UK will help destroy Islamic State, David Cameron tells US.
21 July 2015, 08:43 AM
#31
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's an understandable reaction, and having been involved in one of those conflicts I absolutely agree that they were a mistake. I thought so at the time and even deplored the execution of Saddam Hussein. I worked for and with the Libyans during Gaddafi's reign and the situation in that country was stable and nothing like as oppressive as those on the outside imagined. We should have left well alone. But we didn't and IS is the result.
If IS were to confine its activities to destroying its own people and heritage then we could possibly tut tut and shake our heads sadly but practically do nothing. Unfortunately IS influence is spilling out into international terrorism and it will be knocking on our own doors soon enough. Do you really believe that we should stand by and do nothing?
If IS were to confine its activities to destroying its own people and heritage then we could possibly tut tut and shake our heads sadly but practically do nothing. Unfortunately IS influence is spilling out into international terrorism and it will be knocking on our own doors soon enough. Do you really believe that we should stand by and do nothing?
If we'd turned the other cheek when the twin towers were taken down we would have maintained the status quo leaving us better off strategically and a country mile ahead morally. We would have been on the right side of history.
Last edited by JTaylor; 21 July 2015 at 08:46 AM.
21 July 2015, 09:45 AM
#33
As I've said from the beginning of the Syrian/Iraqi conflict we're in a moral and strategic dilemma. I've likened it to a game of chess where one has to move, but to do so, owing to the position of the pieces, will inevitably lead to losses. The allies are compelled to move strategically for the reasons you state above and morally as per Burke's truism, but, and it's a big but, to do so strengthens our opponent. We are, as I've said half a dozen times, in a zugzwang and it's one of our own making.
If we'd turned the other cheek when the twin towers were taken down we would have maintained the status quo leaving us better off strategically and a country mile ahead morally. We would have been on the right side of history.
If we'd turned the other cheek when the twin towers were taken down we would have maintained the status quo leaving us better off strategically and a country mile ahead morally. We would have been on the right side of history.
Yes, you've said it half a dozen times at least, but it's a bit late for pointing out what we should have done. We must deal with what has been done, or we are exactly like the hit-and-run driver: shocked at what he has done but terrified of the consequences of returning to the scene of the crime.
There are two choices in chess when the position is hopeless: play it out to the end in the hope the opponent makes a mistake, or tip your King over, shake hands and concede defeat. We don't have the luxury of the second option so we are stuck with the first. I won't even comment on your final paragraph.
21 July 2015, 10:01 AM
#35
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, you've said it half a dozen times at least, but it's a bit late for pointing out what we should have done. We must deal with what has been done, or we are exactly like the hit-and-run driver: shocked at what he has done but terrified of the consequences of returning to the scene of the crime.
There are two choices in chess when the position is hopeless: play it out to the end in the hope the opponent makes a mistake, or tip your King over, shake hands and concede defeat. We don't have the luxury of the second option so we are stuck with the first. I won't even comment on your final paragraph.
There are two choices in chess when the position is hopeless: play it out to the end in the hope the opponent makes a mistake, or tip your King over, shake hands and concede defeat. We don't have the luxury of the second option so we are stuck with the first. I won't even comment on your final paragraph.
As a military man, how do you see this playing out?
21 July 2015, 10:34 AM
#36
Now there's a question.
This is more of an observation than a statement of fact, brought about from having worked with them and around them in their own countries over a number of years. Muslims are first and foremost Muslims with little if any loyalty to their non Muslim country of origin. Whatever they may claim to the contrary they hate the infidel with a passion.
Look at what's happening with UK Mulims rushing to join IS. For every one that goes there's probably 1000 or more that stay put in the UK but sympathise. From these the terrorists of tomorrow will emerge to plague us. But without the IS flag they will have nothing to aspire to. In my opinion the dreadful answer, as every military and government leader really knows, and Cameron implied, is to wipe IS from the face of the earth by whatever means are required to achieve that end. Overt or covert it will almost certainly mean perpetual war as you say.
21 July 2015, 10:39 AM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, Thatcher:
Ordered the torpedoing of the General Belgrano, despite the fact that she had been told it had turned away and was retreating. 323 dead.
Bliar:
Followed the idiot Dubya into both Afghanistan and Iraq, no mandate from the UN in either case. He used the excuse that they had weapons of mass destruction. Despite a thorough search, none were ever found, even the previously supportive Daily Mirror introduced it's WMD-ometer, charting the number of days since they had NOT been found.
