Should parliament endorse UK air strikes in Syria?

First topic message reminder :

David Cameron made a characteristically fluent case on Thursday. But he did not actually answer the two critical questions that must precede any decision by Britain to initiate hostilities within Syria: namely, what is the political end game and what is the military plan to achieve it?

The first is incredibly difficult but not impossible. We need to drag all the interested parties around a table and hammer out a mutually acceptable solution.

If we are still a long way from a consensus, it is because most of the main players seem more intent on destabilising their enemies than stabilising their friends.

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have a history of enabling financial support for any jihadi group that attacked the Shia – including Isis. Turkey has facilitated the sale of up to a billion dollars of Isis oil, has held open the border for jihadi groups and their intelligence agency has supplied arms to jihadis in Syria.

We need to bang our supposed allies’ heads together and stop this nonsense. It can be done. The Arab nations are waking up to the dangers of their own activities, with the sacking of some of their pro-Isis ministers. Similarly, the Russians need to grip the Iranians.

And we have to stop obsessing about Assad. His regime is vicious, but so is nearly every active player in this conflict. The British government’s line smacks of a retrospective wish to justify its abortive 2013 attempt to bomb him. But the Syrian government still controls most of the cities and is the only plausible guarantor of the safety of all the non-Sunni communities threatened by a jihadi victory. The wisest course is to start negotiations on the future of Syria and Iraq without any preconditions.

The second unanswered question is even harder. What is the military plan? Since we cannot win with air alone, this reduces to “where will we find a pro-western army?”

David Cameron asserted that the “Free Syrian Army” commanded 70,000 troops. What this probably refers to is a disparate range of up to 1,500 different tribes and villages, in possibly 40 loose associations. Many of these operate under the control of Isis or the two essentially al-Qaida affiliates. Only the Kurds are in truth independent of the jihadis.

Exellent article by David Davis along the lines of what I have been saying. You can read the full article here....

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/29/should-parliament-endorse-uk-air-strikes-in-syria

David Davis is the Conservative MP for Haltemprice and Howden. He is a former shadow home secretary

sassy wrote:Well, there will need to be more now won't there, as there will be more refugees.  FFS, the world is mad and let's the likes of Cameron, Murdoch etc get away with it.   Murdoch part owner of Genie Oil, giving rights illegally for oil in Golan Heights, Syria, this morning saying, thanks Dave, more money in the bank, how much of it do you want!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, there will be more now. The Syrians can now say - well you wrecked our country so you should pay to look after us and compensate us.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:Well, there will need to be more now won't there, as there will be more refugees.  FFS, the world is mad and let's the likes of Cameron, Murdoch etc get away with it.   Murdoch part owner of Genie Oil, giving rights illegally for oil in Golan Heights, Syria, this morning saying, thanks Dave, more money in the bank, how much of it do you want!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, there will be more now. The Syrians can now say - well you wrecked our country so you should pay to look after us and compensate us.

And they're right. Another adorable consequence of war. Pure, unproductive destruction. A total waste, but...boys and their toys!

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, there will be more now. The Syrians can now say - well you wrecked our country so you should pay to look after us and compensate us.

And they're right.  Another adorable consequence of war.  Pure, unproductive destruction.  A total waste, but...boys and their toys!

Yes, these wars and the aftermath of them is costing this country a fortune. It's costing your country a fortune as well.

sassy wrote:No money for education.
No money for the NHS.
No money for low income homes.
No money for key public services.
Money for war.


Because it will bring in money for the oil industry, and it will bring in money for the arms industry, and we all know that that will bring in money to the likes of Cameron and Co.

I couldn't agree more, but you don't even have to go to the oil argument.

It's deontological.  These idiots just love their wars.  There's something in their psyche that needs the contest--the struggle--of war.  Muscle Christians...the Teddy Roosevelt complex?  Small stature?  Small dicks?  Something is present whereby they need to compensate.  If it comes wrapped in a strategy for gain, all the better.  But these day the strategy is more likely plain, dumb revenge.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

And they're right.  Another adorable consequence of war.  Pure, unproductive destruction.  A total waste, but...boys and their toys!

Yes, these wars and the aftermath of them is costing this country a fortune. It's costing your country a fortune as well.

