Bomb someone in Syria poll - will it work
Poll: Bomb someone in Syria poll - will it work
Total Members Polled: 353
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
Last night on Ch 4 News a London based supporter of the Syrian opposition made the point that to many people in the region IS is a side show. Over here, we get all worked up about IS because terrorists who strike in the west claim to be part of IS (whether they are or are not doesn't matter very much -they share the same viewpoints). People in the region have many other horrors to worry about apart from or as well as IS. Even if it were possible to precision-bomb every single IS fighter to death while sparing all civilians, buildings etc (yeah right), the problems would roll on, and there'd be another version of IS popping up to piss us all off before long. We need a big plan for the big picture. As far as I can see, we ain't got one.
No meaningful long term political objectives = unable to develop effective military strategies. See 4th Anglo-Afghan war and Iraq conflict 2003 onwards as examples.World War Two - on the other hand - had very clear long term political objectives.
V8 Fettler said:
World War Two - on the other hand - had very clear long term political objectives.
I don't think that's true at all. At the time it was a desperate struggle to avoid annihilation in which each side took any random piece of luck or mistake by an opponent and aimed to exploit it. I think it's easy to apply a layering of apparent order and strategy over events that during WWII were basically chaotic alot of the time. Such is history. Afterwards a set of institutions were setup as our Empire collapsed with the aim of trying to prevent future wars.....it hasn't really worked very well. But I don't think for a moment there was some kind of clear master plan. 
Timmy40 said:
V8 Fettler said:
World War Two - on the other hand - had very clear long term political objectives.
I don't think that's true at all. At the time it was a desperate struggle to avoid annihilation in which each side took any random piece of luck or mistake by an opponent and aimed to exploit it. I think it's easy to apply a layering of apparent order and strategy over events that during WWII were basically chaotic alot of the time. Such is history. Afterwards a set of institutions were setup as our Empire collapsed with the aim of trying to prevent future wars.....it hasn't really worked very well. But I don't think for a moment there was some kind of clear master plan. From the British viewpoint: what are the long term political objectives for Syria? Has the West not learnt from Afghanistan? Leave a power vacuum and the maniacs take control, again
Unless they intend to annihilate the entire population and then turn their attention to neighbouring countries / regions once they then take up the mantle they won't get very far.
IS or not, when you attack a group of people who are considered to be brothers or the same people of another group of people, you'll have problems.
IS or not, when you attack a group of people who are considered to be brothers or the same people of another group of people, you'll have problems.
FFS. When will we ever learn?
Have to ask who benefits from this - wondering what MPs or their friends/relatives have much money tied up in companies that will profit. Cui Bono and all that.
I suspect all that inbred tw*t has done is open us up to further terrorist threats. Good to see those private educations produce halfwits.
Have to ask who benefits from this - wondering what MPs or their friends/relatives have much money tied up in companies that will profit. Cui Bono and all that.
I suspect all that inbred tw*t has done is open us up to further terrorist threats. Good to see those private educations produce halfwits.
V8 Fettler said:
In Europe in WW2, the political objective for the Allies was the destruction of the Nazi party and complete control over Germany. Currently, the intention of the UK is to degrade the capability of ISIS and then .... ?
It's much easier to fight a war against an enemy who wears a uniform, has an organised army/airforce/navy, and comes from a defined geographic area or country. Iraq had an army, the army was quickly and easily defeated, but that was far from being an end to that particular problem. We can't even identify the enemy in Syria, or decide whose side we're on, how are we going to decide when we've won or lost?RYH64E said:
V8 Fettler said:
In Europe in WW2, the political objective for the Allies was the destruction of the Nazi party and complete control over Germany. Currently, the intention of the UK is to degrade the capability of ISIS and then .... ?
It's much easier to fight a war against an enemy who wears a uniform, has an organised army/airforce/navy, and comes from a defined geographic area or country. Iraq had an army, the army was quickly and easily defeated, but that was far from being an end to that particular problem. We can't even identify the enemy in Syria, or decide whose side we're on, how are we going to decide when we've won or lost?Timmy40 said:
I don't think that's true at all. At the time it was a desperate struggle to avoid annihilation in which each side took any random piece of luck or mistake by an opponent and aimed to exploit it. I think it's easy to apply a layering of apparent order and strategy over events that during WWII were basically chaotic alot of the time. Such is history. Afterwards a set of institutions were setup as our Empire collapsed with the aim of trying to prevent future wars.....it hasn't really worked very well. But I don't think for a moment there was some kind of clear master plan.
