The vote is in: Britain is poised to bomb Syria (four Tornados have already deployed) to combat ISIS.

>>four Tornados have already deployed

Yup, our four tornados (we don't have any more) and a couple of typhoons are going to magically achieve what the 1700+ airstrikes carried out by your lot, the French and the Russians hasn't.

:-|

It won't improve anything. It will only cause civilian deaths, but I guess some see that as reasonable collateral damage.

We're now in a situation where we're essentially supporting a regime we wanted to bomb not so long ago.

If a post-ISIS Syria is possible then what happens to Assad?

I might have who is on whose side wrong but it looks like this to me....

UK/US kinda support the Rebels and the Kurds but don't support Assad. Bombing ISIS.
Russia supports Assad. Bombing ISIS, Rebels and possibly Kurds (not sure on Kurds).
Turkey are killing Kurds and have no issue shooting down Russian jets.
Then throw in the complex who supports who of Arab nations and it's one big fucking mess that is only going to get worse.

Not forgetting the weapons that The UK and The US are selling to Saudi Arabia, who are giving/selling them to ISIS, who are paying for them with money received allegedly from the illegal sale of Syrian oil to The Turkish Presidential family, which is then quite possibly shipped to the UK for sale here.

Of course, can't forget the crucial arms/oil/cash cycle that keeps things ticking over.

"If you're not confused, then you don't understand the situation"

I'll post the video later if i can find it, but there's that Bill Bailey line that seems appropriate:
 

Seems legit.

I think it is about being an ally, showing unity - don't you? A sardonic response, whilst possibly appearing clever at parties, doesn't exactly say anything about your true feelings about the airstrikes.

I suppose a better response would be to ignore them and maybe they'll go away?

It does sound like, "the enemy of my friend is my enemy", the "friend of my enemy is my enemy" and the "enemy of my enemy is my friend"- except that all we seem to be choosing the lesser of evils over there.

I believe that obama's flaccid dealings in the area have allowed the re-proliferation of ISIS.

That's a really good summation, because the cause and effect over there is an extremely complex issue with no magic fix - bombs alone won't do it.

That may get him a lot of laughs, but it isn't even close to being accurate.
  Here is a link to an article that sums up the Middle East probably better than any I've read. You lot will like it because it is critical of America - written by an American - and it is a well thought-out treatise on the continual Middle East conflict.

>>I think it is about being an ally, showing unity - don't you?

Not really.

How are your Freedom Fries?

No, it really?

Bloody autocucumber.

Interesting - the papers over here are all blaming the Blair regime.

It was mainly a Cheney show, Blair was a bumlicker.

Probably about the same as the Liberty Cabbage.

How's the tea?

I guess that's the trouble, people still reading newspapers. Over here, if one has access to a computer and can find You Tube uploads, they can contribute to the newspapers, writing "stories".

I don't think the press in general knows their arse from a hole in the ground, but I do know they didn't like Blair. Of course, when attacks come, people aren't quick to say, "Hey! Quick! Call a journalist to protect me!"