Off Topic Political Debate

Good luck... football, politics wealth everything pales into insignificance compared to health and happiness of loved ones.....

 

We're all caring old farts together.....all the best Leo.

 

I know there is always support there - and thank everyone for their good wishes.

 

I didn't mean t throw such a bucket of cold water though - let's get back to having our row See you Thursday

 

I think we should abide by Leo's wishes and carry on having a row ! If we can move away from point scoring for one party or the other for the moment - there are Labour ministers wanting to bomb Syria and also Tories who are against. Should we support air strikes on Syria ? On the one hand ISIS will not be stopped by words and they are not the people who I would negotiate with but on the other, has bombing alone ever produced any positive result in this part of the World ? Is it not more sensible to try to starve out ISIS ? It is estimated that their daily revenue varies between 1 and 3 million dollars per day, making them the most financially supported terror organization of all time - should we be carrying out sanctions against Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States for this reason (instead of delivering tanks to the one and World Cups to the other). Should we form an alliance with Assad ? Any thoughts on this.....maybe we can take a poll on this, like in Westminster.

 

It's a big fat no from me. At the moment they seem to have no coherent plan for what they will do now and, just as importantly, what happens after any action is taken. I don't really agree with the idea of bombing another country mainly to show solidarity with soemone else - it doesn't make any great sense to me. Equally, every time any military expert is on the telly they seem to be very clear that ISIS can only be defeated by ground troops. That begs the question as to why anyone thinks air strikes will be effective and, more to the point, exactly what British planes will do that others have not already managed...

I'm not against miliatry action per se but I'm nowehere near convined by the case currently being made.

 

I think, if we are going to bomb Syria, David Cameron should move in with the innocent families in the vicinity just to prove how safe they will be!

 

You cannot starve ISIS out as suggested because they will stockpile any food for themselves leaving the trapped innocents without any. More would die of starvation than any collateral damage.

We are already bombing in Iraq so no difference crossing the border into Syria. The decision is more political than operational but we must be seen to fully cooperate with our allies. The second point I would make is bombing Syria will not make us any more of a target, we are one already.

 

I thought it was obvious that I did not only mean starving them of food....but rather of all financial help and weapon supplies - most of which appears to come from countries which we are trading with on a normal basis.

 

... and their oil trading links....

Air strikes alone would nothing in any case...

 

If we're bombing in Iraq could it not be said that we are already fully co-operating with our allies? I'm still not really sure what our presence adds to be honest.
Fully agreed that we are a target and that partaking in airstrikes is unlikely to change that - this makes it all the more urgent to get people on the ground and to take the economic measures suggested by Yorkie and Cologne I'd have thought.

 

The UK is not fully co-operating if our aircraft cannot cross the border, our allies have asked for more assistance. I think everybody agrees with attacking their financial structure and the need for ground troops but as Cameron said we cannot wait for the perfect conditions before we take action.

 

I see the use of smart weapons in this environment as being a total waste of time and money. The SAS was founded on the basis of performing guerilla warfare in Oman because in this theatre and with the type of problem that Daesh poses the solution is to use highly effective special forces. Aerial bombing can and is being used to restrict the cash flow from oil and arms flow in but this in a coalition does not need our direct input. Having said that we are better at reducing collaeral damage than the Russian approach. I favor an alliance with putin to sort this out, let him work the air war and we and the americans and French put in specialist units to take out the command and control infrastructure. Asad is the answer not the problem, his demonization is western propaganda, he's a saint compared to the Saud family!!!!

 

It was a massive mistake for us to oppose nasty dictators in that region who were not particularly nice to their own people but favoured the west.

The generals have the up to date intelligence so should be in the best position to judge the level of our involvement. I don't think leaving the bombing to the Russians is a good idea because they are liable to concentrate on Assad's enemies not ISIS.

 

Daesh are one of many enemies, the russians are bombing all terrorists whereas we choose to side with some, that worked really well in Afghanistan as well didn't it!!! The Russians are correct all of these rebel groups need to be put out of action. It's only western propaganda that says they're only focusing on non Daesh, that would be ridiculous given their one alegience...

 

WHAT IF ......... Syria is a sovereign state with internationally recognized borders and officially governed by Assad. Assad and the Syrian air force are free to protect their sovereign air space and can invite the Russians to assist in this. They are in their right to shoot down any unauthorised flight in their air space be that Turkish, US, or British. Surely the Russian jet shot down was actually the only legal aircraft in that altercation with the Turks....

 

I think Syria is much more developed and westernized than Afghanistan. Some of the groups were legitimate citizens protesting against Assad who he then sent his troops in on etc.

The only real solution I think is a brokered peace backed up with the big stick of the regional powers including Russia and Assad.... That means a concerted disempowering of those groups who will not go for that.

I think the only reason Cameron is saying air power only from the UK is that it minimizes British casualties on the ground. Looks like we are doing something but with least losses.

 

I don't think there is a best answer. Problems if we do and problems if we don't. What does make me believe that we probably should take part is the fact that both the Shadow Foreign secretary and the Shadow Defence secretary have had security briefings and have taken the line that their leader is wrong. I find it bizarre that anyone can believe this can be resolved by negotiation before these evil people are put on the back foot. Assad I regard as equally guilty of war crimes and I would not wish to form an alliance with him. It is a hugely complex situation, yet the UN actually managed to agree for once. I do not like military action, but having seen at first hand what happened here two weeks ago, I cannot believe we should do nothing.

 

I think the line against Assad has softened since Russia got involved. His Govt has to be part of any negotiations... and he wont go first.... NATO leaders have distinctly changed the rhetoric on this.

Clearly the man like so many Arab leaders sadly is a despot and ultimately has to go. There are war crimes matters too. Whether it ever goes that far we will see. He might instead go to Russia.

 

http://www.itv.com/news/2015-12-02/...never-used-the-phrase-terrorist-sympathisers/

Cameron paying the price for the 'terrorist sympathiser' comment.

Our PM cannot use such terms over a parliamentary vote.