Folk are now starting to excuse him on the grounds that HE was lied to. Nope. If that were true, those who lied to him would have faced prison time. No-one ever did.
Thus he is culpable.
And saying others supported him cuts no ice. HE was PM, HE made the statement about WMD.
Ordered the torpedoing of the General Belgrano, despite the fact that she had been told it had turned away and was retreating. 323 dead.
Bliar:
Followed the idiot Dubya into both Afghanistan and Iraq, no mandate from the UN in either case. He used the excuse that they had weapons of mass destruction. Despite a thorough search, none were ever found, even the previously supportive Daily Mirror introduced it's WMD-ometer, charting the number of days since they had NOT been found.
Folk are now starting to excuse him on the grounds that HE was lied to. Nope. If that were true, those who lied to him would have faced prison time. No-one ever did.
Thus he is culpable.
And saying others supported him cuts no ice. HE was PM, HE made the statement about WMD.
Thank you very much. See, I had every confidence in you that you were capable to expand.
Now please explain your 'bull cr@p' comment, as nowhere in my post I stated anything contrary to what you eventually state in this post of yours.
21 July 2015, 11:39 AM
#38
You know when people say that Blair has blood on his hands and what a liar he is, it makes me laugh at their two brain cells on loan to the likes. Fact is, if Cameron was our Prime Minister then, he would have done exactly the same! Politicians aren't like you and me. They have their job to do, and their job can be very bloody and dirty.
Looks like first off you say anyone who says Bliar is a warmonger and has blood on his hand has only two brain cells, then you say that it would have been no different under Cameron.
So what?
Bliar did it. HE is the one with blood on his hands. A war criminal who has not only got off scot free, but actually profited from his actions, just as Dubya did.
An odious little man, who should have been shot at birth.
21 July 2015, 11:40 AM
#39
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now there's a question.
This is more of an observation than a statement of fact, brought about from having worked with them and around them in their own countries over a number of years. Muslims are first and foremost Muslims with little if any loyalty to their non Muslim country of origin. Whatever they may claim to the contrary they hate the infidel with a passion.
Look at what's happening with UK Mulims rushing to join IS. For every one that goes there's probably 1000 or more that stay put in the UK but sympathise. From these the terrorists of tomorrow will emerge to plague us. But without the IS flag they will have nothing to aspire to. In my opinion the dreadful answer, as every military and government leader really knows, and Cameron implied, is to wipe IS from the face of the earth by whatever means are required to achieve that end. Overt or covert it will almost certainly mean perpetual war as you say.
This is more of an observation than a statement of fact, brought about from having worked with them and around them in their own countries over a number of years. Muslims are first and foremost Muslims with little if any loyalty to their non Muslim country of origin. Whatever they may claim to the contrary they hate the infidel with a passion.
Look at what's happening with UK Mulims rushing to join IS. For every one that goes there's probably 1000 or more that stay put in the UK but sympathise. From these the terrorists of tomorrow will emerge to plague us. But without the IS flag they will have nothing to aspire to. In my opinion the dreadful answer, as every military and government leader really knows, and Cameron implied, is to wipe IS from the face of the earth by whatever means are required to achieve that end. Overt or covert it will almost certainly mean perpetual war as you say.
21 July 2015, 12:18 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This^^^^
Looks like first off you say anyone who says Bliar is a warmonger and has blood on his hand has only two brain cells, then you say that it would have been no different under Cameron.
So what?
Bliar did it. HE is the one with blood on his hands. A war criminal who has not only got off scot free, but actually profited from his actions, just as Dubya did.
An odious little man, who should have been shot at birth.
Looks like first off you say anyone who says Bliar is a warmonger and has blood on his hand has only two brain cells, then you say that it would have been no different under Cameron.
So what?
Bliar did it. HE is the one with blood on his hands. A war criminal who has not only got off scot free, but actually profited from his actions, just as Dubya did.
An odious little man, who should have been shot at birth.
Edited to say: God, some people! They'll chuck a spanner in for the sake of starting an argument, even when you were not disagreeing with them!
Last edited by Turbohot; 21 July 2015 at 01:00 PM.
