Britain votes to join airstrikes against IS

[craigt3365]

After the successes of bringing peace to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya its makes perfect sense to join another campaign to bomb Syria..

What did Einstein say about repeating the same thing over and over hoping to get different results?

Only stupid folk actually believe that this will in any way damage Daesh. The only outcome will be more recruits for them.

It was only 2 years back that the pig-molesting hamfaced corporate goon-bot was going to parliament to get approval to bomb Assad, now we are bombing Assad's enemies.

While people in the UK are dying waiting for hospitals, and more then 100,000 homeless children, 100,000s relying on foodbanks, we decide to spending £millions bombing Syria. Each mission costs over a £million.

The same folk that whine endlessly about refugees are now egging on the UK government to further bomb these people into the ground. Result more refugees filled with hate for those that destroyed their homes.

We attack the evil Daesh because they are beheading people, yet support the abhorrent Saudis who behead just as many as the Daesh. The doublethink is astounding.

Putin is in Syria at the request of the Syrian government.. we are not, we are now attacking a sovereign nation.

The 70,000 'moderate' terrorists, that only a couple of weeks back were shooting at pilot that were parachuting out of a downed aircraft, will be chomping at the bit to do the same to UK pilots..

Shooting at a pilot who was bombing them. Kinda understand that....

I'm sure you'll be just as understanding when the Pilot is British..

I'm hard core anti-war. All foreign powers should leave. And all foreign powers selling weapons to Syria should stop.

[KC 71]

What a pathetic comment

on what side are you?

Certainly not yours !

[NoshowJones]

it is common knowledge by now, one will never defeat this lot by trying to bomb them out of existance, haven't the powers that be learnt anything from history, look at the millions of tonnage of bombs dropped on north vietnam, did it do any good.no, none at all.and the same outcome will happen here.i needs troops on the ground to take them out.

Cameron is another war monger like Blair, he should be dealing the problems in the UK, not bombing other countries.

There are plenty of undesirable immigrants in the UK, and not just Muslims who need sorting out.

[webfact]

RELATED TOPIC:

Britain launches airstrikes on IS in Syria
By MENELAOS HADJICOSTIS and JILL LAWLESS

AKROTIRI, Cyprus (AP) — British warplanes carried out airstrikes in Syria early Thursday, hours after Parliament voted to authorize air attacks against Islamic State group targets there.

Full story: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/875738-britain-launches-airstrikes-on-is-in-syria/

[baboon]

Thank you Britain...we welcome you to the cause.

I wouldn't get too excited. All you are getting is a handful of geriatric Tornados.

Good old Blighty. Placing young lives in harm's way with antiquated equipment as usual. Makes you proud to be British.

[JohnDodd]

The blood and carnage that is now Libya is not enough for the "Bullington boy", now he's salivating for Syrian blood, he calls for more airstrikes against an "enemy" that this so called coalition of the willing, and all the top the art military hardware cant seem to find IS/ISIL/al nustra/daesh/ and all the other alphabet soup of gangs, that all spell C.I.A/MI6....Cameron this bastardized offspring of some distant King and some courtesan , whose only other C.V.entrants as Advisor to some failed Chancellor called Lamont, and a P.R. man for a t.v. channel is now a sociopathic spokesman for Chatham House/ C.F.R. and other malignantly narcissistic entities.His reasoning, is bullsh&tt,The U.K. like the U.S. are broke, they got very little gold, so its War that they want. They think that when they are tucked away on their Southern pacific hideaway, which all the "elite" have the Bush's seem to like Patagonia , that they will survive the big one. When I read threads of world importance, our very survival, I am amazed at some of the posts. Time to Wake up, Governments are the publics biggest enemy, A little cognitive dissonance is better than worldwide slavery, or even worse.

[Ukraine]

I would have nuked daech with nuclear head. problem solved!

I don't talk with terrorist. I get rid of them. no negotiation.

I am afraid this may result in severe collateral damage as well...

[Publicus]

I would have nuked daech with nuclear head. problem solved!

I don't talk with terrorist. I get rid of them. no negotiation.

I am afraid this may result in severe collateral damage as well...

Kindly do not feed the crackpots trolls.

First use of a nuclear weapon since World War II will open the gates of hell.

Even Russia have developed roughly equal Hiroshima impact conventional bombs that exclude the radiation which also reduces the heat. The real concern is over a Dirty Bomb (radiation only) with blast effect set off in London or New York, possibly Moscow etc.

