Let's Get Political!

[Abrahammer]

What Paul said really.

We can't roll over though and let them tickle our tummies so a bit of strategic carpet bombing to destroy some of the nasty cunts and their assets needs to be done.

They are probably going to do more shit to "us" regardless

[pauld]

The Kurds genuinely deserve our support, but supporting them means upsetting Turkey.

All the more reason to support the Kurds. The Turks and the Saudis are a big part of the problem in that region, and in the case of the Saudis the broader spread of militant sectarian Sunni terrorism (which is what ISIS is), but Western politicians daren't say so because they're our "allies". And of course we daren't bomb the Saudis because they're really well armed. We know that because we sold them the fucking things.

[Reg Smeeton]

What Paul said really.

We can't roll over though and let them tickle our tummies so a bit of strategic carpet bombing to destroy some of the nasty cunts and their assets needs to be done.

They are probably going to do more shit to "us" regardless

The US have already dropped tons of ordnance on Syria to little discernible effect....the revelation of a network of tunnels in Sinjar, probably tells us that ISIS have taken a leaf out of the Viet-Cong book on how to defeat the US.

Cameron is making a political decision rather than a strategic decision, there will be serious opposition to this from the people of Britain, let your MP know if you object.

[horlock07]

Cricket Ground.....Extension.....Athletics track.....Bowling green....old kiddy's park....green bit in Shrivenham Road....car park

It would be a planning nightmare with Sport England if nothing else to get any sort of permission on most of that, plus as the Council are land owners and would benefit from any permission granted it would need to go to the Secretary of State to grant permission.

Any developer with any sense would want such a conditional contract and the time take taken to achieve consent be so long that the land is essentially worthless to the Council.

If the Council want to raise some reddies now would however be a good time to the Trust to go to see the Council and discuss how much they may wish to achieve to get the liability off their hands?

If the rent is say £250k/annum  even with a c.8% yield its only worth just over £3m.

[jimmy_onions]

isn't strategic carpet bombing a bit of an oxymoron?
(or was that a joke?)
I saw a video yesterday about the collateral damage in syria, e.g lots of tiny children with horrific injuries caused by bombing. Not for the faint hearted.
I think that was more a result of assads or russian bombs, but either way. Does tend to focus the mind
What does 'bomb isis targets' actually mean? Its not as if they are all gathered at a huge hq.
I vote stay out this time.
My feeling is bombing is exactly the response they are after...

[pauld]

My feeling is bombing is exactly the response they are after...

No, what they want is a full-scale Western invasion. They genuinely believe that they are the agents of the apocalypse, the Biblical "end times" and they see a final confrontation with the West in Syria as the prerequisite to the end of the world. However, their batshit beliefs shouldn't necessarily preclude us from doing that if we genuinely think it is the right thing to do AND we actually have a proper "after the fighting" plan this time.

They also very much want precisely the reaction they've had from some here and on social media, of a broad backlash against Islam in general as they see that (rightly) as helping their cause as it helps create an "us and them" atmosphere that they've profited from so well in the Sunni vs Shia civil war in Iraq (and the West's abject failure to understand, much less manage that).

[Red Frog]

isn't strategic carpet bombing a bit of an oxymoron?
(or was that a joke?)
I saw a video yesterday about the collateral damage in syria, e.g lots of tiny children with horrific injuries caused by bombing. Not for the faint hearted.
I think that was more a result of assads or russian bombs, but either way. Does tend to focus the mind
What does 'bomb isis targets' actually mean? Its not as if they are all gathered at a huge hq.
I vote stay out this time.
My feeling is bombing is exactly the response they are after...

This. More bombing only answers the public urge for revenge which in turn creates victims whose families seek... revenge, and so it goes on. We've been doing this since the 1960s and when has it ever worked? What's that definition of madness? Doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome.

[jimmy_onions]

No, what they want is a full-scale Western invasion. They genuinely believe that they are the agents of the apocalypse, the Biblical "end times" and they see a final confrontation with the West in Syria as the prerequisite to the end of the world. However, their batshit beliefs shouldn't necessarily preclude us from doing that if we genuinely think it is the right thing to do AND we actually have a proper "after the fighting" plan this time.

They also very much want precisely the reaction they've had from some here and on social media, of a broad backlash against Islam in general as they see that (rightly) as helping their cause as it helps create an "us and them" atmosphere that they've profited from so well in the Sunni vs Shia civil war in Iraq (and the West's abject failure to understand, much less manage that).

