f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

I listened to Farage on the radio this morning and yet more sense being talked.

He was saying an air offensive against IS in one country with no proper long term plan was a mistake. It would need soldiers on the ground if it was to have any chance of success (which was still very doubtful) and a proper plan for what to do next rather than just hope for the best.

He also said that Cameron's repeated claims of them being a threat to the UK was a very weak argument and by getting into air strikes we were more likely to encourage attacks at home than otherwise. IS had goaded us into this and we were falling for it.

Finally he pointed out that some of the people we are bombing are the people we intended to help when Cameron had the last attempt to get involved with Syria so we need a calculated and long term approach not a knee jerk reaction.

Pretty much spot on IMO!

gussy

iTrader: (2)

Fair comment but Farage is still a dick I just haven't got time for him he can promise the earth which he can cos he wouln't get into power in the next election.On the point about IS being a threat it only takes 1 idealistic idiot to do something and we will all be on lockdown George Orwell springs to mind the normal UK citizen will be able to do nowt without big brother watching TBH its getting that way now

DYK

It's bad enough already.

Jay Cartay

iTrader: (3)

Hmm, almost spot on, but as for not getting involved in case they attack us here.... does that mean we should turn a blind eye to what they are doing to people in Iraq and Syria and say "well, it's not our problem"?

Having any kind of decent military capability means having huge responsibility. IMO we must help people when we can, especially when not doing so would allow a situation to grow and worsen until it IS a direct threat to us here.

It's the right thing to do.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

What is the right thing to do?

There is no proper plan... again!

SouthWalesSam

iTrader: (1)

I heard him too. Hate to say this, but he's the only one I've heard so far who's made any sense on this subject.

He's still a class one d1ckhead though.

Paben

iTrader: (5)

Regardless of magnitude air strikes only work when backed up by reliable troops on the ground. The Iraqi army falls well short in this department. Of the countries being drawn into this conflict, the only truly effective ground troops are those of the USA and Europe and none of these will be in theatre. Air strikes alone are just gesture politics and ineffective unless nuclear. Sadly Farage is correct.

Dr Hu

I say take off and nuke 'em from orbit... just to be sure

RobJenks

Where would Farage be placed in the ******** league then?

Blair
Brown
Millipede
Clegg
Cameron

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

The one thing Farage didn't seem to mention is that even with no boots on the ground, air-strikes are the perfect tool for taking out the large amounts of heavy or heavier equipment that IS have pilfered or smuggled into Iraq. That alone would make a big difference to Iraqi or other local military being able to stand up against them, so IMO worth doing (so long as it's made clear to Iraqi govt from the start that they will need to finish the job themselves, once foreign planes have flown back to base).

scoobyskool

iTrader: (1)

Well the equipment they are going after seems to be all the kit they sent over ,, humvees etc ,, some irony

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Naive? The situation there was CAUSED by us and the US.

Walk away now before we make it worse.

daveyj

iTrader: (1)

If I'm not mistaken, Corporal Hicks has authority here.

Film quotes aside, messy situation that will never go away and I wish we weren't bombing tbh. Either you get involved or you don't. Either choice is going to be drama. I couldn't call it, but a generation long plan is needed. I just think too many "parties" are jostling for strength for that to effectively happen though.

ditchmyster

iTrader: (7)

Leave em to it.

Maz

iTrader: (34)

gussy

iTrader: (2)

you got it in one Maz

Paben

iTrader: (5)

It's like the explanation of cricket to a Martian. 'Two of the the team that's in go out and they are in until one is out, then he comes in and another goes out because he's in, then when he's out he comes in' etc. Clear as mud with an outcome that is anyone's guess

Alan Jeffery

Accurate, although of course now we have an enemy that nobody likes, so bombing them offends the fewest amount of people. For now.

hodgy0_2

You can understand why non cricketing nations simply don't get

A game that last five full days, and yet ends in a draw, can provide some of THE most exiting sport possible

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

I tried to explain it to an American once.... all I got was '5 freaking days and it can still end in a draw.... you have got to be kidding me'

I gave up