The K M Links Game - December 2024 Week...
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Does It Make Sense To Half Bomb Your Enemy?
All the arguments raised by Corbyn and co. also apply to Iraq. Thus they are exposed as pacifists become political opportunists.
Either we bomb IS or we don't. There is no sane way in which to accept that bombing your enemy here but not there is acceptable by any rational observer, especially when the UN and your allies want you to expand your campaign.
If it turns out that our government votes for half-bombing our enemies they will have succeeded in making us the laughing stock of the planet.
Either we bomb IS or we don't. There is no sane way in which to accept that bombing your enemy here but not there is acceptable by any rational observer, especially when the UN and your allies want you to expand your campaign.
If it turns out that our government votes for half-bombing our enemies they will have succeeded in making us the laughing stock of the planet.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Colmc54. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Personally, I think if there is to be a bombing campaign, Cameron will have to eat some humble pie, ask Assad's permission and work in conjunction with his ground forces. (and his Russian, Chinese, Iranian allies)
He still seems to think we can work with his mythical 'good guys', the FSA. Who everyone else knows is just a front for channeling western weapons, etc. to their fellow Islamists in IS.
He still seems to think we can work with his mythical 'good guys', the FSA. Who everyone else knows is just a front for channeling western weapons, etc. to their fellow Islamists in IS.
Your answer is not an answer. I Repeat, should we bomb half of our manifestly rightful enemy, all of it, or not bomb them at all?
Try and be rational and not betray your political bias by calling the British Prime Minister 'Cameron' and using terms like 'eating humble pie'.
Just ask yourself, leaving for once, politics out of it, is half-bombing your enemy defensible in any sane definition of the above?
If yes, then why not capitulate and stop bombing IS wherever they are.
If you are a true pacifist and not a cynical political opportunist you have to reject all bombing of IS and not half.
Try and be rational and not betray your political bias by calling the British Prime Minister 'Cameron' and using terms like 'eating humble pie'.
Just ask yourself, leaving for once, politics out of it, is half-bombing your enemy defensible in any sane definition of the above?
If yes, then why not capitulate and stop bombing IS wherever they are.
If you are a true pacifist and not a cynical political opportunist you have to reject all bombing of IS and not half.
Trust me, you know nothing about my politics.
I don't know why you think you do.
MR Cameron, if you prefer, wanted us to bomb Syria 2 years ago, to help IS. Thank goodness, imo, he was stopped.
You talk of bombing in Syria as though it's a matter of choice for us. I don't think it is. We will have to come to terms, to some extent, with Assad and his allies.
Unless you are planning to go to war with Russia and China, Mr Cameron will have to get off his high horse, stop talking nonsense about the FSA, and yes, eat some humble pie. (what would you call it?)
I don't know why you think you do.
MR Cameron, if you prefer, wanted us to bomb Syria 2 years ago, to help IS. Thank goodness, imo, he was stopped.
You talk of bombing in Syria as though it's a matter of choice for us. I don't think it is. We will have to come to terms, to some extent, with Assad and his allies.
Unless you are planning to go to war with Russia and China, Mr Cameron will have to get off his high horse, stop talking nonsense about the FSA, and yes, eat some humble pie. (what would you call it?)
Trust me, you know nothing about my politics.
I don't know why you think you do.
MR Cameron, if you prefer, wanted us to bomb Syria 2 years ago, to help IS. Thank goodness, imo, he was stopped.
You talk of bombing in Syria as though it's a matter of choice for us. I don't think it is. We will have to come to terms, to some extent, with Assad and his allies.
Unless you are planning to go to war with Russia and China, Mr Cameron will have to get off his high horse, stop talking nonsense about the FSA, and yes, eat some humble pie. (what would you call it?)
I don't know why you think you do.
MR Cameron, if you prefer, wanted us to bomb Syria 2 years ago, to help IS. Thank goodness, imo, he was stopped.
You talk of bombing in Syria as though it's a matter of choice for us. I don't think it is. We will have to come to terms, to some extent, with Assad and his allies.
Unless you are planning to go to war with Russia and China, Mr Cameron will have to get off his high horse, stop talking nonsense about the FSA, and yes, eat some humble pie. (what would you call it?)
In this article;
http://
Nick Cohen calls him, 'Jeremy "Kill us we deserve it" Corbyn' and says he is 'one of the most dishonest politicians you will see in your lifetime'.
http://
Nick Cohen calls him, 'Jeremy "Kill us we deserve it" Corbyn' and says he is 'one of the most dishonest politicians you will see in your lifetime'.
Why would it only make sense to bomb everywhere at once ? There are many strategies one could employ. Whittling away are where the enemy is, is not unreasonable. But in any case, the case to adopt a bombing strategy may win favour in one circumstance but not in another. Whatever one's individual views on the present situations it simply doesn't make sense to say you must decide to apply the same strategy you choose in one place everywhere, evermore.
I see the Eye is advocating it too....
http://
http://
What is tragic is that people don't seem to remember, and the information managers are in no hurry to remind them, is that Labour changed it's vote on air strikes in Syria that were specifically defined as being against his capability to use chemical weapons against Syrians.
Furthermore there was an attempt to use the vote to get rid of Miliband who had said Labour would vote with the government. During the night one Diane Abbott threatened to resign from the shadow cabinet if he didn't change his mind.
It sickens me that Miliband actually boasted about stopping the US and the UK responding to the above as if it was something to be proud of.
The BBC also fell into line with John Humphreys ranting at Nick Clegg that there was no difference between chemical weapons and 'hot metal'.
I recorded all of this by the way, as well as the next morning when the BBC almost appeared to be boasting that 'it had been granted exclusive access' to a primary school full of children who had been inexplicably bombed with conventional explosive shells.
I will keep the recordings safe until such a time when there is an enquiry into the attack on that school.
The PM should have a vote on ending the half-bombing of IS by the RAF. If he loses the vote it will not reflect badly on his, or his party's realism concerning what we are confronting, but will deeply, once again, call into question the fitness of any of the other parties to hold office in the real world we exist in today.
Furthermore there was an attempt to use the vote to get rid of Miliband who had said Labour would vote with the government. During the night one Diane Abbott threatened to resign from the shadow cabinet if he didn't change his mind.
It sickens me that Miliband actually boasted about stopping the US and the UK responding to the above as if it was something to be proud of.
The BBC also fell into line with John Humphreys ranting at Nick Clegg that there was no difference between chemical weapons and 'hot metal'.
I recorded all of this by the way, as well as the next morning when the BBC almost appeared to be boasting that 'it had been granted exclusive access' to a primary school full of children who had been inexplicably bombed with conventional explosive shells.
I will keep the recordings safe until such a time when there is an enquiry into the attack on that school.
The PM should have a vote on ending the half-bombing of IS by the RAF. If he loses the vote it will not reflect badly on his, or his party's realism concerning what we are confronting, but will deeply, once again, call into question the fitness of any of the other parties to hold office in the real world we exist in today.
The reason we are bombing in Iraq and not Syria of course is because Iraq has a western-friendly government which has "invited" us to help it defeat IS.
Syria on the other hand has a government embarked on a monumental and disastrous war on its own people, which has actually spawned the monster we now face. But we can't use the excuse of being "asked to help" so its problematic. I'm in favour of us doing stuff if it will make a difference, relieve our allies from doing it all, and won't help Assad by default to continue his blitz, when Syria's non combatant people are desperate for peace. Getting rid of him and his government of terror is the key really. Of course, how that can happen is not clear at the moment.
Syria on the other hand has a government embarked on a monumental and disastrous war on its own people, which has actually spawned the monster we now face. But we can't use the excuse of being "asked to help" so its problematic. I'm in favour of us doing stuff if it will make a difference, relieve our allies from doing it all, and won't help Assad by default to continue his blitz, when Syria's non combatant people are desperate for peace. Getting rid of him and his government of terror is the key really. Of course, how that can happen is not clear at the moment.
It is clear. The ordinary people of Syria are not able to 'invite'us to help them. Unless I'm missing something too wrapped up in the smug sophistry of pro-Labour media information management I think we can safely assume that they, trapped between chemical weapons to the south and psychopathic beheaders to the north, would approve our making the threat from the north disappear.
All of tlhis makes me evlen more ashamed to be British than I've been most of my 61 year life. We need to do more, and we may not be allowed to by a privileged over-indulged pseudo-intelligentsia who only talk to people who are their ideological clones while this country could be contributing to the protection of innocent lives.
All of tlhis makes me evlen more ashamed to be British than I've been most of my 61 year life. We need to do more, and we may not be allowed to by a privileged over-indulged pseudo-intelligentsia who only talk to people who are their ideological clones while this country could be contributing to the protection of innocent lives.
Perhaps it's because you lack empathy. Try this- if you go south you may be killed by chemical weapons that were not taken out because of the UK Labour Party. You head north only to find that the UK Labour Party together with a bunch of Caledonian supremacists conspiring to deny you all hope of survival in your own country for their own narcissistic political delusions. I have no words that can adequately describe how dysfunctional our politics must now seem in the eyes of the world or my own sense of utter repugnance. I am ashamed to be associated with the horrible hypocritical country I was unfortunate enough to be born into.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.