There could hardly have been a 'clear' objective, or a master plan, in a situation that started with an invasion by Germany on an ally, or at least one we had a treaty with. We were forced into the situation. The first objective was to stop Germany, hopefully defeat them, with the help of France.
That wasn't totally successful.
Then it was a case of survival. That turned out well. But only just. The Battle of Britain was instrumental in putting off any invasion, and then Barbarossa all but solved most of the problems, apart from the supply one. The objective became to keep alive.
The Japanese did us a favour, which solved even more problems.
The target was to get a success for PR purposes and so North Africa became a must do and, with help, we did it.
Our new ally eventually took over and told us what the new objective was against Germany.
One of our objectives in the war was to secure our empire. That didn't go too well.
Another objective was not to be bankrupt, but with the help of our ally, we went broke, completely and utterly.
As you say, there was no order. There was no overall strategy. We fell into the war, the Americans fell into it. Neither of us would have gone to war if we hadn't been forced to do so.
The only time there was a strategy was when the Americans dictated it to its allies at Casablanca: the unconditional surrender of both Germany and Japan, although Potsdam had a say in the latter.
So from early in 1943 the USA had a target.
However, there was internal pressure to approach the Japanese before the bombs were dropped, but this didn't get a lot of support, for various reasons.
In effect, the UK had no strategy. We did what we were told. We may have well wanted to demand Germany's total, unconditional surrender, but then we might not.
We were successful, but not through strategy.
One might suggest that the the intent of the Americans was to come out of the war twice as rich as when they went in. It is just as logical.
Whilst I accept the need to be seen to do something in response to the attack in France, and perhaps do something useful, I'm not sure bombing is the best thing, but then I have no idea what would be better.
All I am certain is that we need a strategy that makes sense. The 'Vienna agreement is pure fantasy. 18 mnths, I ask you.
vonuber said:
How much is this costing? I thought we had to cut, cut, cut to save money?
From memory £35k/hr for a flying tornado, the brimstone missiles they're raving about (do MP's have shares in them?) are £105K each. Sky news breakdown I found earlier regarding Iraq reckons between £500k-£1M per mission:http://news.sky.com/story/1342768/how-much-will-ai...
We clearly can't afford legal aid, Junior Doctors pay or decent border controls when we have trucks in the middle East to hit.
That said, I'm sure airworthy combat aircraft, like standing armies, burn through money just sitting in their hangars.
Derek Smith said:
Timmy40 said:
I don't think that's true at all. At the time it was a desperate struggle to avoid annihilation in which each side took any random piece of luck or mistake by an opponent and aimed to exploit it. I think it's easy to apply a layering of apparent order and strategy over events that during WWII were basically chaotic alot of the time. Such is history. Afterwards a set of institutions were setup as our Empire collapsed with the aim of trying to prevent future wars.....it hasn't really worked very well. But I don't think for a moment there was some kind of clear master plan.
There could hardly have been a 'clear' objective, or a master plan, in a situation that started with an invasion by Germany on an ally, or at least one we had a treaty with. We were forced into the situation. The first objective was to stop Germany, hopefully defeat them, with the help of France.
That wasn't totally successful.
Then it was a case of survival. That turned out well. But only just. The Battle of Britain was instrumental in putting off any invasion, and then Barbarossa all but solved most of the problems, apart from the supply one. The objective became to keep alive.
The Japanese did us a favour, which solved even more problems.
The target was to get a success for PR purposes and so North Africa became a must do and, with help, we did it.
Our new ally eventually took over and told us what the new objective was against Germany.
One of our objectives in the war was to secure our empire. That didn't go too well.
Another objective was not to be bankrupt, but with the help of our ally, we went broke, completely and utterly.
As you say, there was no order. There was no overall strategy. We fell into the war, the Americans fell into it. Neither of us would have gone to war if we hadn't been forced to do so.
The only time there was a strategy was when the Americans dictated it to its allies at Casablanca: the unconditional surrender of both Germany and Japan, although Potsdam had a say in the latter.
So from early in 1943 the USA had a target.
However, there was internal pressure to approach the Japanese before the bombs were dropped, but this didn't get a lot of support, for various reasons.
