REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Reply to thread

Message

It's a position similar to Obama's and his chemical weapon stance on Syria then?

You can shoot and bomb people (as if that's somehow a good way of being killed) but you can't use chemical weapons. The end result for a civilian is pretty much the same.

I'm struggling to see why you're so hung up about rockets. These are pretty ineffective weapons. I know I'd rather live under the threat of Hamas rocket attack then I would having to be wary every time I ventured onto a bus, or went into a crowded public space looking for the slightly swathy skinned nervous looking youth wearing an additional layer of clothing that the weather didn't seem to justify. The suicide bomber is going to kill more people and is easier to position in the field. I wouldn't be surprised if we see commercial drones put to use next as they could carry about 15Ibs of semtex and be flown direct at a target rather than these rockets which are tantamount to standing at the foot of your garden blindfolded and lobbing a dart at a dartboard

Anyway, you have now admitted that you personally would have been prepared to bomb Belfast albeit there is the understandable caveat attached to that which I'll interpret as something akin to as a 'last resort', which I think you'd be entitled to invoke

I won't get involved in the argument of "realistic" options by way of alternatives as that will be a cul de sac, other than to say there are always 'options' and even the option of aerial bombing is largely defined by how its prosecuted. The Israeli's seem to adopting a strategy that allows them to drop if in doubt, whereas a lot of what the RAF did in places like Iraq (the USAF less so) adopted the negative if in doubt

<blockquote data-quote="Warbler" data-source="post: 2490770" data-attributes="member: 65228">It&#039;s a position similar to Obama&#039;s and his chemical weapon stance on Syria then?You can shoot and bomb people (as if that&#039;s somehow a good way of being killed) but you can&#039;t use chemical weapons. The end result for a civilian is pretty much the same. I&#039;m struggling to see why you&#039;re so hung up about rockets. These are pretty ineffective weapons. I know I&#039;d rather live under the threat of Hamas rocket attack then I would having to be wary every time I ventured onto a bus, or went into a crowded public space looking for the slightly swathy skinned nervous looking youth wearing an additional layer of clothing that the weather didn&#039;t seem to justify. The suicide bomber is going to kill more people and is easier to position in the field. I wouldn&#039;t be surprised if we see commercial drones put to use next as they could carry about 15Ibs of semtex and be flown direct at a target rather than these rockets which are tantamount to standing at the foot of your garden blindfolded and lobbing a dart at a dartboardAnyway, you have now admitted that you personally would have been prepared to bomb Belfast albeit there is the understandable caveat attached to that which I&#039;ll interpret as something akin to as a &#039;last resort&#039;, which I think you&#039;d be entitled to invokeI won&#039;t get involved in the argument of &quot;realistic&quot; options by way of alternatives as that will be a cul de sac, other than to say there are always &#039;options&#039; and even the option of aerial bombing is largely defined by how its prosecuted. The Israeli&#039;s seem to adopting a strategy that allows them to drop if in doubt, whereas a lot of what the RAF did in places like Iraq (the USAF less so) adopted the negative if in doubt</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Warbler, post: 2490770, member: 65228"] It's a position similar to Obama's and his chemical weapon stance on Syria then? You can shoot and bomb people (as if that's somehow a good way of being killed) but you can't use chemical weapons. The end result for a civilian is pretty much the same. I'm struggling to see why you're so hung up about rockets. These are pretty ineffective weapons. I know I'd rather live under the threat of Hamas rocket attack then I would having to be wary every time I ventured onto a bus, or went into a crowded public space looking for the slightly swathy skinned nervous looking youth wearing an additional layer of clothing that the weather didn't seem to justify. The suicide bomber is going to kill more people and is easier to position in the field. I wouldn't be surprised if we see commercial drones put to use next as they could carry about 15Ibs of semtex and be flown direct at a target rather than these rockets which are tantamount to standing at the foot of your garden blindfolded and lobbing a dart at a dartboard Anyway, you have now admitted that you personally would have been prepared to bomb Belfast albeit there is the understandable caveat attached to that which I'll interpret as something akin to as a 'last resort', which I think you'd be entitled to invoke I won't get involved in the argument of "realistic" options by way of alternatives as that will be a cul de sac, other than to say there are always 'options' and even the option of aerial bombing is largely defined by how its prosecuted. The Israeli's seem to adopting a strategy that allows them to drop if in doubt, whereas a lot of what the RAF did in places like Iraq (the USAF less so) adopted the negative if in doubt [/QUOTE]

Verification: 5 + 3 = ?