Be careful what you say. You might be taken for a warmonger.
After all, we should only intervene if we are sure we will not make matters worse, and that where we can make a clear strategic difference we do so. Even if we know that the conflict will spread further, and more will die.
You a warmonger sir, and a friend of ISIL!
(At least, according to one esteemed poster fpt, who would rather sit back with whisky in hand whilst more people die and a caliphate is created).
We have no choice. We have to act. It really is Hitler all over again, they are never going to stop killing and expanding and conquering - until we kill them. It doesn't matter whose fault it is that they have come to power. They are here and they want to kill us.
(snip)
And at the core, it's all Miliband's fault.
Good grief. I can't believe you even said that. How utterly pathetic you are.
So tell me how Miliband insisting on a vote in parliament to go to war, negotiating a watered down proposal (which Cameron then had to take to Obama), and then reneging on the very day of the vote, helped the Syrians or Iraqis who are dying?
At least people like Richard Tyndall are arguing from a moral viewpoint, even if I disagree with them. Miliband both stopped us acting when we could, and made it harder for us to act in the future.
Iv'e never seen so many crossover swingbacks, it must be the Cameroon surge. I don't know who is more tired, Basil carrying the crossover goalposts or the PB Hodges marching up and repeatedly back down the polling crossover hill.
Repeated swingback crossovers are good for the Tories as they show they are approaching level-pegging with Labour.
Oh those heady days of mid-May, three crossovers in as many days and PB Hodges declaring Swingback crossover with a Cameroon surge will now lead to a Tory majority....oh, how we laughed. They were there at the top of the hill, Tory majority in sight and whooshh, before you know it, the lot of them tumbled right back down. These random rare crossover polls are entertaining, if only to see the shares in PB Hodges tissues go through the roof as they get premature polling crossover ejaculation.
I thought we've had a few more crossovers since May, which suggests a relative tightening of the gap between Lab and Con. As per the previous thread, the trend is your friend.
Utterly ridiculous, given that a lack of crossover tells us absolutely nothing about the relative position of the parties. Tories could have been 50 points behind and increased to 5 points behind and there still wouldn't be a crossover.
I was against Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and I've been proven right every time
This is different. This is more like Sierra Leone or Rwanda. Get bombing.
I know it is unusual Hugh but for once I agree with you. I also think you were correct on all those previous occasions and that this is different because of the scale and intent.
More importantly it is also different in one other way. Funnily enough because Islamic State have been so successful and well organised they are actually an easier target. This is not so much of an incoherent civil war where no one is clear where the front lines are as it was in Syria. The presence of US forces/advisors in Irbil makes it much easier to coordinate strikes.
Funnily enough the one thing that we could do to help is the one thing Josias doesn't want us to do which is to arm and supply the Kurds. Diplomatically and logistically that may be difficult given the objections from Turkey but tactically it has to be the right thing to do.
The problem with arming your enemy's enemy is that it has an annoying tendency to come back and bite you on the backside.
I for one would be happy to see British squaddies on the ground serving these evil c**** their arses.
Though I hate to say it and in spite of having huge admiration for the British military I am just not sure we would be able to win. This is one of those situations that would need a much bigger input than we could provide and I am not sure the US or any of the other big players have the stomach.
How often does this have to be said? Pretty soon - very soon - we won't have any choice. They will grow so powerful they will be able to threaten us across the region, and then the world.
This isn't the IRA. This is like an extreme version of al Qaeda running an entire country, with lots of guns, tanks, missiles and money, and expanding rapidly, with an ideology that demands constant aggression.
Saddam was never a threat to us, the way these guys are.
Israel might have to nuke them, for a start. To avoid that I imagine the Americans would go in, to prevent World War 3.
The solution is simple, to win a war with a state that is at total war against you the only hope is total war from you against them. If you dont want to use nukes then half a million ground army along with mass bombardment, tanks ect, like WW2 will solve the ISIS problem.
If you want to win a war do it properly or not at all.
Be careful what you say. You might be taken for a warmonger.
After all, we should only intervene if we are sure we will not make matters worse, and that where we can make a clear strategic difference we do so. Even if we know that the conflict will spread further, and more will die.
You a warmonger sir, and a friend of ISIL!
(At least, according to one esteemed poster fpt, who would rather sit back with whisky in hand whilst more people die and a caliphate is created).
We have no choice. We have to act. It really is Hitler all over again, they are never going to stop killing and expanding and conquering - until we kill them. It doesn't matter whose fault it is that they have come to power. They are here and they want to kill us.
(snip)
And at the core, it's all Miliband's fault.
Good grief. I can't believe you even said that. How utterly pathetic you are.
So tell me how Miliband insisting on a vote in parliament to go to war, negotiating a watered down proposal (which Cameron then had to take to Obama), and then reneging on the very day of the vote, helped the Syrians or Iraqis who are dying?
At least people like Richard Tyndall are arguing from a moral viewpoint, even if I disagree with them. Miliband both stopped us acting when we could, and made it harder for us to act in the future.
And all the while, more people die.
Oh, so now it is Milibands fault that people are dying in Iraq and Syria. It is a strange place sometimes this board.
You have yet to show they are lies. They are *opinions*.
As to what to strike: tactical strikes to punish Assad for the use of chemical weapons (a hideous crime you utterly ignore), and to 'persuade' him to stand down, ideally to Russia or a.n.other.
As I said at the beginning of this discussion: it's difficult to see how we could have made the situation worse than it is now, and easy to see how we could have improved it. That, it seems, is our biggest difference.
You have yet to show how you mantra of 'clear strategic difference' and 'be sure that we do not make matters worse' can ever be met. Heck, they might not even have been met over the Falklands crisis.
I also fail to see how they meet the current situation, either.
Nope you don't get away with it that easily. 'Punishing' Assad for use of chemical weapons - whilst I would agree is an admirable aim - is utterly pointless in terms of your stated aim of having changed anything materially regarding ISIS. What you have to do is to identify which targets you would have attacked that would have made any real difference to where we are now. All of those targets I mentioned earlier were viable but all were almost certainly unacceptable diplomatically or strategically. Simply saying, we should have bombed Assad and then claiming that would have made any difference to the rise of his enemies (given that they had already been on the rise since 2006 at least) is just infantile.
The comparison with the Falklands is puerile given that we had a clear set of tactical and strategic objectives and believed (correctly as it turned out) that we had the capability to deliver them.
I was against Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and I've been proven right every time
This is different. This is more like Sierra Leone or Rwanda. Get bombing.
I know it is unusual Hugh but for once I agree with you. I also think you were correct on all those previous occasions and that this is different because of the scale and intent.
More importantly it is also different in one other way. Funnily enough because Islamic State have been so successful and well organised they are actually an easier target. This is not so much of an incoherent civil war where no one is clear where the front lines are as it was in Syria. The presence of US forces/advisors in Irbil makes it much easier to coordinate strikes.
Funnily enough the one thing that we could do to help is the one thing Josias doesn't want us to do which is to arm and supply the Kurds. Diplomatically and logistically that may be difficult given the objections from Turkey but tactically it has to be the right thing to do.
The problem with arming your enemy's enemy is that it has an annoying tendency to come back and bite you on the backside.
I for one would be happy to see British squaddies on the ground serving these evil c**** their arses.
Though I hate to say it and in spite of having huge admiration for the British military I am just not sure we would be able to win. This is one of those situations that would need a much bigger input than we could provide and I am not sure the US or any of the other big players have the stomach.
How often does this have to be said? Pretty soon - very soon - we won't have any choice. They will grow so powerful they will be able to threaten us across the region, and then the world.
This is like an extreme version of al Qaeda running an entire country, with lots of guns, tanks, missiles and money, and expanding rapidly, with an ideology that demands constant aggression.
Surprising ICM poll. I expected Labour to be in the lead now we're well beyond the Euro elections but not by 7 points. I'd like to seethe Green score and if there is any consistency in the Lab+Green vote.
Iv'e never seen so many crossover swingbacks, it must be the Cameroon surge. I don't know who is more tired, Basil carrying the crossover goalposts or the PB Hodges marching up and repeatedly back down the polling crossover hill.
Repeated swingback crossovers are good for the Tories as they show they are approaching level-pegging with Labour.
Oh those heady days of mid-May, three crossovers in as many days and PB Hodges declaring Swingback crossover with a Cameroon surge will now lead to a Tory majority....oh, how we laughed. They were there at the top of the hill, Tory majority in sight and whooshh, before you know it, the lot of them tumbled right back down. These random rare crossover polls are entertaining, if only to see the shares in PB Hodges tissues go through the roof as they get premature polling crossover ejaculation.
