Syria air strikes

[londonblue]

I've never ruled out air strikes as long as they're part of a chapter 7 resolution.

You can't be sure that a chapter 7 resolution won't happen until one nation (at least) has applied for it and is turned down.What then? Let's wait and see.

In about a year or so's time, I imagine you (and others) will have come round to the conclusion that air strikes without boots on the ground won't work.Which is where most of those who are opposed to the war are right now.

The problem with Syria is that no-one (including Russia) has an end game or an exit strategy worked out.

Sorry, but you can argue that both ways since you can't be at all sure what will or won't happen in the future. I thought you don't do hypotheticals?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Sorry, but you can argue that both ways since you can't be at all sure what will or won't happen in the future. I thought you don't do hypotheticals?

It's a prediction,not a conditional (or hypothetical).

 

[rigsby]

I've never ruled out air strikes as long as they're part of a chapter 7 resolution.

You can't be sure that a chapter 7 resolution won't happen until one nation (at least) has applied for it and is turned down.What then? Let's wait and see.

In about a year or so's time, I imagine you (and others) will have come round to the conclusion that air strikes without boots on the ground won't work.Which is where most of those who are opposed to the war are right now.

The problem with Syria is that no-one (including Russia) has an end game or an exit strategy worked out.

You and your comrades have said that air strikes are the reason we have a terrorist threat in the first place. By killing innocent Muslims and quoting Einstein etc.

Now you want air strikes and troops on the ground. Which will result in even higher numbers of muslims heading to Syria to join the Jihad. What exactly do you hope to a achieve ? What time scale would be acceptable ? What cost, financially and in numbers of dead troops ?

Still at least we will all be safe in the streets of London or Paris. I mean anyone planning to don a suicide vest or set off for a night at the theatre with an AK47 will think twice because..... well the chapter 7 resolution.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

I haven't really been keeping up with this but I think it's about time that the chaps at Syrian Air went back to work.

 

[londonblue]

It's a prediction,not a conditional (or hypothetical).

However arrogant you seem on SZ, I'm sure you're not so arrogant as to believe you can see into the future. Therefore what you have actually said is:

Q: "What happens if air strikes alone don't work?"
A: "Everyone comes round to my way of thinking"

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

However arrogant you seem on SZ, I'm sure you're not so arrogant as to believe you can see into the future. Therefore what you have actually said is:

Q: "What happens if air strikes alone don't work?"
A: "Everyone comes round to my way of thinking"

You don't appear to know the difference between the simple future (ie a prediction) and the second conditional (a hypothetical statement).Sounds like you need the services of a good TEFL teacher.:smile:

I made no such first conditional statement.Instead,I took it as a given that the bombing in Syria will eventually fail to reach the impossible (by bombing alone) target of removing IS from Syria. , (as it will-prediction).

You and your comrades have said that air strikes are the reason we have a terrorist threat in the first place. By killing innocent Muslims and quoting Einstein etc.

Now you want air strikes and troops on the ground. Which will result in even higher numbers of muslims heading to Syria to join the Jihad. What exactly do you hope to a achieve ? What time scale would be acceptable ? What cost, financially and in numbers of dead troops ?

Still at least we will all be safe in the streets of London or Paris. I mean anyone planning to don a suicide vest or set off for a night at the theatre with an AK47 will think twice because..... well the chapter 7 resolution.

At the moment the coalition are sensibly targetting oil field installions in Syria to cut off IS's money suppy.

Eventually,they'll try to remove IS from Rakka (prediction).

When they do,inevitably support for the bombing will start to evaporate, when civilian casualities occur (as they will-prediction).

 

[londonblue]

You don't appear to know the difference between the simple future (ie a prediction) and the second conditional (a hypothetical statement).Sounds like you need the services of a good TEFL teacher.:smile:

I made no such first conditional statement.Instead,I took it as a given that the bombing in Syria will eventually fail to reach the impossible (by bombing alone) target of removing IS from Syria. , (as it will-prediction).

How can you take it as a given unless you're telling us you can predict the future? "Taking something as a given" and then working out what will happen afterwards is no different than posing a "what if" question.

Split hairs if you feel the need but it won't wash.

 

[rigsby]

You don't appear to know the difference between the simple future (ie a prediction) and the second conditional (a hypothetical statement).Sounds like you need the services of a good TEFL teacher.:smile:

I made no such first conditional statement.Instead,I took it as a given that the bombing in Syria will eventually fail to reach the impossible (by bombing alone) target of removing IS from Syria. , (as it will-prediction).



At the moment the coalition are sensibly targetting oil field installions in Syria to cut off IS's money suppy.

Eventually,they'll try to remove IS from Rakka (prediction).

When they do,inevitably support for the bombing will start to evaporate, when civilian casualities occur (as they will-prediction).

You still avoid the fact that troops on the ground means more civilian casualties. Most of the innocents will have already left Rakka. IS will claim everyone who is killed was innocent even when they are blasting away with an AK 47.

The RAF or any air force won't waste a bomb on single houses with a few Jihadis hiding amongst women and children. However if those same jihadis are sniping at ground troops, then the house will be destroyed by tank helicopter or if they have to air strike. That is not an opinion, prediction or a hypothetical that is a fact.

