Paris shooting and casualties ?
Discussion
There is some reason to bomb ISIS, but it's not to 'win the war' or change their minds - it's to lower their capacity to inflict damage. If it's possible to find their heavy weapons and chemical weapons, then we can degrade their capacity to exist as a 'nation' and a threat to areas nearby, and further away.
It is obviously not going to make the problem go away though, so further steps are required. I'm not going to go as far as suggest a fix though - I don't know what it is.
It is obviously not going to make the problem go away though, so further steps are required. I'm not going to go as far as suggest a fix though - I don't know what it is.
TTmonkey said:
The West could not defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Actually we could but we chose to stick to a set or rules and conventions whereas our enemy does not. could we defeat the taliban yes, the cost would be huge loss of civilian life in the territory. Perhaps others know but during WWII when we went through germany did the civilian population side with there government or welcome the allied forces etc.We are not going to kills 1000's of innocent people, we instead hope to unite the large population to fight back against an unjust oppressor. Thing is many don't think they are unjust. We need to fight Isis. One way of doing that is to target there strongholds and unlike in afganistan not stop at the border (we did not pursue into Pakistan) so Syria/ Iraq let both stages be fair game and let the forces there know we will attack them. I assuem we can see heavy weapons and militery type movements via satalite an spy planes so when we do lets target them. sooner or later they will run out pf places to store such equiplment and then they are a weakend force and the ground forces local to that area can take over.
Its not that simple of course but it is a start and its much better than doing nothing. To say we can't win is a joke, course we can win we just need to harden our resolve and accept the harsh truth...In War people die, regardless of weather they wear a uniform or not.
JagLover, you appear to have a determinist view of history, and also like to pick a single factor and attribute to that single factor large consequences. Most (probably all) historical conjunctures have multiple causes. To suggest that Russia turned out like it did after the fall of the USSR largely because of the NATO intervention in Kosovo is, I suggest, mega simplistic, and neglects many factors. Suggesting that there is something determinedly pan Slavic about what happened is also a bit whack. Poland and other states with Slavic elements didn't go the same way as Russia when released from the Soviet Empire. Russia in many ways demonstrates what happens when you have a form of gangster capitalism without restraints.
rovermorris999 said:
TTmonkey said:
Why do you think I would have an answer?
You seem sure of what the 'west' can and can't achieve so I though perhaps you had some ideas instead of just negativity. Doing nothing isn't an option.Not just us now though, Russia and China in the game. Two countries which won't be so worried about the niceties of collateral damage or international law.
For those who claim IS are not Islamic this is a pretty thorough explanation of why it most definitely is Islamic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw9lG83lr0s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw9lG83lr0s
Puggit said:
There is some reason to bomb ISIS, but it's not to 'win the war' or change their minds - it's to lower their capacity to inflict damage.
I agree.A week ago my heart said "bomb the crap out of them". My head said that bombing them would only serve as a recruiting tool.
Now, I feel that they will use their infrastructure to train and arm more terrorists. Unfortunately, we need to deprive them of training facilities and oil revenues. Military force is the only way to do this.
Breadvan72 said:
JagLover, you appear to have a determinist view of history, and also like to pick a single factor and attribute to that single factor large consequences. Most (probably all) historical conjunctures have multiple causes. To suggest that Russia turned out like it did after the fall of the USSR largely because of the NATO intervention in Kosovo is, I suggest, mega simplistic, and neglects many factors. Suggesting that there is something determinedly pan Slavic about what happened is also a bit whack. Poland and other states with Slavic elements didn't go the same way as Russia when released from the Soviet Empire. Russia in many ways demonstrates what happens when you have a form of gangster capitalism without restraints.
JagLover said:
If you wonder why Russia has moved in an anti-western direction since the hopeful days after the fall of Communism it was decisions like this that helped push them on that path.
Breadvan72 said:
To suggest that Russia turned out like it did after the fall of USSR largely because of the NATO intervention in Kosovo is, I suggest, mega simplistic, and neglects many factors
Russia, like many former communist states, has had massive problems with corruption, both before and after the faction controlled by Putin came to power.
The fact that it has gone down such a anti-western path is however, in large part a reaction to the West's actions since the fall of the USSR. Kosovo is a good example of the type of actions that have led to this point. From the fact it was not authorised by the UN, the lies and propaganda told to justify it, partitioning a nation state and not consulting them on the partition lines but blindly following provincial boundaries.
What the West was effectively saying to Russia is that "you are now so impotent we will do whatever the hell we want even to your historic friends". In that context it was no surprise they turned back to the Slavophile (sorry I used the wrong term before)intellectual tradition which has opposed westernisation in Russia since the time of Peter the Great.
don4l said:
Puggit said:
There is some reason to bomb ISIS, but it's not to 'win the war' or change their minds - it's to lower their capacity to inflict damage.
