Search results

Cameron was asked this last week in the HoC, the question actually specified whether Saudi Arabia had these. He avoided answering, would have thought he could have mentioned it then. Exactly why he avoided this option seems odd.

So we're in then. Quite interesting that the first hit was an oil refinery, bearing in mind we've avoided hitting these for some time it suggests we don't expect to win anytime soon. Normal practice is to leave the infrastructure for all those juicy contracts coming our way. I genuinely hope...

Thanks again JC, Curiously I don't see why bombing in Iraq means that we should be doing so in Syria. The objectives and targets differ immensely. For example the coalition have known about the oil for a long time, yet only recently starting hitting the refineries. They've only recently started...

Cheers JC, Nice to have a decent exchange of opinions! The situation in Iraq is different in a number of ways, firstly there’s a ground force which is operating along with the air strikes. I’m not convinced that we have that in Syria. The targets presented by an army stretching into a new...

JC - cheers for the response. I agree that inaction has consequence, however, the problem with this is that (i) it posits that anything other than bombing is inaction (ii) the consequences of our inaction doesn't mean the situation will remain unresolved. Our involvement will be to balance out...

The initial unrest in Syria had a number of reasons, the idea that it was simply a bunch of chaps who wanted more freedom doesn't really explain it fully. Syria was and is a very contested area in the geopolitical context, then there's the pipeline which is often overlooked...

Strong no from me, sadly this is being twisted by some sections of the media (and even the PM) into meaning that you wouldn't mind ISIS popping round for a cup of tea and a chat. Bombing isn't an effective way of dealing with a non-structured army. ISIS are far better countered through stopping...