Absolutely! The last Iraq adventure cost us $17-trillion. Man...we could'av had a party.

Original Quill wrote:

sassy wrote:No money for education.
No money for the NHS.
No money for low income homes.
No money for key public services.
Money for war.


Because it will bring in money for the oil industry, and it will bring in money for the arms industry, and we all know that that will bring in money to the likes of Cameron and Co.

I couldn't agree more, but you don't even have to go to the oil argument.

It's deontological.  These idiots just love their wars.  There's something in their psyche that needs the contest--the struggle--of war.  Muscle Christians...the Teddy Roosevelt complex?  Small stature?  Small dicks?  Something is present whereby they need to compensate.  If it comes wrapped in a strategy for gain, all the better.  But these day the strategy is more likely plain, dumb revenge.

I think there's a sense of obligation as well. When the Paris attack happened and the French vowed to get ISIS, I think that Cameron felt obliged to help them out.

As much as I do not have much time for frogs I believe we should hammer Isis and help them, I would expect them to help us but not sure they would.

The French did not help us over the Falklands, in fact they were supplying the Exocet missiles that sunk our ships!

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I couldn't agree more, but you don't even have to go to the oil argument.

It's deontological.  These idiots just love their wars.  There's something in their psyche that needs the contest--the struggle--of war.  Muscle Christians...the Teddy Roosevelt complex?  Small stature?  Small dicks?  Something is present whereby they need to compensate.  If it comes wrapped in a strategy for gain, all the better.  But these day the strategy is more likely plain, dumb revenge.

I think there's a sense of obligation as well. When the Paris attack happened and the French vowed to get ISIS, I think that Cameron felt obliged to help them out.

The very idea of 'obligation' begs the question of morality.  That we should do good for the French...I agree.  What is GOOD, is another question.

This is very much like the argument we used to hear during the Iraq war: we dishonor the dead soldiers by abandoning the mission.  The answer, of course, is that we honor the soldier--any soldier--by keeping him safely out of harms way. Not that there are not legitimate missions...but there is no honor in a fool's mission.

The French will little appreciate, nor long revere our efforts if they end up in a debacle.  If you want to create a monument to the French, go build a peace.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think there's a sense of obligation as well. When the Paris attack happened and the French vowed to get ISIS, I think that Cameron felt obliged to help them out.

The very idea of 'obligation' begs the question of morality.  That we should do good for the French...I agree.  What is GOOD, is another question.

This is very much like the argument we used to hear during the Iraq war: we dishonor the dead soldiers by abandoning the mission.  The answer, of course, is that we honor the soldier--any soldier--by keeping him safely out of harms way.  Not that there are not legitimate missions...but there is no honor in a fool's mission.

The French will little appreciate, nor long revere our efforts if they end up in a debacle.  If you want to create a monument to the French, go build a peace.

Obligation isn't necessarily about morality. We are close to France geographically and they are a member of the EU. We might need their help to keep potential terrorists out of the UK.

nicko wrote:The French did not help us over the Falklands,  in fact they were supplying the Exocet missiles that sunk our ships!

To be fair the Falklands was a territorial dispute between two country's

this is a global issue and it is at our gates as well

there is no comparison

Do you deny that the French were selling weapons to the Argies while the war was going on!?

nicko wrote:Do you deny that the French were selling weapons to the Argies while the war was going on!?

If that's the case, I would certainly take a dim view of that. It's one thing for them to not get involved, but quite another for them to actually help the enemy.

I believe the French had already sold the exocet missiles to Argentina before the war started. The French co-operated with us to track down where all theie missiles were sold and technological help on the best way to help defeat them.

nicko wrote:Do you deny that the French were selling weapons to the Argies while the war was going on!?

Do i deny ? eh

And so what the French sold weapons to the Argentinian Britain was offering to sell arms to the Argentinian dictatorship just three days before the invasion of the Falkland Islands so whats your point ?

The French did threaten along with Russia to veto the UN resolution to invade Iraq.

They were considered pariahs for that and many in the US felt betrayed by their decision.

Hilary Benn: Shadow Foreign Secretary says Labour won't back air strikes on Syria

Labour’s opposition to any British involvement in military action against Islamic State (Isis) in Syria has intensified, despite the massacre in Paris.

Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn said the co-ordinated attacks on the French capital, which left at least 127 dead, were an “act of war” – but all but ruled out backing UK air strikes in response.

He said that the idea of British action against Isis in Syria should be put to one side until the country’s civil war had been brought to an end.

Mr Benn, speaking exclusively to The Independent on Sunday, said that the Government should drop plans for a new House of Commons vote authorising military attacks in Syria to concentrate on peace talks and providing humanitarian support for refugees.

His intervention dramatically undermines David Cameron’s hopes of joining the United States-led action against Isis in its Syrian heartland. The Prime Minister, who insisted the French fight against IS was also Britain’s, has maintained he will not ask MPs to authorise RAF bombing raids in Syria until a “political consensus” has been reached.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hilary-benn-shadow-foreign-secretary-says-labour-wont-back-air-strikes-on-syria-a6734651.html

That was barely three weeks ago so what was that all about last night then? Was this a deliberate attempt to undermine Corbyn and possibly lauch a bid to oust him and put himself up for leadership?

Irn Bru wrote:The French did threaten along with Russia to veto the UN resolution to invade Iraq.

They were considered pariahs for that and many in the US felt betrayed by their decision.

I think that was different though. There was no evidence that Iraq was a threat to anyone else, but there is a threat from ISIS.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:The French did threaten along with Russia to veto the UN resolution to invade Iraq.

They were considered pariahs for that and many in the US felt betrayed by their decision.

I think that was different though. There was no evidence that Iraq was a threat to anyone else, but there is a threat from ISIS.

Oh I know and I'm not blaming them for doing it. Turns out they were probably right all alomg recognising the danger and lack of evidence - as did 139 Labour MPs who tried to stop us getting involved

Korban, you can't trust the French, never have,never will. Cheese eating surrender monkeys!

nicko wrote:Korban,  you can't trust the French,   never have,never will.  Cheese eating surrender monkeys!

LOL
Although a hypocriful statement in the same vain that all Irish are thick

In believe the french free army and resistance held back the Germans at Dunkirk so our lads could get away

no so much cheese eating surrender monkeys then i wager

but as a general rule ........OK

Apart from a few divisions who held back the germans,

the majority threw away their weapons and uniforms and gave up!

C'mon Korban,answer that one!

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The very idea of 'obligation' begs the question of morality.  That we should do good for the French...I agree.  What is GOOD, is another question.

This is very much like the argument we used to hear during the Iraq war: we dishonor the dead soldiers by abandoning the mission.  The answer, of course, is that we honor the soldier--any soldier--by keeping him safely out of harms way.  Not that there are not legitimate missions...but there is no honor in a fool's mission.

The French will little appreciate, nor long revere our efforts if they end up in a debacle.  If you want to create a monument to the French, go build a peace.

Obligation isn't necessarily about morality. We are close to France geographically and they are a member of the EU. We might need their help to keep potential terrorists out of the UK.

Yes it is.  The whole concept of obligation is a debt metaphor.  Lakoff & Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (1980).  A debt metaphor is called upon whenever we want to convey a moral to balance give-and-take.  That is, if someone gives you something you have a burden or bond to give to him back something of equal value.

The question of what is repayment(?) is also at issue.  You would not want to do harm to a person to whom you are indebted, so you give back, if not in exact kind, something that is of equivalent value.  Death and mayhem are not things you would trade with a mind toward benefiting someone.  So you widen the scope of your vision.  Peace is a much more valuable commodity.

The way you repay a comrade-in-arms, is to keep him or her out of harms way.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Obligation isn't necessarily about morality. We are close to France geographically and they are a member of the EU. We might need their help to keep potential terrorists out of the UK.

Yes it is.  The whole concept of obligation is a debt metaphor.  Lakoff & Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (1980).  A debt metaphor is called upon whenever we want to convey a moral to balance give-and-take.  That is, if someone gives you something you have a burden or bond to give to him back.

The question of what is repayment (?) is also at issue.  You would not want to do harm to a person to whom you are indebted, so you give back, if not in exact kind, something that is of equivalent value.  Death and mayhem are not things you would trade with a mind toward benefiting someone.  So you widen the scope of your vision.  Peace is a much more valuable commodity.