Don't disagree, in more general terms an 'armed response' is part of what they are after, full scale invasion would be playing into their hands entirely, bombing is nicely stoking the flames a little

[Red Frog]

Don't disagree, in more general terms an 'armed response' is part of what they are after, full scale invasion would be playing into their hands entirely, bombing is nicely stoking the flames a little

Which is why it's important for any force to be a UN-sponsored broad coalition, including regional forces, rather than another US-led crusade.

[horlock07]

While this thread is at the top, Cameron today is outlining his case for bombing ISIS, 2 years ago, he wanted to bomb Assad to aid ISIS, now the other way around.

 I'm with Corbyn on this, let's keep out.   What say you TEFers?

I get the impression that Cameron is shitting himself to get this right after the activities of Blair, and the suggestions that he has rapidly gone from poster boy of new labour to war criminal - politicians are very aware of their 'legacy' Corbyn apparently more than most whatevere he may claim.

Tim Farron has written a letter to Cameron detailing what he needs to do in order to gain Lib Dem MP's and peer support...

In advance of your statement outlining your plan for military intervention against ISIL in Syria, we are writing to outline the criteria against which we will judge our response to your proposals.

As you will know our party has maintained a consistent position that airstrikes alone will not defeat ISIL in Syria. Deployment of lethal force should never be used simply as a gesture. It has to have effect, and to have effect it has to be part of a wider strategy, especially on the diplomatic front.

We are encouraged by the fact that the Government has at last decided to explain the details of that strategy and look forward to hearing what this is.

The five conditions below give the UK the best chance at having an effective strategy to counter ISIL and make serious progress in ending the Syrian civil war. We call on you to embed them into your plans before they are brought to the House of Commons on Thursday.

These conditions are:

1.   Legal

Military intervention must follow an international legal framework. We believe this has been provided by UN Resolution 2249 which urges members to take “all reasonable measures” to defeat ISIL.

This is the instrument with which all those opposed to ISIL have the means to coordinate military action to defeat them, including regional actors on the ground.

2.       Wider diplomatic framework including efforts towards a no-bomb zone to protect civilians

Any military action by the UK must be part of a wider international effort involving all who have an interest in defeating ISIL, as a prelude to ending the conflict in Syria, including Russia, Iran and Turkey.

The UK Government should use all efforts to ensure that the Vienna talks succeed in bringing together the broadest possible support for action to end the war in Syria and effect political transition.

In addition, we call on the government to explicitly work towards ending the Syrian regime’s bombing of civilianswith a no-bomb zone to maximise civilian protection and allow for an upscaling of humanitarian access.

3.       UK led pressure on Gulf States for increased support in the region

The UK should lead a concerted international effort to put pressure on the Gulf States, specifically Saudi Arabia and the Emiratis, to stop the funding of jihadi groups within the region and worldwide and do much more to assist in the effort to defeat ISIL, establish peace in Syria and help with the refugee situation. They are currently doing very little, despite claiming to be part of the anti-ISIL coalition.

ISIL is not just a Western problem, and this is one way of preventing them from framing the situation in that way.

4.       Post-ISIL plan

The government must be absolutely clear on what Syria and Iraq will look like post-ISIL, and what post-conflict strategy (including an exit strategy) they propose to give the best chance of avoiding a power vacuum. This must be linked to the above diplomatic framework which will outline steps for ending the wider conflict in Syria.

5.       Domestic

We acknowledge that the fight against ISIL is not just in the Middle East: it is within Europe and it is here in the UK. We call on the government to immediately publish its 2014 investigation into the Muslim Brotherhood and also call on them to conduct an investigation into foreign funding and support of extremist and terrorist groups in the UK.

We call on the government to step up its acceptance of Syrian refugees, and opt in to Save the Children’s proposal to rehome 3000 unaccompanied refugee children from with Europe.

[pauld]

Don't disagree, in more general terms an 'armed response' is part of what they are after, full scale invasion would be playing into their hands entirely, bombing is nicely stoking the flames a little

A full-scale invasion is the only thing that is going to get rid of them. Or at least troops on the ground anyway and so far the "strategy" of operating through limited proxies (a Kurdish force attacked by the Turks and hamstrung by our unwillingness to upset our "allies", the laughably inept and corrupt Iraqi army, Assad's murderers and various rag-bag equally murderous Shia militias) coupled with bombing has achieved jack-shit. If we want to get rid of ISIS by military means then we need to decide that we're prepared to do that and stay and sort out the mess after. And yes that means we need to be prepared for the body bags/pictures of POWs being brutally tortured and executed to come in too. But if we were prepared to take the casualties for some oil, neo-con hard-ons and Blair's mad ego for Iraq, this is a far more worthy cause. Plus we helped cause it so we kind of have an obligation to help sort out the mess we helped create.

Otherwise, we should sit at home and wait for them to go stronger and stronger until we can't dislodge them. Pretty much as we have done for the past four years, in fact. "Nicely stoking the flames a little" might sound nice but as Reg says, it's really just headline grabbing and political face-saving.

[Skinny Pete]

Just nuke the fuckers and get it over with

Whimsy!

[pauld]

I get the impression that Cameron is shitting himself to get this right after the activities of Blair, and the suggestions that he has rapidly gone from poster boy of new labour to war criminal - politicians are very aware of their 'legacy' Corbyn apparently more than most whatevere he may claim.

Tim Farron has written a letter to Cameron detailing what he needs to do in order to gain Lib Dem MP's and peer support...

In advance of your statement outlining your plan for military intervention against ISIL in Syria, we are writing to outline the criteria against which we will judge our response to your proposals.

As you will know our party has maintained a consistent position that airstrikes alone will not defeat ISIL in Syria. Deployment of lethal force should never be used simply as a gesture. It has to have effect, and to have effect it has to be part of a wider strategy, especially on the diplomatic front.

We are encouraged by the fact that the Government has at last decided to explain the details of that strategy and look forward to hearing what this is.

The five conditions below give the UK the best chance at having an effective strategy to counter ISIL and make serious progress in ending the Syrian civil war. We call on you to embed them into your plans before they are brought to the House of Commons on Thursday.

These conditions are:

1.   Legal

Military intervention must follow an international legal framework. We believe this has been provided by UN Resolution 2249 which urges members to take “all reasonable measures” to defeat ISIL.

This is the instrument with which all those opposed to ISIL have the means to coordinate military action to defeat them, including regional actors on the ground.

2.       Wider diplomatic framework including efforts towards a no-bomb zone to protect civilians

Any military action by the UK must be part of a wider international effort involving all who have an interest in defeating ISIL, as a prelude to ending the conflict in Syria, including Russia, Iran and Turkey.

The UK Government should use all efforts to ensure that the Vienna talks succeed in bringing together the broadest possible support for action to end the war in Syria and effect political transition.

In addition, we call on the government to explicitly work towards ending the Syrian regime’s bombing of civilianswith a no-bomb zone to maximise civilian protection and allow for an upscaling of humanitarian access.

3.       UK led pressure on Gulf States for increased support in the region

The UK should lead a concerted international effort to put pressure on the Gulf States, specifically Saudi Arabia and the Emiratis, to stop the funding of jihadi groups within the region and worldwide and do much more to assist in the effort to defeat ISIL, establish peace in Syria and help with the refugee situation. They are currently doing very little, despite claiming to be part of the anti-ISIL coalition.

ISIL is not just a Western problem, and this is one way of preventing them from framing the situation in that way.

4.       Post-ISIL plan

The government must be absolutely clear on what Syria and Iraq will look like post-ISIL, and what post-conflict strategy (including an exit strategy) they propose to give the best chance of avoiding a power vacuum. This must be linked to the above diplomatic framework which will outline steps for ending the wider conflict in Syria.

5.       Domestic

We acknowledge that the fight against ISIL is not just in the Middle East: it is within Europe and it is here in the UK. We call on the government to immediately publish its 2014 investigation into the Muslim Brotherhood and also call on them to conduct an investigation into foreign funding and support of extremist and terrorist groups in the UK.

We call on the government to step up its acceptance of Syrian refugees, and opt in to Save the Children’s proposal to rehome 3000 unaccompanied refugee children from with Europe.

That's really rather good, actually. And covers much of the "Shh, let's not talk about that" stuff that so far hasn't entered the rather puerile "discussion" of ISIS in the mainstream media.

[pauld]

http://newsthump.com/2015/03/09/boko-haram-offers-to-join-islamic-state-in-return-for-their-bank-details/

[Reg Smeeton]

That's really rather good, actually. And covers much of the "Shh, let's not talk about that" stuff that so far hasn't entered the rather puerile "discussion" of ISIS in the mainstream media.

Just a shme the LibDems have as many MP's as the DUP.