Also don't compare it to the Falklands which was an act of war by another country against sovereign territory.
Seems Cameron will get his way and will be able to look big in front of his mates. Our joining the bombing in Syria is nothing more than a gesture, it seems to me, and won't actually change anything.
It's not actually a thing anyway. We're already carrying out airstrikes against them in Iraq, this just means we don't have to stop at a border that IS don't themselves recognise. As it stands, we're like Sheriff Roscoe P Coltrane and Cletus against the Duke Boys - once they's across that county line, ain't nothing we can do... That's clearly ridiculous. However Corbyn is making it out to be a bomb / no bomb debate, and that's very disingenuous...
We do lots of things as gestures as individuals, groups, companies, nations. They may not change things but they are still important. The next big gesture will be to send troops, but that won't happen while Obama is President.
If Cameron had got his way last time, we'd have been bombing Assad's forces - effectively supporting IS.
I agree it would have been hard to justify that on the grounds of the defence of this country. More on the Bosnia principle but if you follow that too rigidly, you'd be bombing in every part of the Middle East. Daesh is different. They pose a threat to Western countries, particularly in Europe due to the diaspora from the Middle East and Africa. I think Chaz is right that it's entirely logical to extend our air missions into Syria - but bombing won't solve anything alone. Daesh have to be starved of cash. Someone is buying Iraq's oil from them. If you believe George Galloway, it's the Turks. Someone is supplying them with arms. If you believe Ken Livingstone, it's Saudi Arabia. We need to get the facts rather than rely on Galloway and Livingstone.
The situation is crazy and dangerous. We have seen after Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya that our intervention serves only to create a power vacuum into which such ghastly hordes as ISIS will occupy. Yet the only solution our useless leaders can come up with time and time again is more of the same. Do they really think the outcome this time will be any different and, if so, how? It seems to me that a better course of action in such territories is to let the lesser of two (or more) evils get on with it. Does anybody seriously believe that what we have now is better than the days of Saddam or Gaddhafi? Putting aside the lot of their own people - which I'm afraid we must - does anybody feel any safer now?
****ing hell I've just 'liked' a politics post from Goldie. I'm looking forward to Jezza opening tomorrow's debate against the military action and Hilary Benn closing it for Labour for the action, doubtless with his Dad spinning at 1,000rpm.
I agree with your sentiment. However, the bombing of IS in their stronghold will lessen their effectiveness and I can assure you that there are a few (SF) boots already on the ground in Syria. Once the bombing has gone as far as it can we simply have to finish the job with a coalition force on the ground. This is incredibly complicated though, with Putin's backing of Assad! Two things I'm sure of though: 1) We simply HAVE to wipe out IS. 2) We are in mortal danger from them right now, regardless of whether we bomb them in Syria or not (we're already bombing them in Iraq).
We were once told that Mullah Omar and his evil henchmen were Public Enemy Number One. We were once told that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that he could deploy on the West inside an hour. We were once told that Al Qaeda was the greatest threat to us and that killing Bin Laden would eradicate that threat. We were once told that assisting in the overthrow of Gaddhafi would make Libya a much better place. We were once told that we should support the overthrow of Assad and that this would make those ever so nice people fighting him eternally grateful and love us to bits. I'm hope our political masters actually get it right this time.
Please tell me who told you that killing Bin Laden would eradicate the threat posed by Al Qaeda? If you can't do that then I would say that is proof of the idiocy of the anti-Syrian but not so bothered about Iraq air strike campaigners. Because a lot of what you say is hyperbole. I don't understand the argument that if we are tracking a car containing known IS members, as happened with Jihadi John you don't want a bomb dropped on that car. If that car contains other IS members who decapitate people, who throw gays off building, who keep and torture Yazidi girls as sex slaves you would rather not bomb that car. These are the same men who would fight and kill moderate fighters within Syria. But you don't want to help them. If a convoy of tankers containing oil are on there way for sale to fund IS, you don't want to blow up those vehicles etc etc etc Targeted air strikes on specific targets won't solve the problem. But it will help restrain the problem while the other components are put in place. Unfortunately for me that solution means Assad being left in control for a transition period and parts of the country being handed over to the Kurds If you disagree with Assad staying but also want to wash your hands of it and not have Britain involved in air strikes then what right or prospect does Britain have of influencing the process over those who are involved
Saddam(Iraq), Bin Laden(Afganistan), Gaddhafi(Libya) we got involved in all of those rightly or wrongly and we did not against Assad in Syria, it's interesting to note that the civilian death toll in Syria is already far far higher then the other three put together and the number of displaced people is astronomical in comparison with no hint of an end in sight. If we had got involved and removed Assad at the start would Syria be a problem free safe country? Not a chance! However would the civilian death toll be a fraction of what it currently is? Absolutely! Inaction has cost literally hundreds of thousands of lives and ruined millions more. I guess we are damned if we do and damned if we don't and so are the people in the region. Of course these proposed airstrikes are not against Assad but against Isis, there is no political resolution with these people as they wont stray from their hard line beliefs, the only way to deal is destroy them or surrender and everyone convert to radical Islam!!
I wasn't in favour of any of the recent military interventions, Damage. There was no plan to win the peace after winning the war. There still isn't. Of course we will bomb away and rejoice as each distant nasty is sent to his wicked God, but if we think we can eradicate an ideology in this way, and one in which we helped to galvanise, then I fear we are sorely mistaken. Unlike you, I'm afraid that I don't have any clear answers or certainty. I hope those like-minded in power get it right is all. And, no, I ain't no namby pamby liberal. Far from it. I just think it's time we thought through a longer term strategy for dealing with this, else this could well be our life for the next 50+ years. Instead of intervening to assist in the overthrow of the likes of Assad and Gaddhafi, I was in favour of leaving them in place as they acted as a buffer and means of control as far as these zealots are concerned. But instead the West thought that it knew best and wanted to free the people in those regions. But did we? Often the lesser of two known evils, such as leaving an Assad in place, is far preferable to a new unknown evil, but that is precisely what those elected geniuses of ours have brought about. And how do we decide which despots should be overthrown and which we should trade with and invite to have tea with Lizzy? We seem prepared to largely turn a blind eye when it comes to (say) China or Saudi Arabia. Why do you think that is? Incidentally, just who are these moderate fighters in Syria? I recall us helping moderates in Syria before, one of whom was then filmed cutting out the heart of a fallen enemy and taking a bite out of it. Weren't there moderates in Libya that ended up cutting down the US Ambaddador like a dog in the street? I'm sure there are many good people there, but I'm not wholly confident that I have the ability to differentiate. Damage, old chum, I bow to your superior knowledge on the subject and hope to hell that the approach that you and many others support is the right one. Over to you, although I suspect that I could pretty much write your next piece myself...
I think many of us agree with much of this ubes. I certainly don't like the way the West like to shove democracy onto other Nations. Trouble is, imo, we have to do something as far as IS are concerned. I think there is no choice other than to get troops into Syria and totally defeat these nut jobs. You're right that history shows us that we often get these things wrong, but sometimes we get it right also.
You still haven't answered who it was that assured you if we killed Bin Laden we ended the threat from Al Qaeda? There is an area roughly the size of Great Britain within Syria/Iraq that is a base for IS to finance itself with billions of dollars of oil. Now yes, diplomatic and political means can be used to stop those sells and there is no reason that shouldn't continue. However in the meantime you are not interested in targeting those oil tanker convoy's and stopping it at source. There are IS fighters waging a war, torturing an killing and preserving a State that is a base for planning and encouraging terror around the world, it's propaganda and a template for those groups now associating themselves with IS around Africa emboldened for more brutal acts by your some in the West's fear to act, but a targeted air strike on a vehicle carrying such fighters you don't want to kill. Don't get that either. The situation in Syria isn't the same as Iraq et al. We haven't been attacked yet because of success by our police and security forces. Sitting on our hands an ignoring it won't make the problem go away but no one is saying air strikes alone will end it but they are part of the solution. Peshmerga is one such group of relative moderates but they are only interested in territory in the North. It's also offensive to assume that there also aren't moderates within the population and that Syria is not all hardline Jihadists. As the left so often like to say, most Muslim's are not hardline and same goes for all religions. However I am in agreement in medium term Assad will need to stay because there is no obvious candidate to prevent a power vacuum. Would however cede some territory to the Kurds.
Build a massive fence around the middle east , complete media black out , totally ignore the whole region . I'm fed up listening in every radio station , tv programme , newspaper about Isis , Syria , Israel Palestine . Islam , Muslims hard done by ..... Will there be a day ever again where this region and anything associated with it isn't rammed down our throats ! . The day we needed there oil and took them from being desert rats to what we have now is the day we ****ed it up .
We have been in danger and fear from the day we went into Iraq One thing not many look at How this is being played out in the media to the masses The threat we face isn't published in advance hence the fear generated We are listening to fluff saying we are going to send three planes and bomb targets ... Wait and see we will probably release advance notice where these targets will be And then we will miss If we are at war then let the forces do their jobs Combine a force to punch them in their own back yard Root out and hunt whereever required You best live with it lads because it's only going to get worse
The fear on here is daft Easyjet still flying out us fat English to Cyprus twice a day a day trip away from Syria No attacks there? It's all bollocks This idea that there is a secret base in Syria is nonsense IMO We have to improve on our homeland security if we want to carry on living like we do ID cards in the UK everywhere Let the people who have nothing to hide live without fear No iD with our CCTV we would see s change . Dropping bombs FFS
