Originally posted by Landisqueen170 I wouldn't even begin to act as though I know where, when, and if bombs should be dropped.
A consensus of the freedom-loving world needs to get a legit, unified, stern course of action in place and implement it.
Would you oppose NATO member Turkey buying ISIS oil? Would bombing such terminals - if they exist - be the kind of "legit, unified, stern course of action" you could support?
Would you agree with the bombing if the massacre in Paris had happened in a city near you or your capital city, or if your wife or children had been shot on that beach in Tunisia or if they had been hurled through the sky, still strapped in their airplane seats following an explosion while returning from a holiday in Sharm el Sheikh, or if your home lay in the pathway of thousands of migrants that were fleeing a country they loved with their children in their arms, or if their dinghies were turning up on your local beach?
These atrocities that you mention are absolutely appalling but this does not mean that bombing-with-no-political-stomach-for-boots-on-the-ground is the right step to take. Western nations started bombing the region a year ago. The French were bombing Syria a year before the attacks on Paris. I fully understand your utter disgust at the deeds of ISIS but I'm not so sure you can simply cite those deeds as a reason to endorse [enter whatever action decided upon by UK government here]. Many people are unconvinced by the case for bombing but this does not mean they don't find the atrocities that you mention to be absolutely appalling too.
Then perhaps that is the decisive action to be taken now rather than this politically brittle war-at-arms-length demonstration of technology, stupendous ordnance and Decisive Retail Politicians. The military alliance would have full spectrum domination. Three divisions from the UK, three from France, ten from the rest of NATO, fifteen from the US, ten more from Arab allies; liberate the lands captured by ISIS, wipe out their ground forces. If Turkey has been trading ISIS oil throw it out of NATO and bomb the terminals. And then gird your domestic loins and fund fully the measures you take to prevent, respond to, and recover from terrorist atrocities in the future.
No i wouldn't agree. I would agree that it would be much more effective for the USA to stop arming Syrian Rebels because it loves those good ol boys the Saudis and let Assad, the Syrian Army and the Iranians fight the Islamic state. This would have been a much better solution right from the beginning but noooooo they were not willing to do business with the Iranians.
If you poke a stick into a wasps nest are you going to be surprised when they sting you back??? hardly. Violence foments violence and i denounce the bombing of Syria on that basis. USA has once again thrown the baby out with the bathwater and even more innocent people will suffer.
Britain will bomb Isis in Syria, but will not support the only factor that every military expert agrees can make such bombing effective. That is to be in support of a specific ground offensive over the territory bombed. . . .Bombs destroy buildings and equipment and kill people. They cannot take or hold territory. They cannot secure victory, let alone peace and prosperity.
The trouble for Cameron in Syria is that the only ground troops worth the name belong not to the joint intelligence committee’s phantom army but to President Assad, whom Cameron wants to topple. In support of Assad are Iran and Russia, from whom Cameron does everything to distance himself.
In other words, the key component of British strategy lies with three potential allies who are anathema. In the light of this we are surely entitled to ask: just how serious is Cameron in wanting to defeat Isis and remove the “existential” threat to Britain?
The British government’s strategy is both incoherent and inconsistent with the declared threat to the British people. So it does what it always does when it can’t think what to do. It bombs.
03 Dec '15 04:011 edit
Your Vote?
Back to Top