US journalist beheaded by ISIS...

[Jimbeaux]

photosnob said:

Jimbeaux said:

As to being an Engineer, I honestly didn't know what I was getting into. As for seperating the cowards from the "un-led", that is difficult to prove, true. As to the US/UK running, not sure I agree. Yes, if one can step back and save lives while waiting on backup, then that is always the way to go. However, there were tough moments when it was touch and go on several individual battles that the allies stood their ground. Some of these situations were in near even odds. I don't think the Iraqis would have if the shoe was on the other foot. Let's not call it cowardice then, let's call it a "cutural difference" or something.

As a Sapper myself (although I'm now a divvy now) I'd agree, you don't know what you are signing up for until they make you go through your initiation.

The thing is, in my experience - we as in the UK/US were always at an advantage - we has plenty of air support and vastly superior equipment. The mastiff was penetrated once I think in Afghan. Now I know that the US gave the Iraqi's lots of shiny equipment - but it's debatable if they really knew how to use it, and in what condition it was in. In my experience of sandy countries, those at the top are happy to take the money and then mothball the kit leaving the blokes on the ground struggling.

What's more - those who signed up to our armed forces did so through choice, not through poverty (although for the scousers this is debatable). We also grew up believing in our country, and for the most part actually thinking we were invincible. The Iraqi Army saw their previous armed forces affectively give up when we came knocking. They have known nothing other than either giving up, or having someone else to do the tricky stuff. So expecting them to perform alone when they are facing a pretty fierce force is a bit of a long shot.

That said - I'm not really sure what you can do to fix that. From what I've read, seen and heard they have terrible commanders and a pretty mediocre armed forces. As far as things stand I think giving them lots of air support is what they really need. Perhaps train them in comms and give them radios to call for help, throw in a few Apaches (which again is difficult due to range unless we want to have a base) and then just hope for the best. Sending blokes back on the ground is only going to put them straight back in the same position when we again eventually leave again.

So overall - I think the country is in big big problems. The amount of air support in Iraq and Syria is already not enough to make a big difference. I'd say you'd need to be a lot more aggressive if you want to make a lasting difference. But then we don't want to see the bodies of kids on the news when a mistake is made . Basically I'm going around in circles saying at the moment I don't think there is anything we can do that we aren't already doing.

All excellent points. You and I are not really far apart at all tbh. some good news, ISIS had to retreat today according to reports. Also, there are Apaches supporting Baghdad defense.

[Jimbeaux]

KareemK said:

Jimbeaux said:

KareemK said:

Was it you b*stards ate my goat?

Be quiet! The closest you have gotten to a goat is what you thought was a lamb at a Kabob shop.

Have another

[Jimbeaux]

Mojocvh said:

Jimbeaux said:

Mojocvh said:

Jimbeaux said:

Mojocvh said:

Jimbeaux said:

Mojocvh said:

Jimbeaux said:

Mojocvh said:

Jimbeaux said:

TheRealFingers99 said:

Cobnapint said:

TheRealFingers99 said:

Interesting poll on support for ISIS, US in coalition countries: http://www.timesofisrael.com/egypt-saudi-arabia-le...

Hmmm. So basically, in the ME, everybody dislikes somebody, unless they're Chinese.

Weird.

For those of small brain thrust from the Daily Mail to the intellectual pinacle that is the Times of Israel the writer includes a summary:

"What do all these numbers mean for the current US campaign against ISIS? Public opinion can be fickle, but for now several policy implications emerge from this analysis.

First, Washington and its allies need not fear that ISIS might attract a mass following in these nearby Arab societies, or that a strong popular backlash might develop against US airstrikes, or against our other Arab allies in this fight. But second, the United States would be well advised to target its actions very narrowly against ISIS — not against other Islamist groups that have recently come under American fire, and could well add to their substantial popularity as a result. And third, any US overtures either to Assad or to Iran, as potential partners against ISIS, run a great risk both of further alienating the Egyptian and the Saudi publics, and of further inflaming the dangerous sectarian polarization among Lebanese at the same time."



Read more: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon overwhelmingly reject IS... and the US | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/egypt-saudi-arabia-le...
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook

I agree on overtures to Iran. If the Obama administration goes through with having Iranian militias help fight ISIS, the price owed will be too high. They will demand sanctions be lifted and their nuke program will come to fruition.

like free lekky for everyone?

If you are silly enough to believe electricity is their aim, then sure!

Even if it ain't whats it got to do with the US? NOTHING except one less country that'll jump to PotUS's whip. Any luck sorting out NK yet? no thought so.

You really are silly. Numerous countries, the US included, have offered to build them a free reactor for electrical production. They wants nuke weaponry. Why is it our concern you say??? Since it is known to everyone but infants that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, one might like to prevent a third pary Virgin hunter from getting hold of a nuke. If you are not concerned, then you concern me.

You sound like you actually know what you on about.

As I said, wtf's it got to do with anybody apart from Iran?

Why shouldn't they produce weapons to deter attack, much like the US's beloved Saudi Arabia???????

Even the Israeli secret service opine that even if they do produce weapons they ain't going to be giving them to anyone else.

Seeing as they have given weapons to known terror organizations recently and continue to do so, why would they not hand over a nuke to a Virgin slayer? We will surely have to agree to disagree on this.

It's not as if Israel is untainted by it's military actions both recently and in the past, one could take the view that with the threat to the Persian state from BOTH a nuclear armed Israel AND Saudi Arabia their moves, if it turns out that they are weaponising, are in fact totally defensive and deterrent based...?

If Israel was going to nuke Iran, it would have done so already. Iran, on the other hand, has demonstrated its willingness to arm terror organization. Seeing as nutters are in charge of Iran, this is no stretch. The fact that you cannot differentiate is both worrisome and especially telling.

And you seem unable to grasp the possibility that after going to all this apparent effort to manufacture atomic weapons they night just want to hang on to them themselves.
It's like you can't grasp the simple fact that they KNOW they will be eliminated if they ever gave an atomic weapon to the regional terrorists.
It's like you can't grasp all followers of Islam aren't supporters of ISIS..

I well understand that not only does Iran not support ISIS, their version of Islam is in contrast to them. I am worrying of the possibility of them handing one over to the terrorists that do follow their version of the religion of peace. I grasp fine thank you very much.

[TheRealFingers99]

Jimbeaux said:

I well understand that not only does Iran not support ISIS, their version of Islam is in contrast to them. I am worrying of the possibility of them handing one over to the terrorists that do follow their version of the religion of peace. I grasp fine thank you very much.

Why would they do that?

a. They'd have a lot less than anyone else.
b. They'd get flattened were they to do so.
c. Pakistan already has nukes.

You'll be telling us that Sadam Hussein was responsible for al-Qaeda and 9/11 next.

[Jimbeaux]

TheRealFingers99 said:

Jimbeaux said:

I well understand that not only does Iran not support ISIS, their version of Islam is in contrast to them. I am worrying of the possibility of them handing one over to the terrorists that do follow their version of the religion of peace. I grasp fine thank you very much.

Why would they do that?

a. They'd have a lot less than anyone else.
b. They'd get flattened were they to do so.
c. Pakistan already has nukes.

You'll be telling us that Sadam Hussein was responsible for al-Qaeda and 9/11 next.

They'd be flattened? Not if we could not tie it to the state? You presume too much. You try to reason from a point of view that seems obvious to you but that they do not share. Think what you will, I'll do the same.

[Cobnapint]

The other more concerning scenario is ISIS making sweeping progress across a territory that has nuclear missiles, overrunning a silo complex and asking very nicely, with knife to throat, one of the operators to despatch one in a westerly direction.

