Answer yes or no to the RAF bombing Syria this coming week.
I guess I have a military perspective with knowledge of Brimstone and Tornado but I too feel a little surprised at the way this weapon is being pushed, including at the Select Committee today, as a reason to expand our role.
DMS Brimstone is a capable weapon but I doubt our coalition partners believe it is a 'must have' capability. It has been in production for quite a while now and used in 4 conflicts. If it was not for the recent purchase by Saudi the weapon would have failed to achieve a single external customer. I'm not sure the Saudis purchased it with low collateral damage in mind....
Is it wise to suggest to our allies that by not purchasing DMS Brimstone they have a poor attitude to collateral?
DMS Brimstone is a capable weapon but I doubt our coalition partners believe it is a 'must have' capability. It has been in production for quite a while now and used in 4 conflicts. If it was not for the recent purchase by Saudi the weapon would have failed to achieve a single external customer. I'm not sure the Saudis purchased it with low collateral damage in mind....
Is it wise to suggest to our allies that by not purchasing DMS Brimstone they have a poor attitude to collateral?
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the question is 'should we bomb Syria?' then the answer surely is no.
if the question is 'should we accurately target locations in Syria, which we are confident are being used by terrorists, and cause as little collateral damage as possible?', then yes.
I guess on here, the latter question is the one being asked, but the politicians seem to be discussing the former.
taking out their supply lines, communications, funding, fuel convoys and internet access would be the best start.
if the question is 'should we accurately target locations in Syria, which we are confident are being used by terrorists, and cause as little collateral damage as possible?', then yes.
I guess on here, the latter question is the one being asked, but the politicians seem to be discussing the former.
taking out their supply lines, communications, funding, fuel convoys and internet access would be the best start.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"No" people closed the gap a little.
23 no, 28 yes or thereabouts at 21.32L here. Bit closer tonight I thought with some well reasoned arguments but the "yes" people are always ahead.
The newspapers seem to have it as a forgone conclusion for a yes and to be honest now sadly, so do I.
I pleaded with my MP to vote no (via official e-mail to the HOP), but she has totally ignored me and doesn't reply. Fair enough - they must get millions of pleas from beggars, nutters, and the likes of I.
The responsibility of being a British MP at times, in times such as these is massive. Incredibly so. We a nation of 60 million very differing souls with different aspirations, colours, creeds and backgrounds represented by just a few hundred.
I have read the background of my MP very carefully and we are a little similar but also very different in life's experiences.I know that for a fact, unlike me, she has never heard the crack of the rocket close or the boom of the air dropped bomb far -that was my choice. Or never seen the tears of the Arabs - the sad, career spin-off undignified spectacle you may come upon when working out your days for the Queen. When you see it , it never leaves you. Whatever happens, I hope they vote intelligently and considerately, and truly bin the red side against the blue side thing.
Goodnight.
The newspapers seem to have it as a forgone conclusion for a yes and to be honest now sadly, so do I.
I pleaded with my MP to vote no (via official e-mail to the HOP), but she has totally ignored me and doesn't reply. Fair enough - they must get millions of pleas from beggars, nutters, and the likes of I.
The responsibility of being a British MP at times, in times such as these is massive. Incredibly so. We a nation of 60 million very differing souls with different aspirations, colours, creeds and backgrounds represented by just a few hundred.
I have read the background of my MP very carefully and we are a little similar but also very different in life's experiences.I know that for a fact, unlike me, she has never heard the crack of the rocket close or the boom of the air dropped bomb far -that was my choice. Or never seen the tears of the Arabs - the sad, career spin-off undignified spectacle you may come upon when working out your days for the Queen. When you see it , it never leaves you. Whatever happens, I hope they vote intelligently and considerately, and truly bin the red side against the blue side thing.
Goodnight.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another no
I'm not military though have relatives who've served. No, bombing ISIL in Syria won't help us in the UK. You might have to think about bombing Dewsbury, Luton, Bradford etc. There are too many dim Muslims in this country who think that the rest of us are bent on attacking them, rather than recognising the problems that extremists in other countries, funded among others by wealthy individuals in Saudi Arabia, Qatar etc, are causing their own co-religionists.
