Paris Attacked!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The real world
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Put it another way Jayand. In tens years time Corbyn might be PM"
Hangarshuffle, that really is the funniest thing I've heard in a very long time.
You raise a serious point however about state sponsored assination and it's important that our government is responsible, however a large dose of reality is needed here.
This terrorism is a messy business and it requires tough responses, responses that are often reactive, real time intelligence gave the security forces an opportunity to take out a known terrorist, a terrorist guilty of heinious crimes that nobody could deny.
To allow him to walk away to again commit or plan acts when they had a clear chance would be an outrage! To attempt some sort of special forces detention would of risked dozens more lives and likely have failed in such a built up heavily defended area.
It's the same idea as the shoot to kill policy authorised to police for use when terrorists are attacking, It's ludicrous to suggest the police should consider first non lethal methods during an attack!, The ROE has for years been very clear, deadly force is authorised if you or others lives are at risk and there is no other way to prevent it.
How else exactly do you propose stopping an AK47 Shooting, suicide vest wearing religious nutter?
Hangarshuffle, that really is the funniest thing I've heard in a very long time.
You raise a serious point however about state sponsored assination and it's important that our government is responsible, however a large dose of reality is needed here.
This terrorism is a messy business and it requires tough responses, responses that are often reactive, real time intelligence gave the security forces an opportunity to take out a known terrorist, a terrorist guilty of heinious crimes that nobody could deny.
To allow him to walk away to again commit or plan acts when they had a clear chance would be an outrage! To attempt some sort of special forces detention would of risked dozens more lives and likely have failed in such a built up heavily defended area.
It's the same idea as the shoot to kill policy authorised to police for use when terrorists are attacking, It's ludicrous to suggest the police should consider first non lethal methods during an attack!, The ROE has for years been very clear, deadly force is authorised if you or others lives are at risk and there is no other way to prevent it.
How else exactly do you propose stopping an AK47 Shooting, suicide vest wearing religious nutter?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Dan Hodges in the Torygraph: David Cameron should unilaterally order air strikes on Syria after the Paris attacks
So now there is no longer any dispute or debate – not that there ever really was. Jeremy Corbyn is neither willing nor able to keep the people of this country safe from terrorist attack. The idea of him actually securing the office to which he nominally aspires – prime minister of the United Kingdom – would be laughable, were it not so terrifying. But the fact he doesn’t hold that position doesn’t mean he is without influence.
Yesterday, David Cameron was asked about the possibility of authorising UK airstrikes on Isil in Syria, in the wake of the Paris attacks. In response he trotted out what has no become his standard line. "I have always said I think that it is sensible that we should: Isil don't recognise a border between Iraq and Syria and neither should we but I need to build the argument, I need to take it to parliament, I need to convince more people. We won’t hold that vote unless we can see that parliament would endorse action because to fail on this would be damaging. It is not a question of damaging the government it is a question of not damaging our country and its reputation in the world”.
In other words, “I’d like to act, but my hands are tied”. Up until Friday I had some sympathy with the prime minister on this. He tried to do the decent thing in Syria in 2013, but was undermined by the duplicity of Ed Miliband, who gave him assurances of Labour support, then reneged. But Paris has changed all that. The person binding David Cameron’s hands now is David Cameron himself. And the time has come for him to demonstrate the leadership and the political courage to break free.
The prime minister has told the country we need to conduct air strikes on Isil to keep people safe on the streets of Britain. Some people may question that judgement, but it is the view David Cameron holds, and has publicly articulated. And therefore he must now follow through on it.
Given the immediacy of the threat revealed by the Paris attacks, Cameron should unilaterally order air strikes on Isil in Syria. He should not place that decision in the hands of the House of Commons, and he does not need to place that decision in the hands of the House of Commons. He is the prime minister, and as a result, the ultimate authority to deploy Britain’s Armed Forces and security services rests with him, and him alone. He claims he has identified a clear and present danger to our nation’s security, so he a has duty to act on it. He cannot allow the House of Commons to second guess him. He certainly cannot allow the current leader of the opposition to second guess him.
