Bombing Syria

[Ad Lib]

We have already established that the UK and Saudi have the same weaponary, therefore introducing the UK to the fight in no way increases the potential targets.

Where is your evidence that Saudi are not as reliable? I once again ask if they are provided with the same targets and use the same planes and weapons as the UK would, how will the fact that it was Saudi people and equipment produce less palatable results?

Because the Saudis would not be as trusted under the Coalition force to lead a more dangerous mission in which the risk of civilian casualties was higher, despite their possession of superior technology. It's that simple really. The issue is one of trust as among the other participants in the Coalition. Were the Saudis equally reliable the US and France would not have referred to the Brimstone capacity in their efforts to encourage British participation West of the border.

The point is about implementation of stated Coalition objectives. You can be equally well trained in how to use a missile from the same plane, but if your commanding officer is one from the armed forces of a country with a poor human rights record, it's reasonable to expect the risk to be higher of decisions during live operations showing, shall we say, something less of a regard for the potential for civilian casualties when confronted with the question whether to fire or abort.

No you're wrong. and not only moving your goal posts, you're changing pitches too. There is no crediable "regional forces" in Syria. Any force that would be friendly to us in Syria is currently being bombed into oblivian by Russia and/or enemies of our allies. And they're mostly based on the opposite side of Syria.

TBF Neither Turkey or Iraq want any sort of Kurdistan to come out of this.

There are credible regional forces. Just for starters, there's the Kurds in Northern Syria. They've demonstrated that, with aerial support in Northern Iraq, they are a very viable force. Unless the Coalition takes a leading influence in how Daesh are targeted in Northern Syria, and therefore make it more difficult for Russia to do Assad's bidding against them, that won't always be the case for the Kurds in Northern Syria. Time is therefore of the essence to weaken Daesh while they are still relatively viable. Failure to do this guarantees that the only remaining alternative to Daesh in the North is Assad. Something only Assad and the Russians want.

And of course Turkey and Iraq don't *want* Kurdistan to result from this. But in the Iraqi case it basically already exists, and it is increasingly clear that if any sort of peace is to be achieved in Iraq, if spillover is to be contained with respect to Turkey, and if Daesh is to be defeated properly in Northern Syria, some degree of autonomy for Kurdish regions is going to have to be guaranteed.

There is no scenario here which has an outcome that everyone likes. But Syria is already past the point it is viable as a state. Iraq is de facto two states and probably should be three. By backing the right horses in this civil war, we maximise the prospects of the right groups having the upper-hand in peace talks concerning the division of Syria and Iraq after Daesh have been defeated.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Ad Lib

[williemillersmoustache]

Free vote on bombing North London scheduled for this Wednesday

[Bowers]

No you're wrong. and not only moving your goal posts, you're changing pitches too. There is no crediable "regional forces" in Syria. Any force that would be friendly to us in Syria is currently being bombed into oblivian by Russia and/or enemies of our allies. And they're mostly based on the opposite side of Syria.

TBF Neither Turkey or Iraq want any sort of Kurdistan to come out of this.

If you are referring to those rebel groups in idlib/aleppo/latakia then you only have to look into the debacle that was the fsa division 30, to see that the islamist groups dominate those areas and would simply overpower any moderate groups like they have previously. The best outcome is for the western backed SDF and the SAA (Assad) to simply use their respective air support from the US/UK and Russia to wipe out the people being bombed by the russian sas well as isis.

The Kurds in Iraq have been autonomous for years and a joint Kurdistan is unlikely while Baranzi remains in charge in iraqi Kurdistan.

[strichener]

Because the Saudis would not be as trusted under the Coalition force to lead a more dangerous mission in which the risk of civilian casualties was higher, despite their possession of superior technology. It's that simple really. The issue is one of trust as among the other participants in the Coalition. Were the Saudis equally reliable the US and France would not have referred to the Brimstone capacity in their efforts to encourage British participation West of the border.

You have two options here:

1. You are really naive.

2. You are desperate to justify the need for the UK to be involved.

I think any observer of the politics involved with this process will see that the UK wanted to be involved more than the coalition needed them to be involved. The yanks and French used an excuse of access to a missle when they already had it.

Do you have any proof that there is a lack of trust over Saudi involvement? If it really is that simple, you will of course be able to supply some evidence of this.