We should leave the conflict to go on in the area, while sympathising with the French after those attacks and offering them all additional support short of offensive action on our part. Germany has come up with a more reasoned and measured approach this week, offering non-offensive military support and being publicly honest in talking about the likely length of this involvement (10 years was mentioned by one government minister). It may be that the US, trying to build a coalition of local states such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Qatar, might still be able to pull this off, or that Russia will somehow magically finish the job without the trouble they ran into in Chechnya or Afghanistan. But sorry guys, I really don't see any good that can come from British military intervention limited to RAF bombing.
We should leave the conflict to go on in the area, while sympathising with the French after those attacks and offering them all additional support short of offensive action on our part. Germany has come up with a more reasoned and measured approach this week, offering non-offensive military support and being publicly honest in talking about the likely length of this involvement (10 years was mentioned by one government minister). It may be that the US, trying to build a coalition of local states such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Qatar, might still be able to pull this off, or that Russia will somehow magically finish the job without the trouble they ran into in Chechnya or Afghanistan. But sorry guys, I really don't see any good that can come from British military intervention limited to RAF bombing.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to me that there are 2 opposing viewpoints, voting on different issues. The "no" camp is sound-biting that we are going to "bomb Syria" and that this action will be the sum total of the UK's response. What better excuse to sit on your hands and hope the nasty men go away - with any luck someone else will deal with it.
A more informed "yes' vote opens the way to the full range of support that can be offered to friendly boots on the ground. And I'm pretty sure some of them would welcome the safety net of real-time intelligence and fast air.
Stick me down as a yes. You don't win wars by defending territory; you win wars by destroying the enemy's capability.
A more informed "yes' vote opens the way to the full range of support that can be offered to friendly boots on the ground. And I'm pretty sure some of them would welcome the safety net of real-time intelligence and fast air.
Stick me down as a yes. You don't win wars by defending territory; you win wars by destroying the enemy's capability.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: beyond the Pale
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last Englishman to suggest bombing a British town was the then Poet Laureate
Slough
Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough!
It isn't fit for humans now,
There isn't grass to graze a cow.
Swarm over, Death!
Come, bombs and blow to smithereens
Those air -conditioned, bright canteens,
Tinned fruit, tinned meat, tinned milk, tinned beans,
Tinned minds, tinned breath.
Mess up the mess they call a town-
A house for ninety-seven down
And once a week a half a crown
For twenty years.
And get that man with double chin
Who'll always cheat and always win,
Who washes his repulsive skin
In women's tears:
And smash his desk of polished oak
And smash his hands so used to stroke
And stop his boring dirty joke
And make him yell.
But spare the bald young clerks who add
The profits of the stinking cad;
It's not their fault that they are mad,
They've tasted Hell.
It's not their fault they do not know
The birdsong from the radio,
It's not their fault they often go
To Maidenhead
And talk of sport and makes of cars
In various bogus-Tudor bars
And daren't look up and see the stars
But belch instead.
In labour-saving homes, with care
Their wives frizz out peroxide hair
And dry it in synthetic air
And paint their nails.
Come, friendly bombs and fall on Slough
To get it ready for the plough.
The cabbages are coming now;
The earth exhales.
Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough!
It isn't fit for humans now,
There isn't grass to graze a cow.
Swarm over, Death!
Come, bombs and blow to smithereens
Those air -conditioned, bright canteens,
Tinned fruit, tinned meat, tinned milk, tinned beans,
Tinned minds, tinned breath.
Mess up the mess they call a town-
A house for ninety-seven down
And once a week a half a crown
For twenty years.
And get that man with double chin
Who'll always cheat and always win,
Who washes his repulsive skin
In women's tears:
And smash his desk of polished oak
And smash his hands so used to stroke
And stop his boring dirty joke
And make him yell.
But spare the bald young clerks who add
The profits of the stinking cad;
It's not their fault that they are mad,
They've tasted Hell.
It's not their fault they do not know
The birdsong from the radio,
It's not their fault they often go
To Maidenhead
And talk of sport and makes of cars
In various bogus-Tudor bars
And daren't look up and see the stars
But belch instead.
In labour-saving homes, with care
Their wives frizz out peroxide hair
And dry it in synthetic air
And paint their nails.
Come, friendly bombs and fall on Slough
To get it ready for the plough.
The cabbages are coming now;
The earth exhales.
Fence sitting at the moment. I don't wish to see more death and destruction or one of my ex-aircrew mates being burnt in a cage. I do wish to see an end to conflict in the ME, it'll take a very long time to change attitudes and rebuild trust in the region but we have a great chance to change the area for the better. To do that would take a stable political hand, lots of compassion and a wise moral compass. Someone inspirational needs to step up to the plate and take charge, but I don't see a great outcome using 'Tornado diplomacy'. Good God, I'm starting to sound like HS!
Has Assad agreed to us bombing in Syria, if not surely we need that agreement for the safety of our aircrew. What ever you think of him it is a sovereign nation after all?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: GOC
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Listen up, Dave!
Cameron is wrong to accuse those MPs thinking of voting 'No' as being 'terrorist sympathisers'. He is also wrong to ignore the figures in the latest YouGov poll showing that there is a clear majority opposed to extending our bombing campaign against IS.
Put me down as a 'NO'.
Put me down as a 'NO'.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I am a simple soul. To me it seems that:
A rational case can be made for bombing ISIL in Irak and Syria.
A rational case can be made for not bombing ISIL in Irak or Syria.
There is no case to be made for bombing ISIL in Irak but not in Syria.
D.
A rational case can be made for bombing ISIL in Irak and Syria.
A rational case can be made for not bombing ISIL in Irak or Syria.
There is no case to be made for bombing ISIL in Irak but not in Syria.
D.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Corbyn wants a negotiated solution, would it be possible for him to volunteer to be the UK's Peace Envoy? Taking it a step further, perhaps he should put the idea to the public for a vote?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SWAPS Inner
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny 42C, that is very true but the whole issue still boils down to.... what happens next?
Once 'peace' breaks out, do we bomb Assad? Is he our friend now or next week? Who are the Turks really fighting for? How do we 'avenge' the thousands killed by Assad? What about a Kurdish homeland?
Or de we just want stability ie; 'our kind of dictator' in charge?
Is the desire to bomb more of a political response to 'look strong' rather than a credible solution to the problem?
I have to say, I won't feel any safer in the UK for a bombing campaign against this type of enemy....
Once 'peace' breaks out, do we bomb Assad? Is he our friend now or next week? Who are the Turks really fighting for? How do we 'avenge' the thousands killed by Assad? What about a Kurdish homeland?
Or de we just want stability ie; 'our kind of dictator' in charge?
Is the desire to bomb more of a political response to 'look strong' rather than a credible solution to the problem?
I have to say, I won't feel any safer in the UK for a bombing campaign against this type of enemy....
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Danny, with age and wisdom has distilled the argument into 3 succinct sentences.
And the question of numbers Tornados is a red herring. Militarily this is a low intensity operation that could last a decade. Politically Cameron needs to get stuck in so that he can say to other countries "Follow me".
Tornados are the visible photogenic front of that political will whereas Reaper is probably cheaper, more economical, and from a psychological perspective a better weapon.
It can sit over a target like a Damoclean sword, visible or not as needed.
And the question of numbers Tornados is a red herring. Militarily this is a low intensity operation that could last a decade. Politically Cameron needs to get stuck in so that he can say to other countries "Follow me".
Tornados are the visible photogenic front of that political will whereas Reaper is probably cheaper, more economical, and from a psychological perspective a better weapon.
It can sit over a target like a Damoclean sword, visible or not as needed.
It is a line he has used frequently but has yet to clarify how he has come to a rather unusual and almost unique view that there is a controlling authority who is prepared to trade their aims and objectives with any state.
