Should Cameron apologise?

[I1L2T3]

So they will have to sort soemthing out. Its no soemthing either Russia or America are willing to go to war with each other over.

 

That is a huge gamble.

 

Remind us how long it has been since the west and Russia were active in the same theatre of war and wanting very different outcomes.

 

Don't you see the problem? Don't you see why we need a long term plan, some kind of idea of how things could look afterwards?

 

---------- Post added 03-12-2015 at 07:54 ----------

 

According to Iraq Body Count it's as many as 369 between January and July this year, as reported in the Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/syria-strikes-cameron-claims-there-have-been-no-reports-of-civilian-casualties-in-iraq-since-british-a6757351.html

 

There was a report on Newsnight earlier in the week about civilian collateral in Helmand. It highlighted some of the deaths and the provision we make to compensate the families. We have a fund set aside for this and we will have funds for the action in Iraq too.

 

I'm guessing what Cameron means is nobody from Iraq has successfully made a claim yet for recent RAF action. It's unlikely that there won't be any claims. The claims just haven't been made or verified yet.

[Eric Arthur]

According to Iraq Body Count it's as many as 369 between January and July this year, as reported in the Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/syria-strikes-cameron-claims-there-have-been-no-reports-of-civilian-casualties-in-iraq-since-british-a6757351.html

 

Thanks for that. I personally would like zero civillian casualties just as you would, but under the circumstances even 369 from tens of thousands of missions seems remarkably low by previous standards.

 

The report doesn't state if those deaths are caused by UK air strikes.

 

Perhaps the UK's precision tactics, intelligence and munitions are having a positive effect on collateral damage and locsl sentiment, which again under the circumstances is a good thing for the overall objective of returning Syria and Iraq back to regular Syrians and Iraquis. I'd read it as a reason for the UK to be involved instead of leaving it all to those with a less precise approach.

 

It's worth posting this footnote for balance.

The data is compiled by the Iraq Body Count project, staffed by volunteers and activists based in the UK and US, and one of the few organisations consistently noting death toll. However, the organisation – which gathers data from Arabic and English media reports as well as NGOs – has been criticised for both under and over counting in the past.

 

---------- Post added 03-12-2015 at 08:09 ----------

 

There was a report on Newsnight earlier in the week about civilian collateral in Helmand. It highlighted some of the deaths and the provision we make to compensate the families. We have a fund set aside for this and we will have funds for the action in Iraq too.

 

Do IS have a similar hearts and minds arrangement?

 

---------- Post added 03-12-2015 at 08:20 ----------

 

That is a huge gamble.

 

Remind us how long it has been since the west and Russia were active in the same theatre of war and wanting very different outcomes.

 

Afghanistan, 1989, the year that the Cold War ended. If we managed to avoid nuking each other during numerous conflicts on opposite sides in the previous half century it's reasonable to assume we'll be OK now. Russia didn't even use its veto for UN2249.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Eric Arthur

[*_ash_*]

What is your problem?

 

Your selectively implying that my comments look like warmongering.

 

I've said enough times, that I think that bombing is what so called IS wants, and that constant coverage over it* means that they can watch every single move just by turning on the tele.

 

*and everything else to do with them

 

I even criticised how the internet and media is giving individuals exactly what they want, and wrote this the day before the Paris attacks.

[Quik]

According to Iraq Body Count it's as many as 369 between January and July this year, as reported in the Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/syria-strikes-cameron-claims-there-have-been-no-reports-of-civilian-casualties-in-iraq-since-british-a6757351.html

 

That number is not for UK airstrikes, its for all ariel attacks in Iraq including IQAF strikes. As of yesterday the MOD stated via their twitter account that there are no reported civilian deaths from RAF airstrikes against IS in Iraq, it seems unlikely they would say that if it could be easily disproved.

[Hesther]

Your selectively implying that my comments look like warmongering.

 

I've said enough times, that I think that bombing is what so called IS wants, and that constant coverage over it* means that they can watch every single move just by turning on the tele.

 

*and everything else to do with them

 

I even criticised how the internet and media is giving individuals exactly what they want, and wrote this the day before the Paris attacks.

 

You've got the wrong end of the stick ash.