  |
 Should we start bombing Syria? |
| Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum |
 Nov 20 2015, 09:15 PM
Post
#1
|
|
 BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,648 User: 3,272 
        
|
Since last week's awful events in Paris, there have been signs that Cameron will make another attempt to get Commons approval for bombing raids on Syria. The difference this time is that the target would be ISIS rather than Assad's forces.
Do you agree with him, or are you more inclined to agree with Einstein that a definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"? |
 |
 
|
|
Nov 20 2015, 09:44 PM
Post
#2
|
|
 BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,798 User: 17,376
|
rather shows that if they had bombed Assad and buggered off (as usual) leaving a mess behind, they would now have to return to bomb IS who would by now have renamed Syria as The Holy Independent State of The True Islam, or something else similar. Net effect, thousands of dead civilians caught up in conflict they have nothing to do with, and well pissed off at the West for sticking their nose in and making things worse than they already were. That said, now the countries involved in the Middle East over the last couple of decades have allowed the situation to develop (I don't just say "The West" because neighbouring countries have hardly done anything to help, and have taken part in atrocities against fellow Muslims in some situations, and backed terror financially in others) people are in real crisis and it needs a unified world approach to trying to resolve the situation, whether that be talks, demands, threats or action on the ground, and a credible plan for what happens next in any number of potential eventualities.
Does no-one in power notice that pissed-off idle young people are the ones getting manipulated by the propagandists who all think they are right and everyone else is wrong, with promises of eternal paradise for causing terror and mayhem...? Of course they do, but people love to rally behind a cause, and it often gives another election win to those looking for extending power who are otherwise completely effing useless. So, yes, I would generally agree with Einstein, he knew a thing or two. Cameron, of course, literally knows a thing or two 
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 20 2015, 10:36 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,648 User: 3,272
|
Max Hastings (historian and journalist) was on Question Time last night and made some very pertinent points, certainly more than either of the two politicians on the panel. In particular, he said that we shouldn't even think about stepping up military action until we had decided what our objectives were. Ending the threat from ISIS is all very well, but that is not enough. After all, the objectives of ousting Saddam from Iraq and Gaddafi from Libya were achieved, but nobody with a brain could describe the whole thing as an unqualified success.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 20 2015, 11:28 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
#38BBE0 otherwise known as 'sky blue'
Joined: 27 October 2008
Posts: 16,168 User: 7,561
  
|
Well the campaign that has been going for over 12 months seems to be really successful so far doesn't it? Well apart from strengthening their propaganda and their recruitment but if you conveniently ignore that and then it's all FINE AND DANDY.
Clearly the reaction that Daesh wants, and I don't think we should give it to them but I expect we will. Predictably we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 20 2015, 11:44 PM
Post
#5
|
|
 Buffy/Charmed
Joined: 18 April 2013
Posts: 44,011 User: 18,639
    
|
QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Nov 20 2015, 10:15 PM)  Since last week's awful events in Paris, there have been signs that Cameron will make another attempt to get Commons approval for bombing raids on Syria. The difference this time is that the target would be ISIS rather than Assad's forces. Do you agree with him, or are you more inclined to agree with Einstein that a definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"? ... Eeexcept Einstein probably NEVEER said that. That ia NOT a definition of insanity and is in fact a lazy contrived way to stop continous self-improvement or perseverence. This quote has nothing at all to do with reasoned psychology and is the 'dumbest thing a smart person has ever said' (though it is highly doubtful a smart person said it in the first place). This is not a good description of insanity which, by the way, is a legal and not medixal yerm, so can we pleaaase stop propagating this myth? |
|
|
|
|
Nov 20 2015, 11:52 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,648 User: 3,272
|
QUOTE(Merry Peenmass!! @ Nov 20 2015, 11:44 PM) ... Eeexcept Einstein probably NEVEER said that. That ia NOT a definition of insanity and is in fact a lazy contrived way to stop continous self-improvement or perseverence. This quote has nothing at all to do with reasoned psychology and is the 'dumbest thing a smart person has ever said' (though it is highly doubtful a smart person said it in the first place). This is not a good description of insanity which, by the way, is a legal and not medixal yerm, so can we pleaaase stop propagating this myth? So, you think we should try the same tactic we've been using for the last 15 years? Methinks the outcome will be no different. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 22 2015, 01:00 AM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Shakin Stevens
Joined: 29 December 2007
Posts: 46,114 User: 5,138
 
|
You can't say that Suedehead they'll be calling you a pacifist next.
You have to fight fire with fire and go with the red neck agenda. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 22 2015, 01:13 AM
Post
#8
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,648 User: 3,272
|
Broadly speaking, I would describe myself as a pacifist. I cannot accept that term as an insult. After all, if we were all pacifists, wouldn't that be wonderful?
Of course, that will never happen. Therefore, those of us who are broadly pacifists have to accept the world as it is. Had I been around in 1939, I think I would have accepted that Britain had no choice but to declare war on Nazi Germany. Of course, I might also have suggested (possibly with the benefit of hindsight) that we could have acted earlier without such drastic consequences. Of all the wars that have taken place in my lifetime, very few have led to a conclusive victory for the"right" side. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 22 2015, 10:50 AM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Shakin Stevens
Joined: 29 December 2007
Posts: 46,114 User: 5,138
|
I agree although the Second World War was a just war! The first was a whole different kettle of fish, it was a colonial war which Britain fought to maintain the status quo and ultimately led to the second one!
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 1 2015, 10:06 PM
Post
#10
|
|
 WINTER IS COMING
Joined: 7 March 2006
Posts: 45,594 User: 88
   
