[arista]

The USA President is Live on all Media.

The Problem is USA Air Bombers killed over 20 Firemen in Syria
he never said a word on that

[user104658]

I would be fully supportive of bombing action in Syria if I thought for a second that it would help to end Islamic Extremism. But I - - - KNOW - - - that it won't. I know that it will simply make things worse. Because I have been paying attention. I don't need to convince anyone of this or prove my point, it will prove itself over the next couple of years, I just find it difficult to listen to people bleating nonsense and say nothing at all. I really should probably just steer clear until the aftermath when everyone will pretend that they also knew it was a bad idea all along. That's what happened with Iraq anyway.

[Ammi]

...no one knows is the whole point, not world leaders and governments and certainly not the general public, if they did then it would all be solved already ...will it lead to escalation an making worse, maybe but would it have led to that anyway without the yes decision, we'll never know that because that course wasn't taken so no one will ever know an outcome had it have been...we know there will be deaths in many countries, will there be less deaths, will there be more deaths, we don't know...will we look back on mistakes, probably...would we have done that if the bombings weren't happening, probably...they'll just be different mistakes is all and what balances to those mistakes of any positive outcomes as well...of it being a right decision or either having been a right decision...if we're against it, our focus will be on the negatives and if we're in favour, our focus will be on the positives because we have pre-disposed opinions, so that will always be..but no one knows, unless two paths were possible and both were known then no one knows, nor wil they in hindsight either, that only allows for scrutiny etc....

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...no one knows is the whole point, not world leaders and governments and certainly not the general public, if they did then it would all be solved already ...will it lead to escalation an making worse, maybe but would it have led to that anyway without the yes decision, we'll never know that because that course wasn't taken so no one will ever know an outcome had it have been...we know there will be deaths in many countries, will there be less deaths, will there be more deaths, we don't know...will we look back on mistakes, probably...would we have done that if the bombings weren't happening, probably...they'll just be different mistakes is all and what balances to those mistakes of any positive outcomes as well...of it being a right decision or either having been a right decision...if we're against it, our focus will be on the negatives and if we're in favour, our focus will be on the positives because we have pre-disposed opinions, so that will always be..but no one knows, unless two paths were possible and both were known then no one knows, nor wil they in hindsight either, that only allows for scrutiny etc....

I disagree Ammi, I think we will be able to look back in years' time and directly attribute further gains in ISIS recruitment to ham-fisted Western (and other) bombing and most likely, in time, ground campaigns in Syria. It's just that people will then say "Oh we couldn't possibly have known!", even though plenty of people are saying it blue in the face today.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...no one knows is the whole point, not world leaders and governments and certainly not the general public, if they did then it would all be solved already ...will it lead to escalation an making worse, maybe but would it have led to that anyway without the yes decision, we'll never know that because that course wasn't taken so no one will ever know an outcome had it have been...we know there will be deaths in many countries, will there be less deaths, will there be more deaths, we don't know...will we look back on mistakes, probably...would we have done that if the bombings weren't happening, probably...they'll just be different mistakes is all and what balances to those mistakes of any positive outcomes as well...of it being a right decision or either having been a right decision...if we're against it, our focus will be on the negatives and if we're in favour, our focus will be on the positives because we have pre-disposed opinions, so that will always be..but no one knows, unless two paths were possible and both were known then no one knows, nor wil they in hindsight either, that only allows for scrutiny etc....

Balance, moderation and truth.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...no one knows is the whole point, not world leaders and governments and certainly not the general public, if they did then it would all be solved already ...will it lead to escalation an making worse, maybe but would it have led to that anyway without the yes decision, we'll never know that because that course wasn't taken so no one will ever know an outcome had it have been...we know there will be deaths in many countries, will there be less deaths, will there be more deaths, we don't know...will we look back on mistakes, probably...would we have done that if the bombings weren't happening, probably...they'll just be different mistakes is all and what balances to those mistakes of any positive outcomes as well...of it being a right decision or either having been a right decision...if we're against it, our focus will be on the negatives and if we're in favour, our focus will be on the positives because we have pre-disposed opinions, so that will always be..but no one knows, unless two paths were possible and both were known then no one knows, nor will they in hindsight either, that only allows for scrutiny etc....

