Ye Olde War Vote - Poll added

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Zed, Dec 1, 2015.


Should the UK join in air strikes in Syria?

Poll closed Dec 3, 2015.
  1. Yes

    17 vote(s)
  2. No

    35 vote(s)
  1. Zed

    Zed Gradually getting grumpier

    A good speech yes but a good speech does not mean you're gauranteed to be right.
    vanorak likes this.
  2. It certainly caught my attention as i was watching it live. I did however more or less instantly think that with the odd minor mod it could well have been an argument for not doing it. I Felt it was a cynical shot for leadership of tye party. I didnt think that was cricket and i like the guy. Compare what he said to the drivel old onelip came out with... no comparison you say!
    vanorak likes this.
  3. Wasn't really my response, it was produced by party central to send to people like me. I worry that his reference to boots on the ground will soon see more mission creep, as the statement is only “should be forces from the region” not must.
    vanorak likes this.
  4. I am sure that was the intention from some quarters ... I think Jezza has started to lose the internal battle and it won't be long before his rein ends.
  5. Some inspired thinking by the most decorated US Marine General, Smedley Butler:

    "Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted – to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.

    Let the workers in these plants get the same wages – all the workers, all presidents, all executives, all directors, all managers, all bankers – yes, and all generals and all admirals and all officers and all politicians and all government office holders – everyone in the nation be restricted to a total monthly income not to exceed that paid to the soldier in the trenches!

    Let all these kings and tycoons and masters of business and all those workers in industry and all our senators and governors and majors pay half of their monthly $30 wage to their families and pay war risk insurance and buy Liberty Bonds.

    Why shouldn't they?

    They aren't running any risk of being killed or of having their bodies mangled or their minds shattered. They aren't sleeping in muddy trenches. They aren't hungry. The soldiers are!

    Give capital and industry and labor thirty days to think it over and you will find, by that time, there will be no war. That will smash the war racket – that and nothing else.”
  6. Was a very engaging and rousing piece of rhetoric. I won't dispute that....but to liken a motion to instigate air strikes in Syria to a nation uniting to defeat fascism in the 1940's is pure nonsense, and historically illiterate. ISIS do not have the capability to either invade nor occupy a large european nation. Neither do they have a substantial force of professionally trained soldiers, navy, airforce and administration to prosecute such a war...

    A great piece of jingoistic theatre....not appropriate justification for air strikes, IMO
    MrsVolkswombat likes this.
  7. Well put that tbh. I thought the same. He actually started to draw me in. It was very good. But no cigar!
    MrsVolkswombat and vanorak like this.
  8. The government of Syria haven't invited the UK in, to carry out attacks in their country. We are just strutting into somebody else's country to drop bombs were we like.
    The Russkies & Iranians were invited by the Syrian Government, they have been very successful and are rolling up the armed terrorists (including ISIS) and handing them their backsides.
    There are no moderates bearing arms against the Syrian Government.

    U.K. Involvement will extend this conflict and prevent the Syrian Government and its allies from destroying IS in Syria.
    fritt, vanorak and zed like this.
  9. Who am i to argue. Its all a web of lies and deceit. I know/believe enough to want IS defeated and im not fussy who does it. Im worried about the means though!
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2015
    Owen Snell and vanorak like this.
  10. ron


    Is it not unusual though that assad has not tried to stop the allied bombing after all he does have the might of Russia and Iran behind him
  11. The UK, as does all of NATO, ignores such things as "international law" while attacking Syria--but as long as they are at least ostensibly attacking IS . Russia and Syria are not going to act like Turkey and shoot them down even if they have the means to do so. This would invite full scale conflict with NATO that neither Russia nor Syria wants. That's not to say that such a conflict might ultimately arise, just that Russia is not going to instigate it. Putin and Russia let insane recklessness remain as the preferred operating mode of the West.

    Also Russia, Iran and Syria are pretty weak compared to NATO
  12. [​IMG]


    sums it up really...
  13. Ooooh cake!
    vanorak likes this.
  14. For a bit of balance. Margaret Beckett. Cant stand the woman!
    vanorak likes this.
  15. ron


    Last I heard nato ain,t attacking Syria they are attacking IS in Syria and Iraq
    And I believe a lot of attacks on IS in Iraq by British aircraft were aborted because of likely civilian casualties
    Maybe the UN should say pull out all foreign forces from Syria and Iraq
    I sure the Yazidi people would agree
  17. no it's a US led initiative, but as Hollande was quick to call the attacks in Paris an 'act of war', and responded immediately, it sets the UN/NATO ball rolling....if he had waited a couple of days longer, air strikes or other military intervention in Syria or Iraq couldn't then be justified as 'retaliation' or an act of 'self-defence', as far as UN law is all hinged on Hollande's rapid claim and response to trigger the 'self-defence' legislation, which then requires all other 27 NATO members to offer assisstance...

    If ISIL call themselves an army, and say they have established a Caliphate, (an Islamic State) then UN Charter considers the Paris shootings/suicide bombings as an unprovoked attack carrried out by military forces of one state against civilians of another state...trouble is UN doesn't recognize ISIL as an army, nor the Caliphate a matter...Turkey's downing of a Russian fighter sealed the deal

    It's all BS....everyone seems to interpret international laws however they see fit at the time...or they resign form the charter....create some s h i t somewhere, then sign up again shortly afterwards....
  18. What's wrong with you , don't you like stunning looking women .
    Dicky likes this.

Share This Page