World War 111

[P J]

I see Cameron as part of his impassioned plea to the Commons for permission to go bomb Syria with his pals claims that 70000 foot soldiers of the Free Syrian Army are his only troops on the ground.  He says we should aid and defend these with airpower.  Only Russia and Assad are bombing them. Is this a suggestion that our planes should shoot down the Russian bombers.  Anyone care to guess where this may lead?

[observer]

Oh, so " Russia was warned"; the same Russians who the US had concluded an air access agreement with the Yanks, just so they wouldn't have any "accidents"; hence their provision to the Yanks of flight plan details. Now perhaps, if Assad "warns" the Turks to keep out of his air space, it would justify the Russian (his allies), shooting down a few Turkish aircraft ?  Get real - it's precisely that kind of stupid naivity that leads to escalation in these situations. Still we shouldn't be surprised as you clearly know nothing - unless of course you have time to google it !  

[P J]

Nope, knee-jerk, revenge fuelled political decisions lead to escalation in these situations.  So come on, Cameron is asking us to put our faith in the 70000 Free Syrian Army soldiers as our boots on the ground.  In his speech he says they need and deserve our support from the air. Russia and Assad are bombing them.  Do we take out Russian aircraft ?

[observer]

Nope, if you don't want your cosy little life to get toasted.  1. There are not 70,000 "free Syrian Army"  there, a motely collection of factions from secular moderates to Islamic extremists. So as such, no boots on the ground. 2. With our six jets from Cyprus we are already bombing ISIL positions in Iraq, thus making a contribution, however small; so in a context of allied co-ordination, our use in Syria is superficial; making this whole hiatus within the LABOUR Party accademic. We imo, shouldn't even be siding with the rebels at all, most of whom are now affiliated to radicals (EG: A "free" unit supplied by the CIA, recently gave or sold their weapons to Al Musra, the Yanks have now give up on that idea!). The primary objective has to be the total extinction of ISIL and it's affiliates as a fighting force. fighting a war within a war is insane. Once ISIL and Co are eliminated in the region, then some politics and diplomacy may have some scope for settlement. Having said that, we can defeat, with the use of co-operative countries in the region, on the ground, ISIL as a conventional force; but that still leaves them with their worldwide terrorist strategy; and that will require a different approach.

[P J]

So if Cameron is basing his plea to vote for bombing Syria on a lie, it should be voted down ?  You do talk nonsense at times but I will grant you do talk lots and lots of it.

[P J]

Not like the UK would do anything wrong or illegal or immoral though is it?  

 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-could-be-prosecuted-for-war-crimes-over-missiles-sold-to-saudi-arabia-that-were-used-to-kill-a6752166.html

[observer]

Wouldn't be the first time we've been led to war on a lie - get real. 

[P J]

Ah right so that makes it all ok and fine and dandy, its happened before.  Get real yourself.

[observer]

No it doesn't make it "fine and dandy"; it just doesn't make it unusual.  IF Comoron quoted 70,000, he's probably taking the total Assad opposition. I prefer to listen to the Tory MP (an ex military man) who's just returned from a fact finding mission to Syria, who said the moderate opposition would be lucky to raise 7,000 fighters.  It's academic anyway, IF the primary objective is the elimination of ISIL; but if the West still harbour hopes of deposing Assad, this will just complicate matters and extend the turmoil even longer, with the risk of escalation an ever present danger. As any military person would tell you, what they require is a clear mission objective; the eradication of ISIL first, provides that. It's ironic that the same Bliarite MP's who supported the Iraq invasion, but have now regretted it; are now jumping on the war wagon again; when there is simply no need for it.   

[P J]

Oooh bold type, makes it all the more believable then.  Cameron is trying to get  our country to attack Syria based on lies.  The fact that most wars begin based on lies is not the point.  The US have dropped approximately 30000 bombs in Syria, yet ISIS remain unstopped.  Imagine how many innocent civilian lives have been lost during the bombing by 15 airforces.  This will help drive recruits to ISIS.  If we escalate the bombing imagine the diaspora.  What plans have we for that?  You are already crying all the time about the amount of refugees pouring out from Syria and despite your delusions have no answers to the problem, it will get far worse.  Add to that the already strained international relations between NATO and Russia, exacerbated by the Russian bomber getting shot down, and we are mixing up a fine recipe for a disaster.  

[Davy51]

\a biblical Armagheddon perhaps ?

[observer]

Did I say "we" should bomb Syria? No, as it's academic; it's already being bombed by everyone else, so 6 jets won't make the slightest difference - thus the whole UK argument is superficial. I did say we should help eliminate ISIL, and by bombing them in Iraq (which we are), we are contributing to that end. As for the diaspora, I don't think anyone leaves an ISIL controlled area without their permission, like the Jihadi bride beaten to death for wanting to return to the UK. Those that have fled, are either in refugee camps or walking through Europe; and we're having to rely on the four faced Turks to stop it - at a price. Glad to see by your last sentence, that you have listened !

[P J]

I listen, but not to armchair Generals.  You are of course aware that there are many more refugees displaced within Syria than have already left?

[observer]

Well I don't listen at all to the clueless!    Of course there's "displacement", within Syria and without; that's why it's imperitive to eradicate ISIL and their radical affiliates asap; thus allowing more rational elements to engage in politics and diplomacy, that requires setting aside any pre-conditions in relation to Assad, and taking on ISIL on a united basis.

[P J]

You won't do that with air strikes and cameron suggestion we utilise and unite the opposition forces to Assad are at best delusional.  Some of the forces he numbers in his supposed ground army are Al Qaida linked terror groups.  Do you fancy arming those guys to the teeth?  We never learn do we, arm up the lesser evil who then become the greater evil.  I will cite Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya as examples of our inability to deal with these situations, can you provide an example of our interference working?  When the bombing intensifies, there will be a mass exodus from Syria.  Also at least as many refugees are fleeing Assad as ISIL.   Over to you armchair General Dogsbody

[observer]

I nor anyone else, who knows what they're talking about, has suggested that air strikes alone will defeat ISIL; (basics) ground troops are require to take the ground and clear the enemy. Some of the better anti-ISIL forces locally, are the Kurds and the Iranians, and of course Assad's Army; the Russians are supporting Assad; the West can support the Kurds, Iraqis and Iranians; with the support of Western Special Forces and precise targeted air and drone strikes, as Jihadii John realised - too late ! The Yanks, as I've said, already armed a "free Syrian" group, who passed the weapons on to an Al Quaeda affiliate; so the so-called anti-Assad rebels are clearly a liability. Normally I would agree with a non-interference policy; in Iraq it was against a Dictator who kept the lid on sectarian strife; in Afghanistan it finished up being against the Taliban, who had no extra-territorial ambitions; in Libya we merely removed another Dictator to be replaced with sectarian anarchy. However, in the case of ISIL, we have an insane ideology, which is a clear and present danger to all; even when extinguished as a conventional force, they will remain an international terrorist threat for a long time to come. But if Syria can be pacified, an opportunity will emerge for rational political settlement, and the return of the exodus.

[P J]

So you are planning to get Assads troops to fight alongside the Kurds and the Iranians, dream on.  Good job you are an armchair General.  

 

FYI.  our intrusions into the Middle East created ISIL and our weapons armed them.

 

I can't believe anyone would think it a good idea to try to team up with Russia, Iran Assad and Iraqis let alone dream it possible.

[observer]

Didn't say "alongside", I said Assad's boys would be alongside the Russians; the Kurds, and Shia Iraqis and Iranians are already fighting ISIL and the Sunni rebels, with US/UK special forces advice and support - read your papers or google it, it's already happening - keep up. No doubt Bliar and Bush's adventure created the mess and let the genie out of the bottle; the job now is to terminate the genie. BTW. We thankfully teamed up with the Russians in WW2; which is why your not speaking German today !

[P J]

For gods sake, stop with the ww2 nonsense. You are dreaming if you think that all the factions in Syria are going to stop hating and fighting each other to team up against ISIL because that's what the Western Crusaders would like them to do. What a screwed up view of the world your armchair affords

[Bazj]

[observer]

That's not what I said or what is actually happening - which just proves how clueless you are. FYI: Assad's Syrian Army is fighting all the rebels with the support of the Russians. The Kurds are fighting ISIL and their Sunni affiliates, supported by the US, but hampered by Turkey! The Shia Iraqis and Iranians are fighting ISIL and their affiliates with the support of the UK & US. These forces have different geographical positions, but require some unified co-ordination. Alas tis your complete ignorance as to what is actually happening and your myopic naivity that gets us into one crisis after another. Perhaps you could join Jeremy on a crusade to Syria and bombard them with love !!!

[P J]

So who is attacking Assad?  Will they stop if Assad sends his troops against ISIL?  Are the Kurds for or against Assad? What of the Turkmen? Who are Russia bombing?  That's for starters as there are estimated to be over 900 separate armed groups in Syria.  These groups swap and change loose or tight alliances and have many differing agendas.  Most though are anti Assad  and some are anti ISIL, some are pro ISIL.  Some want an Islamic state but are against ISIL.  The one thing that is certain is that you will not unite this lot nor will they simply get rid of ISIL first then concentrate on their own ideals.       If all these armies you mention have ISIL surrounded and are indeed attacking them and the combined might of 15 airforces are bombing them and Russian ships are bombarding them , surely they would be routed by now.  Its you who is struggling with the complexities involved here but  I suppose thats understandable from your viewpoint,  behind your armchair.

 

I think you will also find that none of my views, like yours, have any bearing in the start of any crises,  a dozy thing to claim even for you.

[P J]

Great contribution Baz, it was even funny the first time.

 

[P J]

Just to confuse things even further, where would things be now had Cameron got through his vote to bomb our new bedmate Assad?  We would have been bombing him for over a year now.  How would Russia have reacted to that?  Would it have left another power vacuum for ISIL to fill once all the infrastructure was destroyed by the West?  

[Davy51]

There is of course a simple answer to all this unrest....the right thinking world needs to install  & support ruthless dictators in these countries to keep a lid on things.