How should the UK government deal with IS?

[Deleted member 15344]

If you want to know the strategy of the RAF in Op Shader it's quite simple

Support local ground forces in their fights against ISIS by carrying out air strikes on strategic targets identified by intelligence

It's 4 Tornadoes and ground crew

What more does the public need to know than that ?

 

[FairwayDodger]

Adey, I obviously read too much into what was a throwaway comment. Apologies.

:thup:

 

[Old Skier]

Ah! Of course! All legit then - though not 'cleared by Security Councils', or at least not the UN one, anymore. Phew!

Why would it need to be cleared by the UN or it's security council. It's not the norm when request come from the country's government. What made this different in your eyes.

 

[Foxholer]

Why would it need to be cleared by the UN or it's security council. It's not the norm when request come from the country's government. What made this different in your eyes.

It wouldn't!

But it needs to be one of them in order to be 'legal' (I prefer 'legitimate' as describing conflict/war as legal doesn't seem right!).

Phil posted that it had been 'cleared by Security councils', which was not the case after 2004 - nor required as superceded by the request from the (interim) government.

Gulf 2, on the other hand, was neither requested, nor sanctioned by the UN Security Council, so was not legitimate imo.

 

[c1973]

I don't believe the public need to know anything about the armed forces top secret and/or black ops ...........











.......well, not until General Major Walton Smythe-Billington Moncrief publishes his memoirs.

 

[Old Skier]

It wouldn't!

But it needs to be one of them in order to be 'legal' (I prefer 'legitimate' as describing conflict/war as legal doesn't seem right!).

Phil posted that it had been 'cleared by Security councils', which was not the case after 2004 - nor required as superceded by the request from the (interim) government.

Gulf 2, on the other hand, was neither requested, nor sanctioned by the UN Security Council, so was not legitimate imo.

Not sure why you keep mentioning the UN or it's Security Council. As I previously suggested. When an incumbent government requests outside assistance from foreign combat troops there is no need for either of the UN bodies to get involved nor have they any say in the matter. The Afgan government request combat troops until the end of 2014 which was why the USA was negotiating with the Afgans for an extension which they have not got hence the withdrawal of all combat troops by the end of this current deployment.

Gulf 2 is another issue altogether.

Tellys boring tonight.

 

[Foxholer]

Not sure why you keep mentioning the UN or it's Security Council. As I previously suggested. When an incumbent government requests outside assistance from foreign combat troops there is no need for either of the UN bodies to get involved nor have they any say in the matter. The Afgan government request combat troops until the end of 2014 which was why the USA was negotiating with the Afgans for an extension which they have not got hence the withdrawal of all combat troops by the end of this current deployment.

Gulf 2 is another issue altogether.

Tellys boring tonight.

I'm not sure why you can't see that I know that! And agree that provides legitimacy. :sbox:

Afghanistan conflict pre interim Government was also legitimate. Can you tell me why?!

Likewise, what was the legal basis on which Gulf 1 was launched. Hint: It wasn't actually a request from Kuwait, other than a cry for help - guess where/how!

 

[Old Skier]

Afghanistan conflict pre interim Government was also legitimate. Can you tell me why?!

Resolution 1386 which was required as at the time no legitimate government held overall power. (Some could say that is still true)

 

[Foxholer]

Resolution 1386 which was required as at the time no legitimate government held overall power. (Some could say that is still true)

What body made Resolution 1386 then? (you are nearly there....)

 

[Old Skier]

What body made Resolution 1386 then? (you are nearly there....)

I think we all know which body was responsible. I may have miss read one of your posts but my understanding was that you didn't think that the continual involvement by ISAF after 2004 was not legitimate, if that's not the case then at least the last hour or so was entertaining for some.

 

[Foxholer]

I think we all know which body was responsible. I may have miss read one of your posts but my understanding was that you didn't think that the continual involvement by ISAF after 2004 was not legitimate, if that's not the case then at least the last hour or so was entertaining for some.

Got there! :clap:

You did indeed - 2nd sentence in #184! Or maybe (combined with) Phil's reference to UN SC in #148. And I don't think the 'not' before 'legitimate' is meant to be there!

Phil mentioned UN SC sanction in #148, I queried it in #155, you explained it in #165, acknowledged by me in #179, challenged by you in 183, Explained by me in #184, then you lost the (either or) plot and I went into Schoolteacher (Sergeant Major?) mode!

It was really all Phil's fault for being wrong in the first place! :rofl: Some bleedin' 'expert' he turned out to be! :rofl:

 

[RW1986]

I think we get to find out all that we need to know. Like what came out in the news today. Superb work by national security and the Police in this fight against terror.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29532703

 

[Foxholer]

I think we get to find out all that we need to know. Like what came out in the news today. Superb work by national security and the Police in this fight against terror.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29532703

That report seems to have been manufactured from very thin details!

In many ways, I hope the Security services have got it wrong, but if they were a threat, then great to see it being disrupted.Oddly slightly contradictory, words from Met Commissioner!