The way you repay a comrade-in-arms, is to keep him or her out of harms way.

I disagree. An obligation could be out of guilt, out of a sense of owing someone something, or having an eye to the favour being repaid one day - that's not necessarily to do with morality - ie, doing the right thing.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes it is.  The whole concept of obligation is a debt metaphor.  Lakoff & Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (1980).  A debt metaphor is called upon whenever we want to convey a moral to balance give-and-take.  That is, if someone gives you something you have a burden or bond to give to him back.

The question of what is repayment (?) is also at issue.  You would not want to do harm to a person to whom you are indebted, so you give back, if not in exact kind, something that is of equivalent value.  Death and mayhem are not things you would trade with a mind toward benefiting someone.  So you widen the scope of your vision.  Peace is a much more valuable commodity.

The way you repay a comrade-in-arms, is to keep him or her out of harms way.

I disagree. An obligation could be out of guilt, out of a sense of owing someone something, or having an eye to the favour being repaid one day - that's not necessarily to do with morality - ie, doing the right thing.

That is a dubious way of backing into the same concept: guilt is a value, albeit cast in less glorious terms.  In the debt metaphor, you took value, you must give back value.  If you are repaying kindness, you must be kind in return.

It is not kind to visit death and mayhem on somebody.  Better to give back something that is beneficial, as s/he benefited you.

Irn Bru wrote:The French did threaten along with Russia to veto the UN resolution to invade Iraq.

They were considered pariahs for that and many in the US felt betrayed by their decision.

Of course we did! We changed the name to Freedom Fries boycotted French Restaurants, French wine & cheese! How very dare they!

But now we stand with them so we can bomb the bastards! Vive la France!



SMH

Cass wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:The French did threaten along with Russia to veto the UN resolution to invade Iraq.

They were considered pariahs for that and many in the US felt betrayed by their decision.

Of course we did! We changed the name to Freedom Fries boycotted French Restaurants, French wine & cheese! How very dare they!

But now we stand with them so we can bomb the bastards! Vive la France!

SMH

Actually, turns out the French were correct in the original decision on Iraq. Had we not invaded Iraq, we would most likely have stability in the ME today.

Original Quill wrote:

Cass wrote:

Of course we did! We changed the name to Freedom Fries boycotted French Restaurants, French wine & cheese! How very dare they!

But now we stand with them so we can bomb the bastards! Vive la France!

SMH

Actually, turns out the French were correct in the original decision on Iraq. Had we not invaded Iraq, we would most likely have stability in the ME today.

Yes Quill. Sarcasm

I will throw my pennies worth into this.

First of all I read on one of the threads we are citizens of the world. I could not agree more. Yet the very same people are arguing against what fundamentally needs to be done to help are fellow citizens of the world.

Already over 200,000 people have lost their lives in Syria, due to indiscriminate shelling, airstrikes, suicide bombers, where in most cases countless crimes against humanity have been committed to civilians. The most pressing need now is to end this conflict by the swiftness and most decisive actions necessary. This will very much include airstrikes needed to support ground operations and destroying the fighting capabilities of Daesh. Putin has already stated that Assad will have to step down and elections are then to follow, once control has been brought back to Syria.

It’s no good arguing over who has committed the worst atrocities between Assad and Daesh, what is more pressing than anything else is to bring control and stability to Syria. To then now say we should not expand the airstrikes, of which is what is happening. As the UK was already committed to airstrikes in Iraq, is promoting a very precarious and unhealthy view point which only plays to the advantage of Daesh.

It seems some have readily forgotten that it was airstrikes that saved the Kurds from the brink of defeat at Kobani. Of course the Kurds had to do much of the fighting on the ground, but there is no way they would have been able to hold Kobani without the assistance of airstrikes. To argue off the possibility of collateral damage to civilians, to claim to deny action. When many are needlessly dying daily and even worse subjected to the worst abuses under the occupation of Daesh. Is again handing the initiative to Daesh.

This is a group that will go to any length’s to achieve its aims and arguing to deny action needed will only further their aims. Sadly it will mean that some civilian’s will die, but the resolve of defeating Daesh has to be our main purpose. To bow to the threat of terrorism or a fear to hit targets, will only allow Daesh to then place human shields to protect the infrastructure they require to function. Is this harsh? Yes, but this is war and people need to understand people sadly die in conflicts.

Now I read that someone states that the British bombing campaign which targeted German civilians, failed to achieve its primary objective. This is very true it did fail to achieve its primary objective of psychologically demoralizing the Germans into submission. However it certainly did achieve a tactical advantage inadvertently. The Germans withdrew many of their fighters to defend the Reich. This starved the war fronts of the fighters required to gain supremacy over the battlefield, which by D-Day, the Allies had total Air supremacy.

Now the tactics of the Bomber Harris, is far removed from what is trying to be achieved by the allies with the precision bombing which aims to minimalize casualties, so it really has no comparison to bring up to the airstrikes that are being committed to Syria and Iraq. Whilst on the subject of D-Day, tens of thousands of French civilians died in the bombing of the infrastructure and shelling on D-Day itself and after. This severely disrupted the capabilities of the Germans being able to bring up their armed forces, denying them the ability to have a numerical supremacy to launch a successful counter attack. It would have also been inconceivable to have not shelled the beach fortifications before the landing of allied troops or when there was local counter attacks launched by units of the Panzer Lehr and Hitlerjugend divisions. The shelling from the warships was instrumental in checking any such counter attack within the first few days.

I raise these points to show that people have to understand there will be some casualties within such wars which we have to sadly accept will be inevitable. What you did not see was the French, Dutch etc committing to blowing up and attacking the liberating allies on any scale we see with the likes of Syria or Iraq. This and many other conflicts helps understand it is not a grievance to the loss of life which then makes people commit to acts of atrocities. It stems far deeper than that, which is a view and hate of the west that has been going on for years.

People normally freed from oppression do not attack their liberators, when those liberators are not there to stay or control their land. It is a hate and a way of life at odds with our western values, which is driving this extremism, as well as an ongoing conflict between religious sects that has being waging for centuries. Has the west not helped by its foreign polices? Of course not, but this is not the reason which drives people to commit to such hate and attacks against the west when in reality they are trying to help people.

So people need to ask themselves, what they really believe. If it is a view of citizens of the world, then why is it those who views people this way, want to hinder as much as possible the chances to free our fellow citizens of the world. Some may not like foreign policies, but if the view is to stop a civil war that has waged and cost the lives of hundreds of thousands. Then that should have everyone’s support. To win this conflict which is growing into something far bigger means showing our resolve has to be greater than what can only be described as the greatest threat to our way of life, since WW2. That will mean some loss of life, which is something we have to accept, as the alternative is not something any of us would accept.

Because the citizens of my world who live in Syria are asking us not to bomb, because they are the people being killed and it won't stop Daesh.

Because, as even Boris Johnson said this morning, the whole premise of Camerons case, the 70,000 , don't exist.

Because, by using our heads there is a better way.

Because the so-called coalition are fighting each other.

And because I will not have the blood of one single Syrian child on my hands for a fight that can't be won by bombing.

How many of these citizens of Syria are there that are claiming to speak for the rest of the Syrian population?

What ethnic group or religious group are they?

I have seen reports of those freed from Daesh begging brothels to be bombed and destroyed to end the hell that people subjected to the worst forms of abuse by Daesh.

Again hundreds of thousands have died and airstrikes have helped from the brink of defeat the Kurds and others fighting Daesh.

Your view is a defeatest view that places the tactical advantage to Daesh.

It gives them such an advantages because they will not stop in their resolve to gain supremacy of the region.

That means sadly some civillian life is going be lost in the struggle to bring stability to the region. The alternative means the continuation and suffering of thousands.

Original Quill wrote:

Cass wrote:

Of course we did! We changed the name to Freedom Fries boycotted French Restaurants, French wine & cheese! How very dare they!

But now we stand with them so we can bomb the bastards! Vive la France!

SMH

Actually, turns out the French were correct in the original decision on Iraq.  Had we not invaded Iraq, we would most likely have stability in the ME today.

I thought they were correct at the time. I did wonder why they announced in advance that they would veto any attempt to invade Iraq though. If they had said nothing beforehand, wouldn't the vote have failed, and then Bush and co would have had no excuse to invade?

