So who's troops then?
Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
So who's troops then?
Good question and I don't have the answer. Germany are sending 1200 troops but they won't be fighting so I guess there must be a general consensus amongst the coalition for non Muslim western troops not being put on the ground. Of course once the bombing and distrupting ISIL fundraising weakens their resolve who knows what might happen.
This might interest you....
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/17/syria-future-ground-troops-west-defeat-isis
So in short no one knows? Meaning our tactic is bomb first and figure out the rest later? Because that's worked spectacularly in the past.
Who said no one knows? I said I don't know. In the same way you don't know the people that count don't have a plan.
Given the people in charge are the same ones who took us into Lybia I would guess they have no plan
Well why support it if you haven't a clue what they're up to? Its not as if they had a concrete plan in the failures that were Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, what makes you think they have all the answers now when its evident they haven't got the slighest idea as what to do beyond bombing?
It makes no sense for them to not have a plan so I will continue to support them thanks.
Wow. Just wow.
Nothing you've argued has held any water. Your own sources disprove your point of view. But this is now a step into blind faith, and that in the face of previous lies and failures AND woeful plans by the exact same people. Mind blowing.
But sure keep on keepin' on!
Problems with Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya weren't really in the initial military elements. People talk as if the attempt to re-take Raqqa is next week and we're having a whip round to get the soldiers together. When you hear the likes of Diane Abbott and Corbyn bringing up the 70,000 troops, it's hard not to glaze over since it's so clear they're being opportunistic given their opposition to the 2014 inaction in Iraq, even David Davis is somewhat a victim of this, given he abstained on that vote doubting the ability of the Kurds and the Iraq security forces to drive Da'esh back. Parts of the FSA are already in combat with Da'esh and have had victories with western aid. Clearly, the fate of Syria is heavily dependent on the political peace process, but none of those fates have Da'esh still standing. In the meantime, it makes little sense to give them a free run at the Syrian rebels that we supposedly back, does it?
You're welcome to your viewpoint and I choose to think it's bollox. If you get a kick out of seeing just the negatives carry on but what a shit way to live your life. There were plenty of positives in that article and are plenty others out there that show IS are feeling the strain in losing fighters, ground and income.
But you carry on ignoring it whilst offering no alternative.
The mind boggles
....but whatever helps you sleep at night I guess.That's all good and dandy but Iraq and Syria were very different altogether. I actually slightly disagree with Corbyn and Abbott regarding Iraqi support (considering they actually have troops on the ground), but they're bang on here with Syria. The FSA cannot be trusted - anyone who banks on a collection of different groups, tenuously brought together through their hatred of the regime, some linked to Al Qaeda, most of an Islamist nature, are asking for trouble. If the goal was to have airstrikes providing cover at the request of the Kurds then fair enough, but right now the plan is to bomb Da'esh in an around populated areas, hoping that a couple of the 70,000 get the hint and mobilise on our count. Its a horribly shallow plan and reeks of the previous failures we've been involved in throughout the region.
There's only one person doing the ignoring - in fact, you've even listed the things you're ignoring.
There's very real things that could be done, as others have pointed out, as they have also pointed out there is no political will to actually do those things because it would mean going against some of our odious allies like Saudi Arabia.
The mind boggles
That's all good and dandy but Iraq and Syria were very different altogether. I actually slightly disagree with Corbyn and Abbott regarding Iraqi support (considering they actually have troops on the ground), but they're bang on here with Syria. The FSA cannot be trusted - anyone who banks on a collection of different groups, tenuously brought together through their hatred of the regime, some linked to Al Qaeda, most of an Islamist nature, are asking for trouble. If the goal was to have airstrikes providing cover at the request of the Kurds then fair enough, but right now the plan is to bomb Da'esh in an around populated areas, hoping that a couple of the 70,000 get the hint and mobilise on our count. Its a horribly shallow plan and reeks of the previous failures we've been involved in throughout the region.
