[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

I said Saddam was trumped up, that's not Afghanistan

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

I said Saddam was trumped up, that's not Afghanistan

Wasn't that trumped up during the gulf war in 1990 when Major was PM?

[bots]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Wasn't that trumped up during the gulf war in 1990 when Major was PM?

Saddam invaded Kuwait ... that wasn't trumped up

[Kizzy]

So he was a threat in 1990 but not in 2003?

And it wasn't Major as PM in in 1990 my mistake, it was Thatcher.
Or both haha

[bots]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

So he was a threat in 1990 but not in 2003?

Completely different things. Kuwait, a neighbour of Iraq was invaded by them. A multi national force took back Kuwait. Years later Blair said Saddam could hit the UK with WMD's that he had in his possession. It was all false

Do I really need to go through every event?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Completely different things. Kuwait, a neighbour of Iraq was invaded by them. A multi national force took back Kuwait. Years later Blair said Saddam could hit the UK with WMD's that he had in his possession. It was all false

Do I really need to go through every event?

Well no you don't not sure why you are.
I wouldn't say that at any stage there has not been a threat in varying degrees since that point.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Well no you don't not sure why you are.
I wouldn't say that at any stage there has not been a threat in varying degrees since that point.

People have been comparing the decision to bomb Syria with Tony Blair's decision on Iraq. The point I am highlighting is that Blair bombed on false information. Bombing ISIS is not based on conjecture, events have already happened that show the threat ISIS is. They are not the same and should not be compared

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

People have been comparing the decision to bomb Syria with Tony Blair's decision on Iraq. The point I am highlighting is that Blair bombed on false information. Bombing ISIS is not based on conjecture, events have already happened that show the threat ISIS is. They are not the same and should not be compared

And the bombing in 2011, what was that based on?

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Reduce the living members of IS - reduce the threat. Eventually not enough IS members left to be a threat - No more threat. Simple maths.

The problem with this is, even if we killed nearly all ISIS members, we won't kill their idea... their ideology.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

People have been comparing the decision to bomb Syria with Tony Blair's decision on Iraq. The point I am highlighting is that Blair bombed on false information. Bombing ISIS is not based on conjecture, events have already happened that show the threat ISIS is. They are not the same and should not be compared

You're right, the two are incomparable.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

The problem with this is, even if we killed nearly all ISIS members, we won't kill their idea... their ideology.

Which 'ideology' is this Red?

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Livia

You're right, the two are incomparable.

Since when does 'being right' or even 'in the right' count for anything on here?

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

People have been comparing the decision to bomb Syria with Tony Blair's decision on Iraq. The point I am highlighting is that Blair bombed on false information. Bombing ISIS is not based on conjecture, events have already happened that show the threat ISIS is. They are not the same and should not be compared

They are simlar in that we would be declaring war on someone who hasnt attacked us, yet.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

The problem with this is, even if we killed nearly all ISIS members, we won't kill their idea... their ideology.

The idea that bombing will reduce ISIS numbers is frankly ridiculous. We can't bomb as fast as they can recruit. The more we bomb the easier it is FOR them to recruit. And their leadership neither has, nor needs, any particular skillset beyond a bit of rhetoric, and so is completely disposable. It's not like they're military generals who are desperately needed to plan and coordinate... ISIS attacks are crude and scattered. A 10 year old could plan one. 10 year olds probably DO plan some.

The idea the bombs and bullets will beat back ISIS is so naive that it makes me actually cringe. They will be defeated slowly, intelligently and diplomatically or not at all. Probably the latter, because we are too bloodthirsty and vengeful to consider the former.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

They are simlar in that we would be declaring war on someone who hasnt attacked us, yet.

Germany hadn't attacked us when we declared war in 1939.

[bots]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

They are simlar in that we would be declaring war on someone who hasnt attacked us, yet.

Lol I'm not going through this again with you. They are not similar in any way shape or form. We have been attacked here, our countrymen have been kidnapped and beheaded.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Livia

Germany hadn't attacked us when we declared war in 1939.

Would that be tolerated now? Would we be able to declare war in the way we did in 1939?

[AProducer'sWetDream]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The idea that bombing will reduce ISIS numbers is frankly ridiculous. We can't bomb as fast as they can recruit. The more we bomb the easier it is FOR them to recruit. And their leadership neither has, nor needs, any particular skillset beyond a bit of rhetoric, and so is completely disposable. It's not like they're military generals who are desperately needed to plan and coordinate... ISIS attacks are crude and scattered. A 10 year old could plan one. 10 year olds probably DO plan some.

The idea the bombs and bullets will beat back ISIS is so naive that it makes me actually cringe. They will be defeated slowly, intelligently and diplomatically or not at all. Probably the latter, because we are too bloodthirsty and vengeful to consider the former.

Agree complete TS. Us bombing Syria will make it so much easier for ISIS to recruit and radicalise more people.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Lol I'm not going through this again with you. They are not similar in any way shape or form. We have been attacked here, our countrymen have been kidnapped and beheaded.

Our countrymen being attacked is not quite the same thing as an attack on this country.

[bots]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

Our countrymen being attacked is not quite the same thing as an attack on this country.

lee rigby

the murder of British tourists in Tunisia. They were killed because they were British, the same way those poor sods were kidnapped and beheaded.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

lee rigby

the murder of British tourists in Tunisia. They were killed because they were British, the same way those poor sods were kidnapped and beheaded.

Was the Lee Rigby assault an attack on the country? I though it was a nutcase

[bots]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

Was the Lee Rigby assault an attack on the country? I though it was a nutcase

of course it was an assault on this country as was the murder of tourists and the beheadings.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

of course it was an assault on this country as was the murder of tourists and the beheadings.

It must be the most ineffective ever attack on the British ideal .

Just saying that Corbyn could , in a few years time with an election around the corner, look very good if the proposed military action does not go according to plan.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The idea that bombing will reduce ISIS numbers is frankly ridiculous. We can't bomb as fast as they can recruit. The more we bomb the easier it is FOR them to recruit. And their leadership neither has, nor needs, any particular skillset beyond a bit of rhetoric, and so is completely disposable. It's not like they're military generals who are desperately needed to plan and coordinate... ISIS attacks are crude and scattered. A 10 year old could plan one. 10 year olds probably DO plan some.

The idea the bombs and bullets will beat back ISIS is so naive that it makes me actually cringe. They will be defeated slowly, intelligently and diplomatically or not at all. Probably the latter, because we are too bloodthirsty and vengeful to consider the former.

Well while you're cringing - please enlighten us all as to just WHAT your solution is?

By the amount of people doing it on here, it seems it is the easiest thing in the world to keep popping up dissing and ridiculing other debaters ideas without actually ever actually proffering an alternative.

The IS bastards themselves in Palmyra are living proof of how easy it is to knock things down with no attempt at building.

[DemolitionRed]

ISIS know that Bush's previous war on terror was their biggest recruitment programme in modern terrorist history. Every one of those beheading videos was a very deliberate plan to draw us into exactly what we are doing now. We the West, have played right into their murderous hands.

The more we bomb, the faster their armies will grow.

ISIS was born out of the bombing of Iraq. This article was written back in 2006 before we had a name for them http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/sep/24/usa.iraq