I watched a fascinating documentary on BBC last night about the tank battles that took place in Normandy after D-Day. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01pvbds/tankies-tank-heroes-of-world-war-ii-episode-1 The Allies were losing the battle on the ground and had to resort to bombing French towns to drive back the German forces. One fact, mentioned almost in passing, was that there were 70,000 French civilians killed unintentionally by Allied bombing in WW2, compared to 50,000 British civilians killed intentionally by the Luftwaffe.
Syria had a population of about 20 million in 2010. Since then 250,000 have been killed mostly by Assad (since it has been around Daesh estimated to have caused 5% of Syrian civilian deaths), 10 million (yup half the population) have been forced out of their homes, 5 million are living in camps in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon and perhaps another 1 million have fled to Europe. But Assad poses no threat to us. It seems to be impossible to get a figure for total deaths caused by Daesh, in the low tens of thousands possibly. They obviously pose a threat to us. Saddam killed up to 1 million of his own citizens. Despite what Blair said he never posed a threat to us. We fought a war in Afghanistan to try and get rid of Al Qaeda and succeeded in merging them with the Taliban and making Pakistan even worse than it was already. Al Qaeda posed a threat to us. I can't find any figures on how many people Gadaffi killed, not so many I guess, but he was a major sponsor of international terrorism and the US bombed Libya in reprisals on a pretty regular basis. Blair had tea in a tent in the desert with him. Despite the threat that he posed us. I have no problem with bombing them all to ****, but our policies have no coherence or consistency. We let Gadaffi stay in place for 40 years even though he was organising attacks on us. We declined to help the forces trying to get rid of Assad. We fought two wars against Saddam, but even after the first one we let him continue terrorising his own people. We throw money at Pakistan, even though they don't cooperate with us and are obviously taking the piss. We **** up the end game every single time, without fail. So I would support the bombing of Daesh in Syria, Iraq and their strongholds in Sinai and Libya as well. The world is better off without them, even if they weren't a threat to us. Because they are disgusting people, it's an insult to medieval people to call them medieval. It may reduce the threat to us a little, but as far as I know the terrorist attacks that have happened here have all been carried out by British Muslims, and I would expect that to continue into the future, whether they are aligned with Al Qaeda, Daesh or any of the inevitable successor nutter death cults. History means that fairly or unfairly we will always be a target for Middle Eastern anger. We can withdraw from the world entirely, close our borders, avoid alliances, but this would still be the case. What I don't understand is what drives our current and past policies - humanitarianism? Self interest? Supporting our allies? Self protection? I don't expect morality (a moveable feast anyway) to play a role, but a bit of integrity would be handy.
It was reported quite early on after 9/11 that OBL was Al Qaeda's head honcho and that going into Afghanistan to deal with him would put that 'organisation' into disarray. I grant you that this premise quickly changed, but it was nevertheless first implied. I'm sure that will be insufficient for you, but there you go. It's a small point in the grand scheme of things.
What you actually said was: Now even with your toned down version that it would ‘put that organisation into disarray’, I think you know yourself that what you said held no real weight and was a gross exaggeration to say the least. Also, you did say this in the context that you were lied to that killing Bin Laden would eradicate Al Qaeda and you implied that on this occasion you were being lied to that air strikes on ISIS would eradicate hem. Neither of these things are true. No one is saying that air strikes will ‘eradicate’ ISIS but as with ISIS it is one part of confronting, containing and a longer term goal of reigning back their progress.
That's likely the millionth time that I've exaggerated, so I learn to live with it. Softening my language on that doesn't change my overall position though. I have no problem with bombing the bastards to smithereens, I'm just not wholly convinced that the plan to do that is fully formed. You have all the facts and the conviction on this, so hope you're right and will be the first to congratulate you when it's proven to have been an effective means of reducing the overall threat from ISIS. In the absence of any credible alternative strategy right now, let's see if this works this time. On the law of averages there'll be at least one Western military intervention in the Middle East that leads to longer term and sustainable good. Let's hope this is the one, eh?
Mr Peter is on a role after the correct prediction that Ramsey was going to be sacked Uber. What have any of us got? I can't remember why I am even on here
So we are going to start dropping bombs on Syria. I just hate all this sh!t and it won't fix the problem, more likely escalate it imo...
Only in the UK can such a insufficient effort be made to look like a triumph There on the BBC a moment ago I rarely watch it but I feel ashamed and sick. I cannot believe anyone would buy into this rubbish. It's a pin prick nothing more than a token just because Syria said no to a pipeline "England is safer tonight because of the action taken" This has to be most stupid thing I watched on TV Good grief I despair what has the BBC become even the weather is treated like a drama Dangerous winds and dangerous cold temperatures down to 4 degrees Gales and rain Countryfile is the number one hit show ... Shameful and anyone who thinks that is a accurate reflection is stupid
No one likes this ****. However, sitting on our hands for fear of upsetting these nut jobs more just smacks of defeatism imo.
Agree 100% Col I would like to hope that the 2bn given to our excellent SF will hunt down every potential cell in our European lands. Hard line visible raids on the TV to any slight risk or lead will send a harder image IMO You come into our lands to make trouble then you better be smart because we are smarter Put the foot onto the necks of these cowards in real time and take them out . A few body bags live on TV with these bastards in them will send a better image to the world Bombing not as effective IMO You have no ID card sorry you ain't coming in. I wouldn't stop there ... No card. You aren't even going to be allowed to buy anything You can practice any religion in the UK but remember step out of line then expect a hammer We need a special police that puts the fear into anyone who has reason to be scared ... Including corrupt business and politicians No one is above the law Take one of our lives expect 50 of you to go. We have a wealth of good English youth here who have Anglo Saxon genes but no jobs Train them to protect this country against these cowards. Too many of them trying to get a latte Come to England to cause trouble expect a bloody lip
I was thinking more along the lines of it needing ground troops, just dropping bombs from the air will not fix this!
