Meanwhile...
[img] 
?oh=a0f64cb53a84b2e8e281e787cc261922&oe=571D8414[/img]
Libya. When do we start bombing then?
French have been running reconnaisance there this week. I'd say the French could start bombing IS there very soon.
@epic a fuller quote from McCain
[i]“Air strikes alone won't win a conflict but it's good to have increased air strikes, it's good to have increased air activities, it's good to have shows of support from our British friends," he noted. "So I'm glad of it, thank you, we appreciate it! But to say that it's going to make a significant difference, no I've got to be a little more candid than that."[/i]
jambalaya - Member"But to say that it's going to make a significant difference, no I've got to be a little more candid than that."
So Senator McCain doesn't think that UK air strikes in Syria will make a significant difference, well that's not what Cameron was claiming.
Mind you I was describing the whole exercise a political stunt 5 days ago, so you obviously don't need to be a fully paid up member of Mensa to work that one out.
I can't help thinking that the money we are spending bombing Syria, if spent on support for the weak and vulnerable in our society would save more lives than the most dedicated ISIS attack could take.
You mean stuff like this epicyclo where more people die because of fuel poverty than from terrorist attacks?
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/call-for-energy-bill-cuts-as-hypothermia-deaths-almost-double-6804819.html ]Call for energy bill cuts as hypothermia deaths almost double[/url]
You sound like a Corbyn supporter. Which makes you a terrorist sympathiser and a threat to our security.
Any spare cash needs to be spent on bombs to kill people, not to save lives.
And it wins more votes too.
[img] 
?oh=9df76d8af10f17f75e1ce5603759965d&oe=56E409E9[/img]
After reading a lot more about the actual circumstances in the region I have moved from an instinctive "no to bombing" position to a "bomb as part of a larger strategy" position.
Not that what I think matters and I'm not going to try and sway anyone on here,
Don't you usually decide on a strategy and then choose the tactics (eg bombing) that seem appropriate - rather than fix upon a tactic and then search out a strategy that might fit?
In other words - what's the strategy?
wilburtAfter reading a lot more about the actual circumstances in the region I have moved from an instinctive "no to bombing" position to a "bomb as part of a larger strategy" position.
Not that what I think matters and I'm not going to try and sway anyone on here,
When I was watching the commons debate I was relieved to see that a lot of the objectors, particularly John Baron were voicing the same concerns as I felt however I was moved by the pro campaign MP's who read out tweets and emails from people in Raqqah pleading for help. In fact all of the MPs who spoke for the motion emphasised how they would help civilians and attack ISIS headquarters as a matter of urgency. When the motion was passed I almost felt glad, perhaps the RAF would bomb ISIS positions in Raqqah, maybe they would improve peoples lives and free them from tyranny.
But no, the super accurate civilian friendly bombs are being used to attack infrastructure, controlling the flow of oil and money. So depressingly predictable. There's no plan other than to get a finger in the pie and advertise british military hardware to dictators and warlords.
This sums it up for me - a sensible man who knows what he's talking about (just a shame he's a Tory).
http://www.rorystewart.co.uk/rory-stewart-mp-on-syria/
In other words - what's the strategy?
I don't know, maybe someone else does, maybe they don't, sometimes you don't know the complete strategy just the next best thing to do, for me on balance that includes direct military attacks on ISIL and there supply line and a range of other less visible actions.
I'm not convinced the local players have much interest in ISIL, there just pawns in the power struggle, Turkey, Iran, Russia, Saudi would all happily support terrorists if it suited their needs.
Rory Stewart always seems to nail these things, he's got the first hand experience.
you guys. aiming for 1000 posts?
Turkey, Iran, Russia, Saudi would all happily support terrorists if it suited their needs.
But not the US, the UK, or France?
You do realise that the UK only declared ISIS a terrorist organisation 18 months ago when they started threatening UK geopolitical interests in Iraq, don't you?
When ISIS was operating primarily in Syria the UK government did not consider them be a terrorist organisation, and it wasn't a criminal offence to be a member.
But not the US, the UK, or France?
Possibly (at least in the short term) although I think most people would think its less likely.
ISIL is selling oil and getting supplies through Turkey, they're fighting the same people as Assad and as such Russia and have roughly the same beliefs as Saudi albeit recently fallen out.
Whilst the UK, US and France want whatever brings stability to the region and even better a government we can do business with.
Whilst the UK, US and France want whatever brings stability to the region and even better a government we can do business with.
Saddam and Assad were pillars of stability !!
Saddam and Assad were pillars of stability !!
Sadly Saddam's regime, though heinous, was stable until wiped out by the world's most powerful military.
where more people die because of fuel poverty
Oil, coal and gas are now at its lowest for years. You also want the government to remove the 8% environmental tax?
Below is from 2013, when energy prices were a lot higher.
[img] 
[/img]
.. he bit his master's hand and rode into KuwaitSadly Saddam's regime, though heinous, was stable until
Saddam and Assad were pillars of stability !!
Yup. I have a friend who was an archaeologist in Iraq under Saddam, his sister was a University Lecturer. They were of Arab descent but Christians and could walk about freely living what you or I would regard as a 'normal' western life with middle class western style jobs in spite of being no friends of the regeme and christian (rather than Sunni, like Saddam).
Saddam got awards for introducing universal education. How many kids do you think learned to read and write before Saddam?
Life under Saddam was stable, even if you were Christian or Shia. The accusation that he killed 200,000 over 30 years is put into perspective by what we've done to the place.
Life under Saddam was stable, even if you were Christian or Shia
This is the classic mistake in great power politics: "let's stick with the strong man, he'll keep things stable". A pressure cooker over a flame is stable - right up until the point it explodes.
Dictatorial regimes don't have the institutions necessary to ensure long term stability. They're vulnerable to shock - so when the old man carks it (Tito, Assad) or overplays his hand (Hussein, Gadaffi, Mobutu), it all goes to crap.
It's also weird to describe Hussein's regime as stable when his ascent was almost immediately followed by a war of aggression against Iran (which they lost, with 250,000-500,000 killed and half a trillion dollars lost) and another one against Kuwait (which they lost, with 25-35,000 killed), and with a Kurdish insurrection, and countless plots and murders and assassinations and confrontations.
The post-Hussein regime has of course been a complete cluster****.
Yup. I have a friend who was an archaeologist in Iraq under Saddam, his sister was a University Lecturer. They were of Arab descent but Christians and could walk about freely living what you or I would regard as a 'normal' western life with middle class western style jobs in spite of being no friends of the regeme and christian (rather than Sunni, like Saddam).
My friend is a Kurd, the majority of her family were horrifically killed in a chemical weapon attack under Saddam instructions. Her father escaped and he and his family lived under the threat of death if they returned to their family home. So let's not go suggesting that he was some benign dictator even if you weren't a friend of the regime.
So what does a successful Arabic society look like?
Yeap! Knew that was going to happen ... [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35024408 ]BBC news[/url]
It looks like UK joining in the bombing in Syria is just a form of UK trying to get rid of Assad. (no surprise there due to pressure from the minority shouting loudest in the UK)
Dangerous game if that is the case and don't they get it? Getting rid of Assad means putting his people to death en mass so what's this shite about precious human life eh? There will be revenge killing all over again. Also I do not intend to feed his population so leave him alone!
As usual being political correct when UK started bombing the target is actually Assad's army as UK has been trying to get rid of Assad but sneakily said they were bombing SISI ...
Simply put the West are staking the territory but need the excuse of get rid of Assad to start with a clean slate ... They want to deal with SISI the Western ways and not the Russian ways. Again, playing gods and goatmen.
I am sure there will be another escalation if another Russian plane is shot down mistakenly.
