And as for Clause 5 - why does it always have to be us? Especially when there are a number of wealthy and well-armed states much closer to the action, like Saudi and some of the Gulf states. We certainly can't afford it - we're still borrowing more money every year.
I don't think so. The UN Security Council is a talking shop, it has no teeth other than what is provided by it's members, who all have their own national interests.
Do we really think that all the bombers are in Syria in a compound waiting to be killed Don't you think they would be savvy enough to have placements around the world every corner covered to wreck more havoc around the world While IS is being funded it won't ever stop As said you need to target those giving the funds to these people They are the problem Someone somewhere is enjoying the terror that's being inflicted in all forms Bomb these forces if you want to do some good Isn't Saudi Arabia funding the square mile of banking London
I keep changing my mind over changing our bombing to include Syria. Our 8 Tornados are going to make little meaningful difference in what is a kind of confused containment, muddle of a policy. At least the Russians have a clear plan and agenda. It is good to stand alongside our allies, but it's really just a gesture isn't it? What would appear after Da'esh? How can Syria ever be stabilised when Assad's opponents are still fighting among themselves. The more I try to understand, the greater I realise my ignorance of the people, their history, religion and quite alien views are to me. Good old religion has a lot to answer for..... But now this man, John Jenkins, does have a rather unique insight having spent many years as Ambassador in a number of Middle East countries including Syria. Worth a read: The Vienna talks on Syria are a start. We need a leap of imagination to go on | John Jenkins | Comment is free | The Guardian
a lot of questions tonight. i see a party close to me is being labeled NATBORG :smileys: you would think a bit of unity would be required for a decision like that. you canny win. corbyn out by January?
And Turkey. They are one of Daesh's best oil customers. Its a pity that the UN SC Resolution 2249 doesn't explicitly condemn funding Daesh whether directly or indirectly through trade. Daesh are not a State and should never be referred to in such terms. They are not a "caliphate", they have no legitimate territorial claim to a single square inch of the planet and any resource they trade is plunder. However despite the UN's wording omission Turkey and Saudi Arabia are surely in contravention of clause 5, at least in the spirit if not the fact. Whatever strategy is put in place it will be hollow unless all other political considerations are put aside and any country which maintains trade with or otherwise assists Daesh are placed beyond the international pale and roundly condemned at UN level. Have the permanent members got the balls for that I wonder?
I say we stand alongside Putin and Assad. Use the combined forces to rid the world of ISIS and their offspring. Surely we have realised by now that we should leave middle eastern dictators in place? To rule 11th century folk you need an 11th century dictator. Advise those fighting Assad to step back whilst ISIS is dealt with. Who gives a toss what the Turks think, I would bomb them whilst I was over there to save fuel going back at a later date. There are no ideal scenarios, this is the best I can think of.
presumably thats to commit as many war crimes as possible seeing as they're dropping cluster bombs on the people of syria as we speak?
Who are these "people of syria" red? Does anyone really know? Toppling Assad would be very good news for ISIS. Assad is one of the few natives who will go to war with ISIS and fight them as they need to be fought? No doubt those fighting assad are using similar tactics to ISIS, mingling in with the innocent population etc. Sadly Red, this is a very dirty difficult situation with nothing clear cut. The only objective is to rid the world of ISIS and no doubt many innocent lives will be sacrificed. That's how the middle east fights I am afraid.
me personally? no i dont know them mate but im sure if you took the euro tunnel over to france one day this week youd find quite a few that have been camped there for X amount of months cos some knobhead kept bombing their homeland im willing to wager theyre not all terrorists either
I think the majority at Calais are economic migrants from East Africa red. The tens or hundreds of thousands of Syrian males who fled to Europe should also be playing a part in all this but I think most of those are economic migrants too who no longer give a toss about their homeland. Just my perception, not looking to argue with anyone.
I don't know that Assad is fighting Daesh particularly. At least he's only fighting them when it suits him He's almost certainly done deals with them when needs must. "The rebels" are a rag-bag of assorted nut-cases many of them no better than Daesh. Some of the disparate groups hate each other as much as they profess to hate Assad's Alawite regime. When it became apparent that they had no chance of defeating Assad plenty of them cheerfully defected to Daesh and found a natural home there. The Al-Nusra Front, the predominant rebel force (if you can call them that) are an affiliate of Al-Queda who for the time being have fallen out with Daesh because the latter have accused them of placing political objectives ahead of religious doctrine, which apparently is something the child-molesting messenger of Allah has decreed they must not do. One day they'll kiss and make up and join forces and then we're in real trouble. I shouldn't be at all surprised if there isn't a miraculous reconciliation the moment Assad is swinging from a crane and Al Nusra, with western help, have taken their place in the glorious new democratic government of Syria.
Strategically, Assad can ignore Daesh, unless they directly cross paths. The Syrian regime can concentrate on their political enemies and leave the West to fight religious crazies. Obviously Daesh will happily fight anyone not currently infected with their own particular brand of spiritual syphilis but there appear to be buffer zones of other factions between Assad and those cretins - so Assad vs Daesh isn't the main event at this time.
Any coalition waiting to take over from Assad will be a combination of Al-Queda and Daesh sympathisers. There isn't anyone else.
All the sides in the multi-sided conflict in Syria are appalling. But some are a lot more appalling than others. The Syrians who started to struggle for freedom and democracy three years ago, and whom no-one would lift a finger to help, are all dead or in exile.
Exactly. If you got rid of Assad, who would you have in their place? Some religious nutjob people, inevitably. What you wouldn't have would be pro-Western moderate democrats who wanted to get a parliament together. Iran and Hezbollah will see to it that the entire place remains deeply unstable for decades. If you clean out Daesh, you are still left with other religious nutters who shout Allahu akbar at every opportunity. Their only saving grace may be that blowing up London isn't high on their agenda.
