|
|
Post by jaggas on Dec 3, 2015 20:56:28 GMT
I
|
|
|
|
Post by jaggas on Dec 3, 2015 21:02:05 GMT
I cannot believe Cameron got away with it,I was hoping common sense would prevail in the commons.
Camerons argument was a bullsh*t one and it was only the events in Paris than gave him the excuse to force through his agenda.
I wonder if France would be so overly concerned and want to rush into bombing IS if London was attacked in the same way Paris was.I would expect the French to shrug their shoulders then sit on their hands, they are not our friends or Allies and never have been.
|
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Dec 3, 2015 23:14:45 GMT
I cannot believe Cameron got away with it,I was hoping common sense would prevail in the commons. Camerons argument was a bullsh*t one and it was only the events in Paris than gave him the excuse to force through his agenda. I wonder if France would be so overly concerned and want to rush into bombing IS if London was attacked in the same way Paris was.I would expect the French to shrug their shoulders then sit on their hands, they are not our friends or Allies and never have been. So just to clarify, somehow Cameron's argument was so flimsy he managed to convince 67 members of the opposition to support him, including (somehow) several members of the Shadow Cabinet who felt his argument was so flimsy they had to agree with him. Somehow his argument was so flimsy that only seven members of his own party disagreed with him. We all have our own opinion but (I assume) none of us on here are an MP, and so none of us get to vote whether or not to send men and women to war. So can we respect (in order) those individuals that go to war, but also those that have to make the decision than sends them there...? |
|
|
|
Post by inee on Dec 4, 2015 21:11:57 GMT
Jaggas i agree with your comments on the french , but what is cameron supposed to do sit and wait, people have to remember these are terrorists, they are not going to sit at a table for a discussion, they kill indiscriminately they don't give a toss for anyone else.
I've already mentioned where i stand re troops, troops should not be sent in on the ground as unless we fight fire with fire ,we would not make any progress, the only way to hit them would be to use coordinated simultaneous strikes, they have tanks etc,these are not too difficult to spot and destroy. they will not stop fighting till every single one of them is dead
|
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Dec 5, 2015 1:17:57 GMT
Jaggas i agree with your comments on the french , but what is cameron supposed to do sit and wait, people have to remember these are terrorists, they are not going to sit at a table for a discussion, they kill indiscriminately they don't give a toss for anyone else. I've already mentioned where i stand re troops, troops should not be sent in on the ground as unless we fight fire with fire ,we would not make any progress, the only way to hit them would be to use coordinated simultaneous strikes, they have tanks etc,these are not too difficult to spot and destroy. they will not stop fighting till every single one of them is dead It's nice to find someone online talking sense about this issue. I remember the 'terrorists' in the 80s/90s (Northern Ireland). Whilst they believed their views and expressed them in a violent way, you could (at first in secret) sit them down around a table and talk, then negotiate with them. ISIS have to be eliminated and it has to be done in a way that anyone else in the next 20/30/40 years with a similar view will actually be convinced we are serious so they will STFU and GBTW.... |
|
|
|
Post by jaggas on Dec 6, 2015 17:16:31 GMT
Jaggas i agree with your comments on the french , but what is cameron supposed to do sit and wait, people have to remember these are terrorists, they are not going to sit at a table for a discussion, they kill indiscriminately they don't give a toss for anyone else. I've already mentioned where i stand re troops, troops should not be sent in on the ground as unless we fight fire with fire ,we would not make any progress, the only way to hit them would be to use coordinated simultaneous strikes, they have tanks etc,these are not too difficult to spot and destroy. they will not stop fighting till every single one of them is dead For starters Cameron should start fighting IS in his own back yard.To do that he has to first admit that there is a problem in the UK within the muslim community something he is frightened to death to do as the British people have been programmed and bullied by the Liberal left over the last two decades to accept Islam warts and all as a peaceful religion.The word Islamophobia was invented to protect muslims and allow them to live as they would in their native homelands no matter how vile the customs and values they live by. Bombing Syria is just p*ssing into the wind if Cameron wants to make a stand on the world stage against IS then he has to convince the major nations in the world to enforce sanctions against Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar with immediate effect as these countries are funding IS directly and knowingly, the Syrian government is buying black market oil from IS. There should be no British boots on the ground until the Geneva convention acts are allowed to be ignored and they should be when fighting people who hide amongst innocent civilians.We have a high profile case of a British soldier in jail serving time for killing a member of the Taliban this is an absolute disgrace and Cameron could have this man released in an instant.Why should any member of the armed forces act on government instructions when they could end up in prison for doing their job? The free world could stop decades of wars and terrorist acts tomorrow by flattening Saudi Arabia and turning the whole nation to dust with a few nukes sent with love from Russia, USA,UK,France and Israel. |
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Dec 6, 2015 21:47:26 GMT
When you suggest nuking Saudi Arabia, do you actually mean it? As a serious solution to the problem? Despite the fact it would lead to a worldwide conflict that would make World War 2 look like Sunday tea at Auntie Mable's house?