If that is the case then stooopid PC West play directly into the hand of SISI just because of their stoopid intention to get rid of Assad. Now SISI have planes in the sky without them even having to fly one ... Wahey!
Russia and Assad are not the enemies, SISI etc are so get that right!
🙄
edit: I will not be surprised if the matter of oil is also an objective to gain now ... ya ... oil.
[quote=wilburt spake unto the masses, saying]So what does a successful Arabic society look like?
I imagine it looks a lot like a successful Chess Club, or Photographic Society.
let's not go suggesting that he was some benign dictator even if you weren't a friend of the regime.
It's also weird to describe Hussein's regime as stable
Relative to what's happened since.
wilburt - MemberWhilst the UK, US and France want whatever brings stability to the region
It'd be nice if just once we acted like it- we've been turning the place upside down for over a hundred years.
konabunny - Member
Don't you usually decide on a strategy and then choose the tactics (eg bombing) that seem appropriate - rather than fix upon a tactic and then search out a strategy that might fit?In other words - what's the strategy?
Do they have to spell out everything in detail for everyone's approval?
Are you General in command now?
They (govt, West whoever shite) said it is part of a grand strategy ...
They do not spell it out because they want to get rid of Assad and Russia then to deal with SISI via the rebels to start with a clean slate.
A bit like Afghanistan with a bit of learning from the past.
Bear in mind, the communist ideology is still the biggest threat to the capitalist world and Russia being evolved from that ideology does not fit the modern world so getting rid of Russia is encouraged ... besides they just found oil in Syria ... 😆
I would regard as a 'normal' western life with middle class western style jobs in spite of being no friends of the regeme and christian (rather than Sunni, like Saddam).
Not being a Sunni and/or being a Christian was not necessarily a serious handicap. Saddam's Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister and close advisor was a Christian.
However since the Western enforced regime change being a Christian is now a very serious disadvantage, and despite being one of the oldest Christian communities in the world the overwhelming majority have now been driven out of Iraq.
There were approximately 1.5 million Christians in Iraq when it was invaded there are now as little as 200,000.
I'm not if its an editing thing but I've lost the flow of this thread. DrJ sorry I don't know what you mean and Chewkw, I don't think that strike was by the UK and whoever it was its in predominantly IS territory.
Yup. I have a friend who was an archaeologist in Iraq under Saddam, his sister was a University Lecturer. They...could walk about freely living what you or I would regard as a 'normal' western life with middle class western style jobs...Life under Saddam was stable, even if you were Christian or Shia.
Relative to what's happened since.
Bit of a difference between the two statements, there! A kick in the nuts is comfortable relative to being rammed with a broken bottle.
All starting to come out now. The "seven plots" foiled by the security services not planned and executed from Raqqa but possibly "inspired"? And the 70000 moderate troops sounding more and more preposterous every day - even BoJo had to have his knuckles rapped by No. 10 - can't Dave control his own party or what? Whip needed to secure a strong vote for air strikes and now one of the contenders for leadership is telling him to do a deal with Putin and rubbishing the 70000 figure.
Cripes, it sounds like it was all a bit, erm, let me think of a phrase...[i]sexed up[/i]?
Probably best to hang fire on Chilcott now (it's not like we've waited years already, eh?) and just add Libya and Syria to the list.
As far as I'm aware the seven terrorist plots where exactly that, there has not been a major effort to link them to Raqqa or indeed anywhere else. The 70,000 fighters claim was an unecessary sideshow. Irrelevant to the outcome of the vote IMO and as such unnecessary.
The attack on Paris was planned, funded and the terrorists trained and travelled from Syria hidden amongst refugees. That plus the fact France asked for for our help is enough on its own to extend our bombing campaign a few hundred km's North West against the same targets we are already actively striking. The French government did not have a vote, Hollande and his ministers decided just as Cameron or indeed Blair was perfectly entitied to do.
jambalaya - Member - Block User
As far as I'm aware the seven terrorist plots where exactly that, there has not been a major effort to link them to Raqqa or indeed anywhere else.
😆
The 70,000 fighters claim was an unecessary sideshow. Irrelevant to the outcome of the vote IMO and as such unnecessary.
Except as an answer to the whole 'what happens after bombing?' question.
The attack on Paris was planned, funded and the terrorists trained and travelled from Syria hidden amongst refugees
Source?
Source?
Don't be silly.
In his first Syria statement to Parliament on Thursday November 26, Mr Cameron declared: “In the last 12 months, our police and security services have disrupted no fewer than seven terrorist plots to attack the UK, every one of which was either linked to ISIL or inspired by its propaganda.“So I am in no doubt that it is in our national interest for action to be taken to stop it—and stopping it means taking action in Syria, because Raqqa is its headquarters.
The 70,000 fighters claim was an unecessary sideshow. Irrelevant to the outcome of the vote IMO and as such unnecessary.
I dunno, sounds like the kind of stuff someone would add to, y'know, sex it up.
Don't be silly.
😀
😆
The 70,000 fighters claim was an unecessary sideshow. Irrelevant to the outcome of the vote IMO and as such unnecessary.
The claim of about 70,000 Syrian opposition fighters on the ground who do not belong to extremist groups was made by Cameron in a written response to the Foreign Affairs Committee.
He was making the case for bombing targets in Syria.
You might dismiss it as "an unnecessary sideshow", obviously because it's embarrassing nonsense, but Cameron clearly thought it was vital to the case he was making for air strikes.
..and it was resoundingly discredited in the parlimentary debate that went on to vote in favour of extending airstrikes. It was a misjudged statement by a pm desperate not to lose a vote.
It doesnt make the desicion wrong though,
The second point about direct links to Syria is an irrelevance turned into a story by the Huff Post, maybe they didnt travel to Ragga, maybe they watched a video or went to a lecture or the wrong mosque.
All it realy tells us is that the problem isnt confined to one town in one country and whilst military action be part of the solution it isn't all of it by a long way, cant believe anyone doesn't know that already.
That plus the fact France asked for for our help
by taking some refugees from Calais. Remind me of our response ... ?
However since the Western enforced regime change being a Christian is now a very serious disadvantage, and despite being one of the oldest Christian communities in the world the overwhelming majority have now been driven out of Iraq.
There were approximately 1.5 million Christians in Iraq when it was invaded there are now as little as 200,000.
This.
And the persecution/murder of the Christian population took place before ISIS. Presumably by 'moderates'.
sorry for the facebook plagiarism but hey ho!
I see you, Hilary Benn.I see your circular glasses and your pointy pencil-eraser little head, like some weird amalgamation of Beaker and Bunsen Honeydew from The Muppets. You look like the lovechild of Lembit Opik and The Demon Headmaster, Hilary Benn, except you just seem to want to bombard the whole of Syria instead of the tits of one of The Cheeky Girls.
I hear your speech, Hilary Benn, as you call out Isis or Daesh or whatever we're calling them this week for their unmitigated evil. I'll just call them like I see them, Hilary Benn, which are Fanatics Under Corrupt Wahhabist-Influenced Tuition (or FUCWITs for short). I see you banging the war drum, calling us up to arms, even though just two weeks ago and even after the Paris attacks you'd been saying it was a bad idea. You lot change your mind pretty quickly, don't you, Hilary Benn? When Russia stormed in a couple of months ago Cameron said it would only feed into the FUCWITs' hands and now he's got a positive boner for joining in. At this rate I'm expecting Jeremy Corbyn to do a 180 in three weeks and personally charge into Syria on horseback to single-handedly beat Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to death with a bag of lentils.
It's a weird turnaround for you, isn't it, Hilary Benn? It's almost as if you've decided to change tack just as Corbyn looks his weakest, but I'm sure that can't be it. I'm sure that all the right-wing papers are lauding your performance for no other reason than it was a great speech, as opposed to a chest-beating rallying cry from a centrist they'd rather see in charge of the opposition.
I see you in all the papers, Hilary Benn, and I see them spinning the story faster than a dodgy waltzer. It's now Labour's free vote pushing us to war, as opposed to Cameron's frantic grab for his own Falklands to cement his position on the world stage. It's the lunatic left threatening MPs for their decision that are the real problem, even though Lucy Allan doctored her own email and added 'unless you die' to the end of it because she was gutted at being left out, like a schoolgirl giving herself a lovebite with the hoover attachment. It's you that's the great orator driving us on our great crusade, shifting the focus from the Tories and making the whole war easier to pin on a scapegoat if it turns out badly. And the biggest spin of all, Hilary Benn, the idea that we're part of a coalition of allies, even though Russia supports Assad and Turkey are still bombing the Kurds when they're the ones making gains against the FUCWITs. It's an ideological war, isn't it, Hilary Benn? We can't bow to extremists and give legitimacy to brutal and oppressive regimes. Well, unless they're Saudi, but that's different somehow.
It used to be Assad we hated, Hilary Benn, with his chemical weapons and barrel bombs. But we couldn't bomb him because it would destabilise the region. Now we're going to flatten Raqqa and do what exactly, Hilary Benn? Stand over the ruins and at the end of it ask Russia nicely if they wouldn't mind changing their minds about Assad completely? I'm sure that'll stabilise everything, particularly when the arms are still flooding in from our other 'allies' and those 70,000 nonexistent moderates Cameron was on about have finished politely and moderately beheading each other in the power vacuum. It's a ****ing mess, Hilary Benn, and there's no easy answer to any of it. People will die with every bomb they drop and people will die with every bomb they don't. And the FUCWITs will hide among the innocent people of Syria and take as many of them down with them as they can, creating widows and orphans and driving every mourning wail into a cry for war.
I don't see a solution, Hilary Benn. I couldn't even begin to comprehend one. There can be no 'us and them' when innocent people stand to suffer. The FUCWITs are unquestionably evil, but they're a weed strangling the heart of the Syrian people and we've spent years in our own way feeding it.
I see the difficulty in tearing it out by the roots, Hilary Benn, particularly when Cameron is calling for us to just go at the entire garden with a flamethrower. Anything else makes us a terrorist sympathiser, after all. Because that's where we are now - to second guess anything, to pause and reflect and to try and see an alternative, to do anything but to charge headlong into the fold when provoked, makes us weak. We have to meet barbarism with strength. We have to give the FUCWITs what they've asked for or they've won. We have to meet knives at throats with bombs in cities and hatred with righteous fury, as if those two aren't entirely interchangeable when the outcome is the same.
I see the oil fires burning, Hilary Benn, as the bombs drop on the refineries, the training camps, the militant convoys. I see the inevitable mistakes, the flattened homes, the shattered lives. I see the thick smoke rising, a spectre that looms above the world and rains poison into the eyes that look up at it.
I hear them cheering in the House, Hilary Benn. As if this was a clear-cut thing, good versus evil, right versus wrong. The FUCWITs have to pay, and they have to be wiped off the face of the earth. I'd struggle to find anyone willing to argue with that, because despite everything, I'm pretty sure I don't actually know any terrorist sympathisers.
But I see the people of Syria, Hilary Benn. I see their children, their loved ones, their friends. I see the innocent Muslims everywhere who fear what this all means. I see the streets of Paris and San Bernardino. I see the tube stations in London and I see the servicemen we send to war. I hope that they won't have to pay as well.
I hear them cheering in the House, Hilary Benn, as if this awful and difficult decision were something to celebrate, rather than an agonising and somber conclusion reached in reluctant recognition of the innocent lives it will inevitably have to destroy.
I hear them cheering in the House, Hilary Benn, and I wonder what your father would think.
I see you, Hilary Benn. I ****ing see you.
Source?
Don't be silly.
He'll just brazen it out.
.