Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
A Muslim Europe is coming?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="j&#039;nuh" data-source="post: 774032" data-attributes="member: 55446"><p>Above all, a UN mandate for the airstrikes must be obtained first.</p><p></p><p>But even then, I am opposed to them, for four main reasons:</p><p></p><p>1. Cost. An airstrike doesn't come cheap; they can cost £1m a time. More dependent on the types of missiles fired. (<a href="http://news.sky.com/story/1342768/how-much-will-airstrikes-on-is-cost-taxpayer" target="_blank">http://news.sky.com/story/1342768/how-much-will-airstrikes-on-is-cost-taxpayer</a>) For the same money, you'll save many more lives by investing all of it in the NHS instead. It is doubly frustrating that the Tories bang on about austerity and "tough decisions", and suddenly there is wiggle room left in the budget for these military actions.</p><p></p><p>2. Intel. What structure do we have in place for guaranteeing targets are not civilians, and there is no risk of collateral damage?</p><p></p><p>3. Stabilisation. What effect will it have on the regional politics? A key difference in Iraq is that the UK are carrying out airstrikes after being asked by the Iraqi government. As far as I understand, the same is not true in Syria.</p><p></p><p>4. Difference. Will it make enough of a difference? ISIS/other terrorist groups use suicide bombers because they are expendable. If they weren't expendable, they would be bombers rather than suicide bombers. Slightly thinning the ranks of ISIS's suicide bomb squads causes little structural damage to ISIS. Chances to take out key figures would be more of interest to me.</p><p></p><p>It's also a good time to bring up the arms trade. "Defence" organisations make a killing on supplying arms to Saudi Arabia and other similar countries, who not only use these arms to repress their own citizens, but have also been found to be supplying ISIS with these arms. If we are serious about tackling terrorism, then arms trading with Saudi Arabia and other similar countries has to be outlawed.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="j'nuh, post: 774032, member: 55446"] Above all, a UN mandate for the airstrikes must be obtained first. But even then, I am opposed to them, for four main reasons: 1. Cost. An airstrike doesn't come cheap; they can cost £1m a time. More dependent on the types of missiles fired. ([URL]http://news.sky.com/story/1342768/how-much-will-airstrikes-on-is-cost-taxpayer[/URL]) For the same money, you'll save many more lives by investing all of it in the NHS instead. It is doubly frustrating that the Tories bang on about austerity and "tough decisions", and suddenly there is wiggle room left in the budget for these military actions. 2. Intel. What structure do we have in place for guaranteeing targets are not civilians, and there is no risk of collateral damage? 3. Stabilisation. What effect will it have on the regional politics? A key difference in Iraq is that the UK are carrying out airstrikes after being asked by the Iraqi government. As far as I understand, the same is not true in Syria. 4. Difference. Will it make enough of a difference? ISIS/other terrorist groups use suicide bombers because they are expendable. If they weren't expendable, they would be bombers rather than suicide bombers. Slightly thinning the ranks of ISIS's suicide bomb squads causes little structural damage to ISIS. Chances to take out key figures would be more of interest to me. It's also a good time to bring up the arms trade. "Defence" organisations make a killing on supplying arms to Saudi Arabia and other similar countries, who not only use these arms to repress their own citizens, but have also been found to be supplying ISIS with these arms. If we are serious about tackling terrorism, then arms trading with Saudi Arabia and other similar countries has to be outlawed. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
A Muslim Europe is coming?
Top