No "boots on the ground" ?
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: England
Age: 32
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
42 might be the answer, but what is the question...
This isn't a question of how do we do it, but WHAT do we want to do.
If we don't know precisely what we want to do then we will end up in exactly the same situation as last decade. But with less gear. But we all knew that anyway.
This isn't a question of how do we do it, but WHAT do we want to do.
If we don't know precisely what we want to do then we will end up in exactly the same situation as last decade. But with less gear. But we all knew that anyway.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would start by announcing that all UK citizens operating in Iraq in support of terrorist entities, directly or indirectly, will be targetted by international forces and removed with all available force.
I think a wholse slice of humble pie needs to be taken regarding the incorrect decision to go after Assad when actually, the guys we should have been removing were the FSA.
oh, and a ruling from the international community that Geneva convention, and any form of international human rights have been removed from ISIS and their supporters including individual state legislation
I think a wholse slice of humble pie needs to be taken regarding the incorrect decision to go after Assad when actually, the guys we should have been removing were the FSA.
oh, and a ruling from the international community that Geneva convention, and any form of international human rights have been removed from ISIS and their supporters including individual state legislation
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was never sure Saddam WAS a threat to the west - certainly to his own population, probably the Iranians and the Saudis given the chance (not stupid enough to try it with the Israelis) ... but the west?
Since we invaded Iraq the disruption and death toll have been enormous and we haven't exactly made a lot of new friends either
Since we invaded Iraq the disruption and death toll have been enormous and we haven't exactly made a lot of new friends either
In case you didn't read it at the time, here is the 'Iraq Dossier'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl...raqdossier.pdf
The only stated UK threat was to the UKSBA in Cyprus, by virtue of the fact that Saddam had built an engine test stand for the future development of missiles which might reach them. An implied threat was that 20 Al-Hussein missiles could have reached the UKSBA.
No evidence was presented that Saddam had any intention of attacking the UK, or indeed any Western or NATO nation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl...raqdossier.pdf
The only stated UK threat was to the UKSBA in Cyprus, by virtue of the fact that Saddam had built an engine test stand for the future development of missiles which might reach them. An implied threat was that 20 Al-Hussein missiles could have reached the UKSBA.
No evidence was presented that Saddam had any intention of attacking the UK, or indeed any Western or NATO nation.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: oxfordshire
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hundreds Of British Troops To Be Sent To Iraq
Hundreds Of British Troops To Be Sent To Iraq
Hundreds of British soldiers are to be sent to Iraq to help the fight against Islamic State, Sky News understands.
Hope this isn't the start of a larger deployment .....
Hundreds of British soldiers are to be sent to Iraq to help the fight against Islamic State, Sky News understands.
Hope this isn't the start of a larger deployment .....
And if ISIS reach the coast?
For those suggesting that 'the West' withdraw and allow the local groups to slog it out, what happens if ISIS reach the Mediterranean coast? That would signal an Israeli involvement far greater than anything we have seen since 2006. And Turkey, would they be finally prodded into some action? Al Assad Bashir has to go; any legitimacy he had went when he began to use CW.
Sadly, whether we like it or not, the origins of this conflict go back 100 years with the carve-up of the rotting Ottoman Empire and great-power rivalries at the time (principally between France and UK). Then add US adventurism to the plot 90 years later and oil-soaked desert fiefdoms...what could possibly go wrong?
Sadly, whether we like it or not, the origins of this conflict go back 100 years with the carve-up of the rotting Ottoman Empire and great-power rivalries at the time (principally between France and UK). Then add US adventurism to the plot 90 years later and oil-soaked desert fiefdoms...what could possibly go wrong?
1. IS is everyone's enemy, not just 'ours'. They are surrounded by peoples and nations and sects willing and wanting to fight them. No strong reason here for an outer ring to get involved immediately.
2. IS wants the West to come down from the sky and put boots on the ground. Why? IS knows that the one way to rally Arabs and Muslims to their cause is to get the West trampling their sacred soil once more. This is their declared aim, and to oblige them would be an initial victory for them. Not to oblige them will cut the wind to their fire and give them far less local legitimacy.
3. Public opinion within Western countries is volubly against further military involvement on the ground in the Middle East. The time is definitely not ripe.
4. Look at the massive destruction done to so many cities and populations within Syria already, such as Aleppo, Homs and Kobani. Local combatants did that. Do we want to be led into such urban warfare, carrying the responsibility for the concomitant collateral damage?
Four HUGE reasons as I see it for not sending in ground troops.
2. IS wants the West to come down from the sky and put boots on the ground. Why? IS knows that the one way to rally Arabs and Muslims to their cause is to get the West trampling their sacred soil once more. This is their declared aim, and to oblige them would be an initial victory for them. Not to oblige them will cut the wind to their fire and give them far less local legitimacy.
3. Public opinion within Western countries is volubly against further military involvement on the ground in the Middle East. The time is definitely not ripe.
4. Look at the massive destruction done to so many cities and populations within Syria already, such as Aleppo, Homs and Kobani. Local combatants did that. Do we want to be led into such urban warfare, carrying the responsibility for the concomitant collateral damage?
Four HUGE reasons as I see it for not sending in ground troops.
Last edited by jolihokistix; 14th Dec 2014 at 08:38.
They're both a little out of date, but maybe still 85-90% accurate!
(Russia has helped Assad by arming him, and vetoing any US moves against him.)
(Russia has helped Assad by arming him, and vetoing any US moves against him.)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those suggesting that 'the West' withdraw and allow the local groups to slog it out, what happens if ISIS reach the Mediterranean coast? That would signal an Israeli involvement far greater than anything we have seen since 2006. And Turkey, would they be finally prodded into some action? Al Assad Bashir has to go; any legitimacy he had went when he began to use CW.
However unsavoury it is just blaming the Assad regime alone is childlike in it's nievety.
Just remember those who so stridently pushed to arm the Syrian rebels those same groups who have unsurprisingly morphed into something far, far terrible to witness.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. IS is everyone's enemy, not just 'ours'. They are surrounded by peoples and nations and sects willing and wanting to fight them. No strong reason here for an outer ring to get involved immediately.
2. IS wants the West to come down from the sky and put boots on the ground. Why? IS knows that the one way to rally Arabs and Muslims to their cause is to get the West trampling their sacred soil once more. This is their declared aim, and to oblige them would be an initial victory for them. Not to oblige them will cut the wind to their fire and give them far less local legitimacy.
3. Public opinion within Western countries is volubly against further military involvement on the ground in the Middle East. The time is definitely not ripe.
4. Look at the massive destruction done to so many cities and populations within Syria already, such as Aleppo, Homs and Kobani. Local combatants did that. Do we want to be led into such urban warfare, carrying the responsibility for the concomitant collateral damage?
Four HUGE reasons as I see it for not sending in ground troops.
2. IS wants the West to come down from the sky and put boots on the ground. Why? IS knows that the one way to rally Arabs and Muslims to their cause is to get the West trampling their sacred soil once more. This is their declared aim, and to oblige them would be an initial victory for them. Not to oblige them will cut the wind to their fire and give them far less local legitimacy.
3. Public opinion within Western countries is volubly against further military involvement on the ground in the Middle East. The time is definitely not ripe.
4. Look at the massive destruction done to so many cities and populations within Syria already, such as Aleppo, Homs and Kobani. Local combatants did that. Do we want to be led into such urban warfare, carrying the responsibility for the concomitant collateral damage?
Four HUGE reasons as I see it for not sending in ground troops.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should we go one step further and do like we did in the Iran/Iraq War and support both sides or in this situation....all of the sides....and let them get on with killing each other? Or is picking the "friendliest" of the many factions and supporting them the right answer....assuming we pick the ones that shall prevail and become the "Winners"?
That part of the World have been fighting since time immemorial so why should we expect anything else from them? If we play the right cards we might find ourselves allied with Regimes/Groups/Countries that will be somewhat stable and aligned with our needs and goals for the Region.
We would not need to commit ground combat forces to the region beyond those needed to safeguard the delivery points and training facilities.
That part of the World have been fighting since time immemorial so why should we expect anything else from them? If we play the right cards we might find ourselves allied with Regimes/Groups/Countries that will be somewhat stable and aligned with our needs and goals for the Region.
We would not need to commit ground combat forces to the region beyond those needed to safeguard the delivery points and training facilities.
Originally Posted by orca
My personal opinion is that this is one for information ops above all else. Quite how we have let some barbaric murderers, who are self proclaimed jihadis - murder countless Muslims without being brave enough to point it out is beyond me.
We let these idiots broadcast the bile that accompanies their videos without challenging them - other than our posh man in a suit who talks (laughably) of bringing them to justice. We let them talk of revenge for air strikes but they accepted ransoms for some hostages...seems incoherent. They talk of a caliphate but are murdering Muslims...seems incoherent. They say they are Muslims, but murder women and children...seems incoherent.
Where's our info ops campaign? 'You want to go overseas and behead Muslims in the name of Muslims? Would you mind expanding on the idea because to us it seems a little odd?'
We let these idiots broadcast the bile that accompanies their videos without challenging them - other than our posh man in a suit who talks (laughably) of bringing them to justice. We let them talk of revenge for air strikes but they accepted ransoms for some hostages...seems incoherent. They talk of a caliphate but are murdering Muslims...seems incoherent. They say they are Muslims, but murder women and children...seems incoherent.
Where's our info ops campaign? 'You want to go overseas and behead Muslims in the name of Muslims? Would you mind expanding on the idea because to us it seems a little odd?'
Why are people like him not being encouraged to spread the anti ISIL word?
Rosevidney1,
How can you deport a UK citizen? There's no where to deport them to, other than the UK, because they are British...
How can you deport a UK citizen? There's no where to deport them to, other than the UK, because they are British...