21 July 2015, 03:01 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what do you propose in real, practical terms?
21 July 2015, 03:15 PM
#43
Dropping bombs will achieve nothing, that's been proved. It achieved nothing pre Iraq, it achieved nothing when the ***** bombed us other than to harden resolve. We must either adopt a laissez faire attitude and risk the outcome or we must go in all guns blazing. Tickling the edges as we are the moment will lead nowhere. I am sure the military is already planning a strategy involving a total military intervention. God help us then. Paraphrasing Greg Bear 'To those that killed our nation, beware her children'.
21 July 2015, 03:20 PM
#44
Scooby Regular
Dropping bombs will achieve nothing, that's been proved. It achieved nothing pre Iraq, it achieved nothing when the ***** bombed us other than to harden resolve. We must either adopt a laissez faire attitude and risk the outcome or we must go in all guns blazing. Tickling the edges as we are the moment will lead nowhere. I am sure the military is already planning a strategy involving a total military intervention. God help us then. Paraphrasing Greg Bear 'To those that killed our nation, beware her children'.
Iraq did get hammered by coalition forces and it reduced there ability to fight and defend. Isis doesn't have that same kinda military structure, but does have targets that can be attacked and picked off.
21 July 2015, 03:44 PM
#45
Everytime IS overruns a military establishment it absorbs the technology and often those with the skills to operate it and inevitably the leadership. It has allegedly taken fighter aircraft and pilots to fly them have joined IS too. At the moment IS is a dangerous but disorganised rabble. The time to attack it is now, before it becomes organised and a structure appears.
21 July 2015, 04:17 PM
#46
Thanks for pointing that out, as anticipated. I suggest you pay better attention to the language when you read others' posts before coming out with childish bull cra@p like your 'Bull cr@p'. I was not having a go at you with my 'two brain cells' comment nor was I disputing that TB has blood on his hands. I maintain my 'two brain cells on loan' comment for the people that think Blair was the one and only nastiest masterpiece of this century. Cameron is no better, and he would have done the same if he were the PM , then. You now flippantly saying 'so what' doesn't take away the fact that you read my post with your foggy vision, and then ridiculed it with your silly-billy bull cr@p multiplied by two. Pay attention to detail next time.
Edited to say: God, some people! They'll chuck a spanner in for the sake of starting an argument, even when you were not disagreeing with them!
Edited to say: God, some people! They'll chuck a spanner in for the sake of starting an argument, even when you were not disagreeing with them!
If it's not, I reserve the right to have "foggy vision".
Perhaps you could read your post before pressing "submit reply", in future?
21 July 2015, 04:25 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dropping bombs will achieve nothing, that's been proved. It achieved nothing pre Iraq, it achieved nothing when the ***** bombed us other than to harden resolve. We must either adopt a laissez faire attitude and risk the outcome or we must go in all guns blazing. Tickling the edges as we are the moment will lead nowhere. I am sure the military is already planning a strategy involving a total military intervention. God help us then. Paraphrasing Greg Bear 'To those that killed our nation, beware her children'.
21 July 2015, 05:58 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by Turbohot; 21 July 2015 at 06:29 PM.
22 July 2015, 03:59 PM
#50
Now there's a question.
This is more of an observation than a statement of fact, brought about from having worked with them and around them in their own countries over a number of years. Muslims are first and foremost Muslims with little if any loyalty to their non Muslim country of origin. Whatever they may claim to the contrary they hate the infidel with a passion.
Look at what's happening with UK Mulims rushing to join IS. For every one that goes there's probably 1000 or more that stay put in the UK but sympathise. From these the terrorists of tomorrow will emerge to plague us. But without the IS flag they will have nothing to aspire to. In my opinion the dreadful answer, as every military and government leader really knows, and Cameron implied, is to wipe IS from the face of the earth by whatever means are required to achieve that end. Overt or covert it will almost certainly mean perpetual war as you say.
This is more of an observation than a statement of fact, brought about from having worked with them and around them in their own countries over a number of years. Muslims are first and foremost Muslims with little if any loyalty to their non Muslim country of origin. Whatever they may claim to the contrary they hate the infidel with a passion.
Look at what's happening with UK Mulims rushing to join IS. For every one that goes there's probably 1000 or more that stay put in the UK but sympathise. From these the terrorists of tomorrow will emerge to plague us. But without the IS flag they will have nothing to aspire to. In my opinion the dreadful answer, as every military and government leader really knows, and Cameron implied, is to wipe IS from the face of the earth by whatever means are required to achieve that end. Overt or covert it will almost certainly mean perpetual war as you say.
