Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
David Cameron is pushing for a new vote, to gain parliamentary approval to start a bombing campaign against ISIS.
While I appreciate the sentiment especially after recent attacks in Paris, I still think we should stay out of it.
So far London hasn't been on the Jihadi radar as we have not been attacking the Islamic State directly.
Am I wrong on this?
I am afraid so. Bombing etc is not the same as sending troops. All NATO and western forces should participate to rid the world of these barbaric *******s. More needs to be done to ensure that local countries take a greater role also..
I am afraid so. Bombing etc is not the same as sending troops. All NATO and western forces should participate to rid the world of these barbaric *******s. More needs to be done to ensure that local countries take a greater role also..
Yes bombing is not the same, because it doesn't work. It didn't work in Afghanistan, it didn't work in Iraq, it didn't work in the Balkans. You know the definition of insanity.
While bombing isn't the same as sending troops, it's normally the first step on the ladder of sending troops.
I think that both the UK and US should not get involved (although the chances the US won't get involved are somewhere between fat, and snowball in hell). The French didn't get involved after 9/11, why should the US or UK feel any sense of responsibility?
David Cameron is pushing for a new vote, to gain parliamentary approval to start a bombing campaign against ISIS.
While I appreciate the sentiment especially after recent attacks in Paris, I still think we should stay out of it.
So far London hasn't been on the Jihadi radar as we have not been attacking the Islamic State directly.
Am I wrong on this?
Don't kid yourself. The only reason they have not gone after London or a US city is logistics. They have the same hatred and contempt for us as they do for the French and would attack us if they got half a chance.
Yes bombing is not the same, because it doesn't work. It didn't work in Afghanistan, it didn't work in Iraq, it didn't work in the Balkans. You know the definition of insanity.
While bombing isn't the same as sending troops, it's normally the first step on the ladder of sending troops.
I think that both the UK and US should not get involved (although the chances the US won't get involved are somewhere between fat, and snowball in hell). The French didn't get involved after 9/11, why should the US or UK feel any sense of responsibility?
Fair point, and I would absolutely oppose a ground war, but we cannot bury our heads in the sand and pretend that ISIS isn't in anyway a threat to that region, or possibly us too. I am happy that our President is far more weary of getting involved in foreign conflicts than his predecessor, and I worry that his successor may revert back to type, but both Britain and America have to lead the fight against these barbaric groups - that doesn't mean owning the fight, but it does mean being involved and supporting the regional powers to take the initiative on destroying ISIS and the aftermath.
Don't kid yourself. The only reason they have not gone after London or a US city is logistics. They have the same hatred and contempt for us as they do for the French and would attack us if they got half a chance.
Indeed they may, but until there is something of note that IS terrorist claims responsibility for (and it's confirmed that they are indeed responsible), we don't have a dog in the fight.
I mean come on have we learned nothing at all from Iraq and Afghanistan? Now people want to do the same thing with Syria. If you do something like Iraq to Syria, you'll get a result from Syria like we got in Iraq, and the cause of Syria was the result of Iraq. Where next do you think? Turkey? Yeah that would put the same kind of dent in British tourism that the Balkans did back in the 90's.
Indeed they may, but until there is something of note that IS terrorist claims responsibility for (and it's confirmed that they are indeed responsible), we don't have a dog in the fight.
I mean come on have we learned nothing at all from Iraq and Afghanistan? Now people want to do the same thing with Syria. If you do something like Iraq to Syria, you'll get a result from Syria like we got in Iraq, and the cause of Syria was the result of Iraq. Where next do you think? Turkey? Yeah that would put the same kind of dent in British tourism that the Balkans did back in the 90's.
Hey - I hear what you're saying and certainly empathize. Its a tough thing to say (in person or on a board) but what happened in France is France's problem (I hope that comes across in the right context and doesn't appear cold or disrespectful), BUT ISIS is real, its not the fantasy BS that we were sold on going into Iraq.
Hey - I hear what you're saying and certainly empathize. Its a tough thing to say (in person or on a board) but what happened in France is France's problem (I hope that comes across in the right context and doesn't appear cold or disrespectful), BUT ISIS is real, its not the fantasy BS that we were sold on going into Iraq.
Indeed ISIS is real, but what is real and what is not is difficult to determine because there's so much propaganda being pumped out by all sides what's real and whats fantasy is getting just a little too blurry. So in my mind we wait and see whether ISIS follows through on it's threats, or whether ISIS is just the loudmouth in the school yard who's going to kick someone bigger and toughers backside.
Without 9/11 we would never have been back into Iraq, and we would never have been in Afghanistan. The hysterical knee jerk responses to 9/11 were directly responsible for going into Iraq. It was two things, that it was part of the "axis of evil", and there were suspicions of WMD, without both of those the plan would never have started. Fear of the axis of evil wasn't sufficient to push it over the edge, the WMD was just enough to get it over.
Let's try not to fall into the same trap as last time, I don't think the US economy can take another few Trillion, and I don't think the UK economy can take it either.
Their goal is world dominance and has nothing to do with anything about your offending them or treated them badly. If your not of the Islam faith you are and infidel and your depravidity is great. Its up to them to bring a slight correction upon you. Trying to be polite here. Radical islam are haters,killers and no good found in them. There are no nations they wont go after. Kind of like the mindset Adolph Hitler had of world dominance but he started with groups of people he saw as defective.
Their goal is world dominance and has nothing to do with anything about your offending them or treated them badly. If your not of the Islam faith you are and infidel and your depravidity is great. Its up to them to bring a slight correction upon you. Trying to be polite here. Radical islam are haters,killers and no good found in them. There are no nations they wont go after. Kind of like the mindset Adolph Hitler had of world dominance but he started with groups of people he saw as defective.
What a load of absolute nonsense. Just trying to be polite.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
