challenged. Killing someone because you find their beliefs distasteful (and of course they are distasteful) will not stop the ideas spreading.

The only way to stop the ideology is to openly challenge the message and to weaken its impact on the outside world.

I agree that doing so is at least as important, if not more important, than defeating ISIS militarily but either one, without the other, is probably not going to provide an adequate solution."

Even if by some miracle a coalition could be drawn together to occupy IS land - what about Boko Haram and the land that they occupy? What about the land that the Al Shabab are occupying? Notwisthstanding this, taking over IS land will not stop the electronic bombardment and it will not stop the spread of the ideology. Al Quieda did not need to occupy land in order to launch what is still the worst terrorist attack of all and the threat from IS will not dissappear in the event that they lose Raqqa and other cities that they currently occupy.

The ideology has to be challenged and defeated. Bombs and bullets can't do that. Killing someone because they have a belief that is distasteful is simple sectarianism and is a primitive response at best.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

I applaud the facile content of this 'debate'

*claps slowly but politely*

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"you said ...

Boeing makes fuck all of its money from munitions

....which effectively means they make £zero from munitions.

i posted this list of munitions which they manufacture....

CIM-10 Bomarc

LGM-30 Minuteman

AGM-69 SRAM

AGM-86 ALCM Cruise Missile

MGM-118 Peacekeeper

UUM-125 Sea Lance

AGM-131 SRAM II

Boeing Ground-to-Air Pilotless Aircraft

Harpoon (missile)

Standoff Land Attack Missile

AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER

along with this footnote...

all made by boeing, it arms sales accounts for aprox 40% of the companys income .... which shows your claim to be blatantly incorrect

then you retorted with this ....

you think an areoplane company will step up profit forecasts for a product line that generates ~2% of its revenue + the majority of the missiles you listed aren't being used in Syria.

If you actually knew what you were talking about you would have said Raytheon, Lockheed Martin or MBDA.

you obviously confused my post with someone elses as i cleary said nothing of the sort.

... the upshot is that your claim that they make £zero from munitions wrong as per

Where's the dictionary definition that fuck all = zero? I've already defined fuck all as ~2%.

To reference a company that would benefit from the campaign then I listed appropriate companies. I'm baffled why Boeing got singled out?

Boeing is listed as the No2 in the profit from war listings in the USA

Boeing (BA) -- aircraft, electronics, missiles, space

Arm sales: $31.8 billion, total sales: $68.7 billion

Gross profit: $4 billion, total workforce: 171,700

Now if $21.5 billion is fuck all, then I stand corrected."

Yes i'm well aware of who Boeing are thank you. The distinction you have missed is munitions as a specific criteria of defence products. Boeing did not sell $21.5bn of munitions. The context, which you have ignored, is a bombing campaign in Syria. The implication that more bombs dropped in Syria benefits Boeing is tedious linkage to flawed.

The point is that it's odd to single out Boeing because they make few munitions products, munitions are not a big driver on their profits and there are far more obvious examples of companies that make the products relevant to a bombing campaign as I have already listed.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

"As a parody..You have to break an egg or two to make an omlette..inevitably, there will be some civilian casualties,, these however, must be kept to a minimum.

even one innocent cilvilian life lost is one too many.

But 130 innocent lives lost in Paris is ok and we shouldn't do anything to try and stop it happening again?

Yes, we absolutely should but maybe the response needs a bit more creative thought than "bomb the bastards.""

You may notice that at no point either on this thread or any other have I said that. Whilst I'm not opposed to extending our bombing operations to include Syria, by itself it's not the solution required to solve this problem.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inja_mikeMan over a year ago

Rushden area

"All that scares me is what's the retaliation going to be like??

Not bothered about the innocent civilians who are going to be killed?"

We are already under attack so the retaliation will be just be same, as for innocent civilians there are none left if you are not a Isis supporter or you are any other religious faith apart from Muslim you are dead anyway in Syria!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lacksausageMan over a year ago

Birmingham Airport

Democracy is a fine thing indeed. I also believe that a true democrat should be democratic enough to realise that not all persons/tribes/ peoples/ people/ tribes/ savages/ etc will agree with you.