Inevitably, such a decision by the prime minister would provoke a political backlash. Fine. He should confront it. He should challenge the Labour Party to table a motion opposing his actions. He should also challenge the rebels on his own side of the House to vote against their own government on the issue. And he should explain to them this. "If you defeat me I will immediately table a motion of confidence in this administration. I will link it directly to action against Isil in Syria. If you, as a Conservative MP, wish to bring down your own government over an issue of national security, that is your choice."
Then he should address Labour MPs. And he should say this. "If you wish to vote against this confidence motion, you go right ahead. If you defeat that motion, I will resign, and call an immediate general election. It will be an election held on the issue of which party the British people most trust to protect themselves, their families and their communities from the threat of terror. Your candidate in that election – the candidate you will have to endorse on the doorsteps, and argue should replace me in Downing Street – will be Jeremy Corbyn."
The Prime Minister is right when he says the failure of the House of Commons to endorse his stance on Syria would be damaging for Britain’s reputation abroad. But we currently have a situation where David Cameron is saying he wishes to act on a matter of urgent national security, but cannot, because he has insufficient parliamentary authority. That is of itself deeply damaging to our international reputation. It is also a morally abhorrent position to hold, given we are effectively asking our closest allies to risk the lives of their serviceman to keep our streets safe, when we will not.
And it sends another signal. For all the talk of our resolution and reach, the terrorists are now presented with the spectacle of a British prime minister openly admitting he wishes to strike at them, but can’t. We are communicating impotence and irresolution at a time when we should be communicating determination and strength.
David Cameron says we need to launch air-strikes on Isil in Syria to keep this country safe. And if he allows Jeremy Corbyn to exercise a veto over that policy, then it raises this question – if David Cameron won’t stand up to Jeremy Corbyn, who will he stand up to?
So now there is no longer any dispute or debate – not that there ever really was. Jeremy Corbyn is neither willing nor able to keep the people of this country safe from terrorist attack. The idea of him actually securing the office to which he nominally aspires – prime minister of the United Kingdom – would be laughable, were it not so terrifying. But the fact he doesn’t hold that position doesn’t mean he is without influence.
Yesterday, David Cameron was asked about the possibility of authorising UK airstrikes on Isil in Syria, in the wake of the Paris attacks. In response he trotted out what has no become his standard line. "I have always said I think that it is sensible that we should: Isil don't recognise a border between Iraq and Syria and neither should we but I need to build the argument, I need to take it to parliament, I need to convince more people. We won’t hold that vote unless we can see that parliament would endorse action because to fail on this would be damaging. It is not a question of damaging the government it is a question of not damaging our country and its reputation in the world”.
In other words, “I’d like to act, but my hands are tied”. Up until Friday I had some sympathy with the prime minister on this. He tried to do the decent thing in Syria in 2013, but was undermined by the duplicity of Ed Miliband, who gave him assurances of Labour support, then reneged. But Paris has changed all that. The person binding David Cameron’s hands now is David Cameron himself. And the time has come for him to demonstrate the leadership and the political courage to break free.
The prime minister has told the country we need to conduct air strikes on Isil to keep people safe on the streets of Britain. Some people may question that judgement, but it is the view David Cameron holds, and has publicly articulated. And therefore he must now follow through on it.
Given the immediacy of the threat revealed by the Paris attacks, Cameron should unilaterally order air strikes on Isil in Syria. He should not place that decision in the hands of the House of Commons, and he does not need to place that decision in the hands of the House of Commons. He is the prime minister, and as a result, the ultimate authority to deploy Britain’s Armed Forces and security services rests with him, and him alone. He claims he has identified a clear and present danger to our nation’s security, so he a has duty to act on it. He cannot allow the House of Commons to second guess him. He certainly cannot allow the current leader of the opposition to second guess him.
Inevitably, such a decision by the prime minister would provoke a political backlash. Fine. He should confront it. He should challenge the Labour Party to table a motion opposing his actions. He should also challenge the rebels on his own side of the House to vote against their own government on the issue. And he should explain to them this. "If you defeat me I will immediately table a motion of confidence in this administration. I will link it directly to action against Isil in Syria. If you, as a Conservative MP, wish to bring down your own government over an issue of national security, that is your choice."
Then he should address Labour MPs. And he should say this. "If you wish to vote against this confidence motion, you go right ahead. If you defeat that motion, I will resign, and call an immediate general election. It will be an election held on the issue of which party the British people most trust to protect themselves, their families and their communities from the threat of terror. Your candidate in that election – the candidate you will have to endorse on the doorsteps, and argue should replace me in Downing Street – will be Jeremy Corbyn."
The Prime Minister is right when he says the failure of the House of Commons to endorse his stance on Syria would be damaging for Britain’s reputation abroad. But we currently have a situation where David Cameron is saying he wishes to act on a matter of urgent national security, but cannot, because he has insufficient parliamentary authority. That is of itself deeply damaging to our international reputation. It is also a morally abhorrent position to hold, given we are effectively asking our closest allies to risk the lives of their serviceman to keep our streets safe, when we will not.
And it sends another signal. For all the talk of our resolution and reach, the terrorists are now presented with the spectacle of a British prime minister openly admitting he wishes to strike at them, but can’t. We are communicating impotence and irresolution at a time when we should be communicating determination and strength.
David Cameron says we need to launch air-strikes on Isil in Syria to keep this country safe. And if he allows Jeremy Corbyn to exercise a veto over that policy, then it raises this question – if David Cameron won’t stand up to Jeremy Corbyn, who will he stand up to?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While there's cross-party agreement on how lamentable Mr Corbyn's performance has been, this isn't about him. We still need a credible plan to defeat IS. If there is one, I've not heard it yet. And ORAC, you need to explain why in 2013 you regarded an air assault on President Assad as "trying to do the decent thing" yet now insist we attack his enemies.
Thos are not ORAC's words, those are the words of the article he cited in the link at the top. ORAC chooses not to put other people's quotes in a quote block, which can at times be confusing in re what he has to say and what others have to say. I doubt you'll get that explanation, but you might get one from Dan Hodges, the author, if you contact him.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
As L50 says, they are Dan Hodges words, not mine. But on the subject and the question...
In 2013, when Assad was using chemical weapons against his own people, and there was an international push for no-fly zones and air strikes to stop him, I was in favour. In the current situation with the Russians, USA and others attacking various factions, and having already lost the vote in 2013 parliament against further action*, I could see little point in him pressing the point again.
However, if he truly considers it necessary to prevent a direct threat to the UK then, then as Hodges states, he has no option but to act. Further, since France has invoked the Lisbon Treaty asking for support, and are considering invoking NATO article 5, he has a moral and legal basis to do so.
The current position of offering to send a RN destroyer to provide AD cover to the Charles de Gaulle, against an enemy without an offensive air capability, is a craven token gesture to save face whilst proving no real support.
*Note that both Tories and Labour put forward motions to do something about Assad, it was a political battle, not an ethical - and most Labour supporters were as embarrassed at Cameron afterwards, and shocked he just walked away.
The Vote of Shame
In 2013, when Assad was using chemical weapons against his own people, and there was an international push for no-fly zones and air strikes to stop him, I was in favour. In the current situation with the Russians, USA and others attacking various factions, and having already lost the vote in 2013 parliament against further action*, I could see little point in him pressing the point again.
However, if he truly considers it necessary to prevent a direct threat to the UK then, then as Hodges states, he has no option but to act. Further, since France has invoked the Lisbon Treaty asking for support, and are considering invoking NATO article 5, he has a moral and legal basis to do so.
