betterman Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 The principal is the same. You don't use missiles to take out small peripatetic groups. Missiles are the best weapon for takeing out small peripatetic groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Because they arent directly linked to terror attacks here. I don't remember Iraq committing any terror attacks in Britain, and whether they attacked America is debatable. Pity the Chillcot report hasn't come out yet.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 The principal is the same. You don't use bombs to take out small peripatetic groups. Bombs are quite good, it depends what type and how the target presents itself as to the most appropriate method. If you wnat to take them out then how would you be doing it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrystottle Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Yes, Cameron should apologise. While he's at it he should explain what the West's long term aims are in the middle east, if he actually knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quik Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 He should name those he considers to be terrorist sympathisers or he should appologise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost rider Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 (edited) I have been watching and listening to the debates today and there are a lot of views from all the parties that vary wildly.I worry that some people are thinking with their hearts and not their brain,some of them seem to be relying on some sort of humanity from IS,Isis,Daesh whatever people want to call them and seem to be hoping for some sort of humanity from them so that they could possibly negotiate with them.I find this idea bizarre,i think it is quite obvious to most of us that this is fantasy.Undoutedly civilians will be killed but they are already being killed anyway in the most horrific ways.Anybody who does not match what they want is killed without mercy.We will be attacked at some point regardless of what we do because we are the enemy of their cause,only the skill of our intelligence organisations are keeping us safe.The argument that if we leave them alone and they will then leave us alone is wishful thinking.I think Camerons statement was a rash comment but I understand where he is coming from.I do not want a war but all the ones arguing against it do not have answers either,they say we need to treat the cause but they do not seem to know what the cause is either.I hear foreign policy mentioned lots of times as the reason but surely all the problems have not risen because of Israel and islams want of the destruction of the Jews. Edited December 2, 2015 by ghost rider Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Bombs are quite good, it depends what type and how the target presents itself as to the most appropriate method. If you wnat to take them out then how would you be doing it? Sad to say this, but ground troops are a more discriminating way of doing it. Some of the many fit young men who have been pouring out of Syria should return to fight for their country and it's ideals. We also have to starve the terrorist's supply lines of money and weapons. Leave the bombing to Putin who, according to Assad, is having a lot more success than we are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Sad to say this, but ground troops are a more discriminating way of doing it. Some of the many fit young men who have been pouring out of Syria should return to fight for their country and it's ideals. We also have to starve the terrorist's supply lines of money and weapons. Leave the bombing to Putin who, according to Assad, is having a lot more success than we are. Except we arent prepared to put ground troops in. So you believe Assad and Putin? Explain why the vast majority of Russian air attacks are not against Isis at all but v the other opposition groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny5 Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Obviously he's using it as a slur against Corbyn to gain political capital but that's not necessary as Corbyns own party will oust him within the year. It's a very poor move by Cameron who is usually politically astute. If he wants to really target terrorist sympathisers he'd be going after Turkey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Sad to say this, but ground troops are a more discriminating way of doing it. Some of the many fit young men who have been pouring out of Syria should return to fight for their country and it's ideals. We also have to starve the terrorist's supply lines of money and weapons. Leave the bombing to Putin who is having a lot more success than we are. Which country and which ideals? I'm uncomfortable with making bakers, accountants, doctors, students etc etc conscripts into a war not of their making. Bombed from one side by Assad, terrorised from the other side by ISIS (or whatever), never held a gun in their lives....they tried that in Iraq. Train local people to be soldiers and so ensure a stable country then when the first Isis flag appears on the horizon they all run like shi'ites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now