Looks like Paxton's gonna have to write another version.
Another (conspiracist) angle on the IS thing here:
Ha. I'd love to be in that meeting.
"what do you want?"
"Caliphate"
"hmm. Anything else?"
"No. Caliphate"
"Erm....."
😆
Pretty much. 🙂
In a very worrying development, I've found myself in agreement with Nigel Farage, who's inconveniently interrupted the Westminster political consensus (am I the only one who gets very very worried when all political parties agree on something?) to point out the bleeding obvious: that's there's no strategy! No plan! No idea of what we're setting out to achieve! Nothing! Same as last time!
We're going to launch some air strikes!
Ok.... Then what? And to achieve what exactly?
Erm......
Am I the only one who gets very very worried when all political parties agree on something?
Only when the knee is jerking quietly under the table. Which is normally the case when all parties agree on something.
@binners - launch airstrikes to disable ISIS and in particular take out their larger weaponry (tanks, gun-trucks, etc) and infrastructure including their source of funds. Then on the ground fighters re-take control of towns/cities.
Simple 🙄
We should use MDMA to do the same thing it did to football violence. Get the jihadis on the disco biscuits! Job done.
Yah lets wipe them put like we did that last two times...that will teach them
It wasn't IS the last two times was it.
It was a country with a dictator that ruled with a large army (who's post war reconstruction was totally ballsed up by Bush) and a country who's neighbours failed to help Nato counter the insurgency by failing to secure it's borders. That's not really the same as this time is it, what with the largest armies in Iraq not being IS and Iraq being surrounded by countries like Turkey and Iran who all venomously hate IS.
In case we've all forgotten, there have actually been successful counter insurgencies in the past when the support from the local government was good.
would you saw the last two tries were successful in bringing peace to the region then?
PS to be clear the question is rhetorical as you might miss that 😉
Tom_W1987 - Member
In case we've all forgotten, there have actually been successful counter insurgencies in the past when the support from the local government was good.
Remind me
would you saw the last two tries were successful in bringing peace to the region then?
But Tony is saying it's OK, and he's the peace envoy.....
Damn you and your facts
There is an alternative to bombing
524 to 43 in favour of bombing.
You're obviously not a proper Prime Minister these days until you've had your little war. FFS.
I don't give a fig about fighting ISIS (IS? ISIL?) in Iraq or Syria, let them have their little caliphate and give the money we'd have spent on bombs to Turkey to deal with the refugees streaming across their border.
To be honest, they're both within 500 miles of Israel. Israel has nuclear weapons and I'm pretty sure they won't feel squeamish about using them if they feel the need.
I'm working on the fairly solid principle that if Tony Blair reckons military action is a good idea, it probably isn't.
From the BBC
Addressing MPs, Mr Cameron insisted Britain had a clear "duty" to join the campaign, saying IS was a direct threat to the UK and he was not prepared to "subcontract" the protection of British streets from terrorism to other countries' air forces
That's right David, sub-contract the health service, police, schools to your mates but make sure your mates in defence are kept busy, pffft.
^ don't fret Dave. It will all come tumbling down when you loose the next election. You too can join Teflon Tony. Everyone's a winner. You €$€$ off from government and save the World
It's about to get LOUD in eye-rack. ID'd those targets quickly didn't they? 😉
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/islamic-state-crisis-alqaeda-fighters-joining-forces-with-isis-against-air-strikes-in-syria-9761392.html ]Well its all going according to plan so far then?[/url]
Looks like we'll be bombing Baghdad again soon then? As ISIS forces are at the city outskirts. And the Al Qaeda allied forces are now fighting alongside ISIS. The Iraqi 'army' has done its disappearing act. What an almighty cluster****!! So have those saying this was such a bloody great idea got anything to say on the matter?
Well done us, eh? We've succeeded in uniting a bunch of disparate groups who were busy scrapping with each other, in their usual stupid 'I'm more Islamic than you' way. Until now. Instead they'll now be fighting a common enemy.... us! Within Baghdad's city streets. Somehow I can't imaging any number of squadrons of F-16s being able to make much difference to that situation.
Hurray for us! 🙄
So how are we going to define our objectives? Who do we bomb and who do we not?
Perhaps a survey?
Q. Define how Islamic fundamentalist on a scale of 1 to 10. Where 1 is "only a tiny little bit Islamic and I often like to wash a bacon buttie down with a nice, cold beer" and 10 is "I am so fundamentalist my aim is to kill every other human on the planet in order to prove I am the ultimate recipient of Allah's greatness".
Here's a clue to help with your answer; 1 to 5 you're safe, 6 to 10 we might bomb you.
