Diplomacy ain't sexy - unless you live in JamesBondLand. Go for sexy - history and the voters will remember you fondly. Worry about things not working the way you planned when the next leader is in power and then, don't worry about it, it isn't your problem.
Let the Americans blow the poor old French up for a change. Fed up about blue on blue from those twits across the pond.
If the conflict in Syria worsens and spreads to nearby countries, so there is a wider conflagration, one of the principal consequences will be that the price of oil worldwide will shoot up a lot. Who will benefit hugely from this? Russia and Iran - so they have a strong incentive to keep pouring petrol on the flames in Syria, and the wider Middle East area. No kind of diplomacy is going to persuade the Russians otherwise, let alone the Iranians. If the narrow view of legality is taken, i.e. that no action is legal without the approval of the UN Security Council, that simply means that the Russians will go on vetoing UN resolutions, and will go on having a free hand indefinitely. Are you happy for Russia to have an absolute veto over UK and US actions? And who will suffer the consequences of the conflagration? We will, of course. What price does fuel have to reach before the people who keep saying this conflict is nothing to do with us finally realise that it affects us a lot. Petrol at £2 per litre, anyone? How about £3 per litre?
Ok Pete, so what's the plan? What is your recommended course of action for halting the civil war, avoiding the region going up in flames, and having a reasonably friendly government in Damascus? Preferably one that doesn't happen over a 5 year plus time scale with a body count of a thousand UK dead. I'm all ears for people with solutions.
Obviously we should bomb the fcuk out of Syria. Are we supposed to intervene because of gas attacks or the price of oil...........and what cost to us for supporting another war if we get dragged in to another long conflict? Everything has a cost and its not just at the garage forecourt when filling up with fuel. There is always an argument that oil prices will escalate. What has the actual cost been per capita to us for Iraq and Afghanistan, compared to potential increases for a barrel of oil? I am willing to bet we would be better off financially without the ''military interventions''. Just a thought.
If Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad were on their way to Switzerland for peace talks and their plane crashed into the Alps who would survive? The people of Syria.
I wrote a long and detailed response - which disappeared into the ether instead of posting in this thread, for unknown reasons. Not sure I can summon up the energy to do it again.
it will end up like iraq and afghanistan. the insurgents and government forces hate you. half the population is againsst you anyway. the half that isnt ends up hating you too because the bombs land on them. so they all end up hating you and still hating each other even more.
That reminds me of that film "Alive" , I reckon Putin would eat the fuckers in one sitting he looks like a zombie with a taste for dark meat :biggrin:
Have I given my local MP Rory Stewart (a good local MP but a bit soft on Europe ) a plug The Places In Between: Amazon.co.uk: Rory Stewart: Books http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0330440500/?tag=ducatiforum-21 Both excellent books and available for Kindle
Sounds good to me, as long as it is executed in it's entirety. There seems to be a lot of moral outrage against bombing Syria forgetting that the target is ISIL in Syria.
True. Some folk seem to argue that it is immoral to bomb IS. It seems to me it is more immoral not to bomb IS.
My view is that it is pointless the UK adding to airstrikes........ If airstrikes were efficient and getting anywhere, then so far the 8000 USA ones alone would have achieved something......... .....unfortunately the UK Government seems to think that targeting a Brimstone missile on one ISIS member on his motorcycle will do the job.........£100000 munition for one terrorist isn't the way to go. I think there are three solutions........1) Pull all UK Forces out of the Middle East (and any other pointless conflict area) back to the UK and use those forces to take over the Border Controls (Ha-ha....Border Controls); monitor the coastline, ports and airports; leaving the Police and the Intelligence Services to monitor individuals and groups, with the added back up of the military). 2) All western Forces pull out of the Middle East and let it sort itslef out.....IE, they all kill each other. 3) Assemble a multi-national (Western / European / Russian) 'boots on the ground' combat force and go in hard.........possibly smaller than the Gulf War Force might do it. Still, what do I know?
How come we suddenly have the answers to ending the fight Shouldn't we have done it at the beginning If the air strikes already underway can't stop IS what makes us think we can solve and end the war
How do we know that all the IS fighters havnt dispersed around the world and are no longer in Syria This isn't the end this is just the beginning
I'm all for for taking the fight to ISIS, but I'm not remotely convinced that bombing is the way to go. Take France's time during the state of national emergency after the first 7 days of the attack, They made more headway during that time of relaxed 'rights' than in months/years previously. They literally ploughed through every 'target' they had without concern, 100's of them and we should be able to do the same without bloody lawyers or claims of racism. The Anti terror fight is what we need to step up, if that means kicking 100 times more doors down in the middle of the night and armed teams storming a few Mosques up and down the country then so be it. If you've not been wired tapped , taken part in an Anti-West march, been preaching hate against the West, or caught online checking out how to make home made bombs then you shouldn't have a lot to worry about. If you have been overheard or monitored doing any of the above then I'm afraid you can take your chances with some of our armed best. Clean up our shores first, make it tough to hide, then get troops on the ground over in their 'bases' for a clean up operation. Fight them back from here first, that goes for all of europe.
I don't think the issue is whether bombing Daesh is in itself a good idea or not. We've been bombing them for months. But we've been bombing them in Iraq at the request of the Iraqi government which is technically an ally of this country. The difference now is that we are talking about bombing them in Syria without the consent of the Syrian government whose cause we do not support in the civil war in that country. We may not like Assad and he may have forfeited the moral right to lead his people by his readiness to kill them but his regime is the only government Syria has got and they don't want our intervention, or at least not on the terms proposed by our Government. That, I think, is the can of worms which concerns doubters. Would our involvement mean we would be at war with Syria? I don't know. And what is the UN position on action in Syria? Again, I don't know. Can you tell us Pete? (I ask because the UN resolution quoted in the Government's statement is pretty vague). Personally, I'm fully in favour of fighting Daesh wherever, by whatever means and for as long as it takes. But given the political quagmire I'd like to see a properly international effort and I'd like to know that there is some long term strategic planning involved.
