You think the US went to all that effort in Iraq to lose it to some barbarians with AK-47s in Toyota Hilux pick up trucks? They're dead men walking.
They have rather a lot of US army kit as well.
Peshmerga were complaining that with all the American armoured vehicles ISIS now had they didnt have the firepower to stop them.
They are also far better trained than either the Iraq army or the Peshmerga.
The recent "Peshmerga" gains have been down to an influx of PKK fighters from Syria.
Peshmerga were complaining that with all the American armoured vehicles ISIS now had they didnt have the firepower to stop them.
They are also far better trained than either the Iraq army or the Peshmerga.
The recent "Peshmerga" gains have been down to an influx of PKK fighters from Syria.
No seized US kit can survive 500lb bombs from F18s being dropped on them. ISIS have to move any kit seized in order to attack and that is when they are ripe for picking from the air. They won't even hear it coming when they are blown to bits.
No seized US kit can survive 500lb bombs from F18s being dropped on them. ISIS have to move any kit seized in order to attack and that is when they are ripe for picking from the air. They won't even hear it coming when they are blown to bits.
I think you are enjoying this a little too much. However vile they are, they are still human beings and no one should sound like they are getting quite this much pleasure from the death of others.
I wonder had Labour won in 2010, how many wars we'd be fighting now? 3? 4?. I don't give a damn if David Cameron is holding back because of an upcoming Election or if it will ruin his Birthday Party, atleast he isn't following the war hungry Labour parties usual course of action. I'll never forget that Syria vote (which I think went the right way), and the Cheers/clapping/celebration on the Labour side when the result came in, one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen from a party in Britain.
Hang on, you describe the Labour party as "war hungry", but at the same time acknowledge that the very same Labour Party was cheering a result that avoided the UK getting involved in a war.
Unless I have missed something, you are facing both ways at once there.
I think you are enjoying this a little too much. However vile they are, they are still human beings and no one should sound like they are getting quite this much pleasure from the death of others.
They have stopped acting like human beings, so shouldn't be treated as such. They should be wiped off the face of the Earth.
No seized US kit can survive 500lb bombs from F18s being dropped on them. ISIS have to move any kit seized in order to attack and that is when they are ripe for picking from the air. They won't even hear it coming when they are blown to bits.
But picking off a handful of ISIS fighters here, 20 there, a couple of rocket launchers & 15 men elsewhere is hardly going to dent their capability. It will take ages to have any lasting effect (assuming that ISIS don't capture or otherwise acquire more weaponry of course). To do the job properly will require an all-out aerial assault across the area that ISIS controls. And I don't think that Obama is string enough to even contemplate that.
Journalist Christina Patterson (on Sky News press preview last night) said: " I honestly think what is happening with ISIS is the worst thing that has happened in my entire lifetime. The worst thing that has happened since the second world war"
Andrew Pierce: Rwanda?
Christina Patterson: "No - This is Global."
It seems to me that Cameron is going to make the wrong call (on ISIS) for the second year running.
June 2013: Cameron seeks to arm the Syrian rebels even after dire and graphic warnings from Boris that this would be handing weapons to ISIS. Cameron is only prevented from proceeding by.....Ed Miliband.
2014: Cameron has nothing to say about Britain joining the US military operation against ISIS even though the Daily Mail are reporting that both Boris and former Army chief Lord Dannat are calling for this.
The failure to recall Parliament looks like a horrible misjudgement of public opinion. In my opinion. The failure to return home from the tour of Portugese Fish Stalls looks like a horrible misjudgement.
Regardless of what happens next May, it seems that the UK currently has the wrong Tory politician in the position of Prime Minister.
Journalist Christina Patterson (on Sky News press preview last night) said: " I honestly think what is happening with ISIS is the worst thing that has happened in my entire lifetime. The worst thing that has happened since the second world war"
Andrew Pierce: Rwanda?
Christina Patterson: "No - This is Global."
