Jump to content

Airstrikes


Jetpilot

  

39 members have voted

  1. 1. Airstrikes worthwhile

    • Yes
      21
    • No
      18


Recommended Posts

Wait, so being on the brink of ww3, due to a radical terrorist group royally ****ing up the world left right and centre isn't a reason for sending the military in - because 'there might be casualties' on our side?

 

So what reason should we have to use the military? Hand out parking fines? assist police pick pocketing crimes? As these seem a lot less life threatening than defending a country.

 

If your point is don't send in the army due to casualties, then what is the point in having an army?

 

 

As Dan said, people sign up knowing full well what they are getting into.

 

My point was we don't have the political stomach for mass casualties, not about whether the military should or shouldn't be used in certain circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Snjur: So we just sit back and let sh*t sort itself out? Is that your solution?

 

 

Edit due to GMan posting a fraction before me.

It can't sort itself out same like it didn't start itself out. Not to go far and why with explanation but until major players of this game dont come to mutual agreement on how to share their interest this will not stop. Let face that facts Iraq Libya Afganistan this where all countries with organized armies. It was like walk in the park over there taking down those regimes and armys. And here you have a wild bunch of non professional troops and still they give sucha a problem and headache to all this modern technology and army forces against them?

 

Sent from my SM-G850F using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iraq and Afghanistan, instead of raising those countries to the ground and going in to kill everyone that looks like a terrorist or Taliban or Al Qaida or ISIS or whatever they're called, how about making their lot much better. We, as in the UK, spent @ £100 billion in 'fighting' phoney wars in these two countries, mostly spent on building infrastructure to support the military effort. While some infra was needed, it was needed more to improve the lives of those people whose country we intervened in, just to affect regime change (shock!, we were lied to).

 

How about spending the said £100 billion on roads, sewage systems (Kabul is the only Capitol city that I know of that has no sewerage system! ), education, hospitals, power plants (I have mates that were involved with getting Kajaki up and running). If a people are more contented, then they might not look to their western neighbours with envy and jealousy, that will drive fundamentalism.

Just going back to this, as it's an interesting concept, how would this be possible without ridding the country of IS first? It would quickly be twisted into Western countries trying to build cities in their own image, or building a new school to teach children about false prophets, or hospitals to ensure that only the chosen few get the treatment. I can imagine that Islamic fundamentalists are just as good at spinning rhetoric as someone like Britain First, so until you remove the majority of that enemy force you're still onto a loser.

 

If we sat back and let IS create exactly that, a huge Islamic state in that region, do you honestly think they would stay contained for long? Do you think they'd be happy with their lot, and not want a little bit more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can't sort itself out same like it didn't start itself out. Not to go far and why with explanation but until major players of this game dont come to mutual agreement on how to share their interest this will not stop. Let face that facts Iraq Libya Afganistan this where all countries with organized armies. It was like walk in the park over there taking down those regimes and armys. And here you have a wild bunch of non professional troops and still they give sucha a problem and headache to all this modern technology and army forces against them?

It's always been like that. IRA vs entire UK army for an obvious modern context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

G Man on his 'I've been in the Army' High Horse again?

 

Has that been annoying you for some time :)

 

No, SIR!

 

Unless he was an officer, he's not a Sir...

 

Only officers get to ride horses, right? So by power of deduction he must be a high ranking official.

Edited by mouthwash
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say Yes.

 

It seems silly we can bomb them in Iraq/Afghan but not Syria, they don't stick to 1 countries borders so neither should we when dealing with them.

