Bomb someone in Syria poll - will it work

[anonymous-user]

Satire as prophecy. The Onion in 2003 :-


http://www.theonion.com/multiblogpost/this-war-wil...

[saaby93]

LimaDelta said:

I think it may have exactly the intended effect.

Follow that course of action to it's logical conclusion...

I cant see a logical conclusion
lots more downings of aeroplanes, more random massacres
Russian and the west have a big argument about whose side who should be on
massive implosion
China becomes topdog?

[popeyewhite]

According to Cameron "it's the right thing to do" .

So that's that then.

'king numpty.

[Ayahuasca]

vonuber said:

Ayahuasca said:

How many allied troops were on mainland Japan when it surrendered?

How many years of bombing, naval campaigns, fighting in china / burma / across the islands were there beforehand?

And did those years of fighting make Japan surrender?

No.

What made them surrender was two bombs.

[Leroy902]

That'll be another few million refugees headed our way in the next 12 months.

There won't be any complaining from me neither, by standing by and not even questioning the government decision, we're as responsible for the consequences as the government.

Edited by Leroy902 on Tuesday 1st December 22:32

[DrDoofenshmirtz]

The Crack Fox said:

See also; Afghanistan and Libya.

For fk's sake - it's terrifying that our government think that chucking in more bombs into an already bombed to bits country can do anyone any good. How much does one bomb cost? Let's spend the same on food, medicine and tents and 'bomb' them with that. Also, that way, when the Yanks inevitably bombs another MSF hospital it wouldn't matter as much.

When will people realise that it's better to have a heavy-handed dictator running these places than the bloodbath that follows. Anyone in Iraq happy with their democracy now? Libyans pleased that Gadaffi got lynched when they're queuing on a beach with their kids for the next leaky boat heading north? Afghans in Helmand grateful our troops got blown up by the dozen for their "freedom"?

DC claims that ISIL pose a threat to the U.K. The guys who attacked Paris were from Belgium, right? The London 7-11 bombers from Luton? Shouldn't we be bombing Brussels and Bedfordshire, on that basis?

What a fking mess.

This.
Anyone who thinks we can sort this mess out with air strikes is a fool. We caused it by toppling the dictators, and it looks like history will soon repeat itself - only this time Russia are involved.
It's a worry.
As much a joke Corbyn is, he's completely right to stand against air strikes - shame the other fools are just blindly leading us into more UK attacks and murders. Thanks guys.

[vonuber]

Ayahuasca said:

And did those years of fighting make Japan surrender?

No.

What made them surrender was two bombs.

No, that merely hastened it. Anyway, it's a redundant argument - we are not exactly going to nuke the middle east are we.

[Z06George]

Have we even got much in the way of available aircraft to bomb them with or will we likely be using the Tornadaos bombing targets else where in the middle east for Syria?

[MrBarry123]

Ayahuasca said:

MrBarry123 said:

Ayahuasca said:

Two bombs ended WWII with no boots on the ground.

Just sayin...

Urm... You could argue that the bombs ended WW2 however I'm not sure you could argue that no boots set foot on the ground?

How many allied troops were on mainland Japan when it surrendered?

I'm taking the piss.

Your original comment made it sound as if you thought no troops were involved in WW2.

[anonymous-user]

BOR said:

A warm welcome to the return of our old friend, collateral damage.

Yup, collateral damage, the recruiter of terrorists.

Bombing in Syria is at best symbolic. The only way to defeat Isis is to launch a massive ground campaign but before that, the invaders have to decide who they want to be in charge and what to do with all the rival fighting groups including the Sunni role in the new Iraq when Isis territory eventually gets reclaimed.

[allnighter]

el stovey said:

BOR said:

A warm welcome to the return of our old friend, collateral damage.

Yup, collateral damage, the recruiter of terrorists.

Bombing in Syria is at best symbolic. The only way to defeat Isis is to launch a massive ground campaign but before that, the invaders have to decide who they want to be in charge and what to do with all the rival fighting groups including the Sunni role in the new Iraq when Isis territory eventually gets reclaimed.

I echo the first part of your statement. Bombing would be an expensive fireworks IMO. ISIS would end up with just dust in their eyes. Ground troops is the only solution to the problem that ISIS poses. If we do not want to be seen as invaders, then we better back Assad and his legitimate army and restore order in the country without installing a puppet government. A coalition force with the Syrian army, Russian troops and various other troops under one command is the only was to crush these cockroaches.