The current position of offering to send a RN destroyer to provide AD cover to the Charles de Gaulle, against an enemy without an offensive air capability, is a craven token gesture to save face whilst proving no real support.
*Note that both Tories and Labour put forward motions to do something about Assad, it was a political battle, not an ethical - and most Labour supporters were as embarrassed at Cameron afterwards, and shocked he just walked away.
The Vote of Shame
Last edited by ORAC; 18th Nov 2015 at 14:10.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I will resign, and call an immediate general election. It will be an election held on the issue of which party the British people most trust to protect themselves",
historically doing that sort of thing often rebounds and the voters decide they really don't like you - remember Ted Heath and the "Who governs Britain" election ?? That was clearly about the UK and the electorate voted him out
the probelm is YOU think you can control the debate but you can't - it is liable to spiral off in all directions - such as all those people who face losing some of their benifits under Osborn......
and an election would be a month away at least - and a week is a long time in politics...
and under the Fixed term Act they can vote against action in Iraq but refuse to allow a snap election - it needs a specific majority to call an election not the old "Vote of Confidence" and turkeys do not vote for Christmas
He'd have to resign and HMQ then could as Boris to form another Tory Govt .....
historically doing that sort of thing often rebounds and the voters decide they really don't like you - remember Ted Heath and the "Who governs Britain" election ?? That was clearly about the UK and the electorate voted him out
the probelm is YOU think you can control the debate but you can't - it is liable to spiral off in all directions - such as all those people who face losing some of their benifits under Osborn......
and an election would be a month away at least - and a week is a long time in politics...
and under the Fixed term Act they can vote against action in Iraq but refuse to allow a snap election - it needs a specific majority to call an election not the old "Vote of Confidence" and turkeys do not vote for Christmas
He'd have to resign and HMQ then could as Boris to form another Tory Govt .....
Far from a "Vote of Shame", Parliament got it right in 2013. The proposed action was utterly pointless. As Lord Richards wisely stated on Today this morning, the only force on the ground in Syria that is sufficiently large and disciplined to defeat the extremists is Assad's army. That much was blindingly obvious two years ago, probably even (privately) to those who had to stick publicly to their governmental lines on training of "moderate" rebels. The doggedness with which the US and UK governments stick to the Saudi line on Assad appals me.
I think the country, and most likely Parliament, would be behind Cameron if he softened his stance on Assad and made ISIL the clear focus of any new vote on Syria.
I think the country, and most likely Parliament, would be behind Cameron if he softened his stance on Assad and made ISIL the clear focus of any new vote on Syria.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
ES, quite, a sovereign force on its own territory and internal lines of communication against rag tag rebels reliant on capricious foreign support.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
ES, quite, a sovereign force on its own territory and internal lines of communication
Map of Syrian Civil war/ Global conflict in Syria - liveuamap.com
Yes ORAC, that is true today, but it wasn't the case when the "Vote of Shame" was taken. I give Lord Richards great credit on this - as CDS he advised Cameron that supporting "moderates" was not a credible or moral course of action, seeing as how it would prolong civil conflict and increase the number of casualties, but he was overruled by other members of the NSC. Those in the region, and increasingly those outside it, are experiencing the consequences of Western leaders' woolly thinking during the first two years of the so-called "Arab Spring".
Given the irredeemable fragmentation of the non-ISIL opposition, I can't see how anything short of a externally-supported resurgence by Assad's forces can possibly re-establish control on the ground. Western armies are not the answer; that is one lesson we definitely have learned over the last 15 years. If there is an alternative, partition into a Shia-Druze-Christian state under Assad (with a Mediterranean base for Putin) and a Sunni-only state under a puppet of Riyadh would appear to offer the best chance of stability - but what a terrible message that would send about the ability of Middle Eastern peoples to live together in harmony. Ahem.