 

[Beefy]

A ground attack is much more focused though. Bombing from the air without a clear, obvious strategy attached to it can be portrayed as being indiscriminate and as soon as the first bomb is dropped on the wrong building then we start creating more Jihadis than we're killing,

My preference would have been for us not to have got involved in this horrible, predictable mess in the first place but we did and we made it ten times worse and made ourselves ten times less safe than we were previously. That is done now and whatever we do from here needs to be really thought through with a plan in place for what happens after we succeed. I don't think any of that has been done. I don't think we know who we're supporting this week, I don't think we'll achieve anything without feet on the ground and I don't believe there's any sort of strategy for what sort of Syria will be left behind.

 

[rigsby]

A ground attack is much more focused though. Bombing from the air without a clear, obvious strategy attached to it can be portrayed as being indiscriminate and as soon as the first bomb is dropped on the wrong building then we start creating more Jihadis than we're killing,

My preference would have been for us not to have got involved in this horrible, predictable mess in the first place but we did and we made it ten times worse and made ourselves ten times less safe than we were previously. That is done now and whatever we do from here needs to be really thought through with a plan in place for what happens after we succeed. I don't think any of that has been done. I don't think we know who we're supporting this week, I don't think we'll achieve anything without feet on the ground and I don't believe there's any sort of strategy for what sort of Syria will be left behind.

Feet on the ground means more bombs from the air but for some reason some on here think we will send in troops and be able to end the terror threat in a nice polite PC way.

With six different groups all fighting in Syria, feet on the ground will be the biggest military blunder in the history of the ME. Lets face it there has been a few.

Western feet on the ground will create even more Jihadis than just bombing. Doing nothing and allowing them to have their fun murdering and raping children whilst funded from Britain and then allowed back into Europe with ease was a perfect advert for jihadi recruitment.

There is obviously no magic answer, which means no course of action on its own will be a success. So its easy to dismiss say air strikes for example.

A good option would be to back the Kurds who have been doing a very brave job fighting IS. This won't happen for political reasons. Why, because the most powerful men in the world gain more wealth if we have Western troops in the ME.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Sounds like you need the services of a good TEFL teacher.:smile:

Which of your rivals would you recommend then?

 

[Beefy]

Feet on the ground means more bombs from the air but for some reason some on here think we will send in troops and be able to end the terror threat in a nice polite PC way.

With six different groups all fighting in Syria, feet on the ground will be the biggest military blunder in the history of the ME. Lets face it there has been a few.

Western feet on the ground will create even more Jihadis than just bombing. Doing nothing and allowing them to have their fun murdering and raping children whilst funded from Britain and then allowed back into Europe with ease was a perfect advert for jihadi recruitment.

There is obviously no magic answer, which means no course of action on its own will be a success. So its easy to dismiss say air strikes for example.

A good option would be to back the Kurds who have been doing a very brave job fighting IS. This won't happen for political reasons. Why, because the most powerful men in the world gain more wealth if we have Western troops in the ME.

Yes feet on the ground would require bombing to support. I think most people haven't said that bombing is a no-go in any circumstance.

The point is that it would be structured around a clear military objective and as part of a long-term plan for a resolution. Right now we just seem to be dropping some bombs with no real idea of who the people are that we're supporting or what our strategy is.

No there is no magic answer but military action shouldn't be a reflex response. It should always be the absolute last resort.

 

[rigsby]

Yes feet on the ground would require bombing to support. I think most people haven't said that bombing is a no-go in any circumstance.

The point is that it would be structured around a clear military objective and as part of a long-term plan for a resolution. Right now we just seem to be dropping some bombs with no real idea of who the people are that we're supporting or what our strategy is.

No there is no magic answer but military action shouldn't be a reflex response. It should always be the absolute last resort.

The Syria problem has been growing unchecked for years and now after Paris we are at last resort.

We done nothing to stop money or recruits heading for Syria, we even talked about putting them on courses so they could settle back in England after a few years away murdering children.

Even on the zone just weeks ago if anyone said we should be tougher on ILEGAL immigrants entering Europe they were accused of racism, xenophobia or being a kipper. It is because of that sort of blind left wing ideology that we have had to resort to bombing Syria.

 

[MK Shrimper]

It is because of that sort of blind left wing ideology that we have had to resort to bombing Syria.

Yeah, must be it. Not the western greed for oil then?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Which of your rivals would you recommend then?

Ha! I can recommend quite a few (including my good self).:raspberry:Pm me for details!

 

[Benfleet A1]

Yeah, must be it. Not the western greed for oil then?

No it isn't.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Yeah, must be it. Not the western greed for oil then?

No it isn't.

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

 

[Beefy]

We'll **** up in Syria because we ****ed up in Iraq.

Yeah this. The Syria problem has been growing because of us. Yet anyone points out that really obvious truth is written off as a leftie.

 

[rigsby]

Yeah this. The Syria problem has been growing because of us. Yet anyone points out that really obvious truth is written off as a leftie.

Donald Trump has been called a lot of things this week but I certainly don't think leftie is one of them.

 

[Benfleet A1]

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

There you go again, predicting the future. What's saturdays lottery numbers as you're on a roll.