I thought we've had a few more crossovers since May, which suggests a relative tightening of the gap between Lab and Con. As per the previous thread, the trend is your friend.
Utterly ridiculous, given that a lack of crossover tells us absolutely nothing about the relative position of the parties. Tories could have been 50 points behind and increased to 5 points behind and there still wouldn't be a crossover.
As to what to strike: tactical strikes to punish Assad for the use of chemical weapons (a hideous crime you utterly ignore), and to 'persuade' him to stand down, ideally to Russia or a.n.other.
As I said at the beginning of this discussion: it's difficult to see how we could have made the situation worse than it is now, and easy to see how we could have improved it. That, it seems, is our biggest difference.
I don't know much about military strategery in general or this situation in particular but it's not hard to see how it could have made the situation worse, is it? Damaging Assad's military capability while he fights ISIS would have helped ISIS.
Now, clearly it's a complex situation and war is unpredictable so something could have happened with the opposite effect, but helping somebody by bombing their enemy seems like a fairly straightforward causal mechanism.
You are another person equating the anti-Assad forces with ISIS. The fact that the FSA is a shadow of its former self now, does not mean that it was not near a winning position a year ago. It also denigrates the good men and women from all religions who wanted to bring down Assad, and had no concern about making it a religious war.
ISIS != FSA.
Instead, Assad and ISIS are both attacking the FSA.
The fact is that the do-nothings won, and we have a really sh*t situation. It really is hard to see how that could have been worse.
I was against Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and I've been proven right every time
This is different. This is more like Sierra Leone or Rwanda. Get bombing.
Yes. Though it's arguably worse than Sierra Leone or Rwanda - those horrors were never going to come back to hurt us. We just had to act to prevent genocide.
But this is genocide AND it is a direct threat to us. If ISIS keeps expanding they will take over all of Sunni Iraq, Syria, maybe Jordan. They will become the ultimate terror state, with oil money, and they will buy chemical or nuclear weapons and then they will attack us, and use terrorists inside our borders, as well. It's not like they are exactly hiding their agenda.
We should have tackled them a year ago, two years ago. But we are where we are, and we can still crush them now, if we act fast. We have to crush them. They are a clear and present danger to US, let alone the poor bastards in the Middle East.
ISIS will keep going as long as they are funded, trained and armed, and radical mosques around the world continue to send them freshly brainwashed meat. Their bacteria-like spread and ability to self sustain on their ill-gotten gains is a carefully crafted media myth in order for Saudi Arabia to maintain deniability. For them to sell oil, someone has to buy the oil. For them to get fresh recruits, they have to be trained in Turkey, Jordan, KSA etc. All these things can be stopped tomorrow.
The guy running Saudi intelligence was replaced in April
so I think it's possible that some of the parties who were very happy with Isis fighting Assad in Syria became less keen when it blew back over the border.
Prince Bandar implied that they would bomb the Sochi winter olympics as a reprisal for the russian support for Syria, that I believe was the last straw for the Saudi government.
I was against Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and I've been proven right every time
This is different. This is more like Sierra Leone or Rwanda. Get bombing.
I know it is unusual Hugh but for once I agree with you. I also think you were correct on all those previous occasions and that this is different because of the scale and intent.
More importantly it is also different in one other way. Funnily enough because Islamic State have been so successful and well organised they are actually an easier target. This is not so much of an incoherent civil war where no one is clear where the front lines are as it was in Syria. The presence of US forces/advisors in Irbil makes it much easier to coordinate strikes.
Funnily enough the one thing that we could do to help is the one thing Josias doesn't want us to do which is to arm and supply the Kurds. Diplomatically and logistically that may be difficult given the objections from Turkey but tactically it has to be the right thing to do.
The problem with arming your enemy's enemy is that it has an annoying tendency to come back and bite you on the backside.
I for one would be happy to see British squaddies on the ground serving these evil c**** their arses.
Though I hate to say it and in spite of having huge admiration for the British military I am just not sure we would be able to win. This is one of those situations that would need a much bigger input than we could provide and I am not sure the US or any of the other big players have the stomach.
How often does this have to be said? Pretty soon - very soon - we won't have any choice. They will grow so powerful they will be able to threaten us across the region, and then the world.
This isn't the IRA. This is like an extreme version of al Qaeda running an entire country, with lots of guns, tanks, missiles and money, and expanding rapidly, with an ideology that demands constant aggression.
Saddam was never a threat to us, the way these guys are.
Israel might have to nuke them, for a start. To avoid that I imagine the Americans would go in, to prevent World War 3.
They don't have a money tree. Nor do they give birth via immaculate conception to angry men of fighting age. Nor do they heal themselves when wounded. Nor do their guns automatically refill when empty. They will last as long as they are being supported, and no longer.
Iv'e never seen so many crossover swingbacks, it must be the Cameroon surge. I don't know who is more tired, Basil carrying the crossover goalposts or the PB Hodges marching up and repeatedly back down the polling crossover hill.
Repeated swingback crossovers are good for the Tories as they show they are approaching level-pegging with Labour.
Oh those heady days of mid-May, three crossovers in as many days and PB Hodges declaring Swingback crossover with a Cameroon surge will now lead to a Tory majority....oh, how we laughed. They were there at the top of the hill, Tory majority in sight and whooshh, before you know it, the lot of them tumbled right back down. These random rare crossover polls are entertaining, if only to see the shares in PB Hodges tissues go through the roof as they get premature polling crossover ejaculation.
I thought we've had a few more crossovers since May, which suggests a relative tightening of the gap between Lab and Con. As per the previous thread, the trend is your friend.
Utterly ridiculous, given that a lack of crossover tells us absolutely nothing about the relative position of the parties. Tories could have been 50 points behind and increased to 5 points behind and there still wouldn't be a crossover.
I was against Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and I've been proven right every time
This is different. This is more like Sierra Leone or Rwanda. Get bombing.
I know it is unusual Hugh but for once I agree with you. I also think you were correct on all those previous occasions and that this is different because of the scale and intent.
More importantly it is also different in one other way. Funnily enough because Islamic State have been so successful and well organised they are actually an easier target. This is not so much of an incoherent civil war where no one is clear where the front lines are as it was in Syria. The presence of US forces/advisors in Irbil makes it much easier to coordinate strikes.
Funnily enough the one thing that we could do to help is the one thing Josias doesn't want us to do which is to arm and supply the Kurds. Diplomatically and logistically that may be difficult given the objections from Turkey but tactically it has to be the right thing to do.
I've never said we *shouldn't* arm the Kurds; I've just pointed out that the action might be rather counter-productive in the short, medium and long term, something some on here seemed to be forgetting. It's especially odd to want to arm the Kurds (and by extension the PKK who have extra-national ambitions), but to have been against arming the Syrian FSA.
I've got no idea what's right to do. It's a mess.
Whereas you seemed to know the conflict would spread, and that more would die, yet were willing to do nothing.
Nope. The conflict was going to spread whatever we did. Indeed it had already spread. In case you missed it ISIS were around well before everything kicked off in Syria and had been gaining strength steadily for years in the vacuum caused by our previous little military adventure in Iraq.
I was against Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and I've been proven right every time
This is different. This is more like Sierra Leone or Rwanda. Get bombing.
I know it is unusual Hugh but for once I agree with you. I also think you were correct on all those previous occasions and that this is different because of the scale and intent.
More importantly it is also different in one other way. Funnily enough because Islamic State have been so successful and well organised they are actually an easier target. This is not so much of an incoherent civil war where no one is clear where the front lines are as it was in Syria. The presence of US forces/advisors in Irbil makes it much easier to coordinate strikes.
Funnily enough the one thing that we could do to help is the one thing Josias doesn't want us to do which is to arm and supply the Kurds. Diplomatically and logistically that may be difficult given the objections from Turkey but tactically it has to be the right thing to do.
I've never said we *shouldn't* arm the Kurds; I've just pointed out that the action might be rather counter-productive in the short, medium and long term, something some on here seemed to be forgetting. It's especially odd to want to arm the Kurds (and by extension the PKK who have extra-national ambitions), but to have been against arming the Syrian FSA.
I've got no idea what's right to do. It's a mess.
Whereas you seemed to know the conflict would spread, and that more would die, yet were willing to do nothing.
Nope. The conflict was going to spread whatever we did. Indeed it had already spread. In case you missed it ISIS were around well before everything kicked off in Syria and had been gaining strength steadily for years in the vacuum caused by our previous little military adventure in Iraq.
Some people simply refuse to learn from history.
“The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history" Hegel.
A truly dreadful poll for the Tories - the sort which at this stage makes me think there is simply no way back for Cameron, who one has to say has been a desperately disappointing Prime Minister. Certainly this has convinced me to place a score on a Labour majority this evening at 2.2/1 with Bet365.
I was against Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and I've been proven right every time
This is different. This is more like Sierra Leone or Rwanda. Get bombing.
I know it is unusual Hugh but for once I agree with you. I also think you were correct on all those previous occasions and that this is different because of the scale and intent.
More importantly it is also different in one other way. Funnily enough because Islamic State have been so successful and well organised they are actually an easier target. This is not so much of an incoherent civil war where no one is clear where the front lines are as it was in Syria. The presence of US forces/advisors in Irbil makes it much easier to coordinate strikes.
Funnily enough the one thing that we could do to help is the one thing Josias doesn't want us to do which is to arm and supply the Kurds. Diplomatically and logistically that may be difficult given the objections from Turkey but tactically it has to be the right thing to do.
Arming the Kurds might not be enough. Look at these numbers:
We may have to take out entire towns where Isis are in control. Like we did with Hitler. It is getting that serious. Thousands of innocents will die. But if we don't do this, hundreds of thousands will die.
Unless someone has a better idea. Containment? How do we do that? They will attack Jordan next.
Sean - according to Wikipedia Jordan has 110,000 active personnel which should be more than enough to hold their own against ISIS (and with much better equipment)
I think containment has to be the policy as who do you replace them with? In Syria, the Free Syrian army is too weak and Assad is not an option. In Iraq, arming the Kurds will help in Kurdistan but what about Tikrit etc? If you re-arm the central government that also risk causing more problems (sectarian strife and boosting the influence of Iran)
The best plan seems to be to restrict them military, try to clamp down on their finance and hope that the tribal leaders eventually tire of their extremism, while trying to make the Iraqi government a bit more palatable to Sunnis.
You have yet to show they are lies. They are *opinions*.
As to what to strike: tactical strikes to punish Assad for the use of chemical weapons (a hideous crime you utterly ignore), and to 'persuade' him to stand down, ideally to Russia or a.n.other.
As I said at the beginning of this discussion: it's difficult to see how we could have made the situation worse than it is now, and easy to see how we could have improved it. That, it seems, is our biggest difference.
You have yet to show how you mantra of 'clear strategic difference' and 'be sure that we do not make matters worse' can ever be met. Heck, they might not even have been met over the Falklands crisis.
I also fail to see how they meet the current situation, either.
Nope you don't get away with it that easily. 'Punishing' Assad for use of chemical weapons - whilst I would agree is an admirable aim - is utterly pointless in terms of your stated aim of having changed anything materially regarding ISIS. What you have to do is to identify which targets you would have attacked that would have made any real difference to where we are now. All of those targets I mentioned earlier were viable but all were almost certainly unacceptable diplomatically or strategically. Simply saying, we should have bombed Assad and then claiming that would have made any difference to the rise of his enemies (given that they had already been on the rise since 2006 at least) is just infantile.
The comparison with the Falklands is puerile given that we had a clear set of tactical and strategic objectives and believed (correctly as it turned out) that we had the capability to deliver them.
You tell me how doing nothing has helped the situation? How has the war spreading to Iraq improved matters?
As for the Falklands: I think you're rather over-egging the pudding. I was only young at the time, but beyond the jingoistic media fervour it was not clear that we would win. Fortunately we did, but it was not easy, with many setbacks along the way. Both sides had luck, and both sides were unlucky. If the scales had fallen differently we would have made matters for the Islanders much worse.
It certainly did not seem to meet the categories you mentioned in the previous topic, at least without hindsight. Which is probably why so many people from all sides of politics (including Thatcher herself) were worried about sending the task force down there.
A truly dreadful poll for the Tories - the sort which at this stage makes me think there is simply no way back for Cameron, who one has to say has a desperately disappointing Prime Minister. Certainly this has convinced me to place a score on a Labour majority this evening at 2.2/1 with Bet365.
I'm fast losing patience with Cameron and Osborne, but I'm going to give them until Christmas.
One thing is certain though, I DON'T back losers if I can help it.
As to what to strike: tactical strikes to punish Assad for the use of chemical weapons (a hideous crime you utterly ignore), and to 'persuade' him to stand down, ideally to Russia or a.n.other.
As I said at the beginning of this discussion: it's difficult to see how we could have made the situation worse than it is now, and easy to see how we could have improved it. That, it seems, is our biggest difference.
I don't know much about military strategery in general or this situation in particular but it's not hard to see how it could have made the situation worse, is it? Damaging Assad's military capability while he fights ISIS would have helped ISIS.
Now, clearly it's a complex situation and war is unpredictable so something could have happened with the opposite effect, but helping somebody by bombing their enemy seems like a fairly straightforward causal mechanism.
You are another person equating the anti-Assad forces with ISIS. The fact that the FSA is a shadow of its former self now, does not mean that it was not near a winning position a year ago. It also denigrates the good men and women from all religions who wanted to bring down Assad, and had no concern about making it a religious war.
ISIS != FSA.
Instead, Assad and ISIS are both attacking the FSA.
The fact is that the do-nothings won, and we have a really sh*t situation. It really is hard to see how that could have been worse.
The FSA were never a force that was going to bring down Assad no matter how much we might have wanted it to happen. They were always riven with factional infighting and disagreements over policy and aims. As soon as a coherent force came on the scene in the form of Hezbollah they just about fell apart.
And you have still not told us who you would have bombed to magically transform the situation in Syria.
You are another person equating the anti-Assad forces with ISIS. The fact that the FSA is a shadow of its former self now, does not mean that it was not near a winning position a year ago. It also denigrates the good men and women from all religions who wanted to bring down Assad, and had no concern about making it a religious war.
ISIS != FSA.
No I'm not, I'm saying Assad was fighting ISIS, so conventionally (although weird things can happen in wars) you'd expect bombing Assad to help ISIS.
Really, this stuff isn't complicated. Russia and Britain were fighting Germany. The USA started helping Britain fight Germany. Doing this helped Russia, because they were also fighting Germany. The fact that it did doesn't mean Churchill was a Communist.
I was against Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and I've been proven right every time
This is different. This is more like Sierra Leone or Rwanda. Get bombing.
Yes. Though it's arguably worse than Sierra Leone or Rwanda - those horrors were never going to come back to hurt us. We just had to act to prevent genocide.
But this is genocide AND it is a direct threat to us. If ISIS keeps expanding they will take over all of Sunni Iraq, Syria, maybe Jordan. They will become the ultimate terror state, with oil money, and they will buy chemical or nuclear weapons and then they will attack us, and use terrorists inside our borders, as well. It's not like they are exactly hiding their agenda.
We should have tackled them a year ago, two years ago. But we are where we are, and we can still crush them now, if we act fast. We have to crush them. They are a clear and present danger to US, let alone the poor bastards in the Middle East.
ISIS will keep going as long as they are funded, trained and armed, and radical mosques around the world continue to send them freshly brainwashed meat. Their bacteria-like spread and ability to self sustain on their ill-gotten gains is a carefully crafted media myth in order for Saudi Arabia to maintain deniability. For them to sell oil, someone has to buy the oil. For them to get fresh recruits, they have to be trained in Turkey, Jordan, KSA etc. All these things can be stopped tomorrow.
The guy running Saudi intelligence was replaced in April
so I think it's possible that some of the parties who were very happy with Isis fighting Assad in Syria became less keen when it blew back over the border.
You're right there could be a lot of explanations but if Saudi was supporting Isis in Syria it's at least plausible that them coming back over the border into Iraq was unintended (at least from the Saudi point of view).
That's not to say they don't have other supporters or at least potential oil buyers who can be persuaded not to.
Assad didn't use chemical weapons. The 'rebels' did. The 'fact' that he did (in a war he was winning, a few miles from weapons inspectors he had invited) has become one of those forgotten 'truths' that everyone knows, but no-one knows how they know. This is a good summary of events: http://nsnbc.me/2013/10/07/top-us-and-saudi-officials-responsible-for-chemical-weapons-in-syria/ Let's not let inaccuracies and unproven allegations inform current debates.
You tell me how doing nothing has helped the situation? How has the war spreading to Iraq improved matters?
As for the Falklands: I think you're rather over-egging the pudding. I was only young at the time, but beyond the jingoistic media fervour it was not clear that we would win. Fortunately we did, but it was not easy, with many setbacks along the way. Both sides had luck, and both sides were unlucky. If the scales had fallen differently we would have made matters for the Islanders much worse.
It certainly did not seem to meet the categories you mentioned in the previous topic, at least without hindsight. Which is probably why so many people from all sides of politics (including Thatcher herself) were worried about sending the task force down there.
The war was already in Iraq. It is only those who get all their information from the 6 o'clock news who think ISIS sprang up out of no where. We created ISIS out of the mess we made of Iraq. Indeed it was that which then sowed the seeds for the uprising and civil war in Syria.
And the point about the Falklands is that we had a clear set of objectives and targets and a basic aim of defeating an enemy force in a conventional war and of course even then we could have lost. We had none of that in Syria. Going into military operations without a clearly defined set of achievable objectives is how we end up in these messes in the first place.
A truly dreadful poll for the Tories - the sort which at this stage makes me think there is simply no way back for Cameron, who one has to say has a desperately disappointing Prime Minister. Certainly this has convinced me to place a score on a Labour majority this evening at 2.2/1 with Bet365.
I'm fast losing patience with Cameron and Osborne, but I'm going to give them until Christmas.
One thing is certain though, I DON'T back losers if I can help it.
TickTock,...
Just to make clear that while I'm betting on Labour, I will certainly be voting Conservative.
As to what to strike: tactical strikes to punish Assad for the use of chemical weapons (a hideous crime you utterly ignore), and to 'persuade' him to stand down, ideally to Russia or a.n.other.
As I said at the beginning of this discussion: it's difficult to see how we could have made the situation worse than it is now, and easy to see how we could have improved it. That, it seems, is our biggest difference.
I don't know much about military strategery in general or this situation in particular but it's not hard to see how it could have made the situation worse, is it? Damaging Assad's military capability while he fights ISIS would have helped ISIS.
Now, clearly it's a complex situation and war is unpredictable so something could have happened with the opposite effect, but helping somebody by bombing their enemy seems like a fairly straightforward causal mechanism.
You are another person equating the anti-Assad forces with ISIS. The fact that the FSA is a shadow of its former self now, does not mean that it was not near a winning position a year ago. It also denigrates the good men and women from all religions who wanted to bring down Assad, and had no concern about making it a religious war.
ISIS != FSA.
Instead, Assad and ISIS are both attacking the FSA.
The fact is that the do-nothings won, and we have a really sh*t situation. It really is hard to see how that could have been worse.
The FSA were never a force that was going to bring down Assad no matter how much we might have wanted it to happen. They were always riven with factional infighting and disagreements over policy and aims. As soon as a coherent force came on the scene in the form of Hezbollah they just about fell apart.
And you have still not told us who you would have bombed to magically transform the situation in Syria.
FSA had problems, but I'm not sure it was a negative as you paint it, at least this time last year. The problem for all sides appears not being gaining ground, but holding it.
From my point of view the point was to put pressure on Assad to step down, after which the FSA (formed by renegade Syrian army units) could have merged with the Syrian Army to tackle the other insurgents.
True, that may have led to another hardman in charge, but even that would have been better than what we have now.
As for asking me for tactical targets: easy. Long range mortars. The air force (remember, Assad is using barrel-bombs now). Logistics chains (e.g. convoys). That sort of thing. If you want more detail then you are being ridiculous.
A truly dreadful poll for the Tories - the sort which at this stage makes me think there is simply no way back for Cameron, who one has to say has a desperately disappointing Prime Minister. Certainly this has convinced me to place a score on a Labour majority this evening at 2.2/1 with Bet365.
I'm fast losing patience with Cameron and Osborne, but I'm going to give them until Christmas.
One thing is certain though, I DON'T back losers if I can help it.
TickTock,...
Just to make clear that while I'm betting on Labour, I will certainly be voting Conservative.
I'm not one who simply follows the herd.
Well, I'm not going to vote for Milliband because he will be an utter disaster, but there are plenty of options between voting Con and voting Lab.
Assad didn't use chemical weapons. The 'rebels' did. The 'fact' that he did (in a war he was winning, a few miles from weapons inspectors he had invited) has become one of those forgotten 'truths' that everyone knows, but no-one knows how they know. This is a good summary of events: http://nsnbc.me/2013/10/07/top-us-and-saudi-officials-responsible-for-chemical-weapons-in-syria/ Let's not let inaccuracies and unproven allegations inform current debates.
Yes, and I'm sure the Ukrainians shot down the airliner. In fact, it was all the 'Merikans fault ...
Was Assad 'winning' when he gassed the suburbs of Damascus, his capital?
That's a great definition of 'winning'. With dread of Godwinning myself, I'm sure Hitler thought he was 'winning' when the Russians were on the outskirts of Berlin.
You're right there could be a lot of explanations but if Saudi was supporting Isis in Syria it's at least plausible that them coming back over the border into Iraq was unintended (at least from the Saudi point of view).
That's not to say they don't have other supporters or at least potential oil buyers who can be persuaded not to.
The article I read, and it seems to fit the course of events, was that ISIS was utilising a porous Iraqi border into Syria, and Iran and Russia (upon whom Maliki's Government depends) told Maliki to secure the border. When he reluctantly did so, ISIS were turned around and used on him instead.
“The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history" Hegel.
Hegel was an extraordinary fraud, cozener and charlatan. Even his greatest British admirer, J.H. Stirling, admitted that 'the philosophy of Hegel, then, was... a scrutiny of thought so profound that it was for the most part unintelligible.'
A truly dreadful poll for the Tories - the sort which at this stage makes me think there is simply no way back for Cameron, who one has to say has a desperately disappointing Prime Minister. Certainly this has convinced me to place a score on a Labour majority this evening at 2.2/1 with Bet365.
I'm fast losing patience with Cameron and Osborne, but I'm going to give them until Christmas.
One thing is certain though, I DON'T back losers if I can help it.
TickTock,...
Just to make clear that while I'm betting on Labour, I will certainly be voting Conservative.
It would have been far easier to take out parts of ISIS when they were advancing across open country before entering the towns. Now they are embedded in the towns they have captured, it will be far more difficult without causing significant civilian casualties (even if they are nigh slaves).
It would appear that the UK and US intelligence was near useless and they were all asleep or did not understand one part of Islam from another.
You tell me how doing nothing has helped the situation? How has the war spreading to Iraq improved matters?
As for the Falklands: I think you're rather over-egging the pudding. I was only young at the time, but beyond the jingoistic media fervour it was not clear that we would win. Fortunately we did, but it was not easy, with many setbacks along the way. Both sides had luck, and both sides were unlucky. If the scales had fallen differently we would have made matters for the Islanders much worse.
It certainly did not seem to meet the categories you mentioned in the previous topic, at least without hindsight. Which is probably why so many people from all sides of politics (including Thatcher herself) were worried about sending the task force down there.
The war was already in Iraq. It is only those who get all their information from the 6 o'clock news who think ISIS sprang up out of no where. We created ISIS out of the mess we made of Iraq. Indeed it was that which then sowed the seeds for the uprising and civil war in Syria.
And the point about the Falklands is that we had a clear set of objectives and targets and a basic aim of defeating an enemy force in a conventional war and of course even then we could have lost. We had none of that in Syria. Going into military operations without a clearly defined set of achievable objectives is how we end up in these messes in the first place.
In the previous thread you wanted to make sure we would not make matters worse: I fail to see how we could see that in advance in the case of the Falklands. If we'd fought and lost, the diplomatic efforts to regain the islands would have been much weakened, and Argentina would have been on a high. By all definitions, that would have been 'worse', and at the cost of many of our lives.
Likewise, it was not clear that the task force would create a 'clear strategic difference', especially with lukewarm American support.
It fails all your criteria.
And I know the lamentable history of ISIS, thanks.
A truly dreadful poll for the Tories - the sort which at this stage makes me think there is simply no way back for Cameron, who one has to say has a desperately disappointing Prime Minister. Certainly this has convinced me to place a score on a Labour majority this evening at 2.2/1 with Bet365.
I'm fast losing patience with Cameron and Osborne, but I'm going to give them until Christmas.
One thing is certain though, I DON'T back losers if I can help it.
TickTock,...
Just to make clear that while I'm betting on Labour, I will certainly be voting Conservative.
I'm not one who simply follows the herd.
I'll be voting Conservative too - it won't make a blind bit of difference in North East Derbyshire which will be an easy Labour hold, but it may help the Con/Labour votes match bet ^_~
Be careful what you say. You might be taken for a warmonger.
After all, we should only intervene if we are sure we will not make matters worse, and that where we can make a clear strategic difference we do so. Even if we know that the conflict will spread further, and more will die.
You a warmonger sir, and a friend of ISIL!
(At least, according to one esteemed poster fpt, who would rather sit back with whisky in hand whilst more people die and a caliphate is created).
We have no choice. We have to act. It really is Hitler all over again, they are never going to stop killing and expanding and conquering - until we kill them. It doesn't matter whose fault it is that they have come to power. They are here and they want to kill us.
(snip)
And at the core, it's all Miliband's fault.
Good grief. I can't believe you even said that. How utterly pathetic you are.
So tell me how Miliband insisting on a vote in parliament to go to war, negotiating a watered down proposal (which Cameron then had to take to Obama), and then reneging on the very day of the vote, helped the Syrians or Iraqis who are dying?
At least people like Richard Tyndall are arguing from a moral viewpoint, even if I disagree with them. Miliband both stopped us acting when we could, and made it harder for us to act in the future.
And all the while, more people die.
Oh, so now it is Milibands fault that people are dying in Iraq and Syria. It is a strange place sometimes this board.
In fairness, there's not even much support on here for Josias Jessop's barmpottery on this
Nothing much is happening. Labour's small lead remains steady, as expected for this summer period, with the usual polling noise.
In particular, the idea that Baroness Warsi's resignation has had any effect at all on voting intention is laughable.
RN - A 1% Con lead to a 7% Labour one suggests in fact that quite a lot is happening, unless it's simply a case of all those rich Tories being on holiday - I guess we'll know in a month's time.
Assad didn't use chemical weapons. The 'rebels' did. The 'fact' that he did (in a war he was winning, a few miles from weapons inspectors he had invited) has become one of those forgotten 'truths' that everyone knows, but no-one knows how they know. This is a good summary of events: http://nsnbc.me/2013/10/07/top-us-and-saudi-officials-responsible-for-chemical-weapons-in-syria/ Let's not let inaccuracies and unproven allegations inform current debates.
Yes, and I'm sure the Ukrainians shot down the airliner. In fact, it was all the 'Merikans fault ...
Was Assad 'winning' when he gassed the suburbs of Damascus, his capital?
That's a great definition of 'winning'. With dread of Godwinning myself, I'm sure Hitler thought he was 'winning' when the Russians were on the outskirts of Berlin.
I'm not sure what to make of this. Are you having some sort of seizure?
In particular, the idea that Baroness Warsi's resignation has had any effect at all on voting intention is laughable.
There's certainly insufficient evidence for it, I wouldn't say it's laughable. To the extent that they notice the voters generally aren't impressed by people in the governing party fighting with other people in the governing, unless it's a properly stage-managed ritual slapping-around of the extremes by the leadership.
Osborne's ratings are a disaster still though aren't they? No way the Tories can turn the leadership over to him post Cameron, surely?
People just out and out don't like the man!
His ratings as Chancellor are pretty good, but he probably won't be the next leader of the party. Having said that, it's no longer unthinkable that he might be, as it was a year or so ago.
This is a pity - he'd be an excellent PM. Even better than Cameron, I think - he's less sentimental than Cameron.
It would have been far easier to take out parts of ISIS when they were advancing across open country before entering the towns. Now they are embedded in the towns they have captured, it will be far more difficult without causing significant civilian casualties (even if they are nigh slaves).
It would appear that the UK and US intelligence was near useless and they were all asleep or did not understand one part of Islam from another.
If you want to wipe out a good proportion of IS in an occupied town, then I would suggest flattening the towns mosques during Friday prayers. Any mosque under their control will be preaching extremism.
Nothing much is happening. Labour's small lead remains steady, as expected for this summer period, with the usual polling noise.
In particular, the idea that Baroness Warsi's resignation has had any effect at all on voting intention is laughable.
RN - A 1% Con lead to a 7% Labour one suggests in fact that quite a lot is happening, unless it's simply a case of all those rich Tories being on holiday - I guess we'll know in a month's time.
Both polls are perfectly consistent with a steady Labour lead of about 3% or 4%, which I think is what the underlying position remains.
Osborne's ratings are a disaster still though aren't they? No way the Tories can turn the leadership over to him post Cameron, surely?
People just out and out don't like the man!
His ratings as Chancellor are pretty good, but he probably won't be the next leader of the party. Having said that, it's no longer unthinkable that he might be, as it was a year or so ago.
This is a pity - he'd be an excellent PM. Even better than Cameron, I think - he's less sentimental than Cameron.
Nothing much is happening. Labour's small lead remains steady, as expected for this summer period, with the usual polling noise.
In particular, the idea that Baroness Warsi's resignation has had any effect at all on voting intention is laughable.
RN - A 1% Con lead to a 7% Labour one suggests in fact that quite a lot is happening, unless it's simply a case of all those rich Tories being on holiday - I guess we'll know in a month's time.
Before this poll Conservatives had a 2% lead in May, a 1% deficit in June and a 1% lead in July. This has now changed to a 7% deficit in August,
So I think something happened with ICM between May and July but whatever it was is clearly stone dead now!
It would have been far easier to take out parts of ISIS when they were advancing across open country before entering the towns. Now they are embedded in the towns they have captured, it will be far more difficult without causing significant civilian casualties (even if they are nigh slaves).
It would appear that the UK and US intelligence was near useless and they were all asleep or did not understand one part of Islam from another.
If you want to wipe out a good proportion of IS in an occupied town, then I would suggest flattening the towns mosques during Friday prayers. Any mosque under their control will be preaching extremism.
It may prove a tad controversal though.
According to that former Al Qaeda man someone posted an interview with yesterday, some of them aren't even observant muslims.
Osborne's ratings are a disaster still though aren't they? No way the Tories can turn the leadership over to him post Cameron, surely?
People just out and out don't like the man!
His ratings as Chancellor are pretty good, but he probably won't be the next leader of the party. Having said that, it's no longer unthinkable that he might be, as it was a year or so ago.
This is a pity - he'd be an excellent PM. Even better than Cameron, I think - he's less sentimental than Cameron.
Well he still looks pretty much unelectable to me...
FSA had problems, but I'm not sure it was a negative as you paint it, at least this time last year. The problem for all sides appears not being gaining ground, but holding it.
From my point of view the point was to put pressure on Assad to step down, after which the FSA (formed by renegade Syrian army units) could have merged with the Syrian Army to tackle the other insurgents.
True, that may have led to another hardman in charge, but even that would have been better than what we have now.
As for asking me for tactical targets: easy. Long range mortars. The air force (remember, Assad is using barrel-bombs now). Logistics chains (e.g. convoys). That sort of thing. If you want more detail then you are being ridiculous.
Nope I don't need more detail than that but the idea that you think there were viable targets of that nature that would have made any material difference to the war or that they could have been hit without substantial civilian casualties does mean I am afraid that it is you who is being ridiculous. A no fly zone might have worked but first you would have had to deal with those Russian manned anti-aircraft systems. And to deal with those supply chains and the most effective pro-Assad forces you would have had to bomb Lebanon. Expanding the war in that way and destabilising yet another Middle Eastern country would have really pleased ISIS.
(Well, that's based on NPXMP putting you down as one)
Sorry about the blatant references lurkers!!!
I am a self confessed orange booker. There is a minor possibility of me voting non-LD if the party has some sort of lunacy and makes Vince leader in the autumn!
Assad didn't use chemical weapons. The 'rebels' did. The 'fact' that he did (in a war he was winning, a few miles from weapons inspectors he had invited) has become one of those forgotten 'truths' that everyone knows, but no-one knows how they know. This is a good summary of events: http://nsnbc.me/2013/10/07/top-us-and-saudi-officials-responsible-for-chemical-weapons-in-syria/ Let's not let inaccuracies and unproven allegations inform current debates.
Yes, and I'm sure the Ukrainians shot down the airliner. In fact, it was all the 'Merikans fault ...
Was Assad 'winning' when he gassed the suburbs of Damascus, his capital?
That's a great definition of 'winning'. With dread of Godwinning myself, I'm sure Hitler thought he was 'winning' when the Russians were on the outskirts of Berlin.
I'm not sure what to make of this. Are you having some sort of seizure?
No. I'm just pointing out that your 'facts' may verge on the, non-factual conspiracy-theory nutjobbery
Osborne's ratings are a disaster still though aren't they? No way the Tories can turn the leadership over to him post Cameron, surely?
People just out and out don't like the man!
His ratings as Chancellor are pretty good, but he probably won't be the next leader of the party. Having said that, it's no longer unthinkable that he might be, as it was a year or so ago.
This is a pity - he'd be an excellent PM. Even better than Cameron, I think - he's less sentimental than Cameron.
"Going into military operations without a clearly defined set of achievable objectives is how we end up in these messes in the first place."
Huzzah! Well said that man! Since 2001 thousands of young British lives have been lost or ruined and billions of pounds of treasure squandered all to no good effect because our politicians hadn't grown-up enough to leave student politics behind and our system of government had insufficient checks and balances to make them think through the issues. I also think that the heads of the army and the chief of the general staff in 2002/3 and 2006 should just be taken out and shot, for gross dereliction of duty and cowardice.
This might be an unpopular thing to say but the side we should have backed from the word go in Syria was Assad. The whole Arab Spring nonsense was over hyped and our student union politicians fell for it except, strangely where our Arab "friends" were concerned. Bahrain being a good example. Assad should have been given the pass that Bahrain got, he could then have put down the revolt in his own country in his own way, the benefit of the majority of his people and to the continued stability of the Middle East.
As for the present mess, I am quite content to blow this ISIS lot back to the stone age and the attempt genocide of the Jazidis has to be thwarted. Let us not make the mistakes of the past though. If we can go in, and I am not sure that we can considering we could even manage a supply drop because of health and safety, then there must be clear goals and a definite exit point before we do go in
Osborne's ratings are a disaster still though aren't they? No way the Tories can turn the leadership over to him post Cameron, surely?
People just out and out don't like the man!
His ratings as Chancellor are pretty good, but he probably won't be the next leader of the party. Having said that, it's no longer unthinkable that he might be, as it was a year or so ago.
This is a pity - he'd be an excellent PM. Even better than Cameron, I think - he's less sentimental than Cameron.
Even better than Cameron? Wow. Only the second worst Prime Minister in living memory then.
If Cameron (and Sam) are kicked out of Number Ten in utter and abject humiliation next year will it be Osborne's Pastygate fiasco wot ultimately did it?
(Well, that's based on NPXMP putting you down as one)
Sorry about the blatant references lurkers!!!
I am a self confessed orange booker. There is a minor possibility of me voting non-LD if the party has some sort of lunacy and makes Vince leader in the autumn!
Ah, yes, well lets hope the regulars forget about our internal chat (let's hope so) - but that won't put me/us off - unless it's Farron (that one's just me)
I'm away to watch Uni challenge - I'll be back in 30 mins
It would have been far easier to take out parts of ISIS when they were advancing across open country before entering the towns. Now they are embedded in the towns they have captured, it will be far more difficult without causing significant civilian casualties (even if they are nigh slaves).
It would appear that the UK and US intelligence was near useless and they were all asleep or did not understand one part of Islam from another.
If you want to wipe out a good proportion of IS in an occupied town, then I would suggest flattening the towns mosques during Friday prayers. Any mosque under their control will be preaching extremism.
It may prove a tad controversal though.
According to that former Al Qaeda man someone posted an interview with yesterday, some of them aren't even observant muslims.
He made a number of barking mad claims (including 1500 IS wounded being treated in Tel Aviv hospitals). He was an Arab Aldridge Prior.
I think a lot of IS are there for adventure and for a sort of penance, much like the Crusaders and with much the same motivation.
If Cameron (and Sam) are kicked out of Number Ten in utter and abject humiliation next year will it be Osborne's Pastygate fiasco wot ultimately did it?
Nothing much is happening. Labour's small lead remains steady, as expected for this summer period, with the usual polling noise.
In particular, the idea that Baroness Warsi's resignation has had any effect at all on voting intention is laughable.
RN - A 1% Con lead to a 7% Labour one suggests in fact that quite a lot is happening, unless it's simply a case of all those rich Tories being on holiday - I guess we'll know in a month's time.
If something was happening the YouGov weekly averages would be showing significant movement.
They're not - the position is rock solidly static.
Even better than Cameron? Wow. Only the second worst Prime Minister in living memory then.
Well, no-one in their right mind is going to claim that Brown, Blair, Heath, Major, Callaghan, or Douglas-Home were better PMs than Cameron. You might get a few votes for Wilson, but only from those who overlook the fact that Wilson presided over and (with Heath) was largely responsible for the slide into industrial and economic disaster.
You tell me how doing nothing has helped the situation? How has the war spreading to Iraq improved matters?
As for the Falklands: I think you're rather over-egging the pudding. I was only young at the time, but beyond the jingoistic media fervour it was not clear that we would win. Fortunately we did, but it was not easy, with many setbacks along the way. Both sides had luck, and both sides were unlucky. If the scales had fallen differently we would have made matters for the Islanders much worse.
It certainly did not seem to meet the categories you mentioned in the previous topic, at least without hindsight. Which is probably why so many people from all sides of politics (including Thatcher herself) were worried about sending the task force down there.
The war was already in Iraq. It is only those who get all their information from the 6 o'clock news who think ISIS sprang up out of no where. We created ISIS out of the mess we made of Iraq. Indeed it was that which then sowed the seeds for the uprising and civil war in Syria.
And the point about the Falklands is that we had a clear set of objectives and targets and a basic aim of defeating an enemy force in a conventional war and of course even then we could have lost. We had none of that in Syria. Going into military operations without a clearly defined set of achievable objectives is how we end up in these messes in the first place.
In the previous thread you wanted to make sure we would not make matters worse: I fail to see how we could see that in advance in the case of the Falklands. If we'd fought and lost, the diplomatic efforts to regain the islands would have been much weakened, and Argentina would have been on a high. By all definitions, that would have been 'worse', and at the cost of many of our lives.
Likewise, it was not clear that the task force would create a 'clear strategic difference', especially with lukewarm American support.
It fails all your criteria.
And I know the lamentable history of ISIS, thanks.
All war involves risk. The problem with your view is that you fail to realise that in Syria the risks involved in 'winning' by bombing Assad and causing him some military pain (without even getting into how infinitesimally small the chances of that were) were as bad if not worse than the risks of losing.
As I say the comparison with the Falklands is frankly ludicrous.
The tories are doing badly partly because George Osborne is idiotically allowing the mao-ist leadership of HMRC to dictate his fiscal agenda.
People are completely horrified to learn HMRC may soon
1. be able to steal their deposits unchecked
2. make them liable to pay inheritance tax before they are even dead.
Its astonishing that a conservative government is even allowing these measures to be discussed, let alone considering implementing them, completely astonishing....but there it is.
Osborne, incredibly for a conservative chancellor, has the voters thinking they would pay lower taxes under labour.
I'm a thatcherite, but one consolation about the tories losing is that we can get rid of these big government corporatists masquerading as conservatives.
Assad didn't use chemical weapons. The 'rebels' did. The 'fact' that he did (in a war he was winning, a few miles from weapons inspectors he had invited) has become one of those forgotten 'truths' that everyone knows, but no-one knows how they know. This is a good summary of events: http://nsnbc.me/2013/10/07/top-us-and-saudi-officials-responsible-for-chemical-weapons-in-syria/ Let's not let inaccuracies and unproven allegations inform current debates.
The war was already in Iraq. It is only those who get all their information from the 6 o'clock news who think ISIS sprang up out of no where. We created ISIS out of the mess we made of Iraq. Indeed it was that which then sowed the seeds for the uprising and civil war in Syria.
And the point about the Falklands is that we had a clear set of objectives and targets and a basic aim of defeating an enemy force in a conventional war and of course even then we could have lost. We had none of that in Syria. Going into military operations without a clearly defined set of achievable objectives is how we end up in these messes in the first place.
In the previous thread you wanted to make sure we would not make matters worse: I fail to see how we could see that in advance in the case of the Falklands. If we'd fought and lost, the diplomatic efforts to regain the islands would have been much weakened, and Argentina would have been on a high. By all definitions, that would have been 'worse', and at the cost of many of our lives.
Likewise, it was not clear that the task force would create a 'clear strategic difference', especially with lukewarm American support.
It fails all your criteria.
And I know the lamentable history of ISIS, thanks.
All war involves risk. The problem with your view is that you fail to realise that in Syria the risks involved in 'winning' by bombing Assad and causing him some military pain (without even getting into how infinitesimally small the chances of that were) were as bad if not worse than the risks of losing.
As I say the comparison with the Falklands is frankly ludicrous.
You say they are infinitesimally small. I'm saying they were probably not. Assad was in deep trouble a year ago.
And in the meantime, your chosen course of doing nothing has led to thousands of more deaths. With luck (and luck is always needed) the majority of those deaths may have been avoided.
I'm not making a comparison between Syria and the Falklands: I'm showing how the two rules you set out in the previous topic for when we should intervene would have led to us doing nothing then.
The war was already in Iraq. It is only those who get all their information from the 6 o'clock news who think ISIS sprang up out of no where. We created ISIS out of the mess we made of Iraq. Indeed it was that which then sowed the seeds for the uprising and civil war in Syria.
And the point about the Falklands is that we had a clear set of objectives and targets and a basic aim of defeating an enemy force in a conventional war and of course even then we could have lost. We had none of that in Syria. Going into military operations without a clearly defined set of achievable objectives is how we end up in these messes in the first place.
In the previous thread you wanted to make sure we would not make matters worse: I fail to see how we could see that in advance in the case of the Falklands. If we'd fought and lost, the diplomatic efforts to regain the islands would have been much weakened, and Argentina would have been on a high. By all definitions, that would have been 'worse', and at the cost of many of our lives.
Likewise, it was not clear that the task force would create a 'clear strategic difference', especially with lukewarm American support.
It fails all your criteria.
And I know the lamentable history of ISIS, thanks.
All war involves risk. The problem with your view is that you fail to realise that in Syria the risks involved in 'winning' by bombing Assad and causing him some military pain (without even getting into how infinitesimally small the chances of that were) were as bad if not worse than the risks of losing.
As I say the comparison with the Falklands is frankly ludicrous.
You say they are infinitesimally small. I'm saying they were probably not. Assad was in deep trouble a year ago.
And in the meantime, your chosen course of doing nothing has led to thousands of more deaths. With luck (and luck is always needed) the majority of those deaths may have been avoided.
I'm not making a comparison between Syria and the Falklands: I'm showing how the two rules you set out in the previous topic for when we should intervene would have led to us doing nothing then.
A claim which is entirely false. As is your claim that we would have been able to topple Assad. It is particularly funny given that not even Cameron believed that were possible and was clear at the time of the vote that the intention of airstrikes was to punish Assad and not to effect regime change., Something he repeated again and again.
Remember what I said about clear defined objectives. Even Cameron did not have the objectives you are pushing here now.
In the previous thread you wanted to make sure we would not make matters worse: I fail to see how we could see that in advance in the case of the Falklands. If we'd fought and lost, the diplomatic efforts to regain the islands would have been much weakened, and Argentina would have been on a high. By all definitions, that would have been 'worse', and at the cost of many of our lives.
Likewise, it was not clear that the task force would create a 'clear strategic difference', especially with lukewarm American support.
It fails all your criteria.
And I know the lamentable history of ISIS, thanks.
All war involves risk. The problem with your view is that you fail to realise that in Syria the risks involved in 'winning' by bombing Assad and causing him some military pain (without even getting into how infinitesimally small the chances of that were) were as bad if not worse than the risks of losing.
As I say the comparison with the Falklands is frankly ludicrous.
You say they are infinitesimally small. I'm saying they were probably not. Assad was in deep trouble a year ago.
And in the meantime, your chosen course of doing nothing has led to thousands of more deaths. With luck (and luck is always needed) the majority of those deaths may have been avoided.
I'm not making a comparison between Syria and the Falklands: I'm showing how the two rules you set out in the previous topic for when we should intervene would have led to us doing nothing then.
A claim which is entirely false. As is your claim that we would have been able to topple Assad. It is particularly funny given that not even Cameron believed that were possible and was clear at the time of the vote that the intention of airstrikes was to punish Assad and not to effect regime change., Something he repeated again and again.
Remember what I said about clear defined objectives. Even Cameron did not have the objectives you are pushing here now.
Which claim is 'entirely false', and why?
I'm not certain about what would have happened if we had intervened in Syria, and I've said so all along. But I honestly cannot see how we could have ended up in a worse situation than the one we now find ourselves in. And there were opportunities - by various routes - of improving things.
Whereas you speak with the certainty of someone who has an alternate-history crystal ball.
The 2003 Iraq war left the West morally crippled. The default assumption has become that nothing can or should be done in the wider wider world. The rise of ISIS means that this can no longer be allowed to stand. Urgency is paramount. The rights and wrongs of our attitude to Assad in the past are now supremely irrelevant.
The current crisis in Iraq provides a narrow window of opportunity to put all this behind us and to begin to define a sane doctrine of our responsibility to act where feasible. Too little too late will prove disastrous this time; the threat from ISIS is a deadly one. Cameron could and should play a key - perhaps a leading - role in this if he could get back to his desk and start talking to allies.
I'm not certain about what would have happened if we had intervened in Syria, and I've said so all along. But I honestly cannot see how we could have ended up in a worse situation than the one we now find ourselves in. And there were opportunities - by various routes - of improving things.
Whereas you speak with the certainty of someone who has an alternate-history crystal ball.
The claim that Syria and the Falklands are in any way comparable or that they should be defined in the same way. In fact using the criteria of clear military objectives the Falklands campaign certainly qualifies as militarily sound where intervention in Syria does not.
And as I say you also ignore the fact that even Cameron was not trying to get rid of Assad. So even he didn't agree with the basis for your claims.
I'm not certain about what would have happened if we had intervened in Syria, and I've said so all along. But I honestly cannot see how we could have ended up in a worse situation than the one we now find ourselves in. And there were opportunities - by various routes - of improving things.
Whereas you speak with the certainty of someone who has an alternate-history crystal ball.
The claim that Syria and the Falklands are in any way comparable or that they should be defined in the same way. In fact using the criteria of clear military objectives the Falklands campaign certainly qualifies as militarily sound where intervention in Syria does not.
And as I say you also ignore the fact that even Cameron was not trying to get rid of Assad. So even he didn't agree with the basis for your claims.
Ah, so now conflicts should be judged by some strange Tyndall-criteria, which differs according to where the conflict fits into your world view.
You originally said: "You do something when it will make a clear strategic difference and will actually help achieve your aims - whether they are military or humanitarian."
But that did not apply to the Falklands. Apparently.
I'm not certain about what would have happened if we had intervened in Syria, and I've said so all along. But I honestly cannot see how we could have ended up in a worse situation than the one we now find ourselves in. And there were opportunities - by various routes - of improving things.
Whereas you speak with the certainty of someone who has an alternate-history crystal ball.
The claim that Syria and the Falklands are in any way comparable or that they should be defined in the same way. In fact using the criteria of clear military objectives the Falklands campaign certainly qualifies as militarily sound where intervention in Syria does not.
And as I say you also ignore the fact that even Cameron was not trying to get rid of Assad. So even he didn't agree with the basis for your claims.
Is this where you Josias lean forward towards each other, the music plays, you look into each others eyes, there is a moment of quiet, of silence, and then...the kiss?
I'm not certain about what would have happened if we had intervened in Syria, and I've said so all along. But I honestly cannot see how we could have ended up in a worse situation than the one we now find ourselves in. And there were opportunities - by various routes - of improving things.
Whereas you speak with the certainty of someone who has an alternate-history crystal ball.
The claim that Syria and the Falklands are in any way comparable or that they should be defined in the same way. In fact using the criteria of clear military objectives the Falklands campaign certainly qualifies as militarily sound where intervention in Syria does not.
And as I say you also ignore the fact that even Cameron was not trying to get rid of Assad. So even he didn't agree with the basis for your claims.
Is this where you Josias lean forward towards each other, the music plays, you look into each others eyes, there is a moment of quiet, of silence, and then...the kiss?
@Hertsmere_Pubgoer There is no reasoning with any party in a war, that's why you are having the war in the first place. Wars are what people have, too make the other side more reasonable in their demands. You would have thought after all the evolution, humans might have worked out something better, then agreed on it? But apparently not. New Iphone6 anyone?
Comments
At least people like Richard Tyndall are arguing from a moral viewpoint, even if I disagree with them. Miliband both stopped us acting when we could, and made it harder for us to act in the future.
And all the while, more people die.
Wow.
If you dont want to use nukes then half a million ground army along with mass bombardment, tanks ect, like WW2 will solve the ISIS problem.
