Lonewolf 50.

AND DAMN WELL PROVIDE ME WITH THE EQUIPMENT TO DO IT do you hear Blair/Brown in particular and now Cameron and Osborne, anything else I class as Acts against the State of which the armed forces are part. In past time this was classed as High Treason and the sentence was hanging drawing and quartering.

With the greatest respect, it seems to me that our great leader and his sychophants are busy turning this into the latest version of Corry/Strickly/big Brother. The whole political argument is being reduced to a popularity contest, mainly for people who have no idea of the "real" consequences of their actions. Unfortunately, whilst I have the greatest respect for my fellow PPruners, I doubt that many of our fellow countrymen even understand what is happening here or care. And who knows, maybe, the same people are saying "I'm looking forward to all those "exciting" arrival pictures of our Tomahawks". I'm just an old bloke who has been unlucky enough to live in a time when decency, honesty and integrity seems to have gone by the board. It's a very sad time to be an Englishman.

Smudge

there are few outbreaks of belief on this forum.

I'm afraid this knee jerk stuff is absolute proof of the ignorance of our "great leaders" when the subject of fighting any kind of war be it civil or uncivil raises it's head... They just don't appreciate that unless we resort to pillow fighting with our enemy this stuff isn't pretty. There isn't a "nice" way to die in war whether you are a civilian or a soldier/sailor/airman. In the past they have managed to curry up sufficient popular support to make themselves look good. I'm afraid I agreed with the decisions to go into Iraq and Afghanistan.

Two questions remain for me:

1. Why don't I think this potential conflict is a good idea?

2. What is the justification?

To answer the first question, I have seen our vaunted leaders management of modern conflict. Rather than the traditional way of fighting a war, (walk in, kick arse, leave them to sort out their problems), the new way of fight a war is walk in, kick arse, underfund and under-equip your fighting men, tie their hands with silly ROE's and make them stand around being shot at until they are hit. In short, for some reason we feel a need to coddle our defeated enemy at the cost of our soldiers. That's wrong. Additionally, sofar we have managed to pick the wrong side in Libya and Egypt, what makes them think they are going to get it right this time. Someone recently said, "Are we about to become Al Quaida's Air Force?"...

In answer to the second question: If whoever had put soldiers on the street to inject bleach into each individual who died would we have the same level of outrage? Probably not. Because you can't claim it as a WMD. The stupidity is that, nowadays, some half arsed domestic terrorist who makes a frigging pipe bomb is getting charged with making/using Weapons of Mass Destruction. Yet, amazingly, the same government charging those idiots is throwing 2000 pounders around willy nilly and without remorse. But, really, when it comes down to it, does it really matter how you kill someone. The result is the same. Dead people. When someone has killed many thousands of people with bullets and big bombs does it really matter if they pop a few with an unconventional weapon that ceases to be dangerous in a short time... Think of all the minefields in the world that still kill years after the conflict is over.

There's no good reason to go into Syria so, "if it ain't broke" let's not try to fix it lest is cost us many more brave men and women. There's no winning by throwing a few TLAM's around because whoever ends up winning will hate our intervention anyway.

So, to be blunt. They are a sovereign country, screw them, let them sort it out themselves then decide what to do with the resulting regime.

Eclectic:

Which for years has been a U2 transit airfield since OLUK was disbanded at least 10 years ago on paper. This is usually a monthly thing rotating aircrew and frames to Al Dafra and back to Beale in California. IT US NOTHING NEW, SO THIS IS NOT A NEW DEPLOYMENT.

For pity's sake stop looking for things and thinking they are signs of an increase in activity when its perfectly normal.

Eclectic: ballcocks

For a starter the drone is an XB47, the B2 doesn't need to use Akrotiri, increased Hercules activity, deploy aircraft, you require stores, personnel, specific equipment and more importantly ammunition. the latter can only be carried in a very specific way.

That first picture is the X-47 demonstrator. And having never been to Cyprus and therefore very unfamiliar with the place, the background doesn't fit the descriptions I have seen.

And why would B-2s be deployed to Cyprus, which is not a designated FOB for the type?

I detect more than a hint of BS here.

MtM:

He's been doing this for days.

AP.

[

Unfortunately it's the Politicians "Call of Duty" form of warfare, sitting at home in a comfy armchair watching the "game" unfold on the big telly in the corner. Safe in the knowledge you are safe from it effecting your day to day life, whilst bringing out rules based on some sense of fairplay that get people killed while falling over to be seen as Politically correct.

It's only when they finally go up against some Bast*rd big enough that fires back and missiles start dropping in Westminster and Downing Street will the likes of Hague finally get the message as he fills his pants.

Iraq was a classic when Bush declared the war over, problem was they didn't get the agreement of the other side on that. Neatly when things like that happen, those that carry on their war either home or away suddenly become "terrorists"

Eclectic, do you read the threads or just blindly post drivel? Your rock solid source @drroymurphy is a fantasist at best, as anyone who has actually been to Akrotiri could tell you just from those tweets.

AA,

Quit sugarcoating it....tell us what you really think!


But.......AMEN Brother!:D:D

Nutloose:

As you say they'd be terrorists. The question is, since the mission was accomplished, (the removal of SoDamnInsane), why were our soldiers left there to be terrorized. Let them terrorize each other. Leaving our men and women there is, really, allowing ourselves to be terrorized by proxy. That's the dumbest idea in the world. Had we left they'd have been so busy squabbling amongst themselves they wouldn't even know where the West is if we tattooed a map on their stupid foreheads...

SAS:

I'm being as nice as I can right now...

Thank you... :ok:

From the Whitehall edition of Pravda:

Typhoons deploying to Cyprus

Sorry, would that be the same George Galloway that always comes out in favour of everything that is completly against Britain's interests. The anti-British MP?

I heard his speach today and, whilst it was very well constructed and delivered (as always), it carefully sidestepped all the points that had been made, along with most of the facts. He is very good at taking people in - anything to win the votes from people that other MPs and candidates neglect to target, for whatever reason.

Go fish.

AA, you put your argument well. I would only take issue with one of your points (the rest seem pretty sound).

Mate, it is broke.

OK by me.
FWIW, I found the answers to my questions a few pages back that Courtney Mil tried to help me answer. The strictly legal basis really isn't there.

AA, I like your bit about "are we to become Al Qaeda's Air Force in Syria?"

That would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Our pols don't even understand the question as asked.

Linerider,

It wasn't the Americans, it was actually Daily Mail foreign agents. It was a move designed to create the ultimate scoop for the DM. And to think, they almost got away with it. Problem now is the pending reprisal CW attack by the CIA on the DM offices, sanctioned by the Government under the special relationship.

LoneWolf,

It's OK. Neither do ours.

Courtney, I had to go back and see what linerider posts, but when I did, it made your post a joy to read.

Goodonya, mate! :ok:

They just LOST THE VOTE... no's have it 285 against 272