Jeremy Corbyn

Ethan said:
OK, so senior military say they don't have the air capability and will need ground troops, but a guy on a golf forum disagrees. OK, time to attack!
Click to expand...

I believe they are both "former" military aides and have heard many statements from former military aides that have been false.

As I said when the UK military is asked to do something then they do it regardless of what equipment short falls they have - the guys and girls will keep the Tonkas going and active and their life will be extended to ensure their keep on mission - it's not the first time it's done and won't be the last time. When you work in the military for 20 plus years you witness the job being done even when not corrected equipped

And when did I suggest they wouldn't need ground troops as well ?

And I'm still yet to hear and alternative to presicion targeting to take out high value targets ? As our RAF have done of the decades with little collateral damage
 
pauldj42 said:
Apologies to Hobbit
Why are people on opposite sides labelled as Pacifists and Rambo gunho's, actually both want the same outcome, IS wiped off the face of this earth.
Took the time out to listen to Corbyn this morning and was actually a little impressed, especially with the question he was asking Cameron to explain and that is, how will the bombing of Syria make us safer in the UK?
In the long term it would, I've no doubt, in the short term, I genuinely believe it could increase the risk. I don't have the answer, none of us do, and I take points from a few on here that we need a mix of strategy.
Yes I think we should help in the bombing of IS Targets in Syria, we need to put immense pressure on Saudi and other Middle East powers to step up and thirdly we need to increase security both from a visible perspective and covert in the UK, also putting a lot of effort in getting all religions and faiths to clme together.
Click to expand...

No need to apologise to me. I'm up for nuking anything east of Corfu and west of Delhi;) I've increased the RAM on my X-Box!

Unfortunately, the political vacuum caused by Iraq2 has been filled by several different groups, and splinter groups, that want pretty much the same thing. ISIS, led by Al-Baghdadi, wants a Caliphate that stretches from northern Pakistan to the Atlantic coast of north Africa, i.e. an Islamic state. The major rule laid down is you succumb to ISIS and its version of Muslim law or lose your head, even if you are already a Muslim. And if you are an infidel...

The hoped result, by the western nations, of the Arab Spring was greater democracy in the middle east but, apart from a brief foray by Egypt, the opposite has occured. And now Europe wants to force regime change and put an end to the spread of the Caliphte. As the original aggressors, ISIS see the west as standing in their way, hence the attacks on europe.

Do "we" risk a terrorist attack of the proportions of the Twin Towers/Paris or a ricin attack on the tube? Do we risk that ISIS could buy a nuclear device? Or do "we" take a huge step back and let the locals sort themselves out?

So what happens if this great Caliphate comes into being and they control most of the world's oil? Do "we" push Saudi to lead an Arab Coalition in defeating ISIS? Bearing in mind 2/3's of Muslims in the region want a Caliphate, albeit it not ISIS led? Saudi are walking a tightrope. Do we want the collatoral damage of 25 yrs of flawed foreign policy to be our own citizens or do we, with a heavy heart, pull the trigger on innocent people in the region.

A half hearted response will only perpetuate the current crisis, and ignoring it will see the Caliphate come into being and the world's economies bounce around as the oil supplies become an even bigger tool/weapon than they are now. Irrespective of the benevolence or otherwise of the previous regimes we are to blame for the mess in the middle east. The answer; a world (UN) backed police force... God knows, whichever version that is?

With regard to the funding that ISIS has, its reported to be in the region or $2,000,000 a day. So bombing a few tankers and refineries won't do much to harm it. If the west continue with its current goal, boots on the ground will be needed. And to limit those casualties, a softening up campaign from the air is required.

Worryingly, you have Russia wanting one particular group in power and the west wants another. ISIS are hated by both. But what happens when western troops come into direct contact with Russia's troops... hopefully not a 2nd Korea.
 
Ethan said:
I will try to answer it once again, since it is not getting through the fog of war obscuring your vision and bloodlust.

