You are not logged in. Please register or login.

Will
 Rep: 225 

Re: UK launches first Syria air strikes

Will wrote:

Our boys certainly didnt waste any time in dropping bombs on IS. The vote in favour of bombs came in at around 10.30pm last night but the news channels said it would be days or weeks before we actually go on the offensive - seems they were wrong.

BBC wrote:

RAF Tornado jets have carried out their first air strikes against so-called Islamic State in Syria, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed.

The strikes came hours after MPs voted in favour of UK action in Syria.

They backed the action by 397 votes to 223 after a 10-hour debate in the House of Commons.

Four Tornado jets took off from RAF Akrotiri, Cyprus, shortly after the vote.

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said the sorties had returned from the "first offensive operation over Syria and have conducted strikes".

Two of the four Tornados arrived back in Cyprus just over three hours after they left the base, landing shortly before 03:00 GMT.

BBC defence correspondent Jonathan Beale said the pair of Tornados had left RAF Akrotiri with three 500lb Paveway bombs each and returned to base without those weapons.

The Ministry of Defence is expected to give details of their targets later on Thursday, he added.

Usually I have nothing nice to say about our politicians, but voting on this must have been horrendous for those with a conscience. Nobody sane wants innocent people in Syria to die, but what other options are there when IS is hellbent on destroying the western world hmm Those who voted against bombing get labelled as a terrorist sympathiser so not exactly a nice position to be in.

polluxlm
 Rep: 207 

Re: UK launches first Syria air strikes

polluxlm wrote:

Bombs work against armies, not rebels. More TNT was dropped on Vietnam than in all of WWII. Didn't help.

If they want something done they need troops on the ground. This "civilized warfare" doctrine only leads to never ending conflicts.

James
 Rep: 625 

Re: UK launches first Syria air strikes

James wrote:

If the major powers don't get on the same page over there,  instead of a war against ISIS its going to be the opening round of WWIII.



polluxlm wrote:

Bombs work against armies, not rebels. More TNT was dropped on Vietnam than in all of WWII. Didn't help.

If they want something done they need troops on the ground. This "civilized warfare" doctrine only leads to never ending conflicts.

That's true but like Will said.....what else can they do? Doing nothing doesn't help and I doubt any of the major powers over there are willing to send in 200-500k troops.

polluxlm
 Rep: 207 

Re: UK launches first Syria air strikes

polluxlm wrote:

If you're going to shoot a bear you better kill him, or he will come at you more pissed than before.

Doing nothing would actually be better. Let them sort out their own shit. That or commit the necessary forces.

Re: UK launches first Syria air strikes

AtariLegend wrote:

My views on this might have been similar to Loftons. Unfortunately Cameron's choice of language for the past month was exactly the same as Blair used for Iraq just over a decade ago. It's really disgusting.

James
 Rep: 625 

Re: UK launches first Syria air strikes

James wrote:
polluxlm wrote:

Doing nothing would actually be better.

Come on now.

Even limited strikes are better than nothing. Does it solve the problem? No but I can assure you at least a few dozen of those fuckers are killed on a daily basis in these airstrikes.


I do agree that a major action will be needed at some point and we are a catastrophic attack away from it being implemented.  Next election might be the most important in a generation and its frightening when you look at our choices. We need someone in there who is willing to make some very tough decisions and wont bother checking which way the wind is blowing before doing it.

It would be unfortunate if the US is forced into sending in hundreds of thousands of troops into these wastelands but if its a requirement it would be better to do it on our terms and not as a reactionary move to a potential major attack. I think the next major attack here is going to be the mall massacres during the holiday season like Clancy mentioned in his book years ago. What happened yesterday shows that its feasible. They could have simply went to the mall there and the casualties would have been much higher. If you think Americans wanted revenge on 9/11,  wait until they do something on that scale.

After 9/11 Bush had carte blanche. Unfortunately he shifted his focus on Iraq. Next president wont make such a mistake.

Russia's handling of the situation with Chechen rebels is probably the blueprint on how to deal with terrorists. Having said that, that situation is on a smaller scale and god only knows what would be needed to do it in entire countries. Door to door, house to house, neighborhood to neighborhood in the ME and parts of Africa could take decades.

polluxlm
 Rep: 207 

Re: UK launches first Syria air strikes

polluxlm wrote:

Limited warfare is what lead to ISIS. Even Vietnam with a bunch of troops on the ground wasn't good enough when going against a ruthless enemy. The war was lost because of political pressures at home. That tells the world you are ultimately weak and all they have to do is hold out and maintain a state of war.

Sure, Americans wanted revenge on 9/11. But for how long? In the end you still left before the job was finished because the homeland couldn't take a few thousand casualties. And now all those trillions look like they were spent for nothing. Worse than nothing as the region is more unstable than before, with terror cells once more striking US soil.

In a situation like that you have to decide whether or not you are ready to run the full course. If you are not you are just wasting lives and resources so the politicians can slam themselves on the chest and say they are "doing something". There are billions of prospective terrorists. A few dozen here and there is only sticking needles in a horse's ass. He'll start kicking back.

Re: UK launches first Syria air strikes

johndivney wrote:

Darkness at the break of noon/shadows even the silver spoon.. There's no sense in tryin'

Cameron is just a puppet. A particularly nasty one.

This was inevitable as soon as Ed Milliband got the Labour leadership vote: Cameron was getting his 2nd term & getting his war. It's not about Syria, it's not about the UK, it's barely about ISIS.. It's about who profits the most. Like anything. Where there's money to be made..

Not that I have the answers, but this is clearly just playing into their hands. & is driven by he warmongers whose business it is. Just as the last one was.
So it goes.
We create a vacuum, then we fill that vacuum..


Albeit with a relatively new type of international terrorism. The novelty will eventually be replaced by something else, some other sect of savages who believe their religion is the only way. & they'll all send the next generation of idiots off to war.

It's just such a waste. An evil waste.
They're all a bunch of evil greedy pricks. Cameron, Obama, whoever the fuck. We'll never make it out of this world alive..

Neemo
 Rep: 480 

Re: UK launches first Syria air strikes

Neemo wrote:
polluxlm wrote:

If you're going to shoot a bear you better kill him, or he will come at you more pissed than before.

Doing nothing would actually be better. Let them sort out their own shit. That or commit the necessary forces.


Yep...nothing else to say

Although it's almost like they want this shit to happen...like the main agenda is to sow chaos and fear...nothing more...if one regime falls another will fill the hole

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB