You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
No argument from me Binners. It's a catch 22. Do nothing and let it go to shit, and do something in the hope it might not (but probably will anyway).
The newsagent lady had a newspaper open on a page with the old crappy war graphic with cartoony bad guys and a section view of a bomb. The media machine is conditioning us already, it feels so familiar now!
So what time scale are we putting on it before Dave is putting his best somber face on outside number 10, as he soberly informs us that British ground troops are going back into Iraq? As the air strikes haven't had the desired outcome (whatever that is, or was?) and the Iraqi 'army' has failed to make any impact.
I also predict that by that point, we'll be well embroiled in the whole Syrian mess too.
I reckon a couple of weeks before the general election. It's all just so bloody predictable. Christ knows how much this next little adventure is going to cost?! In lives, and cash in this age of austerity Dave's always telling us about.
I really don't see why we people are getting in a flap about this. This round is nothing like 2003, we are going down the French route that worked well in Mali. The French used 4000 troops (a combination of Special Forces, the Foreign Legion and Regulars) in Mali, combined with good air support to successfully put down an Islamist insurgency there. The country is now seeing squabbles between the Tuaregs and the local government, however it was a partial success in that it removed the worst nutters.
It's the same this time round, regional players such as the kurds want us there. Unlike last time we have more people who are willing to support us, we don't need to send in 100,000 troops and keep them there to beat IS back into the shadows. The local fighters just need short, sharp support in terms of well trained light infantry and air support to act as the tip of the spear.
Really don't see strategically, what the west can lose here.
Who is this 'we', Tom W1987?
You? Me? The other folks on STW? NO - I didn't think so.
Not over-identifying with the British state and the British establishment by any chance are you? Wrapping yourself in the union jack? Because 'we' (that is, ordinary people who are not part of the UK state's war and propaganda machine) have little interest in playing further divide and rule with the peoples of the Middle East (look at all those straight lines on the map if you don't believe me). Rather we should campaign for peace with justice for the Palestinians, and for support for the PKK, the section of those 'regional players' the Kurds who are fighting hardest against IS but are given no help by the West and are attacked by the Turks, and for popular democracy from below, rather than external solutions imposed at the end of a barrel of a US/UK gun. Believe you me (and on the evidence of 2003 it isn't too hard)'our' intervention will only make things yet worse.
Does anybody believe that ISIS are remotely interested in negotiating for peace? I certainly don't. War and destruction is their only function and reason for existence. They have no political wing and are little more than rampaging barbarians. Their single stated aim is the creation of a Islamic Caliphate (presumably less Shia's as they are doing their level best to wipe those out). Kurds, Alawites and Christians can also expect a rough deal (and by that I mean probable extinction). Sounds fun, eh?
Make no mistake; the rise of ISIL is the wests (well americas) fault for not puppeteering a representative govt in Iraq, instead giving all the power to the Shia, which (predicably) resulted in the Sunni being shat on.
So. Does the west just poke its nose out of a huge mess for which it is at least partially responsible? Does it dip it's toe in the water (as it is now) just to show willing? Does it go batshit mental, lose and take more lives, blow a load more money with no guaranteed result?
Decisions, decisions.
Does anybody believe that ISIS are remotely interested in negotiating for peace?
Do you think we are ? Did you hear what Obama said - evil the only thing they respond to is force etc, must be destroyed etc - did not sound like the west was keen either tbh.
Their single stated aim is the creation of a Islamic Caliphate
Is this not a political objective then? I us wanting to stop them doing this also not political?If you think the infidel west can help in a schism caused by the prophet not mentioning a heir, that has raged since 632, then you are massively more optimistic than I am.
I do not think there will be anyone who does not find them an odious group but the issue, as you note, is whether our "help" will actually help.
Do you think we are ?
Nope. And I don't think "we" are alone either. None of the current big boys are in any mind to allow the creation of a new superpower (which a Caliphate could be); especially one with control of all that lovely oil.
They'll go tooth and nail, but not just yet.
Is this not a political objective then? I us wanting to stop them doing this also not political?
