http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-34961844

 

a few good points followed by a load of crap...

 

tough call, where do you stand?

Edited December 2, 201510 yr by HomerJay

Don't know.

Don't know.

 

Fuck me! Cheese doesn't have an opinion!!!

 

get voting you girl!

He may be criticised for calling Corbyn a terrorist sympathiser but he's right.

He may be criticised for calling Corbyn a terrorist sympathiser but he's right.

He is worse than that: he sympathises with any terrorists who are against the West, but is a pacifist when it comes to

Western powers using force to counter terrorists.

No, its not the answer.

It's a tough one.

 

It's only going to lead to ground troops being sent in IMO.

 

Weve been bowlin about that neck of the woods for over 30 years now and the threat of terror is greater than its ever been.

 

Smash Syria to pieces and they will just go somewhere else. See Iraq and Afghanistan for details.

 

I'm more interested in rooting out the terror cells residing in the west rather than meddling over there again.

 

This township in Belgium where all the guns and Ammo used in the last 3 major attacks in France have come from.... Lets steam in there and blow that pieces instead of chucking missiles at a load of rocks in the dessert.

Nah. It's just a retarded cycle.

 

I'm in agreement with Gonzo as far as the west is concerned.

So if you're against expanding the strikes against IS into Syria you must have been against the strikes against IS in Iraq, yes?

Personally, I don't think things could get any worse in terms of the threat from ISIS.

 

They have already planned attacks against us and they see us as the enemy even though we are such a Muslim friendly country.

 

If a hundred missiles kills even 1 of the cunts it's money well spent.

 

Im sure the work to eliminate cells in Europe will continue at a fair pace. This just adds to the assault on the cunts.

 

It's a fucking massive yes from me

So if you're against expanding the strikes against IS into Syria you must have been against the strikes against IS in Iraq, yes?

I was all for wading fist and boot into anyone after 9/11 etc.

 

We did that and we are still under as big as threat as ever that's all I know.

 

If bombing Syria will lead to significant damage of ISIS capabilities then crack on. None of us have cystal balls though and history tells us we may win that particular battle like Iraq/afghan but the war will still be ongoing.

 

You can bet your bottom dollar if we steam over there,there will be repercussions here in a matter on months. Not saying this should be a deterrent by the way,but the fuckers will have a pop over here again for certain if we start air strikes.

They already are and anyway, so what? No one ever opposed action against the Nazis for fear of what they might do to us in retaliation. The argument that we should do nothing because they might get upset does not have a happy ending logically. Us existing the way we do is enough for them. And no one is talking about streaming in, but expanding by a couple of hundred miles a campaign which is already well under way. 

They already are and anyway, so what? No one ever opposed action against the Nazis for fear of what they might do to us in retaliation. The argument that we should do nothing because they might get upset does not have a happy ending logically. Us existing the way we do is enough for them. And no one is talking about streaming in, but expanding by a couple of hundred miles a campaign which is already well under way.

Did you miss the bit when I said this....

 

Not saying this should be a deterrent by the way,

Can't help believing Cameron was wrong to make that comment. Certainly wouldn't have helped curry favour with those opposition MP's he's hoping to get onside.

I was 13 at the time of the first gulf war, so just beginning to have some comprehension about the way the world works. Since then, I've seen things get progressively worse each and every time we've intervened in the middle east. To the point where we are now - facing an enemy for whom we're at the very least partly to blame.

 

We've fucked things up so badly over there that now we've got little choice other than to go to war again. Something has got to change in the way we choose to address things at some point - but ISIS seem evil to the point of being the plot of a bad film. So fuck knows.

Edited December 2, 201510 yr by kent_white

Pretty much where I'm at Kent. Don't really know what to think.

 

If the decision is made to increase air strikes then ill back our boys all the way. It's all to defend us at the end of the day.

 

I'm just not sure wether it will work or not.

It's all said with the benefit of hindsight - but I felt a lot safer in 1989. Maybe I was just too young to understand what was happening?

If we go in it ain't going to be much more than token show of force. Militarily we won't be adding much to what the Yanks, the Russians and every other fecker are doing already.

 

It's more that Cameron seems to think that we need to be seen to be standing alongside the others. He might well have a point. Fuck knows.

 

He was a proper cock with his 'terrorist sympathisers' line though.

Get channel 4 news on showing the anti war mob outside Westminster. Peace and Love signs.

Do these fucking clowns think we can talk to these cunts over a bong?

Get channel 4 news on showing the anti war mob outside Westminster. Peace and Love signs.

Do these fucking clowns think we can talk to these cunts over a bong?

Absolutely disgraceful - peace and love is the last thing we need! :-)

One labour MP, who's name i have forgotten, summed it up for me today..

 

"France have specifically asked us to help them and you have to ask yourself the question, If what happened in Paris happened in London, and we asked France for help, how would you feel if they said no...."

One labour MP, who's name i have forgotten, summed it up for me today..

 

"France have specifically asked us to help them and you have to ask yourself the question, If what happened in Paris happened in London, and we asked France for help, how would you feel if they said no...."

 

Like when they didn't steam into Iraq with the rest of us?

Like when they didn't steam into Iraq with the rest of us?

Probably because they read the dodgy dossiers and thought we were taking the piss.

Probably because they read the dodgy dossiers and thought we were taking the piss.

 

I'm no fan of Chirac, but he was a better friend to USA than Blair on that occasion, because he told them they were wrong.

Given this plenty of thought lately. I was heavily in favour of letting the birds fly and bombing the shite out of them fookers. I still am in favour, but not as much as I was. I don't like Corbyn but his, and others who argued against it, argued a good case. Not good enough to make me change my mind though.

Found it... Margaret  Beckett

 

"Moreover, our French allies has explicitly asked us for such support, and I invite the House to consider how we would feel, and what we would say if what took place in Paris had happened in London – if we had explicitly asked France for support and France had refused"

 

We will be a target for terrorists if we get further involved or not... and if we are attacked the public will want retribution... ISIS needs to be wiped off the face of this planet, and anyone who disagrees with this is clearly forgetting that less and 12 months ago they executed a local man who dared to help Syrians!  Bombing may not be the best solution, but I honestly cant see what alternatives would work..