Meanwhile he has shifted his attack to the professionalism and lawful conduct of the RAF aircrew operating in a threat environment:
We're going to kill people in their homes by our bombs.
He may be the leader of the Labour Party, but I am beginning to doubt that he is fit and proper to hold the title of Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition, or the fat government salary that goes with it. I fear he has forgotten that he is no longer leading a student rally or a fringe area of politics. He is a paid government servant and should guard against accusing his own armed forces of unlawful conduct.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No. I'm concerned by:
* lack of an overall, post -bombing, strategy a la Iraq & Libya
* committing our scarce resources, which were run by a government which now wants to send them & their kit to war
* the seeming failure to tackle strategic issues such as daesh oil sales, funding & arms / ammunition supply
* lack of an overall, post -bombing, strategy a la Iraq & Libya
* committing our scarce resources, which were run by a government which now wants to send them & their kit to war
* the seeming failure to tackle strategic issues such as daesh oil sales, funding & arms / ammunition supply
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Given the Nuremburg defence, what would happen if a crew declined to drop its bombs?
Would Cornyn nominate them for OBE?
Would Cornyn nominate them for OBE?
We are all fighting Isil - the outlaws of Islam
King Abdullah II of Jordan in the Telegraph - We are all fighting Isil - the outlaws of Islam
Events taking place in the Middle East today will shape the security and stability of Europe and the world for decades to come. This is why I call the war on terrorism a Third World War, by other means. It is also why it is imperative for all of us to be united in this existential war. This is not a war that should divide us, but a war that should unite us in shared interests, common principles and fundamental human values.
I have said before that we are fighting a war within Islam against the outlaws of Islam, the Khawarej. Yet, as we have painfully seen, these terrorists and outlaws threaten the entire world.
They target all of us, innocent men and women regardless of race or faith. It is a war we all have to fight, and win, as a united global community. It is a war that knows no boundaries, no geography or demography.
One that is not limited to Syria and Iraq, but extends to Africa, Asia, with its flames reaching Europe and the rest of the world.
Jordan considers the United Kingdom a close and historic friend, and a key ally. The United Kingdom certainly appreciates that these criminals are as much a threat to its own population as they are to us and the rest of the world.
We have witnessed with shock and sadness the brutal murder of British hostages. We have seen many failed plots against the UK, and the campaign to lure youngsters from Britain and across Europe to commit the most atrocious crimes, everywhere.
And you have seen how they have also brutally murdered Muslims in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere. The horrific images of the burning of our brave young pilot, Moaz al-Kasasbeh, remain forever in the collective conscience of the civilised world today.
Both our countries are working side by side in fighting the Khawarej in Iraq, and we see the capabilities of your Royal Air Force and its determined pilots. But again, while we respect borders, terrorists do not recognise them. Therefore, we need to look at the bigger picture. It is not enough to focus just on Iraq because they also control large areas in Syria and are establishing footholds in other areas in Asia and Africa.
I do not believe our countries, or our world, can afford to wait much longer. While we pursue the political solution in Syria, we must work together on fighting them in that country, and everywhere. And this is what we have been doing.
We need to work with Syrian opposition forces, who are on the ground in Syria, to defeat the Khawarej, while working with equal determination on advancing the political process. The Syrian opposition, especially in the south, is both capable and willing to fight and they deserve our support.
Of course, military action is only part of the answer in delivering a secure future for all of us. We need to coordinate our efforts on a strategy that includes humanitarian support, as well as diplomatic and political progress.
Your Prime Minister, David Cameron, visited Jordan in September and saw the huge burden we are bearing, with a fifth of our population now Syrian refugees. We remain grateful for British aid in helping those refugees and the Jordanian communities that host them.
I draw hope from the ongoing talks in Vienna. A real opportunity now presents itself to bring together the global coalition that is required today on both the political and military levels.
It is up to all of us to face this moment of truth with determination. All of us in the fight against Daesh [known in Britain as Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, or Isil] need to decide where we stand. On behalf of the international community Jordan has made its decision and taken on a burden far beyond its size.
