@cheeky, Turkey seem to be trying to sit on the fence, they have certainly allowed free passage of aid workers into Syria a significant portion of which have actually gone to fight. Turkey has taken up a much more pro-Middle Eastern posture since it was denied EU membership, in the recent elections politicians where decrying women from smiling at other men instead of being more traditional and bowing their heads. I am sure pressure is being put on them but sanctions would seem counter productive.
its the present and future which rules.
Fantastic, you are O`Brien and I claim my £5
Any way Jammers may I suggest you get your fitness up to spec cos you will no doubt be down the careers office soon, ready to sign the dotted line, Sandhurst no doubt? good luck fella!
@cheekyboy, I am far too broken to be of any use. I do happen to know a reasonable number of past and presently serving members of Her Majesties Armed Forces. I am very cautious about sending them into danger. Air strikes and limited ground forces if absolutely necessary
BTW I have no idea who this O'Brien is ?
Jambalaya - the point is that the whole 'conflict' is its actually lots of different conflicts, with a variety of different backers, and interests, jockeying for position. The simplistic narrative we're being sold by the government and the media is preposterous! Its all got the stench of the misinformation, and ever changing justifications, we were being sold before going into Iraq last time. And we all now know what a pack of lies that all was.
I just can't see any conceivable way in which western involvement is going to make anything any better. As I've asked before: what are 'we' hoping to achieve by military action? What is the end result 'we' want? And whatever this is (and I haven't got a clue what that is, do you?), is it even remotely achievable? Is there even the slightest likelihood that the end result will look like what 'we' would like?
We are not the world police. What can be achieved by military involvement is incredibly limited. As we've so clearly demonstrated in Afghanistan - anyone believe that the second we're out of there, it won't immediately revert back to how it was before?
Why do we feel this compulsion to get involved and impose our idea of 'the way things should be' on diverse peoples who don't want, in fact actively resent, our involvement, in situations that are absolutely nothing to do with us? Its madness! Have we learnt nothing from the ongoing debacles and chaos we've helped create? It would appear not.
The narrative we're being fed now, is completely opposite from the one being peddled by the same people 12 months ago, as a justification for military action. Against the 'other side' that time. If we'd have gone in then, it would have been a disastrous move! Its no different this time.
So Dave has now said he supports military involvement in Iraq and Syria. The irony that he said the same 12 months ago, about backing what turned out to be a bunch of psychotic islamist nutters, is no doubt completely lost on him. And we're all supposed to forget that that ever happened, and trust the judgement of the same people this time round. They'll get it right this time. Honest. It'll be different this time. Really it will
Do me a favour. 🙄
That's all history binners. Interesting as it may be, stop living in the past!
about backing what turned out to be a bunch of psychotic islamist nutters,
@binners Cameron and the UK where intent on backing the Free Syrian Army not ISIL or al-N** (I can't remember what they where called before)
By the way the Australians shot dead a guy who was a terrorist suspect and who tried to stab two police officers as they tried to arrest him. he was being linked with ISIS threat to be-head an Australian in Australia.
That's all history binners. Interesting as it may be, stop living in the past!
Yep, let's repeat our mistakes!
By the way the Australians shot dead a guy who was a terrorist suspect and who tried to stab two police officers as they tried to arrest him. he was being linked with ISIS threat to be-head an Australian in Australia.
What difference do you suppose military intervention would make to these kinds of incidents? I refer you to 7/7 and Lee Rigby...
jambalaya - Member@binners Cameron and the UK where intent on backing the Free Syrian Army not ISIL or al-N** (I can't remember what they where called before)
🙄
The Free Syrian Army isn't one group marching under one flag, it's an umbrella for lots of little militias. Some of whom have switched to ISIS and other factions, as I mentioned above.
That's all history binners. Interesting as it may be, stop living in the past!
Is that a serious quote ?
@binners Cameron and the UK where intent on backing the Free Syrian Army not ISIL or al-N** (I can't remember what they where called before)
But thats the whole point. Nobody really knows who anyone is, who's on what side in these constantly shifting alliances? What their intentions are? Its complicated and just doesn't fit this ridiculous, simplistic good guys, bad guys narrative
Again: can you tell me how western military involvement is going to make this situation better? And what it will ultimately achieve?
By the way the Australians shot dead a guy who was a terrorist suspect and who tried to stab two police officers as they tried to arrest him.
Some bloke (allegedly a terrorist) in Australia tried to stab someone? SWEET JESUS!!! PANIIIIIIC!!! ITS THE END OF WESTERN CIVILISATION!!!!!!
FFS. That happens in Salford every ten minutes!
cheekyboy - Member
Is that a serious quote ?
It was in response to
jambalaya - Member@binners "history" of conflicts in many respects is interesting but doesn't necessarily dictate how they will play out, its the present and future which rules.
[url= http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/09/turkey-iraq-syria-krg-isis-oil-hostages.html ]Al Monitor: Turkish involvement in ISIL Oil sales[/url]
Quite a general piece on smuggling between Turkey and Syria
Air strikes and limited ground forces if absolutely necessary
How limited ? whats the time frame ? How many boots ?
Nobody can foresee the outcome, we can only look back as far as Dunkirk for daft military expeditions and conclude, lets just sit this one out and see what happens.
ISIS must have a supply chain, this can be cut.
Cameron and the UK where intent on backing the Free Syrian Army not ISIL or al-N*
Cameron was, the UK wasn't apparently
@ Lifer, I see, a bit of cheeky cynicism 😆
What Blair said was that ISIS could not be defeated purely by air strikes, that ground forces would be required and that the UK should not rule out getting involved but that we should not contemplate the return of a large ground force and that local forces should be taking the lead.
What can be achieved is the neutralisaton of ISIS fighters and their infrastructure including their control of banks and oil fields.
What Blair said was that ISIS could not be defeated purely by air strikes, that ground forces would be required and that the UK should not rule out getting involved but that we should not contemplate the return of a large ground force and that local forces should be taking the lead.
If I was the kind of person that banged on about history, which as we all know is useless as a point of reference, I'd say that sounds remarkably similar, in fact; pretty much identical, to what the Americans were saying about a spot of bother the French were having in Vietnam?
Good job I'm not then, eh? 🙄
What Blair said was that ISIS could not be defeated purely by air strikes, that ground forces would be required and that the UK should not rule out getting involved but that we should not contemplate the return of a large ground force and that local forces should be taking the lead.
Blair will no doubt continue to spout this until his last dying breath, I wonder if Cherie agrees ? I wonder if Nicky and Euan are ready for a stint of carrying the sword.
How on earth can any Government contemplate offensive actions and at the same time continue to cut the Armed Forces ?
How can a promise of limited action be fulfilled, its like a contractor promising to complete on time and in budget when in full knowledge the client will pay and accept the inevitable delay when the shit hits the fan, they sell the prospect of a good war and the gullible, toadying press then try and sell it to us.
The only good outcome would be the destruction of Cameron.
George W told the nation
This is not an escalation
This is just a surge toward victory
Just to win my little war
I'm sending 20,000 more
To help save Iraq from Iraqis.
What can be achieved is the neutralisaton of ISIS fighters and their infrastructure including their control of banks and oil fields.
I am not sure how many wars you or Blair want to realise that this is not going to work
We will leave and they will take over again - have you been looking at the success rate of our last "neutralisation" in the area - Beyond naive.
Whilst there they will just pick off our troops whilst hiding again
How on earth can any Government contemplate offensive actions and at the same time continue to cut the Armed Forces ?
Agreed @cheeky in that we need to increase our defense spending and focus on this sort of threat.
JY Iraq itself has been relatively quiet since our departure, I say relatively as the sectarian suicide bombing has continued. ISIS sprung up in Syria beyond our reach. The French are already involved in Air Strikes, its not just me and Blair that thinks this is the right course of action.
you were specifically talking about troops on the ground who agrees with you and Blair on that point?
Relatively quiet 😯
Apparently you consider this a success and we can do this to ISIS -
I think you live in some alternative reality given what you claim about what is happening WOW
Oh and of course ISIS is there as well so we will need to send troops there as well at some point no doubt
Following the withdrawal of U.S. troops in 2011 the insurgency continued and Iraq suffered from political instability. In February 2011 the Arab Spring protests spread to Iraq;[73] but the initial protests did not topple the government. The Iraqi National Movement, reportedly representing the majority of Iraqi Sunnis, boycotted Parliament for several weeks in late 2011 and early 2012, claiming that the Shiite-dominated government was striving to sideline Sunnis.
In 2012 and 2013 levels of violence increased and armed groups inside Iraq were increasingly galvanised by the Syrian Civil War. Both Sunnis and Shias crossed the border to fight in Syria.[74] In December 2012, mainly Sunni Arabs protested against the government who they claimed marginalized them.[75][76]
During 2013 Sunni militant groups stepped up attacks targeting the Iraq's Shia population in an attempt to undermine confidence in the Nouri al-Maliki-led government.[77] In 2014 Sunni insurgents belonging to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) terrorist group seized control of several major Iraqi cities, including Tikrit, Fallujah and Mosul creating hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons amid reports of atrocities by ISIL fighters.[78]
The Islamic State, also widely known as ISIS, ISIL and Da?esh,[91] originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999. This group was the forerunner of Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn—commonly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)—a group formed by Abu Musab Al Zarqawi in 2004 which took part in the Iraqi insurgency against American-led forces and their Iraqi allies following the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
So what facts do you wish to rewrite in your next post?
You are right ISIS is just syria and Iraq was a massive success
I give up as, clearly, facts dont touch your views
We need to increase our defence spending? Dear god! Can you talk me through how going back into Iraq, and then Syria, comes under the remit of 'defence' please? Are we expecting ISIS landing craft off Beachy Head?
Oh... I forgot... You zionists have a somewhat different interpretation of the word from pretty much everyone else. 🙄
I don't think they're mutually exclusive, and our 'expeditionary' approach has resulted in the current bit of a mess.
They are absolutely mutually exclusive. You have a QRF (most disaster relief is short notice) capability or you don't. You have a force capable of expeditionary ops (peacekeeping is often a fair distance and requires the establishment of infrastructure) or you don't, and if you do; you can bet your arse it'll be used however the govt of the day sees fit.
On the plus side; a defence force would be very cheap. No need for lots of airframes, long range carriers & subs. No paratroopers, minimal SF. But, youu can't have your cake and eat it.
JY I said "relatively", relative to the prior 10 years. I didn't say there wasn't a high degree of sectarian violence, the suicide bombings continue. I follow that fairly closely (Al-Monitor I find is excellent) and post here regularly on it. ISIS was able to expand dramatically into Iraq as the Iraqi Army didn't stand and fight despite having the equipment and the training to do so. Had they done so I think the situation could have been contained.
Binners, perhaps I'll just call it the military then rather than defense spending if that's easier for you.
You can call it what you like. The fact of the matter is that we should be greatly reducing our defence/military spending year on year. Starting with the nonsense that is Trident, and working down from there.
We are not some colonial power, despite what those in Whitehall, and Downing Street, like to think. We are a small island off the coast of Europe, with a busted economy. We need to spend the limited resources available to us on important stuff like schools and hospitals
And that means that there needs to be a reality intrusion at the top. Those who propose these ludicrous foreign adventures, need to be taken to one side and told that we can't afford it, and as I've already stated repeatedly[b] IT'S NOTHING TO DO WITH US!!![/b]
It isn't the 19th century. We are not running the world. We are not the worlds policeman. If the Americans want to be... let them get on with it. Grow a pair and tell them they're on their own this time, as we have a different set of priorities, as we don't have billions upon billions to spaff on some pointless crusade, and could do without any more of those Union Jack draped coffins coming home
ISIS was able to expand dramatically into Iraq as the Iraqi Army didn't stand and fight despite having the equipment and the training to do so. Had they done so I think the situation could have been contained.
