Syria air strikes

Tangled up in Blue · Dec 13, 2015

Tangled up in Blue said:
Let's face it, two years ago Cameron wanted Labour to support bombing in Syria to get rid of Assad.This time around it was to get rid of IS.

I'd say the Tories own war aims are rather confused.

Do they want to get rid of Assad or IS or both?

If the aim is to get rid of IS,how will bombing alone achieve that?

What are the Tory plans for a post-IS or post-Assad Syria?

Bielzibubz said:
Seeing as your so fond of bold i'll use it myself. Both. I would have thought that's pretty obvious to anyone that's been keeping up with current events these last few months. Obviously not.

Of course the aim is to get rid of IS. To suggest otherwise is to suggest Cameron is in favor of their aims and methods of achieving it. Surely even by your left wing center right hating standards that's pushing it a tad wouldn't you say.

I would hazard a guess that no one has a concrete formalized plan for Syria post Assad and IS because lets not beat around the bush here. This is a war. A non conventional war. As such it's forever fluid and changing. Therefore long term plans change accordingly and are made as and when they have to be depending on the circumstances at the time.

Now. I'll ask again. With a Chapter 7 resolution highly unlikely what would you do to halt the march of IS and extremist Islam baring in mind this is a war we are involved in whether we like it or not and doing nothing isn't an option based if nothing else on a moral standpoint.

Since, as you assert, Cameron's war aims are "both" to remove IS and Assad. you really need to explain why he didn't actually mention the latter as a war aim in the Commons, when he was calling upon MP's to back his plans to bomb Syria.

You also need to explain exactly how bombing IS positions in Syria contributes to weakening Assad's regime.Logically anything that weakens IS in Syria can only strengthen Assad's grip on power there.

It seems that it's not only the Tories who are confused about their war aims in Syria.You would appear to be too.

mrsblue · Dec 13, 2015

The story so far,

Turks bomb the Kurds,Kurds are fighting IS,IS are funded by the Saudi government,Russia are bombing anyone,Turkey shoot down Russian jet,France America and UK are bombing whatever,Kurds plead for weapons to fight IS but the west say no,Turkey's border to Syria remains the gateway for IS who happen to buy arms whilst flogging oil to the Turks,Syrian refugees flee Assad(so they say),Britain says no yo the refugees whilst Germany says yes by the truckload,Europe closes its borders to the refugees ,Paris is attacked by known gunmen,Sheghan looks finished whilst Greece sinks further down the recession route,Merkel is voted person of the year whilst Ban Ki Moon probably has the best job of them all,Cammy and Jezza look like the odd couple but lastly and thankfully the 2 Eds are out of everything .

Merry Xmas.

mrsblue · Dec 13, 2015

The story so far,

Turks bomb the Kurds,Kurds are fighting IS,IS are funded by the Saudi government,Russia are bombing anyone,Turkey shoot down Russian jet,France America and UK are bombing whatever,Kurds plead for weapons to fight IS but the west say no,Turkey's border to Syria remains the gateway for IS who happen to buy arms whilst flogging oil to the Turks,Syrian refugees flee Assad(so they say),Britain says no yo the refugees whilst Germany says yes by the truckload,Europe closes its borders to the refugees ,Paris is attacked by known gunmen,Sheghan looks finished whilst Greece sinks further down the recession route,Merkel is voted person of the year whilst Ban Ki Moon probably has the best job of them all,Cammy and Jezza look like the odd couple but lastly and thankfully the 2 Eds are out of everything .

Merry Xmas.

Bielzibubz · Dec 13, 2015

Tangled up in Blue said:
Since, as you assert, Cameron's war aims are "both" to remove IS and Assad. you really need to explain why he didn't actually mention the latter as a war aim in the Commons, when he was calling upon MP's to back his plans to bomb Syria.

You also need to explain exactly how bombing IS positions in Syria contributes to weakening Assad's regime.Logically anything that weakens IS in Syria can only strengthen Assad's grip on power there.

It seems that it's not only the Tories who are confused about their war aims in Syria.You would appear to be too.

See, there you go again. Twisting a post to suit your own over inflated intellectual ego and make it fit your response.

I don't believe I stated that his war aim was to remove Assad from power but please correct me if i'm wrong. Now, let's see if you can grasp the logic here shall we. The bombing of IS positions is not, get it, NOT aimed at removing Assad from power. It's never been stated as such by me or by DC. DC has gone on record as stating that his removal can only come via the will of the Syrian people.

And there in lies the irony. Bombing IS positions won't weaken Assad's position. I don't believe I or DC has ever said it would. The removal of Assad and the war against IS are two differing problems for the west to contemplate.

