Printable View
Cobryn - "Only a diplomatic solution will bring hope to Syrians"
In the event the UK doesn't get involved in the bombing, it is still likely we will be targeted by IS.
In the event the UK does get involved in the bombing, it is still likely we will be targeted by IS.
Why?
It has been known that, they wish to take over the UK and implement Sharia law.
Just what are your thoughts?
Don't need to bomb them, just stop them entering the country and tighten controls and laws to help us deport more.
While the sentiment is a bit BNP (who I hate!) it certainly seems a much more tolerant approach than bombing...and while it is painting a lot of people with the same brush, that brush isn't in the form of bombs (which will also not be discriminate when they land!)
Sorry Muslims but there is a point when you just have to realise gods are not real and people are dying over your absurd beliefs.......I'd have a go at Christianity as well but it certainly isn't causing the grief it used to any more.....and in this country we have a recent precedent for rubbishing beliefs: Jedi religion on the census.
I'd love to see a reliable reference to that. They may think that the entire world should submit to Sharia law; that's very different from saying they wish to "take over" a specific country and implement Sharia law directly. Daesh (or IS, as they prefer to call themselves) is a radical fundamentalist religious group. it's also an extreme minority. Any implication that they could "take over" a western country is clearly ludicrous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macman
As to should we bomb Syria? My personal opinion is that wiping out more infrastructure in a war-torn country is going to hinder rebuilding if a legitimate government can be restored, and emplying open warfare against a group that is more used to guerilla and terror tactics is likely to be expensive, inefficient and ultimately ineffective. I'm not opposed to military action, but airstrikes will only work if we have good intelligence and are targetting a centralised command chain. I'm not convinced either of those things is even close to being true in Syria...
I think it is likely we will be targeted by Daesh anyway. If reports are true, there have been several unsuccessful attacks on the UK in the past twelve months.
Taking action in Syria may increase the likelihood of those, but it is difficult to assess by how much, at least as a bystander. The security services probably have a better idea about this.
'Bombing' is a somewhat emotive term, and tends to imply carpet bombing seen in WW2 or Vietnam. In practice the munitions are smart guided weapons, such as the Brimstone missile and smart guided bombs.
But air strikes alone won't recapture territory, that may need troops on the ground (and I would be very surprised if we didn't have SF in there already) and ultimately there has to be some form of diplomatic solution to fill the vacuum when Daesh are defeated. There also needs to be e Ono ic effort to cut off the revenue streams that fund Daesh.
There also has to be effort to address the reasons (and methods) for radicalisation and why they are so successful in recruiting.
Military action is but one part of this, but there must be a clear mission aim, and an appropriate e it strategy, both which were missing in the second Gulf conflict.
Send Corbyn over on a fact finding mission first.
I might have an inkling towards some of the reason:Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
Just sayin' ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by shaithis
Voted no.
Collateral dmg , prolonging and as I've said before; we lose this lot; v3 will be even worse. The daesh idealism has to be quelled. Video footage of dead innocents is powerful propaganda.
There are enough planes with bombs there. Surgical insertion perhaps. The real problem is Assadists vs rebels. All the powers have a favourite, without any daesh to kill and the buildup of arms; its going to get sticky. I think this needs to be resolved now if the country is going to have any stability but after 4 years seems unlikely.
I'm just not certain what bombing would achieve. Sure, it may disrupt the military maneuvers, however it's not going to prevent people from joining up, nor is it likely to bring an end to their leaders (who still are not clear). I am however certain that it would cause them to desire to retaliate against us as they have so very publicly against France and Russia (as well as others). So do I want this country to get involved in another unwinnable war? No! No I don't!
Can't back down through fear though :/ they'll start to think they're winning.
We already lost this one by backing the rebels in Syria and here we are 4 years later.
Yes they are a problem.
Yes, they need dealing with.
That they’d even consider trying to terrorise the UK, given the apathetic response with which all the other organisations’ efforts have been received, suggests they are more stupid than they look. I recall the IRA bombings of train stations and tracks which obviously disturb those directly involved, but the vast majority of people were more miffed that the trains were delayed!
Bomb a bus in London and people will be mildly piqued that they have to wait for the next one.
Do something in America and they’ll go nuts on the over-reactive security paranoia, as they also retaliate with full-scale war on your entire country… but the UK cannot be terrorised, because we just don’t care!!! :lol:
Humour aside - They may be a 'minority', but that word carries with it the implication that they are negligible. However small, they are still a very real danger to us and clearly to our allies.
What I would expect is to see the majority, ie the rest of Islam in all its forms, stand up for their own beliefs and vehemently disavow ISIS in its entirety – If they are THAT serious about their insistence that True Islam preaches peace, ISIS should be the subject of scathing ridicule in the same way we treat the Westboro Baptists. There have been some, but the religion as a whole needs to stand up and say NO.
Speaking as a former soldier myself, I would expect precision strikes against confirmed targets, involving ground units face to face, rather than just blanket bombing.
I fail to see what bombing will achieve - killing key targets and IS fighters wont stop the next generation who will be influenced by the same extremist ideology.
Im rather pleased this thread has not descended into sillyism.... Tensions are quite high right now and it would seem very easy to start back biting, but thanks guys, you've kept it cool, keep it up :)
Ah.. don't follow this link then:Quote:
Originally Posted by g8ina
http://newsthump.com/2015/12/02/came...e-and-for-all/
;)
Seriously, same old, same old really.
As I said in the last thread that discussed something similar, we should probably try educating more people about Islam and other faiths and help bring them more into the open so that the extremists can't use people's ignorance on both sides against them.
As for bombing - is someone asking us to? We're not as good at it as even the French these days IMHO, certainly not up to US or Russian capabilities. And certainly there's massive confusion about Russia's role in the airspace - piling another nation in isn't going to help that confusion.
I think "bombing Syria" is a bit misleading. What this motion was about was targeted air strikes on Daesh, and ONLY Daesh, in Syria. It's not like we'll be carpet-bombing Raqqa.
All this gives permission for is the RAF to conduct the same missions against Daesh in Syria that we're already conducting in Iraq.
As for what it'll achieve, it's impossible to know. A handful of strikes, if you get the right targets, could make a significant difference. Imagine a WW2 bombing raid hitting a command post during a senior ranks briefing, maybe killing Rommel. A handful of gifted commanders, or planners, can make a big difference.
Or it can be small but significant things. Did anyone listen to the debate? Cameron gave one example of a group of (IIRC) Kurds engaged in a firefight with Daesh requesting air support. RAF Tornados were 8 minutes away but the incident was 1.5 miles inside Syria, so they could not assist. No other support was available, so those Kurds had to wait 40 minutes for other support, when the RAF could have done it but for that restriction, in less than a quarter of that time. That extra 32 minutes could be the difference between fighters we support being alive when air support arrives, and them not being. It might not be hugely important on a geopolitical scale, but I'm sure it was important to those Kurds, and their families. Not being able to help may well result in extra deaths under Daesh.
Also, from figures given, the Brimstine missile has a capability pretty much unique to us, which is that it's relatively small warhead but is extremely accurate and highly effective at hitting fast-moving targets. The small warhead means, apparently, that it'll destroy small targets, like vehicles, but without flattening adjacent buildings in the process. So, that may offer the ability to hit targets where, without it, the choice is to not fire and let the target escape, or fire and risk substantial "collateral damage". Horrible term, that.
I'm no military expert, but even I can see that gaving that capability available may open up attack options that aren't politically viable, due to collateral, without it.
And according to figures given, in Iraq, the UK has 8 out of 25 aircraft capable of high precision attacks, to represents approximately 33% of the capability. And of some 2500 missions flown, under 400 have resulted in weapons fired, and there have been ZERO reported civilian casualties resulting.
All told, while I have some serious reservations about strikes, I support them on this limited and restricted basis because while doing something has a cost, so does not doing something. Daesh might well do a Paris-style attack in the UK. After all, they've already tried. But Corbyn's notion that we'll be less safe if we act seems, firstly, simply craven, and secondly, naive and idiotic. What does he think Daesh think of us .... that because we're conducting air operations against them in Iraq they're okay with that and won't try to hit the UK, but if we do it in Syria too, they will? Oh please, JC, what planet are you on?
This I like the sound of. Killing innocent peoples families is a great recruitment tool for extremism as well as an awful price to pay. If it's just combatants that are getting hit the humanitarian concerns are gone and a major recruitment tool is denied from them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
We just need to be very careful about making sure we're selecting the right targets and not using AC-130 gunships to level hospitals like a certain military have done recently.....
But why was the RAF the only one that could help in that time? Air support is (in my completely non-expert opinion) better able to be provided by the US and French from their carriers, or the Russians from their base *in Syria*. If it's a question of cost, we don't we just help out financially and make more efficient use of that money? Or if we have an airbase in a good location, why not allow these other nations to make use of it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
David Schneider (off of Alan Partridge) put this together for Huffington Post...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CVNzRLMWUAANiRJ.png
Tempted though I am to ignore the simplistic view,
Doing nothing will cause Daesh to completely stop their attempts to create a Caliphate
Doing nothing will allow Assad to become a benign democratically elected president and stop the persecution of his own people
Doing nothing will allow the Kadizi people to live in peace in their own state
Doing nothing will send a powerful message to Russia, who will immediately follow suit.
Doing nothing will immensely improve the human rights of people living in the region
It is impossible to predict what doing nothing would have done in Libya or Iraq, although it is likely that Kuwait would now be part of Iraq, and the Kurds would have been gassed out of existence. Gadaffi would now be be peace ambassador to the UN. (Not)
In fact reading that article really re-I forces why we should intervene, because however bad intervening might be, doing nothing is likely to be a whole lot worse.
honest answer - we've got the best kit and the best pilots for this job.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
Seriously.
Pilots, I'm honour bound to agree. Kit? I'm not so sure. I don't doubt we've got some incredibly useful bits, but I don't think they're game-changers, and it would seem to make more sense (again, from a position of ignorance) to supply those bits to our close allies for them to deliver from their superior platforms. Yes I know, platform integration is not simple or cheap, but other than pride I don't know why you wouldn't want to deliver the best weapons from the best platforms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zak33
It was the 2nd invasion of Iraq and the invasion of Afghanistan on spurious, fraudulent grounds, which probably led us to the current situation. I'm pretty sure the plight of the Kurds did not even present a flicker in the minds of Bush and Blair, it was just a happy coincidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
It's perhaps undeniable that Islamic State is the most vile regime that has arisen in living memory.. arguably worse than the Nazis (in principle at least, not in scale) as IS flaunt and terrorise the world with their crimes; The Nazis tried to hide their atrocities in an attempt to reconcile with a more civilised mindset, be at home or abroad.
The problem is politicians know this action won't stop any future incarnation of fascistic Wahhabism, even if Islamic State is wiped out at least as a geographic entity. This rationale of bombing IS is about backing up a fellow, like-minded Western democratic ally, which can create it's own advantages and inevitable drawbacks.
It's anyone's guess where this is leading. There are massive geo-political,socio-economic,historical factors, that are simply not being given adequate coverage in the media, be it the sectarianism within Islam, Saudi Arabia's role in Wahhabism and fellow arab world to the fall of the Ottoman Empire and food and oil prices influenced possibly by climate change.
Islamic State is a malignant cancer and one that will kill if not removed, but why did this cancer form in the first place? There are no simple answers to this question and bombing alone is too simple.
Tornado's are old planes but they can carry Brimstone missiles.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
Typhoons are newer planes and can carry Paveways
Only Saudi have bought Brimstone so far I think. US and France would love it and we will cable clip it under the wings of F35's when we finally get them
Meantime... if you want the highest chance of hitting what you aim at and not killing many innocents.. you use Brimstone, even if it means asking the RAF to bring it to the party
here .. this is better than me
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brimstone_%28missile%29
Which is exactly my point - subject to the platform difficulties I mentioned before - if we're being asked to participate just for brimstone then why not give brimstone to our allies who are probably better placed to deliver it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zak33
I think that's more likely to be a gracious excuse to allow the UK to play in the skies alongside the US and France, and to attempt to justify it's continued place in the world military order.
give it to them?
please dont be offended, but to install it, learn it and practice with it takes years! You dont just plug it in fella. It's a MONSTER integration and then eternal hours of practice and perfection.
Unlike a rifle that you could make and send over and train to a soldier who would then spend a few months perfecting.. a missile system is so intricate and so .. integrated into an airforce, that it's a mammoth challenge covering YEARS.
It seems we haven't learnt the lessons from the Iraq war and other campaigns. All what the bombing does is to act as a recruitment drive for these terrorist groups. Destroy one terrorist group and another one pops up. Even the Daily Mail understand this!
The only way to deal with this conflict is an holistic plan involving political, economic and humanity aid to these areas in conjunction with military force on the land.
I'm not against the principle of military force but really painting Corbyn as a terrorist sympathiser in order to carry out attacks in Syria smacks of playground behaviour. Clearly Cameron and others just can't do grown up debates.
I 'd love to trust our government and military commanders to stick to the tight line on this one. I dug out the wording of the motion, and the key bits IMNSHO (after all the preamble justifying/legalising military action) are "the Government will not deploy UK troops in ground combat operations" and "taking military action, specifically airstrikes, exclusively against ISIL in Syria".Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
The first strike was launched an hour after the vote was declared and targetted ... an oil field. Effective at reducing Daesh's ability to generate income? Potentially, in the medium to long term. But it also looks like a great way to devastate the infrastructure and reduce Syria's ability to generate income if Daesh can be defeated and a legitimate government installed. That's an oil field that's out of action until some very expensive rebuilding work is completed.
If the government genuinely believes there's a credible ground force available in Syria, and they don't want to commit ground troops to the effort, I don't understand why they didn't authorise air support for ground actions, rather than air strikes targeted at - as has now become apparent - Syrian infrastructure. I'm pretty sure there are more effective ways to lock out Daesh's finances and disrupt their supply routes than just blowing things up...
i'm gonna try to better explain my comparison of differing missile sets
Imagine a country with intel motherboards, using AGP slots and VGA cables, but with Windows 10 and mouse keyboard combos.
