@Speedy We're all here to debate politics but yr fact "military weaker than ISIS" (Ours) is a nonsense.
Britain's ground forces are certainly weaker than the ones of ISIS. And you can't drive a navy destroyer to Mosul.
Don't be ridiculous - Britain's ground forces would easily beat ISIS in a straight fight. And that's even without taking into account the self imposed handicaps put in place to protect civilians.
Britain has only got 30 thousand troops. ISIS has a much larger number, are battle hardened, has better training, greater motivation, greater morale, has better officer staff, has the latest american weapons ( including but not limited to a 1000 american main battle tanks [Britain has 407]) and is swimming with cash compared with the cash strapped British army.
Britain is not the military power that it was in 1991 at the end of the cold war, it has declined severely in numbers, quality and effectiveness and since Iraq that decline only accelerated.
Back in 2003 the army was stuck outside of Basra and needed 4 days to capture the village of Umm-Qasr a few miles from Kuwait. Imagine the state of the british army on the battlefield after an extra decade of decay.
ISIS have 1000 tanks? When did this happen?
They are continuously capturing equipment in Iraq.
@Speedy We're all here to debate politics but yr fact "military weaker than ISIS" (Ours) is a nonsense.
Britain's ground forces are certainly weaker than the ones of ISIS. And you can't drive a navy destroyer to Mosul.
Don't be ridiculous - Britain's ground forces would easily beat ISIS in a straight fight. And that's even without taking into account the self imposed handicaps put in place to protect civilians.
Britain has only got 30 thousand troops. ISIS has a much larger number, are battle hardened, has better training, greater motivation, greater morale, has better officer staff, has the latest american weapons ( including but not limited to a 1000 american main battle tanks [Britain has 407]) and is swimming with cash compared with the cash strapped British army.
Britain is not the military power that it was in 1991 at the end of the cold war, it has declined severely in numbers, quality and effectiveness and since Iraq that decline only accelerated.
Back in 2003 the army was stuck outside of Basra and needed 4 days to capture the village of Umm-Qasr a few miles from Kuwait. Imagine the state of the british army on the battlefield after an extra decade of decay.
ISIS have 1000 tanks? When did this happen?
They are continuously capturing equipment in Iraq.
@johnmcdonnellMP 2 mins2 minutes ago Despite big majorities in both Shadow Cabinet & PLP against bombing, we lost the vote & bombers will be in air tonight & people will die.
He doesn't really get this "parliamentary arithmetic" lark does he?
This is Corbynite arithmetic pretty much like Stalinist arithmentic
@JeremyCorbyn4PM 5 mins5 minutes ago Our thoughts are with the people of Syria tonight. There will be a heavy human cost to this gesture politics.
Does he not know when to stop?
No, that is the whole point of him
There was once a convention that whatever one felt personally about military action, political leaders made a point of supporting the soldiers to the hilt in the field. Of course there have always been those on the backbenches who haven't particularly paid much attention to this, but now the backbenchers are on the front bench...
Read Lord Rooker on Corbyn. He accuses him in clear terms of not being willing to defend Britain or liberal democracy.
Far more devastating than anything Cameron has said.
@Speedy We're all here to debate politics but yr fact "military weaker than ISIS" (Ours) is a nonsense.
Britain's ground forces are certainly weaker than the ones of ISIS. And you can't drive a navy destroyer to Mosul.
Don't be ridiculous - Britain's ground forces would easily beat ISIS in a straight fight. And that's even without taking into account the self imposed handicaps put in place to protect civilians.
Britain has only got 30 thousand troops. ISIS has a much larger number, are battle hardened, has better training, greater motivation, greater morale, has better officer staff, has the latest american weapons ( including but not limited to a 1000 american main battle tanks [Britain has 407]) and is swimming with cash compared with the cash strapped British army.
Britain is not the military power that it was in 1991 at the end of the cold war, it has declined severely in numbers, quality and effectiveness and since Iraq that decline only accelerated.
Back in 2003 the army was stuck outside of Basra and needed 4 days to capture the village of Umm-Qasr a few miles from Kuwait. Imagine the state of the british army on the battlefield after an extra decade of decay.
ISIS have 1000 tanks? When did this happen?
They are continuously capturing equipment in Iraq.
@Speedy We're all here to debate politics but yr fact "military weaker than ISIS" (Ours) is a nonsense.
Britain's ground forces are certainly weaker than the ones of ISIS. And you can't drive a navy destroyer to Mosul.
Don't be ridiculous - Britain's ground forces would easily beat ISIS in a straight fight. And that's even without taking into account the self imposed handicaps put in place to protect civilians.
Britain has only got 30 thousand troops. ISIS has a much larger number, are battle hardened, has better training, greater motivation, greater morale, has better officer staff, has the latest american weapons ( including but not limited to a 1000 american main battle tanks [Britain has 407]) and is swimming with cash compared with the cash strapped British army.
