Once again another silly comment, belittling me, from boogers, who suggests, in spite of my extensive quotes, that I haven't read ithe report This is so typical and is getting quite lame and beginning to show an unhealthy obsession. Of course doesn't just do it to me either. Time to stop. Attack the arguement not the person.
I am attacking the argument. You made two statements that you said were supported by the report. They were not - and perhaps you can point me at your "extensive quotes", because I seem to have missed them?
As a matter of fact, the report stated that military action has "an important role in eradicating ISIL" as one of three pillars of action. Three pillars of action which closely mirror what is being proposed right now.
And to get back to Cameron's so called "exit strategy." Apparently after these really "smart" bombs have finished off every member of Isis into the vacuum left will walk seventy thousand "good" terrorists, who just happen to have avoided the bombs because they are in a totally different part of the country! Could you make it up?
The 70,000 number may or may not be inflated. As a strategy
it's plausible, especially as this is exactly
what's happening in Iraq, where the RAF are supporting the Kurdish peshmerga who are making significant inroads into Daesh territory.
Also, can I remind everyone that two years ago Cameron wanted to bomb the shite out of Assad. And who, if this bombing goes ahead, will be the biggest beneficary of this bombing? Why Assad of course. The whole thing has reached a new level of craziness and still the innocent die or attempt to flee this armageddon.
Unfortunately the time to remove Assad has passed - we didn't go down that road at the time, and it's arguable the things are now worse as a result. Ultimately, our involvement now is unlikely to make things worse - it's already as bad as it can get - and there's a chance it could make things better.