So we have been at a perpetual state of war since about 1914 or over 100 years, not all were total war. The only thing that can physically hold ground is an infantry soldier. As a non-political machine the British Military are tasked by the Government be it right or wrong. Ground attacks by aircraft are not as effective as men on the ground, fact.
Saddam, Tito, Assad and many more where/are all dictators holding together groups of disparite tribes, religions and creeds in peace.
Will we go in to Syria? Ask a politician or retired General who no longer as a career.
However there are members of the British public, who vote the Governments in, who are far to cowardly to defend their own nation against a threat which would ultimately effect their conditions of life or protection, there are those who hide behind the laws of the UK but uphold a huge sense of hatred of what the UK stands for, that's free speech.
Those thousands of sympathisers may wish one day to go and live the lives they aspire to, reflect on their freedoms and what they had. We did kick a hornets nest in Iraq and failed to follow it up with a good plan. What we did not do was burn people in cages with petrol then release the video's on the internet, destroy historical building in the name of our faith or oppress/kill people because of their protected characteristics.
We are humans but free thinking, no-ideological types tend not to pick fights because of religion or how we feel about someone. IS is an element of Muslimsim that we could all do without, getting rid is probably the best option. We currently have 70 seperate British Military deployments at the moment that we know about. How do we know that there are no British (or US) boots on the ground?
By the way, calling someone fat is OK, being fat is not a protected characteristic.
Last edited by The Trooper 1815; 22 July 2015 at 04:26 PM.
28 July 2015, 06:50 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: If you're not braking or accelerating you're wasting time.
Posts: 2,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Politicians do like a conflict because it gives them free reign to control the population.
About time the mega-rich Arab states got their fingers out & contributed.Why do they buy all those western arms & aircraft?
About time the mega-rich Arab states got their fingers out & contributed.Why do they buy all those western arms & aircraft?
02 October 2015, 07:19 PM
#56
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Scoobynet
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ur-months.html
As expected US are criticising Russia's action in Syria saying it could 'destabilise' the region.
Obviously the US are experts in the Middle East and have a great track record of bringing peace and stability...
At least the Russians are there at the request of an ally, and sounds like ISIS are finally going to get a proper pounding. Bring it on I say.
As expected US are criticising Russia's action in Syria saying it could 'destabilise' the region.
Obviously the US are experts in the Middle East and have a great track record of bringing peace and stability...At least the Russians are there at the request of an ally, and sounds like ISIS are finally going to get a proper pounding. Bring it on I say.
02 October 2015, 08:57 PM
#59
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ur-months.html
As expected US are criticising Russia's action in Syria saying it could 'destabilise' the region. Obviously the US are experts in the Middle East and have a great track record of bringing peace and stability...
At least the Russians are there at the request of an ally, and sounds like ISIS are finally going to get a proper pounding. Bring it on I say.
As expected US are criticising Russia's action in Syria saying it could 'destabilise' the region.
Obviously the US are experts in the Middle East and have a great track record of bringing peace and stability...At least the Russians are there at the request of an ally, and sounds like ISIS are finally going to get a proper pounding. Bring it on I say.
Devoid of the shackles of political correctness, coupled with an eagerness to throw your weight around, and a dose of bigotry thrown in for good measure, something may change.
The Russians have a pro-Assad agenda so their actions won't discriminate between IS or the other 'rebels' (that the West has been assisting). Then again, Syria is such a ball-ache, a change is as good as a holiday. Back in the day, when Assad was running the Syrian status quo, how much did we care?
02 October 2015, 09:34 PM
#60
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dish out a few moral platitudes, distance yourself from their actions, step back, and let the Russians chuck some grenades in the room.
Devoid of the shackles of political correctness, coupled with an eagerness to throw your weight around, and a dose of bigotry thrown in for good measure, something may change.
The Russians have a pro-Assad agenda so their actions won't discriminate between IS or the other 'rebels' (that the West has been assisting). Then again, Syria is such a ball-ache, a change is as good as a holiday. Back in the day, when Assad was running the Syrian status quo, how much did we care?
Devoid of the shackles of political correctness, coupled with an eagerness to throw your weight around, and a dose of bigotry thrown in for good measure, something may change.
The Russians have a pro-Assad agenda so their actions won't discriminate between IS or the other 'rebels' (that the West has been assisting). Then again, Syria is such a ball-ache, a change is as good as a holiday. Back in the day, when Assad was running the Syrian status quo, how much did we care?