Bombing probably off.
 

Just got a feeling. Western politicians got away with the big story from ten days ago with those poor ****ers stuck on the mountain. That's now off the front pages and telly, replaced by those poor abused kids in Rotherham ( a more suitable place to carpet bomb anyway perhaps, out of kindness to the rest of the UK)?
Its a just a great game, indulged in by Cameron and President Bam Bam when it suits. Western Combat pilots involved in this are smart guys but also sporadically disabused muppets (or even puppets).

More shite written about it here.
 

David Cameron mulls joining Obama in bombing Isis in Iraq | Politics | The Guardian


I mean it must be ******* awful to be an RAF combat pilot involved with this, with your mission orders coming from our present leader.


David Cameron mulls.....it says it all. This is the UK's PM who has yawned and stretched his way off a Cornish beach and finally and reluctantly trailed back to number 10,like a petulant child forced back to his school desk.
And what's on the table for him this week? A decision ( possibly a life and death one for someone, but that will be someone David doesn't know, and probably a little person anyway.
My guess he will lean over and copy (eventually) the child next to him, and that will be his snooty cool friend, President Bam Bam, of course. Bombs will reign.
Also on (year four now, remember) David's desk this term is the break up of the Union. Tricky one, that. On his watch, in a few days now, historically for ever noted, the whole state may begin to break up.....
People are launched onto missions, lives ruined, war continues and we have David Cameron actually, seemingly with good peoples lives in his hands. I just find this utterly depressing and totally incredible.


******* good luck, whoevers still serving whatever we now are.

It means that the press & politicians pulled their heads out and finally began referring to ISIL by the correct acronym - as some have been doing from day one.

Its been interesting to switch between national network news shows in the US and hear one anchor refer to ISIS and on the other network the anchor telling the same story about ISIL.

I'll support that, when they get off their asses in the millions pressuring their governments to band with the Shia, and us, and smite them.

No, thats not right. According to a few people here ALL Muslims are evil and we need to eradicate the entire religion... :rolleyes:

Minigun, you are somewhat mistaken. The Lewinski saga came AFTER the US was already in Bosnia, boots on the ground. Check, your years, mate, the winter of 1995 is when US Army units road the rails and roads into Bosnia, and the fall of 1995 was when Dayton Agreement got hammered out. The blue dress and the blow job was after that, and the criticism on him was more closely linked to later operations in terms of that whole "wag the dog" mess. The year 1998 was when the Monica thing came to a head, so to speak.

Mainly Aerial - as stated. Dates were a bit out, admittedly.

Clinton wanted to get into Bosnia to help out sooner than he was able to. He tried to but he ran into trouble with Congress, blue helmets (backlash from the mess in Somalia, see also the Michael New case) and the funding of US ops (no the world's policeman anymore, Cold War is over) between 1991 and the eventual decision to get involved after the Dayton Agreement.

Did he want to? or did he do what US Presidents always seem do (unless there is oil) and make the right noises and throw bills at congress knowing they would be defeated?

One of many problems to overcome with Congress vis a vis a Bosnia operation sooner was the already fecked up UN RoE dual key stupidity. The more rational argument was that you can't keep the peace if there is not first a peace keeping agreement. (That was actually a good point). Dayton put that to bed and in we went, under NATO RoE and not so much UN interference in basic functions. Note that in September of 1995 USS Normandy launched Tomahawks on Serbian air defense positions, which got the French and Russians crying for some political reason or other. That was also under Bill Clinton, and Admiral "Snuffy" Smith.

Fair points - Aerial though (maybe a splash on launch)

There were other issues that got domestic political opponents arguing against direct intervention. Some of this stemmed from Bosnia being the usual messy UN operation (UN was into Bosnia long before the US showed up with big units in NATO ... and there were some US support folks supporting UNISOM and UNPROFOR previously ...).

He was busy sorting out the economy. However, was he in a rush to get involved after the UNISOM fiasco? that argument can cut both ways.

Before our boots were on the ground in Northern Bosnia, ops as Sharp Fence and Maritime Guard finally merged to become Operation Sharp Guard. (The arms embargo on FY had been supported by the US for some time).

Aerial - bit of floating.

It was very much "Clinton's War" to some partisans in the GOP, as was the Kosovo thing. The fact that he finally got some bipartisan support after a few years of trying is, of course, overlooked by same partisans in the GOP ... my own criticism of Clinton on Bosnia at the time was the impression he left of being led around the world by the nose by one CNN reporter named Christiana Amanpour. I am off topic, so I'll save that for another time.

The President who unequivocally would NOT go into Bosnia was President George H W Bush. He passed the torch, as well as the mess in Somalia, to Clinton in January of 1993

Lone - as a resident of the Western colony I will take your word, but I would point out that it was never regarded as 'Clintons War' outside of N.America, quite the opposite.

However - you seem adamant and that is good enough for me bud.

Just been half watching a BBC 2 Newsnight special about this. Admiral Lord West spoke well and I agreed with him, but Lewd Ashdown and Dr Liam Fox.... I glazed over.
Thanks to all of this ****e I can probably reasonably expect to be blown to pieces at any time whilst travelling around within Britain on a train, tube, bus or plane.....thanks' a lot, everyone involved.

ISIS/ISIL ?
 

Green Knight121 (et al),

Thanks for the very complete explanation. Seems it's a case of "You pays yer penny and yer takes yer choice !"

D.

Suggest you learn to read and comprehend an entire paragraph, and not cherry pick a clause.

The "clinton's war" criticism was, as I stated, used by some GOP partisans. Go back and read what I posted in its entirety, please.

Other than that, we seem more or less to have reached an understanding.

I'm utterly depressed by all this, I just think we've been let down by our politicians and military leaders to the stage where it's downhill all the way. Sadly I don't think we can turn this around, what is happening in the middle east now will eventually find it's way here. I suspect it's only a matter of time before we see a suicide bomb at a main gate or a shooter or two, especially if we continue half baked military adventures and allowing human rights and open borders to compromise national security.
Solution? B******d if I know!

Regardless whether we like it or not, we are at war, is their any difference to a suicide bomber or a bomb being dropped from a plane. Its just a delivery method that has been developed to make it hard to intercept. Another words a technology equalizer.

The standard bearer of Islam’s latest lurch backwards to the eighth century is the newly minted Islamic State of Iran and Syria (ISIS). A fresh crop of Islamofascist thugs that make Fatah, Hezb’allah, Hamas, or al Qaeda seem enlightened. The new face of Islam is savage: beheading, crucifixion, slavery, and genocide. Demands are clear: “accept Islam or die.” The mad dogs of Muslim hell are off the choke chain.

ISIS is as dangerous a threat as western civilization has seen in a thousand years. It is serious. We need to address it. We are facing a monumental threat – a dangerous enemy that epitomizes evil – and all we have are random voices making occasional statements about the reality before us when we need a fierce army to overwhelm the evil darkness that seeks to consume us all.

Muslim terrorists have upped the ante and called America’s bluff again. Unlike the imaginary red lines drawn in the Oval Office, ISIS has drawn a bright red line with American blood.

Every single Senator and every single Congressperson needs to be making our national security the Number One priority. And they need to be doing it now. With a president who leaves a gaping void in sane leadership, it is all the more crucial that Congress step in to fill that void before terror fills it at a speed and at a magnitude none of us should even have to contemplate.

Deciding what to do should be a no brainer. Our deadly enemy, Islam, has finally taken to the battlefield! At last, they are out in the open, fighting a conventional war as an army and a state. This is the opportunity we could only wish for during the last decades. Jihadis from all over the world are pouring into Iraq to join ISIS, leaving the cover of their surrounding civilian populations and forming up as an army. They are fighting on our terms, on the battlefield, where we are supreme. At last, after years of frustration, we have the chance to engage and crush them.

When Sir Winston Churchill stood before Parliament on May 13, 1940, he said that the English people must “…wage war … with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us … against a monstrous tyranny….” The goal, he said, was clear: “… victory at all costs … in spite of all terror … for without victory, there is no survival.”

We now face what England faced when Churchill spoke: a monstrous tyranny. If we want to survive, we must be prepared to wage all out war.

Bob C

In my opinion ISIS (or whatever they are calling themselves today) have one redeeming feature.

They are fundamentally stupid.

They are basically calling the US out.

They honestly seem to think 'leave us alone or else' terrorist threats actually work, when essentially, eventually, they are just going to get smashed.

I actually also think that they really do think that they can beat the 'West' in 'battle', Allah willing.

These guys are much more of a threat than Saddam ever was..if the people representing We, The People in government do their jobs (put it to a Referendum..), ISIS should feel the FULL wrath of the Western Arsenal, for the first time since WW2 if necessary.

Just give it to them, wipe them all off the map, rid the vermin, nice and quick before they start really getting dangerous.

It has to happen soon. You can't keep poking a tiger in the eye. The sooner the better imo, get it over and done with.

Why do you think ISIS/ISIL/IS is a legitimate representation of Islam and all Muslims? The overwhelming majority of their victims and their most vociferous opponents are Muslim.

I'm loath to say we should take on these animals. It won't be me putting myself on the front line but I don't think we have any options.
I think we need to draw a line, make it clear to all states that they have one chance to decide which side of it they wish to be on and then crush all others.
If we don't we could be looking at decades of global conflict with no assurances as to the outcome.
Maybe we should be looking at domestic issues to. Making sure all understand where religion fits in with society. Even if that means some changes to cultures on all sides.



Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

"We will not be intimidated," President Barack Obama says in the wake of Steven Sotloff's beheading. "Justice will be served."...


I take that as, "We are currently forming a strategy for military action."

Typhoon 93, let's hope so, he didn't seem to have anything in the bag last week :eek:

We can only hope.

Although I have my doubts. If my doubts are correct then we will have to painfully wait until 2017, when Obama is out of office. This is a team effort requiring all available resources (not just military) to be utilised, and preferably without the command of the U.S - I'd rather we led the Operation. I would hate for Iraq III to be dragged on for as long as Iraq II and Afghanistan, too many families have been destroyed by the last two conflicts and that is the thing that bugs me the most.

Obama, by his own admission, doesn't have a strategy. He is following his preferred approach of "leading from behind".

Bob C :{

Robert, my hope is that the President is choosing to talk softly before he wields the big stick. Let's see how things play out.

As to this:
QSIS?

Why not call them AQSIS: Al Qeda's State in Iraq and Syria.

We would then actually have an AQSIS of Evil :E to deal with. See the above reference to a big stick.