The K M Links Game - December 2024 Week...
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Does It Make Sense To Half Bomb Your Enemy?
All the arguments raised by Corbyn and co. also apply to Iraq. Thus they are exposed as pacifists become political opportunists.
Either we bomb IS or we don't. There is no sane way in which to accept that bombing your enemy here but not there is acceptable by any rational observer, especially when the UN and your allies want you to expand your campaign.
If it turns out that our government votes for half-bombing our enemies they will have succeeded in making us the laughing stock of the planet.
Either we bomb IS or we don't. There is no sane way in which to accept that bombing your enemy here but not there is acceptable by any rational observer, especially when the UN and your allies want you to expand your campaign.
If it turns out that our government votes for half-bombing our enemies they will have succeeded in making us the laughing stock of the planet.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Colmc54. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
ichy //Regime change will be needed// All regimes change eventually, the point is, it should not be our concern, and certainly not our priority. It is in our interests to remove ISIS, and that's what we should be addressing by - as the UN resolution states- any means.
Your friend Erdogan came in for some well-deserved stick from Gorgeous George by the way (see my post 11:35) please watch it if you can, and change that bloody avatar :0)
Your friend Erdogan came in for some well-deserved stick from Gorgeous George by the way (see my post 11:35) please watch it if you can, and change that bloody avatar :0)
-- answer removed --
The Kurdish fighters in Syria who are battling ISIS are constantly being attacked by Ichkerias mates in Turkey.
// Turkey confirms shelling Kurdish fighters in Syria
27 October 2015
Turkey said it had warned the Kurdish militia not to get too close to its territory
Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has confirmed that the Turkish military has attacked Kurdish fighters in northern Syria.
The Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) said Turkey shot at its forces in the town of Tal Abyad on Sunday.
The YPG has been a key ally of the US in fighting the so-called Islamic State (IS) group in Syria.
Turkey fears advances by the YPG near its Syrian border could fuel separatist sentiments amongst Kurds in Turkey.
The attacks come amid increasing tensions in Turkey ahead of elections.
"We said the [YPG-aligned Democratic Union Party] PYD will not go west of the Euphrates and that we would hit it the moment it did," Mr Davutoglu told Turkish ATV television late Monday.
He gave no further details.
It is not the first time the YPG has said Turkey has attacked them. In July they said Turkey had shelled them in the Kurdish-held village of Zormikhar, which Turkey denied. //
So being on the Turkish side means you support attacking the people fighting ISIS on the ground. Sham
// Turkey confirms shelling Kurdish fighters in Syria
27 October 2015
Turkey said it had warned the Kurdish militia not to get too close to its territory
Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has confirmed that the Turkish military has attacked Kurdish fighters in northern Syria.
The Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) said Turkey shot at its forces in the town of Tal Abyad on Sunday.
The YPG has been a key ally of the US in fighting the so-called Islamic State (IS) group in Syria.
Turkey fears advances by the YPG near its Syrian border could fuel separatist sentiments amongst Kurds in Turkey.
The attacks come amid increasing tensions in Turkey ahead of elections.
"We said the [YPG-aligned Democratic Union Party] PYD will not go west of the Euphrates and that we would hit it the moment it did," Mr Davutoglu told Turkish ATV television late Monday.
He gave no further details.
It is not the first time the YPG has said Turkey has attacked them. In July they said Turkey had shelled them in the Kurdish-held village of Zormikhar, which Turkey denied. //
So being on the Turkish side means you support attacking the people fighting ISIS on the ground. Sham
Worth a view:
Turkey arrests editors over reports Ankara supplied weapons to Syrian fighters
http://
Turkey arrests editors over reports Ankara supplied weapons to Syrian fighters
http://
This too is worth a read...
http://
Support for Ankara is support for ISIS. The evidence is overwhelming.
http://
Support for Ankara is support for ISIS. The evidence is overwhelming.
Son of Turkey’s president involved in oil trade with Daesh ?
http://
http://
"(regime change) it should not be our concern,"
Of course it should! You cannot treat one part of the problem and not the whole issue. There is, at last, a political process underway to work out a political solution. So of course the last thing we should be doing is trying to remove Assad by force, that was never a good idea, but at some point Syria needs a government other than the current one. I must say I am not particularly hopeful, but that is what is needed
Of course it should! You cannot treat one part of the problem and not the whole issue. There is, at last, a political process underway to work out a political solution. So of course the last thing we should be doing is trying to remove Assad by force, that was never a good idea, but at some point Syria needs a government other than the current one. I must say I am not particularly hopeful, but that is what is needed
Apologies Gromit. Niether am I a Conservative party member though I do vote for them more to keep Labour idealists out of number 10 than any fervent support for them as a party.
