davidc
-
Posts
925 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by davidc
-
-
They ain't bombing the "people of Syria".
?
-
No harm in asking when I bought Maisie Jane this summer the batteries we well and truly knackered I ask for a contribution the seller said no but brought the boat anyway good price and i want the boat.
-
They ain't bombing the "people of Syria".
you drop bomb over a country you are dropping bombs on the citizens of that country,no matter how accurate your bombs or missles.
-
I thought that was the point I made.
No you said yes to bombing
there is no troops on the ground therefore no intelligence telling where to bomb and more important where not to
-
My vote was yes. It is not acceptable leaving it to others to do the dirty work on our behalf. As for those claiming bombing won't work, that shows a misunderstanding of what airpower is used for. It degrades an enemy and denies it freedom of movement whilst cutting resupply lines and command and communications. It does this to the point when someone's ground troops go in and finish the job. The latter is the part of the plan currently missing.
really
The americans have tried this before without troops on the ground it will fail, like it did during rolling thunder .
the germans failed in 1940 when there tried bombing london hoping we would sue for peace
To win you need boots on the ground (trained soldiers not civilians carrying guns ).
also I like to add something US general C Powell said you break it you have to repair it
-
from the bbc newa web site
quote
Crossbench peer Lord Low of Dalston says he was "scandalised into putting my name down to speak" by David Cameron's comments that opponents of military action are "terrorist sympathisers".
"Those are not the words of a statesmanlike prime minister seeking to lead a unified nation to war," Lord Low says. "They are a disgrace." He further suggests that such treatment of opponents is "to adopt the mindset of Isil, not that of a leader of a free country".
He says that, in "the view of the humble peer in the street", IS should be "completely eliminated" but opposes military action because the organisation is like "a hydra" and the US-led coalition in Syria has been "largely ineffective".
unquote
He says it all
-
there are many threads on this forum on wifi
try reading this one
http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=80643&hl=davidc#entry1694163
-
I don't think he's lost the plot, I think he has realised if he held the vote any later he would get a NO vote, that why he said what he said to try and keep up the support for todays vote.
from the latest yougov poll
quote
In just seven days, five million people have joined the ranks of those opposed to air strikes in Syria.
and this
Last week, 59% of Britons backed air strikes; now the figure is just 48%. That eleven-point decline equates to five million electors. The number opposed is up eleven points, from 20% to 31%. Every political and demographic group has seen a change, but two stand out:
The gender gap has widened. Now men favour air strikes by more than two-to-one (58-26%), while women divide evenly: 39-36%.
Those who voted Labour in May have switched from backing military action by 52-26% a week ago, to opposing it, by 42-35% today. -
On the present strategy or situation For me we should be british and stand up to the rest of the world and say no , this way is wrong.
under a full UN mandate with a army of mainly muslim solider from all types of the religion I would say yes.
-
and some of the most powerful Muslim countries. e.g. Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates
just taking 3
Saudi Arabia has just under 400 fighter aircraft but only 2 are part of the allied force
bahrain has 50 fighter aircraft only 2 are taking part
where as jordan has 130 fighter aircraft but there do have 20 taking part
so gulf states really committed
-
seems to me that it was well reported, for example by BBC News.
this situation is entirely different to the Dubya/Bliar action in Iraq.
Firstly nearly all the major powers support military action against ISIS in Syria, and secondly the UN Resolution condones (if not specifically approves) military action.
and of course that makes it right
or that the right strategy because the largest christian countries are doing it
-
It's the tory press toeing the line telling the unwash masses this is a good thing and how Mr cameron and the tory party is protecting the country and if we do not support them we must be ISIS loving corbyn supporters .
Now what will be there angle when ISIS and there many supports in the UK make paris look like a walk in the park in the near future.
But what do I know I should be grateful for Mr cameron
-
There's no money in world peace....
or glory (good reason for world peace )
-
Don,t think that the whole problem I also think that children today don't get enough exercise, spending too much time on xbox/playstation, being driven every where by mum and dad .
-
Not sure about that TBH I seem to recall a fair degree of opposition but I agree that public opinion on this one is much different. There does appear to be a much bigger groundswell of people against it.
That is why if this goes terribly wrong I think it will topple his government like suez did for PM Eden
-
He's just remembering the electoral success the Falklands brought Thatcher.
difference was that the public was totally behind her and the Falklands were british and the islanders were british
-
Sadly Camoron will get his Bliar moment. I dont think thats what he is aiming for, I think hes going for Churchill but hes lacking in all departments.
Have to say agree with you .
but I do think if he does get the vote I have a feeling thatit is going to back fire on him,
Lets hope we are all wrong about ISIS ability to mount terror attacks in the near future.
-
Depends on the timing I wold say.
If he goes too quickly, probably no.
I suppose it also depends how many of his own MP will defy him
-
the one million dollar question is Mr cameron going to get what he wants.
-
I think you need to review the rules then - you are aware this is not a democracy, but an autocracy?
and
-
Stand by your beds - PaulC is on the thread..
there is nothing in the forum rules and guidelines that say they have to though, OK its arguably the 'right' thing to do but sometimes its obvious why a thread has been locked though perhaps not in these cases I agree.
that's my whole point if it is not clear the mod locking it should say why
-
Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't, there is no obligation for them to do so however.
there should be, how else are we know if we have crossed the line especially as nothing in that thread seemed to justify locking it.
else we leave the forum open to propaganda from our detractors that we do not allow freedom of speech
-
surely if a mod feels justified to lock a thread there sould say why and place their name at the end of the locked thread,
-
It said that the people had moved out of his way but a dog on a long lead ran into his path.
there must of been liability on be halve of the dog walker or else the insurance company would not have payed out such a large amount of money.
The Thread We Need About Syria - A Poll
in Current Affairs
Posted
unfortunately he is not his father or has his morals but that is the way of sons of famous fathers