You can always tell armed conflict's in the offing when you see economic illiterate

[Burney]

tweets/Facebook posts from people saying how much missiles cost and how many homelesses could be put up or nurses or teachers employed with that money, etc, etc.

The fact that those missiles are in many cases designed and built in the UK by companies employing thousands and paying untold millions in UK tax revenues that then get spent on homelesses, nurses, teachers, etc, etc is of course a bit too complicated for their tiny fvcking brains.

It really is amazing how many people still appear to think that capital expenditure at a macro level is a zero sum game.

[Sir C]

tweets/Facebook posts from people saying how much missiles cost and how many homelesses could be put up or nurses or teachers employed with that money, etc, etc.

The fact that those missiles are in many cases designed and built in the UK by companies employing thousands and paying untold millions in UK tax revenues that then get spent on homelesses, nurses, teachers, etc, etc is of course a bit too complicated for their tiny fvcking brains.

It really is amazing how many people still appear to think that capital expenditure at a macro level is a zero sum game.

Plus you've got to use them by their 'Best Before' date or they go off and you have to replace them anyway. Probably.

[Burney]

Plus you've got to use them by their 'Best Before' date or they go off and you have to replace them anyway. Probably.

That's absolutely true. We've paid for them already and there's no trade-in option for ordnance when they become obsolete (although you can flog them on to Brazil or whatever, I suppose). Given which, we might as well drop them on some brown chaps. Or Russki chaps for that matter.

[Sir C]

That's absolutely true. We've paid for them already and there's no trade-in option when they become obsolete. Given which, we might as well drop them on some brown chaps. Or Russki chaps for that matter.

I have some questions about our reasoning for such action, though.

1. Surely it is in our interest for Assad to be in charge, rather than Islamists?
2. Killing civilians with gas is naughty, no doubt, but is it really any naughtier than killing them with barrel bombs or good old-fashioned AK-47s?
3. Surely the first bomb we drop will trigger another flood of 'refugees', all claiming to be fleeing the wanton death and destruction committed by the West

[Rich]

I have some questions about our reasoning for such action, though.

1. Surely it is in our interest for Assad to be in charge, rather than Islamists?
2. Killing civilians with gas is naughty, no doubt, but is it really any naughtier than killing them with barrel bombs or good old-fashioned AK-47s?
3. Surely the first bomb we drop will trigger another flood of 'refugees', all claiming to be fleeing the wanton death and destruction committed by the West

Please, allow me:

1. I don't really understand this part. I think we want to enforce democracy on countries that have no history of it. I.e. the Islamists wouldn't be voted in.
2. It's more indescriminate, with children being more susceptible to the effects (particularly with chlorine) since it's very dense and is at its greatest concentration when close to the ground. Even the most evil dictator surely cannot wish to punish kids.
3. That's Merkel/Macron's problem, really. We have an sea border so need not worry. Just make sure we're checking lorries at Callais.

[Burney]

I have some questions about our reasoning for such action, though.

1. Surely it is in our interest for Assad to be in charge, rather than Islamists?
2. Killing civilians with gas is naughty, no doubt, but is it really any naughtier than killing them with barrel bombs or good old-fashioned AK-47s?
3. Surely the first bomb we drop will trigger another flood of 'refugees', all claiming to be fleeing the wanton death and destruction committed by the West

I think there's a rather bigger picture, tbh. This isn't about Assad. Nobody really cares if middle Eastern savages slaughter their populace by whatever means. It's simply what This is about showing Iran and Russia that the West is sick of their sh1t; that that limp-wristed fanny Obama is no longer in charge and that red lines will not be crossed with impunity.

[Rich]

I think there's a rather bigger picture, tbh. This isn't about Assad. Nobody really cares if middle Eastern savages slaughter their populace by whatever means. It's simply what This is about showing Iran and Russia that the West is sick of their sh1t; that that limp-wristed fanny Obama is no longer in charge and that red lines will not be crossed with impunity.

Do you not feel that Mrs May is a leetle bit limp of wrist? Though I suppose she will just go along with whatever Don wants.

[Sir C]

I think there's a rather bigger picture, tbh. This isn't about Assad. Nobody really cares if middle Eastern savages slaughter their populace by whatever means. It's simply what This is about showing Iran and Russia that the West is sick of their sh1t; that that limp-wristed fanny Obama is no longer in charge and that red lines will not be crossed with impunity.

Ah, we're back to The Great Game, I suppose.

It's all very well, but if a Sukhoi 35 engages a Typhoon and comes off second best, that means war. And war is bad for business. Unless you're in the war business.

I wish I was in the war business.

[redgunamo]

I think there's a rather bigger picture, tbh. This isn't about Assad. Nobody really cares if middle Eastern savages slaughter their populace by whatever means. It's simply what This is about showing Iran and Russia that the West is sick of their sh1t; that that limp-wristed fanny Obama is no longer in charge and that red lines will not be crossed with impunity.

Not just the West, imo

[Billy Goat Sverige]

Plus you've got to use them by their 'Best Before' date or they go off and you have to replace them anyway. Probably.

The US has a load of MOAB that go out of date this year.