News5 mins ago
Does It Make Sense To Half Bomb Your Enemy?
All the arguments raised by Corbyn and co. also apply to Iraq. Thus they are exposed as pacifists become political opportunists.
Either we bomb IS or we don't. There is no sane way in which to accept that bombing your enemy here but not there is acceptable by any rational observer, especially when the UN and your allies want you to expand your campaign.
If it turns out that our government votes for half-bombing our enemies they will have succeeded in making us the laughing stock of the planet.
Either we bomb IS or we don't. There is no sane way in which to accept that bombing your enemy here but not there is acceptable by any rational observer, especially when the UN and your allies want you to expand your campaign.
If it turns out that our government votes for half-bombing our enemies they will have succeeded in making us the laughing stock of the planet.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Colmc54. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
@Colmc54
I've been meaning to make a small point in one of these ongoing threads but Svejk has beaten me to it.
I may be wrong anout this but we have not formally declared war on Syria yet and, in order to bomb what is, in essence, their real estate we need to make that formal declaration or it would be yet anothet illegal war.
The fact that IS have stolen Syrian real estate is a legal complication.
Basically, niether we or the UN or anyone else recognises IS as a 'state'. They are the so-called Islamic so-called state, or SCISCS.
Permission to fly through Syrian airspace could yet be denied by Syria although, if they perceive our mission as in any way helpful to their cause, they'll be waved through.
Unless and until a miscommunication means we hit something the Syrian army has just captured back, minutes before.
I am just addressing practicalities here so this is not a substantive answer to the OP.
I've been meaning to make a small point in one of these ongoing threads but Svejk has beaten me to it.
I may be wrong anout this but we have not formally declared war on Syria yet and, in order to bomb what is, in essence, their real estate we need to make that formal declaration or it would be yet anothet illegal war.
The fact that IS have stolen Syrian real estate is a legal complication.
Basically, niether we or the UN or anyone else recognises IS as a 'state'. They are the so-called Islamic so-called state, or SCISCS.
Permission to fly through Syrian airspace could yet be denied by Syria although, if they perceive our mission as in any way helpful to their cause, they'll be waved through.
Unless and until a miscommunication means we hit something the Syrian army has just captured back, minutes before.
I am just addressing practicalities here so this is not a substantive answer to the OP.
Cameron is following the US line that the MAIN objective is to topple Assad rather than neutralise ISIS.
Cameron wants permission for military action in Syria, not to beat ISIS, but to beat Assad.
We are being conned into joining a war on the wrong side.
Assad is no danger to anyone in the UK, but ISIS is.
Cameron's dodgy dossier published this week is as deceptive as Blair's was 10 years ago.
Most people would agree that we must beat ISIS. That cannot be done with bombing alone, that can only be done with troops on the ground and Cameron will not agree to that, so at best, we are offering a futile empty guesture.
Most people want ISIS beat and are not at all bothered if Assad remains.
Cameron wants permission for military action in Syria, not to beat ISIS, but to beat Assad.
We are being conned into joining a war on the wrong side.
Assad is no danger to anyone in the UK, but ISIS is.
Cameron's dodgy dossier published this week is as deceptive as Blair's was 10 years ago.
Most people would agree that we must beat ISIS. That cannot be done with bombing alone, that can only be done with troops on the ground and Cameron will not agree to that, so at best, we are offering a futile empty guesture.
Most people want ISIS beat and are not at all bothered if Assad remains.
Colmc54,
The Assads have ruled for Syria 45 years. Though friendly with the Russians, they have nwver been percieved as a thread to the West or been a nation that promoted terrorism.
The idea of regime change came as a consequence of the Arab Spring when a few other Russian leaning dictators were deposed.
Hundreds of million of dollars were diverted to the Syrian rebels, the majority of whom were NOT Syrian but foreigners. They represented several outside forces, Turkish, Kurdish, Iraqi, Sunni, and Arabic.
The Russians have an interest because they have suuported Assad for 45 years, and they have military bases in Syria which they do not want to lise for strategic reasons.
Bombing ISIS will not defeat them without troops on the ground.
Bombing the Syrian Government forces puts us against the Russians.
Both scenarios are very bad for this country and we should keep out.
The Assads have ruled for Syria 45 years. Though friendly with the Russians, they have nwver been percieved as a thread to the West or been a nation that promoted terrorism.
The idea of regime change came as a consequence of the Arab Spring when a few other Russian leaning dictators were deposed.
Hundreds of million of dollars were diverted to the Syrian rebels, the majority of whom were NOT Syrian but foreigners. They represented several outside forces, Turkish, Kurdish, Iraqi, Sunni, and Arabic.
The Russians have an interest because they have suuported Assad for 45 years, and they have military bases in Syria which they do not want to lise for strategic reasons.