If you want to win a war do it properly or not at all.
The comparison with the Falklands is puerile given that we had a clear set of tactical and strategic objectives and believed (correctly as it turned out) that we had the capability to deliver them.
Now...
Where does this remind us of at the moment?
ISIS != FSA.
Instead, Assad and ISIS are both attacking the FSA.
The fact is that the do-nothings won, and we have a really sh*t situation. It really is hard to see how that could have been worse.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10266957/Saudis-offer-Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.html
Some people simply refuse to learn from history.
Hegel.
Certainly this has convinced me to place a score on a Labour majority this evening at 2.2/1 with Bet365.
I think containment has to be the policy as who do you replace them with? In Syria, the Free Syrian army is too weak and Assad is not an option. In Iraq, arming the Kurds will help in Kurdistan but what about Tikrit etc? If you re-arm the central government that also risk causing more problems (sectarian strife and boosting the influence of Iran)
The best plan seems to be to restrict them military, try to clamp down on their finance and hope that the tribal leaders eventually tire of their extremism, while trying to make the Iraqi government a bit more palatable to Sunnis.
As for the Falklands: I think you're rather over-egging the pudding. I was only young at the time, but beyond the jingoistic media fervour it was not clear that we would win. Fortunately we did, but it was not easy, with many setbacks along the way. Both sides had luck, and both sides were unlucky. If the scales had fallen differently we would have made matters for the Islanders much worse.
It certainly did not seem to meet the categories you mentioned in the previous topic, at least without hindsight. Which is probably why so many people from all sides of politics (including Thatcher herself) were worried about sending the task force down there.
One thing is certain though, I DON'T back losers if I can help it.
TickTock,...
And you have still not told us who you would have bombed to magically transform the situation in Syria.
Really, this stuff isn't complicated. Russia and Britain were fighting Germany. The USA started helping Britain fight Germany. Doing this helped Russia, because they were also fighting Germany. The fact that it did doesn't mean Churchill was a Communist.
Chaos @Chaosxsilencer · 29s
Bringing you guys all kinds of early access #AdvancedWarfareMP today and moving forward [edited]
I am blind, blind - to this, is it 4th Gen?, 5th Gen.
I had, and bought a Dreamcast (Sega)
If this kind of bullshit was going on back then I am very sorry.
That's not to say they don't have other supporters or at least potential oil buyers who can be persuaded not to.
YouGov gives us an enormous sample and if we look at their weekly averages over the last couple of months there has been almost no movement.
What is strange is that the lead did narrow to approx 2% at the time of the Euros - where in real votes Lab was only 1% ahead of Con.
But after the Euros the lead quickly reverted to 4% and it has remained rock solid at 3.5% to 4% ever since.
Polls like the ICM Con 1% lead and today's Lab 7% lead are just noise around the actual 3.5% to 4% lead.
And the point about the Falklands is that we had a clear set of objectives and targets and a basic aim of defeating an enemy force in a conventional war and of course even then we could have lost. We had none of that in Syria. Going into military operations without a clearly defined set of achievable objectives is how we end up in these messes in the first place.
Frankly I am amazed. More Tories than Labour must be on holiday, otherwise its a rogue poll
I'm not one who simply follows the herd.
From my point of view the point was to put pressure on Assad to step down, after which the FSA (formed by renegade Syrian army units) could have merged with the Syrian Army to tackle the other insurgents.
True, that may have led to another hardman in charge, but even that would have been better than what we have now.
As for asking me for tactical targets: easy. Long range mortars. The air force (remember, Assad is using barrel-bombs now). Logistics chains (e.g. convoys). That sort of thing. If you want more detail then you are being ridiculous.
I might even sit it out like I did in 2001.
We'll see.
In particular, the idea that Baroness Warsi's resignation has had any effect at all on voting intention is laughable.
Was Assad 'winning' when he gassed the suburbs of Damascus, his capital?
That's a great definition of 'winning'. With dread of Godwinning myself, I'm sure Hitler thought he was 'winning' when the Russians were on the outskirts of Berlin.
It would appear that the UK and US intelligence was near useless and they were all asleep or did not understand one part of Islam from another.
People just out and out don't like the man!
Likewise, it was not clear that the task force would create a 'clear strategic difference', especially with lukewarm American support.
It fails all your criteria.
And I know the lamentable history of ISIS, thanks.
."It's all Miliband's fault". Lol.
This is a pity - he'd be an excellent PM. Even better than Cameron, I think - he's less sentimental than Cameron.
It may prove a tad controversal though.
(Well, that's based on NPXMP putting you down as one)
Sorry about the blatant references lurkers!!!
So I think something happened with ICM between May and July but whatever it was is clearly stone dead now!
best one yet Mr N.
Huzzah! Well said that man! Since 2001 thousands of young British lives have been lost or ruined and billions of pounds of treasure squandered all to no good effect because our politicians hadn't grown-up enough to leave student politics behind and our system of government had insufficient checks and balances to make them think through the issues. I also think that the heads of the army and the chief of the general staff in 2002/3 and 2006 should just be taken out and shot, for gross dereliction of duty and cowardice.
This might be an unpopular thing to say but the side we should have backed from the word go in Syria was Assad. The whole Arab Spring nonsense was over hyped and our student union politicians fell for it except, strangely where our Arab "friends" were concerned. Bahrain being a good example. Assad should have been given the pass that Bahrain got, he could then have put down the revolt in his own country in his own way, the benefit of the majority of his people and to the continued stability of the Middle East.
As for the present mess, I am quite content to blow this ISIS lot back to the stone age and the attempt genocide of the Jazidis has to be thwarted. Let us not make the mistakes of the past though. If we can go in, and I am not sure that we can considering we could even manage a supply drop because of health and safety, then there must be clear goals and a definite exit point before we do go in
Ed is crap is landslide PM less than 9 months yo go
I'm away to watch Uni challenge - I'll be back in 30 mins
I think a lot of IS are there for adventure and for a sort of penance, much like the Crusaders and with much the same motivation.
Bloody hell,tories on 325 seats,I'll take that ;-)
They're not - the position is rock solidly static.
GE 2010 only 7.2% ahead so narrowing of 5.8% if swingback occurs to same extent.
Would result in EICIPM
No need to worry ARSE says there is a 0% chance of being PM
As I say the comparison with the Falklands is frankly ludicrous.
People are completely horrified to learn HMRC may soon
1. be able to steal their deposits unchecked
2. make them liable to pay inheritance tax before they are even dead.
Its astonishing that a conservative government is even allowing these measures to be discussed, let alone considering implementing them, completely astonishing....but there it is.
Osborne, incredibly for a conservative chancellor, has the voters thinking they would pay lower taxes under labour.
I'm a thatcherite, but one consolation about the tories losing is that we can get rid of these big government corporatists masquerading as conservatives.
There is no reasoning with them, or negotiating, or coming to an compromise. It's them or you.
There's no good answer here.
And in the meantime, your chosen course of doing nothing has led to thousands of more deaths. With luck (and luck is always needed) the majority of those deaths may have been avoided.
I'm not making a comparison between Syria and the Falklands: I'm showing how the two rules you set out in the previous topic for when we should intervene would have led to us doing nothing then.
Remember what I said about clear defined objectives. Even Cameron did not have the objectives you are pushing here now.
I'm not certain about what would have happened if we had intervened in Syria, and I've said so all along. But I honestly cannot see how we could have ended up in a worse situation than the one we now find ourselves in. And there were opportunities - by various routes - of improving things.
Whereas you speak with the certainty of someone who has an alternate-history crystal ball.
The current crisis in Iraq provides a narrow window of opportunity to put all this behind us and to begin to define a sane doctrine of our responsibility to act where feasible. Too little too late will prove disastrous this time; the threat from ISIS is a deadly one. Cameron could and should play a key - perhaps a leading - role in this if he could get back to his desk and start talking to allies.
And as I say you also ignore the fact that even Cameron was not trying to get rid of Assad. So even he didn't agree with the basis for your claims.
You originally said: "You do something when it will make a clear strategic difference and will actually help achieve your aims - whether they are military or humanitarian."
But that did not apply to the Falklands. Apparently.
Well, at least that's clear.
There is no reasoning with any party in a war, that's why you are having the war in the first place. Wars are what people have, too make the other side more reasonable in their demands.
You would have thought after all the evolution, humans might have worked out something better, then agreed on it?
But apparently not.
New Iphone6 anyone?