This has to be sorted out by local regional actors, not the west. When it becomes sufficiently critical, Saudi and Jordan will get involved. Israel may do so too, although that would be much less welcome. We need to persuade them to bring that schedule forward.
Click to expand...
What do we do if they/will not/don't get involved.

I believe you'll find that Jordon is involved in air strikes and lost one of their pilots.
 
Hobbit said:
No need to apologise to me. I'm up for nuking anything east of Corfu and west of Delhi;) I've increased the RAM on my X-Box!

Unfortunately, the political vacuum caused by Iraq2 has been filled by several different groups, and splinter groups, that want pretty much the same thing. ISIS, led by Al-Baghdadi, wants a Caliphate that stretches from northern Pakistan to the Atlantic coast of north Africa, i.e. an Islamic state. The major rule laid down is you succumb to ISIS and its version of Muslim law or lose your head, even if you are already a Muslim. And if you are an infidel...

The hoped result, by the western nations, of the Arab Spring was greater democracy in the middle east but, apart from a brief foray by Egypt, the opposite has occured. And now Europe wants to force regime change and put an end to the spread of the Caliphte. As the original aggressors, ISIS see the west as standing in their way, hence the attacks on europe.

Do "we" risk a terrorist attack of the proportions of the Twin Towers/Paris or a ricin attack on the tube? Do we risk that ISIS could buy a nuclear device? Or do "we" take a huge step back and let the locals sort themselves out?

So what happens if this great Caliphate comes into being and they control most of the world's oil? Do "we" push Saudi to lead an Arab Coalition in defeating ISIS? Bearing in mind 2/3's of Muslims in the region want a Caliphate, albeit it not ISIS led? Saudi are walking a tightrope. Do we want the collatoral damage of 25 yrs of flawed foreign policy to be our own citizens or do we, with a heavy heart, pull the trigger on innocent people in the region.

A half hearted response will only perpetuate the current crisis, and ignoring it will see the Caliphate come into being and the world's economies bounce around as the oil supplies become an even bigger tool/weapon than they are now. Irrespective of the benevolence or otherwise of the previous regimes we are to blame for the mess in the middle east. The answer; a world (UN) backed police force... God knows, whichever version that is?

With regard to the funding that ISIS has, its reported to be in the region or $2,000,000 a day. So bombing a few tankers and refineries won't do much to harm it. If the west continue with its current goal, boots on the ground will be needed. And to limit those casualties, a softening up campaign from the air is required.

Worryingly, you have Russia wanting one particular group in power and the west wants another. ISIS are hated by both. But what happens when western troops come into direct contact with Russia's troops... hopefully not a 2nd Korea.
Click to expand...

Good post. With regards to your last para, it would never happen, we just send in James Blunt. (Sorry an Armoured Corps joke which I know many will know about )
 
Hobbit said:
No need to apologise to me. I'm up for nuking anything east of Corfu and west of Delhi;) I've increased the RAM on my X-Box!

Unfortunately, the political vacuum caused by Iraq2 has been filled by several different groups, and splinter groups, that want pretty much the same thing. ISIS, led by Al-Baghdadi, wants a Caliphate that stretches from northern Pakistan to the Atlantic coast of north Africa, i.e. an Islamic state. The major rule laid down is you succumb to ISIS and its version of Muslim law or lose your head, even if you are already a Muslim. And if you are an infidel...

The hoped result, by the western nations, of the Arab Spring was greater democracy in the middle east but, apart from a brief foray by Egypt, the opposite has occured. And now Europe wants to force regime change and put an end to the spread of the Caliphte. As the original aggressors, ISIS see the west as standing in their way, hence the attacks on europe.

Do "we" risk a terrorist attack of the proportions of the Twin Towers/Paris or a ricin attack on the tube? Do we risk that ISIS could buy a nuclear device? Or do "we" take a huge step back and let the locals sort themselves out?