Bombing ISIS will not defeat them without troops on the ground.
Bombing the Syrian Government forces puts us against the Russians.
Both scenarios are very bad for this country and we should keep out.
Gromit-. How much do you get paid to spout the coverup lies of the party you are congenitally programmed to defends at all costs?
Have you no compassion for other living things or is it the party first and reality second like a subservient party drone?
People are dying but our politics are so corrupt we would rather let them suffer terrible humiliating and excruciating deaths rather than betray the dictats
of your naive pacifist leader.
Have you no compassion for other living things or is it the party first and reality second like a subservient party drone?
People are dying but our politics are so corrupt we would rather let them suffer terrible humiliating and excruciating deaths rather than betray the dictats
of your naive pacifist leader.
you sound as if you think it's Corbyn who's controlling UK foreign policy, Colmc54. He would be delighted to hear it, but you probably need to turn your attention to the people who are actually in charge and decide if you like what they're doing, or suggest alternatives. Opposition leaders have been irrelevant in wartime since WW2 ended.
@Colmc54
If wife beating is codified in the bibble (see: Rule of Thumb) then humans lack empathy even at the domestic level.
At international level, what used to keep us safe from one another was distance, geographical barriers and lack of availability of 'surplus' mouths.
We passed 7 billion mere months ago and, the other week, worldometer.com said it is already up to 7.38 bn. 250 births per minute.
In Darwinian terms, "fittest" isn't the fastest runner or the toughest fighter, it's the ones which out-breed the competition.
I think this is why religions want homosexuals killed, because it could lead to losing a war, if not enough babies are produced.
There. I've said that out loud, so I shall be carted away shortly. Do, please Carry On Without Me. ;-)
If wife beating is codified in the bibble (see: Rule of Thumb) then humans lack empathy even at the domestic level.
At international level, what used to keep us safe from one another was distance, geographical barriers and lack of availability of 'surplus' mouths.
We passed 7 billion mere months ago and, the other week, worldometer.com said it is already up to 7.38 bn. 250 births per minute.
In Darwinian terms, "fittest" isn't the fastest runner or the toughest fighter, it's the ones which out-breed the competition.
I think this is why religions want homosexuals killed, because it could lead to losing a war, if not enough babies are produced.
There. I've said that out loud, so I shall be carted away shortly. Do, please Carry On Without Me. ;-)
Colmc54
I have no affiliation to Labour and never have.
My position is that troops on the ground will win this war, not p1ssing in the wind with airstrikes.
I am in favour of committing troops to fight and beat ISIS decisively and completely.
From where I am sat, it is you Conservative, rightwing, lily-livered defeatists, who want to bomb Syria as a gesture' but are too scared to go and eliminate ISIS, who are the problem. You are ISiS best friend because you pretend to do something while they expand all over the world.
I have no affiliation to Labour and never have.
My position is that troops on the ground will win this war, not p1ssing in the wind with airstrikes.
I am in favour of committing troops to fight and beat ISIS decisively and completely.
From where I am sat, it is you Conservative, rightwing, lily-livered defeatists, who want to bomb Syria as a gesture' but are too scared to go and eliminate ISIS, who are the problem. You are ISiS best friend because you pretend to do something while they expand all over the world.
@Gromit
Boots on the ground is a surefire vote-loser now, though. When the loss of every individual soldier is remarked at the despatch box (ie ensuring entry in Hansard), it is clear *to our opponents* that we haven't the stomach for a campaign where casualties will be too numerous to list as individuals. Back to the standards of decades ago.
Are we really to put electability ahead of world security?
Boots on the ground is a surefire vote-loser now, though. When the loss of every individual soldier is remarked at the despatch box (ie ensuring entry in Hansard), it is clear *to our opponents* that we haven't the stomach for a campaign where casualties will be too numerous to list as individuals. Back to the standards of decades ago.
Are we really to put electability ahead of world security?
@Colmc54
Dateline London (BBC News channel) has just been on, debating this. One participant quoted a John Kerry statistic about 3700-odd airstrikes against IS, contrasting with 13,000 sorties on day 1 of the Iraq war.
They're really just nibbling at the edges so far.
Number of oil facilities destroyed: frack knows
Number of Israeli unit commanders found amongst captured ISIS units: see internet rumour mills
Number of photos of phoney ISIS fighters praying in several directions at once: 1
Number of clues I have as to what is actually going on here: 0
Dateline London (BBC News channel) has just been on, debating this. One participant quoted a John Kerry statistic about 3700-odd airstrikes against IS, contrasting with 13,000 sorties on day 1 of the Iraq war.
They're really just nibbling at the edges so far.