Britain is not the military power that it was in 1991 at the end of the cold war, it has declined severely in numbers, quality and effectiveness and since Iraq that decline only accelerated.
Back in 2003 the army was stuck outside of Basra and needed 4 days to capture the village of Umm-Qasr a few miles from Kuwait. Imagine the state of the british army on the battlefield after an extra decade of decay.
ISIS have 1000 tanks? When did this happen?
They are continuously capturing equipment in Iraq.
Not to mention the flow of arms from the Turkish border.
Do you have a source for the "1000 main battle tank" claim you made?
It seems I lobbed armoured carriers with the armoured tanks, without them the number of operational tanks they got is around 250-300.
You do seem to have got quite a few facts wrong in your series of posts but as your basic argument is that the UK could not on its own beat ISIL on the battlefield is in itself specious it doesn't really matter.
The UK is not going to be taking on ISIL on its own in the air or on the ground. So whether it could or could not do so matters not at all.
@JeremyCorbyn4PM 5 mins5 minutes ago Our thoughts are with the people of Syria tonight. There will be a heavy human cost to this gesture politics.
Does he not know when to stop?
No, that is the whole point of him
There was once a convention that whatever one felt personally about military action, political leaders made a point of supporting the soldiers to the hilt in the field. Of course there have always been those on the backbenches who haven't particularly paid much attention to this, but now the backbenchers are on the front bench...
Indeed, he will continue to read pacifist poetry as he did on Remembrance Sunday
Times reporting Muslim vote will give Labour the win in Oldham
This would be frightening
Well they all think if UKIP win the byelection they will be deported, or that is what Labour have told them....or so it has been allegedly said among the dirt been thrown in the trenches.
@JeremyCorbyn4PM 5 mins5 minutes ago Our thoughts are with the people of Syria tonight. There will be a heavy human cost to this gesture politics.
Does he not know when to stop?
No, that is the whole point of him
There was once a convention that whatever one felt personally about military action, political leaders made a point of supporting the soldiers to the hilt in the field. Of course there have always been those on the backbenches who haven't particularly paid much attention to this, but now the backbenchers are on the front bench...
Indeed, he will continue to read pacifist poetry as he did on Remembrance Sunday
I think that the Labour leadership's political strategy might genuinely be to believe that they will come to power on the back of a swing in public opinion resulting from a terrorist atrocity (which can be blamed on military action taken abroad). They are sorely deluded.
Labour MP David Lammy has filed a complaint with the BBC over the lack of ethnic diversity among Question Time panelists, providing research claiming that more than 60% of shows in the last five years had no figures from a black, Asian or other minority ethnic background.
Given standard variations if you got 5 random Brits that's probably about the right proportion of shows not to have a minority. White British are over 80% of the UK right? Besides the panel should be made up of talented people plus a Labour MP.
One of the comments on the Guardian article did the maths, and it came out to 59% of all panels should have no non-white members on average, assuming 90% white population in UK. David Lammy is an arse.
As a Tottenham boy I agree with you but you should have seen Bernie Grant!
@Speedy We're all here to debate politics but yr fact "military weaker than ISIS" (Ours) is a nonsense.
Britain's ground forces are certainly weaker than the ones of ISIS. And you can't drive a navy destroyer to Mosul.
Don't be ridiculous - Britain's ground forces would easily beat ISIS in a straight fight. And that's even without taking into account the self imposed handicaps put in place to protect civilians.
Britain has only got 30 thousand troops. ISIS has a much larger number, are battle hardened, has better training, greater motivation, greater morale, has better officer staff, has the latest american weapons ( including but not limited to a 1000 american main battle tanks [Britain has 407]) and is swimming with cash compared with the cash strapped British army.
Britain is not the military power that it was in 1991 at the end of the cold war, it has declined severely in numbers, quality and effectiveness and since Iraq that decline only accelerated.
Back in 2003 the army was stuck outside of Basra and needed 4 days to capture the village of Umm-Qasr a few miles from Kuwait. Imagine the state of the british army on the battlefield after an extra decade of decay.
ISIS have 1000 tanks? When did this happen?
They are continuously capturing equipment in Iraq.
Not to mention the flow of arms from the Turkish border.
Do you have a source for the "1000 main battle tank" claim you made?
It seems I lobbed armoured carriers with the armoured tanks, without them the number of operational tanks they got is around 250-300.
wikipedia states that ISIL control 40 M1 Abrams, and that some have been destroyed by US airstrikes.
The tanks captured from the Iraqis were export models without reactive armour and other equipment. The US exported far less than 250 to 300. That figure is a joke. There are of course various basically obsolete Russian tanks in the region. More to the point armoured vehicles need skills to operate them and maintenance and support which is why modern armies have a 'tail', one which ISIS do not have and one which Speedy pointedly ignores. (they also need armoured infantry to protect them)
I suspect the Russians will be raining down cluster bombs, phosphorous and possibly Napalm (They'll stop short of nukes, unless IS continue to really piss them off) and all those things we're not allowed to do.