If, buts and maybes, that's all we have had to go on, so I wouldn't blame anyone for being very wary, having such little assurance for me makes the whole thing seem a gamble at best.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Merry Kizzmas

If, buts and maybes

That's the default vocabulary of fence-sitting though, isn't it.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

That's the default vocabulary of fence-sitting though, isn't it.

And mockery of a member who is known and appreciated for her moderate views, sincerity and inoffensiveness, is the default actions of the ignorant and arrogant.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

That's the default vocabulary of fence-sitting though, isn't it.

..or someone who doesn't know whether my opinion of there not being increased air strikes would be the right thing either because none of us do know, how could we possibly know that..so yes there are lots of maybes because there is no black or white/right or wrong with this as there isn't with many things and as you yourself have said many times...you can be as personal as you want with me or anyone else in your character assessments, but all that does is make you look very childish and silly indeed, which is quite a surprise for someone who seems to have a reasonable intelligences...so carry on because any debate (yet again..)..becomes impossible in this thread as it's all about some kind of point scoring...even above any thought of the people who have been killed by the bombs as was shown yesterday....

[In the Drunk Tank]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

I would be fully supportive of bombing action in Syria if I thought for a second that it would help to end Islamic Extremism. But I - - - KNOW - - - that it won't. I know that it will simply make things worse. Because I have been paying attention. I don't need to convince anyone of this or prove my point, it will prove itself over the next couple of years, I just find it difficult to listen to people bleating nonsense and say nothing at all. I really should probably just steer clear until the aftermath when everyone will pretend that they also knew it was a bad idea all along. That's what happened with Iraq anyway.

This absolute certainty is nonsense in itself of course

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by MTVN

This absolute certainty is nonsense in itself of course

..of course, it can't be anything other than that because there is no absolute certainties, neither for any of us or any Governments...

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by MTVN

This absolute certainty is nonsense in itself of course

Absolutely SPOT ON.

[DemolitionRed]

No, don't stay clear TS, your posts are needed in a place like this and some of your analogies are amusingly clever.

I would love to hear something a bit more in depth about why bombing will work.

To those who believe this bombing campaign is the answer, please could you write something a bit more in depth as to how it will work? and what is the predicted long term outcome?

I listened to that long parliamentary debate, which was shadowed a lot by Cameron's constant pontifications about the danger of ISIS but I heard no real strategy regarding the future of Syria and its relationship with ISIS. With so little substance to something that could end up being so hugely catastrophic, not only to Syria but to the rest of the middle east and the western world, I want to understand the long term plans from these architects of war.

Did I miss something? is there something you can give to this debate that will make things clearer?

[DemolitionRed]

I also don't think Elf understands that our bombing campaign on Syria is an invasion and an illegal one at that. We can't change the fact that our intervention is an unlawful act because neither Assad or the UN gave us the green light to go in.

Why would we go in and bomb a terrorist group without permission to use Syrian air space by the Syrian government?

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

I also don't think Elf understands that our bombing campaign on Syria is an invasion and an illegal one at that. We can't change the fact that our intervention is an unlawful act because neither Assad or the UN gave us the green light to go in.

Why would we go in and bomb a terrorist group without permission to use Syrian air space by the Syrian government?

Where DO you and others on here obtain the information from on which you base the misinformation in your posts?

On the 21st of NOVEMBER 2015 THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL VOTED UNANIMOUSLY FOR A RESOLUTION CALLING ON ALL MEMBER STATES TO TAKE MILITARY ACTION AGAINST ISIS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA.

Is BOTS wrong? EMPHATICALLY NO.

Are YOU wrong? EMPHATICALLY YES.