Are there any other hypothetical situations, or events that might or might not have happened, that could also potentially have changed the situation? Maybe if aliens had landed in Syria, things would be different? It is what it is. One massive almighty, biblical scale * up!! And any further involvement by the people who caused that massive almighty, biblical scale * up in the first place - [b]us[/b] - will only make things ten times worse!
IT'S NOTHING TO DO WITH US!!!
I get what your're saying, but here's a question. Do we get to pick and choose when it's nothing to do with us? At what point does a conflict impact us? Left unchecked, 5 years down the line IS could have engulfed the region and start knocking on Europes door.
I don't support war but it's a sad reality that there comes a time when outside nations do need to get involved. I don't know if that time is now but I dread to think what's happening on the ground out there and I'm fairly certain that beheading westerners on camera is probably one of least gruesome activities. If we can invade a country off the back of fake WMDs, then we can go to the rescue of a country when they're suffering genocide.
wrecker - Member
They are absolutely mutually exclusive.
You can have a defense force and still maintain QRF and our obligation for peacekeeping. Peacekeeping as a part of UN or NATO operations. Acting alone or with a couple of other countries should be a thing of the past.
you can bet your arse it'll be used however the govt of the day sees fit.
For sure. And that's a bridge/cross challenge. It'd be more difficult if the armed forces were classified as peacekeeping and self-defense though.
BoardinBob - Member
I don't support war but it's a sad reality that there comes a time when outside nations do need to get involved.
Not in ones and twos though. It needs international solutions to ensure stopping conflict and not national self-interest is the mission.
JY Iraq itself has been relatively quiet since our departure,
if it weren't so sad, what you've said would be funny.
If we can invade a country off the back of fake WMDs, then we can go to the rescue of a country when they're suffering genocide.
Wooooah there!! Genocide? Thats the first I've heard about genocide. Do we have any evidence whatsoever that that's what's going on? I've been watching this and I've seen no evidence presented at all about anything amounting to genocide. There are rumours. But thats all they are. All very convenient. I think after the whole dodgy dossier business we need to be very sceptical about what we're being told is going on. And we need to be coldly asking for hard evidence. And presently I've seen none thats what happening is genocide. Have I missed something?
And are you suggesting that the dodgy dossier is now the benchmark for evidence required to go to war? I'd say that what that tells us is the folly of unquestioningly accepting what we're being told. We need our glorious leaders to answer the questions I listed earlier
1. what threat do they pose to us (none that I can see)
2. what would our involvement set out to achieve (erm.....?)
3. How would our involvement achieve these clearly stated aims (errrrrrrrm........?)
I've no doubt that its a pretty abhorrent regime. But the world's full of those. Ironically [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/11052965/Tony-Blair-gives-Kazakhstans-autocratic-president-tips-on-how-to-defend-a-massacre.html ]Tony himself works for one[/url], doing their PR, as an apologist for their human rights abuses.
Oh the....
[img] 
[/img]
Perhaps ISIS needs to get Tony on board? Maybe this whole thing is a sales pitch?
Wooooah there!! Genocide? Thats the first I've heard about genocide. Do we have any evidence whatsoever that that's what's going on?
Personal evidence, no, but I can only go by what I read
ISIL have broadcast dozens of videos showing cruel treatment and beheadings and shootings of Iraqi soldiers, police officers, as well as [b]people apparently targeted because of their religion or ethnicity, including Shia and minority groups such as Turcomans, Shabak, Christians, and Yezidis.[/b]
Fresh evidence uncovered by Amnesty International indicates that members of the armed group calling itself the Islamic State (IS) have launched a systematic campaign of ethnic cleansing in northern Iraq, carrying out war crimes, including mass summary killings and abductions, against ethnic and religious minorities
[i]ISIL Militants Killed More Than 1000 Civilians In Recent Onslaught In Iraq: UN[/i]
So.... two thirds of the civilians that the Israeli's recently killed indiscriminately in Gaza, while we parroted the mantra of 'Israels right to defend itself'? And a minuscule amount when compared to the blood that Tony has on his hands?