Dieing for your cause is one thing but having half your face ripped off and being blinded with searing pain might cause a few Jihadis to reconsider.
I hope Putin fucks em royally.
Infantry. They haven't deployed any mass formation of multiple divisions of infantry that is necessary to beat them, that is why regardless of the Russian bombing it has produced no results, the frontline is not moving.
Infantry is the name of the game in today's modern land war. As the wars of Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Libya, Ukraine, Syria and Yemen show an infantry group supplied with anti-tank and anti-air missiles is a far superior one than an armoured or aerial one.
Get his phone number. We're obviously missing a trick here and this guy could really help us out.
wikipedia states that ISIL control 40 M1 Abrams, and that some have been destroyed by US airstrikes.
The tanks captured from the Iraqis were export models without reactive armour and other equipment. The US exported far less than 250 to 300. That figure is a joke. There are of course various basically obsolete Russian tanks in the region. More to the point armoured vehicles need skills to operate them and maintenance and support which is why modern armies have a 'tail', one which ISIS do not have and one which Speedy pointedly ignores. (they also need armoured infantry to protect them)
Speedy you sound like an idiot, surely not? Any of the major countries in our world could destroy ISIS IN Syria if they tried. The problem is that there will then be some in their own country who will then become terrorists and attempt to kill innocent people there. The equation is how much do I need to degrade you vs how much of a problem will you cause me if I don't.
You are correct that any major country in the world could destroy ISIS if they wanted to, however Britain is not a major country, although it still has nukes that it can use against ISIS it doesn't have the conventional forces.
ISIS are operating in a desert in the middle of nowhere thousands of miles away. Apart from the USA the notion that we would be inferior to any other country in operating against them is risible. You have swerved from dim, through thick, to hysterical as the day has worn on.
@WikiGuido 2h2 hours ago "It was awesome. Absolutely awesome. He was the leader of the opposition and the government." Labour MP on Hilary Benn speech.
Not to mention the flow of arms from the Turkish border.
made?
You do seem to have got quite a few facts wrong in your series of posts but as your basic argument is that the UK could not on its own beat ISIL on the battlefield is in itself specious it doesn't really matter.
The UK is not going to be taking on ISIL on its own in the air or on the ground. So whether it could or could not do so matters not at all.
The fate on this is not on Cameron's hands, he has to plead to really anyone who can provide the ground forces to actually provide them on the battlefield.
The Americans won't get involved again on such large numbers, and the Turks won't do because they would probably end up getting bombed by the russians and fighting the Kurds, Iran might do but if they didn't provide mass support when Baghdad was in danger they won't provide it now, the Russians won't do because they don't provide them for Assad either, the Saudis won't do because it will really provoke the shia's and they are also involved in a war in Yemen.
Cameron needs 250000 troops to support a ground invasion and I don't know where he's going to get them. An international coalition is needed but since no one gets along with anyone it's difficult to create one that is purely not a western one, which is politically explosive in the middle east.
I still have a copy from the Times Magazine, date April 1st 1991, it's title Global Cop and in the article there is a prescient account from a Syrian doctor who said that there is going to be a big war between Sunnis and Shias that would lead to them losing what few liberties they had and the Americans have closed them like rats leaving only Islamism as an exit. Another Syrian shopkeeper said that it will take a long time for another Saddam to rise but once he will we will teach America a lesson for the world to see. That was 1991, 24 years later that article sums up the realities of today.
@JeremyCorbyn4PM 5 mins5 minutes ago Our thoughts are with the people of Syria tonight. There will be a heavy human cost to this gesture politics.
Does he not know when to stop?
No, that is the whole point of him
There was once a convention that whatever one felt personally about military action, political leaders made a point of supporting the soldiers to the hilt in the field. Of course there have always been those on the backbenches who haven't particularly paid much attention to this, but now the backbenchers are on the front bench...
Read Lord Rooker on Corbyn. He accuses him in clear terms of not being willing to defend Britain or liberal democracy.
Far more devastating than anything Cameron has said.
This was always the fundamental flaw in putting forward Corbyn as a potential leader of the country. You had better ask the parliamentary labour party why they did so. Now labour are stuck with both him and the fact that the labour party is now essentially a pacifist vehicle for a gang of left wing extremists.
The fate on this is not on Cameron's hands, he has to plead to really anyone who can provide the ground forces to actually provide them on the battlefield.
The Americans won't get involved again on such large numbers, and the Turks won't do because they would probably end up getting bombed by the russians and fighting the Kurds, Iran might do but if they didn't provide mass support when Baghdad was in danger they won't provide it now, the Russians won't do because they don't provide them for Assad either, the Saudis won't do because it will really provoke the shia's and they are also involved in a war in Yemen.