Imagine a friendly country with AMD cpus and PCI express card with HDMI cables running Apple OS and using touch screens and no mouse keyboard
Both countried systems are equally advanced, and if you got in one you'd boot it and use it to surf the web with no issues and 20 hours training.
But one does only CAD and one does only Excel
now try to swap graphics cards to get the excel machine to run the CAD. Wrong slot, wrong cable, wrong driver package, wrong input interface and wrong operators who cant use the other software.
I think thats a better shot at an analogy
When the west embarks on these middle eastern escapades, after the dust from all the bombing settles who do you think wins the contracts to repair, and then run said infrastructure? If they really wanted to hit ISIS's finances, they'd look to Saudi Arabia.......smoke and mirrors, and we've seen it all before.Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
All this talk of Brimstone bombs by the establishment hitting targets moving at 70mph and they then bomb a static old field?Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
Hmm. Is the "truth" already being twisted to suit particular goals as suggested?
We're already bombing in Iraq... it's just shifting the borders a bit
Very true, look at Halliburton in IraqQuote:
Originally Posted by opel80uk
Paveways used for that. (Yes another country could have done that.)Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hand
But while the RAF are out there they need familiarisation flights and you have no idea what intel they gained while on that run out. We don't know if they needed to use or test systems in that area, nor whether they found anything interesting or learned stuff. We don't know what they're doing for a reason. So that they dont get shot down easily.
People who think airstrikes are a bad idea: People who have studied ISIS' methods. Civilians in ISIS-occupied cities. Families of those killed in Paris.
People who think airstrikes are a fab idea: Our "leaders". Chickenhawks. ISIS themselves.
It's not even a mystery. They publish a *glossy magazine* about their damn gang. They're up front and open about what they want and how they want to achieve it - and western bombs in Syria is one of their biggest long-term goals. It's one of the three biggest ways to help drive recruitment.
The other two being "reject Syrian refugees", which we've been doing, and "drive a rift between Muslims and the west to help end integration", which we've been doing.
Want to talk "terrorist sympathisers"? There's your terrorist sympathisers. The ones helping ISIS with 100% of their goals.
And me, bombing Syria? A 3-way cluster with *every* side being awful, and each of those sides (including ISIS) being bankrolled by British allies? How does just bombing civilian cities like Raqqa help with that?
Why? I don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
The statement made was that the RAF were in the area, presumably flying missions in Iraq from their Akrotiri base. But others, be it US, French or whatever, were far enough away, or busy in other missions, that it took 40 minutes to get them there.
The point, though, was the highly artificial nature of a rather notional border. Daesh don't respect the border, the Iraqi government certainly can't and Assad's "government" seem to be hunched down in the western parts of the country with no say over let alone control of the border with Iraq. Or, for that matter, most of the border with Turkey which seens to either be under Kurdish control, or open to a free for all.
There seems to be something distinctly ludicrous about a situation where Daesh fighters can be attacking, say, Iraqi positions just inside Iraq, but if help shows up, they run a few hundred yards, cross an unenforced line in the sand, stick a rude gesture up at RAF pilots and the RAF aren't allowed to engage them, when a minute and 100 yards earlier, they could have.
If this border was a real border, in the modern sense, then Iraq would be expected to patrol and enforce one side of it, and the Syrian government, and military, to enforce the other side of it. But for years, that whole area has effectively been ungoverned, stateless if you like, and the border existing only as a notional line on a map, not in reality on the ground.
I just can't see any rational argument for why a bunch of murdering thugs like Daesh can be a legitimate target one side of that non-existent border, and not a few yards the other side of it.
The USA military want brimstone - whilst it outwardly looks like a Hellfire , the dual mode seeker and other improvements make it way ahead of anything the USA currently has - and both the USAF and USN want it (especially on the drones). Its down to the government to make that choice though.
As long as all the RAF do is air support for in theatre ground troops (eg the kurds) , and bombing IS abaility to make money (oil for example) and high level targets of opportunity - then its a positive step.
ofc pattern bombing of Raqqa would have a similar effect....
Nobody said Brimstone was the only use to which RAF planes would be put. But lots of people have asked what significant difference we would add, given that we had 8 (soon to be 16) aircraft in the region. Brimstone is one answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hand
But it's like a plumber having a blowtorch in his toolbag - that doesn't mean you expect him to use it on every job, such as changing a washer in a bath tap. Nor do you only call him for jobs needing a blowtorch. But when you do need a plumber with a blowtorch, not much else will do instead.
When you call out a plumber, you do expect him to have all the tools needed to do the bulk of commonplace jobs in his van.
The UK also are the only western country to use Paveway 4 - the USA went over to JDAM , we wanted paveway as it suited our needs better
Lots of airplanes in the skies already, but do we have the intelligence on the ground to provide us high value targets?
What is the end goal? I am under the impression that airstrikes is basically wack-a-mole in perpetuity. We can't stabilise the region without a stable government with the approval of the people capable and willing of mintaining security of the country. With the coalition and Russia at odds over Syria I am not sure how that can be achieved except perhaps dividing the country (by no mean a good solution but a less bad solution). North and South Korea is constantly at odds and sometime on the edge, but they managed to avoid all out war in many decades now.
So by extension, should we cease bombing in Iraq also?Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
The rational argument is one of respecting another nation's sovereignty. Iraq's govt. asked us to, Syria's are not only not asking, they're forbidding. I know, Daesh aren't respecting either govt. but that's surely something we want to show a mark of distinction with them over, not agreement.
I should have fleshed out my post a bit more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
I was inferring that infrastructure that may benefit the Assad regime gets targeted and destroyed by Paveway 4, if Islamic State is close to being driven out of that area. However say there is infrastructure in an IS area that is on the verge of falling into the hands of the FSA or Kurds, the coalition will only target IS accurately militarily say using the Brimstone bombs to destroy individual vehicles and small groups and leave the infrastructure intact. (This may imply that civilians in IS/Assad regime contested areas are more likely to be killed than civilians in IS/FSA+Kurd contested areas simply by the tactics/ordinance used.)
In time, the Syrian regime possibly may weaken for whatever reason and the dominoes are more aligned for collective collapse with fewer resources gained on the ground because of the scorched earth bombing tactics of the coalition. Assad in desperation may dare to use chemical weapons again (or some other wild card event) and there maybe a different president in the White House at that point willing to attack the regime even with the Russians involved to "finish" the civil war.
It not's that this approach would be a big secret for the coalition including the Brits.. It's just they maybe a bit more coy about it I'm willing to bet, given the refusal of the British to go war in 2013 even after the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian/Assad regime.
you see.. THAT is a good point. A great point.Quote:
Originally Posted by TooNice
Not "why does the RAF hit hardest, why dont the French do it with their tech?"
the questions is "whats the end game?"
Cant answer that..... I just like weapons!
Sadly the forums were reinstalled mid 2003, so we don't have the records of those who supported the Iraq war on the basis of "it'll totally be fine and quick"
I suspect to get around the fact that Syria didn't ask for it the PM invoked the phantom 70,000 rebels who would form a democratic government afterwards. So it's regime change - difference between now and the first vote is that Russia has exerted its influence on the area.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
Well, if there's a logical inconsistency in striking Daesh them in Iraq but not in Syria, then yes, it follows that resolving that inconsistency requires striking them in both or striking them in neither. It would resolve that inconsistency if we stopped striking them in Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
Of course, Corbyn was repeatedly challenged on exactly that question in his reply to Cameron, and repeatedly refused to endorse that.
As for respecting borders, generally that's not only a very good idea but international law. There are exceptions, however. A moral case can be made for ignoring that border regardless of Assad's wishes because he's not actually in charge in that part of the country. He's pretty much locked up in the western coastal strip around Damascus. If he was indeed in control, then he could put a stop to Daesh's cross-border operations from his country, couldn't he? But he isn't.
Then, there's that unanimous UN Security Council resolution. Unanimous. Of the entire security council, not just the permanent five. I'm astonished they actually managed to get not only the obvious countries (Russia and China) to vote with the US on an issue like that, but I rather expected Venezuela to vote the opposite way to the US on principle.
So I'd say justification, legal and moral, for ignoring the border comes from two grounds, one being the Resolution for "all necessary measures" to deal with Daesh, and the other being in support of the request from Iraq to deal with an organisation basing itself in Syria but invading, attacking and occupying chunks of Iraq. That is, after all, why we're flying air mussions over Iraq against them.
Which brings us back to logical inconsistencies. Why do we strike Daesh in Iraq because they invade from Syria, but don't pursue them in Syria? If Assad was or was even capable of dealing with them in Syria, it'd perhaps be different. But he isn't. And from what I can tell, he isn't even trying to.
The end point is stopping the Syrian civil war, destroying Daesh, getting internationally monitored free and fair elections in Syria to produce a government representing ALL population groups fairly, and rebuilding Syria into a sufficiently stable and prosperous country that millions of displaced Syrians, and millions more that fled into foreign refugee, both feel safe to go home and want to.Quote:
Originally Posted by TooNice
Of course, I feel that if we can do all that, can we also have an end to world poverty, a cure for cancer and the moon on a stick, please?
But sarcasm aside, the objective is to resolve the Syrian mess. This is, self-evidently, going to be hugely difficult especially given that Russia and Assad have a very different idea of what that looks like to the US and most other neighbours.
So the rationale is to do everything possible to contain, and degrade Daesh, while working on the wider political and diplomatic solution, such as via the Vienna process. If the rest of Syria can be persuaded to stop fighting each other, then and only then is there any coherent chance of getting sufficient ground forces together to deal with Daesh on the ground, short of sending in large numbers of western (mainly US) troops. And that is very unlikely to happen for two reasons: lack of any inclination to get involved on the ground by either the US administration or the US public; the fact that it'd probably be hugely counter-productive to undermining Daesh's recruiting sirens if western troops went into yet another Muslim country.
And yeah, nobody said it was going to be easy. Or fast.
The situation will never be solved without boots on the ground. Not ours, locals.
Breakup the region into autonomous regions per the Ottoman model. Notice how those regions roughly align with the areas now held by each combatant ? Each one would be settled by a series of Burhs to hold the region.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burh
http://geocurrents.info/wp-content/u...-Syria-Map.jpg
We can provide a Daesh state! A Pandoras box if you like. They get what they want and then everyone can be friends.
Because Iraq has has (some sort of Western backed) functioning Government that can fill the void left if/when ISIS are removed. Who are we helping in Syria, and who fills the void if/when they are removed? Who really are all the different groups of rebels fighting against ISIS in Syria, and what do they stand for? Or perhaps it's because Iraq have asked that we bomb ISIS targets, in coordination with Iraqi troops on ground battling ISIS, whereas there is no such collaboration in Syria.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
In fact, other than just bombing and hoping for the best, what IS the plan?
Errrr no. Take and hold by the people who live there. We help the ones we want to build forts and hospitals. Over time we take territory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Domestic_Ginger
I thought I'd just dealt with all that.Quote:
Originally Posted by opel80uk
The Vienna process, with Russia, Iran, Saudi, Jordan, Turkey, US, Frsnce, UK etc all around the table is supposed to come up with a route forward to a transitional government within 6 months, leading to internationally supervised elections within 18 months. That's their timetable, not mine.
The point is that even if Daesh didn't and never had existed, the warring parties in Syria have to somehow be brought to a compromise that all can put up with or we have permanent civil war.
Whether it can be done or not, and on that timescale or not, I don't know, but that's the process already underway. It's simply not the case that these strikes are happening in a political vacuum.
What can be done is being done, regardless of Daesh.
So on top of that, should everyone just stand back and let let Daesh do whatever they want from Syria, causing whatever death and destruction they can in Iraq and elsewhere, just because the Syrian regime can't or won't police their own country?
Suppose a terrorist group based itself in Canada, and the Canadian government either couldn't or wouldn't close them down. That group then organised, seized a chunk of Canada, and invaded the US seizing a couple of states, which they then declared to be a self-sustaining state. Would the US let it stand?
Any country capable of it wouldn't put up with invasion and attacks coming from a terrorist group basing itself in a neighbour, and if the neighbour couldn't or wouldn't deal with them, the attacked neighbour would.
So, does everyone sit back and let Daesh do it's thing without interruption because the wheels of diplomacy grind slowly, meanwhile shrugging our shoulders at Daesh's barbarity and murderous activities?
For that matter, is it possible to get stability within Syria if Daesh are left unchecked? Cameron's comment was that dealing with Daesh if necessary, but not sufficient. It's a step to sorting Syria, but by no means the whole path. Hence Vienna.
So, and correct me if I've read this wrong, the plan is to bomb, whilst having no overall military strategic plan, whilst hoping The Vienna process comes up with a plan?Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
What could possibly go wrong.
I think this is the key problem - if you have several groups in Syria who are so at odds with each other they've decided to take up arms, the chances of getting a single government to represent all of those groups is infinitesimal. Add to that the complication that outside influences are actively trying to eliminate one of those groups (however legitimate that decision may be), and ... well, I don't have words for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
One thing that does seem clear to me is that the concept of a large, coordinated ground force of Syrian moderates who will work together to eliminate Daesh is pie-in-the-sky thinking. I can see the attraction of bending the intel' that way; it's exactly what is required to realistically remove Daesh from the equation. But I don't see how you'll get that coordination without external influence, and AFAICT all the outside powers operating in the region have ruled out boots on the ground, which means you won't have the experienced and coordinated leadership those kinds of operations would need.
Given the negative emotive response the authorisation of airstrikes has had at home, I can only imagine the wave of emotions towards the UK that's currently sweeping through those Syrian "moderates" who are actually on the ground in the country. How many of them do we think will actually be pleased that the UK is bombing Daesh targets? How many of them will just see a foreign power bombing their country?
No, that's not the plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by opel80uk
The plan is "contain", and degrade. That's the point of air strikes. In Iraq, other ground forces can then start in on the ground, be it Baghdad-controlled Iraqis or Kurdish Peshmurga. That's been relatively effective, but far from job-done. But Daesh expansion has been stopped, and rolled back a bit, with a few major gains in towns retaken.
In Syria, right now, major ground force activity isn't on the cards because those that might do it are busy, mainly fighting each other. So, air strikes (by us at least) are supposed to be precise, targeted, and aimed at degrading Daesh, be that by destroying command centres (including mobile), specific 'high value' targets when they can be identified and hit within a restricted RoE, of their financial infrastructure.
Presumably, sooner or later, some solution has to be found to the Syrian civil war. Bu it's not in the UKs power to wave a magic wand and come up with a peace accord everyone will follow, any more than the US, Russia, Iran, the UN or the tooth fairy can. All anyone can do is trh to get everyone talking, then narrowing down, compromising, etc. Well, they're at least talking and sat at the table, even if that largely means Iran and Saudi sat at the table hurling insults at each other. They are at least at the table. It's not a huge step, but all solutions start with the first step.
Remember that news footage of Martin McGuiness and Iain Paisley sat at the same table, apparently quite comfortable doing it? I was astonished they weren't trying to strangle each other but for all the imperfections, tensions, disagreements and periodic (sometimes serious) spats, they (as in both sides) are still working together. Who'da thunk it?
Besides, however slow and tentative the procsss is, got a better idea? If so, I'm sure we, and the entire international community, would love to hear it?
About the only other way to stop the war would be for the one superpower capable of going in militarily and putting the war to an end won't do so, partly because they aren't willing to, partly because almost nobody wants them to, and partly because it's be akin to putting out an out of control barbeque with 1000 gallons of kerosene a bit at a time. Odds are, half the Islamic world would also go up in flames, and so would Russia and Iran.
So 'we', as in the outside world, can't wade in, knock heads together and tell them to behave. About the only way forward from where we are, which isn't where we wish we were, is to get all parties to talk.
Right now, we've got all parties outside Syria at the table. It's a small start, but a start. And it might be the easy bit compared to getting the non-Daesh combatants inside Syria sat around a table. And that's the next bit.
But does anyone think anything, anything at all, short of the rest of us conforming to their perverted world view, will get ideologically and religiously Daesh fanatical Daesh to talk?
So yes, there's a plan. It involves lots of parties with conflicting vested interests all trying to reach a compromise. And they're talking. Personally, I suspect that if some compromise can be reached whereby parties like Iran and Russia are convinced their interests are preserved, or at least better served by a negotiated settlement than an ongoing civil war feeding a cancer like Daesh, then they can get the Assad regime to the table.
After all, that airliner bomb got Russia's attention, and Iran is slowly and cautiously reaching a guarded rapprochement with the US and the West. They do have interests to protect but they also have reason to want a stable Syria and rid of Daesh.
International diplomacy is the art of the possible. It requires all parties to first recognise that they're better served by agreement than the status quo on ongoing civil war. We may be at that point now. Then it requires agreement on detail, and getting there is going to be slow and tortuous, and each party will be fighting tooth and claw to get the best they can. What does Russia want, and more importantly, what will it accept and not accept? Preservation of in-country bases? Trade? More? And similarly for others, like Iran for whom Syria is clise to a cluent state. Or was, anyway, before it imploded.
Nobody said it would be easy, or fast. But the plan is there, albeit pretty loose. But as tying it down tighter requires negotiation and agreement, it's the best that's possible right now.
But there is a plan, and early but tentative progress.
Air strikes (by us at least, though Russia might be different) is intended to do what we can to contain and degrade Daesh, for as long as it takes for that diplomatic route go grind slowly on.
That diplomatic plan is there, and grinding, but we can't control how long it takes or even guarantee success? But, got a better idea?
Meanwhile, some opposition seems to be based on a spurious notion that because we, the UK, can't solve the diplomatic problem and do everything, we shouldn't do anything.
The rest of the opposition to strikes seems to be that joining air strikes will do more harm than good. Well, in terms of inflaming "Muslims", it seems to me that most utterly disown Daesh, and absolutely don't want ths perception that Daesh somehow represent them. I'm not sure how they're supposed to get inflamed by this. Some, no doubt, have some sympathy for Daesh's objectives even if not their brutality, but again, how will strikes in Syria inflame them more than strikes in Iraq already do?
Some say we (the UK) will be a bigger target. I don't buy that, either. My bet is we're already very high up the target list and a hit is 'highly likely" in the UK. We've already been targeted abroad. I would not be at all surprised if sooner or later, we get hit, and I can't see strikes in Syria making an iota of difference. If they can they will, whether we strike Daesh in Syria and Iraq, just in Iraq, or whether we pack up, run back home and hide under the duvet.
Taking on Daesh is a bad option, with thexsingle saving grace, IMHO, that it's better than not. Because we always have to remember, inaction is a choice with consequences too. Doing nothing while we wait for diplomacy is a rusk, just as is doing something.
Here's a prediction.
If we now get attacked, the anti-strike camp will say it's because of air strikes in Syria. It wouldn't surprise me if Daesh said that, too. It's good poop-stirring. This ignores the intelligence assessment that it's been "highly likely" for ages, which is one step short of specific intelligence of a specific imminent attack. It also ignores seven foiled attempts this year alone.
What makes you think not extending strikes to Syria is better, safer, or more effective in destroying Daesh?
Well, I was against it albeit perhaps not for the same reason as many who were against it. I didn't consider how long / expensive the war would become or what would have happener after Saddam Hussein was gone. I wanted more concrete evidence they had WMD since that was the pretext of the war.Quote:
Originally Posted by directhex
Basically, I thought there was a case, at least for the US, to go after Bin Ladden, and as ally we were bound to help, but the war in Iraq, no.
Syria, it is a tough one. Just like Saddam Hussein, I am not sure if it is our business to deal with Assad, at least directly (the UN should be the one dealing with those kind of things IMO). But ISIS has made it our problem by having killed British and our allies. Not only that, I can't help but we (the coalition) didn't have a hand in creating ISIS by disposing of Saddam Hussein and not finishing the job properly afterwards. So I do think that there is a stronger case for action, both to finish what we started but also because they -are- taking the war to us. The problem is that I am not sure if more planes and more bomb is going to achieve our strategic goal. The coalition didn't defeat the Taliban just by dropping bombs alone. I do not doubt that hits on high value targets is effective, but won't win the war.
Sadly though, I am not convinced that doing nothing is going to make ISIS go away either (as I have seen people on FB comment).
I've been following the news pretty closely but completely missed Vienna process. So there is grand plan, but with Russia at odds with many nations involved I wonder if we can even take a first step forward.
Every party is trigger happy, no parties at odd with each other have tried to burry the hatchet against a common enemy. ISIS decided to down an airliner full Russian victims, when Russia had been accused by the coalition of hitting more against non-ISIS groups. Instead of uniting together as victims of ISIS (France was hit not long after), Turkey downs a Russian jet. One step forward, two step back. Our bombs may be smart enough to win battles, but we really need smarter leaders / diplomate to win the war.