I'm not disputing that theres all manner of nasty stuff going on. What I'm saying is that the narrative that we're being sold is preposterous. We're expected to believe that ISIS is 'the enemy'. A unified group of 'baddies' that we can target. Whats going on is an amalgamation of all manner of conflicts. Sectarian. Tribal. Islamist. An actual civil war in Syria against Assad. Across borders. All backed and armed by all manner of regimes in the area, fighting proxy wars. Its a mess! And if we're looking for a simple good guys/bad guys narrative then we're on a hiding to nothing right from the off! Remember... 12 months ago the guys who are now the baddies were courageous freedom fighters who we should be helping. Seems to me we haven't got a clue whats actually taking place on the ground. And does it sound to anyone that thats a good premise on which to be wading in, all guns blazing?
JY I said "relatively", relative to the prior 10 years.
You said since our departure and the point is no one could credibly call the cited history as "relatively" quiet. Furthermore your argument was about how our ground forces could "neutralise" ISIS. Iraq shows we failed in this regard. civil war and your country partitioned by force = "relatively quiet" what would have been relatively bad and very bad and terrible then?
ISIS was able to expand dramatically into Iraq
Do you read posts ISIS is from IRAQ
Why do you repeat things that are not true?
What are we debating for when you ignore actual facts?
So.... two thirds of the civilians that the Israeli's recently killed indiscriminately in Gaza, while we parroted the mantra of 'Israels right to defend itself'? And a minuscule amount when compared to the blood that Tony has on his hands?
@binners ISIL killed 1000 civilians in that area, the overall total in Iraq and Syria is much much higher and would by now have reached huge numbers IMO (100,000?) if they had not been driven back by air strikes. Does Tony Blair have the 100,000+ of deaths from sectarian violence in Iraq on his hands or should the protagonists take the blame ?
Total casualties in Gaza are approx 50% civilian (1100) vs 50% Hamas terrorists/operatives, it will be shown in time that the many male casualties Hamas recorded as civilians where involved in the fighting (60% of casualties where adult males). This has been the pattern of prior conflicts, the casualty statistics are given by the UN in Gaza which is comprised 99.6% Palestinians (29,400 out of 30,000 UN employees). Most of those killed where killed after Israel accepted a cease fire which Hamas rejected only to agree a ceasefire much later after many more deaths on the same terms. No Gazan's wold have been killed had Hamas not spent the first 6 months of 2014 firing 100's of rockets at Israeli towns and cities.
Military spending. We can agree to differ. We should be spending more. Military spending is also positive for the economy as its provides high tech jobs and research and development which is used elsewhere in other civilian projects.
JY ISIS built its strength and capabilities in Syria and recruited the Westerners into Syria before expanding dramatically into Iraq. As I said if the Iraqi military had stood firm they could and should have dealt with the insurgence and kept it within Syria. Whether you believe the group originated in Iraq or Syria isn't relevant it established itself in its current large well funded form in Syria as part of that civil war.
This is not an escalation
This is just a surge toward victory
😆
You can have a defense force and still maintain QRF and our obligation for peacekeeping.
I disagree. A defence force is defensive. It's training, capabilities and equipment (and costs) are very different to that of a force with a QRF/exped capability. Defence forces are completely useless to organisations like the UN and NATO.
Yeah but what I'm saying is that the skills and training don't just *puff* in a cloud of smoke, and you can maintain these skills and the forces trained with these skills (albeit a lot smaller) but not use them in the interventionist way that they are now.
@binners ISIL killed 1000 civilians in that area, the overall total in Iraq and Syria is much much higher and would by now have reached huge numbers IMO (100,000?)
And where on earth has that figure come from? Let me guess? Plucked out of the air, by any chance? And are you suggesting that the deaths in Syria are all down to ISIS? Theres a civil war thats been raging for years, that they are only one element of. Thats the thing with wars. People have a tendency to get killed in large numbers.
Have you thought about a future in preparing dossiers? You'd come in handy at the moment. Looks like they're going to need some totally spurious guesswork, and cloud-cuckoo-land notions of perceived threats to justify doing what they've no doubt already committed us to doing.