This, the heart of Isis is in Syria, if we're already bombing Iraq, why are we not bombing Syria if we want to make an actual dent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before you look at a solution I you have to consider what the Daesh problem actually is. What they want is for every Muslim to join their forces to start a world war against the non-muslims and eventually end up with a peaceful world of believers only. They'll settle for nothing less, so how can you possibly negotiate with that, "hey come meet the G8 leaders for a chat to discuss all non-mulsims commiting group suicide... oh and leave your belt at home pelase"? I doubt building their infrastructure etc will help, sure those not radicalised already would be happier, but the radicals will still want the same thing but now with easier supply lines and communications available. Will bombing help? I doubt it, but it might weaken them and honestly what other options are there? I honestly think Daesh are absolutely sick, I'm not sure how many people have seen the video which includes drowning men in a cage and wrapping explosive cord around people's necks (Don't watch it! Really!), but I'm not even sure I can call them human anymore, they don't deserve human rights.

 

Whatever happens though, we need to learn from our previous mistakes. If you're going to get involved, don't walk away and leave a power vacuum for people like Daesh to walk in to, work with the governments in the region to create long lasting prosperity and stabilisation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A curious question to Gman, are you saying, its not our fight so why should we put our soldiers in harms way?

 

I watched a documentary on WW2 the other day with regards to Hitlers planned supergun, designed to be fired 24hrs a day with London as its sole target. No military targets, no factories etc its sole purpose, fire artillery on London to break our resolve. I am guessing it was lucky we managed to blow it up before it got a chance to operate so we will never know if it would have had the desired effect, but, is this not what we and everyone is doing now, trying to break their resolve?

 

Whilst it cant hurt to destroy their infrastructure i think it will need a lot more to eradicate the threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly think Daesh are absolutely sick, I'm not sure how many people have seen the video which includes drowning men in a cage and wrapping explosive cord around people's necks (Don't watch it! Really!), but I'm not even sure I can call them human anymore, they don't deserve human rights.

I just did. :(

 

At least the cord guys went quickly. The drowning was awful, but the RPG into the car was horrendous. :( What is really awful is that none of them were struggling or looking panicked at all as it was being setup, and you know that's because they go through dozens of mock executions beforehand so they just assume this is another one of those. When it sinks in it's real... I can't think of anyone I'd subject that to.

 

If anyone thinks we should leave them alone, go watch the video. It's not hard to find. "isis drowning men in a cage" will get you there as the first link, but please be aware that it's horrible to watch. That doesn't mean it should be avoided though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly think Daesh are absolutely sick, I'm not sure how many people have seen the video which includes drowning men in a cage and wrapping explosive cord around people's necks (Don't watch it! Really!), but I'm not even sure I can call them human anymore, they don't deserve human rights.

I just did. :(

 

At least the cord guys went quickly. The drowning was awful, but the RPG into the car was horrendous. :( What is really awful is that none of them were struggling or looking panicked at all as it was being setup, and you know that's because they go through dozens of mock executions beforehand so they just assume this is another one of those. When it sinks in it's real... I can't think of anyone I'd subject that to.

 

If anyone thinks we should leave them alone, go watch the video. It's not hard to find. "isis drowning men in a cage" will get you there as the first link, but please be aware that it's horrible to watch. That doesn't mean it should be avoided though.

 

Sorry!! The calm faces struck me as well... that and the video production quality, apparently they purposely recruit people with those skills from western universities. Horrible doesn't even start to cover it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, so being on the brink of ww3, due to a radical terrorist group royally ****ing up the world left right and centre isn't a reason for sending the military in - because 'there might be casualties' on our side?

 

So what reason should we have to use the military? Hand out parking fines? assist police pick pocketing crimes? As these seem a lot less life threatening than defending a country.

 

If your point is don't send in the army due to casualties, then what is the point in having an army?

 

 

As Dan said, people sign up knowing full well what they are getting into.

Hear what your saying but there is NO chance of ever coming out of this with peace being created, never ever will the middle east be at peace. They've been at war for thousands of years....Christian crusades to present day. I look at it this way. If am going have a square go on a one one basis then am game...why... because there's a even chance of victory. However going in a most a force you have no chance against is pure stupidity and definately suicide. As I've said twice now...thousands of years of war ain't going to be brought to an end by good old Blighty. Every invading country that has tried has had their ass handed to them. There will never be peace in the middle east....ever.