The assurance of MAD which has kept these things rooted in their launch positions for the past 60 odd years can only be maintained if both sides want to remain alive. Trouble is, that doesn't apply where mutters like IS are concerned.

[Lost soul]

Cobnapint said:

The other more concerning scenario is ISIS making sweeping progress across a territory that has nuclear missiles, overrunning a silo complex and asking very nicely, with knife to throat, one of the operators to despatch one in a westerly direction.

.

that would not be the way it happens , I am sure even Iran if the reached that point would have extensive failsafe's built in

[TheRealFingers99]

Jimbeaux said:

They'd be flattened? Not if we could not tie it to the state? You presume too much. You try to reason from a point of view that seems obvious to you but that they do not share. Think what you will, I'll do the same.

I doubt the Pakistanis or Israelis would need as much convincing as many.

So you do think Saddam was responsible for al-Qaeda and 9/11?

[Lost soul]

KareemK said:

Was it you b*stards ate my goat?

[TheRealFingers99]

Lost soul said:

KareemK said:

Was it you b*stards ate my goat?

Mutton has more flavour than lamb.

Now, who knicked my donkey?

[Jimbeaux]

TheRealFingers99 said:

Jimbeaux said:

They'd be flattened? Not if we could not tie it to the state? You presume too much. You try to reason from a point of view that seems obvious to you but that they do not share. Think what you will, I'll do the same.

I doubt the Pakistanis or Israelis would need as much convincing as many.

So you do think Saddam was responsible for al-Qaeda and 9/11?

Why do you keep asking that stupid question? No, I never thought Saddam was responsible. What has that got to do with this subject?? That is my question to you.

ETA: Your significant other snatched your donkey; he said it was a better listener....

Edited by Jimbeaux on Friday 17th October 15:13

[IanMorewood]

Meanwhile in Syria apparently ISIL are training fighter pilots;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-296600...

Wouldn't want to be a poorly trained pilot in a mig21 up against the coalition aircraft.

[Jimbeaux]

It appears the Kurds have gained some ground pushing ISIS back. It is reported that new coordination efforts between them and coalition aircraft are siting targets more quickly.
In an O/T note, I see the BBC is reporting a London woman is on a hunger strike in an Iranian jail...locked up for watching a soccer match. That is for any of you on here that believe Iran is led by the moderate and sensible.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Friday 17th October 15:20

[sugerbear]

IanMorewood said:

Meanwhile in Syria apparently ISIL are training fighter pilots;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-296600...

Wouldn't want to be a poorly trained pilot in a mig21 up against the coalition aircraft.

You think they will be using them in a conventional fight? I don't think so. some kind of suicide mission I would have thought.

[AreOut]

yupp, they wouldn't stand a chance to any newer plane, especially because their training would be basic at best

[Lost soul]

Jimbeaux said:

ETA: Your significant other snatched your donkey; he said it was a better listener....

[Jimbeaux]

True, they will load it up with boom boom and fly it into a base or try for a carrier off shore, which would result in some serious target practice.

[Lost soul]

Jimbeaux said:

True, they will load it up with boom boom and fly it into a base or try for a carrier off shore, which would result in some serious target practice.

I would think the carrier is safe , assads palace more likely

[KareemK]

Syrian rebels (remember them?) are now saying that air strikes on IS by the west are going to cause a backlash amongst the actual Syrian population who are not happy about the bombing campaign.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-295109...

So, the people you are trying to liberate in Syria are now holding protests against the war on ISIS.

It really is a nightmare. How anybody thinks this is ever going to be solved by military means is beyond me. The more we interfere the more you just add to the hatred towards us.

[Lost soul]

KareemK said:

So, the people you are trying to liberate in Syria are now holding protests against the war on ISIS.

It really is a nightmare. How anybody thinks this is ever going to be solved by military means is beyond me. The more we interfere the more you just add to the hatred towards us.

But what is the alternative ?? let IS have what they can take