This is the issue - why is the UK overly concerning itself with destroying Daesh? If Daesh are destroyed in Syria and Iraq, does anyone think that it will suddenly reduce the threat level in the UK from attacks carried out by Islamists? Is the UK under any serious threat from Daesh? And when I say 'under threat', I don't mean in the way we've come to understand it in the mollycoddled West, where any loss of life suddenly means we have to take on the role of the worlds policeman, but threatened in the way that Fascism threatened us, our way of life, our liberty and our nationhood, during the Nazi's rise to power, as so disingenuously compared to the threat by Hilary Benn. The UK, as a country, is clearly not in any danger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
So that brings us on to the moral obligation of destroying ISIS for the good of……. Who exactly? Yes they are barbaric, but so are lots of people, Governments and states. We sell arms to a whole host of regimes who behave in barbaric ways - where is the outcry on here when our politicians whore themselves out to Saudi Arabia for their oil money, whilst they behead people for apostasy? It's the West's role in the Middle East that has directly led to the rise of ISIS, and yet we're doing exactly the same thing as before, using physical force with no clear military or political plan in place at the moment, either currently or post conflict. What was that definition of madness again?
The UK should stay out of it, and get the hell out of Iraq too. Let Saudi Arabia sort it out – we've sold them enough bloody equipment.
walk away and hope someone else sorts it ... and if they don't... worry about it later?Quote:
Originally Posted by opel80uk
Prime DirectiveQuote:
Originally Posted by Zak33
dont be offended Top Gun but I don't tend to use Star trek as full advice
I tend to resort to historical facts and preferably ones we can learn from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winsto...gs_controversy
Churchill bombed dresden. It was destroyed. Nearly utterly. It has been considered a War Crime by many. By many others it has been considered one of the final moves to crush Hitler.
Yes we were at war with Hitler. No it wasn't a "shall we join in moment".
But did it NEED doing?? ...... Dresden...was STUFFED FULL of injured people and civilians. Stuffed full. Maybe 200k people died who were not directly fighting back.
In life, our leaders must make hard ass decisions.. ones which would leave the likes of you and I shuddering in our sweat-drenched beds every night for eternity.
They don't use Star Trek as advice... though perhaps they ARE following The Princess Bride, "never fight a land war in East Asia" by bombing.......
No one, anywhere, is remotely suggesting that the UK is under threat of invasion, or of an attack in the UK that would warrant a large scale bombing mission. So no, not worry about it later, but worry about it when it's something to actually worry about. And we're not 'walking away' as that would imply we were already in Syria.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zak33
Russia and the West can't even agree on who we shoukd be bombing, we don't know who the rebels are, and we're relying on them to do the fighting on the ground. And there is, so far, no concensus on what happens post ISIS defeat. In short, we haven't really got a clue. But yeah, let's do it anyway, it's worked really well in Libya and Iraq after all.
not invasion no. I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by opel80uk
Though the world changes fast when you let go of power....
but is the UK under threat at all? Yup. Every day. SO is Russia. And America. And France. And Belgium. And Germany, And Spain.,,... the list is endless.
Why have people been shot at holiday resorts or been beheaded online?
UK citizens should be able to wander the globe safe. As we allow others who wander our green and pleasant land on short trips. (Unless they bring risk with them).
Do I feel the need to attack in order to defend? Personally I am a negotiator first and a puncher waaay after. But what when there is no negotiation? What happens when no negotiation potential exists?
How do you negotiate with a hidden power?
Small seeds can grow fast opel80uk. They can often die.. but sometimes they grow fast. Somedays you have to dominate the seed.. kill the weed.
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
And that's why this is so difficult an issue to decide on over what to do, or not do.Quote:
Originally Posted by opel80uk
Perhaps a legal analogy summarises where I am on the case for strikes.
If it were a criminal case, the test of guilt would be "beyond reasonable doubt".
But this is more like a civil case where the issue is whether it's better, on balance of probabity, to join the coalition with strikes in Syria or not and, on balance, it is in my opinion. But it certainly isn't beyond reasonable doubt.
I've done quite a lot of reading, quite a lot of TV watching and tried to inform myself as well as any interested private individual can. I've then tried to inagine what I'd do if I was one of those MPs that actually had to make a decision that mattered. The only thing I'm certain about is that I'm glad I'm not one, and am not in the position where on a given day and date I have to decide to vote yea, nay or to abstain. The latter, frankly, is a cop-out for an MP that is paid to make these decisions.
Given that deciding and voting no is every bit as much a decision with potentially very real consequences as voting yes, I concluded I'd vote yes, but with some very real reservations.
Like chemotherapy, the idea is to poison the cancer before the cancer kills the patient and, also like chemo, if you're going to do it, the sooner the better. The chances of success are better and you won't need as big a dose.Quote:
Originally Posted by opel80uk
Where we differ is that I think it already is something to worry about.
The RAF campaign is highly accurate and is believed to have resulted in zero civilian casualties in the battle. Traditionally you would weigh up the civilian death toll with the strategic importance of eliminating the target. The RAF has taken a stance that if civilians are seen in the area the mission is aborted.
Our Tornado aircraft that both Germany and ourselves operate are relatively unique as an highly accurate and agile bombing platform and our brimstone missiles are second to none. They are incredibly accurate but expensive and there were reports we almost ran out recently.
Russia is being deliberately less accurate with its bombing but has turned its attention on the oil supplies which seems to be our mission at the moment. The U.S is bombing on such a larger scale that civilian casualties may be harder to prevent.
Do realise this though. The accounts of thousands of woman and children dying as a result of the air campaign being posted on Facebook are not true, not even close to it. Most of the air campaign is being carried out in areas where the civilian population has long since left or was never present (oil fields etc). Where they can be affected (such as civilian drivers of oil tucks), leaflets are dropped warning of the impending bombing giving them a choice. All of the above occurs with 'eyes on' the target throughout from drones etc.
One thing is for sure, we'll all be talking about this Wahhabi/Middle East nightmare for many years and decades to come.
If there is a genuine attempt to solve the Middle East's entrenched problems (not just Syria's) then military action certainly does have a logical use as well as an emotional one. This approach is highly unlikely to happen however, simply because the political will in the West is virtually non-existent as well as western "allies" such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey will refuse to agree to any changes that may threaten their power base.
Saudi Arabia, is one to keep a close eye on by the way, as they're now struggling with the oil price crash which could fall even more with Iran coming into the oil market with sanctions being lifted next year.
Saudi Arabia managed to successfully sidestep the Arab Spring revolutions by increasing welfare/benefits to their poorest (of which there are plenty) paid for by their oil wealth as well as suppressing uprisings in neighbouring Gulf Arab states. The primary driver behind the "Arab Spring" was food prices rising to un-affordable levels.. the desire for democracy was a distant second at best.
If Iran turns the screws on Saudi Arabia by increasing their proposed supply of oil next year, it will push Saudi Arabia closer to the edge and possibly over the edge with civil unrest a serious possibilty in the longer run.
We all want to believe that this bombing and future diplomatic and humanitarian efforts will work . I like the idea of Islamic State being wiped off the face of the Earth, but what we are witnessing now is certainly not the beginning of the end, in this bloody middle eastern story.
Oh dear, I've provided a link to introduce you to a concept that meddling in foreign affairs usually results in unintended consequences and often disastrous. This concept has been around since the 1960's. Fifty years later, more and more people are recognising this philosophy after disastrous foreign policy in countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zak33
Interesting enough, it's amazing how many Start Trek concepts, for example wireless communication devices, have now become part of our everyday life!
If you want to use your poor Winston Churchil's Dresden bombing analogy then I can only think you've not understood the main issues or fully understood history. Even Churchill had tried to distance himself shortly after the controversial Dresden bombing campaign. Perhaps you've no interest in making Syria a stable country given your love of weapons and low consideration for human life.
Now we're hearing reports that the Syrian army was wrongly targeted and resulted in casualties by the coalition bombing according to this report http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35024408 .
The problem as I see it, is the case for bombing in Syria has been exaggerated with a low margin of error for a successful outcome.
Not sure you read the report to the end, as it is suggested that it may have been Russian aircraft that attacked the base.
Of course difficult for the press to verify, but if true, it raises the question of whether it was a genuine error in the confusion of war, or a deliberate attempt by Putin to destabilise diplomatic relations between Assad and the coalition.
I'd like to think it was a genuine error, but Putin doesn't have a particularly good track record.
The Russians are also fighting with relatively old technology due to their financial situation. We've come along way since the first gulf war with accuracy, intelligence gathering and the use of drones.Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
They will make far more mistakes but being Russian are unlikely to admit it.
Gotta love that line every time someone rolls it out - "oh yes, we've fairly confident that we didn't kill anyone that didn't deserve it". I'm almost jealous that there are people out there was such a gloriously simplistic world view. Bombing campaigns with no civilian casualties; does such a thing genuinely exist? And let's not forget, the single biggest beneficiary of this campaign is of course, MBDA (and in turn BAE & Airbus), who are I'm sure enjoying the big chunk of forward orders rolling in. Wooo.Quote:
Originally Posted by walibe
^ you did take walibe's quote out of context, where he went on to say that UK will not attack,if there are civilians in the area.
There are two caveats, one is that it depends on the depth of knowledge, and I'd be surprised if there were not SF on the ground gathering intelligence.
The other is that combatants may not be in a formal army, so the definition (and therefore identification) of 'civilians' becomes blurred.
From a propaganda perspective it is good for Daesh to claim civilians killed, especially when those claims cannot be verified, or the actual combatant status of those killed is uncertain.
But worried about it in what sense? Do you mean from a UK security perspective? Or do you mean that you are worried that a state in the Middle East being formed based on the values of ISIS? Because if it's that, I'm sure there are one or two similar to that in existence already that the UK already does plenty of business with. And if it's the former, I'm not sure how bombing Syria will stop 2 or 3 nutjobs getting hold of explosives and blowing up some parts of London. The fact is, most of us are far, far more likely to be killed crossing the road, and that's not likely in itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
But furthermore, we've done all of this already. We turned Iraq into a basket case, and went one better in Libya, which is effectively now a failed state. So we move on to Syria, which has all the right ingredients for being an even bigger disaster than the two I mentioned. And yet people still support getting involved. Beggers belief.
Someone else on here mentioned that UK citizens 'should be able to wander the globe safe'. It's that kind of naivety, betraying a complete disconnect with how millions of people across the world have to live, that makes me think us in the West are not the best placed people to be meddling in middle eastern affairs.
I mean in the sense that anyone that doesn't believe as they do is on their target list as "deserving" to die. It's conform or die. The only thing that prevennts them being a threat to us directly is limited ability to reach us. Yet. But they are a direct threat to anybody and everybody else in the area, and most of those are Muslims.Quote:
Originally Posted by opel80uk
They are a threat because of their extreme ideology, conform or die. Reasonable people can disagree and still co-exist. Daesh don't seem to see it that way.
More revenge killing can only lead to more revenge killing.
I'm against bombing anyone.
We have a moral duty to avoid injuring or killing civilians, but even if we were successful in hitting the terrorists without a single civilian casualty, I will bet that propaganda on the other side will paint a picture of hundreds of dead civilians.
That said I wonder if dropping leaflet is really effective. What stops the terrorists from telling the populace that attempt to run escape will result in getting shot?
One thing I haven't spent much time thinking is.. what would be the cost of inaction. That is to say, US, Russia and any country not bordering with the region withdraw.
Without having to worry about bombs falling on their heads, wouldn't the leadership be able operate more freely, and create more elaborate plots? I have seen people on FB suggest that ISIS would just crumble if the bombs were to stop, but I have not seen a credible argument for that.
Bombing won't stop lone wolf attacks. I wouldn't be surprised if it increases even unless you can take out those that inspires quickly. But it may have an impact on their ability to make bigger, potentially more catastrophic plans that requires a fair amount of time and resources.
If anyone actually thinks ISIS or Daesh will be diplomatic or 'come to the table'. They won't.
If the general population said no to bombing and the government abided by it, what other options would the government have?
Politics discussion on Hexus .. what a joke ... lol
Well, the nature of politics is that different people have different views. After all, if everyone thought exactly the same, it'd be a very short discussion, consisting of an OP posting a view, and everyone else agreeing. That'd be a riveting read. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by OilSheikh
Opel and I, for example, disagree somewhat, and on a subject where nobody can prove their view is right. So discussion is about justifying your view, challenging different views, and just maybe, someone adapting a position. That adapting might be changing your view in response to points or arguments you hadn't heard of, or seen before, or (more likely, I suspect) the effort of justifying your view to someone else leads you to think through your own view and probably end up even more convinced.
That's what debate is for, isn't it?
After all, opel and I see this differently, but it's a mature, proper discussion not a name-slinging flamefest.
Ultimately, most political debates are probably futile in that rarely will people change their views. Sadly, even years later, we can't be sure what was right, because we can't know what would have happened had things been done differently.
For instance, claims that Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya ended badly. Well, true, to a point. What we don't and can't know is how they'd have gone without intervention. The Libya intervention was supposed to be about preventing Ghaddafi slaughtering an entire rebel city (Benghazi IIRC). So, bad though it is, the slaughter may have been worse without intervention. In Afghanistan, the Taliban had every opportunity to deal with Al Queda prior to invasion but refused, preferring, on ideological grounds it seems, to harbour those that carried out 9/11. So what would AQ have done next, had they not been driven into hiding?
And Iraq .... Saddam had WMD programs. Again, he defied the UN over and over for years. So yeah, the "after" phase was messed up, and badly, but who knows where it would have led had he remained in power? The US couldn't maintain invasion-strength forces indefinitely, and Saddam played his bluffing game out right to the end. So, if the US hadn't gone in, maybe he'd have rebuilt his WMD capability, and having done so, reverted to threatening neighbours. Maybe, if the US had backed off, if'd have been impossible to rebuild the forces later and a resurgent Saddam would have succeeded in his nuclear ambitions. Then, how bad could things have become?
The simple truth is we never know if things turning out bad after action is better or worse than they would have been, which makes any political argument on any forum futile because it won't change decisions by governments and nobody can know for sure if action was a choice between bad and better outcomes, or bad and much worse outcomes.
I joined the RAF because of the humitarian roles it plays throughout the world. It strives to be a force for good throughout the world (part of its mission statement). Whilst our hands are often tied on where we carry out operations, the manor in which we conduct them across all three services is largely our own. The professionalism, bravery and excellence of these services is second to none.
Whilst it's true that members of the armed services are not treated with much respect in comparison to other countries (although the respect is not demanded or asked for) neither are our police men and woman, firefighters and paramedics. Yet the quiet (and otherwise) work of all of these services (and more) allows us to have the right to conduct conversations like this in the first place, to debate and to take sides and form opinions. Try doing that in the Middle East.
Will the air strikes change anything? That is open to great debate. We have not had much luck over the last 100 or more years in the Middle East. However could we site idly by whilst people who arnt the right race, religion or sexuality are wiped from the face of the planet? You may remember that in the 1930s we did just that, and still to this day live with the heavy conscious that we didn't do more sooner.
Excellent point walibe, but there is the issue of repercussions. I think it's fair to say that Vietnam was the first mass media covered war, with video action beamed into the homes of people barely hours after it happened. Whilst not trying to downplay the atrocities of the USA/ARVN public opinion was greatly swayed by single images, whilst they might have represented a salient point such as the iconic photo Phan Thi Kim Phuc aka Napalm Girl, public opinion in many circles bore little relationship to reality.
Some people believed that only one side was evil, as such every mistake became fuel for their fire. Many reports were contradictory at best downright lies at worst.
In the circumstances of aerial bombing in Syria, we will see similar such things, videos of atrocities will be broadcast live, relayed on the internet ad infinitum. Some will be true, many will be false.
It doesn't matter how many checks, failsafes and good judgement the RAF employ, some people will simply make up the narrative that suits them best. Sadly, these are real repercussions.
As much as someone like Trump believes that there are "no go" areas for the police in London due to muslim gangs, some people will believe the facebook posts, they will be given credibility by the fact we are "active" in that region. Hatred can and will be generated even when it has no bearing on reality at worst and is taken out of context at best. We must be aware of that.
Politics on the world stage, even when meddling in other people's blood feuds isn't based on rational thought. I mean the load of nonsense these people have as their beliefs should demonstrate a complete lack of rational thought. We are simply damned if we do and damned if we don't. It's sad, and I definitely don't envy people like you who have no choice in your part in it. It further saddens me because I see no end game, rather nothing short of genocide. You can't make people who have deeply held incongruent views stop fighting each other by blowing both sides up.
OK I'm going to post this, I hope the wording is understandable and somehow relatable.
I've been using some Rakia as cold medicine. I no longer feel like I've a cold, so I can only assume it's working, as it's home made I've no idea what strength it is, I'd guess it's about 55%, you can light it, and I don't think it's 60%. Cures the throat itch.
As many hexites know I've a slightly unusual mind, I'm marred with dyslexia/dysgraphia, but I've other aspects that are rather exceptional as far as our best testing can show. The downside is sometimes I get almost crushed by where my mind runs. I see paths, weighted paths, things that can happen, things that really probably won't happen. I can solve certain problems as easily as many can say "that is blue" the path, the solution is clear. I've spent a long time in research labs, being a guinea pig as I support such ethos that we get from such research, I know that on paper I'm a special little snowflake, and we are not talking just in the top percentile with these attributes.
This whole situation weighs me down. The problem is I feel overwhelmed by a series of possibilities that are anemic to certain moral values I still wish to cling to. I can't begin to explain how bad this can feel, I can't shut off this kind of analysis, please understand I set records when being analysed by therapists when it comes to certain kinds of spacial reasoning, I was granted money for being dyslexic, and for abilities to play with cubes that are half red and half white making simple geometric forms. Reality isn't what we tell children it will be.
I can see no solutions that are workable. The only solutions, one of which will play out, involve mass death... I hate this. I understand the behaviour of these actors, I realise the history. I try to draw parallels with say the troubles but honestly no one is willing to fund a violence abatement force (rightly or wrongly in NI the army and the police did prevent violence overall if we ignore the implementation details).
I hate this so much. I have no optimism, I feel the adage of least worst solution doesn't begin to do justice, we will see the deaths of millions, regardless of any actions we take or do not take we will foster resentment. Too much of the problem stems from a cultural sense of political immutability.
Frankly in the grand scheme bombing Syria or not will have little impact, it's all grim either way, I find this thread in part to be the debate about how to shuffle the deck chairs on the titanic, wahhabism and salafism are about to have their day. I hope their god has mercy on their soles.
The problem, sadly, does not have a unilateral or black and white solution, so any action will have consequences, some good, some bad.
The question becomes one of which likely outcome is the best for the most people, and over the longest period of time, and that then becomes a fine judgement call, and one I'm glad I don't have to make.
Looking back, mistakes have been made in the Middle East, but we can't go back and re-model the past, and perhaps those actions created the conditions for the creation of Daesh, but maybe not.
But we are in the here and now, and Daesh and other extremists do pose a threat both in the UK, and to those who do not agree with their doctrine in the territory under their control. We could turn away and ignore it, but doing nothing may have its own consequences in years to come.
It is not a trivial problem.
Well said. But, past participations in political threads have essentially tarnished my reputation on the forum and I now avoid them with a bargepole. And, some users will also go as far as highlighting your said view on subsequent posts you make in any other threads in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
Take a break my friend. Not just from this thread but from the anguish of trying to resolve the unresolvable.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
Extremely late to the party here, but here goes.
I don't think bombing Syria is worthwhile, it neither generates value for money (lives saved/improved vs money spent), nor does it represent a long term solution to the problem is ISIS.
If we are concerned about the region, we need to organise a multi-national armed force, led by the powers than be in the region who are interested in stablising the situation and enforce the collective will of those forces on the dissenting population.
Air strikes, strike me as "well we have to do *something*, let's drop some bombs on a few targets and pat ourselves on the back"
The problem is, which local power has the support of the dissenting population? We can't know that without an election, or at least a thorough informal poll, but that isn't going to happen under the present government which the coalition would also like to see gone. And also notice that all the "moderate rebels" other than the Kurds have been big enough to be reported by names by the media. Doesn't fill me with the confidence that there is a group likely to hold the mandate of the people even if elections are held.
To be fair, while I don't think that anyone is convinced that dropping bomb is going to win the war either on the field or ideologically, it is probably disruptive to their operations. A few more cities, like Kobani, would probably have fallen without air support, and separately, many more Yazidis would have died.
This, a thousand times. I have had this argument more times than I can count... too many people conflate "we need to do something" with "we are justified in air strikes" and refuse to entertain other perspectives. They will serve no greater purpose besides being a despicable waste of money and civilian lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucio
Another reassuring statistic here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35144420
Some 100,000 rebels (roughly a third of rebel groups) in Syria share Islamic States Wahabbi views..
????
But once we bomb ISIS, those rebels will see see the error of their ways.... right?.....RIGHT?!Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hand
So if we don't do anything, the rebels will see the error of their ways?Quote:
Originally Posted by opel80uk
Of course, military action alone will not produce a solution, but it is a (headline grabbing) part of a possible solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Edmund Burke