Today's HOC Vote

We have been bombing in Iraq against ISIS targets so why haven't the scenarios people mention happened already ?
 
Liverpoolphil said:
We have been bombing in Iraq against ISIS targets so why haven't the scenarios people mention happened already ?
Click to expand...

With all due respect, Iraq and Syria are 2 very different prospects.. In Iraq we have a semi sympathetic government (although they are now seemingly pointing the finger at the US for supporting ISIS). Syria is a total patchwork of factions and opposition groups, embedded into civilian areas. The ISIS training compounds are in inner cities, near schools and hospitals..
 
bluewolf said:
they could also very easily have bombed the oil trucks that are transporting the oil to Turkey (allegedly). In fact, the Americans could have destroyed the ability of Isis to fund itself via oil sales, but they haven't. Someone, somewhere is not telling us the whole truth.
Click to expand...

Oil sales is a minor part of the funding that IS is getting according to the analysis given on the BBC last night. The majority of the money is gained via illegal acts, extorting local taxes and their support base. The same way as the funding that Sein Fein/IRA operate under. They are relatively small but we have never been successful in pulling the plug there.
 
bluewolf said:
they could also very easily have bombed the oil trucks that are transporting the oil to Turkey (allegedly). In fact, the Americans could have destroyed the ability of Isis to fund itself via oil sales, but they haven't. Someone, somewhere is not telling us the whole truth.
Click to expand...

Someone, somewhere is making a hell of a lot of money out of the situation!
 
Hacker Khan said:
A scenario, a bomb from the RAF misses its target and kills 25 innocent children. One of the fathers of the children is so incensed he vows to take revenge on the west. A few years later he sets off a dirty bomb in the underground in London killing 100s of commuters and tourists.

Anyone can come up with hypothetical and fanciful situations that you can make as far fetched as you want to to try and justify an argument.
Click to expand...

Have to remember that we only have a limited number of highly accurate Brimstone guided missiles - to be launched from the Typhoons. Rest of the time UK will be dropping Paveway bombs - that the US have - and these are essentially 'bunker busters'. Not sure what UK does when the stock of Brimstone missiles is depleted - hang around waiting for manufacturer to deliver more I suppose. We could drop our bunker busting Paveways but not sure the HoC gave OK to go ahead for anything other than use of Brimstones as providing accuracy that other allies did not possess was core to the argument.
 
bluewolf said:
With all due respect, Iraq and Syria are 2 very different prospects.. In Iraq we have a semi sympathetic government (although they are now seemingly pointing the finger at the US for supporting ISIS). Syria is a total patchwork of factions and opposition groups, embedded into civilian areas. The ISIS training compounds are in inner cities, near schools and hospitals..
Click to expand...

One of the arguments put forward against bombing Isis in Syria was that it would increase the chances of an attack against us - but we have already been bombing isis , so we are going to continue to bomb ISIS just over the border.

In Iraq they have taken over towns and hid amongst the local population as well but yes the dangers of collateral damage has increased but that's where we need to trust the guys to do their job
 
Liverpoolphil said:
One of the arguments put forward against bombing Isis in Syria was that it would increase the chances of an attack against us - but we have already been bombing isis , so we are going to continue to bomb ISIS just over the border.

In Iraq they have taken over towns and hid amongst the local population as well but yes the dangers of collateral damage has increased but that's where we need to trust the guys to do their job
Click to expand...
I don't believe that the decision has put us in more danger. We were already in danger before. I think that what we have done is exactly what they wanted us to do. We've provided the propaganda to produce thousands more ISIS soldiers. For every one we kill, we'll create 10 more. We've become ISIS best weapon.
 
The now famous Brimstone missiles cost around £100-£105k each. Where on earth do we find this money from or are we just borrowing more? I know it is not just about cost but for many, me included, this move is about posturing and this posturing is costing us an awful lot of money that we keep being told we do not have.
 
A lot of people on this thread seem to be saying that bombing does nothing? Well that simply isn't true. ISIL has shrunk by almost a third since air strikes in Iraq started. In the 14 months we have been providing air support in Iraq we have seriously hampered ISILs advance (can people not remember the reports of them being only 40kms from Baghdad)? Without the air strikes the Kurdish fighters would not have been able to liberate Kobane, Sinjar and the Mosul Dam. When IS took Mosul they had the ability to move large forces across Syria and Iraq, they've lost that ability and now, as a result, IS forces in a city like Ramadi are completely cut off from reinforcements.

RAF Tornado's are responsible for around 60% of the tactical intelligence gathered over Iraq and they are equipped with Brimstone missiles. Brimstones are more sophisticated than the weapons currently being used by the US, Russia and Assad. The USA is using Hellfire's, which generate a large field of shrapnel when they explode, Russia is simply dropping bombs on targets without any guidance and Assad's barrel bombing everything and everyone. Brimstone's are designed to destroy its target with a contained explosion that generates relatively little debris. The RAF would most likely be tasked with attacking IS's upper tier leadership and command posts, most of which will be in Raqqa. The RAF is the best and least risky option for hurting IS's ability to command without inflicting massive civilian casualties.

No-one pretends that this is a total solution. Isis will not be defeated from the air but they can be damaged and restrained. No-one believes that a lasting solution can occur without co-operation between the regional powers as envisaged by the Vienna talks. No-one thinks that peace will not be sustainable without prolonged humanitarian and political support for some time.

IS needs territory, they want to build a viable state right now - not only to keep alive the idea of a caliphate but also because that's where most of their wealth comes from. That's being undermined, especially after they lost control of Iraq's largest oil refinery. If Western ground troops were taking back towns, cities and refineries then IS could spin it as Christian crusaders occupying Muslim lands but it's their fellow Muslims that are on the ground taking back IS occupied territory.

Some will join IS because of our intervention but given how brutal IS have been to the people they've occupied I'd imagine many times more of the local population will be happy to see the fight being taken to IS and will greet the Peshmerga/Syrian Kurds/FSA/Iraqi army with open arms when they come to kick IS out, similarly to how many Europeans greeted the Allies when they started to push back the German army in the mid-1940s.

We have no idea how long the diplomatic effort to end the Syrian civil war will take, the Vienna talks have barely got off the ground and peace talks have been on and off since 2011. Cutting funding and arms to IS will only have a limited effect as IS draws an income from taxing the people it occupies and has thousands of pieces of equipment they captured from the Iraqi army when they took Mosul. Airstrikes aren't a perfect solution, but the alternative appears to be to leave the Kurds, Syrians and Iraqis to duke it out with IS with neither side having an advantage. Military action to push back and contain IS while the politicians attempt to broker an end to the civil war is surely the only way to go.
 
The French guy who was held captive by ISIS said that the only thing that upsets/bothers ISIS is watching the millions of countrymen/women/children trying to get to the west. ISIS are so entrenched in their beliefs that they simply cannot understand why they wish to leave.
 
bluewolf said:
With all due respect, Iraq and Syria are 2 very different prospects.. In Iraq we have a semi sympathetic government (although they are now seemingly pointing the finger at the US for supporting ISIS). Syria is a total patchwork of factions and opposition groups, embedded into civilian areas. The ISIS training compounds are in inner cities, near schools and hospitals..
Click to expand...

Not wishing to sound too flippant but if you know where these compounds are please give the Air Vice-Marshal a call.
 
I hope no one minds but I'm going to bow out of this discussion now :D There's nothing else I can add and I suspect we're gonna start going round in circles soon. It's been very informative, especially regarding the capabilities of Brimstone missiles. Thanks for keeping it civil. :thup:
 
woody69 said:
A lot of people on this thread seem to be saying that bombing does nothing? Well that simply isn't true. ISIL has shrunk by almost a third since air strikes in Iraq started. In the 14 months we have been providing air support in Iraq we have seriously hampered ISILs advance (can people not remember the reports of them being only 40kms from Baghdad)? Without the air strikes the Kurdish fighters would not have been able to liberate Kobane, Sinjar and the Mosul Dam. When IS took Mosul they had the ability to move large forces across Syria and Iraq, they've lost that ability and now, as a result, IS forces in a city like Ramadi are completely cut off from reinforcements.

RAF Tornado's are responsible for around 60% of the tactical intelligence gathered over Iraq and they are equipped with Brimstone missiles. Brimstones are more sophisticated than the weapons currently being used by the US, Russia and Assad. The USA is using Hellfire's, which generate a large field of shrapnel when they explode, Russia is simply dropping bombs on targets without any guidance and Assad's barrel bombing everything and everyone. Brimstone's are designed to destroy its target with a contained explosion that generates relatively little debris. The RAF would most likely be tasked with attacking IS's upper tier leadership and command posts, most of which will be in Raqqa. The RAF is the best and least risky option for hurting IS's ability to command without inflicting massive civilian casualties.

No-one pretends that this is a total solution. Isis will not be defeated from the air but they can be damaged and restrained. No-one believes that a lasting solution can occur without co-operation between the regional powers as envisaged by the Vienna talks. No-one thinks that peace will not be sustainable without prolonged humanitarian and political support for some time.

IS needs territory, they want to build a viable state right now - not only to keep alive the idea of a caliphate but also because that's where most of their wealth comes from. That's being undermined, especially after they lost control of Iraq's largest oil refinery. If Western ground troops were taking back towns, cities and refineries then IS could spin it as Christian crusaders occupying Muslim lands but it's their fellow Muslims that are on the ground taking back IS occupied territory.

Some will join IS because of our intervention but given how brutal IS have been to the people they've occupied I'd imagine many times more of the local population will be happy to see the fight being taken to IS and will greet the Peshmerga/Syrian Kurds/FSA/Iraqi army with open arms when they come to kick IS out, similarly to how many Europeans greeted the Allies when they started to push back the German army in the mid-1940s.

We have no idea how long the diplomatic effort to end the Syrian civil war will take, the Vienna talks have barely got off the ground and peace talks have been on and off since 2011. Cutting funding and arms to IS will only have a limited effect as IS draws an income from taxing the people it occupies and has thousands of pieces of equipment they captured from the Iraqi army when they took Mosul. Airstrikes aren't a perfect solution, but the alternative appears to be to leave the Kurds, Syrians and Iraqis to duke it out with IS with neither side having an advantage. Military action to push back and contain IS while the politicians attempt to broker an end to the civil war is surely the only way to go.
Click to expand...

Very good post :thup:
 
The whole 'to bomb or not to bomb' debate was very good IMO and I think showed the UK parliament at it's emotive, passionate best.

Not wishing to go over old ground if it's been highlighted previously, but to me the moment it was made public that a significant number of terrorist atrocities planned in the UK - which would have no doubt killed hundreds of innocent people - had been foiled by our security services over the last few months meant we were perfectly justified to react.
 
PieMan said:
Not wishing to go over old ground if it's been highlighted previously, but to me the moment it was made public that a significant number of terrorist atrocities planned in the UK - which would have no doubt killed hundreds of innocent people - had been foiled by our security services over the last few months meant we were perfectly justified to react.
Click to expand...

I am not as willing to believe every statement put out by the govt and security services of this type. They clearly can not show the evidence of these, sources etc, so we only have their word on it. It is in their vested interest for people to believe this, govt gets its way, services get more money ploughed into it. Do I believe some of what they say, yes. Do I believe all of it, no. We must always question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top