I sleep fine thanks and im starting to count missiles rather than sheep.
Can you provide a link to the policy of bombing Da'esh in and around populated areas?
Forgive me I thought you might actually have an idea of your own.
Like you've shown yourself too exactly how? I'm guessing it was you in Cameron's ear, was it?
The fact that others have said it before does not exclude me thinking it previously and independently, by the way. Pretty churlish of you.
What link do you want exactly? Its no surprise that Raqqa is going to be the most likely target considering you can play a drinking game with the amount of times Cameron has mentioned it as target. And considering IS are mostly based in and around the cities of Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor, both cities with populations of 200,000-500,000, no guesses for where the RAF's targets are.
I liked Maajid Nawaz's appraisal of it on Question Time last night, did you happen to see it? Full of praise of the Kurds and gave a very powerful argument about the benefits a Kurdish state would bring, which tied well to his rationale in favour of action and should be at the forefront of our involvement there. I know you think Turkey is an impossible block to that, but do you not think their outright heroism in all this is going to count for something in any political settlement? The ties to Al Nusra and such are problematic for parts of the opposition, but I think there's a strong argument to say that if we abandon the FSA entirely, they'll be even more likely to fall into the clutches of jihadism. As far as I see it, whichever way the war ends, the reaction to Da'esh is the same - they have to be got rid of. Even in the most unpalatable version where Assad regains full control, we still have to get rid of them and it makes little sense to allow them to prosper in the meantime. If we then take the premise that we don't want Assad to win and side with the rebels, then we have to coordinate with them. The US are already sending special forces over to do just that, so I don't think it's going to be mere hinting involved. That's my thought process for not being overly focused on the much quibbled 70,000 figure, at any rate.The mind boggles
That's all good and dandy but Iraq and Syria were very different altogether. I actually slightly disagree with Corbyn and Abbott regarding Iraqi support (considering they actually have troops on the ground), but they're bang on here with Syria. The FSA cannot be trusted - anyone who banks on a collection of different groups, tenuously brought together through their hatred of the regime, some linked to Al Qaeda, most of an Islamist nature, are asking for trouble. If the goal was to have airstrikes providing cover at the request of the Kurds then fair enough, but right now the plan is to bomb Da'esh in an around populated areas, hoping that a couple of the 70,000 get the hint and mobilise on our count. Its a horribly shallow plan and reeks of the previous failures we've been involved in throughout the region.
Agree with a lot of that but it was a shame he has missed the fact Obama only spoke recently about the need to shut the border with Turkey so that's obviously part of the plan and he also missed the fact a convoy of 283 oil tankers were destroyed which crippled an important source of their funding which again suggests there is a plan.
You quote with authority that there is a plan to bomb populated areas....I'd like to see the source of that info.
There was an article the other day that actually said Da'esh had removed themselves and their families from there recently.
Great, let's do it. And don't forget about the Saudis. Now we're talking. And how about this...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-says-how-they-can-be-defeated-a6757336.html
I was impressed with Nawaz and thought he spoke a lot of sense.
Interesting article. I wonder how much the French paid for his release and they must be a bit pissed IS then went on to slaughter so many in Paris.
His idea seems a bit basic doesn't it. I don't think the plan to not get people on the side of the coalition but that can be done alongside the bombing. The longer term plan must be to weaken Da'esh enough to allow the Kurds and other friendly fighters to take the fight to everyone's enemy which will then mean those being raped, tortured and killed will stand a better chance and the millions who have been displaced will also see their country doing better.
Didn't realise the cuts were that bad.
I've answered this numerous times - Da'esh are not chilling in desolate and isolated locations in the desert, the bulk of their operations is in urban areas - particularly Mosul and Ramadi in Iraq, and Raqqa and Deir ez-Zour in Syria. So it doesn't take a whistleblower to figure out those are going to be the prime target.
And if Da'esh had removed themselves from Raqqa then they no longer have an HQ lol.
I did see it. Nawaz was OK if not for his support for the bombings, but for me it was Lucas who was (as usual) the ever-brilliant voice of reason.
Regarding the question of the opposition, its far more complicated now. The FSA are a completely different outfit to what they were in 2011. For starters the bulk of the Syrian opposition has now fragmented, with the recent formation of the SDK (which the Syrian Kurds are now part of), whereas the FSA and SNC remain largely allied to Al Nusra and other extremist elements. The two sides are now fighting each other, particularly in the Northern locations such as Aleppo. As a result, the FSA have veered even more closely towards extremist Arab and Turkmen jihadists. Yet for some baffling reason Cameron is still inclined towards them.
Had our airstrikes been used to reinforce SDK positions, then I'd have few grounds for objection. Though the fact remains, our inclination towards the FSA as well as our unquestionably loyalty to Turkey (despite increasing evidence of them collaborating with Daesh) makes me doubt that the West is even interested in supporting the Kurdish cause. Its hardly surprising Moscow is making it move with them.
@Kaos - Appreciate the response. Would you have been supportive of an intervention nearer to the beginning of the civil war, or do you just think it's too much of a hornets nest to get involved in?
On another topic, Hilary Benn having to face an angry crowd:
Hilary2016
On another topic, Hilary Benn having to face an angry crowd:
Hilary2016
I propose the stupid woman in the video becomes our first Da'esh negotiator!
Former BBC journo also reported that Corbynite folks at her local CLP were comparing Benn's speech to Enoch Powell and Hitler. And people wonder why Momentum are a worry for some in the party.
The intervention proposed by Cameron and his cronies near the beginning of the civil war was to bomb regime forces and help the rebels topple the government. We know now how disastrous that would have been considering the company they have around and their fragmented nature which would have allowed more organised groups like ISIS and Al Nusra to fill the turbulent vacuum. So in short - no. However, if the intervention was to support Kurdish fighters who's goal was to secure a secular haven for themselves, then I probably wouldn't object.
As for the civil war, simply no, no need for us to get involved. But you're probably asking the wrong person since I openly back the regime horse considering who the alternative belligerents are. Not because I like Assad (far from it), but I would rather Syria remain a secular dictatorship instead of an Islamic theocracy, which would put millions of Christians, Shias, Alawites and Kurds in a precarious position.
As for the video, the protesters are obviously a bit thick but Hilary is hardly in a more dignified position. Unfortunately I think he's leaning to being more Blair than a Benn when it comes to foreign policy, having his ilk in the driving seat would be no different to Cameron, though at least with Cameron he never claims to be something he isn't.
Last edited:
I was not at all shocked to see what "rusty shackleford" looks like
Thought you guys might find this interesting.
Had the gall to try and justify it as well. She should be made to apologise in the HoC but we know the tories don't understand an apology.
I'm sure momentum and the whole corbynista brigade have no problem with tax avoidance... As long as the person who is advising or avoiding isn't
A / Tony Blair
B / Related to Tony Blair
C / Voted for Tony Blair
D / A Blairite (basically anybody to the political right of trotsky)
I'm not really sure what the point is. It's his son. Is Tony Benn not sufficiently anti-war because Hilary always votes for military action?
That momentums only agenda is to De-blairise the party... To them all else is irrelevant - or at least that's the impression they are giving off
Yeah but its the same as what was happening in the leadership election, where the party higher ups were desperate to stop Corbyn getting elected that they were stopping people from voting because they were on the same position of the spectrum as corbyn was. You can't criticise them wanting to de-blairise the party, when the blairites were actively denying paying members their right to vote because they didn't want someone from the labour left in charge. It works both ways.
That's not what happened. They stopped people voting that had been members of/openly campaigned for other parties like the Greens, TUSC and SWP (and Tories, for that matter). They messed up on others like managing to deny actual Labour councillors a vote but that was sheer incompetence rather than attempts to block Corbyn.