Cameron needs 250000 troops to support a ground invasion and I don't know where he's going to get them. An international coalition is needed but since no one gets along with anyone it's difficult to create one that is purely not a western one, which is politically explosive in the middle east.
I still have a copy from the Times Magazine, date April 1st 1991, it's title Global Cop and in the article there is a prescient account from a Syrian doctor who said that there is going to be a big war between Sunnis and Shias that would lead to them losing what few liberties they had and the Americans have closed them like rats leaving only Islamism as an exit. Another Syrian shopkeeper said that it will take a long time for another Saddam to rise but once he will we will teach America a lesson for the world to see. That was 1991, 24 years later that article sums up the realities of today.
You still seem to working on the principle that the fight against ISIL is somehow the UK's responsibility to organise and lead, which it isn't and never will be. I could of course be completely missing your point in which case I haven't a clue what you are on about.
Not to mention the flow of arms from the Turkish border.
made?
You do seem to have got quite a few facts wrong in your series of posts but as your basic argument is that the UK could not on its own beat ISIL on the battlefield is in itself specious it doesn't really matter.
The UK is not going to be taking on ISIL on its own in the air or on the ground. So whether it could or could not do so matters not at all.
The fate on this is not on Cameron's hands, he has to plead to really anyone who can provide the ground forces to actually provide them on the battlefield.
Cameron needs 250000 troops to support a ground invasion and I don't know where he's going to get them. An international coalition is needed but since no one gets along with anyone it's difficult to create one that is purely not a western one, which is politically explosive in the middle east.
I still have a copy from the Times Magazine, date April 1st 1991, it's title Global Cop and in the article there is a prescient account from a Syrian doctor who said that there is going to be a big war between Sunnis and Shias that would lead to them losing what few liberties they had and the Americans have closed them like rats leaving only Islamism as an exit. Another Syrian shopkeeper said that it will take a long time for another Saddam to rise but once he will we will teach America a lesson for the world to see. That was 1991, 24 years later that article sums up the realities of today.
The real reason is no one is interested in fighting Daesh except Kurds. Kurds are happily selling cheap Daesh oil alongside their own. The rag tag 70000 are only interested in fighting Assad, who remains the only secular leader in Syria.
Not to mention the flow of arms from the Turkish border.
made?
....
The fate on this is not on Cameron's hands, he has to plead to really anyone who can provide the ground forces to actually provide them on the battlefield.
The Americans won't get involved again on such large numbers, and the Turks won't do because they would probably end up getting bombed by the russians and fighting the Kurds, Iran might do but if they didn't provide mass support when Baghdad was in danger they won't provide it now, the Russians won't do because they don't provide them for Assad either, the Saudis won't do because it will really provoke the shia's and they are also involved in a war in Yemen.
Cameron needs 250000 troops to support a ground invasion and I don't know where he's going to get them. An international coalition is needed but since no one gets along with anyone it's difficult to create one that is purely not a western one, which is politically explosive in the middle east.
I still have a copy from the Times Magazine, date April 1st 1991, it's title Global Cop and in the article there is a prescient account from a Syrian doctor who said that there is going to be a big war between Sunnis and Shias that would lead to them losing what few liberties they had and the Americans have closed them like rats leaving only Islamism as an exit. Another Syrian shopkeeper said that it will take a long time for another Saddam to rise but once he will we will teach America a lesson for the world to see. That was 1991, 24 years later that article sums up the realities of today.
You are thick. We are part of a 60 nation UN mandated coalition. One that is already fighting ISIS on the Iraqi side of the border that ISIS themselves ignore. This is not Cameron's war, we are one nation in a coalition. You are totally ga ga. Pretty much as ga ga as Corbyn. Meanwhile Syrians are busily killing each other in a civil war.
Speedy you sound like an idiot, surely not? Any of the major countries in our world could destroy ISIS IN Syria if they tried. The problem is that there will then be some in their own country who will then become terrorists and attempt to kill innocent people there. The equation is how much do I need to degrade you vs how much of a problem will you cause me if I don't.
You are correct that any major country in the world could destroy ISIS if they wanted to, however Britain is not a major country, although it still has nukes that it can use against ISIS it doesn't have the conventional forces.
ISIS are operating in a desert in the middle of nowhere thousands of miles away. Apart from the USA the notion that we would be inferior to any other country in operating against them is risible. You have swerved from dim, through thick, to hysterical as the day has worn on.
Britain is a powerful military force now after sacking 36000 soldiers in the past 5 years. At this rate, we would be even more powerful if we went on sacking Joe Sapper's.
It's called lean and thin.
So far 2936 sorties have bombed Daesh. Fuck all has happened. Another 6 Typhoons won't blow a hurricane.
THe only way Daesh can be beaten is putting SAS types on the ground cutting off supplies. Also stop monies coming from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE....
Not to mention the flow of arms from the Turkish border.
made?
....
You are thick. We are part of a 60 nation UN mandated coalition. One that is already fighting ISIS on the Iraqi side of the border that ISIS themselves ignore. This is not Cameron's war, we are one nation in a coalition. You are totally ga ga. Pretty much as ga ga as Corbyn. Meanwhile Syrians are busily killing each other in a civil war.
If ISIS is not defeated, Cameron will get the blame domestically, it's very simple. The public won't blame the UN, but Cameron.
I am not sure why, after tonight, Corbyn does not sack the 10 shadow cabinet members.
No further damage can happen anyway. He has a majority of the party with him now. Sack the lot. They can sit on Portillo's lap in TW.
Oh dear. You just don't get it.
He doesn't have a majority. There were many, many, many Labour MPs who were voting because they didn't buy the Government position not because they agreed with the Corbyn analysis.
He has very few true believers on the Labour benches.
He couldn't fill the Shadow team first time round without begging - so sacking loads of people will only create unfillable roles.
Corbyn does not lead Labour in any meaningful sense. He was elected by the membership but can't lead the people who matter - those in Parliament.
I am not sure why, after tonight, Corbyn does not sack the 10 shadow cabinet members.
No further damage can happen anyway. He has a majority of the party with him now. Sack the lot. They can sit on Portillo's lap in TW.
How low has Labour fallen that the leader commanding a majority of his party is supposed to be impressive. On a vote where deselection has been threatened. The aim is normally to control a majority of the Commons not a majority of your own party!
Not to mention the flow of arms from the Turkish border.
made?
....
The fate on this is not on Cameron's hands, he has to plead to really anyone who can provide the ground forces to actually provide them on the battlefield.
The Americans won't get involved again on such large numbers, and the Turks won't do because they would probably end up getting bombed by the russians and fighting the Kurds, Iran might do but if they didn't provide mass support when Baghdad was in danger they won't provide it now, the Russians won't do because they don't provide them for Assad either, the Saudis won't do because it will really provoke the shia's and they are also involved in a war in Yemen.
Cameron needs 250000 troops to support a ground invasion and I don't know where he's going to get them. An international coalition is needed but since no one gets along with anyone it's difficult to create one that is purely not a western one, which is politically explosive in the middle east.
I still have a copy from the Times Magazine, date April 1st 1991, it's title Global Cop and in the article there is a prescient account from a Syrian doctor who said that there is going to be a big war between Sunnis and Shias that would lead to them losing what few liberties they had and the Americans have closed them like rats leaving only Islamism as an exit. Another Syrian shopkeeper said that it will take a long time for another Saddam to rise but once he will we will teach America a lesson for the world to see. That was 1991, 24 years later that article sums up the realities of today.
Meanwhile Syrians are busily killing each other in a civil war.
But..But....But.....St Jeremy of Corbyn has proclaimed that because of this rush to (a 4 year old) war it is inevitable that Syrians will die (in addition to the 250,000 who already have)....
I am not sure why, after tonight, Corbyn does not sack the 10 shadow cabinet members.
No further damage can happen anyway. He has a majority of the party with him now. Sack the lot. They can sit on Portillo's lap in TW.
In normal circumstances such a breach of collective cabinet responsibility would require resignations or, if they were not forthcoming, sackings. However, there was that shadow cabinet meeting the other day in which it would seem it was agreed the normal rules would be suspended. So it is all a bit of a mess, a mess that would be made worse, I suspect, if Corbyn were to now start sacking people having agreed that he wouldn't.
I am not sure why, after tonight, Corbyn does not sack the 10 shadow cabinet members.
No further damage can happen anyway. He has a majority of the party with him now. Sack the lot. They can sit on Portillo's lap in TW.
Oh dear. You just don't get it.
He doesn't have a majority. There were many, many, many Labour MPs who were voting because they didn't buy the Government position not because they agreed with the Corbyn analysis.
He has very few true believers on the Labour benches.
He couldn't fill the Shadow team first time round without begging - so sacking loads of people will only create unfillable roles.
Corbyn does not lead Labour in any meaningful sense. He was elected by the membership but can't lead the people who matter - those in Parliament.
The irony is that he will win another contest. He will also receive the 35 nominations, if needed, simply by being the leader. There will be enough CLP's who will insist that their own MP nominate him. After that, he will win by a landslide.
I am not sure why, after tonight, Corbyn does not sack the 10 shadow cabinet members.
No further damage can happen anyway. He has a majority of the party with him now. Sack the lot. They can sit on Portillo's lap in TW.
In normal circumstances such a breach of collective cabinet responsibility would require resignations or, if they were not forthcoming, sackings. However, there was that shadow cabinet meeting the other day in which it would seem it was agreed the normal rules would be suspended. So it is all a bit of a mess, a mess that would be made worse, I suspect, if Corbyn were to now start sacking people having agreed that he wouldn't.
Wasn't it decided it would be a conscience vote? In which case collective responsibility doesn't apply? The unusual part is not having a free vote at all but rather the threats of punishment on a free cote. Makes a mockery of the notion of free.
I am not sure why, after tonight, Corbyn does not sack the 10 shadow cabinet members.
No further damage can happen anyway. He has a majority of the party with him now. Sack the lot. They can sit on Portillo's lap in TW.
Oh dear. You just don't get it.
He doesn't have a majority. There were many, many, many Labour MPs who were voting because they didn't buy the Government position not because they agreed with the Corbyn analysis.
He has very few true believers on the Labour benches.
He couldn't fill the Shadow team first time round without begging - so sacking loads of people will only create unfillable roles.
Corbyn does not lead Labour in any meaningful sense. He was elected by the membership but can't lead the people who matter - those in Parliament.
The irony is that he will win another contest. He will also receive the 35 nominations, if needed, simply by being the leader. There will be enough CLP's who will insist that their own MP nominate him. After that, he will win by a landslide.
And make Labour even less electable.
Eventually they will wake up and have to deal with the real world
Speedy you sound like an idiot, surely not? Any of the major countries in our world could destroy ISIS IN Syria if they tried. The problem is that there will then be some in their own country who will then become terrorists and attempt to kill innocent people there. The equation is how much do I need to degrade you vs how much of a problem will you cause me if I don't.
You are correct that any major country in the world could destroy ISIS if they wanted to, however Britain is not a major country, although it still has nukes that it can use against ISIS it doesn't have the conventional forces.
ISIS are operating in a desert in the middle of nowhere thousands of miles away. Apart from the USA the notion that we would be inferior to any other country in operating against them is risible. You have swerved from dim, through thick, to hysterical as the day has worn on.
Britain is a powerful military force now after sacking 36000 soldiers in the past 5 years. At this rate, we would be even more powerful if we went on sacking Joe Sapper's.
It's called lean and thin.
So far 2936 sorties have bombed Daesh. Fuck all has happened. Another 6 Typhoons won't blow a hurricane.
THe only way Daesh can be beaten is putting SAS types on the ground cutting off supplies. Also stop monies coming from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE....
The fast expansion of ISIS in Iraq hasn't just been halted, they've already lost a third of their territory.
Speedy you sound like an idiot, surely not? Any of the major countries in our world could destroy ISIS IN Syria if they tried. The problem is that there will then be some in their own country who will then become terrorists and attempt to kill innocent people there. The equation is how much do I need to degrade you vs how much of a problem will you cause me if I don't.
You are correct that any major country in the world could destroy ISIS if they wanted to, however Britain is not a major country, although it still has nukes that it can use against ISIS it doesn't have the conventional forces.
ISIS are operating in a desert in the middle of nowhere thousands of miles away. Apart from the USA the notion that we would be inferior to any other country in operating against them is risible. You have swerved from dim, through thick, to hysterical as the day has worn on.
Britain is a powerful military force now after sacking 36000 soldiers in the past 5 years. At this rate, we would be even more powerful if we went on sacking Joe Sapper's.
It's called lean and thin.
So far 2936 sorties have bombed Daesh. Fuck all has happened. Another 6 Typhoons won't blow a hurricane.
THe only way Daesh can be beaten is putting SAS types on the ground cutting off supplies. Also stop monies coming from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE....
The fast expansion of ISIS in Iraq hasn't just been halted, they've already lost a third of their territory.
Interesting definition of fuck all ...
Yes, Mosul, Ramadi must have fallen to the coalition. Oh no ! it hasn't.
Speedy you sound like an idiot, surely not? Any of the major countries in our world could destroy ISIS IN Syria if they tried. The problem is that there will then be some in their own country who will then become terrorists and attempt to kill innocent people there. The equation is how much do I need to degrade you vs how much of a problem will you cause me if I don't.
You are correct that any major country in the world could destroy ISIS if they wanted to, however Britain is not a major country, although it still has nukes that it can use against ISIS it doesn't have the conventional forces.
ISIS are operating in a desert in the middle of nowhere thousands of miles away. Apart from the USA the notion that we would be inferior to any other country in operating against them is risible. You have swerved from dim, through thick, to hysterical as the day has worn on.
Britain is a powerful military force now after sacking 36000 soldiers in the past 5 years. At this rate, we would be even more powerful if we went on sacking Joe Sapper's.
It's called lean and thin.
So far 2936 sorties have bombed Daesh. Fuck all has happened. Another 6 Typhoons won't blow a hurricane.
THe only way Daesh can be beaten is putting SAS types on the ground cutting off supplies. Also stop monies coming from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE....
The fast expansion of ISIS in Iraq hasn't just been halted, they've already lost a third of their territory.
Interesting definition of fuck all ...
Yes, Mosul, Ramadi must have fallen to the coalition. Oh no ! it hasn't.