A lot of people in the US were pathetic with their stupid name calling. They clearly just believed everything they were told, and didn't bother to watch Colin Powell's presentation on the "evidence" for WMD.

Just my opinion but I think we should arm the Kurds with the latest weapons and give them all the support they need,they seem to be the only "Boots on the ground" that are taking the fight to IS with any success. But then what will they do with all these weapons when IS are wiped out?

The Kurds are regarded as terrorists, that's what I mean about a total fuck up, with no plan and no organisation.

nicko wrote:Just my opinion but I think we should arm the Kurds with the latest weapons and give them all the support they need,they seem to be the only "Boots on the ground"  that are taking the fight to IS with any success. But then what will they do with all these weapons when IS are wiped out?

We should arm some factions of the Kurds, who are not as a group defined as terrorists.
Some factions of the Kurds are definded as terrorists and it would be racist to define them racially as terrorists, as some seem to be advocating.
The Kurds are the ones really taking the fight to ISIS. Turkey has used excuses to hit them with Airstikes and there has been retaliation with terrorist acts. Any terrorist act should be condemned, but the Kurds are certainly not a global threat.

The Turks think the Kurds are terrorists, and the Turks are supposed to be our allies ...

Raggamuffin wrote:The Turks think the Kurds are terrorists, and the Turks are supposed to be our allies ...

The Kurds are spead out over Turkey, Syria, Iraq etc.
Certain Kurdish groups are classified terrorist but again to state a people are terrorists is racist beyond a shadow of a doubt.

It doesn't matter what's racist and what isn't. What matters is that there's no agreement on who is a terrorist, and where the main threat lies.

Raggamuffin wrote:It doesn't matter what's racist and what isn't. What matters is that there's no agreement on who is a terrorist, and where the main threat lies.

No, certain Kurdish groups are defined as terrorists.
To define a people as terrorist is racist.
So yes it does matter.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It doesn't matter what's racist and what isn't. What matters is that there's no agreement on who is a terrorist, and where the main threat lies.

No, certain Kurdish groups are defined as terrorists.
To define a people as terrorist is racist.
So yes it does matter.

It doesn't matter in this context. If we armed the Kurds in that area, they might use those weapons against the Turks, and then the Turks would do a Putin and accuse us of being the accomplice of terrorists.

There's not a lot of point telling the Turks they're racist is there?

Raggamuffin wrote:It doesn't matter what's racist and what isn't. What matters is that there's no agreement on who is a terrorist, and where the main threat lies.

The PKK are classed as terrorists by the EU and NATO.  Huge number of Kurds support them.

So we have Kurds killing ISIS, Turkey killing Kurds and shooting down Russian planes, Russia bombing factions that the US arms, US bombing hospitals, Assad barrel bombing as many as he can, ISIS still making a fortune out of selling oil (one thing that has been kept very quiet is that a Conservative MP has been accused of helping them sell it -
SHOCK: UK Tory MP, Nadhim Zahawi, caught selling ISIL Oil
Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=619_1437121336#sthash.BuwTROBA.uxfs#LLGimYqWArBDKiwz.99).  Anything else you can think of to add to the mix?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

No, certain Kurdish groups are defined as terrorists.
To define a people as terrorist is racist.
So yes it does matter.

It doesn't matter in this context. If we armed the Kurds in that area, they might use those weapons against the Turks, and then the Turks would do a Putin and accuse us of being the accomplice of terrorists.

There's not a lot of point telling the Turks they're racist is there?

Again arming the Kurds has been going on for sometime.
A Proportion of Turks have always been racist, they also hate the Greeks.
As the Greeks hate them.
So yes it is very important when talking of a people that they are not classed as terrorists.
It would be like saying the Irish are terrorist due to the acts of the IRA.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It doesn't matter in this context. If we armed the Kurds in that area, they might use those weapons against the Turks, and then the Turks would do a Putin and accuse us of being the accomplice of terrorists.

There's not a lot of point telling the Turks they're racist is there?

Again arming the Kurds has been going on for sometime.
The Turks have always been racist, they also hate the Greeks.
As the Greeks hate them.
So yes it is very important when talking of a people that they are not classed as terrorists.
It would be like saying the Irish are terrorist due to the acts of the IRA.

It's not important to me for the purposes of this discussion.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It doesn't matter what's racist and what isn't. What matters is that there's no agreement on who is a terrorist, and where the main threat lies.

The PKK are classed as terrorists by the EU and NATO.  Huge number of Kurds support them.

So we have Kurds killing ISIS, Turkey killing Kurds and shooting down Russian planes, Russia bombing factions that the US arms, US bombing hospitals, Assad barrel bombing as many as he can, ISIS still making a fortune out of selling oil (one thing that has been kept very quiet is that a Conservative MP has been accused of helping them sell it -
SHOCK: UK Tory MP, Nadhim Zahawi, caught selling ISIL Oil
Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=619_1437121336#sthash.BuwTROBA.uxfs#LLGimYqWArBDKiwz.99).  Anything else you can think of to add to the mix?

The Turks allegedly supporting ISIS.

Is anyone attacking Assad apart from the rebels?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Again arming the Kurds has been going on for sometime.
The Turks have always been racist, they also hate the Greeks.
As the Greeks hate them.
So yes it is very important when talking of a people that they are not classed as terrorists.
It would be like saying the Irish are terrorist due to the acts of the IRA.

It's not important to me for the purposes of this discussion.

And?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Actually, turns out the French were correct in the original decision on Iraq.  Had we not invaded Iraq, we would most likely have stability in the ME today.

I thought they were correct at the time. I did wonder why they announced in advance that they would veto any attempt to invade Iraq though. If they had said nothing beforehand, wouldn't the vote have failed, and then Bush and co would have had no excuse to invade?

A lot of people in the US were pathetic with their stupid name calling. They clearly just believed everything they were told, and didn't bother to watch Colin Powell's presentation on the "evidence" for WMD.

Which Gen. Powell himself admits was a joke. It was all speculation and innuendo, with a few lies thrown in for good measure. He said later:

Gen. Powell wrote:“I, of course, regret the U.N. speech that I gave,” he said, “which became the prominent presentation of our case. But we thought it was correct at the time. The President thought it was correct. Congress thought it was correct.”

The vote of the French announced beforehand was a veto vote. Five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States), have a veto on the Security Council, enabling them to prevent the adoption of any "substantive" resolution, as well as decide which issues fall under "substantive" title. It is common to state your position beforehand, if you are going to exercise the veto vote.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I thought they were correct at the time. I did wonder why they announced in advance that they would veto any attempt to invade Iraq though. If they had said nothing beforehand, wouldn't the vote have failed, and then Bush and co would have had no excuse to invade?

A lot of people in the US were pathetic with their stupid name calling. They clearly just believed everything they were told, and didn't bother to watch Colin Powell's presentation on the "evidence" for WMD.

Which Gen. Powell himself admits was a joke.  It was all speculation and innuendo, with a few lies thrown in for good measure.  He said later:

Gen. Powell wrote:“I, of course, regret the U.N. speech that I gave,” he said, “which became the prominent presentation of our case. But we thought it was correct at the time. The President thought it was correct. Congress thought it was correct.”

The vote of the French announced beforehand was a veto vote.  Five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States), have a veto on the Security Council, enabling them to prevent the adoption of any "substantive" resolution, as well as decide which issues fall under "substantive" title.  It is common to state your position beforehand, if you are going to exercise the veto vote.

He thought what was correct? I watched it and kept waiting for the evidence, and it never happened. It was a load of stuff about vehicles moving around as I recall, and not much else.

My point is that because the French announced in advance they would veto the resolution, the resolution didn't actually go ahead, and Bush fell back on the resolution 1441 instead. Had there been a new resolution which then failed, I doubt he could have done that.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:I will throw my pennies worth into this.

First of all I read on one of the threads we are citizens of the world. I could not agree more. Yet the very same people are arguing against what fundamentally needs to be done to help are fellow citizens of the world.

Already over 200,000 people have lost their lives in Syria, due to indiscriminate shelling, airstrikes, suicide bombers, where in most cases countless crimes against humanity have been committed to civilians. The most pressing need now is to end this conflict by the swiftness and most decisive actions necessary. This will very much include airstrikes needed to support ground operations and destroying the fighting capabilities of Daesh. Putin has already stated that Assad will have to step down and elections are then to follow, once control has been brought back to Syria.

It’s no good arguing over who has committed the worst atrocities between Assad and Daesh, what is more pressing than anything else is to bring control and stability to Syria. To then now say we should not expand the airstrikes, of which is what is happening. As the UK was already committed to airstrikes in Iraq, is promoting a very precarious and unhealthy view point which only plays to the advantage of Daesh.

It seems some have readily forgotten that it was airstrikes that saved the Kurds from the brink of defeat at Kobani. Of course the Kurds had to do much of the fighting on the ground, but there is no way they would have been able to hold Kobani without the assistance of airstrikes. To argue off the possibility of collateral damage to civilians, to claim to deny action. When many are needlessly dying daily and even worse subjected to the worst abuses under the occupation of Daesh. Is again handing the initiative to Daesh.

This is a group that will go to any length’s to achieve its aims and arguing to deny action needed will only further their aims. Sadly it will mean that some civilian’s will die, but the resolve of defeating Daesh has to be our main purpose. To bow to the threat of terrorism or a fear to hit targets, will only allow Daesh to then place human shields to protect the infrastructure they require to function. Is this harsh? Yes, but this is war and people need to understand people sadly die in conflicts.

Now I read that someone states that the British bombing campaign which targeted German civilians, failed to achieve its primary objective. This is very true it did fail to achieve its primary objective of psychologically demoralizing the Germans into submission. However it certainly did achieve a tactical advantage inadvertently. The Germans withdrew many of their fighters to defend the Reich. This starved the war fronts of the fighters required to gain supremacy over the battlefield, which by D-Day, the Allies had total Air supremacy.

Now the tactics of the Bomber Harris, is far removed from what is trying to be achieved by the allies with the precision bombing which aims to minimalize casualties, so it really has no comparison to bring up to the airstrikes that are being committed to Syria and Iraq. Whilst on the subject of D-Day, tens of thousands of French civilians died in the bombing of the infrastructure and shelling on D-Day itself and after. This severely disrupted the capabilities of the Germans being able to bring up their armed forces, denying them the ability to have a numerical supremacy to launch a successful counter attack. It would have also been inconceivable to have not shelled the beach fortifications before the landing of allied troops or when there was local counter attacks launched by units of the Panzer Lehr and Hitlerjugend divisions. The shelling from the warships was instrumental in checking any such counter attack within the first few days.

I raise these points to show that people have to understand there will be some casualties within such wars which we have to sadly accept will be inevitable. What you did not see was the French, Dutch etc committing to blowing up and attacking the liberating allies on any scale we see with the likes of Syria or Iraq. This and many other conflicts helps understand it is not a grievance to the loss of life which then makes people commit to acts of atrocities. It stems far deeper than that, which is a view and hate of the west that has been going on for years.

People normally freed from oppression do not attack their liberators, when those liberators are not there to stay or control their land. It is a hate and a way of life at odds with our western values, which is driving this extremism, as well as an ongoing conflict between religious sects that has being waging for centuries. Has the west not helped by its foreign polices? Of course not, but this is not the reason which drives people to commit to such hate and attacks against the west when in reality they are trying to help people.

So people need to ask themselves, what they really believe. If it is a view of citizens of the world, then why is it those who views people this way, want to hinder as much as possible the chances to free our fellow citizens of the world. Some may not like foreign policies, but if the view is to stop a civil war that has waged and cost the lives of hundreds of thousands. Then that should have everyone’s support. To win this conflict which is growing into something far bigger means showing our resolve has to be greater than what can only be described as the greatest threat to our way of life, since WW2. That will mean some loss of life, which is something we have to accept, as the alternative is not something any of us would accept.

Bumped for Cass


Night all

Hey Didge


J just typed out a long reply, got up to use the facilities and one of my cats walked across the kindle!!!!!!!! No idea what happened to my post. Good thing she is so damn cute!

Anyways I appreciate your view points but sorry I just don't agree. We cant save everybody - that sounds horrible and callous eand goes against everything I believe in my heart BUT its not realistic. We need to pull out and let them sort themselves out. Its heartbreaking situation but there it is.

I'm full of cold and been in bed and not feeling 100% so talk later.

Night all x