DO NOT FUCK WITH ME... AND I WONT FUCK WITH YOU!!! The ripples of the current situation are far reaching.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"you said ...

Boeing makes fuck all of its money from munitions

....which effectively means they make £zero from munitions.

i posted this list of munitions which they manufacture....

CIM-10 Bomarc

LGM-30 Minuteman

AGM-69 SRAM

AGM-86 ALCM Cruise Missile

MGM-118 Peacekeeper

UUM-125 Sea Lance

AGM-131 SRAM II

Boeing Ground-to-Air Pilotless Aircraft

Harpoon (missile)

Standoff Land Attack Missile

AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER

along with this footnote...

all made by boeing, it arms sales accounts for aprox 40% of the companys income .... which shows your claim to be blatantly incorrect

then you retorted with this ....

you think an areoplane company will step up profit forecasts for a product line that generates ~2% of its revenue + the majority of the missiles you listed aren't being used in Syria.

If you actually knew what you were talking about you would have said Raytheon, Lockheed Martin or MBDA.

you obviously confused my post with someone elses as i cleary said nothing of the sort.

... the upshot is that your claim that they make £zero from munitions wrong as per

Where's the dictionary definition that fuck all = zero? I've already defined fuck all as ~2%.

To reference a company that would benefit from the campaign then I listed appropriate companies. I'm baffled why Boeing got singled out?

Boeing is listed as the No2 in the profit from war listings in the USA

Boeing (BA) -- aircraft, electronics, missiles, space

Arm sales: $31.8 billion, total sales: $68.7 billion

Gross profit: $4 billion, total workforce: 171,700

Now if $21.5 billion is fuck all, then I stand corrected.

While they dont produce the actual munitions,they do make the majority of the guidance systems that control the so called "smart bombs". One part of the bomb is quiet cheap to produce,the other isnt.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lacksausageMan over a year ago

Birmingham Airport

"you said ...

Boeing makes fuck all of its money from munitions

....which effectively means they make £zero from munitions.

i posted this list of munitions which they manufacture....

CIM-10 Bomarc

LGM-30 Minuteman

AGM-69 SRAM

AGM-86 ALCM Cruise Missile

MGM-118 Peacekeeper

UUM-125 Sea Lance

AGM-131 SRAM II

Boeing Ground-to-Air Pilotless Aircraft

Harpoon (missile)

Standoff Land Attack Missile

AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER

along with this footnote...

all made by boeing, it arms sales accounts for aprox 40% of the companys income .... which shows your claim to be blatantly incorrect

then you retorted with this ....

you think an areoplane company will step up profit forecasts for a product line that generates ~2% of its revenue + the majority of the missiles you listed aren't being used in Syria.

If you actually knew what you were talking about you would have said Raytheon, Lockheed Martin or MBDA.

you obviously confused my post with someone elses as i cleary said nothing of the sort.

... the upshot is that your claim that they make £zero from munitions wrong as per

Where's the dictionary definition that fuck all = zero? I've already defined fuck all as ~2%.

To reference a company that would benefit from the campaign then I listed appropriate companies. I'm baffled why Boeing got singled out?

Boeing is listed as the No2 in the profit from war listings in the USA

Boeing (BA) -- aircraft, electronics, missiles, space

Arm sales: $31.8 billion, total sales: $68.7 billion

Gross profit: $4 billion, total workforce: 171,700

Now if $21.5 billion is fuck all, then I stand corrected.

While they dont produce the actual munitions,they do make the majority of the guidance systems that control the so called "smart bombs". One part of the bomb is quiet cheap to produce,the other isnt."

Who the fuck are these people? Talk of huge egos and "I know it all bullshit"!

Do you two not realise that people have lost interest and people are actuall dying in the real world?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"you said ...

Boeing makes fuck all of its money from munitions

....which effectively means they make £zero from munitions.

i posted this list of munitions which they manufacture....

