Bombing Syria

[Ironside]

Don't you think the whole debate on here and in the Chamber yesterday was about which "facts" each side chooses to believe?

This isn't going to fit well with your worldview, but you don't have a monopoly on correctness.

Wrong.

[RedRag]

The purity of the peaceniks arguments and their moral superiority, eh?

So sensitive that some accidental collateral damage might produce a reaction.

Insensitive however that targeted, non accidental and non collateral  murder might cause anything more than a desire for frank debate? 

Is it reasonable to hope for more than impeccable principles from friends or allies when being murdered with claims that we deserved it for our moral laxness in going to a rock concert?

This isn't about oil or money, its about defending (but not imposing, colonial-style) values, even at a cost to ourselves or innocents and we shouldn't apologise for our response in doing that with a UN mandate.

Aid workers are entitled not to be decapitated, tourists to go on holiday, city dwellers to a night out and peaceniks to their views

[herthab]

I wouldn't class myself as a 'peacenik', whatever that is, I served in the British Army and my son now serves. I'm against bombing Syria because I don't think it'll work. Just like our bombing of Iraq isn't working.
IS needs to be eradicated, that much is obvious. The disagreement is in the how.

[Ironside]

Wrong.

Seriously, that was not what the debate was about and it's ridiculous to suggest it was.

The debate was about the extension of the RAF operations. Nothing more, nothing less.

Talk about gullible idiocy...

[Red Frog]

Seriously, that was not what the debate was about and it's ridiculous to suggest it was.

The debate was about the extension of the RAF operations. Nothing more, nothing less.

Talk about gullible idiocy...

Yeah, what sort of gullible idiot would think we can rely on 70,000 moderate rebels providing the on-the-ground support for the air raids? Is that the sort of "fact" you were thinking of, o righteous one?

[SuperBosnian]

We've been bombing Iraq on and off for 25 years and what has that achieved? Nothing. Doing the same in Syria would be reckless and ill-conceived. Many innocent lives are lost and the pressing and prevalent issues are not addressed when the bombing comes to an end. The solution is simple, we need to offer more financial and military support to the Iraqi Army, the Kurds, and the Syrian rebels, under the premise that they commit to some sort of coalition/alliance.

Condition 1: No combat between the three factions.
Condition 2: They coordinate their attacks on ISIS, with Western sign off/approval needed on all offensives.
Condition 3: (in the case of Syria), The Kurds and Syrian Free forces must primarily focus their resources on ISIS for the time being, Assad will be dealt with later.
Condition 4: Transparency with the West, we have a reasonable modicum of control.

Getting the Syrian rebels and Iraqis to work together is feasible but getting the Kurds on board is difficult for obvious reasons.. The end game is that the Iraqis reclaim their territory, no problems there (the Kurds already have autonomy in Iraq and that will have to do for now). But in Syria you are left with a power vacuum through the heart of the country. This Kurdish-Free Syrian alliance would now be able to coordinate joint attacks on Assad, he would eventually be defeated by this coordinated effort. All the smaller factions would ultimately have to pick a side. A new Syrian nation is created but then you have a perilous situation between the Kurds and the free Syrians, the Kurds would want independence, the Syrians would be set against it. Kurdish autonomy is an option but there is definitely potential there for a new conflict.

The conclusion here is that there is no stand out solution to the ISIS/Syria question, the post-conflict reality in Iraq is manageable but Syria is a clusterfuck of the highest proportions. The scenario I've outlined above would at least be us trying to do the right thing, we'd be doing enough to put our minds at ease but not actively killing hundreds, if not thousands of innocent people with air strikes.

[Talk Talk]

I need a topic "ignore" button now methinks

We're just little people who have no influence on any of this and will unfortunately get blown to bits if we're in the wrong place at the wrong time thanks to the mad cunts in "power".

It doesn't matter if you're in the Middle East or in the UK. Roll the dice

[Ironside]

Yeah, what sort of gullible idiot would think we can rely on 70,000 moderate rebels providing the on-the-ground support for the air raids? Is that the sort of "fact" you were thinking of, o righteous one?

That doesn't contradict nor negate the validity of the argument in favour of extending the RAF scope of operations.

[Red Frog]

That doesn't contradict nor negate the validity of the argument in favour of extending the RAF scope of operations.

No, but it does nothing to reassure anyone who looks beyond your extremely narrow definition of what the debate was about.

[Reg Smeeton]

No, but it does nothing to reassure anyone who looks beyond your extremely narrow definition of what the debate was about.

Blair has been in the US pontificating on the "debate"; if he was eligible he'd prob win the presidency.  

His position is that ISIS with their doctrine of Armagidion time have millions of sympathisers in the Islamic world, so it's no use just killing the crocodile, but we'll have to drain the swamp.....namely fighting on the ground, in the Middle East, North and sub Saharan Africa, the Far East, Central Asia and in the ghettos of Europe.

Blair, is of course, relatively recent to Catholicism so probably genuinely believes this view of an apocalyptic future in the same way that Richard, Coeur de Lion and the Crusaders did.

[RedRag]

Blair became RC years after Iraq and Afghanistan

[4D]

I see a terrorist sympathiser has been stabbing people on the tube. Scumbag.

[Levi lapper]

The only winners in this nightmare are the arms companies and their shareholders. I wonder who they might be.

[Samdy Gray]

The only winners in this nightmare are the arms companies and their shareholders. I wonder who they might be.

Pretty much anybody with a pension.

[horlock07]

In case you don't understand...

"In case you don't know what's happening in the middle east.

President Assad ( who is bad ) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels ( who are good ) started winning ( Hurrah!).
But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State ( who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy ( who are still good.)

So the Americans ( who are questionably good ) started bombing Islamic State ( who are bad ) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) so they could fight Assad ( who is still bad ) which was good.
By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS ( which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.

Getting back to Syria.
So President Putin ( who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi ) has decided to back Assad ( who is still bad ) by attacking IS ( who are also bad ) which is sort of a good thing?

But Putin ( still bad ) thinks the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans ( who are good ) who are busy backing and arming the rebels ( who are also good).

Now Iran ( who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good ) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad ( still bad ) as are the Russians ( bad ) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.

So a Coalition of Assad ( still bad ) Putin ( extra bad ) and the Iranians ( good, but in a bad sort of way ) are going to attack IS ( who are bad ) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) which is bad.

Now the British ( obviously good, except that nice Mr Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad ) and the Americans ( also good ) cannot attack Assad ( still bad ) for fear of upsetting Putin ( bad ) and Iran ( good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS ( who are super bad).

So Assad ( bad ) is now probably good, being better than IS ( but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there ) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America ( still Good ) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin ( now good ) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran ( also Good ) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS ( still the only constantly bad group).

To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims ( Assad and Iran ) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good ( Doh!.)

Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal ( mmm.might have a point.) and hence we will be seen as Bad.

So now we have America ( now bad ) and Britain ( also bad ) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels ( bad ) many of whom are looking to IS ( Good / bad ) for support against Assad ( now good ) who, along with Iran ( also Good) and Putin ( also, now, unbelievably, Good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?

So, now that you fully understand everything, all your questions are answered." - author unknown.