ISIS built its strength and capabilities in Syria and recruited the Westerners into Syria before expanding dramatically into Iraq. As I said if the Iraqi military had stood firm they could and should have dealt with the insurgence and kept it within Syria. Whether you believe the group originated in Iraq or Syria isn't relevant
See that bit where i quoted the history to you - those are not my words 🙄
It is what happened it is not what I think it is what happened
You are the only person on the planet who thinks ISIS - Islamic State in Iraq started not in Iraq - I really will never ever speak to you again about anything as facts and you are not even remotely acquainted.
Repeating your lie and failure to accept reality will not a truth make they just make you look detached from reality - in your case it should be even more detached.
The Islamic State (IS; Arabic: ?????? ?????????? ad-Dawlah l-?Isl?miyyah), previously calling itself the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /?a?s?l/) or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS
I am sure you are aware that its initial name - levant does not include Syria where you claim it formed.
Its not even credible to do this debate and you must be trolling no one is this ignorant or daft.
the full quote look how long it takes to mention a presence in Syria
Your view is as wrong as wrong can be- its not an opinion it is just wrong.
The Islamic State, also widely known as ISIS, ISIL and Da?esh,[91] originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999*. This group was the forerunner of Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn—commonly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)—a group formed by Abu Musab Al Zarqawi in 2004 which took part in the Iraqi insurgency against American-led forces and their Iraqi allies following the 2003 invasion of Iraq. During the 2003–2011 Iraq War, it joined other Sunni insurgent groups to form the Mujahideen Shura Council, which consolidated further into the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI /?a?s?/) shortly afterwards.[92] At its height it enjoyed a significant presence in the Iraqi governorates of Al Anbar, Nineveh, Kirkuk, most of Salah ad Din, parts of Babil, Diyala and Baghdad, and claimed Baqubah as a capital city.[93][94][95][96] However, the violent attempts by the Islamic State of Iraq to govern its territory led to a backlash from Sunni Iraqis and other insurgent groups in around 2008 which helped to propel the Awakening movement and a temporary decline in the group.[92][97] In April 2013, the group changed its name to the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham.
As ISIS, the group grew significantly under the leadership of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, gaining support in Iraq as a result of alleged economic and political discrimination against Iraqi Sunnis. Then, after entering the Syrian Civil War, it established a large presence in the Syrian governorates of Ar-Raqqah, Idlib, Deir ez-Zor and Aleppo
* it started in Jordan but grew in Iraw during the insurgency when, in your view, we were quelling them apparently
you have got to be trolling
and it's weird that the Iraqi military didn't stand firm considering how quiet Iraq has been since the US withdrawal, right?if the Iraqi military had stood firm they could and should have dealt with the insurgence and kept it within Syria
As I said if the Iraqi military had stood firm they could and should have dealt with the insurgence and kept it within Syria.
If....
If...
If...
Again... Heres where the difference between what the government want to tell us, and [i]actual reality[/i] comes into play again.
What the government would have you believe - that the Iraq army is a highly trained fighting force
The reality* - the Iraq army is an absolute joke. Made up of people desperate for a salary as there are no other jobs.
What were the chances that they were going to stand up to a group of highly motivated, tooled up psychotic, blood-thirsty lunatics, quite happy to die for the cause? Would you? No... me neither.
Its just yet another example of the fantasy world that you appear to live in.
*I know this from a few of my mates who got back from tours there. One of whom was there specifically to train the Iraq army. He was pretty scathing about their abilities, and motivation.
Yeah but what I'm saying is that the skills and training don't just *puff* in a cloud of smoke, and you can maintain these skills and the forces trained with these skills (albeit a lot smaller) but not use them in the interventionist way that they are now.
They kind of do. Skillfade. That's why they train. It does go further; logistics, engineering infrastructure capabilities. A defence force would be trained in defensive tactics, kit and raining based on uk (temperate) environments.
What I'm saying is; if you want a force capable of rapid deployment (or even just deployment) they will be open for (ab)use for offensive ops. Cost savings WILL result in a reduction in capability. We don't have a large military at present. Make no mistake; it's been cut heavily. We're not a million miles from the absolute bare minimum.