In effect, the UK had no strategy. We did what we were told. We may have well wanted to demand Germany's total, unconditional surrender, but then we might not.
We were successful, but not through strategy.
One might suggest that the the intent of the Americans was to come out of the war twice as rich as when they went in. It is just as logical.
Whilst I accept the need to be seen to do something in response to the attack in France, and perhaps do something useful, I'm not sure bombing is the best thing, but then I have no idea what would be better.
All I am certain is that we need a strategy that makes sense. The 'Vienna agreement is pure fantasy. 18 mnths, I ask you.
You state that the first objective of defeating Germany wasn't totally successful? How successful should it have been? By early 1945 the RAF could incinerate any selected urban conurbation, see Dresden.
The only battle that was crucial to the survival of the UK was the Battle of the Atlantic. Do you really believe that Germany was capable of an amphibious assault across the Channel? With what precisely?
The overall strategy for the UK in Europe following the German Blitzkrieg across France was:
Survival
Entrenchment
Take the battle to the enemy.
glazbagun said:
From memory £35k/hr for a flying tornado, the brimstone missiles they're raving about (do MP's have shares in them?) are £105K each. Sky news breakdown I found earlier regarding Iraq reckons between £500k-£1M per mission:
So you are probably burning a couple of million a day as a bare minimum.Really glad the nursery across the road is closing now.
V8 Fettler said:
Derek Smith said:
Timmy40 said:
I don't think that's true at all. At the time it was a desperate struggle to avoid annihilation in which each side took any random piece of luck or mistake by an opponent and aimed to exploit it. I think it's easy to apply a layering of apparent order and strategy over events that during WWII were basically chaotic alot of the time. Such is history. Afterwards a set of institutions were setup as our Empire collapsed with the aim of trying to prevent future wars.....it hasn't really worked very well. But I don't think for a moment there was some kind of clear master plan.
There could hardly have been a 'clear' objective, or a master plan, in a situation that started with an invasion by Germany on an ally, or at least one we had a treaty with. We were forced into the situation. The first objective was to stop Germany, hopefully defeat them, with the help of France.
That wasn't totally successful.
Then it was a case of survival. That turned out well. But only just. The Battle of Britain was instrumental in putting off any invasion, and then Barbarossa all but solved most of the problems, apart from the supply one. The objective became to keep alive.
The Japanese did us a favour, which solved even more problems.
The target was to get a success for PR purposes and so North Africa became a must do and, with help, we did it.
Our new ally eventually took over and told us what the new objective was against Germany.
One of our objectives in the war was to secure our empire. That didn't go too well.
Another objective was not to be bankrupt, but with the help of our ally, we went broke, completely and utterly.
As you say, there was no order. There was no overall strategy. We fell into the war, the Americans fell into it. Neither of us would have gone to war if we hadn't been forced to do so.
The only time there was a strategy was when the Americans dictated it to its allies at Casablanca: the unconditional surrender of both Germany and Japan, although Potsdam had a say in the latter.
So from early in 1943 the USA had a target.
However, there was internal pressure to approach the Japanese before the bombs were dropped, but this didn't get a lot of support, for various reasons.
In effect, the UK had no strategy. We did what we were told. We may have well wanted to demand Germany's total, unconditional surrender, but then we might not.
We were successful, but not through strategy.
One might suggest that the the intent of the Americans was to come out of the war twice as rich as when they went in. It is just as logical.
Whilst I accept the need to be seen to do something in response to the attack in France, and perhaps do something useful, I'm not sure bombing is the best thing, but then I have no idea what would be better.
All I am certain is that we need a strategy that makes sense. The 'Vienna agreement is pure fantasy. 18 mnths, I ask you.
You state that the first objective of defeating Germany wasn't totally successful? How successful should it have been? By early 1945 the RAF could incinerate any selected urban conurbation, see Dresden.
The only battle that was crucial to the survival of the UK was the Battle of the Atlantic. Do you really believe that Germany was capable of an amphibious assault across the Channel? With what precisely?
The overall strategy for the UK in Europe following the German Blitzkrieg across France was:
Survival
Entrenchment
Take the battle to the enemy.
The only solution is getting the people to turn against ISIS.
That isn't going to happen with raining bombs onto their cities/villages.
