Is there a growing national consensus for action against ISIL?

Slowly it appears that the nation is gearing up to yet another military intervention in the middle-east. I might be wrong but it seems to me that there is a growing call for action on the ground against ISIL.

The difference this time, in my opinion, would be that it could well be a truly international effort. If it is truly UN led and the Russians, Chinese, Americans and most importantly the affected states themselves all take part as well as the EU/NATO than I could condone such a move. If it is to be a unilateral NATO action than I certainly couldn't.

........................ error error

Isn't "unilateral" NATO action a bit of an oxymoron?

Slowly it appears that the nation is gearing up to yet another military intervention in the middle-east. I might be wrong but it seems to me that there is a growing call for action on the ground against ISIL.

 

The difference this time, in my opinion, would be that it could well be a truly international effort. If it is truly UN led and the Russians, Chinese, Americans and most importantly the affected states themselves all take part as well as the EU/NATO than I could condone such a move. If it is to be a unilateral NATO action than I certainly couldn't.

I think that the days of NATO, Russia and China working together militarily are long gone.

Slowly it appears that the nation is gearing up to yet another military intervention in the middle-east. I might be wrong but it seems to me that there is a growing call for action on the ground against ISIL.

 

The difference this time, in my opinion, would be that it could well be a truly international effort. If it is truly UN led and the Russians, Chinese, Americans and most importantly the affected states themselves all take part as well as the EU/NATO than I could condone such a move. If it is to be a unilateral NATO action than I certainly couldn't.

yes there is, everyone i speak to is sick of nothing being done, although with our technology, we and the USA or UN should be able to target accurately the IS bases and take them out in a continued and heavy onslaught by air and drone no need for ground troops surely????

May I ask: could you please suggest what the British public (( + government + opposition + intelligence + army + police + etc )) should do both here in UK and outside, that you feel you would be happy with and can tolerate as a response and reaction to the recent event that hit those innocent sun bathers on the med

I can't. I don't think anything more should be done than continuing dialogue when it comes to internal friction. I think as a society we have made strides in the right direction but there is still some way to go. I for one was utterly confused by the sentiment of the three sisters and their children going to Syria 'because the UK is becoming more and more like the US' that suggests that conservative muslims seem to have more of an issue with political/economical progress than I had considered before.

Isn't "unilateral" NATO action a bit of an oxymoron?

Not in the global context, the NATO is one power-block in the eyes of others.

I think that the days of NATO, Russia and China working together militarily are long gone.

I hope not, and I am not sure it is. Russia and China too have issues with extremist islamists. One agenda does not necessarily exclude another.

yes there is, everyone i speak to is sick of nothing being done, although with our technology, we and the USA or UN should be able to target accurately the IS bases and take them out in a continued and heavy onslaught by air and drone no need for ground troops surely????

How much "collateral damage" is acceptable?

yes there is, everyone i speak to is sick of nothing being done, although with our technology, we and the USA or UN should be able to target accurately the IS bases and take them out in a continued and heavy onslaught by air and drone no need for ground troops surely????

A bit like the Americans' approach to North Vietnam? How did that turn out?

How much "collateral damage" is acceptable?

How much damage done by ISIS is acceptable before something is done? I'm with Sarah - wouldn't sacrifice a single troop against this lot.

How much damage done by ISIS is acceptable before something is done? I'm with Sarah - wouldn't sacrifice a single troop against this lot.

There's the problem, has any war been won without putting in the troops?

How much "collateral damage" is acceptable?

unfortunately as much as it takes, IS have no fear of collateral damage, you have to fight fire with fire, we cannot be frightened off by what might get caught up in it.

I hope not, and I am not sure it is. Russia and China too have issues with extremist islamists. One agenda does not necessarily exclude another.

I think that currently the West views Russia and China as the bigger threat than ISIL.