British Politics Thread.

[Haighus]

Yes, I suspect there is too much of a focus on the immediate health care and rehabilitation of the injury, but then lacking in caring for the long term social and psychological health of the ex-servicepeople. Unfortunately is the general trend of healthcare today, especially for psychological health, although things are improving on that front.

[Mr Mystery]

There's usually beggars on my way to work, and a few of them use signs claiming to be ex-servicemen.

Trouble is, I don't know whether to believe them or not - so I give via charities, and never to street collectors.

[Haighus]

I think that is probably a wise choice. Also illustrates what I meant too- you can have the most functional false arm in the world, but if you don't know how to be a civilian properly it isn't going to help that much (but better than having a non-functional arm I guess).

[Mr Mystery]

Yup.

A friend of mine is now ex-army. He served in Afghanistan, and suffered a flesh wound (not that he told us at the time!) during his various tours. When he was honourably discharged (cutbacks) he was fortunate enough to have a stable, mature social circle and his family to support him.

I can't imagine what it's like for young men to whom the armed forces were there first taste of camaraderie and stability in life - which is sadly too many young men.

[Haighus]

Yeah likewise, I can't imagine that situation either. I would be interested for Denzark's take on this though, as I believe he was/is heavily involved in the armed forces?

[Kirsten]

in case anyone thinks the Daily Mail is not harmful

this is a na zi cartoon about keeping Jews out of democratic countries

[URL=http://s1216.photobucket.com/user/KirstenIGMB/media/1_zps2glrn64t.jpg.html][/URL]

this is today's Daily Mail

[URL=http://s1216.photobucket.com/user/KirstenIGMB/media/2_zpsheq7hsi0.jpg.html][/URL]

[Mr Mystery]

Such a vile newspaper.

How they've not been done for malicious communications? I'd love to say 'I'll never know', but of course the obvious and correct answer is 'friends in high places'

[Mr Mystery]

Oh good.

The British Government has voted to create more extremists by sending six Typhoons to bomb Syria....

[Kirsten]

but clearly blowing up civilians will definitely stop IS...

[Wolfshade]

Oh good.

The British Government has voted to create more extremists by sending six Typhoons to bomb Syria....

but clearly blowing up civilians will definitely stop IS...

I don't know why they bother.

There are three questions that really matter.

1. Will the British intervention make a difference
2. Will the bombing stop ISIS
3. Will the bombing kill ensure no innocent lives are lost

If the answer to any of these is "No" then really there is no point.

So let's look at number 1.

UK are going to contribute a few aeroplanes. What will this achieve, certainly it is an order of magnitude (at least) beneath what the American's are currently doing with their 50 or so planes, and that has been dwarfed by Russia's intervention. So the UK would be providing a token assistance, like Germany's 1 plane.

2.

No. Bombing campaigns do not work against non-state entities, or terrorists. The infrastructure doesn't support it, and it doesn't stop it operating in foreign fields, let's face it the french attack were Belgians so unless we are to bomb belgium....

3.

Collateral damage is inevitable with bombing, yes we can get the bombs to land within a few mm of where they want but there is no guaranteeing that the identified target is an actual target, mistakes have been made.