Not the 'global' word. She is wrong, what ISIS is doing in Iraq is horrific but it is nowhere near the scale of what happened in Rwanda.
The Tories are demanding Cameron has a vote on going to war ( again ) in Iraq . They want to join the USA ( again ) in bombing missions . Should the UK get involved in yet another mid east war ? .
What tories want a vote on going to war. You haven't provided a link?
Wiped off the face of the earth as a very serious and deliberate decision that this is the least worst option, but not as sport.
While I agree with the sentiment,
I have to admit having seen some of the disturbing pictures coming out of Iraq depicting the treatment meted out to women and young children - I find myself agreeing that these animals (for want of a better word) have forfeited any right to be treated as fellow human beings - words I never thought I'd say.
I'm coming to the conclusion that the only military intervention that would be successful is some kind of long-term protectorate arrangement.
We've seen in Iraq that the moment allied forces left, it began to disintegrate. And that shouldn't really surprise anyone, we basically entrusted the running of a country to a people who had no culture of democracy, human rights, compromise, the rule of law, etc. We're also seeing it all over the Middle East in the wake of the Arab Spring - a people who don't have (liberal) democracy entrenched in their culture just replace one dictatorship with another. As a protectorate, there's an external force ensuring stablility while the population learn, over several generations, how to run democratic government.
Obviously none of that will ever happen. We don't have the money, and it's all dreadfully imperial, but then wasn't half the problem caused in the first place by a certain Empire just arbitrarily drawing lines on a map and then buggering off.
Think we should sort it out ..its our fault....where are all these refugees going to go. Lets join with syria and the arab states with a big army to eradicate isis
Journalist Christina Patterson (on Sky News press preview last night) said: " I honestly think what is happening with ISIS is the worst thing that has happened in my entire lifetime. The worst thing that has happened since the second world war"
Andrew Pierce: Rwanda?
Christina Patterson: "No - This is Global."
It seems to me that Cameron is going to make the wrong call (on ISIS) for the second year running.
June 2013: Cameron seeks to arm the Syrian rebels even after dire and graphic warnings from Boris that this would be handing weapons to ISIS. Cameron is only prevented from proceeding by.....Ed Miliband.
2014: Cameron has nothing to say about Britain joining the US military operation against ISIS even though the Daily Mail are reporting that both Boris and former Army chief Lord Dannat are calling for this.
The failure to recall Parliament looks like a horrible misjudgement of public opinion. In my opinion. The failure to return home from the tour of Portugese Fish Stalls looks like a horrible misjudgement.
Regardless of what happens next May, it seems that the UK currently has the wrong Tory politician in the position of Prime Minister.
That wasn't the option in Syria The option was to restore deterrence of chemical warfare use, by hitting Assad. and, in so doing, to try and force Assad to the negotiating table. Assad relies on his airforce,as he has too few infantry to control what he holds and atatck what he doesn't. His airforce would have been significantly degraded with one limited night of airstrikes. At that stage, ISIS was 10% of the opposition force, and would have been overwhelmed by the other 90% and Assad's forces, after any settlement. Turkey Israel and Jordan would have destroyed ISIS if Syrians couldn't. There was no certainty to that working, but it was the only chance we had to stop the killing and destroy ISIS. Not doing anything has resulted in 40000 more dead, and ISIS growing in power.
Milliband decided against it because he was desperate to get the anti-Blair Labour vote back and to look different to Blair, and public opinion polls suggested there was a few vmore otes to gain. . Any past Labour government would have supported the action - even Michael Foot understood the imperative to deter WMD use. The charitable view would be that Milliband was a strategic illiterate, the other view would be that he was an irresponsible opportunst - who ended up in a position far to the left of Obama.
Cameron now doesn't trust Milliband not to act totally irresponsibly again.
Cameron is also lumbered with the incredible Clegg - and, the increasingly pacifist, Liberal party - according to the latest reports the Liberals are even against arming the people iSIS wants to butcher. This is the party that wanted a nuclear deterrent that never went to sea, and wanted Israel to defend itself without acting by air or land - now it opposes sending the Kurds a few infantry weapons. Again its drifted into a policy thats opposed by Obama, the pope and its own past leaders. Its now just beyond absurd.