So what happens if this great Caliphate comes into being and they control most of the world's oil? Do "we" push Saudi to lead an Arab Coalition in defeating ISIS? Bearing in mind 2/3's of Muslims in the region want a Caliphate, albeit it not ISIS led? Saudi are walking a tightrope. Do we want the collatoral damage of 25 yrs of flawed foreign policy to be our own citizens or do we, with a heavy heart, pull the trigger on innocent people in the region.

A half hearted response will only perpetuate the current crisis, and ignoring it will see the Caliphate come into being and the world's economies bounce around as the oil supplies become an even bigger tool/weapon than they are now. Irrespective of the benevolence or otherwise of the previous regimes we are to blame for the mess in the middle east. The answer; a world (UN) backed police force... God knows, whichever version that is?

With regard to the funding that ISIS has, its reported to be in the region or $2,000,000 a day. So bombing a few tankers and refineries won't do much to harm it. If the west continue with its current goal, boots on the ground will be needed. And to limit those casualties, a softening up campaign from the air is required.

Worryingly, you have Russia wanting one particular group in power and the west wants another. ISIS are hated by both. But what happens when western troops come into direct contact with Russia's troops... hopefully not a 2nd Korea.
Click to expand...

Good post Hobbit :thup:
 
How do you deal with a group who have been brainwashed into considering that it is their religious duty to kill anybody who does not believe in their particular version of Islam, and have significant military and financial capability?
 
Hobbit said:
No need to apologise to me. I'm up for nuking anything east of Corfu and west of Delhi;) I've increased the RAM on my X-Box!

Unfortunately, the political vacuum caused by Iraq2 has been filled by several different groups, and splinter groups, that want pretty much the same thing. ISIS, led by Al-Baghdadi, wants a Caliphate that stretches from northern Pakistan to the Atlantic coast of north Africa, i.e. an Islamic state. The major rule laid down is you succumb to ISIS and its version of Muslim law or lose your head, even if you are already a Muslim. And if you are an infidel...

The hoped result, by the western nations, of the Arab Spring was greater democracy in the middle east but, apart from a brief foray by Egypt, the opposite has occured. And now Europe wants to force regime change and put an end to the spread of the Caliphte. As the original aggressors, ISIS see the west as standing in their way, hence the attacks on europe.

Do "we" risk a terrorist attack of the proportions of the Twin Towers/Paris or a ricin attack on the tube? Do we risk that ISIS could buy a nuclear device? Or do "we" take a huge step back and let the locals sort themselves out?

So what happens if this great Caliphate comes into being and they control most of the world's oil? Do "we" push Saudi to lead an Arab Coalition in defeating ISIS? Bearing in mind 2/3's of Muslims in the region want a Caliphate, albeit it not ISIS led? Saudi are walking a tightrope. Do we want the collatoral damage of 25 yrs of flawed foreign policy to be our own citizens or do we, with a heavy heart, pull the trigger on innocent people in the region.

A half hearted response will only perpetuate the current crisis, and ignoring it will see the Caliphate come into being and the world's economies bounce around as the oil supplies become an even bigger tool/weapon than they are now. Irrespective of the benevolence or otherwise of the previous regimes we are to blame for the mess in the middle east. The answer; a world (UN) backed police force... God knows, whichever version that is?

With regard to the funding that ISIS has, its reported to be in the region or $2,000,000 a day. So bombing a few tankers and refineries won't do much to harm it. If the west continue with its current goal, boots on the ground will be needed. And to limit those casualties, a softening up campaign from the air is required.

Worryingly, you have Russia wanting one particular group in power and the west wants another. ISIS are hated by both. But what happens when western troops come into direct contact with Russia's troops... hopefully not a 2nd Korea.
Click to expand...

I agree that is a good post. But you have also explained the fatal flaws in the hawk strategy. First, that air strikes are only to soften them up for a ground offensive. That is clearly wher it would go. Then to occupation, presumably. Didn't hear David Caneron mention any if that. Second, that their ideology is shared by many. That predicts the difficulty of sorting it out from outside and suggests what a quagmire it will become. And the more western troops do there, the greater the risk of another Paris-like attack on the west.
 
Last edited:
Cameron says there are 70000 moderate rebels just waiting on the word to get stuck into ISIS.

Unfortunately, moderate rebels are only a couple of misplaced bombs from becoming radical rebels.

It's one big total mess and I don't think the government has a clue what to do about it apart from bomb them and see what happens.
 
Ethan said:
I agree that is a good post. But you have also explained the fatal flaws in the hawk strategy. First, that air strikes are only to soften them up for a ground offensive. That is clearly wher it would go. Then to occupation, presumably. Didn't hear David Caneron mention any if that. Second, that their ideology is shared by many. That predicts the difficulty of sorting it out from outside and suggests what a quagmire it will become. And the more western troops do there, the greater the risk of another Paris-like attack on the west.
Click to expand...

But would/should it be an occupation with a plan for regime change? Yes, the Caliphate ideology is shared by a huge amount of people but, as posted, they don't want something as radical as ISIS. The idea of a Caliphate might have some merit if, and its a huge if, it developed along the lines of an old fashioned Common Market. It would also put right the great wrong going back many years, i.e. just who drew the lines on the map that decided which country had which territory.

In truth, the only "police action" that actually worked was the Malay insurgency, and even that was brutal. Will this version work? Probably not. Will negotiating work? Probably not. Is it safe to do nothing? Probably not.

But, bearing mind who has the greater resources, who would wear who down first? Without a doubt there'll be more Paris-style attacks. Maybe a more robust action is required, but I don't see less being the answer.

Its going round in circles but without stepping up the action, what is the answer?
 
Hobbit said:
But would/should it be an occupation with a plan for regime change? Yes, the Caliphate ideology is shared by a huge amount of people but, as posted, they don't want something as radical as ISIS. The idea of a Caliphate might have some merit if, and its a huge if, it developed along the lines of an old fashioned Common Market. It would also put right the great wrong going back many years, i.e. just who drew the lines on the map that decided which country had which territory.

In truth, the only "police action" that actually worked was the Malay insurgency, and even that was brutal. Will this version work? Probably not. Will negotiating work? Probably not. Is it safe to do nothing? Probably not.

But, bearing mind who has the greater resources, who would wear who down first? Without a doubt there'll be more Paris-style attacks. Maybe a more robust action is required, but I don't see less being the answer.

Its going round in circles but without stepping up the action, what is the answer?
Click to expand...
Good luck getting an answer on this one😃
 
Doon frae Troon said:
Russians bombed a market place and town yesterday killing 40-60 civilians.
Strangely this is not being reported on the BBC.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I usually go to Al Jazeera News for things like this but cannot see any mention of it. Have you got a link. Or are you on about the bakery attack on Sunday http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/turkish-group-russians-targeted-bakery-syria-151130060654874.html
 
Last edited:
Doon frae Troon said:
So do I and I hope he sacks his front bench rebels if they vote for bombing.
With the Tory rebels, Labour, SNP and waifs and strays I don't think Cameron would risk a vote.
Click to expand...
And you think that's a good thing ?

Have you come up with an alternative workable action to tackle ISIL ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Crazyface
Train Tickets
Replies
1
Views
249
Lord Tyrion
Lord Tyrion
Crazyface
Mobile Phones HELP !!!!!!!
Replies
14
Views
718
Robster59
Robster59
Orikoru
AYRSHIRE THIS FRIDAY?
Replies
10
Views
809
Doon frae Troon
D
SwingsitlikeHogan
Rental Rights Act
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
jim8flog
jim8flog
Hobbit
Another footie thread
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
WorldHandicapSystem
W
Top