Edited by Irn Bru
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OH, and for anyone reading the above and thinking "how bad can the video be", trust me, don't watch it. I can't apologise to Ekona enough for sticking that in his head. (sorry again, I should have made the don't watch it more clear).

The music is creepy :S
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OH, and for anyone reading the above and thinking "how bad can the video be", trust me, don't watch it. I can't apologise to Ekona enough for sticking that in his head. (sorry again, I should have made the don't watch it more clear).

No need to apologise at all matey, you definitely gave fair enough warning and I knew that it wasn't going to be pleasant. No bad feelings towards you at all fella :)

Edited by Ekona
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People have been doing pretty horrible things to each other since the beginning of time, it's just the social media aspect that gives this new bunch of thugs so much oxygen. And in no way AT ALL do I wish to liken ISIS to the apartheid freedom fighters but let's just say I bet Winnie Mandela's glad she didn't have a YouTube account back in the 1980s...

 

And Saddam Hussein was alleged to have made prisoners guzzle petrol and then ignite them. And now the West is saying things were better back when Mr Hussein kept charge over Iraq!

 

I'm not in favour of bombing Syria. Not because I'm a peacenik but because I think it will do nothing but cause more trouble and give Isis exactly what they want - which is (ultimley) Western allied boots in the country that those savages want to pick off. Plus what happens when the bombs are dropped? Sure a few terrorists will get killed (great, happy days, no one's going to cry over them), but the rest of them will scurry out of the country like rats in drainpipes, re-group in another dusty war-torn country and start new training camps there. Al-Queda were bombed in Afghanistan - that hardly snuffed out the problem did it?

 

Go on Google maps and look how much of the world spans from Western Africa to Pakistan. Big mass of land all that, innit? Bit to big to bomb the hell out of all that! And pretty much any country in that mass has the potential to be the terrorists choice for re-grouping once Syria gets a bit too spicy for them.

 

However saying all that I know that something has to be done. But alas I don't have the answers.

 

A related yet semi-off-topic comment: Religion is blamed for a lot of this trouble but I, personally, don't think religion is the root cause. I believe that's because humans are pretty nasty creatures really and fiercely tribal. That's why people like to meet up after football games and knock 7 bells of @*!# out of each other. And why in big cities young poor kids are drawn into gangs: tribalism. And it is often the poorest who are sucked into this as they don't have any prospects or anything better to do. When you know full well your life is gonna be crap from start to finish the prospect for a young guy of being provided with 72 virgins in heaven is, I imagine, very tempting!

 

But yea, I don't know what the answer is to this mess!

 

S.

 

EDIT: Don't know if many of you enjoy reading books, but if anyone's wanting to get stuck into one over the Christmas period I would really recommend 'My Life Inside al-Qaeda' by Morten Storm. He's a Danish guy (white muslim convert) who joined Al-Qaeda but was then convinced to be a secret agent by the west. Very good reading and a great insight as to how and why people get drawn into terror groups.

Edited by Squee
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://oil-price.net...n-civil-war.php

 

Sent from my SM-G850F using Tapatalk

 

Interesting read. Thanks.

 

The PM was asked in parliament a few years ago why we were funding ISIL, these "throat slitting, barbaric fundamentalists". He didn't answer, just slagged off the questioner. His point was that it was the 'vicious dictator' that we absolutely had to go after.

 

So it seems this is the PM's third go at Assad. We're going in to his territory uninvited to form an alliance with a group who is fighting against him. What happens though when Russia bombs one of our 70,000 moderates? We'll have to stand by them and defend them presumably? Square up to Russia, demand a partition of Syria? What's the plan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Airstrikes are merely a precursor to a ground war - anyone who thinks there is a red line in ONLY voting for RAF involvement is deluded. What people should be asking is who is going to fight the inevitable ground war. Should it be the west again? At who's behest? Quo Bono, who benefits from it all? We'll bleed and die & someone down the line will make a killing.

 

It's high time the Saudis & Persians took care of the shite in thier own back yards.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...