Another flipping war

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Still open to user error which I have seen first hand!

Indeed they are - but they need not be. The 'user' identifies a target and the missile will hit it. Actually that is true for some systems as some guidance systems use image recognition and correlation techniques for target acquisition - user input may or may not be necessary.

 

[Fish]

Indeed they are - but they need not be. The 'user' identifies a target and the missile will hit it. Actually that is true for some systems as some guidance systems use image recognition and correlation techniques for target acquisition - user input may or may not be necessary.

Still open to user error as many friendly KIA stats will tell you. I've been around Americans in conflict, their a friggin' nightmare.

 

[sneill]

Still open to user error as many friendly KIA stats will tell you. I've been around Americans in conflict, their a friggin' nightmare.

Ill 2nd that seen then go about there business for last 6 months and they just a different breed to us.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Ill 2nd that seen then go about there business for last 6 months and they just a different breed to us.

On the ground - up in the air maybe. But with cruise missiles you aren't talking about having trigger happy gung ho random guys in charge. No matter what you think of your average GI or whatever - we are not talking about the same thing - so it's really disingenous and easy to link the two things if you want lots of folk saying they are in agreement - when in truth the vast majority of folk have absolutely zero comprehension, never mind understanding, of what is involved in long range guidance missile technology and deployment.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

and yet Paddy Ashdown comes across as a Liberal war monger who wouldn't have battered a eye lid and would have gone straight in!

To you maybe - but not to me. To me his are the words of knowledgable compassion.

 

[ger147]

when in truth the vast majority of folk have absolutely zero comprehension, never mind understanding, of what is involved in long range guidance missile technology and deployment.

You could say the same about parliamentary motions...

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

If/when things change or become clearer in the future, further debates can be had, other motions raised and they may well be approved. Last night doesn't change that.

Yes it does!! That's the point - and I fear that you, like many, may not fully appreciate it. Or if you do you are for some reason chosing to ignore the facts of last night.

The Labour party amendment was to allow all of the above as you state - and it was rejected. There will now be NO UK military involvement in Syria any way - regardless of what might become clearer in the future. The UK has militarily turned it's back on Syria and the Syrian people. To try and seek a successful outcome by other means is like piddling in the wind - but it sounds good.

Actually though, I am of the view that when it comes down to it - the majority of us British people actually don't give a stuff about the Syrians and their plight.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

You could say the same about parliamentary motions...

Don't really understand the comparison - though if it is as it appears to me that most people don't seem to have the slightest idea what was actually being debated and voted on yesterday - then I agree.

 

[ger147]

Yes it does!! That's the point - and I fear that you, like many, may not fully appreciate it. Or if you do you are for some reason chosing to ignore the facts of last night.

The Labour party amendment was to allow all of the above as you state - and it was rejected. There will now be NO UK military involvement in Syria any way - regardless of what might become clearer in the future. The UK has militarily turned it's back on Syria and the Syrian people. To try and seek a successful outcome by other means is like piddling in the wind - but it sounds good.

Actually though, I am of the view that when it comes down to it - the majority of us British people actually don't give a stuff about the Syrians and their plight.

No it doesn't.

DC and/or EM could table another motion tomorrow, have another vote and parliament could change its mind.

 

[blackpuddinmonster]

Well sir - last night's votes have completely scuppered that I'm afraid. And so...

Well sir- may i say thats rubbish.
If and when whatever evidence is found, is submitted to the UN, and voted on accordingly, then we will Know more clearly were we stand.
If it is shown beyond all reasonable doubt that Assad is guilty then i will support 100% any military intervention deemed appropiate BY THE UN, and carried out BY THE UN.
We are not the worlds police, nor its moral guardians.
Like most people what Assad has done to his people disgusts me, as does the stance of Russia and China. However, maybe, just maybe unaquivable proof of Assads guilt might just get their posteriers of the fence.
Not once in the post you have chosen to cherry pick did i advocate uni or bilateral military intervention, infact i mentioned the importence of the UN on two seperate occasions, quite a lot in a post of less than 10 lines.
If in future you wish to choose one of my posts in an attempt to make some personal point, could you please reproduce the whole post with the bit you wish to use highlighted.
Afterall "sir" context is everything. :thup:

 

[drdel]

The problem is that this 'enemy' doesn't and wouldn't play by standard military rules. The potential replacement(s) for the current ruler(s) are as bad and possibly worse, with many connected to terrorist groups. Missiles may take out their selected target but the targets will no doubt be positioned in residential areas so civilians will be collateral damage so increasing the anti-west sentiments in the Middle East. Russia has provided hi-tech defence systems so it would be no walk-in-the-park. This is not the same as Lybia. A lot more water needs to flow under the bridge before there's firm evidence that the UK should consider getting into this potential conflict which, despite the current protestations, will eventually need men-on-the-ground because that's the only way any territory can be held and controlled.

 

[Hobbit]

Going into Syria without hard evidence is just as bad as the 'visit' to Iraq that was based on spin... If the UN decide intervention is needed, based on hard evidence, fine. But until then, mostly definitely, loudly, no absolutely not.

Ideally, I would prefer a UN peacekeeping force made up from other muslim countries. All we hear from the middle east is the war mongering west invading our countries...

 

[blackpuddinmonster]

Perhaps the Arab League??
Unfortunatly i wouldn't hold my breath Hobbit.

 

[Fish]

Actually though, I am of the view that when it comes down to it - the majority of us British people actually don't give a stuff about the Syrians and their plight.

OK, I'll break ranks and openly state that, if an envelope was placed on the table with 37 billion pounds in it, which is the cost to date of the Afghanistan war (£2k per household), and I could choose to use it to help Syria now or put it into the NHS and other essential area's of my own country, then Syria is not my problem or responsibility.

In fact, you can reduce that figure to 7.5 billion which emptied our "special reserve" and is the cost of the Iraq invasion and war and my decision would still be the same.

I never questioned anywhere I was sent, and I've been to a few places, some of which were justified, some we were just political pawns on the chessboard with no means towards an end.

If Cameron is so hell bent on spending some serious money, spend it on home soil first!

 

[In_The_Rough]

Sympathy for their plight and troubles but do not think we should be getting involved. Let somebody sort out other nations troubles for a change. They do not think any better of us anyway they still hate us so leave well alone.

 

[SocketRocket]

OK, I'll break ranks and openly state that, if an envelope was placed on the table with 37 billion pounds in it, which is the cost to date of the Afghanistan war (£2k per household), and I could choose to use it to help Syria now or put it into the NHS and other essential area's of my own country, then Syria is not my problem or responsibility.

In fact, you can reduce that figure to 7.5 billion which emptied our "special reserve" and is the cost of the Iraq invasion and war and my decision would still be the same.

I never questioned anywhere I was sent, and I've been to a few places, some of which were justified, some we were just political pawns on the chessboard with no means towards an end.

If Cameron is so hell bent on spending some serious money, spend it on home soil first!

Sympathy for their plight and troubles but do not think we should be getting involved. Let somebody sort out other nations troubles for a change. They do not think any better of us anyway they still hate us so leave well alone.

^^^^^^^^^^ This and This.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

No it doesn't.

DC and/or EM could table another motion tomorrow, have another vote and parliament could change its mind.

That's not how I was hearing it...and commentators were reading it - and most public contributors seem to understand it. The Labour Party amendment that put everything on hold, that required waiting for further and full confirmatrion; and that said that only then would a further debate and vote be held - was defeated...

By defeating the Labour Amandment parliament said they are not interested in what turns up - they are not going to have another vote on military intervention or support to any such inervention by others. That's not what the government motion said - that's whayt the Labour amendment said - and it was defeated.

That aside - the very fact of the vote and the way so many have interpreted it does not change the feeling I have that most folk don't actually care about the Syrians. And if that means many more innocent civilians die until bnefore tyhe fighting is stopped by an outside agency or peace breaks out - then so be it. Nothing to do with us. Tell me I am wrong and I'll be very pleased - but that is not what I'm hearing.

 

[ger147]

That's not how I was hearing it...and commentators were reading it - and most public contributors seem to understand it. The Labour Party amendment that put everything on hold, that required waiting for further and full confirmatrion; and that said that only then would a further debate and vote be held - was defeated...

By defeating the Labour Amandment parliament said they are not interested in what turns up - they are not going to have another vote on military intervention or support to any such inervention by others. That's not what the government motion said - that's whayt the Labour amendment said - and it was defeated.

That aside - the very fact of the vote and the way so many have interpreted it does not change the feeling I have that most folk don't actually care about the Syrians. And if that means many more innocent civilians die until bnefore tyhe fighting is stopped by an outside agency or peace breaks out - then so be it. Nothing to do with us. Tell me I am wrong and I'll be very pleased - but that is not what I'm hearing.

As I said above, DM could recall Parliament tomorrow, table another motion and have another vote. That is not a matter of debate or opinion, it is a FACT!!

Last night's goings on don't change that FACT one iota.

 

[Vice]

I'm not saying they are not accurate, but missiles still explode right? Or maybe I'm mistaken...
There will almost always be collateral... Targets make sure of this

btw - you have no idea how accurate these weapons are and how they work - but I do. How accurate is your golf GPS thingy? well I can tell you that compared with cruise missile guidance technology that's pretty ciude stuff as it happens...

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

As I said above, DM could recall Parliament tomorrow, table another motion and have another vote. That is not a matter of debate or opinion, it is a FACT!!

Last night's goings on don't change that FACT one iota.

So what is everyone going on about saying that that's decided - no UK military involvement. I listened carefully to Cameron's statement that he made today about it - and he implied absolutely thatthe military involvement option wass off the table and gave absolutely no indication that it could come back. And I also then don't understand what the defeat of the amendment actually means. Are you telling me that by defeating an amendment that said wait and see and only have another debate and vote if there was incontrovertible proof means that they can have another debate and vote tomorrow?

I'd like to think that you were right - but I haven't heard that interpretation of things from any political commentator - and certainly as far as I can hear - the general public thinks the military option is off the table for good. As I said, I sadly believe that the majority of the public don't actually care about Syria - not one jot. Bunch of Arabs - typical Middle East tribal chaos - let them kill each other - not my problem.