Stephen Fry, "There’s only one rule in conflict: do what your enemy LEAST wants you to do. And here we are stumbling towards what they MOST want us to do."
They feel Palestinians are being forced out of their country by Israel, and the west have stood by and not said/done anything, Israel are building illegal settlements in Palestinian land as we speak, and nothing is said by the media, and done by the western government.
Palestinians are being exterminated by Israelis, and WILL eventually disappear leaving the whole area owned, and lived in by Jews, that doesn't stomach well, and rightly so.
There's alot of built in frustration, and acts of terror are the only way they know how to retaliate.
Stop the west rape their countries in the name of money, black gold, and whatever other natural resources they can get their grubby hands on.
If the west stop poking and prodding the people, the support for the likes of ISIL/ISIS, and any other terror organisation to follow slowly die down, and disappear.
Problem solved.
That isn't going to happen with raining bombs onto their cities/villages.
Stephen Fry, "There’s only one rule in conflict: do what your enemy LEAST wants you to do. And here we are stumbling towards what they MOST want us to do."
They feel Palestinians are being forced out of their country by Israel, and the west have stood by and not said/done anything, Israel are building illegal settlements in Palestinian land as we speak, and nothing is said by the media, and done by the western government.
Palestinians are being exterminated by Israelis, and WILL eventually disappear leaving the whole area owned, and lived in by Jews, that doesn't stomach well, and rightly so.
There's alot of built in frustration, and acts of terror are the only way they know how to retaliate.
Stop the west rape their countries in the name of money, black gold, and whatever other natural resources they can get their grubby hands on.
If the west stop poking and prodding the people, the support for the likes of ISIL/ISIS, and any other terror organisation to follow slowly die down, and disappear.
Problem solved.
V8 Fettler said:
You're confusing political objectives with strategy.
You state that the first objective of defeating Germany wasn't totally successful? How successful should it have been? By early 1945 the RAF could incinerate any selected urban conurbation, see Dresden.
The only battle that was crucial to the survival of the UK was the Battle of the Atlantic. Do you really believe that Germany was capable of an amphibious assault across the Channel? With what precisely?
The overall strategy for the UK in Europe following the German Blitzkrieg across France was:
Survival
Entrenchment
Take the battle to the enemy.
Sorry to be to logical for you.You state that the first objective of defeating Germany wasn't totally successful? How successful should it have been? By early 1945 the RAF could incinerate any selected urban conurbation, see Dresden.
The only battle that was crucial to the survival of the UK was the Battle of the Atlantic. Do you really believe that Germany was capable of an amphibious assault across the Channel? With what precisely?
The overall strategy for the UK in Europe following the German Blitzkrieg across France was:
Survival
Entrenchment
Take the battle to the enemy.
The initial objective was to stop the German advance. Sorry to confuse.
You bring up a crucial battle but that doesn't matter for political strategy.
You come up with three rather descriptive terms for what the UK did, but they are not strategy as the first two were forced on us.
As for taking the battle to Germany, that was controlled to a great extent by the USA which dictated what we would do. There was no discussion. Unconditional surrender was the demand of the Americans.
You ask how the Germans could invade the UK.
You do know the Germans had an invasion plan, don't you. You do know that many pilots lost their lives in slow, outdated aircraft when sent to bomb the barges that were building up around the French ports and along the canals? You are aware that had the Luftwaffe been able to secure air superiority and Hitler not intent to attack Russia, in all probability there would have been an invasion?
The cream of the British Army, at least that bit available on the Home Front, was torn apart in the retreat from France. The Germans had soldiers to spare.
I was told that my grandfather was trained to defend Greenwich against the might of the German army with a stick he'd been given. He was to stand in the woods alongside Shooters Hill Road and attack the foot soldiers following the tanks. That's what Churchill meant when he said we'd fight them on the hills. He didn't mention sticks.
Whether any attempt at invasion would have been successful in the short/medium term is open to argument. What is probable is that if the Germans could secure the channel from air and sea attack, they stood a good chance at forming a bridgehead. If Barbarossa hadn't been indulged in, we'd likely have gone against the Churchillian rhetoric and surrendered. The only question is whether London would have been razed in the meantime.