Here's Hilary Benn's own words to corroborate that BitOnTheSlide is correct in what he maintains:

"I welcome the United Nations Security Council's unanimous approval of this resolution that urges UN member states to take all necessary measures to combat ISIL/Daesh in Iraq and Syria because of the unprecedented threat it represents to international peace and security.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Where DO you and others on here obtain the information from on which you base the misinformation in your posts?

On the 21st of NOVEMBER 2015 THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL VOTED UNANIMOUSLY FOR A RESOLUTION CALLING ON ALL MEMBER STATES TO TAKE MILITARY ACTION AGAINST ISIS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA.

Is BOTS wrong? EMPHATICALLY NO.

Are YOU wrong? EMPHATICALLY YES.

Here's Hilary Benn's own words to corroborate that BitOnTheSlide is correct in what he maintains:

"I welcome the United Nations Security Council's unanimous approval of this resolution that urges UN member states to take all necessary measures to combat ISIL/Daesh in Iraq and Syria because of the unprecedented threat it represents to international peace and security.

Whereas that may be half true, there may have been a response from the UN for action that is on the world stage far from coordinated. We will not work with Assad as Russia is and therefor Red Dem is correct and we have no authority in Syrian airspace.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Merry Kizzmas

Whereas that may be half true, there may have been a response from the UN for action that is on the world stage far from coordinated. We will not work with Assad as Russia is and therefor Red Dem is correct and we have no authority in Syrian airspace.

Oops sorry, I didn't see this before I quoted Kirks post

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Oops sorry, I didn't see this before I quoted Kirks post

B.S Red - you're just 'Tag Teaming'.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Where DO you and others on here obtain the information from on which you base the misinformation in your posts?

On the 21st of NOVEMBER 2015 THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL VOTED UNANIMOUSLY FOR A RESOLUTION CALLING ON ALL MEMBER STATES TO TAKE MILITARY ACTION AGAINST ISIS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA.

Is BOTS wrong? EMPHATICALLY NO.

Are YOU wrong? EMPHATICALLY YES.

Here's Hilary Benn's own words to corroborate that BitOnTheSlide is correct in what he maintains:

"I welcome the United Nations Security Council's unanimous approval of this resolution that urges UN member states to take all necessary measures to combat ISIL/Daesh in Iraq and Syria because of the unprecedented threat it represents to international peace and security.

The UN draft clearly states that all military activities in Syria must coordinate with the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s government. This is something Britain has so far chosen to ignore, which could well mean they are breaking the councils resolution.

[In the Drunk Tank]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

The UN draft clearly states that all military activities in Syria must coordinate with the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s government. This is something Britain has so far chosen to ignore, which could well mean they are breaking the councils resolution.

The UN resolution doesn't say that though: http://www.securitycouncilreport.org...s_res_2249.pdf

What it does do is note that 'the situation will continue to deteriorate further in the absence of a political solution to the Syria conflict and emphasizing the need to implement the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012 endorsed as Annex II of its resolution 2118 (2013), the Joint Statement on the outcome of the multilateral talks on Syria in Vienna of 30 October 2015 and the Statement of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) of 14 November 2015'.

That statement of the ISSG that it talks about says: 'The ISSG acknowledged the close linkage between a ceasefire and a parallel political process pursuant to the 2012 Geneva Communique, and that both initiatives should move ahead expeditiously. They stated their commitment to ensure a Syrian-led and Syrian-owned political transition based on the Geneva Communique in its entirety.

...

The ISSG members reaffirmed their support for the transition process contained in the 2012 Geneva Communique. In this respect they affirmed their support for a ceasefire as described above and for a Syrian-led process that will, within a target of six months, establish credible, inclusive and non-sectarian governance, and set a schedule and process for drafting a new constitution. Free and fair elections would be held pursuant to the new constitution within 18 months. These elections must be administered under UN supervision to the satisfaction of the governance and to the highest international standards of transparency and accountability, with all Syrians, including the diaspora, eligible to participate.'

http://www.un.org/undpa/Speeches-sta...14112015/syria

So there is very little heed given to the Assad government as it is currently constituted

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by MTVN

So there is very little heed given to the Assad government as it is currently constituted

That's a great link MTVN but without seeing the Geneva Communique in its entirety, we can't be sure what it means. What we can be sure of is, Russia is fully involved in this agreement and we all know that Russia is determined to keep Assad in power.

