Answer yes or no to the RAF bombing Syria this coming week.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Answer yes or no to the RAF bombing Syria this coming week.
No.
1 - nil.
Respectfully, keep going below if you want to.
Parliament is voting soon, I'm interested in how intelligent, combat experienced people on Prune see and read the world, and how they would vote, compared to the opposite (our UK politicians of all parties).
Free vote, no whip. UK nationals only.
1 - nil.
Respectfully, keep going below if you want to.
Parliament is voting soon, I'm interested in how intelligent, combat experienced people on Prune see and read the world, and how they would vote, compared to the opposite (our UK politicians of all parties).
Free vote, no whip. UK nationals only.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, if ground forces from the region are in place to exploit the effect, if not then really the only thing available is a few thermonuclear weapons to eradicate the infection (the equivalent of radical amputation in cases of sepsis).
1-1
1-1
No, concentrate on the jihadist trash in Iraq. Russia and the French can deal with Syria. Anyone else think that suggestions from the politicians that only by bombing Syria can we play our part ? What a bloody insult to the lads doing the job over Iraq at present.
Smudge
Smudge
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Reluctantly I follow BV. Both or neither, bit like ROE that doesn't allow you to shoot a baddie in the back - now you can, now you can't.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No.
We (coalition forces AND the UN) need to have a viable plan for troops on the ground and a viable plan on what to do when we think we have 'won'. No repeats of Iraq and Libya, please.
We (coalition forces AND the UN) need to have a viable plan for troops on the ground and a viable plan on what to do when we think we have 'won'. No repeats of Iraq and Libya, please.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: South West UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes.
But I do wish everyone would stop saying we are going to be 'Bombing Syria'. We need to be bombing 'ISIS' (which I understand is now the plan), not 'Syria'. The more we propagate 'Lets Bomb (or Not Bomb) Syria', the more the anti-war lobby use past errors to delay any action at all and allow for ISIS to prosper. The longer term strategy for Syria (and the region) is a different issue that I don't think our politicians are close to getting to grips with sadly.
But I do wish everyone would stop saying we are going to be 'Bombing Syria'. We need to be bombing 'ISIS' (which I understand is now the plan), not 'Syria'. The more we propagate 'Lets Bomb (or Not Bomb) Syria', the more the anti-war lobby use past errors to delay any action at all and allow for ISIS to prosper. The longer term strategy for Syria (and the region) is a different issue that I don't think our politicians are close to getting to grips with sadly.
Yes. But only to add a bit more to the general effort against IS. I have no illusions that we would even make a decisive contribution to ending the Syrian civil war, or should even be thinking about 'reconstruction'. We will likely kill a few scumbags when and if our crazy ROE allow.
Flug
Flug
No, if for no other reason that we will be joining in the bombing of Syria, Burrito, and for no useful purpose. Call Me Dave's 70,000 ground troops are even more bogus than Bliar's 45 mins WoMD.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: beyond the Pale
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's have a big NO to "Recreational Bombing"
Change the RoE, then I'll agree to committing Armed Forces.
I want a clear plan to Destroy IS, not "Interdict", "Contain", "Degrade" or any of the other rubbish I have heard from politicians since this whole sad affair started. I don't think that can be done without a radically-changed attitude to the RoE.
Change the RoE, then I'll agree to committing Armed Forces.
I want a clear plan to Destroy IS, not "Interdict", "Contain", "Degrade" or any of the other rubbish I have heard from politicians since this whole sad affair started. I don't think that can be done without a radically-changed attitude to the RoE.
A reluctant 'yes', on the basis that:
1) Defeating ISIL in Iraq, where the ground they vacate will be controlled by the Iraqi government or the Kurds, will be made easier if we can also attack ISIL in its logistic hinterland of eastern Syria. On this point, if ISIL try to make a big issue of a British vote to extend operations into Syria, we have an immediate strategic communications coup. ISIL claims to have established a Caliphate and does not recognise the border between Syria and Iraq, so according to their own narrative, the UK is already bombing them. As such, a vote in favour of action should be irrelevant. If they claim it changes things, it means they actually recognise there is a border, which undermines their claim to power.
2) I am not convinced that we need a credible follow-on plan in place for Eastern Syria. Nothing could be worse than what already exists there. So the lack of a plan is not a reason to deny ourselves the potential benefits of my point 1).