[chiang mai]

Of course they have. Always following the yanks!

Of course! If you don't have any brains of your own, you have to follow someone!!

And you follow whom?

[DisparateDan]

If only Hilary Benn was Labour leader.

Watch Corbyn squirm next to him.

A very passionate speech from Benn, a must watch

Magnificent !

[DisparateDan]

Thank you Britain...we welcome you to the cause.

I wouldn't get too excited. All you are getting is a handful of geriatric Tornados.

Good old Blighty. Placing young lives in harm's way with antiquated equipment as usual. Makes you proud to be British.

We put a quite a few young and old lives in harm's way in the Battle of the Atlantic, Merchant Navy more than 30,000 men and The Battle of Britain, to name a few minor engagements.

Of course also the whole British civilian population, 67,200 killed.

Edited December 3, 2015 by DisparateDan

[chiang mai]

If only Hilary Benn was Labour leader.

Watch Corbyn squirm next to him.

A very passionate speech from Benn, a must watch

Magnificent !

It was an excellent speech, no doubt, but the two female Labour MP's seated behind Mr Benn, playing with their Iphones, need a serious kicking.

[7by7]

A real chip off the old block.

Like his father before him, whilst one may not always agree with his politics, one always has to admire his intelligence and commitment.

I've seen some reports comparing Benn's speech last night to that of Blair's Iraq war speech in 2003, But there is one big, major and significant difference. Benn really believed what he was saying!

Next Labour leader? Let's hope so, and soon!

Hilary Benn’s speech on Syria could transform Labour

[up-country_sinclair]

Yes, it was a good speech. But I can't help but think that despite his good intentions, these air strikes are only going to directly lead to horrifically violent attacks within the UK. I hope I'm wrong.

[saakura]

Of course they have. Always following the yanks!

Of course! If you don't have any brains of your own, you have to follow someone!!

It could also be a case of blind leading the blind as happened in Iraq

[TerminalVelosity]

Of course they have. Always following the yanks!

Perhaps also the 50 other countries in the coalition? And perhaps for a good reason????

Perhaps because they all agreed to oust Assard and it blew up in thier faces, with ISIS comming into the scene and a mass exodus of refugee's, then when the Russians decided to back Assard, they all shat themselves and got over their denial and cowardice, finally joining the fight!

[craigt3365]

Of course they have. Always following the yanks!

Perhaps also the 50 other countries in the coalition? And perhaps for a good reason????

Perhaps because they all agreed to oust Assard and it blew up in thier faces, with ISIS comming into the scene and a mass exodus of refugee's, then when the Russians decided to back Assard, they all shat themselves and got over their denial and cowardice, finally joining the fight!

Right. The coalitions desire to avoid civilian casualties AND an environmental disaster had nothing to do with this...

[NeverSure]

Perhaps also the 50 other countries in the coalition? And perhaps for a good reason????

Of course. War is a lucrative business. And who sells those 50 partners war equipment?

"And who sells those 50 partners war equipment?"

The only one on the list with enough brains to build it?

Seriously, I mentioned before that the UK has its totally awesome Hellfire air to ground missile that's the envy of everyone. It's laser guided and pinpoint accurate and will really give ISIS something to worry about their virgins.

Cheers.

[Harsh Jones]

I wouldn't say controlling. But yes, a significant influence. At least they aren't cutting people's heads off!

These strikes will inevitably lead to muslim terror attacks in the UK. Which will hopefully lead to immigration reform. So I guess all is good.

[Harsh Jones]

397 MP voted yes, and astonishingly, 223 MP voted no, no to bombing IS, no to puting an end to those

barberians murderers exsitance, No to save lives, no to bring back order and stibilty to the region,

no to save women and childern from being treated and sold as salves, no to every fibre in humenity

that creams Yes....

Has any government yet to clearly articulate a strategy to comprehensively defeat Daesh and other Sunni groups? Shia militias in Iraq and Syria are also committing extensive war crimes making the whole situation even more complex, practically silence regarding their gruesome activities.

To my knowledge the competing balance of power players have not agreed the pathway to peace in Syria and Iraq. Have not followed the UK debate, but IMO allocating six UK fighter bombers is a political gesture not a strategy, at this stage in reality what difference will they make.