My father was a regular in the army. He was trained on one type of field gun but as he was the regiment's light heavy champion he remained at Woolwich when his unit went to France. He was mucking out horses during the start of the Battle of Britain. He was then trained on another type of gun, and became an instructor. During the bombing of London he was sent to somewhere in NW Kent to be the only regular NCO in the unit. When he got there he found he was in charge of a type of gun he'd never even seen before. He had to read the instruction book to find out how to start the thing.
Some plan, some strategy. We weren't prepared for the war. We had no plans, no reserves, no equipment.
There was no UK overall strategy for the war. We fell into it. There was no post war plan until the Americans told us what it was. Just as well really. The USA secured peace in Europe by their methods. France wanted reparations but were told to wind their necks in. If they did, they'd get Marshall Aid and a bit of Germany to play with.
I'm not criticising the UK's war. We won. It cost us, but a beggared Britain was not entirely against the USA's wishes. They gave us a loan and the bulk of Marshall Aid and we were saved from going under financially. But an overall strategy? Do me a favour.
Derek Smith said:
V8 Fettler said:
You're confusing political objectives with strategy.
You state that the first objective of defeating Germany wasn't totally successful? How successful should it have been? By early 1945 the RAF could incinerate any selected urban conurbation, see Dresden.
The only battle that was crucial to the survival of the UK was the Battle of the Atlantic. Do you really believe that Germany was capable of an amphibious assault across the Channel? With what precisely?
The overall strategy for the UK in Europe following the German Blitzkrieg across France was:
Survival
Entrenchment
Take the battle to the enemy.
Sorry to be to logical for you.You state that the first objective of defeating Germany wasn't totally successful? How successful should it have been? By early 1945 the RAF could incinerate any selected urban conurbation, see Dresden.
The only battle that was crucial to the survival of the UK was the Battle of the Atlantic. Do you really believe that Germany was capable of an amphibious assault across the Channel? With what precisely?
The overall strategy for the UK in Europe following the German Blitzkrieg across France was:
Survival
Entrenchment
Take the battle to the enemy.
The initial objective was to stop the German advance. Sorry to confuse.
You bring up a crucial battle but that doesn't matter for political strategy.
You come up with three rather descriptive terms for what the UK did, but they are not strategy as the first two were forced on us.
As for taking the battle to Germany, that was controlled to a great extent by the USA which dictated what we would do. There was no discussion. Unconditional surrender was the demand of the Americans.
You ask how the Germans could invade the UK.
You do know the Germans had an invasion plan, don't you. You do know that many pilots lost their lives in slow, outdated aircraft when sent to bomb the barges that were building up around the French ports and along the canals? You are aware that had the Luftwaffe been able to secure air superiority and Hitler not intent to attack Russia, in all probability there would have been an invasion?
The cream of the British Army, at least that bit available on the Home Front, was torn apart in the retreat from France. The Germans had soldiers to spare.
I was told that my grandfather was trained to defend Greenwich against the might of the German army with a stick he'd been given. He was to stand in the woods alongside Shooters Hill Road and attack the foot soldiers following the tanks. That's what Churchill meant when he said we'd fight them on the hills. He didn't mention sticks.
Whether any attempt at invasion would have been successful in the short/medium term is open to argument. What is probable is that if the Germans could secure the channel from air and sea attack, they stood a good chance at forming a bridgehead. If Barbarossa hadn't been indulged in, we'd likely have gone against the Churchillian rhetoric and surrendered. The only question is whether London would have been razed in the meantime.
My father was a regular in the army. He was trained on one type of field gun but as he was the regiment's light heavy champion he remained at Woolwich when his unit went to France. He was mucking out horses during the start of the Battle of Britain. He was then trained on another type of gun, and became an instructor. During the bombing of London he was sent to somewhere in NW Kent to be the only regular NCO in the unit. When he got there he found he was in charge of a type of gun he'd never even seen before. He had to read the instruction book to find out how to start the thing.
Some plan, some strategy. We weren't prepared for the war. We had no plans, no reserves, no equipment.
There was no UK overall strategy for the war. We fell into it. There was no post war plan until the Americans told us what it was. Just as well really. The USA secured peace in Europe by their methods. France wanted reparations but were told to wind their necks in. If they did, they'd get Marshall Aid and a bit of Germany to play with.
I'm not criticising the UK's war. We won. It cost us, but a beggared Britain was not entirely against the USA's wishes. They gave us a loan and the bulk of Marshall Aid and we were saved from going under financially. But an overall strategy? Do me a favour.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff