I'm not disagreeing with you, just saying that both acts will encourage reprisals. You know, the sort of reprisals people carry out in reply to an action they don't like.
I got the feeling that Ides was alluding to the fact that if we air strike (as we are going to do now, despite berating Russia for launching air strikes), then we'll be killing a lot of people, both innocent and terrorist, causing massive damage without any guarantee of killing the leaders/main players. This could (as we've seen in Vietnam, Iraq and even Afghanistan to an extent) turn the a majority of the populace against us and encourage more locals to become extremists. Thus raising the possibility of retaliatory attacks. If you be smart and take out the heads of the organisation while curtailing their supply lines and their ability to move, then you'll take away a huge amount of their power and they won't be concentrating on making attacks on foreign soil. The local populace may rise up in support of you instead because of this - which may help create a lasting peace...
There's no easy solution, but to me air strikes are so randomly brutal and cause extensive damage to civilians, their homes, roads, schools, hospitals and general infrastructure, and they still don't guarantee success. I think the main approach should be to shut down the supply lines to Isis in terms of money, oil, arms etc which is all facilitated by western banking system and private individuals and corporations. I also think there should be some military action, but that it should be special forces supporting local militia to take out key Isis leaders and planners. If you remove the system of leadership and the means for Isis to generate income and buy arms etc, then the group will crumble.
I didn't say that. I actually said; "ISIS are an issue, but not as big a problem as Assad." Asking a rhetorical question by paraphrasing something I didn't say is a bit low of you, Cym. And it makes the rest of your point moot. So let me get this straight. Even when I have given you evidence of the crimes committed by Assad and the role he has played in the creation of ISIS, you are still saying they're a bigger issue than Assad? Amazing. I genuinely don't know what to say to that.
Of the 2, ISIS is the trickier issue to tackle. We need to ally ourselves with Russia and Assad if needs be in order to eradicate them. Once accomplished, we can turn our efforts back to sorting Assad out. We know who he is, where he lives, the colour of his uniform etc. He will be much easier to find than ISIS' leaders when the time comes.
These are the Amnesty International report I mentioned on militia and ISIS abuses in Iraq, but they gives a good idea of what is going on there - http://www.amnesty.org.uk/iraq-rise-militia-rule http://www.amnesty.org.uk/blogs/cou...ian-violence-against-civilians-continues-iraq
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/sites/default/files/absolute_impunity_iraq_report.pdf Here is the report. It is absolutely sickening, poor people - I can't imagine trying to survive in those sorts of conditions. Similar things are going on in Syria and you have some idiots here calling refugees 'cowards' and saying they should fight instead of fleeing the air strikes, bombings, abductions, tortures, murders from all sides of the conflict. It seems very similar to things that went on in Guatemala in the 80s and 60s and in other Latin American countries during the 70s (all backed by the US government).
Assad isn't the one who bombed a Russian airliner,murdered 129 people in Paris,murdered 42 in Beirut and to that you can add Tunisia,the beheading of the Coptic Christians in Libya etc.etc.
I don't think we should be comparing the two. At the end of the day, oppression comes in different formats but it's still all the same in my book. One uses aerial bombs and the others use an axe but they all have the same outcomes. To have any chance of stopping this is to stop those who support corrupt regimes and individuals. Easier said than done...
I love the thought behind this, this is the kind **** that's got us where we are today, what if Assad has the same thoughts we use USA/UK/France get rid of the rebels and then bust them bastards? I don't like the idea of use and abuse, then more ****s happens. We either stand up for what is right or we don't go there at all. I just don't understand why we pick and choose which right and who's right we speak out about.
What part of the world shall we start with to stop supporting corrupt regimes ?There are corrupt regimes in the majority of continents of the World and that includes Europe
We have to keep our own house in order and stop supporting corrupt regimes. There is nothing wrong with reaching for the best things in life, but you have to live properly and that means, living ethically. Sometimes you have to bite the bullet and try and change. What kind of world will we leave future generations if we continue to live so immorally? It will be a hell hole of a world to live in.
who is advocating any of that? your suggestion was to become allies with Assad to get rid of ISIS and then work on Assad! Why don't we ever sort out one mess we create before going around to create another mess! Iraq, Libya, Palestine etc etc.........
You're just ignoring what I'm saying and repeating the same stuff. I think it's best we leave it there because we're not getting anywhere
When Labour came to power in 1997 the late Robin Cooke talked of introducing an ethical foreign policy and was pilloried for it.How many of us here look at our pension schemes to see where that money is being invested,how many actually care as long as we're making money ?
BrunelGooner and GoonerCymraeg - I think we should all agree that ISIS and Assad are both horrible and hugely dangerous - but that neither are as dangerous to us than Ian Duncan Smith and George Osbourne...
