Air strikes against Islamic State/ISIS..

The irony is, that if Cameron had had his way, we might now be fighting alongside IS and against President Assad. A similar situation occurred with Al Queda, whom the Americans armed and trained before they turned on the West.

 

With such constantly shifting sands, is it wise to get involved at all?

Like it or not we are still a major power, and American is still the superpower. Do we not have an obligation to try and stop people getting massacred? We can't be everywhere (I don't know why we weren't involved in places like Sri Lanka and darfour.) but if we don't - who does? Do we just look at it as global population control?

......................................

---------- Post added 01-10-2014 at 14:58 ----------

Has anyone considered talking to these people? Is what they are doing any worse than what us and the French did in Palestine? Is forcing the creation of a Muslim state any worse than forcing the creation of a Jewish state?

 

I'm pretty sure the have killed less people than we did in Palestine, though I am posting this claim before verifying it.

no I don't think anyone as considered that charmer ,that is anyone who likes walking around with his head still on is shoulders.

send someone in and politely ask them to stop ?

That has never worked, genocidely speaking.

What did work was de-toxification. Giving another option more breathing space and nurturing that.

_______

---------- Post added 01-10-2014 at 15:01 ----------

The irony is, that if Cameron had had his way, we might now be fighting alongside IS and against President Assad. A similar situation occurred with Al Queda, whom the Americans armed and trained before they turned on the West.

 

With such constantly shifting sands, is it wise to get involved at all?

these people "isis" really are that bad. We really are morally superior to them. If they're allowed to hold on to the territory they've amassed and enlarge its boundaries they will continue to find reasons to murder large numbers of people who fail to fit their virtue template. There's nothing that gets their version of god clammily excited like a mass execution, unless it's the prospect of a terrified seventeen-year-old girl being made to submit to marital rape. It would be immoral to acquiesce in what ISIS have done by leaving them to get on with it.

......................................

 

---------- Post added 01-10-2014 at 14:58 ----------

 

 

 

 

no I don't think anyone as considered that charmer ,that is anyone who likes walking around with his head still on is shoulders.

send someone in and politely ask them to stop ?

 

That has never worked, genocidely speaking.

What did work was de-toxification. Giving another option more breathing space and nurturing that.

_______

 

---------- Post added 01-10-2014 at 15:01 ----------

 

 

 

these people "isis" really are that bad. We really are morally superior to them. If they're allowed to hold on to the territory they've amassed and enlarge its boundaries they will continue to find reasons to murder large numbers of people who fail to fit their virtue template. There's nothing that gets their version of god clammily excited like a mass execution, unless it's the prospect of a terrified seventeen-year-old girl being made to submit to marital rape. It would be immoral to acquiesce in what ISIS have done by leaving them to get on with it.

Yes I agree with that to a large extent, but then we get involved trying to help, and the whole of the middle east turns on us and blames us for the carnage. Can bombing ever deal with a terrorist/guerilla type war, where it's thousands of innocent people that get killed?

Yes I agree with that to a large extent, but then we get involved trying to help, and the whole of the middle east turns on us and blames us for the carnage. Can bombing ever deal with a terrorist/guerilla type war, where it's thousands of innocent people that get killed?

. I think given the choice between being left to their own devices to massacre half of Iraq and Syria, or being bombed into a position where they need to hide to avoid being dead, they would certainly chose the former.

These situations do not have easy answers. Just as action can have in unpredictable consequences, so too can inaction.

Given the nature of this group and the evidence of what they will do if left alone, I'd just like to see what an highly co-ordinated international military response to limit their ability to... exist would achieve

leave them alone?

Leaving them alone is also what they would undoubtedly want but What better way to get rid of Islamic extremists than have them drawn to an 'Islamic caliphate'? Rather than chasing round half the planet looking for extremists, you'll now find the majority of them exactly where the west wants them. With a large 'x' on them in the middle of nowhere.

But we are not repeating the same mistake, this time we going at the request of the Iraqi government to help them keep control of their country. Its an entirely different situation.

The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq didn't fail because they didn't have the blessing on the governments. They failed because the West does not understand the people, the culture or the realities of fighting in the region.