DC would like to see Assad removed from power. He'd also like IS wiped from the face of the earth. The latter we can have some influence over by contributing to the war against them. The former we can realistically have little influence in happening

Bielzibubz · Dec 13, 2015

Tangled up in Blue said:
I thought (according to Bielzibubz at least) that removing Assad was also one of Cameron's war aims?

Is he right in your opinion?

Please see post #324

Edit.....I should have perhaps read your post a little clearer. It was in fact you that called it DC's 'war aims' not me and I replied DC's aim was to see both IS and Assad removed from Syria. Perhaps I should have explained clearer at the time of replying instead of in post 324

Bielzibubz · Dec 13, 2015

Tangled up in Blue said:
Let's face it, two years ago Cameron wanted Labour to support bombing in Syria to get rid of Assad.This time around it was to get rid of IS.

I'd say the Tories own war aims are rather confused.

Do they want to get rid of Assad or IS or both?

If the aim is to get rid of IS,how will bombing alone achieve that?

What are the Tory plans for a post-IS or post-Assad Syria?

As to the what does DC want question? You answered your own question in your first sentence comrade.

Tangled up in Blue · Dec 13, 2015

Bielzibubz said:
Please see post #324

Edit.....I should have perhaps read your post a little clearer. It was in fact you that called it DC's 'war aims' not me and I replied DC's aim was to see both IS and Assad removed from Syria. Perhaps I should have explained clearer at the time of replying instead of in post 324

Yes you did.And yes, perhaps you should have.

Benfleet A1 · Dec 13, 2015

Tangled up in Blue said:
Yes you did.And yes perhaps you should have.

Smug ****.

rigsby · Dec 13, 2015

Tangled up in Blue said:
That was certainly why we ****ed up in Iraq.We'll **** up in Syria because we ****ed up in Iraq.

Tangled up in Blue said:
I've never suggested that Assad should be left "in place" in Syria.

The difficulty it that he has Russia's support (at least for the time being).

Clearly most Syrians (especially Syrian refugees)would be happier if Assad were deposed.

The question is, how might this desirable outcome be best achieved?

I knew that would at least get a response.

Most people who have studied the failure in Iraq say that the worst decision was to disband the Iraqi army. Of course once we decided to remove Saddam there was stacks of cash to be made by training a new, but of course ineffective army, police etc.

You have quoted Einstein, yet now you want to make the same mistake with Assad. Perhaps Syria should send ground troops into Britain. As only around 35% of our people have voted for those cruel benefit cutting Tories

Bielzibubz · Dec 14, 2015

Tangled up in Blue said:
Yes you did.And yes perhaps you should have.

Jeesus, you're a condescending prick aren't you. The type of guy that gets into pub argument for being a prick and then wonders for weeks why he got lumped.

Punctuation comrade, it's all about the punctuation. (sarcasm)

Tangled up in Blue · Dec 14, 2015

rigsby said:
I knew that would at least get a response.

Most people who have studied the failure in Iraq say that the worst decision was to disband the Iraqi army. Of course once we decided to remove Saddam there was stacks of cash to be made by training a new, but of course ineffective army, police etc.

You have quoted Einstein, yet now you want to make the same mistake with Assad. Perhaps Syria should send ground troops into Britain. As only around 35% of our people have voted for those cruel benefit cutting Tories

Wrong.Actually,only 24.3% of registered voters voted for the Tories in May.

http://www.conservativehome.com/hig...n-over-a-quarter-of-all-potential-voters.html

rigsby · Dec 14, 2015

Tangled up in Blue said:
Wrong.Actually,only 24.3% of registered voters voted for the Tories in May.

http://www.conservativehome.com/hig...n-over-a-quarter-of-all-potential-voters.html

Very unlike you to avoid a question by going of topic. But as we have I just like to point out if only 24.3% voted Torie it show's how poor the Labour party have become. You should listen to Einstein, instead of continuing with blind left wing ideology, have some policies the people might vote for.

Now back on topic....what will be the problems if you got your wish and removed Assad. Of course your not going to answer nor will any of your comrades because nobody left wing especially politicians can ever give an answer to any problem. Yes your al brilliant at being outraged and offended...Donald Trump, Marine Le pen, Tyson Fury, Farage, Tories, Royal family and even someone singing 10 German bombers. But even on the easiest of questions you avoid because your so frightened you might just for a second slightly agree with the people on here you despise.

Tangled up in Blue · Dec 14, 2015

rigsby said:
Very unlike you to avoid a question by going of topic. But as we have I just like to point out if only 24.3% voted Torie it show's how poor the Labour party have become. You should listen to Einstein, instead of continuing with blind left wing ideology, have some policies the people might vote for.

Now back on topic....what will be the problems if you got your wish and removed Assad. Of course your not going to answer nor will any of your comrades because nobody left wing especially politicians can ever give an answer to any problem. Yes your al brilliant at being outraged and offended...Donald Trump, Marine Le pen, Tyson Fury, Farage, Tories, Royal family and even someone singing 10 German bombers. But even on the easiest of questions you avoid because your so frightened you might just for a second slightly agree with the people on here you despise.

FYI, Rigsby, I think I can honestly say that I don't despise anyone on this list.

We're all SUFC fans,after all.

Massimo Giovanni · Aug 16, 2016

The bombing continues, the RAF are still flying combat missions and risking their lives.
A London Muslim girl has become an ISIL bride martyr and her two now married mates want to come back to the UK; to be tried for treason?
Turkey has gone "off the rails" and Putin seems to be acting with impunity.
Yet the story is largely unreported anywhere with only bare minutes of news time on poison gas (WMD?) bombs.
Politics sucks and journalism is the whore of Government policies.

Massimo Giovanni · Sep 25, 2016

And it carries on. Only hot air and spin comes from World Leaders.
The situation is all f###ed up.
Thank goodness that conventional UK military have been kept out of the murderous mess pit.

Massimo Giovanni · Nov 18, 2016

A few months on and now Mr Trump will soon be in charge of the US of A; and by virtue of that the LEAD in any West or NATO action in Syria.
I believe he will relax on Russia/Syria "official" government BUT will want to be banging away at ISIS.
It might not be a bad idea to deal with one problem at a time' get ISIS knocked to hell and then move to next target.

pottster · Nov 19, 2016

I've always thought that bombing really doesn't work. Would not a better idea to find out who funds ISIS and cut the funding. If you starve them they cannot function. Or am I stating the obvious?

Supernaut · Nov 19, 2016

pottster said:
Would not a better idea to find out who funds ISIS and cut the funding

I don't think the US want to upset their allies though...

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...s-funding-barack-obama-knew-all-a7362071.html

rigsby · Apr 23, 2018

rigsby said:
Nope you just confused me more. Are you now saying that you would be happy for a ground troops in Syria as long as it is UN sanctioned. If so should they be US, British or UN ?

Tangled up in Blue said:
Hopefully they would comprise those of all nations who signed up to a chapter 7 UN resolution including troops from Syria's Arab neighbours in the region.

rigsby said:
So I know you don't want to answer but would that mean British ground troops (and others) fighting ISIS in Syria

Tangled up in Blue said:
I have no problem with that as long as it's under a UN chapter 7 resolution.

rigsby said:
The first problem with the UN is that most countries wont commit any troops for action in Syria. Others like Denmark might contribute 60 or so troops but with a caveat that they can not leave their base and go on patrol (like Afghanistan). Other nations use all sorts of tricks to make sure their troops are never near the front line. So it will end up with US and British being killed yet again in the ME.

The second problem is that every military commander from any country who's troops are actually doing any fighting, will want air cover. Guess what air cover means.... air strikes.

At the moment at least a pilot can take his time to try and hit the intended target, he can even ask for confirmation or abort the mission. Of course with your own troops under fire as a pilot you have to act fast and risk collateral damage (civilians). Not to mention the fact that the first hiding place for a terrorist, from ground troops, is amongst women and children in cities and towns. Which of course means our boys and girls will have to kill plenty of innocents whilst pursuing ISIS.

So what your really saying is that you and Ken (military expert) Livingstones idea, is to kill even more innocents than anyone who has supported air strikes. Which you have always claimed increases recruitment for terror and makes Britain more of a target.

Oh dear tangled you are well and truly busted

Tangled up in Blue · Apr 23, 2018

rigsby said:
Oh dear tangled you are well and truly busted

Nope.I've consistently supported UN backed intervention in Syria (as has Jeremy Corbyn incidentally). We would both seem to agree (for rather different reasons) that it won't happen.That's all.

Syria air strikes

Certified Senior Citizen⭐

Banned

Banned

President

President

President

Certified Senior Citizen⭐

Hector Of The House

Life President⭐

President

Certified Senior Citizen⭐

Life President⭐

Certified Senior Citizen⭐

Old Timer⭐⭐

Old Timer⭐⭐

Old Timer⭐⭐

Schoolboy⭐

And I used to be a citizen⭐

Life President⭐

Certified Senior Citizen⭐

.

ShrimperZone Sponsors

ShrimperZone - Player Sponsorship

Southend United Away Travel

All At Sea Fanzine