plain and simple. follow the cash, if not why not? who are they trying to avoid having a clash with?.
The motion ranges across a whole gamut of work. What the Tories actually want is "bomb now and worry about everything else later, or perhaps not at all". If you want to get rid of ISIS, it means sending in the army - lots of armies. Bombing a few towns and reducing them to rubble isn't going to secure any kind of peace. Get real and get tough, or don't bother is my view. Also, with the Russian-Turkish situation, it's not going to be easy. We could easily find ourselves embroiled in a pile of shit. Finally, this is not going to make Britain safer. We heard that before with the Iraq war. This is going to speed up some sort of terrorist attack on London. We do need to do something, but the UN needs to get its act together. A proper multinational force with a real plan. This isn't it.
I can't remember who said it but someone clever said the definition of madness was to keep doing the same thing but expecting a different outcome. Seems apt based on our track record in the middle east. I guess at least if the Parliament get the vote to use British planes in Syria then the British pilots already there can get out of the American planes they are currently using quietly under the Canadian banner and get back in their own.
A day has gone by, and although I have not listened to the radio much, I suspect that the Ramadi has still not been freed from IS: Iraqi army warns of imminent assault on IS-held Ramadi - BBC News If we've been at it for months and months in Iraq, where there is no civil war (at least not in the same sense as in Syria) and IS still hold major towns and cities, then how anyone can think that sending the RAF in to do similar work in Syria is going to make much difference, I don't understand.
When they announced that they were going to bomb the living shit out of ISIS my immediate thoughts were even with the super accurate laser guided weapons systems "put a missile through a kitchen window" all will be fine until someone hits a school,bomb shelter or hospital?It happened in Iraq and Afghanistan.I realise you cannot win a war or conflict without air superiority but you won't defeat this lot without going in on the ground? Bearing in mind we have seriously depleted our brave ground forces are we just going to be a token force and will it be the USA and Russia calling the shots?
Spot on!!! Follow the cash that is funding the munitions and weapons,then if you cut off the snakes head it becomes impotent
A number of very good points have been made today. Retaliatory strikes and degrading the military capability of ISIS is pointless unless there is a coherent plan to finish the job off, otherwise we are wasting our time and increasing our risk. There are so many conflicting interests in play that it is difficult to see where this is going.
fact or conspiracy? so what your saying is we are all complicit in this war because we buy their oil? so why support bombing in syria?. and round and round we go.
I disagree. If no military action is taken, IS will just get stronger, control more territory, gain more adherents, intimidate more opponents, acquire more money, and expand their sphere of operations. Even if air strikes which degrade their military capability do no more than stop them growing, that would not be pointless but an essential minimum. Every IS fighter who is blown up in Syria is one who will not blow up himself and us in London or Paris. Whenever military action is contemplated, there is always the option of doing nothing. Action is risky, it might go wrong, it might be expensive, people will be killed, there's no knowing where it might end, it might be politically unpopular, it's all very confusing and too much like hard work. Cheaper and simpler to just sit at home and wait until the war lands on our doorstep. The other option is to seize the day, take the risks, commit the resources, and get on with it. Heed the calls of our allies, take the fight to the bad guys before they bring it to us. This is always the less attractive option. In the short term.
I don't support bombing in Syria, I support bombing ISIS in Syria if it is part of a plan to utterly destroy them with minimal collateral damage because they have demonstrated that they represent a threat to our way of life. However, clearly, we represent a threat to their way of life which puts us all in a difficult situation. I believe on a global scale we, the developed west for want of a better definition, are in an existential battle with Islamic fundamentalists over which there can be no compromise, therefore we have no choice but to take them on and win. A question. If an Islamic State grew as powerful as the USA, unlikely but let's play along, do you think they would be happy to stay in the desert ?
Absolutely. Which is why I think we need that coherent plan soon to back up the military strikes. Anything less than that is unacceptable from our leaders. ISIS needs to be destroyed.
i think if your and many others are saying Saudi Arabia is the source,and suppliers of money and munitions they are the ones needing taking out. as pete says, take the day. are there any super powers supporting saudi?
UN Security Council Resolution 2249 is to the effect that the Security Council - "1. Unequivocally condemns in the strongest terms the horrifying terrorist attacks perpetrated by ISIL also known as Da’esh which took place on 26 June 2015 in Sousse, on 10 October 2015 in Ankara, on 31 October 2015 over Sinaï, on 12 November 2015 in Beirut and on 13 November 2015 in Paris, and all other attacks perpetrated by ISIL also known as Da’esh, including hostage-taking and killing, and notes it has the capability and intention to carry out further attacks and regards all such acts of terrorism as a threat to peace and security; 2. Expresses its deepest sympathy and condolences to the victims and their families and to the people and Governments of Tunisia, Turkey, Russian Federation, Lebanon and France, and to all Governments whose citizens were targeted in the above-mentioned attacks and all other victims of terrorism; 3. Condemns also in the strongest terms the continued gross, systematic and widespread abuses of human rights and violations of humanitarian law, as well as barbaric acts of destruction and looting of cultural heritage carried out by ISIL also known as Da’esh; 4. Reaffirms that those responsible for committing or otherwise responsible for terrorist acts, violations of international humanitarian law or violations or abuses of human rights must be held accountable; 5. Calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter, as well as international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, on the territory under the control of ISIL also known as Da’esh, in Syria and Iraq, to redouble and coordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL also known as Da’esh as well as ANF, and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the United Nations Security Council, and as may further be agreed by the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) and endorsed by the UN Security Council, pursuant to the Statement of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) of 14 November, and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria; 6. Urges Member States to intensify their efforts to stem the flow of foreign terrorist fighters to Iraq and Syria and to prevent and suppress the financing of terrorism, and urges all Member States to continue to fully implement the abovementioned resolutions; 7. Expresses its intention to swiftly update the 1267 committee sanctions list in order to better reflect the threat posed by ISIL also known as Da’esh;" This looks pretty clear, especially clause 5.
I really object to Clause No.6. Unless you can lock up, permanently, those ass clowns who are intent upon leaving civilisation to rejoin the 14th Century in Iraq and Syria, the best thing for us is to allow them to join Daesh and be subsequently fragged by a nice smart bomb or roasted by napalm. Preventing these murderous cretins from leaving the country seems to be the worst of all both worlds in terms of overall strategy.
The question is Pete how will this work out in practice. Once the key players take into account their national interests will they whole heartedly commit to what is required ?