One snippet from that link:
Pursuant to the 2012 Geneva Communique, incorporated by reference in the Vienna statement of October 30, and in U.N. Security Council Resolution 2118, the ISSG agreed on the need to convene Syrian government and opposition representatives in formal negotiations under UN auspices, as soon as possible, with a target date of January 1. The group welcomed efforts, working with United Nations Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura and others, to bring together the broadest possible spectrum of the opposition, chosen by Syrians, who will decide their negotiating representatives and define their negotiating positions, so as to enable the political process to begin. All the parties to the political process should adhere to the guiding principles identified at the October 30 meeting, including a commitment to Syria’s unity, independence, territorial integrity, and non-sectarian character; to ensuring that State institutions remain intact; and to protecting the rights of all Syrians, regardless of ethnicity or religious denomination. ISSG members agreed that these principles are fundamental.

Its still Assad's government as it presently stands.

[Kizzy]

People are not clear cut in their opinions because there is nothing to be clear cut about.... Cameron just shouted TERRORIST!! a lot but there was no substance, plan, goal or prospective outcome given prior to the vote.
All there was was half truths and untruths, 70'000 'moderate' fighters? BALONEY.

[Candy Annie Cane]

Wow...this thread is so toxic. Wouldn't say it was a debate now just who can be as offensive as possible in a passive aggressive way whilst saying "I told you so" and "I'm right and you're wrong". I'm actually thinking of taking my chances and moving to Syria.

I change my mind almost daily on this subject. I don't honestly know enough about the subject to comment on the legality of the strikes or the possibility of what outcome this may or may not have but I can see pros and cons at the moment. I do think those who voted were in an no win situation, they sit and do nothing and a terrorist attack happens on UK soil and they should have done more, they go in and attacking and an attack happens here and it's because we intervened. I am personally so pleased not to have been expected to make a yes or no vote in this.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

Wow...this thread is so toxic. Wouldn't say it was a debate now just who can be as offensive as possible in a passive aggressive way whilst saying "I told you so" and "I'm right and you're wrong". I'm actually thinking of taking my chances and moving to Syria.

I change my mind almost daily on this subject. I don't honestly know enough about the subject to comment on the legality of the strikes or the possibility of what outcome this may or may not have but I can see pros and cons at the moment. I do think those who voted were in an no win situation, they sit and do nothing and a terrorist attack happens on UK soil and they should have done more, they go in and attacking and an attack happens here and it's because we intervened. I am personally so pleased not to have been expected to make a yes or no vote in this.

That would be me #notsorry

I didn't think they were
I don't think they now
Do I feel justified saying that?
Yes.

[Ammi]

...you know what sickens me the most about this thread and what is effectively being said, which is why I was sickened by it yesterday and looks as though it will go on and on and on and on and on because last word is everything...of some who don't support the air strikes..(of which I am also a non supporter ..)...all of the I'm right and the gloating and the puffing of feathers etc and whichever whay you want to put it or spin it, is at the expense of those civilians who have been killed in the strikes, which was mentioned yesterday....no thought for them whatsoever, just a satisfaction at being right..(which no one is anyway, only a few days into a long extensive military action where any effectiveness or lack of/outcome isn't yet known..)...it's like someone, saying...'don't do that, it's dangerous/don't drive like that' or whatever and then something tragic and awful happening and saying I told you so/I told them so and having a satisfaction about it because they 'felt right' and very proud to say so...where is the pride in a loss of any life....people are dead and all some care about is who's right and who's wrong, it's staggering the coldness of it all and the absolute arrogance and self importance of an internet thread...there are no 'winners' in this, we know that in the UK and the whole world knows that because innocent people will die..../either way, innocent people will die and either way, have already...