|
Vote happening tomorrow.
I'm still majorly torn between whether it's a good or bad idea. Don't think it can be compared to Iraq/Libya, it's completely different circumstances. However at the same time it's a big gamble if there is no proper strategy in place. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 1 2015, 10:09 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Buffy/Charmed
Joined: 18 April 2013
Posts: 44,011 User: 18,639
|
If US and Russia haven't done much,inferior British bombs won't add up to much more. If Britain would be v successful at taking our ISIS oil infrastructure etc ... then why hasn't the U.S done so?
 Let's not bomb without strategy.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2015, 06:18 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
WINTER IS COMING
Joined: 7 March 2006
Posts: 45,594 User: 88
|
QUOTE(FrostytheBeaver @ Dec 1 2015, 10:09 PM) If US and Russia haven't done much,inferior British bombs won't add up to much more. If Britain would be v successful at taking our ISIS oil infrastructure etc ... then why hasn't the U.S done so? Let's not bomb without strategy.I think our missiles are more equipped to deal with the problem in Syria than other countries, which is why I think France/US have lobbied for our support. If bombing them isn't the solution what is? Corbyn is very clear on his stance to find a political solution, but he does not have the first idea how to get one. The longer we wait without doing anything, the more innocent people will suffer at the hands of ISIS. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2015, 06:44 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
DROTTNING!
Joined: 15 April 2006
Posts: 63,953 User: 480
         
|
I'd also add that air strikes in Iraq against ISIS have done a pretty good job of holding them back there and allowing Iraqi forces to start retaking ISIS-held territory.
Still on the fence on extending them to Syria, mind. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2015, 06:57 PM
Post
#14
|
|
|
#38BBE0 otherwise known as 'sky blue'
Joined: 27 October 2008
Posts: 16,168 User: 7,561
|
QUOTE(Rooney @ Dec 2 2015, 06:18 PM) I think our missiles are more equipped to deal with the problem in Syria than other countries, which is why I think France/US have lobbied for our support. If you are talking about Brimstone missiles we don't have many left and each one costs £100K... |
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2015, 07:03 PM
Post
#15
|
|
 feminist icon
Pronouns: she/her
Joined: 21 April 2015 Posts: 25,350 User: 21,777 
     
|
I've been on the fence about this issue (with leaning towards the "yes" side) until the last couple of days, where I now firmly support air strikes in Syria. Imo the threat of ISIS is too big already to just do stay out and do nothing (I have heard this as a "solution" today
 ), not only to the Western world but also to the freedom of the people in the Middle East. As I heard from the Parliament debate earlier, this isn't an attack on Syria, it is an attack on ISIS. Also I think we have a responsibility on an international level, especially after the call on all nations from the UN and having a permanent seat on the UN security council etcI would be extremely surprised if DC lost this vote today. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2015, 07:15 PM
Post
#16
|
|
|
#38BBE0 otherwise known as 'sky blue'
Joined: 27 October 2008
Posts: 16,168 User: 7,561
|
Cameron will win the debate but he will lose the argument, he wouldn't have called for the vote if he wasn't completely certain of a victory. It should be a majority of approximately 100 or so.
In response I would say bombing Syria is giving Daesh exactly what they want - I have read many accounts by extremely intelligent professors in geopolitics who argue that the bombing will not only be ineffective without a ‘boots on the ground’ strategy but it will only fuel greater resentment of the west and a greater likelihood of a terrorist attack. Not to mention the fact that the atrocities carried out in Paris were by French and Belgium nationals, and borne out by increasing inequalities and a sense of alienation within society. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2015, 08:05 PM
Post
#17
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,648 User: 3,272
|
QUOTE(Rooney @ Dec 2 2015, 06:18 PM) I think our missiles are more equipped to deal with the problem in Syria than other countries, which is why I think France/US have lobbied for our support. If bombing them isn't the solution what is? Corbyn is very clear on his stance to find a political solution, but he does not have the first idea how to get one. The longer we wait without doing anything, the more innocent people will suffer at the hands of ISIS. If Cameron has any idea what to do if and when ISIS are defeated in Syria, he has kept it very quiet. It's the lack of such a strategy has has proved so disastrous in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Why is Cameron so determined to add another country to the list? |
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2015, 09:17 PM
Post
#18
|
|
|
Shakin Stevens
Joined: 29 December 2007
Posts: 46,114 User: 5,138
|
The worst part of today's speech was Alan Johnston having a go at people in his own party when Corbyn allowed for a free vote as opposed to the other parties!!
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2015, 11:08 PM
Post
#19
|
|
|
Shakin Stevens
Joined: 29 December 2007
Posts: 46,114 User: 5,138
|
So the Ayes have it with 397 votes - 67 Labour MPs voted with the government and the labour FS Hilary Benn got a hearty round of applause from the Tory benches, hope he's proud of that.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2015, 11:15 PM
Post
#20
|
|
|
#38BBE0 otherwise known as 'sky blue'
Joined: 27 October 2008
Posts: 16,168 User: 7,561
|
QUOTE(Christmaseve201 @ Dec 2 2015, 11:08 PM) So the Ayes have it with 397 votes - 67 Labour MPs voted with the government and the labour FS Hilary Benn got a hearty round of applause from the Tory benches, hope he's proud of that. We'll see how well this 'strategy' works out. |
|
|
|
|
| Time is now: 16th April 2024 - 08:23 PM |
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 BuzzJack.com
About | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