[Ad Lib]

You have two options here:

1. You are really naive.

2. You are desperate to justify the need for the UK to be involved.

I think any observer of the politics involved with this process will see that the UK wanted to be involved more than the coalition needed them to be involved. The yanks and French used an excuse of access to a missle when they already had it.

Do you have any proof that there is a lack of trust over Saudi involvement? If it really is that simple, you will of course be able to supply some evidence of this.

I'm not really sure what kind of "proof" you would be looking for.

Do you or do you not believe that the US, France and UK have even at a minimum mild reservations about the human rights record of the Saudi state and its military?

[strichener]

I'm not really sure what kind of "proof" you would be looking for.

Do you or do you not believe that the US, France and UK have even at a minimum mild reservations about the human rights record of the Saudi state and its military?

So that will be a no in regards to proof?

I have absolutely no idea of the command structure in place for this action but I would guess that the Saudi's will be just as professional as the other partners in the coalition. Since we are discussing bombing raids and I was referring specifically to the use of the missles that can be pre-programmed then I don't see what the human rights record of Saudi has to do with anything in this regard.

In broader terms, the human rights record of Saudi has not stopped us from taking their money for training and weapons which would, in my opinion, be a much better time to make a statement on the subject than after you have sold them and then ask for their assistance.

RIYADH—Secretary of State John Kerry and Saudi King Salman agreed to increase support for Syrian rebel forces fighting Islamic State militants while backing international diplomatic efforts to begin a political transition in Damascus, U.S. and Saudi officials said.

The U.S. diplomat and Saudi monarch also coordinated on their countries’ joint efforts to fight the Islamic State terrorist organization that has gained control over large sections of Syrian and Iraqi territory in recent months.

“The secretary thanked the king for Saudi Arabia’s support to multilateral efforts to pursue a political transition in Syria…and reaffirmed our mutual goal of achieving a unified, pluralistic and stable country for all Syrians,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said after Mr. Kerry’s meeting on Saturday night with the Saudi monarch.

Source:

“Thank God for the Saudis and Prince Bandar,” John McCain told CNN’s Candy Crowley in January 2014. “Thank God for the Saudis and Prince Bandar, and for our Qatari friends,” the senator said once again a month later, at the Munich Security Conference.

McCain was praising Prince Bandar bin Sultan, then the head of Saudi Arabia’s intelligence services and a former ambassador to the United States, for supporting forces fighting Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria. McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham had previously met with Bandar to encourage the Saudis to arm Syrian rebel forces.

Source

[Ad Lib]

So that will be a no in regards to proof?

In the sense that the perceptions of other people are unprovable, perhaps.

I have absolutely no idea of the command structure in place for this action but I would guess that the Saudi's will be just as professional as the other partners in the coalition. Since we are discussing bombing raids and I was referring specifically to the use of the missles that can be pre-programmed then I don't see what the human rights record of Saudi has to do with anything in this regard.

Their professionalism isn't the question. It's their judgment and what they consider, in the heat of combat, to be an acceptable risk at the point immediately before a missile is fired. We have already seen, by its exceptional nature, the Kunduz hospital bombing, in which issues requiring judgment calls necessarily arise in the course of a mission rather than in its preparatory steps. The option to abort when new information becomes available is not something that can be "pre-programmed" and as such if it is Saudi pilots making the crucial decision, it is plausible that their calculus is less discriminating as to the impact of civilian casualties on the acceptability of a strike.

In broader terms, the human rights record of Saudi has not stopped us from taking their money for training and weapons which would, in my opinion, be a much better time to make a statement on the subject than after you have sold them and then ask for their assistance.

I'm not suggesting there isn't hypocrisy in the way the US and UK have dealt with Saudi Arabia. All I'm saying is we are where we are. And we have cut back on aspects of our relationship with Saudi in light of human rights concerns. Look at the recent cancellation of a prisons contract.

Source:

Source

None of this is mutually exclusive.

[strichener]

In the sense that the perceptions of other people are unprovable, perhaps.

Their professionalism isn't the question. It's their judgment and what they consider, in the heat of combat, to be an acceptable risk at the point immediately before a missile is fired. We have already seen, by its exceptional nature, the Kunduz hospital bombing, in which issues requiring judgment calls necessarily arise in the course of a mission rather than in its preparatory steps. The option to abort when new information becomes available is not something that can be "pre-programmed" and as such if it is Saudi pilots making the crucial decision, it is plausible that their calculus is less discriminating as to the impact of civilian casualties on the acceptability of a strike.

I'm not suggesting there isn't hypocrisy in the way the US and UK have dealt with Saudi Arabia. All I'm saying is we are where we are. And we have cut back on aspects of our relationship with Saudi in light of human rights concerns. Look at the recent cancellation of a prisons contract.

None of this is mutually exclusive.

You have no idea of the technology in these missles. If you did then you would know why your statements do not make sense.

[D.A.F.C]

Pipeline war.

One pipeline suits America and the west, another suits Russia and the Middle East.

Explains why suddenly Ukraine is so important. It's the major southern port for export. If it becomes NATO then distater for Russia. America gets the cia to influence the elections and Orange Revolution and make out Russia to be the bad guy all of a sudden. BBC then reports Russia as the bad guy etc.

Arab Spring, another load of shite influenced by America designed to cause chaos in the countries pro the other pipeline and protect the ones for the western one.

Iraq, Syria, Lybia, Afghanistan in total lawless turmoil. Perfect no chance of a pipeline there then. Russia is just protecting their own interests. ISIS is the result of the chaos and a group that can be armed and used as the new bogeyman to scare the populace into the attacks of the enemy pipeline.

Interesting that the first attacks were so called ISIS pipelines. Nope it's Syrian Russian targets.

[THE KING]

A few months back we were voting to bomb Assads "evil regime" that had "crossed the red line" now we're bombing his enimies .brilliant

[D.A.F.C]

As I said its total bollocks. Assad was invited to the uk and Blair went out to lybia to try and get the pipeline sorted. They didn't play ball so now they're butchers or bad guys. Assad must be gotten rid of.

It's starting to look too obvious now for most people to see but still most believe that we are some sort of world police. Sure there's ISIS and a few million people that hate the west but no wonder. We have killed millions trying to keep the American empire alive.

Democracy, voting, everything is moved aside for this greed and corruption.

1984.

[MassiveFanDan]

ISIS fighters must get knackered out, doing a full shift at an oil refinery or at a derrick, then going out to do battle as well. Plus all the murdering. Must be utterly exhausting.

Unless it's civillians that work on the oil fields we're bombing... But that can't be right, can it?

Edited December 6, 2015 by MassiveFanDan

[Zetterlund]

Pipeline war.

One pipeline suits America and the west, another suits Russia and the Middle East.

Explains why suddenly Ukraine is so important. It's the major southern port for export. If it becomes NATO then distater for Russia. America gets the cia to influence the elections and Orange Revolution and make out Russia to be the bad guy all of a sudden. BBC then reports Russia as the bad guy etc.

Arab Spring, another load of shite influenced by America designed to cause chaos in the countries pro the other pipeline and protect the ones for the western one.

Iraq, Syria, Lybia, Afghanistan in total lawless turmoil. Perfect no chance of a pipeline there then. Russia is just protecting their own interests. ISIS is the result of the chaos and a group that can be armed and used as the new bogeyman to scare the populace into the attacks of the enemy pipeline.

Interesting that the first attacks were so called ISIS pipelines. Nope it's Syrian Russian targets.

Savage Henry incoming...

[D.A.F.C]

BBC said so, must be true.

@MFD

Also, they are so hard to track down. Very hard. Except why they turn up for a motorcade with shiny new jeeps and guns.

f**k right off to f**k.

Edited December 6, 2015 by D.A.F.C

[DeeTillEhDeh]

As I said its total bollocks. Assad was invited to the uk and Blair went out to lybia to try and get the pipeline sorted. They didn't play ball so now they're butchers or bad guys. Assad must be gotten rid of.

It's starting to look too obvious now for most people to see but still most believe that we are some sort of world police. Sure there's ISIS and a few million people that hate the west but no wonder. We have killed millions trying to keep the American empire alive.

Democracy, voting, everything is moved aside for this greed and corruption.

1984.

You clearly have little or no understanding of the roots and history of Wahhabism.

[AUFC90]

Could be far left groups or the PYD - the Syrian offshoot of the Turkish PKK. Neither the Americans or the Turks want a Communist Kurdistan to rise up from the ashes of ISIL.

