Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Will the polling on air strikes against ISIS persuade Dave
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Will the polling on air strikes against ISIS persuade Dave to intervene?
Isil poses a direct and deadly threat to Britain. The poisonous extremism on the march in Iraq and Syria affects us all – and we have no choice but to rise to the challenge.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
We should. And we should give what aid we can to the Kurds. May create a future problem from the Turks regarding Kurdistan but the alternative is a state covering Syria and Iraq with the very worst deranged zeal mankind has to offer. It'll massively destabilise the region and be a threat to us as well.
Edited extra bit: BBC ticker reporting all the ebola patients in the centre that was attacked have left the centre. Not clear if that's a medical evacuation or if they've run off.
But still...
"A woman nicknamed the Hackney heroine for standing up to rioters in 2011 has announced she is stepping down from the race to be Liberal Democrat president over the party's "neanderthal views on diversity"."
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/17/hackney-heroine-pauline-pearce-lib-dem-presidential-race
"incredibly, for the fourth innings in a row, India are 66-6. Diabolical."
England scored 101 runs in 11 overs this morning.
Yes, the primary objective of a company is to make money, and like providers of auto repair, clothing, food, furniture, housing etc., they compete with each other to offer a service to customers at the right price. In my view that's what healthcare should be like.
It would be nice if people were still motivated by old fashioned motives like duty and having a vocation but let's face it, that's not our society any more.
Against IS probably the best start with air strikes is to destroy all the oil and gas facilities under their control. Cut their income. Obviously any military depots and training areas too, but be careful as (like Hamas) these probably have human shields.
SeanT's blog does point out that this sort of extreme ideology tends to be self destructive in purges and faction fighting. Mind you that is probably what the Jews of Medina and idol worshippers of Mecca thought...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza
Scottish voters: 80% approve, 8% disapprove, net approval 72%
E&W voters: 74% approve, 13% disapprove, net approval 61%
My point was, that getting involved in Iraq again, may bring back memories of 2003, which won't be good for Better Together.
84/9.
They just need a last wicket stand of 252 to make England bat a second time.
Humiliation.
That's right,there isn't a sense of duty anymore, society has come to be about the individual. Competition is good, but when it is taken to extremes it leads to a fragmentation of society where all that is left is to grab what you can .
As you will well know Scottish troops are always at the forefront when the kickings are being given out. Pathetic jingoistic halfwits like yourself that need to have a rethink, or put your money where your mouth is and go do something about it.
It's not all bad news for Indian cricket — the women's team beat England a few days ago at Sir Paul Getty's Wormsley ground in Bucks:
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/aug/16/india-women-test-win-england-wormsley
Who needs people who care? Money can buy you that. and always at a new lower price.
How do we retake the Mosul dam? Surely IS will just blow the thing up if we looked like defeating them -- flooding surrounding villages and cutting off hydroelectric power to large parts of Iraq.
*Gets Popcorn*
Risk assessment, Leaving the dam under IS control is worse than taking the risk of it being blown, as they will only blow it up later if it suits their plans.
America has major capability with its airforce and airborn infantry as well as special forces. Is there much we can add?
We may well intervene more actively but not without US support. A unilateral intervention is surely out of the question. We may well intevene with more training for Iraqi forces - it looks as if they need it. We may intervene with arms to those able and willing to fight for their country.
But ladies and gentlemen before we do anything we need to know what iraq itself is capable of and what it wants. We need to know where these ISIS murderers are and how strong they really are and we need a coherent strategy for defeating them. I would support our adding our bombs to the Americans, there are people in immediate need of support, but those cheerleading for more of the same need to work out what that will actually achieve.
-I don't want mission creep, and 'events' leading us to further action in the middle east to take revenge on Assad or anyone else who happens to be on our shitlist
-I don't want our military forces further depleted to the extent that we are totally unable to defend our own country (let alone our overseas possessions), and we're either in danger, or bounced into accepting the amalgamation of our remaining forces into the European defence force
-I don't want us to spend money and lives supporting America's geo-political aims in the region, which in many cases do not align with our own.
If none of these things concern you, then I can understand your unequivocal support for military action, but don't forget, if the army cannot fulfil its basic purpose, there will be no future military interventions to save people in trouble.
Let the people in the middle east sort out their own problems.
The answer is not going to be found in "boots on the ground". (except in the case of a couple of "lost" westerners on a desert hunting trip).
The people of the region need to sort out their own problems. Help them where you can, but the West must follow their lead.
Intervention in Iraq is nothing to do with Iraq. It is to do with what is happening (or what is perceived to be happening) in Britain.
IS flags, Pro IS leaflets handed out in Oxford Street, People being intimidated in supermarkets for buying Israeli goods, Jihadis returning from war torn areas with murder in mind.
This is all about domestic politics.
Private hospitals have good parking, free coffee and papers and run close to time, but do not feel it profitable or viable to take on all comers or deliver Cinderella services like obstetrics or casualty. And just try to get insurance if you have Diabetes. Private provision leaves a lot of gaps to be picked up by a safety net service.
So the question is; How can we best help out these minorities now?
Maybe we can help out militarily, maybe not, but it needs debating sensibly and the fact we helped create this situation isn't helpful in moving us forward, neither is making it a personal issue and ranting and raving at people who have a different view to you...
He accurately predicted that defeating Saddam would take no time but the hornets nest that would be disturbed would wreak havoc way beyond both our lifetimes.
I've often wondered why if this information was so obvious to those in the area it wasn't known to our intelligence services?
And in answer to the header all I can say is that it's a pity the 40% who would like to get further involved didn't share with me the wisdom of Yusef Ayoub.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11039210/Tesco-store-trashed-by-Gaza-protesters.html
What's more chilling is that any government in its right mind, with the safety of its citizens and preservation of law and order its number one priority, would let them come back.
A few are obvious (they've been in videos) but most won't be.
And, if they're British citizens, would there be legal grounds not to?
I'm not saying we should let them back in. I'm saying there are serious problems trying to keep them out, and I hope the government is seriously looking at this whilst the flow is out of, rather than into, the country.
One British person has already been beheaded, how long until the next one??
Meanwhile, the silence from UKIP is almost overwhelming. Nothing on this topic. Nothing on Islamification. Nothing on Gaza. Nothing on Iraq. Nothing on any of this.
It would be a fair assumption that the Yazidi's now training in the Kurdish north, are not liable to take many prisoners alive.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28827056
The first duty of any government is the law and order and the safety of its people. The very first. I don;t know what it would take to stop these people coming back, I really don't.
But the government should do whatever it takes. That is its primary duty.
However, if defeat seems likely the lunatics will melt away rather than stand and fight.
We have to be prepared.
Bringing peace to the Middle East might be hard.
I agree, but there is a difference between "prepared" and "paranoid"
Worth mentioning also some, especially earlier on, did go to Syria to try and make things better, either working as medics or fighting for the FSA. However, I think it would probably be almost impossible (barring video evidence either way) to prove that.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Smarmeron, this conversation hasn't reached the paranoid border yet. We've had multiple successful and failed terrorist attempts in the UK, and hundreds of UK citizens are fighting for ISIS. Preparing for their return is essential, and common sense.
Guilty until proven innocent?
Just letting in potentially hundreds of ISIS fighters to the UK would be insane. If preventing that means good men waiting for a few weeks or months in detention, it's worth it.
Would you just let everybody in, and count the days until a terrorist atrocity or several happen in the UK?
Bluff, bluster and bs.
Like Guantánamo Bay?
In this case, absolutely. It should be up to you to prove you were not involved in terrorist activities in these countries - or you stay there.
http://electionforecast.co.uk/
Current prediction, seats:
Lab 305
Con 287
LD 27
UKIP 0
Votes:
Con 33.0%
Lab 31.9%
LD 15.1%
UKIP 10.3%
You also failed to answer my question. Would you just let in potentially hundreds of ISIS fighters to the UK?
No. because these people would be free to live in the country they traveled to.
If a few innocent people are caught up in all this, so f8cking what if it means protecting our citizens and deterring hot blooded young gentlemen from doing the same.
Are you giving me a choice between protecting our "values" or going "overboard" on a putative threat?
Remember, if we are going to be attacked, it will most probably be done by a "clean skin".
Some people are quite happy to put the ordinary person's neck on the block to safeguard the human rights of a tiny handful of innocent people.
They quite like a few beheaded white people, the more middle class the better. The hard left and the jihadists have a common purpose.
The evisceration of middle class white people.
Would you just let them in? What would you do?
That is the choice. We either let 100s of IS fighters back in, or we stop them. There is no other choice.
The "Right wing" always make a great play on the rights of individuals as they take those rights away. It is one of the flaws in our system. and used by both sides.
It will be up to an independent Scotland whether they give shelter to these people or not.
Where, too, are these women and children being sold?
Well, it sounds to me that you are in favour of keeping the law as it is and allowing people who may have murdered, beheaded, raped and crucified innocent civilians back in to live among us unchecked and unpunished.
I'm sure you won't be alone. Many people will undoubtedly think that is a price worth paying to retain their 'liberties'.
I don't. I think we will sacrifice far more in the long term by letting them back in.
One is the sickening and barbaric killing of innocents. But this has been going on all over the world from Gaza to North Korea, from Syria to Mali. We need to recognise that we are impotent. All we can do is issue stern statements, give to charities and wring our hands. To think we can intervene militarily and make a material positive difference is delusion.
The other is the threat to the UK of homecoming ISIS fighters. Here we need to get a grip and stop overreacting. Of course we need to identify and monitor them. But if they try to take over Birmingham I'm sure we can stop them.
Keep calm and carry on.
I'm sure the supporters are on fire, but the leadership is saying nothing. Zip. Nada. There is no policy on this. What would UKIP actually DO to counter the islamist threat?
Which is interesting, to say the least.
We are impotent Sean, the lesson from all that fighting over centuries is that you can't impose your will on other people without constant resort to force.
By all means aid them, but in the end it will be they that have to choose.
There would be no justification for stopping anybody else, I agree with you wholeheartedly.
If you don't think its possible to have an arrangement which banned jihadists from returning whilst at the same time preserving the right of everybody else to come and go, fine.
But you have to admit that if we keep the current system, we are putting our own citizens in harms way to preserve their 'liberties' and big time.
What are the odds of being killed by an Islamic terrorist in the UK?
You give up your rights for those small odds? Then as you deserve what you get, which is an erosion of freedom every time the media brings out a new danger.
It is what politicians do
They're religious zealots. That's about as far from mercenary as you can get.
Mr. Smarmeron, so you'd let them back in?
Mr. Tokyo, by itself such a step wouldn't end Islamic extremism in the UK (alas), but it would help stop it growing very significantly and very rapidly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28825029
If there was no evidence that would stand up then yes.
Keeping an eye on them might reveal those already here that we don't know about, who are far more dangerous.
It suits politicians to hype up this sort of danger. It lets them justify the dismantling of our rights as citizens in order to "protect" us.
Don't fall for the hysteria. Keep calm and carry on.