the UK has voted in favour of Syrian air strikes.

a reply to: andy06shake

Well, it's pretty simple..

IS declares War on pretty much everyone..

IS takes over Oil Fields

IS uses that Oil to raise funds

IS uses that funds to buy Weapons..

IS uses those Weapons to take over more territory or to attack us in the West

The West bombs the Oil fields - removing the primary source of income for IS. It also degrades them with the local population as they provide all the fuel used in the local economy. Without said fuel, the economy of IS will collapse.

It's a perfectly sound strategy.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: stumason

So just because history has a habit of repeating its self and once again our nation fails to learn from her mistakes we should take it upon ourselves to attempt to rectify the situation by dong something we already know will not work?

Huh?

It worked pretty damn well in the 1940's.... Not sure what point you're making there. I'll tell you what didn't work well was sticking our heads in the sand and hoping it would go away - they didn't, they got stronger and eventually tried to conquer the world.

originally posted by: andy06shake
This is definitely not the will of our people especially so in this day of age.

Actually, opinion is pretty much split, with a slight favouring for action. Don't think for one moment you speak for the whole country. I've yet to meet anyone in real life who is actually opposed - even some dyed in the wool lefties here at work think it is necessary.

a reply to: stumason

If dropping bombs and other ordinance from 30 odd thousand feet on towns and villages that contain innocents is a perfectly sound strategy then we really have learned nothing from our past.

As to public opinion being split, this is certainly not the case regarding anyone i interact with.

a reply to: andy06shake

You want boots on the ground then or do nothing and the civilians will suffer for many years?.

a reply to: boymonkey74

I don't particularly have a solution to the Syria's woes. I just don't think killing there woman and children from a distance will alleviate the situation, truth be told all i can see this doing is adding fuel to the fire.

Time will tell i imagine.

a reply to: andy06shake

I highly doubt we will be doing a dresden.
I don't want this but if we do nothing everyone loses.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Boots on ground should have included the 'refugees' that Europe is now dealing with.
Instead, the 'West' supported the other side for the defence of selfish interests.
If only the EU/NATO/West was not obsessed by the removal of Assad but could focus on the stabilisation of the area, we would never have reached such a situation. We should have supported a peace process in Syria before, now it is too late.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: stumason

If dropping bombs and other ordinance from 30 odd thousand feet on towns and villages that contain innocents is a perfectly sound strategy then we really have learned nothing from our past.

Shifting the goal posts now - you're question was how sound is the strategy to bomb oil fields. Now it's towns and villages? And you know perfectly well that the RAF doesn't just "drop bombs on towns and villages". If a bomb is dropped, it's because there is a target there, usually firing on Iraqi, Kurdish or Syrian forces.

originally posted by: andy06shake
As to public opinion being split, this is certainly not the case regarding anyone i interact with.

It's the circles you mix in I suppose...

a reply to: boymonkey74

Syria and ISIS are already being repeatedly pelted by numerous other nations don't see why we cannot just sit back and take a back seat on this occasion. Unless of course our government have an ulterior motive which lets face it 9 times out of 10 they generally have. Im a big believer in sorting our own mess before getting involved with others.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

I agree we helped make the mess and shoulsd help clear it up.
I do agree for now we need to work with assad and get rid of isis.
Then when more stabilised get around a table witjh all nations to come to some agreement.

a reply to: stumason

"Shifting the goal posts now"

I think you may find that its Cameron who's shifting the goal posts. As to the circles i mix in, i definitely hope so.

a reply to: andy06shake

As do I thats why we need to sort out isis a mess we helped create.
Do we just ignore that we helped create isis? And let others clean our mess?.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Fair point but what we are doing wont work, and has not worked in the past. Bombing other places and killing innocent men, woman and children simply does not achieve the desired results anymore. Its a circular process that ultimately only ever achieves more violence being perpetrated towards other innocents down the line.

a reply to: andy06shake

No, I was referring specifically to our conversation. You asked what was the point behind bombing oil fields, I replied. You then went on to say "I don't see how bombing villages/women/children" would help.. Yes, you shifted the goal posts and also deployed a tired, old, hyperbolic argument.

By all means, present some evidence that the UK is bombing "women/children"

a reply to: andy06shake

So, essentially, you're advocating non-action?

Do you not see the hypocrisy in that statement, considering you concerned for the "women/children"? After all, the longer the war goes on, the more that will die. The bulk of all the 250,000 killed so far have been by Muslims killing Muslims. The people fleeing are not doing so because of Western bombs, but because of the monsters running rampant in their country.

a reply to: stumason

Do you really think our ordinance has the ability to distinguish the difference between who is innocent and who is a legitimate target?

Innocent woman and children will indeed perish down to the weapons we unleash. Thats pretty much a given. It may indeed be part of war but if you ask me it does not make it any more palatable. The fact that our first targets were indeed oil fields speaks volumes if you ask me. What do you think surround all these oil fields Stu my guess would be towns villages and other numerous structures that contain innocent people, same with the oil fields themselves i imagine.

Now the defence secretary says we will be bombing for years. So all this propaganda we've had about the precision bombs that limit collateral damage and really can't go wrong can't be true. If these bombs are so miraculous, why would we need to bomb for years? I thought we had intelligence on these ISIS people and our 'smart' bombs were going to take care of them?

It's more likely they will bomb until every bit of infrastructure and any potential force that could govern the country are obliterated so they can move in.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: stumason

Do you really think our ordinance has the ability to distinguish the difference between who is innocent and who is a legitimate target?

Innocent woman and children will indeed perish down to the weapons we unleash. Thats pretty much a given. It may indeed be part of war but if you ask me it does not make it any more palatable. The fact that our first target were indeed oil fields speaks volumes if you ask me.

There's this and also how do we know they are targeting who they say they are? If someone in command has a different agenda then the bombs will be part of that agenda. The bombs aren't independent of human control.

a reply to: DrHammondStoat

Totally agree!

a reply to: andy06shake

How many will perish under ISIS rule?.
Do you think you would if we do nothing?.