|
|
|
|
Post by jaggas on Dec 6, 2015 21:54:41 GMT
Nope: I think nuking Saudi and the other rogue Islamic States would end all the conflicts where muslims are involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Dec 7, 2015 1:53:20 GMT
For starters Cameron should start fighting IS in his own back yard.To do that he has to first admit that there is a problem in the UK within the muslim community something he is frightened to death to do as the British people have been programmed and bullied by the Liberal left over the last two decades to accept Islam warts and all as a peaceful religion.The word Islamophobia was invented to protect muslims and allow them to live as they would in their native homelands no matter how vile the customs and values they live by. Bombing Syria is just p*ssing into the wind if Cameron wants to make a stand on the world stage against IS then he has to convince the major nations in the world to enforce sanctions against Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar with immediate effect as these countries are funding IS directly and knowingly, the Syrian government is buying black market oil from IS. There should be no British boots on the ground until the Geneva convention acts are allowed to be ignored and they should be when fighting people who hide amongst innocent civilians.We have a high profile case of a British soldier in jail serving time for killing a member of the Taliban this is an absolute disgrace and Cameron could have this man released in an instant.Why should any member of the armed forces act on government instructions when they could end up in prison for doing their job? The free world could stop decades of wars and terrorist acts tomorrow by flattening Saudi Arabia and turning the whole nation to dust with a few nukes sent with love from Russia, USA,UK,France and Israel. Well that escalated quickly. Just to clarify, I disagree that flattening Saudi Arabia will solve the problem now...50 years ago it might have been different, but you can't do it now....if for no other reason than those 5 nations would never agree to do it for the the same reasons, but that's academic, it's still not a solution... Don't forget the Geneva convention works both ways. It protects our airmen who are shot down and our troops on the ground who go into difficult places doing difficult jobs. Could it be improved? Definitely, it's 65 years old and the world has changed massively since then. But it's not a priority as the terrorists don't play by it so we need to ensure political efforts are spent killing them rather than negotiating how... Also don't forget Cameron isn't trying to make a stand on the world stage. He can't until the renewal of Trident is signed and sealed. The only way we keep our permanent seat on the Security Council is when that's done so at the moment he's just trying to keep us in the game until we can jump that hurdle. For what it's worth I think we should do what I assume we're actually doing. Special Forces and MI6 on the ground identifying targets that the RAF can bomb the hell out of. |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Dec 7, 2015 7:42:51 GMT
Nope: I think nuking Saudi and the other rogue Islamic States would end all hope where humans are involved. Fixed that for you. |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Dec 7, 2015 11:55:28 GMT
We hit anything yet?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2015 12:39:12 GMT
Why are we bombing IS? If we want to stop them from attacking, all we need to do is put Van Gaal in charge of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaggas on Dec 7, 2015 19:27:19 GMT
Nope: I think nuking Saudi and the other rogue Islamic States would end all hope where humans are involved. Fixed that for you. You are probably right Hugo.Mankind would destroy itself if it released nukes on Saudi. No one is going to flatten or nuke Saudi although I bet Israel would love to.I just think that Saudi is the absolute axis of evil that doesn't warrant a place in the modern world. They fund most if not all muslim terrorists and they live by the same barbaric evil version of Islam that IS force it's captives to live under. They are a brutal evil nation with an appalling record of human rights abuse. While it would never happen I think ridding the world of Saudi would make the world a safer and better place to live. |
|
|
|
Post by pirateman on Dec 8, 2015 13:38:21 GMT
Saudi has so much oil that no one will nuke it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2015 13:43:58 GMT
Saudi has so much oil that no one will nuke it Saudi is under a lot of pressure, especially with the drop in the price of oil in conjunction with the rise of Fracking. Saudi hasn't invested very much in infrastructure nor providing for the future. Many are predicting the fall of the House of Saudi within the next ten years. |
|
|
|
Post by pirateman on Dec 8, 2015 13:46:21 GMT
Saudi has so much oil that no one will nuke it Saudi is under a lot of pressure, especially with the drop in the price of oil in conjunction with the rise of Fracking. Saudi hasn't invested very much in infrastructure nor providing for the future. Many are predicting the fall of the House of Saudi within the next ten years. I would say, 'I hope so', but probably what replaced them would be worse. (if that's possible) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2015 13:49:43 GMT
Saudi is under a lot of pressure, especially with the drop in the price of oil in conjunction with the rise of Fracking. Saudi hasn't invested very much in infrastructure nor providing for the future. Many are predicting the fall of the House of Saudi within the next ten years. I would say, 'I hope so', but probably what replaced them would be worse. (if that's possible) Take away the income from oil, and Saudi hasn't got a thing, just lots and lots of sand. |
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Dec 8, 2015 15:07:10 GMT
I would say, 'I hope so', but probably what replaced them would be worse. (if that's possible) Take away the income from oil, and Saudi hasn't got a thing, just lots and lots of sand. So it's basically Weston-Super-Mare then? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2015 15:09:17 GMT
Take away the income from oil, and Saudi hasn't got a thing, just lots and lots of sand. So it's basically Weston-Super-Mare then? Yep, but with more camels. |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Dec 8, 2015 15:39:11 GMT
So it's basically Weston-Super-Mare then? Yep, but with more camels. But less camel hoofs. |
|