Given the irredeemable fragmentation of the non-ISIL opposition, I can't see how anything short of a externally-supported resurgence by Assad's forces can possibly re-establish control on the ground. Western armies are not the answer; that is one lesson we definitely have learned over the last 15 years. If there is an alternative, partition into a Shia-Druze-Christian state under Assad (with a Mediterranean base for Putin) and a Sunni-only state under a puppet of Riyadh would appear to offer the best chance of stability - but what a terrible message that would send about the ability of Middle Eastern peoples to live together in harmony. Ahem.
Last edited by Easy Street; 18th Nov 2015 at 15:06.
As to moderate freedom fighters ... can whomever the Saudis send money to really be moderate?
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 18th Nov 2015 at 15:48.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
In truth, however, apart from the coastal plain around Latakia and a strip down to Damascus, the Syrian army doesn't hold a lot of ground these days.
Map of Syrian Civil war/ Global conflict in Syria - liveuamap.com
Map of Syrian Civil war/ Global conflict in Syria - liveuamap.com
If I read the map correctly Syrian Army, Red, holds the high value cards.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Given a free choice, would you prefer to hold a coastal strip, a port and a capital, or the hinterland and no obvious LOC? If I read the map correctly Syrian Army, Red, holds the high value cards.
There is always a buyer, and a lot of the air effort is going into shutting down the export routes - not with a great deal of excess.
Who Is Buying The Islamic State’s Illegal Oil?
...........The size of the group’s bank account has now risen to an estimated $2 billion dollars, thanks in part to revenues from ransom paid for kidnapped foreigners and more pillaging. However, oil remains the group’s primary source of income.
The 11 oil fields that IS controls in Iraq and Syria have made it a largely independent financial machine. Reports show that IS-controlled fields in Iraq produce between 25,000 and 40,000 barrels of oil per day, at an estimated value of approximately $1.2 million, before being smuggled out to Iran, Kurdistan, Turkey and Syria........
What’s more, now that it controls fertile provinces in western Iraq, such as Anbar and Nineveh, the group also now sits on 40 percent of Iraq’s wheat crop, and can force farmers to deal only with them, sometimes for no pay......
The size of the group’s bank account has now risen to an estimated $2 billion dollars, thanks in part to revenues from ransom paid for kidnapped foreigners and more pillaging. However, oil remains the group’s primary source of income.
The 11 oil fields that IS controls in Iraq and Syria have made it a largely
independent financial machine.
independent financial machine.
Reports show that IS-controlled fields in Iraq produce between 25,000 and 40,000
barrels of oil per day, at an estimated value of approximately $1.2 million, before being smuggled out to Iran, Kurdistan, Turkey and Syria.
barrels of oil per day, at an estimated value of approximately $1.2 million, before being smuggled out to Iran, Kurdistan, Turkey and Syria.
What’s more, now that it controls fertile provinces in western Iraq, such as Anbar and Nineveh, the group also now sits on 40 percent of Iraq’s wheat crop, and can force farmers to deal only with them, sometimes for no pay......
Questions:
- How does Syrian government retake the Deir Al Zour region?
- How do they keep it?
- How does Mosul get retaken in Iraq?
- Who runs it?
On 23 October {2015} Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi visited the city of Baiji, declaring that Baiji was finally free from ISIL militants, and that the anti-ISIL forces had won a "valuable victory." Al-Abadi also stated that the battle proved the capabilities of the Iraqi forces, and a Shi'ite commander stated that his forces were removing the IEDs and landmines left behind by ISIL in the city.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 18th Nov 2015 at 16:15.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK/Philippines/Italy
Age: 73
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One imagines many people in Whitehall working on Cameron's briefing paper on air strikes in Syria that he promises to deliver to Parliament in the next few days.
I would love to see two things:
a. A clearly stated military objective.
b. A clearly stated political objective.
I don't think I will hold my breath though.
I would love to see two things:
a. A clearly stated military objective.
b. A clearly stated political objective.
I don't think I will hold my breath though.
The Islamic State raises millions of dollars a week ...
Last year, ISIS raised ~ $20 million from kidnapping alone, according to US Treasury Department. (Not sure how they figured this out ...)
ISIS made more smuggling oil than first estimated.
(Bullet points, summary from the source)
@lars: if you want to see a clearly defined and executed strategy that might work, check any history web site and look at Winfield Scott's Anaconda Plan that was the initial plan to defeating the CSA. It wasn't all that popular since it would not put down the rebellion quickly. It's ideological child, born a couple of years later, more or less worked as Grant and then Sherman put into place the plan that shut down the South's economic engines one at a time, while the battles in Virginia went back and forth. People are currently calling such an approach to Daesh "the long squeeze" in some of the commentary I've seen, but that's talking heads.
What a government leader will "sell" to the legislature or the public is quite another matter.
... from "taxation" and outright extortion of businesses and local government and civilian workers, according to Howard Shatz, a senior economist at the Rand Corp. "ISIS raises much of its money just as a well-organized criminal gang would do; it smuggles, it extorts, it skims, it fences, it kidnaps and it shakes down," he wrote in a blog post.
Last year, ISIS raised ~ $20 million from kidnapping alone, according to US Treasury Department. (Not sure how they figured this out ...)
- As of last year, ISIS controlled as much as 350,000 barrels per day production capacity in Iraq and Syria, but was only able to produce 50,000 to 60,000 barrels a day, according to estimates from IHS.
- The oil is sold on the black market, mostly via trucks smuggling it over the border to Turkey, a route first established more than a decade ago by former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, who used the black market to evade sanctions on oil sales.
- That supply chain, created to evade the U.N.'s oil-for-food program, still provides a ready market for oil and diesel fuel produced at facilities seized by ISIS.
- The group has set up what amounts to its own oil company, recruiting trained engineers and managers through a human resources department and offering competitive salaries; some formerly worked at the oilfields now under ISIS control, according to the Financial Times.
(Bullet points, summary from the source)
- ... the amount of money ISIS can earn from selling and smuggling oil and gas is roughly to $8 to $10 million a month.
- Oil smuggling, much of it to Turkey, is a key source of income for ISIS.
- The group uses the money in part to pay its fighters monthly salaries and provide stipends to their families. Foreign fighters (highest paid)earn up to $1,000 a month, per Syrian sources.
- ISIS sells oil and gas everywhere. It sells within Syria, and to the Syrian regime. It sells in Iraq. It is a more extensive and complex market than we assumed," a senior counter-terrorism official said.
What a government leader will "sell" to the legislature or the public is quite another matter.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thing is we don't have the death penalty for murder in the UK. I don't even think we even really have the law to enforce XPD (Expedient Demise) as Len Deighton wrote in the brilliant book (STBC here).
Why the death penalty applicable abroad then? That the state can kill its own citizen without recourse to a judge or a jury? We are not in a declared state of war. ISIS has made our own elected Govt. put us into a very dark place with this. ISIS have reduced us to this self-enforced low level with a few simple barbaric acts. Sorry Riley, we agree to disagree. Our elected MPs have to my knowledge never debated and decided upon this drastic course of state action. Forget John - it's the ground-stone basic principals of our British law and the role of the state which we seem to be dramatically abandoning very (far too) quickly.
Mach I think multiple issues are rapidly evolving. I don't think our UK mainland Police once a force, now a service (see that?) can presently even remotely cope with the present high threat if it becomes actual.
Forcibly very evident how well the rich and powerful in this country are guarding themselves at present. Cenotaph on RS; a ring of police/security around HM Queen, her subs and members of HM Govt. 6 hours later, I'm still in the pub, the Police have gone and we are truly on our own.
The media debate is very selfishly focused on guarding the capital and those most powerful who reside and work within it. What exactly about the other 50 odd million who reside here on the same islands? The runes don't read well.
One UK Police force in recent history couldn't even react correctly when 1 mad taxi driver went on the gun rampage in west Cumbria.
