Cool I'm with you now.
The problem I have is the way it's used, but as you say my 'solution' still open to the same interventionist tactics we've used recently.
The thing that resonates most with me when talking about this is Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution (although they are looking at amending with the renewed expansionist policy of China):
Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever [b]renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.[/b](2) To accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. [b]The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.[/b]
EDIT - Oh and
kit and raining based on uk (temperate) environments.
S****.
wrecker - MemberCost 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.
I dunno, we could stop pissing away money on white elephants- Trident soaks up 6% of the current budget, the estimated cost just to build and equip the replacements is almost exactly a year's defence budget. That's a lot of blackjack and hookers.
Isis will be gone in less than 2 years time.
If they are as bad and as ruthless as they are made out to be then there is no interests to be served by dealing with them, they cannot exist/continue to fight without a supply chain, if the Western Intelligence cannot identify and take action against the supply chain then they are clearly unintelligent.
It's not a conventional army with centralised supply though.
Good luck in trying to secure the borders in the middle east
It's not a conventional army with centralised supply though
Agreed, they will however require some form of organised and reliable supply arrangements, they may be robbing it from their conquests as they go along, however that wont last forever. They are dependant upon fuel, food, ammunition, medical and reinforcements, surely the good old US of A have this monitored or at least have the capability to track them?
Maybe I`ve got it wrong, maybe we just haven't got the capability.
Brilliant! The news is full of graphics of fighter planes on maps, and grainy footage of surgical strikes!
I love all that shit, me! It's so exciting! Top Gun is on Film 4 later too! Cool!
The problem I have is the way it's used,
Me too mate. Lack of checks and balances IMHO.
Oooh. Anjem Choudary arrested by CT po-lice. I do hope they have something which they can make stick.
@wrecker, he is indeed a thoroughly unpleasant individual, when you hear him speak it's clear what a terrible and very dangerous person he is. He recently said he could not feel sorry for the British hostages as the Quarn doesn't allow a Muslim to feel sorrow for a non-Muslim. Total abuse of the book. He's strongly disliked by moderate Muslims who quite rightly see the damage he does to Islam. I too hope there is something that will stick.
He's clearly an "enabler", and one I'd like to see the back of, by whatever means.
The motion which will be voted on in Parliament - Iraq only, no Syria and no troops on the ground in a combat role (so SAS spotters etc allowed)
[i]This House:
• Condemns the barbaric acts of Isil against the peoples of Iraq including the Sunni, Shia, Kurds, Christians and Yazidi and the humanitarian crisis this is causing
• Recognises the clear threat Isil pose to the territorial integrity of Iraq and the request from the government of Iraq for military support from the international community and the specific request to the UK government for such support
• Further recognises the threat Isil poses to wider international security and the UK directly through its sponsorship of terrorist attacks and its murder of a British hostage
• Acknowledges the broad coalition contributing to military support of the government of Iraq, including countries throughout the Middle East
• Further acknowledges the request of the government of Iraq for international support to defend itself against the threat Isil poses to Iraq and its citizens, and the clear legal basis that this provides for action in Iraq
• Notes that this motion does not endorse UK air strikes in Syria as part of this campaign, and any proposal to do so would be subject to a separate vote in parliament
• Accordingly supports her majesty’s government, working with allies, in supporting the government of Iraq in protecting civilians and restoring its territorial integrity, including the use of UK air strikes to support Iraqi, including Kurdish, security forces’ efforts against Isil in Iraq
• Notes that her majesty’s government will not deploy UK troops in ground combat operations
• Offers its wholehearted support to the men and women of her majesty’s armed forces.[/i]
Iraq only, no Syria
Not surprised. Dave's just had a cosy up with the Iran boss. Looks like a good cop/bad cop approach by the UK and the US.
Didn't the Serbs end up building phony tanks out of plywood and haystacks, then "camouflaging" them, which we then dutifully spent lots of money on destroying?
Hopefully this lot won't be quite so cheap and devious.
They don't have to make false tanks. They've got loads of them! And heavy artillery. And all manner of things the Iraqi army gave them when they ran off. Have you seen the actual figures? One Iraqi unit, just one of them, left behind 900 fully kitted out Humvees, along with a selection of heavy armour, with shed loads of ammunition for it all.
Given that any fool knows that these air strikes are pretty much useless without 'boots on the ground' to follow them up - you really don't have to be a military strategist - and given that the bowling club at my local pub is more up to that particular job than the Iraqi 'army'*, how do we see all this panning out then? Seriously? Welcome to the opening salvos of Gulf War 3. The sequel to the sequel.
I note the motion debated tomorrow is the usual vague waffle. I'm sure the debate will be just as muddle-headed and filled with vacuous posturing, with absolutely no clearly stated aims, and nothing even remotely resembling a long term strategy. Just like last time. Hey ho! Off we go, blundering into another open ended conflict, trailing along behind the Americans, pathetically desperate for approval.
Absolute stupidity!!!!
* the word is used figuratively in this instance, and does not infer any actual military capability.
The good thing about all that armour and heavy arty is that it's difficult to hide. With good int from the ground (and there are blokes on the ground), they could make a big dent in it.
.... And so the war porn begins....
Good intel from the ground? We haven't got a ****ing clue what's going on 'on the ground'!!! Do you fancy going having a look? Somehow I don't think there's going to be many volunteers for that particular job! The massed ranks of the legendarily brave, courageous and committed Iraqi army perhaps?
If you don't think that there are plenty of peeps over there, you are very naive. It's not porn, it's what some people do for a job. Just because it's not broadcasted (for obvious reasons) don't think it's not happening.
If you don't think that there are plenty of peeps over there, you are very naive.
The good news is that they never get captured. That would be embarrassing.
They do get captured. Sometimes they get photographed too. Both happened in Libya as was widely reported.
Both happened in Libya as was widely reported.
You mean that time when intelligence was so pisspoor that the SAS thought they would be welcomed with open arms by the Libyan rebels ?
[url=
inside the SAS operation that went wrong[/url]
[i][b]Tasked with escorting a diplomat to meet rebel Libyan forces and assessing the humanitarian situation on the ground, they did not, however, expect a hostile reception. [/i][/b]
Yes that was embarrassing. Mind you intelligence on the situation in Libya has been a disaster from start to finish, no one predicted that Libya would descend into the chaos that it has.
Except of course for Stop the War Coalition and others who were opposed to the NATO bombing of Libya.
That's the one ern couple of them got pinched by the rozzers in Iraq too. Still, lessons learned and all that eh?
There were plenty more successful missions which took place over there.
got pinched by the rozzers in Iraq
Before or after the fall of Saddam ? Don't remember hearing about that one.
Ah, yes .... Libya. Another success story of western intervention. Another despot deposed, to be replaced by? Oh... Another load of Islamist nut-jobs. It's all going really well, isn't it?
Are we back in there next? When we've finished with this little spat?
No argument from me Binners. It's a catch 22. Do nothing and let it go to shit, and do something in the hope it might not (but probably will anyway).
The newsagent lady had a newspaper open on a page with the old crappy war graphic with cartoony bad guys and a section view of a bomb. The media machine is conditioning us already, it feels so familiar now!
So what time scale are we putting on it before Dave is putting his best somber face on outside number 10, as he soberly informs us that British ground troops are going back into Iraq? As the air strikes haven't had the desired outcome (whatever that is, or was?) and the Iraqi 'army' has failed to make any impact.
I also predict that by that point, we'll be well embroiled in the whole Syrian mess too.
I reckon a couple of weeks before the general election. It's all just so bloody predictable. Christ knows how much this next little adventure is going to cost?! In lives, and cash in this age of austerity Dave's always telling us about.
I really don't see why we people are getting in a flap about this. This round is nothing like 2003, we are going down the French route that worked well in Mali. The French used 4000 troops (a combination of Special Forces, the Foreign Legion and Regulars) in Mali, combined with good air support to successfully put down an Islamist insurgency there. The country is now seeing squabbles between the Tuaregs and the local government, however it was a partial success in that it removed the worst nutters.
It's the same this time round, regional players such as the kurds want us there. Unlike last time we have more people who are willing to support us, we don't need to send in 100,000 troops and keep them there to beat IS back into the shadows. The local fighters just need short, sharp support in terms of well trained light infantry and air support to act as the tip of the spear.
Really don't see strategically, what the west can lose here.
Who is this 'we', Tom W1987?
You? Me? The other folks on STW? NO - I didn't think so.
Not over-identifying with the British state and the British establishment by any chance are you? Wrapping yourself in the union jack? Because 'we' (that is, ordinary people who are not part of the UK state's war and propaganda machine) have little interest in playing further divide and rule with the peoples of the Middle East (look at all those straight lines on the map if you don't believe me). Rather we should campaign for peace with justice for the Palestinians, and for support for the PKK, the section of those 'regional players' the Kurds who are fighting hardest against IS but are given no help by the West and are attacked by the Turks, and for popular democracy from below, rather than external solutions imposed at the end of a barrel of a US/UK gun. Believe you me (and on the evidence of 2003 it isn't too hard)'our' intervention will only make things yet worse.
Does anybody believe that ISIS are remotely interested in negotiating for peace? I certainly don't. War and destruction is their only function and reason for existence. They have no political wing and are little more than rampaging barbarians. Their single stated aim is the creation of a Islamic Caliphate (presumably less Shia's as they are doing their level best to wipe those out). Kurds, Alawites and Christians can also expect a rough deal (and by that I mean probable extinction). Sounds fun, eh?
Make no mistake; the rise of ISIL is the wests (well americas) fault for not puppeteering a representative govt in Iraq, instead giving all the power to the Shia, which (predicably) resulted in the Sunni being shat on.
So. Does the west just poke its nose out of a huge mess for which it is at least partially responsible? Does it dip it's toe in the water (as it is now) just to show willing? Does it go batshit mental, lose and take more lives, blow a load more money with no guaranteed result?
Decisions, decisions.
Does anybody believe that ISIS are remotely interested in negotiating for peace?
Do you think we are ? Did you hear what Obama said - evil the only thing they respond to is force etc, must be destroyed etc - did not sound like the west was keen either tbh.
Their single stated aim is the creation of a Islamic Caliphate
Is this not a political objective then? I us wanting to stop them doing this also not political?If you think the infidel west can help in a schism caused by the prophet not mentioning a heir, that has raged since 632, then you are massively more optimistic than I am.
I do not think there will be anyone who does not find them an odious group but the issue, as you note, is whether our "help" will actually help.
Do you think we are ?
Nope. And I don't think "we" are alone either. None of the current big boys are in any mind to allow the creation of a new superpower (which a Caliphate could be); especially one with control of all that lovely oil.
They'll go tooth and nail, but not just yet.
Is this not a political objective then? I us wanting to stop them doing this also not political?
Political/stated aim. Same thing. I didn't say that this wasn't political, just that they do not have a political wing, and are not pursuing political means to this end. Their sole intention is to bring this about by force. There is no diplomatic channel/solution to it.
the wests (well americas) fault for not puppeteering a representative govt
can a foreign power impose a representative government on Iraq?
double post
Good intel from the ground? We haven't got a ****ing clue what's going on 'on the ground'!!! Do you fancy going having a look? Somehow I don't think there's going to be many volunteers for that particular job! The massed ranks of the legendarily brave, courageous and committed Iraqi army perhaps?
@binners the US and UK special forces have been in Iraq for nearly a month and I imagine as of now we have quite a sizable presence.
There will be boots on the ground from the local forces be they Kurds or other groups. As we've posted before there are lots of stories about Iranian units operating on the ground.
As for kit yes the Iraqi's ran off disgracefully but 900 Humvees are no match for F16's or indeed drones. The fact the US/French/UAE/Jordan etc are operating air strikes tells you IS have no captured anti-aircraft missiles.
As for comment above about SAS operation going wrong, wars are like that, things "go wrong" all the time.
JY we the West watched for 12-18 months as the civil war raged in Syria, we didn't want to get involved but the actions of ISIS gave us no choice. Had they focused purely on Syria there is a chance we would have stood by even with all the killing that was going on but their expansion into Iraq was a grave tactical error on their part.
can a foreign power impose a representative government on Iraq?
I think they can, and moreover; did (in the end).
Malaki did belatedly make it more representative, although I very much doubt it was his idea to bring in those who he had sought to disadvantage at every turn.
US and UK special forces have been in Iraq for nearly a month
? They never left.
no one predicted that Libya would descend into the chaos that it has.
@ernie, I suspect our intelligence services had a pretty good idea it would. The analysis is about whether that is better or worse than what went before and whether it would pose a threat to us. I have been to couple of presentations given by ex-head of MI5, the one thing you can say is they are very thoughtful about the various scenarios/outcomes in any situation.
ZEROHEDGE.COM Galloway making perfect sense on This Week, last night, with Jacqui Smith and Michael Portillo...great to watch them both squirm when he presents their own complicity in the situation.
Can we ever trust our government , so many lies ,so many dodgy dealings?
jambalaya - Member
@ernie, I suspect our intelligence services had a pretty good idea it would. The analysis is about whether that is better or worse than what went before and whether it would pose a threat to us. I have been to couple of presentations given by ex-head of MI5, the one thing you can say is they are very thoughtful about the various scenarios/outcomes in any situation.
The thing about intelligence services is that there is a lot of history of them [url=
actually knowing what's happening[/url].
But the strange fact is that often when you look into the history of spies what you discover is something very different.It is not the story of men and women who have a better and deeper understanding of the world than we do. In fact in many cases it is the story of weirdos who have created a completely mad version of the world that they then impose on the rest of us.
I want to tell some stories about MI5 - and the very strange people who worked there. They are often funny, sometimes rather sad - but always very odd.
The stories also show how elites in Britain have used the aura of secret knowledge as a way of maintaining their power. But as their power waned the "secrets" became weirder and weirder.
They were helped in this by another group who also felt their power was waning - journalists. And together the journalists and spies concocted a strange, dark world of treachery and deceit which bore very little relationship to what was really going on. And still doesn't.
But then history doesn't matter, does it?
The local fighters just need short, sharp support in terms of well trained light infantry and air support to act as the tip of the spear.
Like Vietnam?
Political/stated aim. Same thing. I didn't say that this wasn't political, just that they do not have a political wing, and are not pursuing political means to this end. Their sole intention is to bring this about by force. There is no diplomatic channel/solution to it.
Arguably political in that their stated aim is to produce an Islamic state. I wonder is they are open to negotiation, but what they want is so politically unsound that it's arguable that negotiations would be of any use.
Ha. I'd love to be in that meeting.
"what do you want?"
"Caliphate"
"hmm. Anything else?"
"No. Caliphate"
"Erm....."
😀