Number of oil facilities destroyed: frack knows
Number of Israeli unit commanders found amongst captured ISIS units: see internet rumour mills
Number of photos of phoney ISIS fighters praying in several directions at once: 1
Number of clues I have as to what is actually going on here: 0
Hypo,
Sadly you are correct. One coffin and a name at the dispatch box in Parliament is enough to get the Corbynites and the lily-livered rightists to give up.
They have bought into a myth that technology and Smart weapons can win wars without any causualties.
The call is, will airstrikes stop attacks on the UK, and the answer is quite definitely No.
Sadly you are correct. One coffin and a name at the dispatch box in Parliament is enough to get the Corbynites and the lily-livered rightists to give up.
They have bought into a myth that technology and Smart weapons can win wars without any causualties.
The call is, will airstrikes stop attacks on the UK, and the answer is quite definitely No.
@Colmc54
//Either we bomb IS or we don't. //
Subject to wrapping it up in the kind of legalese which makes it permissable to bomb cocaine gangsters in a South American country without having to declare war on the country itself… I'd say we should bomb provided that we get maximum economic impairment for minimal casualties. (Obviously, have leaflet drops first, enabling non-terrorist workers to absent themself from installations first).
//There is no sane way in which to accept that bombing your enemy here but not there is acceptable by any rational observer, //
In WWII, we never had the ability to bomb everywhere at once. The occasional "thousand bomber" raids tended to all pound the same city.
However, I do take the view that attacking ISIS could be analagous to trying to destroy a liquid, using a hammer. They can keep on the move ; bomb a training facility at X and a new one pop up at Y. If that was the point you were making, then I would agree.
//Either we bomb IS or we don't. //
Subject to wrapping it up in the kind of legalese which makes it permissable to bomb cocaine gangsters in a South American country without having to declare war on the country itself… I'd say we should bomb provided that we get maximum economic impairment for minimal casualties. (Obviously, have leaflet drops first, enabling non-terrorist workers to absent themself from installations first).
//There is no sane way in which to accept that bombing your enemy here but not there is acceptable by any rational observer, //
In WWII, we never had the ability to bomb everywhere at once. The occasional "thousand bomber" raids tended to all pound the same city.
However, I do take the view that attacking ISIS could be analagous to trying to destroy a liquid, using a hammer. They can keep on the move ; bomb a training facility at X and a new one pop up at Y. If that was the point you were making, then I would agree.
colm: there was a lady on Steven Nolan last night who made an impassioned plea for the west to help Syria : her case was unanswerable it certainly silenced Nolan and his irrelevant interjections. These people have faced, and still face, genocidal attacks, from Assad's forces, which are now being boosted by Russia. Of course people are now facing brutality from other sources as well, depending on what part of Syria they are in. But that is the real issue and until it stops we will not stop IS or the other dubious factions.
We let these people down years ago by our failure to pressure Assad at a time when we might have been able to influence him. Russia is a key reason why IS are now a threat, because it was they and China who were instrumental in stopping any concerted UN action. We also know that one of the many reasons IS gained a footing is that they were supported by Assad too: anyone that was willing to fight his enemy was his friend. And that applies to everyone else in the conflict too.
Assad probably doesn't really care about what happens to IS. Almost certainly he has given up trying to reclaim the entire country, but would settle for a western state, with IS to the east. That would explain why he and his aiders and abettors are currently cluster bombing and barrel bombing their way across Western Syria,
Meanwhile, our "war on IS" is more or less an irrelevance to the rest of what is going on. I agree that if we are going to do this it makes little sense to fight them in one country but not the other. But remember that it will have little to do with helping Syria.
We let these people down years ago by our failure to pressure Assad at a time when we might have been able to influence him. Russia is a key reason why IS are now a threat, because it was they and China who were instrumental in stopping any concerted UN action. We also know that one of the many reasons IS gained a footing is that they were supported by Assad too: anyone that was willing to fight his enemy was his friend. And that applies to everyone else in the conflict too.
Assad probably doesn't really care about what happens to IS. Almost certainly he has given up trying to reclaim the entire country, but would settle for a western state, with IS to the east. That would explain why he and his aiders and abettors are currently cluster bombing and barrel bombing their way across Western Syria,
Meanwhile, our "war on IS" is more or less an irrelevance to the rest of what is going on. I agree that if we are going to do this it makes little sense to fight them in one country but not the other. But remember that it will have little to do with helping Syria.
Off the top of my head I thnik they are not banned for normal combat but ARE banned for use in civilian areas. As is white phosphorus which the Russians have been using, not on IS needless to say.
These bans don't really mean anything. If you have evil people prepared to use them. When are they ever called to account?
These bans don't really mean anything. If you have evil people prepared to use them. When are they ever called to account?
Latest Posts
Crosswords5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
50 Years For Not Killing Or Raping
News10 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles24 mins ago
R.i.p. Duane Thanks For The Music
ChatterBank26 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.