Back To Iraq.... Tony Considering send troops Even if USA does not?!?!!

The US may have ruled out sending troops on the ground in Iraq for the time being, but get ready #TeamAustralia: it's looking like we're sending them in. And hell, yelling at Russia over MH17 seems to be getting diminishing results now, so we need to do something to look masculine and dynamic on the world stage.

“This is a fundamentally humanitarian mission designed to protect innocent men, women and children from the murderous hordes that currently confront them,” Abbott said in what sounds pretty unambiguously like "we're going in".

And if we do go in, then we're probably in for a while.

The Islamic State forces now control a large swathe of the country, the Iraqi government is in complete disarray, and even if peace mysteriously returns to the nation there's little chance that the independent-in-all-but-name Kurdish regions to the north will not declare independence.

The US military are already doing most of their negotiations over airstrikes and humanitarian missions with the Kurdish leaders and it's hard to see what would motivate them to accept control from a centralised government that has failed to protect them and can barely even agree on a leader at the moment.

Australia is already involved in the aid missions to rescue the Yazidi people sheltering atop Mount Sinjar, explaining “We should do what we can to protect people from potential genocide… No one wants to stand aside in the face of a potential genocide.” So he's on message, at least.

And one could casually point out that a lot of the asylum seekers that we're currently refusing to process and are attempting to force to return to their own country are from Syria and Iraq - but then again, our concern for their wellbeing ends at their own national borders, thanks very much.

Irn Bru wrote:Does Tony have the authority to send troops to Iraq without getting approval from parliament?
No British PM could ever get away with that by going it alone and if Cameron tried it he would be gone in the blink of the eye.

gerber wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:Does Tony have the authority to send troops to Iraq without getting approval from parliament?
No British PM could ever get away with that by going it alone and if Cameron tried it he would be gone in the blink of the eye.

Good afternoon.

He tried to get Parliament to sanction intervention ii Syria.  two years too late !!!  They declined the motion.  can someone please do a BA and discuss the difference apart fro the media coverage

Handy Andy wrote:The IS problem is escalating exponentially.
There is no apparent solution apart from offering humanitarian help to the mountain folk trapped by IS, and assisting in their escape from the hell hole they find themselves in.
Are the US right to bomb IS ? Clearly that particular brand of Islamic extremism has no place in  civilised society, but for each IS rebel killed, 2 more will enlist. They want to create the Islamic Celephate across the cetral region of the globe, from Indonesia in the East, across Pakistan, the entire middle east encompassing Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordon, Egypt, across north and central Africa ans both north and south of the Mediterranean.
If they believe that is their God's will and their destiny, no one army will stop them.
Will they negotiate ?  No. Will they even listen to reason? No. Will guns and bombs stop them? No.
Will the removal of western influence from the Middle East stop them? Possibly.
I have no answer, but I don't think dropping arms to militarise the Kurds, dropping bombs or Tony Blair or Tony Abbott talking is the answer either.

Handy Andy wrote:I am all for the humanitarian part, Sassy, but I fear that putting troops on the ground, even in a defensive role to protect the trapped mountain Kurds and Christians is a dangerous manoever against a volatile and unstable IS force.
I see no easy answer, I am afraid.

Handy Andy wrote:The IS problem is escalating exponentially.
There is no apparent solution apart from offering humanitarian help to the mountain folk trapped by IS, and assisting in their escape from the hell hole they find themselves in.
Are the US right to bomb IS ? Clearly that particular brand of Islamic extremism has no place in  civilised society, but for each IS rebel killed, 2 more will enlist. They want to create the Islamic Celephate across the cetral region of the globe, from Indonesia in the East, across Pakistan, the entire middle east encompassing Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordon, Egypt, across north and central Africa ans both north and south of the Mediterranean.
If they believe that is their God's will and their destiny, no one army will stop them.
Will they negotiate ?  No. Will they even listen to reason? No. Will guns and bombs stop them? No.
Will the removal of western influence from the Middle East stop them? Possibly.
I have no answer, but I don't think dropping arms to militarise the Kurds, dropping bombs or Tony Blair or Tony Abbott talking is the answer either.

Sassy wrote:

Handy Andy wrote:I am all for the humanitarian part, Sassy, but I fear that putting troops on the ground, even in a defensive role to protect the trapped mountain Kurds and Christians is a dangerous manoever against a volatile and unstable IS force.
I see no easy answer, I am afraid.

I don't think they are considering putting troops on the ground, but sending out helicopters to airlift the Yazids out and giving the Kurds ammunition, they were taking ground back from the IS before they ran out of it.

veya_victaous wrote:

Sassy wrote:

I don't think they are considering putting troops on the ground, but sending out helicopters to airlift the Yazids out and giving the Kurds ammunition, they were taking ground back from the IS before they ran out of it.

UMm no Pretty sure Tony is talking about deploying SAS forces...

 ::rambo:: ::rambo:: ::rambo:: ::rambo:: 
Tony is rather Gun-ho  ::=|Q:: 

We could deploy a relatively small elite contingent with limited risk and potential to cause major disruption to ISIS.
I don't think that will bring about a long term solution but it could give the Yardiz and minorities a chance to escape the slaughter

Irn Bru wrote:Does Tony have the authority to send troops to Iraq without getting approval from parliament?
No British PM could ever get away with that by going it alone and if Cameron tried it he would be gone in the blink of the eye.

That doesn’t translate into a war lust or make the Prime Minister a war monger. But it does indicate he is has a personal makeup which would not shy from considering dispatch of troops into a conflict, if that was one of the options he faced.

The question has been raised by the Prime Minister’s comments in London yesterday when he said of military action in Iraq: “Well, we certainly don’t rule that out, we are talking to our partners and our partners, in this instance, are certainly much wider than simply the United States and United Kingdom.”
.......

“Protecting people from murder at the hands of ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) terrorists is a humanitarian cause. Trying to ensure that people are not exposed to terrorists who have been crucifying, decapitating, summarily executing people — who have been dealing in a hideous way with women and children as well as with men. This is a humanitarian cause and Australian has a long and proud tradition of assisting people in need.”