My local force have very few ARV, would take many minutes to form up and react to an Mumbai/Paris type incident.
I would seriously back well trained, experienced UK troops in an urban situation, because it's all we really have.
The authorities in the UK have had decades to come to some sensible arrangements, but seem to have achieved very little.
Concede it's a massive political loss of face to have to use military for domestic security and there we have the answer to the question.
* Apologies - been trying to post this back all day. But was blocked out from doing so by my companies own internet policy. I work alongside hundreds of French er workers, many with loved ones, friends etc in Paris... they bore up well - live news feeds must be torture.
Why the death penalty applicable abroad then? That the state can kill its own citizen without recourse to a judge or a jury? We are not in a declared state of war. ISIS has made our own elected Govt. put us into a very dark place with this. ISIS have reduced us to this self-enforced low level with a few simple barbaric acts. Sorry Riley, we agree to disagree. Our elected MPs have to my knowledge never debated and decided upon this drastic course of state action. Forget John - it's the ground-stone basic principals of our British law and the role of the state which we seem to be dramatically abandoning very (far too) quickly.
Mach I think multiple issues are rapidly evolving. I don't think our UK mainland Police once a force, now a service (see that?) can presently even remotely cope with the present high threat if it becomes actual.
Forcibly very evident how well the rich and powerful in this country are guarding themselves at present. Cenotaph on RS; a ring of police/security around HM Queen, her subs and members of HM Govt. 6 hours later, I'm still in the pub, the Police have gone and we are truly on our own.
The media debate is very selfishly focused on guarding the capital and those most powerful who reside and work within it. What exactly about the other 50 odd million who reside here on the same islands? The runes don't read well.
One UK Police force in recent history couldn't even react correctly when 1 mad taxi driver went on the gun rampage in west Cumbria.
My local force have very few ARV, would take many minutes to form up and react to an Mumbai/Paris type incident.
I would seriously back well trained, experienced UK troops in an urban situation, because it's all we really have.
The authorities in the UK have had decades to come to some sensible arrangements, but seem to have achieved very little.
Concede it's a massive political loss of face to have to use military for domestic security and there we have the answer to the question.
* Apologies - been trying to post this back all day. But was blocked out from doing so by my companies own internet policy. I work alongside hundreds of French er workers, many with loved ones, friends etc in Paris... they bore up well - live news feeds must be torture.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got to disagree ORAC. Think the vote really failed because the UK public have lost faith with UK military ability in these situations. And that reflected onto all MPs who give a damn. I personally e-mailed my MP and told him what to do ie vote against it). He didn't give a damn what I thought. And is no longer an MP (funny that, he lost his seat).
Cameron is desperate to join in. He is so strange, such a strange beast. Reduce the military capability, but look for war. How quickly he must have ripped that poppy off last Sunday.
How much does 1 x smart bomb cost?* (23,000 USD = 1 x GBU 10 whatever that is, according to google, just now - about the same as a Private or Corporal in the Army gets?). Why not save buying them, spend the money on a real defence force for within the UK's own islands?
* That French assault this morning expended 5000 rounds fired, BBC World are reporting!! I doubt the whole on-duty UK police force has that number of bullets available altogether at any given minute. (standfast PSNI)?
Cameron is desperate to join in. He is so strange, such a strange beast. Reduce the military capability, but look for war. How quickly he must have ripped that poppy off last Sunday.
How much does 1 x smart bomb cost?* (23,000 USD = 1 x GBU 10 whatever that is, according to google, just now - about the same as a Private or Corporal in the Army gets?). Why not save buying them, spend the money on a real defence force for within the UK's own islands?
* That French assault this morning expended 5000 rounds fired, BBC World are reporting!! I doubt the whole on-duty UK police force has that number of bullets available altogether at any given minute. (standfast PSNI)?
Last edited by Hangarshuffle; 18th Nov 2015 at 17:53.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I hear daesh has been subject to a cyber attack and had its Twitter accounts taken down
