does football and humanity

[drfchound]

Hound

'We', the RAF are conducting bombing raids on IS in Iraq and have been for over a year. 'We' the US coalition and Russia are conducting bombing raids on IS in Syria and have been for over a year.

Who exactly is the 'we' you are you referring to when you say 'do we sit back and do nothing?'

Wilts, explain to me why you have picked out my post to ask who "we" are.
I noticed that you haven't put the same question to anyone else yet.
Plenty of other posters have said that "we" should do this that and the other, or alternatively "we should not bomb them" but for some reason you avoid asking them the same thing.

Just to respond to you though seeing as you asked, i consider "we" in this case to be the decent people in the world who seriously resent what IS are doing, their beliefs and barbarism.

It does seem though that there are World leaders out there who have directed air strikes on IS positions who obviously are incapable of making correct decisions, well according to some people anyway.
I wonder whether Obama, Putin, Hollande, Cameron et al are all wrong.

[wilts rover]

Hound

'We' the posters in this thread, have been discussing the campaign against Daesh in Iraq and Syria over 7 pages in this thread and something similar in the other. Within that debate I have several times given facts and figures for how long the bombing campaign in both countries has been going on and which countries have participated in it.

If you then choose to use a throwaway line of 'we are sitting on our hands and doing nothing' when 'we' clearly have not been for over a year now, then I think you should expect some response. I have not responded to anyone else - because it was you who said it! Dont take it personally.

I do believe that if Obama, Putin, Hollande, Cameron etc believe that aerial bombing along with defeat Daesh then they are wrong. It requires ground support. They are being pushed back in Iraq because of the Iraqi Army and the Kurdish Rebels, the bombing is supporting this. I also believe that they know this as well, but are afraid to admit it, hence the talk of the mythical 'moderate' army. They were wrong about Iraq, weapons of mass destruction and the Arab Spring, dont be surprised if they are wrong here to.

My view, which hasn't changed and which we have been in agreement, is there wont ever be a peaceful solution and an eradication of terrorist activity in the Middle East, without a multi-national coaltion including the countries of the middle east. At the moment that seems to be a long way off.

[BobG]

error

[wilts rover]

There's no need for that Bob, it was a perfectly reasonable question and (I hope) I have given Hound an acceptable answer.

I enjoy his posts, I certainly dont always agree with them but he usually has something to say that adds to the debate. It is easy to get carried away with some of the muppets we have had on here in the not to far distant past, but Hound is fine, best if you dont take his posts personally either.

[drfchound]

Wilts, first of all, thanks for those kind words, glad that you can see my viewpoint.
The argument against bombing has regularly been that it can kill innocent civilians and it is hard to argue against that.
To be fair, i have always said that any bombing needs to be strategic and not just to willy nilly, drop them on towns ( I can't spell indiscriminate otherwise i would have written that !)
I also understand that IS will probably have civilians in some of their key positions and inevitably innocents will die.
However "we" need to continue along the chosen path of bombing because we have to.
I have also said on here that in my opinion there will have to be ground troops deployed by UN forces in time to follow up the bombing campaign.
Again there will be civilian casualties.
I was listening to a news report earlier in the week when the BBC interviewed the former Air Force Chief of Staff.
When the question was put to him about the damage that may be done to towns and cities he responded as follows:
"If you think that air strikes cause damage to towns, you should see the damage that is caused when the ground troops go in".
He was indicating that whichever way our forces attack IS, there will be the inevitable carnage that goes with war.

I fully agree with other posters on here who have said that a conflict with IS will be long and drawn out but i believe that it has to happen because "we" have take them on.
IS can't be allowed to continue with their murderous ways without a response.