Bomb someone in Syria poll - will it work
Poll: Bomb someone in Syria poll - will it work
Total Members Polled: 353
Discussion
especially that Kurdish Hottie Brigade that was in the news a few months back. Timmy40 said:
gruffalo said:
We probably have a few bombs that are approaching their use by date so why not use them in a show of solidarity with what is rapidly becoming a world wide coalition if we ca weaken the leadership of IS then maybe just maybe the rest of the Arab community will step up to the plate.
If by Arab Community you mean the Saudi/Gulf States they're the ones quietly funding ISIL. Why would the Saudi royal family fund an armed group that would overthrow them if possible?
I can see wealthy individuals in Saudi funding IS but not the royals who basically run the show.
A precursor to a ground invasion and part of me thinks it'll actually make things worse.
Currently we have 3 key differences working in our favour when comparing Syria with Iraq/Afghanistan:
1. ISIS are very visible and are strongest in urban areas whereas the Taliban and Al-Qaeda preferred hidey-holes in rural areas. This would lend Syria to traditional warfare (i.e. bullets killing people) and is what the West are particularly good at. The likelihood is that we would decimate ISIS in the battlefield given the training and technology at our disposal.
2. ISIS are not supported by the tribesmen of Syria whereas the Taliban were given their popularity with both the local people and the West (prior to them harbouring Al-Qaeda). This gave the Taliban, and therefore Al-Qaeda, a massive advantage whereas ISIS are very much seen as the enemy and will likely receive little support from these groups.
3. In ISIS, I like to believe the Syrian people see the West as a force that can provide a positive result and at the very least are perceived as the least evil. When we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, all the local people saw was a crusade against their lands by America in retaliation for 9/11, a trip which brought with it America's buddies.
In a bombing campaign, unless we're tremendously lucky, we'll ruin our chance at a conventional war against ISIS, we'll turn the local tribesmen (critical to achieving long-lasting peace - look at the Kurdish region) against us and we'll become the greater of two evils when compared with ISIS.
I, without wanting to sound blasé, would look to achieve agreement on a ground operation in conjunction with the Kurds against ISIS and use bombing only when absolutely necessary i.e. to prevent mass civilian or military (on our side) deaths. I would only do so with Parliament acknowledging it is an engagement which could take decades to complete and on the basis that ONLY ISIS was the target. Protection would be provided to Assad for the short-term, preferably by the Russians, whilst the removal of ISIS was in-situ because we must remember that, whilst a monster to many, he was, and still is, popular with a large proportion of the Syrian people; removing him too swiftly would immediately echo Iraq and Afghanistan where we were seen to be imposing our law on their lands.
Currently we have 3 key differences working in our favour when comparing Syria with Iraq/Afghanistan:
1. ISIS are very visible and are strongest in urban areas whereas the Taliban and Al-Qaeda preferred hidey-holes in rural areas. This would lend Syria to traditional warfare (i.e. bullets killing people) and is what the West are particularly good at. The likelihood is that we would decimate ISIS in the battlefield given the training and technology at our disposal.
2. ISIS are not supported by the tribesmen of Syria whereas the Taliban were given their popularity with both the local people and the West (prior to them harbouring Al-Qaeda). This gave the Taliban, and therefore Al-Qaeda, a massive advantage whereas ISIS are very much seen as the enemy and will likely receive little support from these groups.
3. In ISIS, I like to believe the Syrian people see the West as a force that can provide a positive result and at the very least are perceived as the least evil. When we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, all the local people saw was a crusade against their lands by America in retaliation for 9/11, a trip which brought with it America's buddies.
In a bombing campaign, unless we're tremendously lucky, we'll ruin our chance at a conventional war against ISIS, we'll turn the local tribesmen (critical to achieving long-lasting peace - look at the Kurdish region) against us and we'll become the greater of two evils when compared with ISIS.
I, without wanting to sound blasé, would look to achieve agreement on a ground operation in conjunction with the Kurds against ISIS and use bombing only when absolutely necessary i.e. to prevent mass civilian or military (on our side) deaths. I would only do so with Parliament acknowledging it is an engagement which could take decades to complete and on the basis that ONLY ISIS was the target. Protection would be provided to Assad for the short-term, preferably by the Russians, whilst the removal of ISIS was in-situ because we must remember that, whilst a monster to many, he was, and still is, popular with a large proportion of the Syrian people; removing him too swiftly would immediately echo Iraq and Afghanistan where we were seen to be imposing our law on their lands.
Edited by MrBarry123 on Tuesday 1st December 17:18
The thing is we as the public are not privy to the whole intelligence picture.
Questions?
1, What effect has the existing air strikes had?
2, What is the overall military strategy going forward and how does this fit in to the diplomatic effort?
3, What is the end state?
Broad questions, but digging in to the detail is what is needed.
Questions?
1, What effect has the existing air strikes had?
2, What is the overall military strategy going forward and how does this fit in to the diplomatic effort?
3, What is the end state?
Broad questions, but digging in to the detail is what is needed.
Jurgen todenhofer
The only person I've heard make any sense, and someone that knows what he's talking about is a German journalist called Jurgen Todenhofer.
He's a German journalist who spend 10 days with isis.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1ucAqS4Qodg
He's also been on BBC hardtalk.
https://youtu.be/YRCPRKgAaTg
The only person I've heard make any sense, and someone that knows what he's talking about is a German journalist called Jurgen Todenhofer.
He's a German journalist who spend 10 days with isis.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1ucAqS4Qodg
He's also been on BBC hardtalk.
https://youtu.be/YRCPRKgAaTg
Edited by Leroy902 on Tuesday 1st December 17:40
Leroy902 said:
Jurgen todenhofer
The only person I've heard make any sense, and someone that knows what he's talking about is a German journalist called Jurgen Todenhofer.
He's a German journalist who spend 10 days with isis.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1ucAqS4Qodg
He's also been on BBC hardtalk.
https://youtu.be/YRCPRKgAaTg
Ive watched the first linkThe only person I've heard make any sense, and someone that knows what he's talking about is a German journalist called Jurgen Todenhofer.
He's a German journalist who spend 10 days with isis.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1ucAqS4Qodg
He's also been on BBC hardtalk.
https://youtu.be/YRCPRKgAaTg
Basically only arab counties can sort out the problem , the west is seen as interferers.
Of the arab peoples only the sunnis can sort it out
For the sunnis to sort it out they need to be unsidelined and reintegrated into Iraq.
Ayahuasca said:
Two bombs ended WWII with no boots on the ground.
Just sayin...
Let's face it in the short term I think the only way to put an end to this sJust sayin...
t is make it clear they will utterly and totally be destroyed, hurt them so much that they actually question their faith, but it's not going to happen.A few bombs definitely won't do much and it won't stop any already here who sympathise.Think they can give this a jump?
In short go big or go home anything else probably won't do much.
LimaDelta said:
Hoofy said:
I can't remember who was quoted as saying something along the lines of if he went into a village of 50-100, he might convince 1 or 2 to pick up arms against the US. A single US bomb killing a handful of villagers would convert the entire village to his cause.
...and the more that convert to the cause, the more we can bomb! Win-win, everyone is happy!
I'm sold on the idea now.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff