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.

Is Russia China and Australia / rest of Asia contributing to the cause

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's no clear opponent here though , its not like these people just materialized from space

We'll be in a perpetual war. I have to concede I (and our leadership) simply do not know the answer.

As a military man, how do you see this playing out?

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.

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.

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.

What a depressing synopsis: dar al-Islam or dar al-harb.

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. :thumb:

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! :lol1:

That's the Muslim perspective, not ours or certainly not mine. Yet if we just stand by and do nothing then that's where we'll be heading if the Muslims have their way. We must act, or do we continuously turn the other cheek?

So what do you propose in real, practical terms?

Dropping bombs will achieve nothing, that's been proved. It achieved nothing pre Iraq, it achieved nothing when the Nazis 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'.

Depends on the situation and if targets can be identified.

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.

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.

LOL, I'll pay attention to language...when it's written in decent grammatical English.

If it's not, I reserve the right to have "foggy vision".

Perhaps you could read your post before pressing "submit reply", in future?

:D:D:D

Chilling.

...

Yeah, yeah, whatever, spanner launcher. :razz: :D

When you visit the National Memorial Arboretum you will notice that there is only one year since 1945 when a British Soldier did not die in a conflict around the world, 1968.

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.

Back to Libya !

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...-in-Libya.html

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?

Looks like the two super powers have a new game two play on someone elses soil :rolleyes:

I can't see this ending well...

Very concerning indeed.

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. :Whatever_ 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.

Hi,
It's like WW3 by proxy!
Worrying times ahead.
Cheers
Steve

Thank god nobody's got nuclear :Suspiciou

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?

I don't think we had it right in the good old days of supporting dictators, either. What we should do is keep our noses out of the affairs of sovereign states and let them evolve at their own pace. Don't sell them arms. Don't invade them. Don't change their regimes. Trade with them in an ethical way...we do these things and we can enjoy our existence free from the 'threat of terror'. The west's foreign policy has been an unmitigated disaster for the planet.