Cameron has three problems of his own making. He's given MPs a final say over military action - when most are only concerned with holding their seats. He's run down the armed forces so we have far fewer options. And he's now got a dilemna - because ISIS has started to adopt Hamas tactics, and hide in the civilian built up areas. If we act, we will be doing exactly what we criticised the Israelis for doing in Gaza. - probably less well as they had better intelligence and equipment.
The Government's answer is still to not do much ,and to commit more forces than the public are made aware of to do even that safely. At a tactical level , air and helicopter supply drops means troops and firepower available to extract any crashed helicopters, and limited airstrikes mean people on the ground observing . Obama has defined boots on the ground to not include security forces or special forces advisers, or intelligence and command support teams, or Apache gunships deployed to defend Baghda, or drones and planes based outside Iraq. . He's stated an intent to defend US diplomats in both Irbil and Baghdad - which effectively means stopping any ISIS attacks on there. He's not going to commit himself to destroying ISIS - as he may not be able to do it - but ,depending on events, polls, and TV pictures, Obama can now do as little- or as much - as he wants to. He can just hit 7 pick ups a day, or claim more needs to be done. and unleash 100 strikes a day from the USS Bush, another lot of strikes from US fighters in the area, use his BI bombers in the Gulf , and bring in some B52s from elsewhere. .The UK can either find an urgent need to act , pretend its still waiting for an international consensus, or it can stick its head in the sand with Clegg and hope Obama does anything that needs doing.
That wasn't the option in Syria The option was to restore deterrence of chemical warfare use, by hitting Assad. and, in so doing, to try and force Assad to the negotiating table. Assad relies on his airforce,as he has too few infantry to control what he holds and atatck what he doesn't. His airforce would have been significantly degraded with one limited night of airstrikes. At that stage, ISIS was 10% of the opposition force, and would have been overwhelmed by the other 90% and Assad's forces, after any settlement. Turkey Israel and Jordan would have destroyed ISIS if Syrians couldn't. There was no certainty to that working, but it was the only chance we had to stop the killing and destroy ISIS. Not doing anything has resulted in 40000 more dead, and ISIS growing in power.
Milliband decided against it because he was desperate to get the anti-Blair Labour vote back and to look different to Blair, and public opinion polls suggested there was a few vmore otes to gain. . Any past Labour government would have supported the action - even Michael Foot understood the imperative to deter WMD use. The charitable view would be that Milliband was a strategic illiterate, the other view would be that he was an irresponsible opportunst - who ended up in a position far to the left of Obama.
Cameron now doesn't trust Milliband not to act totally irresponsibly again.
Cameron is also lumbered with the incredible Clegg - and, the increasingly pacifist, Liberal party - according to the latest reports the Liberals are even against arming the people iSIS wants to butcher. This is the party that wanted a nuclear deterrent that never went to sea, and wanted Israel to defend itself without acting by air or land - now it opposes sending the Kurds a few infantry weapons. Again its drifted into a policy thats opposed by Obama, the pope and its own past leaders. Its now just beyond absurd.
Cameron has three problems of his own making. He's given MPs a final say over military action - when most are only concerned with holding their seats. He's run down the armed forces so we have far fewer options. And he's now got a dilemna - because ISIS has started to adopt Hamas tactics, and hide in the civilian built up areas. If we act, we will be doing exactly what we criticised the Israelis for doing in Gaza. - probably less well as they had better intelligence and equipment.
The Government's answer is still to not do much ,and to commit more forces than the public are made aware of to do even that safely. At a tactical level , air and helicopter supply drops means troops and firepower available to extract any crashed helicopters, and limited airstrikes mean people on the ground observing . Obama has defined boots on the ground to not include security forces or special forces advisers, or intelligence and command support teams, or Apache gunships deployed to defend Baghda, or drones and planes based outside Iraq. . He's stated an intent to defend US diplomats in both Irbil and Baghdad - which effectively means stopping any ISIS attacks on there. He's not going to commit himself to destroying ISIS - as he may not be able to do it - but ,depending on events, polls, and TV pictures, Obama can now do as little- or as much - as he wants to. He can just hit 7 pick ups a day, or claim more needs to be done. and unleash 100 strikes a day from the USS Bush, another lot of strikes from US fighters in the area, use his BI bombers in the Gulf , and bring in some B52s from elsewhere. .The UK can either find an urgent need to act , pretend its still waiting for an international consensus, or it can stick its head in the sand with Clegg and hope Obama does anything that needs doing.
On Sky news this morning they report that public opinion is growing in favour British air strikes in Iraq . We are already using Tornados in Iraq for reconnaissance flights , so I guess it's only a matter of time before we get embroiled in yet another Mid east , Unwinnable war .
Comments
You think the US went to all that effort in Iraq to lose it to some barbarians with AK-47s in Toyota Hilux pick up trucks? They're dead men walking.
They have rather a lot of US army kit as well.
Peshmerga were complaining that with all the American armoured vehicles ISIS now had they didnt have the firepower to stop them.
They are also far better trained than either the Iraq army or the Peshmerga.
The recent "Peshmerga" gains have been down to an influx of PKK fighters from Syria.
might save thousands of people tho
No seized US kit can survive 500lb bombs from F18s being dropped on them. ISIS have to move any kit seized in order to attack and that is when they are ripe for picking from the air. They won't even hear it coming when they are blown to bits.
I think you are enjoying this a little too much. However vile they are, they are still human beings and no one should sound like they are getting quite this much pleasure from the death of others.
Unless I have missed something, you are facing both ways at once there.
They have stopped acting like human beings, so shouldn't be treated as such. They should be wiped off the face of the Earth.
But picking off a handful of ISIS fighters here, 20 there, a couple of rocket launchers & 15 men elsewhere is hardly going to dent their capability. It will take ages to have any lasting effect (assuming that ISIS don't capture or otherwise acquire more weaponry of course). To do the job properly will require an all-out aerial assault across the area that ISIS controls. And I don't think that Obama is string enough to even contemplate that.
Wiped off the face of the earth as a very serious and deliberate decision that this is the least worst option, but not as sport.
Journalist Christina Patterson (on Sky News press preview last night) said: " I honestly think what is happening with ISIS is the worst thing that has happened in my entire lifetime. The worst thing that has happened since the second world war"
Andrew Pierce: Rwanda?
Christina Patterson: "No - This is Global."
It seems to me that Cameron is going to make the wrong call (on ISIS) for the second year running.
June 2013: Cameron seeks to arm the Syrian rebels even after dire and graphic warnings from Boris that this would be handing weapons to ISIS. Cameron is only prevented from proceeding by.....Ed Miliband.
2014: Cameron has nothing to say about Britain joining the US military operation against ISIS even though the Daily Mail are reporting that both Boris and former Army chief Lord Dannat are calling for this.
The failure to recall Parliament looks like a horrible misjudgement of public opinion. In my opinion. The failure to return home from the tour of Portugese Fish Stalls looks like a horrible misjudgement.
Regardless of what happens next May, it seems that the UK currently has the wrong Tory politician in the position of Prime Minister.
Not the 'global' word. She is wrong, what ISIS is doing in Iraq is horrific but it is nowhere near the scale of what happened in Rwanda.
What tories want a vote on going to war. You haven't provided a link?
I can't find any news reports that suggest this.
While I agree with the sentiment,
I have to admit having seen some of the disturbing pictures coming out of Iraq depicting the treatment meted out to women and young children - I find myself agreeing that these animals (for want of a better word) have forfeited any right to be treated as fellow human beings - words I never thought I'd say.