3) Our military commanders have enough sense about them to keep our aircraft away from potential conflicts between Russia and Turkey near the Turkish border.
4) I am not too worried about mission creep. Everyone knows that Western troops would be entering an IED- and ambush-filled bloodbath, would struggle to gain local acceptance and would almost immediately have to go into self-protection mode to assuage public anxiety at home. This would render them militarily ineffective, as seen in our last two big Middle Eastern ground wars. I think the military leadership is sensible enough to see this now (finally) and will keep its ambitions strictly limited.
But I am under no illusion that extending our mission into Syria will either be decisive militarily, or contribute to ending the long-term conflict. Doing that requires us to look again at our relationships with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc for reasons that I have bored on about elsewhere, not just for the good of the region, but for the future of open western societies as well.
5-7.
1) Defeating ISIL in Iraq, where the ground they vacate will be controlled by the Iraqi government or the Kurds, will be made easier if we can also attack ISIL in its logistic hinterland of eastern Syria. On this point, if ISIL try to make a big issue of a British vote to extend operations into Syria, we have an immediate strategic communications coup. ISIL claims to have established a Caliphate and does not recognise the border between Syria and Iraq, so according to their own narrative, the UK is already bombing them. As such, a vote in favour of action should be irrelevant. If they claim it changes things, it means they actually recognise there is a border, which undermines their claim to power.
2) I am not convinced that we need a credible follow-on plan in place for Eastern Syria. Nothing could be worse than what already exists there. So the lack of a plan is not a reason to deny ourselves the potential benefits of my point 1).
3) Our military commanders have enough sense about them to keep our aircraft away from potential conflicts between Russia and Turkey near the Turkish border.
4) I am not too worried about mission creep. Everyone knows that Western troops would be entering an IED- and ambush-filled bloodbath, would struggle to gain local acceptance and would almost immediately have to go into self-protection mode to assuage public anxiety at home. This would render them militarily ineffective, as seen in our last two big Middle Eastern ground wars. I think the military leadership is sensible enough to see this now (finally) and will keep its ambitions strictly limited.
But I am under no illusion that extending our mission into Syria will either be decisive militarily, or contribute to ending the long-term conflict. Doing that requires us to look again at our relationships with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc for reasons that I have bored on about elsewhere, not just for the good of the region, but for the future of open western societies as well.
5-7.
Yes, give them no quarter. They are worse than feral dogs and we are better off without them. I will shed no tear for any of them regardless who bore them, raised them and still sees them as their offspring. They are beyond rehabilitation and so the only suitable place for them is to be taken from the planet that we have tried to share with them.
Yes.
At least if we're forced to fight with one arm tied behind our backs by bleeding heart liberals and leftist loonies, then they have nothing tangeable to touch our aircraft with whilst we procrastinate during targetting boards.
I, like Iraven, do not wish to share the planet with these scum anymore...
The B Word
At least if we're forced to fight with one arm tied behind our backs by bleeding heart liberals and leftist loonies, then they have nothing tangeable to touch our aircraft with whilst we procrastinate during targetting boards.
I, like Iraven, do not wish to share the planet with these scum anymore...
The B Word
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N. Spain
Age: 79
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YES, for all the above reasons. If these scumbags had the capability to attack us in the same way this question wouldn´t even be asked.
They have no RoE, why should we?
They have no RoE, why should we?
All those that say 'no' should be invited to go and meet some Jihadis for a discussion/peace talks.
Ah, I thought not. For pity's sake wake up - these are not people that we can reason with.
Also, also this garbage about 'recreational bombing' - FFS, we hardly do this for fun! There is a careful target development process to check that the target is valid and where the weapons effect will be examined, is carefully employed and ensures that no innocent parties are killed where at all possible.
I always thought that pacifists and conscientious objectors should be put in front of any assault to give the enemy one last chance - who knows they might even get the enemy forces to expend a few munitions first and do something useful!
The B Word
Ah, I thought not. For pity's sake wake up - these are not people that we can reason with.
Also, also this garbage about 'recreational bombing' - FFS, we hardly do this for fun! There is a careful target development process to check that the target is valid and where the weapons effect will be examined, is carefully employed and ensures that no innocent parties are killed where at all possible.
I always thought that pacifists and conscientious objectors should be put in front of any assault to give the enemy one last chance - who knows they might even get the enemy forces to expend a few munitions first and do something useful!
The B Word