Earlier it was claimed the opposition was irrelevant in military government decisions. Simply not true. Again I seem to have to remind you guys about the government defeat over RAF air strikes in Syria following the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians. The Labour U turn overnight that saved Miliband's leadership put pay to that military decision.
As for needing Assad's 'permission', really? The man is a war criminal and an unelected despot. Did we ask Hitler's permission before bombing Germany?
Next, is it easy to move an oil refinery for example, or build new one in days? No. And if we keep the enemy constantly on the move doesn't that make them an easier target?
Does Assad's regime attack the French and US jets? Why this argument that he would attack ours?
Once again this is all about the opposition wanting to defeat the government and stop any chance of a boost to the public support for the government that often follows military action e.g. 'The Falkland bounce'.
Earlier it was claimed the opposition was irrelevant in military government decisions. Simply not true. Again I seem to have to remind you guys about the government defeat over RAF air strikes in Syria following the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians. The Labour U turn overnight that saved Miliband's leadership put pay to that military decision.
As for needing Assad's 'permission', really? The man is a war criminal and an unelected despot. Did we ask Hitler's permission before bombing Germany?
Next, is it easy to move an oil refinery for example, or build new one in days? No. And if we keep the enemy constantly on the move doesn't that make them an easier target?
Does Assad's regime attack the French and US jets? Why this argument that he would attack ours?
Once again this is all about the opposition wanting to defeat the government and stop any chance of a boost to the public support for the government that often follows military action e.g. 'The Falkland bounce'.
Boots on the ground may in the end be needed but if this is true it will be against a weakened force;
http://
and should be weighed up by those who say bombing doesn't work.
http://
and should be weighed up by those who say bombing doesn't work.
"air strikes in Syria that were specifically defined as being against his capability to use chemical weapons against Syrians. "
What does that mean ? You seem convinced that Assad did use chemical weapons against his own people, a conclusion that the UN never claimed-
" The report, which was "careful not to blame either side," said that during the mission's work in areas under rebel control, "individuals arrived carrying other suspected munitions indicating that such potential evidence is being moved and possibly manipulated."[115] The UN investigators were accompanied by a rebel leader:"
https:/
further the above
http://
" Russia is a key reason why IS are now a threat, because it was they and China who were instrumental in stopping any concerted UN action. "
Apart from the unsupported claim about Russia and IS, the "West 'ignored Russian offer in 2012 to have Syria's Assad step aside' "
http://
https:/
" We also know that one of the many reasons IS gained a footing is that they were supported by Assad too" - proof?
"Assad probably doesn't really care about what happens to IS. Almost certainly he has given up trying to reclaim the entire country, but would settle for a western state, with IS to the east." - another unbacked assertion.
"Maybe, we might be naive enough to think, as a result of Vienna, you never know " and 7 hours later-"There is, at last, a political process underway to work out a political solution."
As for cluster bombs
"The treaty was opposed by a number of countries that produce or stockpile significant quantities of cluster munitions, including China, Russia, the United States, India, Israel, Pakistan and Brazil"
https:/
What does that mean ? You seem convinced that Assad did use chemical weapons against his own people, a conclusion that the UN never claimed-
" The report, which was "careful not to blame either side," said that during the mission's work in areas under rebel control, "individuals arrived carrying other suspected munitions indicating that such potential evidence is being moved and possibly manipulated."[115] The UN investigators were accompanied by a rebel leader:"
https:/
further the above
http://
" Russia is a key reason why IS are now a threat, because it was they and China who were instrumental in stopping any concerted UN action. "
Apart from the unsupported claim about Russia and IS, the "West 'ignored Russian offer in 2012 to have Syria's Assad step aside' "
http://
https:/
" We also know that one of the many reasons IS gained a footing is that they were supported by Assad too" - proof?
"Assad probably doesn't really care about what happens to IS. Almost certainly he has given up trying to reclaim the entire country, but would settle for a western state, with IS to the east." - another unbacked assertion.
"Maybe, we might be naive enough to think, as a result of Vienna, you never know " and 7 hours later-"There is, at last, a political process underway to work out a political solution."
As for cluster bombs
"The treaty was opposed by a number of countries that produce or stockpile significant quantities of cluster munitions, including China, Russia, the United States, India, Israel, Pakistan and Brazil"
https:/
Latest Posts
Sport14 mins ago
Only The A F D Can Save Germany
News16 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles19 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.