The speeches of Benn, Beckett & Johnson remind me of the Labour Party that used to win elections - they throw into highlight the catastrophic disaster Corbyn has been - as Beckett observed of her nomination of Corbyn 'the biggest mistake of my political life....'
The speeches of Benn, Beckett & Johnson remind me of the Labour Party that used to win elections - they throw into highlight the catastrophic disaster Corbyn has been - as Beckett observed of her nomination of Corbyn 'the biggest mistake of my political life....'
And Benn's speech wasn't that amazing. Just felt that way in contrast to much of the rest of the debate.
the proximate cause was invading iraq with no plan for afterwards tho
Which would be why this radical Islamist theology and groups existed before Iraq was invaded? 9/11 happened because Iraq was invaded and Islamists have a Tardis apparently ...
the proximate cause was invading iraq with no plan for afterwards tho
Which would be why this radical Islamist theology and groups existed before Iraq was invaded? 9/11 happened because Iraq was invaded and Islamists have a Tardis apparently ...
ISIS - islamic state in iraq and syria - would not be there without the iraq invasion
@Wanderer I do think the Left have a bigger presence on social media than the Right. While both the Left and Right have a fair number of journalists on twitter, there are hardly any Right-wing activists on twitter. Whereas there are numerous Left activists.
The Left are 'naturally' outspoken, and feel that their views aren't represented via traditional forms of media. They feel that most of the press are right-wing, and in the case of Corbynites that the BBC and Sky are both actively anti-Corbyn and pro-Tory. Thus, they feel social media is the only platform they can use to express their views.
Secondly, it is the Left have traditionally been the movement of protest. Social media - twitter, tumblr and Facebook is very suited to this kind of 'protest' politics. The limited characters of a site like twitter, almost encourage a more simplified kind of political discussion, because the 148 limit how in-depth you can go on such a site. If simplified political discussion is encouraged, then therefore it is inevitable that politics will descend into and us versus them mentality.
Social media, and more generally the internet also tends to create a 'herd' mentality. It's prevelant on both twitter and tumblr. This mentality often scares away moderate voices, leaving extreme voices over time to dominant. Without anyone to challenge their world view, people become gradually more and more extreme - leading to the situation now, where much of the Left online are now actually offended that someone would ever disagree with them on anything.
I think the Left have always been looking to 'taint' Blair, because by tainting Blair, you taint the entire New Labour project and thus the modernisation of the Labour party post Foot. Rather than the spotlight being on how New Labour won 3 elections, it can be about the moral failure of the Labour party, and how Blair/Brown aren't even popular years down the line either. Thus, it is not a coincidence that the Hard Left was reborn as soon as Blairism went into decline.
I think the Left have always been looking to 'taint' Blair, because by tainting Blair, you taint the entire New Labour project and thus the modernisation of the Labour party post Foot. Rather than the spotlight being on how New Labour won 3 elections, it can be about the moral failure of the Labour party, and how Blair/Brown aren't even popular years down the line either. Thus, it is not a coincidence that the Hard Left was reborn as soon as Blairism went into decline.
Blair didn't need any help in becoming tainted. It's not only the left that hold him in contempt. His (and Campbells) disinformation and spin (especially on national security) cheapened and infantilised politics.
Labour's problem (as identified by many, not only on the left) is that it no longer has a consensus about what it should be for. They don't seem close to figuring that out.
the proximate cause was invading iraq with no plan for afterwards tho
Which would be why this radical Islamist theology and groups existed before Iraq was invaded? 9/11 happened because Iraq was invaded and Islamists have a Tardis apparently ...
ISIS - islamic state in iraq and syria - would not be there without the iraq invasion
Not necessarily. Was Syria invaded?
It is jut as plausible that there could have been an uprising against the vile dictator Hussein during the Arab Spring just as there was an uprising against his ally next door.
Again impossible to know without a Tardis. All we do know is this ideology and many of these fighters predate the invasion.
Social media, and more generally the internet also tends to create a 'herd' mentality. It's prevelant on both twitter and tumblr. This mentality often scares away moderate voices, leaving extreme voices over time to dominant. Without anyone to challenge their world view, people become gradually more and more extreme - leading to the situation now, where much of the Left online are now actually offended that someone would ever disagree with them on anything.
We certainly saw that on SindyRef- Twitter becomes a huge self-reinforcing echo chamber - 'everyone thinks like this, so we must be going to win....'
Those two Tornados left RAF Akrotiri with three 500lb Paveway bombs each and returned to base just over three hours later without those weapons, BBC defence correspondent Jonathan Beale said.
The Ministry of Defence is expected to give details of what they targeted later today, he added.
Comments
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/06/04/Fog-War-US-Has-Armed-ISIS
Far more devastating than anything Cameron has said.
The UK is not going to be taking on ISIL on its own in the air or on the ground. So whether it could or could not do so matters not at all.
Corbyn escapes off the palace roof by helicopter
what the times is trying to do is more frightening
More to the point armoured vehicles need skills to operate them and maintenance and support which is why modern armies have a 'tail', one which ISIS do not have and one which Speedy pointedly ignores. (they also need armoured infantry to protect them)
You have swerved from dim, through thick, to hysterical as the day has worn on.
https://www.facebook.com/Karlremarks/photos/a.401607333254173.93233.395292190552354/914863288595239/?type=3
The Americans won't get involved again on such large numbers, and the Turks won't do because they would probably end up getting bombed by the russians and fighting the Kurds, Iran might do but if they didn't provide mass support when Baghdad was in danger they won't provide it now, the Russians won't do because they don't provide them for Assad either, the Saudis won't do because it will really provoke the shia's and they are also involved in a war in Yemen.
Cameron needs 250000 troops to support a ground invasion and I don't know where he's going to get them.
An international coalition is needed but since no one gets along with anyone it's difficult to create one that is purely not a western one, which is politically explosive in the middle east.
I still have a copy from the Times Magazine, date April 1st 1991, it's title Global Cop and in the article there is a prescient account from a Syrian doctor who said that there is going to be a big war between Sunnis and Shias that would lead to them losing what few liberties they had and the Americans have closed them like rats leaving only Islamism as an exit. Another Syrian shopkeeper said that it will take a long time for another Saddam to rise but once he will we will teach America a lesson for the world to see.
That was 1991, 24 years later that article sums up the realities of today.
Now labour are stuck with both him and the fact that the labour party is now essentially a pacifist vehicle for a gang of left wing extremists.
Al-Nusra , Cameron's new "moderate" ally !
This is not Cameron's war, we are one nation in a coalition. You are totally ga ga. Pretty much as ga ga as Corbyn.
Meanwhile Syrians are busily killing each other in a civil war.
It's called lean and thin.
So far 2936 sorties have bombed Daesh. Fuck all has happened. Another 6 Typhoons won't blow a hurricane.
THe only way Daesh can be beaten is putting SAS types on the ground cutting off supplies. Also stop monies coming from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE....
The public won't blame the UN, but Cameron.
No further damage can happen anyway. He has a majority of the party with him now. Sack the lot. They can sit on Portillo's lap in TW.
He doesn't have a majority. There were many, many, many Labour MPs who were voting because they didn't buy the Government position not because they agreed with the Corbyn analysis.
He has very few true believers on the Labour benches.
He couldn't fill the Shadow team first time round without begging - so sacking loads of people will only create unfillable roles.
Corbyn does not lead Labour in any meaningful sense. He was elected by the membership but can't lead the people who matter - those in Parliament.
Eventually they will wake up and have to deal with the real world
Interesting definition of fuck all ...
http://www.oldham.gov.uk/press/article/1077/oldham_west_and_royton_parliamentary_by-election_update
The Left are 'naturally' outspoken, and feel that their views aren't represented via traditional forms of media. They feel that most of the press are right-wing, and in the case of Corbynites that the BBC and Sky are both actively anti-Corbyn and pro-Tory. Thus, they feel social media is the only platform they can use to express their views.
Secondly, it is the Left have traditionally been the movement of protest. Social media - twitter, tumblr and Facebook is very suited to this kind of 'protest' politics. The limited characters of a site like twitter, almost encourage a more simplified kind of political discussion, because the 148 limit how in-depth you can go on such a site. If simplified political discussion is encouraged, then therefore it is inevitable that politics will descend into and us versus them mentality.
Social media, and more generally the internet also tends to create a 'herd' mentality. It's prevelant on both twitter and tumblr. This mentality often scares away moderate voices, leaving extreme voices over time to dominant. Without anyone to challenge their world view, people become gradually more and more extreme - leading to the situation now, where much of the Left online are now actually offended that someone would ever disagree with them on anything.
I think the Left have always been looking to 'taint' Blair, because by tainting Blair, you taint the entire New Labour project and thus the modernisation of the Labour party post Foot. Rather than the spotlight being on how New Labour won 3 elections, it can be about the moral failure of the Labour party, and how Blair/Brown aren't even popular years down the line either. Thus, it is not a coincidence that the Hard Left was reborn as soon as Blairism went into decline.
Labour's problem (as identified by many, not only on the left) is that it no longer has a consensus about what it should be for. They don't seem close to figuring that out.
It is jut as plausible that there could have been an uprising against the vile dictator Hussein during the Arab Spring just as there was an uprising against his ally next door.
Again impossible to know without a Tardis. All we do know is this ideology and many of these fighters predate the invasion.
Labour will probably cling on in Thursday’s byelection. But the party’s troubled relationship with its northern heartlands seems to be on the rocks"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/02/oldham-byelection-jerermy-corbyn-labour
The Ministry of Defence is expected to give details of what they targeted later today, he added.
Somebody got a late night wake up call...