A secular Kurdistan would probably be one of the better countries in that region imo.

[kevthedee]

ISIS fighters must get knackered out, doing a full shift at an oil refinery or at a derrick, then going out to do battle as well. Plus all the murdering. Must be utterly exhausting.

Unless it's civillians that work on the oil fields we're bombing... But that can't be right, can it?

Its ok when isis carry out mass murder they tend to use automatic weapons so its quick and easy and they dont get tired to quick so they have plenty of energy for their other jobs.

But if your still concerned maybe you could arrange a p&b christmas shoe box collection full of red bull that you could send to them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1116055/GRAPHIC-CONTENT-ISIS-executes-250-Syrian-soldiers.html

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/474692/Islamic-State-Syria-execution-children

[DeeTillEhDeh]

You clearly have little or no understanding of the roots and history of Wahhabyy

Not quite sure what point you are making.

The previous poster implied that we'd not have a problem if we hadn't gotten involved in previous wars in the Middle East - he was clearly obvious that the ideology has been around since the 18th century - and I don't think the Yanks were bombing them at that time . . .

The issue is a lot more complex than bomb them don't bomb them. But then the simpletons on both sides of that argument are too dumb to understand that.

My own view is that whilst bombing might stifle ISIS itself in the short run it will do nothing to prevent the indoctrination/radicalisation of (predominantly) middle class Muslims by certain madrasas in Europe and (to a lesser extent) the US.

Edited December 6, 2015 by DeeTillEhDeh

[Savage Henry]

Pipeline war.

One pipeline suits America and the west, another suits Russia and the Middle East.

Explains why suddenly Ukraine is so important. It's the major southern port for export. If it becomes NATO then distater for Russia. America gets the cia to influence the elections and Orange Revolution and make out Russia to be the bad guy all of a sudden. BBC then reports Russia as the bad guy etc.

Arab Spring, another load of shite influenced by America designed to cause chaos in the countries pro the other pipeline and protect the ones for the western one.

Iraq, Syria, Lybia, Afghanistan in total lawless turmoil. Perfect no chance of a pipeline there then. Russia is just protecting their own interests. ISIS is the result of the chaos and a group that can be armed and used as the new bogeyman to scare the populace into the attacks of the enemy pipeline.

Interesting that the first attacks were so called ISIS pipelines. Nope it's Syrian Russian targets.

Please stop. I know your heart is in the right place, and it's very good to be cynical about war, but we already have more oil and gas than we need. If this was about gas, we would stay far removed.

And the Arab Spring, in its original guise, was anything but a "load of shite". I was in Benghazi when the locals - including people I still know and keep in touch with - took up arms in the name of freedom, inspired by Tunisia. What has happened since in Libya (and elsewhere) is a tragedy, but not be any means intentional.

ISIS was formed in the 1930s. That can't really be omitted.

[yoda]

Pipeline war.

One pipeline suits America and the west, another suits Russia and the Middle East.

Explains why suddenly Ukraine is so important. It's the major southern port for export. If it becomes NATO then distater for Russia. America gets the cia to influence the elections and Orange Revolution and make out Russia to be the bad guy all of a sudden. BBC then reports Russia as the bad guy etc.

Arab Spring, another load of shite influenced by America designed to cause chaos in the countries pro the other pipeline and protect the ones for the western one.

Iraq, Syria, Lybia, Afghanistan in total lawless turmoil. Perfect no chance of a pipeline there then. Russia is just protecting their own interests. ISIS is the result of the chaos and a group that can be armed and used as the new bogeyman to scare the populace into the attacks of the enemy pipeline.

Interesting that the first attacks were so called ISIS pipelines. Nope it's Syrian Russian targets.

As I said its total bollocks. Assad was invited to the uk and Blair went out to lybia to try and get the pipeline sorted. They didn't play ball so now they're butchers or bad guys. Assad must be gotten rid of.

It's starting to look too obvious now for most people to see but still most believe that we are some sort of world police. Sure there's ISIS and a few million people that hate the west but no wonder. We have killed millions trying to keep the American empire alive.

Democracy, voting, everything is moved aside for this greed and corruption.

1984.

BBC said so, must be true.

@MFD

Also, they are so hard to track down. Very hard. Except why they turn up for a motorcade with shiny new jeeps and guns.

f**k right off to f**k.