Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Losing Everything
Apparently, David Cameron will make the case for war with Assad later this week. Possibly sometime later there may be a vote in the Commons on war, which may or may not sanction it.
Meanwhile the Russians have flew 141 bombing missions over Syria this weekend, and Defence Ministry say they destroyed almost 500 ISIS targets in the country.
http://
Has the West already lost in Syria?
Russia are seriously tackling ISIS, and Assad will probably survive. The Russians will remain in Syria and the Saudi sectarian war will have been crushed.
And we in the West are spectators.
Meanwhile the Russians have flew 141 bombing missions over Syria this weekend, and Defence Ministry say they destroyed almost 500 ISIS targets in the country.
http://
Has the West already lost in Syria?
Russia are seriously tackling ISIS, and Assad will probably survive. The Russians will remain in Syria and the Saudi sectarian war will have been crushed.
And we in the West are spectators.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. 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.
I am seriously worried about the thinking behind the proposed bombing campaign.
If the West could honestly say that bombing a designated area would wipe out IS, then there could be a case for doing so.
But terrorists, by definition, are many and extremely mobile.
Bombing may well destroy current strongholds, but then Is melt away, and set up elsewhere, and commence their (in their opinion justified) revenge on the innocent populations of the bombing countries - which is set to include the UK.
Destroying 'terror' is akin to plaiting fog - military response is simply not effective.
I understand the emotional desire to hit back, and the embarrassment Call Me Dave feels at the idea that the big boys are in the fight, and he simply looking on while being defended.
But that should not be used as a basis for military intervention.
God knows we saw the effects of Blair sniffing round Bush and joining in his war-mongering nonsense - are we really going to go down that route again?
If the West could honestly say that bombing a designated area would wipe out IS, then there could be a case for doing so.
But terrorists, by definition, are many and extremely mobile.
Bombing may well destroy current strongholds, but then Is melt away, and set up elsewhere, and commence their (in their opinion justified) revenge on the innocent populations of the bombing countries - which is set to include the UK.
Destroying 'terror' is akin to plaiting fog - military response is simply not effective.
I understand the emotional desire to hit back, and the embarrassment Call Me Dave feels at the idea that the big boys are in the fight, and he simply looking on while being defended.
But that should not be used as a basis for military intervention.
God knows we saw the effects of Blair sniffing round Bush and joining in his war-mongering nonsense - are we really going to go down that route again?
I think the key difference between ISIS and your common-or-garden terrorists is that ISIS has pretensions to being a state. That means that they actually are, for now, in a fixed position that can be targeted more effectively by bombing campaigns. Further action will be needed to be sure, not just with more active military presence but also something actually useful to trying to combat the spread of the Islamic terrorists' message. But if ISIS "melt away" that would still represent something like decent progress.
jim360 - // But if ISIS "melt away" that would still represent something like decent progress. //
If they 'melt away' and pop up somewhere else, and re-recruit, and start their bombing campaigns all over again - where is the 'decent progress' in that.
Osama Bin Laden's stated aim was to provoke military response from the West to hasten the Armageddon that he was convinced was coming, and hopefully bankrupt the West in the process.
History is about learning what went before, to avoid making the same mistakes again.
It's not as if our most recent military disasters are outside living memory is it?
If they 'melt away' and pop up somewhere else, and re-recruit, and start their bombing campaigns all over again - where is the 'decent progress' in that.
Osama Bin Laden's stated aim was to provoke military response from the West to hasten the Armageddon that he was convinced was coming, and hopefully bankrupt the West in the process.
History is about learning what went before, to avoid making the same mistakes again.
It's not as if our most recent military disasters are outside living memory is it?
The problem as I see it isn't the military intervention so much as the fact that we've never followed it up properly. I think there's more going for that interpretation than there is for the whole "let's stay out". Not least because, to some extent, it's far too late for staying out to work either. If you accept that the Western interventions in the Middle East are part of the problem, at least in helping to create the situation, then it seems to me to follow that it is also partly our responsibility to try and fix that problem. Which I can't see happening by keeping out of it.
jim360 - //The problem as I see it isn't the military intervention so much as the fact that we've never followed it up properly. I think there's more going for that interpretation than there is for the whole "let's stay out". Not least because, to some extent, it's far too late for staying out to work either. If you accept that the Western interventions in the Middle East are part of the problem, at least in helping to create the situation, then it seems to me to follow that it is also partly our responsibility to try and fix that problem. Which I can't see happening by keeping out of it. //
It can't be just people like me who protest the futility of military action - the evidence is clear enough.
Russia spent years and millions of soliders in Afghanistan, and simply repeated Viet Nam - you cannot win with a mass mechanised army against an indigenous population willing to die to protect their way of life - and take swift and bloody revenge on the invading nations.
This willingness to engage lives and money in futile military action is insanity personified - it cannot continue.
It can't be just people like me who protest the futility of military action - the evidence is clear enough.
Russia spent years and millions of soliders in Afghanistan, and simply repeated Viet Nam - you cannot win with a mass mechanised army against an indigenous population willing to die to protect their way of life - and take swift and bloody revenge on the invading nations.
This willingness to engage lives and money in futile military action is insanity personified - it cannot continue.
Difference is that Russia was invading Afghanistan. I don't know if that will make a difference in practice, to be sure. Either way, ISIS cannot be compared to "normal" terrorists, as they hold a definite territory spanning across two recognised countries. A refusal to engage in military action is as good as acknowledging their legitimacy as a nation.
jim360 - //A refusal to engage in military action is as good as acknowledging their legitimacy as a nation.//
That assertion holds no logic at all.
If IS wish to believe that they are acknowledged as a nation, then let them believe it - that costs nothing.
If, as your argument suggests, that military action infers that we are not impressed with the IS plan, then that is a seriously expensive, in terms of money and lives, way of making a point.
The facts are very very simple - military intervention, has not worked in the past, and will not work in the future.
I do not know what the solution is, but only someone with a vested interest in military action - such as the generals whispering in Whitehall ears - would seriously argue that military action is the way forward - based on extremely recent experience.
That assertion holds no logic at all.
If IS wish to believe that they are acknowledged as a nation, then let them believe it - that costs nothing.
If, as your argument suggests, that military action infers that we are not impressed with the IS plan, then that is a seriously expensive, in terms of money and lives, way of making a point.
The facts are very very simple - military intervention, has not worked in the past, and will not work in the future.
I do not know what the solution is, but only someone with a vested interest in military action - such as the generals whispering in Whitehall ears - would seriously argue that military action is the way forward - based on extremely recent experience.
After bombing IS - and having Paris and who knows where else bombed in return - do we have a meaningful result?
Is every single IS terrorist obliterated?
Or do we leave one behind - just one with the will to recruit more, and start the whole dreadful business off again like some horribly real bloody futile Groundhog Day.
Terrorism is like cancer - it only takes one cell for the virus to reproduce - and just like cancer, we don't yet have a cure.
Is every single IS terrorist obliterated?
Or do we leave one behind - just one with the will to recruit more, and start the whole dreadful business off again like some horribly real bloody futile Groundhog Day.
Terrorism is like cancer - it only takes one cell for the virus to reproduce - and just like cancer, we don't yet have a cure.
jim360 - //Maybe we don't have a cure -- but, to extend the cancer argument, radical incisive surgery as a stop-gap measure is often worth trying while searching for a more permanent solution. //
To clarify the 'cancer' argument - a surgeon may well opt for fradical surgery, but that would be on the understanding that he stood a better than average chance of removing all the cancer cells, and the patient recovering.
If you advised him that the chances of removing all the cells was non-existent, and that the remaining cells would visit him in the night and blow up him and his family - do you think he'd be as keen to operate?
To clarify the 'cancer' argument - a surgeon may well opt for fradical surgery, but that would be on the understanding that he stood a better than average chance of removing all the cancer cells, and the patient recovering.
If you advised him that the chances of removing all the cells was non-existent, and that the remaining cells would visit him in the night and blow up him and his family - do you think he'd be as keen to operate?
jim360 - //In the long run we have a difference of opinion and I may as well leave it there -- at least neither of us is a policymaker (and I don't have military connections either, so that attempt to imply a vested interest was a bit of a miss there, A-H). //
I do not believe that I have inferred that you personally have a vested interest in military intervention jim360 - if that was your interpretation, I would respectfully advise that it is your intention.
As you say, we have a difference in opinion, but I dread the day that Cameron gets his way, and the swift and bloody retaliation that will follow as night follows day.
I do not believe that I have inferred that you personally have a vested interest in military intervention jim360 - if that was your interpretation, I would respectfully advise that it is your intention.
As you say, we have a difference in opinion, but I dread the day that Cameron gets his way, and the swift and bloody retaliation that will follow as night follows day.
"only someone with a vested interest in military action... would argue that [it] is the way forward..."
I read that as implying that I had a vested interest. Apologies if I misread it. I'm not particularly offended to be sure. It jsut seemed an odd counter on your part.
Incidentally, a key (potential!) difference between the planned action against ISIS and previous military excursions is that there is a real prospect that, this time, some level of global agreement can be reached. When the UK and US invaded Iraq it was without the support of the UN; ditto Russia's invasion of Afghanistan. Even China might be happy to support military action.
The key sticking point is the fate of Assad, of course. If a solution is found to that disagreement, then a genuinely united action has the prospect of being far more successful than previous ones ever were. Not least because the resources brought by the major countries all combining allow for a far longer-term endgame to be plausible.
I can accept that military actions in the past haven't been effective. It's a difference in interpretation as to why that is that leads to the argument, and in turn leads to competing solutions.
I read that as implying that I had a vested interest. Apologies if I misread it. I'm not particularly offended to be sure. It jsut seemed an odd counter on your part.
Incidentally, a key (potential!) difference between the planned action against ISIS and previous military excursions is that there is a real prospect that, this time, some level of global agreement can be reached. When the UK and US invaded Iraq it was without the support of the UN; ditto Russia's invasion of Afghanistan. Even China might be happy to support military action.
The key sticking point is the fate of Assad, of course. If a solution is found to that disagreement, then a genuinely united action has the prospect of being far more successful than previous ones ever were. Not least because the resources brought by the major countries all combining allow for a far longer-term endgame to be plausible.
I can accept that military actions in the past haven't been effective. It's a difference in interpretation as to why that is that leads to the argument, and in turn leads to competing solutions.
jim - just because the bombs have different flags on them, and there are more of them, is not going to be the least bit more effective.
This idea that if 'we all go in together we'll win the day' is utterly unbelievable!
What changes by more bombs is more retaliation as IS convinces impressionable Muslims that the West wants their destruction as a faith.
And we are conveniently underlining that impression for them.
This idea that if 'we all go in together we'll win the day' is utterly unbelievable!
What changes by more bombs is more retaliation as IS convinces impressionable Muslims that the West wants their destruction as a faith.
And we are conveniently underlining that impression for them.
