I'd take any 'stats' like that from the government with a pinch of salt. There only going to tell us what they want us to hear.
No, but if we have to be in there, I'd rather we do it by injuring and killing the least innocent number of people we can.
Of course that goes without saying. But innocent deaths are inevitable with air strikes, these people hide amongst civilians for that exact reason. More innocent deaths over there, the more people who will be radicalised here in the UK. Joining these air strikes actually makes us a bigger target imo.
Yes, I appreciate that point entirely, which is why I think we need to take a measured response over this and not automatically go for a military option. The fact is that the western countries could wipe IS off the face of the map. But then that would stir up greater trouble within and without those western countries. That is part of the aim of IS. They want to be martyrs, so why should we gratify them [I know you're not suggesting we do, I'm just talking generally about the whole affair].?
Agree, and the thing is if we do 'defeat' IS - another group spouting the same **** with the same goals will just pop up. I seriously don't think bombing them is the answer. Now, I'm not pretending I have the answer, I don't have a ****ing clue what the answer is but just because I/we don't know the answer it doesn't mean that we should just bomb the **** out of the middle east (again) cos it worked so well last time we did that didn't it...
This is where they are hoping the peace talks in Vienna come in. Only time will tell. I'm glad it's others who have to make these sorts of decisions because there is no crystal ball unfortunately.
I'm not particularly for a bombing campaign in Syria but I don't think we are going to be in any more danger in the UK if we do. We are already bombing IS in Iraq and we are already a major target.
air strikes just give rise to the next generation of terrorists. of course if I had stealthy fingers in arms manufacturers pies, I would probably support air strikes.
Its 5 to 10 years down the line, when young kids have grown into adults, and their famillies have been killed by allied bombs, that's when the danger increases for European lives.
This isn't an advert it is raising money for the Saints Foundation. We have super Mayor who is raising money for a number of local charities including Saints Foundation. To help in the fund raising you could always have tea, sandwiches and cakes with her at the Grand Café in Great Western House next Monday. It is exceptional value and a break from the bloody shopping. Here is a link:http://seesouthampton.co.uk/the-mayor-of-southampton-cllr-linda-norris/
MPs are having to make a terribly difficult decision, with incomplete data and conflicting views. The decision they make will affect real lives, perhaps ending them, perhaps condemning them to life under an awful system. They are doing in the full glare of publicity and with people ready to jump on their back the instant they have voted as well as down the line when things have or haven't happened as a result. I wouldn't want to have to make that kind of decision for all the tea in China. People should remember this moment when they next say "MPs are just in it for the power; they have a cushy life and they are all the same". Vin
Thankfully for them, none of them are going to be cowering in their house as the jet rattles the walls of their house wondering if this is the end of their lives
Or,if the vote goes the other way: Thankfully for them, none of them are going to be cowering in their house as the thugs of ISIS come along to have their daughter stoned to death for letting her veil slip accidentally. It's not black or white, no matter how hard people on here seem to want to paint it one colour or the other. And, before you jump on me as a typical warmonger, I genuinely don't know what I want the decision to be. I posted what I posted to show the complexity of the life-or-death decision MPs have to make. It's not as simple as "bombing bad vs bombing good". Vin
Absolutely correct Vin. The complexities are many. This is a good piece to put things in some sense of reason and order - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/9-things-no-ones-mentioning-6941003#ICID=sharebar_facebook
Now that the Big names are out of the way , I must say , whatever your thoughts on this , it is VERY refreshing to see the politicians speaking to each other and treating each other like adults .
Just to lighten up the subject matter for a moment, I have a guilty secret. Bearing in mind that I try not to watch too much rubbish, when I first got into a bit of streaming TV, back in about 2005 [I think it was, maybe a bit later] there were a couple of shows that I would practice the bandwidth on [ie, use as test]. One of them was The Late, Late Show with Craig Ferguson. You may not have the merest idea of who I'm talking about, but he quit at the end of last year and the relatively no-talent James Corden replaced him. I watched a few shows, for old times sake, and it's nowhere near as good. So there I was rummaging around Youtube and I found a stack of Craig's interviews on there. Here's a typical example of him getting the chemistry right with a guest. What do you think.? At least I've got that guilty secret off my chest. No more skeletons left: Thank you for getting this far. Carry on.