We've seen in Iraq that the moment allied forces left, it began to disintegrate. And that shouldn't really surprise anyone, we basically entrusted the running of a country to a people who had no culture of democracy, human rights, compromise, the rule of law, etc. We're also seeing it all over the Middle East in the wake of the Arab Spring - a people who don't have (liberal) democracy entrenched in their culture just replace one dictatorship with another. As a protectorate, there's an external force ensuring stablility while the population learn, over several generations, how to run democratic government.
Obviously none of that will ever happen. We don't have the money, and it's all dreadfully imperial, but then wasn't half the problem caused in the first place by a certain Empire just arbitrarily drawing lines on a map and then buggering off.
That wasn't the option in Syria The option was to restore deterrence of chemical warfare use, by hitting Assad. and, in so doing, to try and force Assad to the negotiating table. Assad relies on his airforce,as he has too few infantry to control what he holds and atatck what he doesn't. His airforce would have been significantly degraded with one limited night of airstrikes. At that stage, ISIS was 10% of the opposition force, and would have been overwhelmed by the other 90% and Assad's forces, after any settlement. Turkey Israel and Jordan would have destroyed ISIS if Syrians couldn't. There was no certainty to that working, but it was the only chance we had to stop the killing and destroy ISIS. Not doing anything has resulted in 40000 more dead, and ISIS growing in power.
Milliband decided against it because he was desperate to get the anti-Blair Labour vote back and to look different to Blair, and public opinion polls suggested there was a few vmore otes to gain. . Any past Labour government would have supported the action - even Michael Foot understood the imperative to deter WMD use. The charitable view would be that Milliband was a strategic illiterate, the other view would be that he was an irresponsible opportunst - who ended up in a position far to the left of Obama.
Cameron now doesn't trust Milliband not to act totally irresponsibly again.
Cameron is also lumbered with the incredible Clegg - and, the increasingly pacifist, Liberal party - according to the latest reports the Liberals are even against arming the people iSIS wants to butcher. This is the party that wanted a nuclear deterrent that never went to sea, and wanted Israel to defend itself without acting by air or land - now it opposes sending the Kurds a few infantry weapons. Again its drifted into a policy thats opposed by Obama, the pope and its own past leaders. Its now just beyond absurd.
Cameron has three problems of his own making. He's given MPs a final say over military action - when most are only concerned with holding their seats. He's run down the armed forces so we have far fewer options. And he's now got a dilemna - because ISIS has started to adopt Hamas tactics, and hide in the civilian built up areas. If we act, we will be doing exactly what we criticised the Israelis for doing in Gaza. - probably less well as they had better intelligence and equipment.
The Government's answer is still to not do much ,and to commit more forces than the public are made aware of to do even that safely. At a tactical level , air and helicopter supply drops means troops and firepower available to extract any crashed helicopters, and limited airstrikes mean people on the ground observing . Obama has defined boots on the ground to not include security forces or special forces advisers, or intelligence and command support teams, or Apache gunships deployed to defend Baghda, or drones and planes based outside Iraq. . He's stated an intent to defend US diplomats in both Irbil and Baghdad - which effectively means stopping any ISIS attacks on there. He's not going to commit himself to destroying ISIS - as he may not be able to do it - but ,depending on events, polls, and TV pictures, Obama can now do as little- or as much - as he wants to. He can just hit 7 pick ups a day, or claim more needs to be done. and unleash 100 strikes a day from the USS Bush, another lot of strikes from US fighters in the area, use his BI bombers in the Gulf , and bring in some B52s from elsewhere. .The UK can either find an urgent need to act , pretend its still waiting for an international consensus, or it can stick its head in the sand with Clegg and hope Obama does anything that needs doing.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/12/uk-iraq-kurds-yazidis-isis Is pretty much on the ball.
That must be the biggest pile of shite ever posted on DS.
The only forces posted to Syria or Iraq are humanitarian aid.
This government have done little or nothing about the crisis.
Blair did and look where that got us.
We may end up killing our own people.