CIM-10 Bomarc

LGM-30 Minuteman

AGM-69 SRAM

AGM-86 ALCM Cruise Missile

MGM-118 Peacekeeper

UUM-125 Sea Lance

AGM-131 SRAM II

Boeing Ground-to-Air Pilotless Aircraft

Harpoon (missile)

Standoff Land Attack Missile

AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER

along with this footnote...

all made by boeing, it arms sales accounts for aprox 40% of the companys income .... which shows your claim to be blatantly incorrect

then you retorted with this ....

you think an areoplane company will step up profit forecasts for a product line that generates ~2% of its revenue + the majority of the missiles you listed aren't being used in Syria.

If you actually knew what you were talking about you would have said Raytheon, Lockheed Martin or MBDA.

you obviously confused my post with someone elses as i cleary said nothing of the sort.

... the upshot is that your claim that they make £zero from munitions wrong as per

Where's the dictionary definition that fuck all = zero? I've already defined fuck all as ~2%.

To reference a company that would benefit from the campaign then I listed appropriate companies. I'm baffled why Boeing got singled out?

Boeing is listed as the No2 in the profit from war listings in the USA

Boeing (BA) -- aircraft, electronics, missiles, space

Arm sales: $31.8 billion, total sales: $68.7 billion

Gross profit: $4 billion, total workforce: 171,700

Now if $21.5 billion is fuck all, then I stand corrected.

And you think that accounts for how much of their revenue / profit?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Do you two not realise that people have lost interest and people are actuall dying in the real world?

Yes but if you can't define the problem properly then what chance have you got of solving it?

Lots of people on their thread are spouting their conspiracy theories about big business and the rich using war the get richer - it's nonsense.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ratty_DamselWoman over a year ago

Greater London

"Democracy is a fine thing indeed. I also believe that a true democrat should be democratic enough to realise that not all persons/tribes/ peoples/ people/ tribes/ savages/ etc will agree with you.

DO NOT FUCK WITH ME... AND I WONT FUCK WITH YOU!!! The ripples of the current situation are far reaching."

But the West always knows best, dosent it!!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *dwalu2Couple over a year ago

Bristol

"there are just two options with isis we kill them or we surender and let the run the world. know which i would go for,

The third option is of course to leave the people who live in the region to it. That would not result in ISIS running the world, but rather collapsing in on itself.

A rather selfish attitude. It's not going to affect you much so it's not really your problem."

How is that selfish? The issue is that by continually regarding these things as 'our problem', we demonstrably make things worse for the people who live there, and our selves. Generation after generation.

Doing nothing is actually the bravest, strongest option. The results in the region left to its own devices will be horrific, no doubt - but the simple fact is that our interference is only going to make things just as horrific, for more people, for longer.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *dwalu2Couple over a year ago

Bristol

"All that scares me is what's the retaliation going to be like??

Not bothered about the innocent civilians who are going to be killed?

Are we under attack? I don't know anyone who has been attacked by ISIS, personally. Do you?

I'm pretty sure I would have noticed!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *dwalu2Couple over a year ago

Bristol

"All that scares me is what's the retaliation going to be like??

Not bothered about the innocent civilians who are going to be killed?

There are millions of innocent civilians in Syria.

Members of ISIS number between 50,000 and 200,000, depending on whose figures you believe.

Raqqa is the main target for France's bombs, currently. It has a population of 200,000 civilians, and an estimated 2000 remaining ISIS members. So lots of innocents are currently being killed there right now.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

Did you solve it already?

You make it sound sooooo easy.

Surely the world's ills can all be cured if people simply stopped talking and listened to FAB.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Look at whats happened. Russia decides to help but they blow up some oil tankers which Isis control but that oil is being sold to the West, so they all of sudden get shot down

Too much of a coincidence

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

[AFTER THE BREAK, MORE SPECULATION...]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *its_n_piecesCouple over a year ago

"Lots of people on their thread are spouting their conspiracy theories about big business and the rich using war the get richer - it's nonsense. "

i'm not convinced big business is deliberately setting out to initiate wars in an underhand fashion in order to make profit but it's pretty clear that military actions will generate a demand for their products and they will profit from supplying those demands. as for our current government, what was the first thing ca-moron did when he got his slippery sweaty hands on the post of PM? that's right, he took a delegation of ministers, proven dodgy advisors and Arms Company Representatives to the very countries who are now at war in order to sell them arms. no conspiracy there, they didn't try to hide anything.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lacksausageMan over a year ago

Birmingham Airport

"[AFTER THE BREAK, MORE SPECULATION...]