And it isn't just the West. The USSR went to war in Afghanistan too. They had plenty of planes bombing, tanks and hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground. They keep at it for 9 years before cutting their loses and giving up. How can the West have more success with just bombing from the air? How can they do better when the territory that ISIS hold in Syria can't even be attacked? How can they do better when they can't even bomb the towns and villages where ISIS are hiding because they can't afford civilian causalities? It is fantasy. Either go do it properly with boots on ground and prepare for a long stay (taking the spoils of war to compensate) or leave well alone.

The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq didn't fail because they didn't have the blessing on the governments. They failed because the West does not understand the people, the culture or the realities of fighting in the region.

 

And it isn't just the West. The USSR went to war in Afghanistan too. They had plenty of planes bombing, tanks and hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground. They keep at it for 9 years before cutting their loses and giving up. How can the West have more success with just bombing from the air? How can they do better when the territory that ISIS hold in Syria can't even be attacked? How can they do better when they can't even bomb the towns and villages where ISIS are hiding because they can't afford civilian causalities? It is fantasy. Either go do it properly with boots on ground and prepare for a long stay (taking the spoils of war to compensate) or leave well alone.

Our aim isn't to defeat them, our aim is to make it easier for local forces to defeat them.

Mod Note:

When linking to videos, please post a description and why its relevant to the discussion at hand.

Thank you.

Our aim isn't to defeat them, our aim is to make it easier for local forces to defeat them.

In Syria it is probably safe to suggest both of the major protagonists on the ground are pretty much terrorists. In Iraq it is more clear cut.

Our aim isn't to defeat them, our aim is to make it easier for local forces to defeat them.

The Iraq armed forces functioned under a dictator like Saddam because fear and brutality is a strong motivator and results in just the right sort of nasty and ambitious people coming through the ranks to maintain control. That is all gone and all that is left is a shambolic armed forces that do not want to fight and leadership that is too weak to compel them to. The fear-factor is gone, as we can plainly see. If you think that they will save the day with a little air support then your confidence is misplaced.

We need to leave alone or do it properly i.e. boots on ground, take over and take the spoils. Half measures (more like a 20th measure) will not work and will simply incur costs whilst directing trouble our way.

The Iraq armed forces functioned under a dictator like Saddam because fear and brutality is a strong motivator and results in just the right sort of nasty and ambitious people coming through the ranks to maintain control. That is all gone and all that is left is a shambolic armed forces that do not want to fight and leadership that is too weak to compel them to. The fear-factor is gone, as we can plainly see. If you think that they will save the day with a little air support then your confidence is misplaced.

 

We need to leave alone or do it properly i.e. boots on ground, take over and take the spoils. Half measures (more like a 20th measure) will not work and will simply incur costs whilst directing trouble our way.

According to these headlines it appears to be working for now.

Iraqi Kurdish forces have captured a strategic border crossing from Islamic State fighters in northern Iraq, as the militants were pounded by US-led air strikes.

Kurdish peshmerga forces backed by American fighter jets recaptured Iraq's largest dam from the Islamic State on Monday, in what US President Barack Obama called a "major step forward" in the fight against the jihadists.

Kurdish Peshmerga forces have regained control of the border town of Rabia, in northern Iraq.

Iran’s elite Guards fighting in Iraq to push back ISIS.

Iranian President Hassan Rowhani pledged his government’s support to help counter the threat posed by ISIS if the Iraqi government requested it.

---------- Post added 05-10-2014 at 09:15 ----------

 

or do it properly i.e. boots on ground, take over and take the spoils.

And that would alienate every Muslims on the planet.

According to these headlines it appears to be working for now.

Our strategy of interference (armed and otherwise) has caused the whole damn mess and increased extremism... how exactly is it 'working'?

And that would alienate every Muslims on the planet.

Then leave alone.

The Iraq armed forces functioned under a dictator like Saddam because fear and brutality is a strong motivator and results in just the right sort of nasty and ambitious people coming through the ranks to maintain control. That is all gone and all that is left is a shambolic armed forces that do not want to fight and leadership that is too weak to compel them to. The fear-factor is gone, as we can plainly see. If you think that they will save the day with a little air support then your confidence is misplaced.

 

We need to leave alone or do it properly i.e. boots on ground, take over and take the spoils. Half measures (more like a 20th measure) will not work and will simply incur costs whilst directing trouble our way.

My bold=

That won't be happening, the days of the british empire conquering other countries is history, we saw what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Go to war with the intention of taking the spoils (oil) and you will find that people who are against IS will end up supporting them against the invaders.