I agree.A week ago my heart said "bomb the crap out of them". My head said that bombing them would only serve as a recruiting tool.
Now, I feel that they will use their infrastructure to train and arm more terrorists. Unfortunately, we need to deprive them of training facilities and oil revenues. Military force is the only way to do this.
Or maybe we could just destroy the oil refinerys they have control of. Crusise Missiles, Missiles from planes. I assume these oil sails are done at sea ports so ok lets send Navy there an destroy them too. Lets not worry about who is buying it lets make it immposible to deliver in the first place. Oh an how about ships docking at ports where the oil is sold why not target them too.
Gecko1978 said:
If they are selling oil we could find out who is buying it maybe get a UN resolution or EU thing, economic sanctions, harsh words from the goverment etc.
Or maybe we could just destroy the oil refinerys they have control of. Crusise Missiles, Missiles from planes. I assume these oil sails are done at sea ports so ok lets send Navy there an destroy them too. Lets not worry about who is buying it lets make it immposible to deliver in the first place. Oh an how about ships docking at ports where the oil is sold why not target them too.
Apparently a lot of the oil is heading to Turkey. Over the weekend the papers were loudly discussing the need to militarily close the border between Turkey and ISIS. The Kurds control much of the Syria/Turkey border already, and the 'moderates' control much of the rest with a narrowing corridor controlled by ISIS. Or maybe we could just destroy the oil refinerys they have control of. Crusise Missiles, Missiles from planes. I assume these oil sails are done at sea ports so ok lets send Navy there an destroy them too. Lets not worry about who is buying it lets make it immposible to deliver in the first place. Oh an how about ships docking at ports where the oil is sold why not target them too.
The problem is the Kurds are the best solution to shutting this door, but as usual the question of Turkey helping at all comes to an impasse. They don't want the Kurds to strengthen any more.
Gecko1978 said:
TTmonkey said:
The West could not defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Actually we could but we chose to stick to a set or rules and conventions whereas our enemy does not. could we defeat the taliban yes, the cost would be huge loss of civilian life in the territory. Perhaps others know but during WWII when we went through germany did the civilian population side with there government or welcome the allied forces etc.We are not going to kills 1000's of innocent people, we instead hope to unite the large population to fight back against an unjust oppressor. Thing is many don't think they are unjust. We need to fight Isis. One way of doing that is to target there strongholds and unlike in afganistan not stop at the border (we did not pursue into Pakistan) so Syria/ Iraq let both stages be fair game and let the forces there know we will attack them. I assuem we can see heavy weapons and militery type movements via satalite an spy planes so when we do lets target them. sooner or later they will run out pf places to store such equiplment and then they are a weakend force and the ground forces local to that area can take over.
Its not that simple of course but it is a start and its much better than doing nothing. To say we can't win is a joke, course we can win we just need to harden our resolve and accept the harsh truth...In War people die, regardless of weather they wear a uniform or not.
We've got a similar situation today with Assad, it wasn't so long ago that the proposal was to bomb Assad's forces and aid his opponents, now we seem to be proposing bombing his enemies which will help his cause. If we can't even decide who's side we're on you have to question the point of intervening.
turbobloke said:
So do I but I don't see any evidence of no other plan, iyswim, or consider it likely.
Is that based upon the excellent work we've done before in Afghanistan and Iraq? I find it entirely possible that the powers that be are entirely clueless and are working on the political expedient of being seen to do something, even if that something is completely futile, or more likely actually counter productive. You obviously have more faith in our leaders than I do.RYH64E said:
Gecko1978 said:
TTmonkey said:
The West could not defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Actually we could but we chose to stick to a set or rules and conventions whereas our enemy does not. could we defeat the taliban yes, the cost would be huge loss of civilian life in the territory. Perhaps others know but during WWII when we went through germany did the civilian population side with there government or welcome the allied forces etc.We are not going to kills 1000's of innocent people, we instead hope to unite the large population to fight back against an unjust oppressor. Thing is many don't think they are unjust. We need to fight Isis. One way of doing that is to target there strongholds and unlike in afganistan not stop at the border (we did not pursue into Pakistan) so Syria/ Iraq let both stages be fair game and let the forces there know we will attack them. I assuem we can see heavy weapons and militery type movements via satalite an spy planes so when we do lets target them. sooner or later they will run out pf places to store such equiplment and then they are a weakend force and the ground forces local to that area can take over.
Its not that simple of course but it is a start and its much better than doing nothing. To say we can't win is a joke, course we can win we just need to harden our resolve and accept the harsh truth...In War people die, regardless of weather they wear a uniform or not.
We've got a similar situation today with Assad, it wasn't so long ago that the proposal was to bomb Assad's forces and aid his opponents, now we seem to be proposing bombing his enemies which will help his cause. If we can't even decide who's side we're on you have to question the point of intervening.
Gecko1978 said:
Actually we could but we chose to stick to a set or rules and conventions whereas our enemy does not. could we defeat the taliban yes, the cost would be huge loss of civilian life in the territory. Perhaps others know but during WWII when we went through germany did the civilian population side with there government or welcome the allied forces etc.
We are not going to kills 1000's of innocent people, we instead hope to unite the large population to fight back against an unjust oppressor. Thing is many don't think they are unjust. We need to fight Isis. One way of doing that is to target there strongholds and unlike in afganistan not stop at the border (we did not pursue into Pakistan) so Syria/ Iraq let both stages be fair game and let the forces there know we will attack them. I assuem we can see heavy weapons and militery type movements via satalite an spy planes so when we do lets target them. sooner or later they will run out pf places to store such equiplment and then they are a weakend force and the ground forces local to that area can take over.
Its not that simple of course but it is a start and its much better than doing nothing. To say we can't win is a joke, course we can win we just need to harden our resolve and accept the harsh truth...In War people die, regardless of weather they wear a uniform or not.
We are not going to kills 1000's of innocent people, we instead hope to unite the large population to fight back against an unjust oppressor. Thing is many don't think they are unjust. We need to fight Isis. One way of doing that is to target there strongholds and unlike in afganistan not stop at the border (we did not pursue into Pakistan) so Syria/ Iraq let both stages be fair game and let the forces there know we will attack them. I assuem we can see heavy weapons and militery type movements via satalite an spy planes so when we do lets target them. sooner or later they will run out pf places to store such equiplment and then they are a weakend force and the ground forces local to that area can take over.
Its not that simple of course but it is a start and its much better than doing nothing. To say we can't win is a joke, course we can win we just need to harden our resolve and accept the harsh truth...In War people die, regardless of weather they wear a uniform or not.
Gecko1978 said:
If they are selling oil we could find out who is buying it maybe get a UN resolution or EU thing, economic sanctions, harsh words from the goverment etc.
Or maybe we could just destroy the oil refinerys they have control of. Crusise Missiles, Missiles from planes. I assume these oil sails are done at sea ports so ok lets send Navy there an destroy them too. Lets not worry about who is buying it lets make it immposible to deliver in the first place. Oh an how about ships docking at ports where the oil is sold why not target them too.
These two posts seem to show much of our problem in dealing with this problem. And I suspect even the Russians were partly hampered by the same thing, if not the strict following of the Geneva Convention. Like the USSR before us we thought we were fighting a country with borders, an army and some megalomaniac which we could sweep away and replace with the model we want. This would be great if it were true, because as with Saddam Hussein's Iraq it could be swept away in a matter of weeks with relatively limited casualties. But it is not so.Or maybe we could just destroy the oil refinerys they have control of. Crusise Missiles, Missiles from planes. I assume these oil sails are done at sea ports so ok lets send Navy there an destroy them too. Lets not worry about who is buying it lets make it immposible to deliver in the first place. Oh an how about ships docking at ports where the oil is sold why not target them too.
We are fighting the enemy want, not the enemy we have.
IS is but one manifestation of something much more fluid and much harder to bomb. It can take on the trappings of a nation state, as it is doing at the moment but if you bomb it's buildings then it can drop all that tomorrow, and blow up a plane or building anywhere in the world a few days later. The essentially European notion of a nation state means nothing to them, while we hum and ha at the border wondering if crossing an imaginary line (drawn by us) on the map will cause an angry meeting at the Pakistani embassy in Washington.
You can take out al-Baghdadi, hang him on YouTube, beat him up in a drain pipe or shoot him in a cave, and it will change nothing.
They are running rings around us with our bureaucratic and disjointed approach. We can have sanctions and UN resolutions and it means nothing. Don't forget it was Turkey via NATO who got the PKK, the most effective resistance to IS, prescribed. Turkey now appears to be buying oil off IS so feeding them much needed funds. Yet it apparently remains our ally.
Assad, who Cameron believed it so important that we bomb in 2013, and if he gets his way in this vote (which is strangely being billed as a rerun) then we'll be bombing opposition groups to support him.
It all stems from having no real clue what we're fighting, and a paralysing fear to even find out.
Bloody hell an M16! Too early to tell if it's linked but RIP to the officer and questions again will be asked about the access to automatic weapons
http://news.sky.com/story/1592813/officer-killed-d...
http://news.sky.com/story/1592813/officer-killed-d...
rich85uk said:
Bloody hell an M16! Too early to tell if it's linked but RIP to the officer and questions again will be asked about the access to automatic weapons
http://news.sky.com/story/1592813/officer-killed-d...
Hollande expressed his support for the police.http://news.sky.com/story/1592813/officer-killed-d...
I wonder if Cameron and May would have the 'gaul' to say such a thing is, gods forbid, the same should happen here. Windsor would be able to put his pretty frock on again when joining in the mourning.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff