Topical question, in the UK news.

[celticdog]

The Politicians and public seem divided just like many in the Iraqi conflicts, what do foccers think?

[mickvp]

In all honesty I dont see why we need to be involved when both France and America are already bombing these areas. do we really need to wade in and cause even more damage? I just dont think its really necessary the UK be involved.

We will be though I think - because as normally seems to be the case, wherever the USA wades in, we blindly follow.

[Slaninar]

IMO - ground troops or nothing. Having seen first hand what bombing looks like - mostly civilian suffering and casualties - military is harmed the least. Though my country has hills and forests, not sure what Syrian topography is like.




I tend to agree:


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/27/bomb-isis-west-learned-nothign-from-war-terror-defeat-muslim-world-equal-partner

[Skippernick]

You can't bomb an idea.
Ground troops need to go in and capture/kill them.
But we need to educate the fundamentalists.

[BBROWN1664]

tactical strikes on known high ranking targets only rather than just bombing the crap out of the place.
Ground troops will be needed too to go in a get others out for some waterboarding.

[fazersharp]

We are already involved in target acquisition and then the others drop the bombs. We point - they drop.

[Slaninar]

Like I said - at least from my experience, bombing does very little damage to the military. And a lot of damage to the civilians.


However, bombing is good for corporations - they sell more bombs, and the "good guys" don't have any casualties so everyone is happy (apart from the bombed civilians, but who cares about the 3rd world savages?!). 




Before 1990s, it was the communism - everyone fears it, no one knows what it is like. But you had to prove someone is a communist - party membership, some activity, anything.
Now terrorism is invented: everyone can be accused of planning terrorist acts and arrested (USA can take people anywhere in the world, without trial and charges and keep them as long as they like, for just suspecting them of any link to any terrorist). Without doing anything wrong. Orwell's 1984 at it's best.

Bombing any country in the world. First it was democracy and human rights, now it's fighting terrorism.

! No longer available

[Frosties]

....................He's off on one again 

[bri h]

I just cant see how bombing without ground troops can help anyone other that arms dealers

[esetest]

Most of the terrorists are homegrown , so I don't think bombing Syria will make a difference , more civilians will be killed , more Syrians will join Isis , and they will have more sympathy from Muslims here , we need to tackle the problem at home , who use our freedom to spout there hate .

[fazersharp]

Most of the terrorists are homegrown , so I don't think bombing Syria will make a difference , more civilians will be killed , more Syrians will join Isis , and they will have more sympathy from Muslims here , we need to tackle the problem at home , who use our freedom to spout there hate .

Thats a good point -- so which city do we need to bomb here

[johnakay]

 
Thats a good point -- so which city do we need to bomb here
 this place  will be a good start....

[esetest]

Most of the terrorists are homegrown , so I don't think bombing Syria will make a difference , more civilians will be killed , more Syrians will join Isis , and they will have more sympathy from Muslims here , we need to tackle the problem at home , who use our freedom to spout there hate .

Thats a good point -- so which city do we need to bomb here

I am not suggesting bombing any cities here , we are constantly being told MI5 are watching thousands of radicals here , well stop watching and start arresting .

[darrsi]

I kind of liked the suggestion of training up Syrian immigrants and sending them back over to fight for their own country!

[Robbie8666]

I kind of liked the suggestion of training up Syrian immigrants and sending them back over to fight for their own country!

errm like we did with the Taliban in Afghanistan during the war against Russia?
my vote is for neither, as a retired serviceman that has served in operations I can't see any advantage of sending in air strikes and sending in ground troops will end in more needless casualties of our forces, which are stretched enough!
 
but only my opinion!
 

[darrsi]

I kind of liked the suggestion of training up Syrian immigrants and sending them back over to fight for their own country!

errm like we did with the Taliban in Afghanistan during the war against Russia?
my vote is for neither, as a retired serviceman that has served in operations I can't see any advantage of sending in air strikes and sending in ground troops will end in more needless casualties of our forces, which are stretched enough!
 
but only my opinion!

So just do nothing, other than take in all the refugees to bleed us dry, and in the process probably let in members of ISIS at the same time?
We're all doomed!

[Frosties]

I kind of liked the suggestion of training up Syrian immigrants and sending them back over to fight for their own country!

errm like we did with the Taliban in Afghanistan during the war against Russia?
my vote is for neither, as a retired serviceman that has served in operations I can't see any advantage of sending in air strikes and sending in ground troops will end in more needless casualties of our forces, which are stretched enough!
 
but only my opinion!

Errr nope. This time we send one out with each patrol and stick them right at the front..........to check for any IED's.


 

[Slaninar]

So just do nothing, other than take in all the refugees to bleed us dry, and in the process probably let in members of ISIS at the same time?
We're all doomed!

The US (mostly), but with EU support, policy has created all the mess in the first place. It works OK for the US though.


The options I see are:
a) bombing and killing mostly civilians (yes, women and children too)
b) getting killed in Syria (sending in troops)
c) sending other people to get killed - smaller countries members of NATO, or local people - like Al Khaida was started in Afganistan.
d) working for half the pay when all the extra labour comes to town, good for the companies
e) sealing the borders and letting them starve

[Skippernick]

Thats a good point -- so which city do we need to bomb here
 this place  will be a good start....

No thats a beautiful building so don't destroy it, send in ground troops to arrest them and then firing squads.

[bri h]

Maybe dave cameron can resign as pm, turn all rambo and go and sort them all out. Then he can come back and live as a homeless veteran.

[darrsi]

Don't believe for one second that these people won't attempt to terrorise us again, whether we move in or not.
And how can you tell if these civilians are not indeed the terrorists that were being aimed at in the first place?

[BBROWN1664]

Details

Crap editing, but you get the idea

[bri h]

Details

Crap editing, but you get the idea

that's the fella haha. Course once he's chased them out of Syria they will start up somewhere else. You can't bomb an idea (as someone cleverer than me said).

[esetest]

On the bright side no point worrying about saving for our old age , we'll be fucking lucky , might as well spend it now while there are still shops to spend in .

[bri h]

On the bright side no point worrying about saving for our old age , we'll be fucking lucky , might as well spend it now while there are still shops to spend in .

so we can all buy new bikes as long as they are not naked