Political/stated aim. Same thing. I didn't say that this wasn't political, just that they do not have a political wing, and are not pursuing political means to this end. Their sole intention is to bring this about by force. There is no diplomatic channel/solution to it.
the wests (well americas) fault for not puppeteering a representative govt
can a foreign power impose a representative government on Iraq?
double post
Good intel from the ground? We haven't got a ****ing clue what's going on 'on the ground'!!! Do you fancy going having a look? Somehow I don't think there's going to be many volunteers for that particular job! The massed ranks of the legendarily brave, courageous and committed Iraqi army perhaps?
@binners the US and UK special forces have been in Iraq for nearly a month and I imagine as of now we have quite a sizable presence.
There will be boots on the ground from the local forces be they Kurds or other groups. As we've posted before there are lots of stories about Iranian units operating on the ground.
As for kit yes the Iraqi's ran off disgracefully but 900 Humvees are no match for F16's or indeed drones. The fact the US/French/UAE/Jordan etc are operating air strikes tells you IS have no captured anti-aircraft missiles.
As for comment above about SAS operation going wrong, wars are like that, things "go wrong" all the time.
JY we the West watched for 12-18 months as the civil war raged in Syria, we didn't want to get involved but the actions of ISIS gave us no choice. Had they focused purely on Syria there is a chance we would have stood by even with all the killing that was going on but their expansion into Iraq was a grave tactical error on their part.
can a foreign power impose a representative government on Iraq?
I think they can, and moreover; did (in the end).
Malaki did belatedly make it more representative, although I very much doubt it was his idea to bring in those who he had sought to disadvantage at every turn.
US and UK special forces have been in Iraq for nearly a month
? They never left.
no one predicted that Libya would descend into the chaos that it has.
@ernie, I suspect our intelligence services had a pretty good idea it would. The analysis is about whether that is better or worse than what went before and whether it would pose a threat to us. I have been to couple of presentations given by ex-head of MI5, the one thing you can say is they are very thoughtful about the various scenarios/outcomes in any situation.
[img] 
[/img]
(pinched from cyclechat)
Galloway making perfect sense on This Week, last night, with Jacqui Smith and Michael Portillo...great to watch them both squirm when he presents their own complicity in the situation.
Can we ever trust our government , so many lies ,so many dodgy dealings?
jambalaya - Member
@ernie, I suspect our intelligence services had a pretty good idea it would. The analysis is about whether that is better or worse than what went before and whether it would pose a threat to us. I have been to couple of presentations given by ex-head of MI5, the one thing you can say is they are very thoughtful about the various scenarios/outcomes in any situation.
The thing about intelligence services is that there is a lot of history of them [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/BUGGER ]not actually knowing what's happening[/url].
But the strange fact is that often when you look into the history of spies what you discover is something very different.It is not the story of men and women who have a better and deeper understanding of the world than we do. In fact in many cases it is the story of weirdos who have created a completely mad version of the world that they then impose on the rest of us.
I want to tell some stories about MI5 - and the very strange people who worked there. They are often funny, sometimes rather sad - but always very odd.
The stories also show how elites in Britain have used the aura of secret knowledge as a way of maintaining their power. But as their power waned the "secrets" became weirder and weirder.
They were helped in this by another group who also felt their power was waning - journalists. And together the journalists and spies concocted a strange, dark world of treachery and deceit which bore very little relationship to what was really going on. And still doesn't.
But then history doesn't matter, does it?
The local fighters just need short, sharp support in terms of well trained light infantry and air support to act as the tip of the spear.
Like Vietnam?
Political/stated aim. Same thing. I didn't say that this wasn't political, just that they do not have a political wing, and are not pursuing political means to this end. Their sole intention is to bring this about by force. There is no diplomatic channel/solution to it.
Arguably political in that their stated aim is to produce an Islamic state. I wonder is they are open to negotiation, but what they want is so politically unsound that it's arguable that negotiations would be of any use.
Ha. I'd love to be in that meeting.
"what do you want?"
"Caliphate"
"hmm. Anything else?"
"No. Caliphate"
"Erm....."
😀
Looks like Paxton's gonna have to write another version.
Another (conspiracist) angle on the IS thing here:
Ha. I'd love to be in that meeting.
"what do you want?"
"Caliphate"
"hmm. Anything else?"
"No. Caliphate"
"Erm....."
😆
Pretty much. 🙂
In a very worrying development, I've found myself in agreement with Nigel Farage, who's inconveniently interrupted the Westminster political consensus (am I the only one who gets very very worried when all political parties agree on something?) to point out the bleeding obvious: that's there's no strategy! No plan! No idea of what we're setting out to achieve! Nothing! Same as last time!
We're going to launch some air strikes!
Ok.... Then what? And to achieve what exactly?
Erm......
Am I the only one who gets very very worried when all political parties agree on something?
Only when the knee is jerking quietly under the table. Which is normally the case when all parties agree on something.
@binners - launch airstrikes to disable ISIS and in particular take out their larger weaponry (tanks, gun-trucks, etc) and infrastructure including their source of funds. Then on the ground fighters re-take control of towns/cities.
Simple 🙄
We should use MDMA to do the same thing it did to football violence. Get the jihadis on the disco biscuits! Job done.
Yah lets wipe them put like we did that last two times...that will teach them
It wasn't IS the last two times was it.
It was a country with a dictator that ruled with a large army (who's post war reconstruction was totally ballsed up by Bush) and a country who's neighbours failed to help Nato counter the insurgency by failing to secure it's borders. That's not really the same as this time is it, what with the largest armies in Iraq not being IS and Iraq being surrounded by countries like Turkey and Iran who all venomously hate IS.
In case we've all forgotten, there have actually been successful counter insurgencies in the past when the support from the local government was good.
would you saw the last two tries were successful in bringing peace to the region then?
PS to be clear the question is rhetorical as you might miss that 😉
Tom_W1987 - Member
In case we've all forgotten, there have actually been successful counter insurgencies in the past when the support from the local government was good.
Remind me
would you saw the last two tries were successful in bringing peace to the region then?
But Tony is saying it's OK, and he's the peace envoy.....
Damn you and your facts
There is an alternative to bombing
524 to 43 in favour of bombing.
You're obviously not a proper Prime Minister these days until you've had your little war. FFS.
I don't give a fig about fighting ISIS (IS? ISIL?) in Iraq or Syria, let them have their little caliphate and give the money we'd have spent on bombs to Turkey to deal with the refugees streaming across their border.
To be honest, they're both within 500 miles of Israel. Israel has nuclear weapons and I'm pretty sure they won't feel squeamish about using them if they feel the need.
I'm working on the fairly solid principle that if Tony Blair reckons military action is a good idea, it probably isn't.
From the BBC
Addressing MPs, Mr Cameron insisted Britain had a clear "duty" to join the campaign, saying IS was a direct threat to the UK and he was not prepared to "subcontract" the protection of British streets from terrorism to other countries' air forces
That's right David, sub-contract the health service, police, schools to your mates but make sure your mates in defence are kept busy, pffft.
^ don't fret Dave. It will all come tumbling down when you loose the next election. You too can join Teflon Tony. Everyone's a winner. You €$€$ off from government and save the World
It's about to get LOUD in eye-rack. ID'd those targets quickly didn't they? 😉
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/islamic-state-crisis-alqaeda-fighters-joining-forces-with-isis-against-air-strikes-in-syria-9761392.html ]Well its all going according to plan so far then?[/url]
Looks like we'll be bombing Baghdad again soon then? As ISIS forces are at the city outskirts. And the Al Qaeda allied forces are now fighting alongside ISIS. The Iraqi 'army' has done its disappearing act. What an almighty cluster****!! So have those saying this was such a bloody great idea got anything to say on the matter?
Well done us, eh? We've succeeded in uniting a bunch of disparate groups who were busy scrapping with each other, in their usual stupid 'I'm more Islamic than you' way. Until now. Instead they'll now be fighting a common enemy.... us! Within Baghdad's city streets. Somehow I can't imaging any number of squadrons of F-16s being able to make much difference to that situation.
Hurray for us! 🙄
So how are we going to define our objectives? Who do we bomb and who do we not?
Perhaps a survey?
Q. Define how Islamic fundamentalist on a scale of 1 to 10. Where 1 is "only a tiny little bit Islamic and I often like to wash a bacon buttie down with a nice, cold beer" and 10 is "I am so fundamentalist my aim is to kill every other human on the planet in order to prove I am the ultimate recipient of Allah's greatness".
Here's a clue to help with your answer; 1 to 5 you're safe, 6 to 10 we might bomb you.