We believe this is the right thing to do, to stand up for our values and do everything we can to protect our religion, our people, and our nation.
As you go through your internal debate on this major global threat, it is important to understand that your country’s contribution to this undertaking, by carrying out air strikes against Daesh in Syria, can be crucial.
We ask you, our friends in the United Kingdom, Europe and the World, to stand together with us in meeting the challenge and eliminating this global threat.
Events taking place in the Middle East today will shape the security and stability of Europe and the world for decades to come. This is why I call the war on terrorism a Third World War, by other means. It is also why it is imperative for all of us to be united in this existential war. This is not a war that should divide us, but a war that should unite us in shared interests, common principles and fundamental human values.
I have said before that we are fighting a war within Islam against the outlaws of Islam, the Khawarej. Yet, as we have painfully seen, these terrorists and outlaws threaten the entire world.
They target all of us, innocent men and women regardless of race or faith. It is a war we all have to fight, and win, as a united global community. It is a war that knows no boundaries, no geography or demography.
One that is not limited to Syria and Iraq, but extends to Africa, Asia, with its flames reaching Europe and the rest of the world.
Jordan considers the United Kingdom a close and historic friend, and a key ally. The United Kingdom certainly appreciates that these criminals are as much a threat to its own population as they are to us and the rest of the world.
We have witnessed with shock and sadness the brutal murder of British hostages. We have seen many failed plots against the UK, and the campaign to lure youngsters from Britain and across Europe to commit the most atrocious crimes, everywhere.
And you have seen how they have also brutally murdered Muslims in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere. The horrific images of the burning of our brave young pilot, Moaz al-Kasasbeh, remain forever in the collective conscience of the civilised world today.
Both our countries are working side by side in fighting the Khawarej in Iraq, and we see the capabilities of your Royal Air Force and its determined pilots. But again, while we respect borders, terrorists do not recognise them. Therefore, we need to look at the bigger picture. It is not enough to focus just on Iraq because they also control large areas in Syria and are establishing footholds in other areas in Asia and Africa.
I do not believe our countries, or our world, can afford to wait much longer. While we pursue the political solution in Syria, we must work together on fighting them in that country, and everywhere. And this is what we have been doing.
We need to work with Syrian opposition forces, who are on the ground in Syria, to defeat the Khawarej, while working with equal determination on advancing the political process. The Syrian opposition, especially in the south, is both capable and willing to fight and they deserve our support.
Of course, military action is only part of the answer in delivering a secure future for all of us. We need to coordinate our efforts on a strategy that includes humanitarian support, as well as diplomatic and political progress.
Your Prime Minister, David Cameron, visited Jordan in September and saw the huge burden we are bearing, with a fifth of our population now Syrian refugees. We remain grateful for British aid in helping those refugees and the Jordanian communities that host them.
I draw hope from the ongoing talks in Vienna. A real opportunity now presents itself to bring together the global coalition that is required today on both the political and military levels.
It is up to all of us to face this moment of truth with determination. All of us in the fight against Daesh [known in Britain as Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, or Isil] need to decide where we stand. On behalf of the international community Jordan has made its decision and taken on a burden far beyond its size.
We believe this is the right thing to do, to stand up for our values and do everything we can to protect our religion, our people, and our nation.
As you go through your internal debate on this major global threat, it is important to understand that your country’s contribution to this undertaking, by carrying out air strikes against Daesh in Syria, can be crucial.
We ask you, our friends in the United Kingdom, Europe and the World, to stand together with us in meeting the challenge and eliminating this global threat.
farce compared to the words of wisdom ^^^^^^^above^^^^^^^
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the end of the day, we're already in this. The debate now is about broadening the scope to include legitimate targets within Syria. This is not about bombing cities, pursuing targets without regard for civilians or anything of that ilk. The RAF are professional, clinical, lawful and are highly trained for this scenario; its an extention of a role in which the Tornado Force (in particular) has been involved for the last 2 decades. And its not just about 'bombing'.