The west is risking blood and treasure to do Saudi Arabia's bidding.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/12029546/Saudi-Arabia-destabilising-Arab-world-German-intelligence-warns.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Saudi Arabia’s intervention in Yemen was driven by a desire to show the country was “willing to take military, financial and political risks in order not to fall behind in regional politics”.

The overthrow of Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad remains a priority for the kingdom, the BND says.

[Harsh Jones]

After the successes of bringing peace to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya its makes perfect sense to join another campaign to bomb Syria..

What did Einstein say about repeating the same thing over and over hoping to get different results?

Only stupid folk actually believe that this will in any way damage Daesh. The only outcome will be more recruits for them.

It was only 2 years back that the pig-molesting hamfaced corporate goon-bot was going to parliament to get approval to bomb Assad, now we are bombing Assad's enemies.

While people in the UK are dying waiting for hospitals, and more then 100,000 homeless children, 100,000s relying on foodbanks, we decide to spending £millions bombing Syria. Each mission costs over a £million.

The same folk that whine endlessly about refugees are now egging on the UK government to further bomb these people into the ground. Result more refugees filled with hate for those that destroyed their homes.

We attack the evil Daesh because they are beheading people, yet support the abhorrent Saudis who behead just as many as the Daesh. The doublethink is astounding.

Putin is in Syria at the request of the Syrian government.. we are not, we are now attacking a sovereign nation.

The 70,000 'moderate' terrorists, that only a couple of weeks back were shooting at pilot that were parachuting out of a downed aircraft, will be chomping at the bit to do the same to UK pilots..

Shooting at a pilot who was bombing them. Kinda understand that....

Yeah Turkish fighters on Syrian soil shooting at pilots that were there legally under international law. It is clearly against the Geneva convention. And it didn't even happen that often in WW2. Only the Nazi's did it toward the end of the war.

[Harsh Jones]

Of course they have. Always following the yanks!

Perhaps also the 50 other countries in the coalition? And perhaps for a good reason????

Perhaps because they all agreed to oust Assard and it blew up in thier faces, with ISIS comming into the scene and a mass exodus of refugee's, then when the Russians decided to back Assard, they all shat themselves and got over their denial and cowardice, finally joining the fight!

Right. The coalitions desire to avoid civilian casualties AND an environmental disaster had nothing to do with this...

So far in this thread, you claim to not recognize international law or the Geneva convention. And now you are extolling the virtues of avoiding civilian casualties and the environment ?

[jacky54]

Of course they have. Always following the yanks!

Not in Vietnam

[Publicus]

Thank you Britain...we welcome you to the cause.

I wouldn't get too excited. All you are getting is a handful of geriatric Tornados.

Good old Blighty. Placing young lives in harm's way with antiquated equipment as usual. Makes you proud to be British.

Encouraging news from Westmonster.

UK is now putting up 12 bn pounds beyond its last defence budget of 36 bn total last year. (48 bn GBP)

No money for social needs but lotsa new bucks for the military. UK wouldn't have to dig as deeply into its pockets all of a sudden had it kept up some respectable military funding over a consistent period of time with only minor decreases instead of consistently significant decreases.

Necessary nonetheless just to keep the wolf from the door.

The U.K. is bulking up its military spending in the face of ISIS and Russia.

Some of the additional £12 billion ($18 billion) in spending will go towards buying nine new Boeing P8 maritime patrol aircraft for surveillance and anti-submarine warfare. It will also speed up the purchase of a number of Lockheed Martin (LMT) F-35 fighter aircraft and extend the life of Typhoon fighter jets made by BAE Systems (BAESF) and Airbus (EADSF).

Total U.K. defense spending in the previous fiscal year was £36 billion ($55 billion). The government has pledged to meet the NATO goal that each member country spends 2% of its GDP on defense.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/23/news/britain-military-spending-boeing-isis-russia/index.html?iid=ob_article_footer&iid=obinsite

Anyone btw who might think UK or Nato are behind in military spending could take another look at Russia. Putin just spent $15 million to upgrade five 1960s turboprop planes to do anti-submarine warfare. Russia plans to upgrade another six of the same parts-starved aircraft with 12 rusty ones still in storage.

That is it for Russian ASW capabilities per se. Overall Nato spends what it needs to spend.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Publicus

[Scott]

I note some posters are getting excessively combative and argumentative as well as off-topic. Continue at your own peril.

You are welcome to express your opinion, but you need to be civil to other posters.