[anonymous-user]

Pesty said:

Let's face it in the short term I think the only way to put an end to this st is make it clear they will utterly and totally be destroyed, hurt them so much that they actually question their faith, but it's not going to happen.A few bombs definitely won't do much and it won't stop any already here who sympathise.


Think they can give this a jump?


In short go big or go home anything else probably won't do much.

Whats the point in that when you have cruise missiles and their launch platforms sat safely at sea, which are capable of a yield 10 times the energy of that relic?

Including Syria to the RAF bomb list is very much a political gesture. If you really want to have an impact on ISIS, you have to shut down their ability to function, and bombing isn't the answer to that. It may potentially put some in that region back in their box for a short term, but we will be back here again in a few years unless you cut out the route cause of their ability to exist.

Whatever we do in Syria wont have any impact on what is going on in mainland Europe, that's a totally different issue and the current politicos are not prepared to do what is required to sort that out, they may never be able to either whilst maintaining a functioning relatively free society.

[Mr_B]

The RAF bombing of ISIS in Iraq is a small side show, so if you were really interested, why have all the hassle when you could just double your efforts in Iraq without even having to raise an eyebrow doing so ?

It's not going to make anyone safer here in the UK, it will just increase the chance of one of our own British Muslim population picking up a kitchen knife and getting into his Vauxhall Tigra and repeating Woolwich. Even if you did some how destroy ISIS ( they would mostly melt away if facing a huge ground coalition army ), it doesn't tackle the home grown problem who are most likely to be behind any Paris style attack here.

I'd like to think that if you destroyed ISIS ( as said, most would just melt away ) that would be the end of terrorist bad guys, but something says they will live and carry on under a different name, and those who we thought were good guys in fighting ISIS will I think take their chance at a power grab and won't be the western loving pro democracy everyone seems to think they will be. One bunch of people who say good is great every time they fire a gun or kill someone replaced by another lot doing exactly the same, isn't my idea of much of an improvement.

[glazbagun]

How does one define "work"? Cameron doesn't really seem to have an end in mind, so it's impossible to say whether the means will be effective. Which is probably why every man and his dog seems to oppose it.

I really hope he gets his arse handed to him in parliament, but I doubt it'll happen. Bang goes another few hundred million tax pounds. We're all in it together, eh?

[Derek Smith]

Hammond was on Sky News, supporting the bombing, saying how useful it would be.

He was then asked if he could see any way he would be on the side of Assad. He replied that due to Assad's bombing of various groups, he was the main recruiter for IS so it would be wrong to side with him.

[saaby93]

Running at 12(bombISIS) +5(best) vs 43(Poke Hornets) +26 (worst)
17% for vs 69% against
Will our elected reps follow suit?

[LimaDelta]

saaby93 said:

Running at 12(bombISIS) +5(best) vs 43(Poke Hornets) +26 (worst)
17% for vs 69% against
Will our elected reps follow suit?

Why have you counted the hornets nest as a vote against?

[RYH64E]

saaby93 said:

Running at 12(bombISIS) +5(best) vs 43(Poke Hornets) +26 (worst)
17% for vs 69% against
Will our elected reps follow suit?

I'm somewhat surprised at the voting so far, from the response on other threads I got the impression that I was in the minority who thought that bombing Syria (either side, or both sides) was a pointless gesture that hasn't worked in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya, is never going to defeat ISIS, and is not going to protect our citizens at home or abroad.

I haven't voted in the poll because none of the options really represent my view.

Edited by RYH64E on Wednesday 2nd December 08:48

[saaby93]

LimaDelta said:

saaby93 said:

Running at 12(bombISIS) +5(best) vs 43(Poke Hornets) +26 (worst)
17% for vs 69% against
Will our elected reps follow suit?

Why have you counted the hornets nest as a vote against?

If you poke a hornets nest all the bees come out and sting you
Isn't that whats happening currently - we do a bit of drone striking, it winds up followers and they come out and bomb an aircraft or a shopping mall

Did anyone tick hornets in favour of bombing?

[TSCfree]

LimaDelta said:

Why have you counted the hornets nest as a vote against?

What we need is an inquiry into hornets nest prodding....

Edited by TSCfree on Wednesday 2nd December 09:17