Just to backtrack a little, did somebody say turkey shot down a Russian plane?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

[Removed by poster at 27/11/15 16:15:43]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lacksausageMan over a year ago

Birmingham Airport

Wow! At the bequest of NATO?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lacksausageMan over a year ago

Birmingham Airport

"Wow! At the bequest of NATO?"

I still maintain: DONT FUCK WITH ME AND I WONT FUCK WITH YOU.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

Correct.

Basically a Russian sortie flew in to Turkish airspace was warned to bugger off, didn't so the Turks got lucky and blew it out of the sky an old Sukhoi Su-24. One pilot dead, other wounded.

Cue war of words.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has warned Russia's President Vladimir Putin not to "play with fire" over his country's downing of a Russian jet.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34941093

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

I'm sure the Russians will be more careful next time.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lacksausageMan over a year ago

Birmingham Airport

So therefore, GET OUT OF OUR LANDS OR ELSE .......

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

That's one of those odd things about wars - people keep on getting themselves killed.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *anchestercubMan over a year ago

manchester & NI

"Correct.

Basically a Russian sortie flew in to Turkish airspace was warned to bugger off, didn't so the Turks got lucky and blew it out of the sky an old Sukhoi Su-24. One pilot dead, other wounded.

Cue war of words.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has warned Russia's President Vladimir Putin not to "play with fire" over his country's downing of a Russian jet.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34941093"

That's Turkish Delightful language.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

"you said ...

Boeing makes fuck all of its money from munitions

....which effectively means they make £zero from munitions.

i posted this list of munitions which they manufacture....

CIM-10 Bomarc

LGM-30 Minuteman

AGM-69 SRAM

AGM-86 ALCM Cruise Missile

MGM-118 Peacekeeper

UUM-125 Sea Lance

AGM-131 SRAM II

Boeing Ground-to-Air Pilotless Aircraft

Harpoon (missile)

Standoff Land Attack Missile

AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER

along with this footnote...

all made by boeing, it arms sales accounts for aprox 40% of the companys income .... which shows your claim to be blatantly incorrect

then you retorted with this ....

you think an areoplane company will step up profit forecasts for a product line that generates ~2% of its revenue + the majority of the missiles you listed aren't being used in Syria.

If you actually knew what you were talking about you would have said Raytheon, Lockheed Martin or MBDA.

you obviously confused my post with someone elses as i cleary said nothing of the sort.

... the upshot is that your claim that they make £zero from munitions wrong as per

Where's the dictionary definition that fuck all = zero? I've already defined fuck all as ~2%.

To reference a company that would benefit from the campaign then I listed appropriate companies. I'm baffled why Boeing got singled out?

Boeing is listed as the No2 in the profit from war listings in the USA

Boeing (BA) -- aircraft, electronics, missiles, space

Arm sales: $31.8 billion, total sales: $68.7 billion

Gross profit: $4 billion, total workforce: 171,700

Now if $21.5 billion is fuck all, then I stand corrected.

While they dont produce the actual munitions,they do make the majority of the guidance systems that control the so called "smart bombs". One part of the bomb is quiet cheap to produce,the other isnt.

Who the fuck are these people? Talk of huge egos and "I know it all bullshit"!

Do you two not realise that people have lost interest and people are actuall dying in the real world?

I haven't and, yes, I think we all realise that people are actually dying. That's what this thread is about and how to have the least number of deaths on going into the future.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *its_n_piecesCouple over a year ago

"how to have the least number of deaths on going into the future."

a good start would be not getting involved in airstrikes in that case ... just a thought

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nleashedCrakenMan over a year ago

Widnes

"All that scares me is what's the retaliation going to be like??

Not bothered about the innocent civilians who are going to be killed?

Are we under attack? I don't know anyone who has been attacked by ISIS, personally. Do you?

I'm pretty sure I would have noticed!

I also don't know anyone personally who has been bombed by NATO or Russia. Doesn't mean it's not happened.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *its_n_piecesCouple over a year ago

"how to have the least number of deaths on going into the future.

a good start would be not getting involved in airstrikes in that case ... just a thought"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)