Cameron, Clegg and Osbourne

  Algerian peter ™ 23:46 26 Aug 2013
Locked

Have decimated the British Army, Navy and Air-force. Now he wants to start a war with Syria and possibly Russia.

Would it not be better to leave it to the UN.

Have not all recent British wars ended in a mess because they do not understand the mind set of the country.

  sunnystaines 08:29 27 Aug 2013

i noticed after the big cutbacks in the military, there are a lot of adverts on tv for naval,marines and airforce recruits. Have they relised they cut back too much, I would not be happy if i was one of those forced to leave then seeing all the adverts.

  Quickbeam 09:19 27 Aug 2013

"...and possibly Russia." Do you know something that we don't?

  Chronos the 2nd 10:29 27 Aug 2013

Would it not be better to leave it to the UN.

You are having a laugh surely, that body would have trouble managing a primary school scuffle between two girls.

And the reason that there are so many ads for recruits is the big plan on having a larger Reserve Forces are in a complete mess because the numbers signing up so far are significantly lower, two thirds I believe, than the government expected/needs.

  alanrwood 11:02 27 Aug 2013

They also want to reverse the top heavy nature of the current forces by recruiting more "erks".

Agree with Chronos. The UN are a talking shop and have always had to be dragged screaming into any action.

  Forum Editor 19:00 27 Aug 2013

"Now he wants to start a war with Syria and possibly Russia."

Who does? I haven't heard about anyone wanting to send us to war with either of those countries.

There's a crisis in Syria, certainly, and it's a very serious one, but we're a very long way from going war over it.

  john bunyan 19:15 27 Aug 2013

Clearly we (the west) failed to act decisively when the Iraqi Kurds were gassed by Saddam Hussein. In the case of Syria, it must be absolutely certain that the culprit was, indeed, the government. If it can be proved and agreed by the UN then maybe some very carefully targeted response, aimed at the launch area and wit very low risk of collateral damage may be justified. However, why the UK? The Arab league have plenty of armed forced - (Saudi for example), so why are they not taking the lead? What is our aim? What next? What about Russia and Iran's response? In the end only diplomacy works, but we seem to be in for a difficult time. Is it acceptable to do nothing?

  morddwyd 19:50 27 Aug 2013

With operations in Afghanistan running down where else could we, the US and France test our new weapons and sell up old stock?

The Russians are already at it, and we don't want to be at a disadvantage.

  john bunyan 20:48 27 Aug 2013

Jock1e

Military operations should always have an aim, or mission. There is no way we could consider "boots on the ground" in Syria except in the unlikely event of a UN resolution. Too often the UK government has started things in the past with totally unexpected and costly results. Apart from the humanitarian concerns, Syria is of no concern of the UK and most military wise men are very dubious about action unless the aim is clear. What are Germany, Belgium, Spain etc doing? A clear example of how a "US of Europe" will not work.

  Quickbeam 08:16 28 Aug 2013

john bunyan

"Syria is of no concern of the UK" I don't want us to end up involved in another foreign adventure as much as anyone, but the bucket of sand solution is a naive isolationist bliss that we can't accept as a civilised country.

  john bunyan 08:39 28 Aug 2013

Quickbeam

I agree, but are we to take the lead?

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 review

What went wrong at the Designs of the Year 2017

iPhone X news: Release date, price, new features & specs

Comment utiliser Live Photos ?