Donate SIGN UP

Answers

1 to 20 of 24rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Avatar Image
The 70,000 rebels "on our side" were a key plank in Cameron's recent "let's bomb Syria" crusade. Now he admits that they're a motley crew at best. Indeed, some of them would probably slaughter the others if they got the chance...wonderful allies, indeed! He claims that “it wasn’t a figure I invented” but was provided by the security services and was a...
08:46 Wed 13th Jan 2016
IMO just stating the obvious. If the world is concerned about Daesh and their ilk then they need to provide soldiers to do the job of removing them as a threat to humanity.
Also, I don't think Obama has the cojones to get more involved before the end of his term of office, he just wants to slide out as a 'Mr Nice Guy'.
Bring on Trump?
"PM jokes that some of the 70,000 fighters are not the 'sort of people you bump into at Liberal Democrat party conference'

An interesting comparison. Is DC going to jump over to the LibDems when he goes. He wouldn't be plagued with Brexiters there.

I am not sure he is saying anything different here. Of course the people fighting in Syria aren't all Tim Farrons in tin hats
But we already know that. The question is more: can they and will they want to do what he is expecting. Many are now being bombed by Russian planes.
Khando,
I reckon he does have the cojones and certainly the means at his disposal, it's just that policy has changed. He's trying to encourage those embroiled in it and neighbouring ME countries to actually do their bit for once instead of always relying on the world's policeman to sort it out and inevitably be criticised either way.
The 70,000 rebels "on our side" were a key plank in Cameron's recent "let's bomb Syria" crusade. Now he admits that they're a motley crew at best. Indeed, some of them would probably slaughter the others if they got the chance...wonderful allies, indeed!
He claims that “it wasn’t a figure I invented” but was provided by the security services and was a best estimate. In other words, “Now it turns out to be unreal, it had nothing to do with me!”
Many knowledgeable commentators knew it was unreal at the time, so one wonders how many gullible MPs voted with him imagining the figure was real.
Looks like snake-oil was a good commodity investment at the time!
Question Author
^That's pretty much how I see things, Q.
-- answer removed --
The "70,000" thing is an irrelevance.
Anyone who believed it, whether they voted for or against airstrikes, is deluding themselves.
I would have voted "for" regardless, as it makes no sense to be attacking IS in Iraq but not crossing the border where necessary. After all, they don't recognise that border. Syria is a country in several occupied pieces.
chillDoubt; In his final state of the nation address he sounds a bit wishy-washy, "ISIS does not pose an existential threat to the US". No cojones there, wouldn't you say?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/12096513/state-of-the-union-2016-barack-obama.html

Why don't we offer to train most of those young fit men that are swarming into Europe, and 'SEND THEM BACK' to fight for their country?

Wait a minute though we have already tried that and they raped our men and women, so we had to 'SEND THEM BACK'.

Oh what the hell why not just 'SEND THEM BACK' anyway?
Well it's no surprise to most just like it wont be a surprise when someone finally admits that Western 'boots on the ground' will be required to defeat Daesh/ so-called Islamic State.
Tricked out?

70000 was dismissed just as soon as he said it.
Question Author
Not by everyone, Talbot. And certainly not by Cameron himself.
he relied on intelligence, the same as Blair did for his weapons of mass destruction. It's possible PMs just hear what they want to hear; it's equally possible that intelligence is useless.
Question Author
And it's equally possible he's an inveterate liar.
When Cameron told of the 70,000, being interviewed George Galloway said, not even is there 7,000, in fact, he'd be hard pressed to find 700.
'and some are 'hardline' . I thought most were hardcore Islamic terrorist.
Mr Putin has been the most trustworthy in all this (and most effective).
Question Author
Too right, order.
Svejk,

I don't think anyone ever believed the 70,000 figure when Cameron first introduced it.

// Gromit: We are being conned into joining a war on the wrong side.
Assad is no danger to anyone in the UK, but ISIS is.

Cameron's dodgy dossier published this week is as deceptive as Blair's was 10 years ago.

Sun 29th Nov 2015 //

I am only surprised that Cameron has fessed up so quickly.

The 70,000 'Good Rebels' was clearly highly dubious claim. The reality is that there really aren't any good rebels. They are all extreme Islamists, and we are in danger of promoting them to power in Syria over a secular, anti extremist Government.

The only group in this mess who are not mtivated by Islamist fervour are the Kurds who are just after a century desired homeland. They are the only group who appear to want rid of Assad and replace him with a stable self governing, non extremist Government. Unfortunately we are NOT supporting the Kurds, in fact we are supporting our ally Turkey's daily attacks on the Kurdish fighters.

So we are in the strange pisition that we have sanctioned airstrikes in Syria to support a 'good' opposition, who in fact do not exist.

What are we doing in Syria and why, is a bit of a conundrum?
This is how I see it, and I have been saying since day one, we should align ourselves with the only sensible person in the game, and the one who knows what he is doing, - Vladimir Putin, who supports Assad because he (Assad) has refused to allow either of the two proposed pipelines to cross Syria, - one proposed from Qatar and the other from Iran, both would terminate in Turkey, from where the oil could continue onwards to Europe. The Americans want it because it will eclipse the Russian pipeline, damaging their economy even further, and thereby shaft Putin.
Putin's policy is simple, support Assad (at least for now) and attack anyone
not just ISIS, trying to remove him by force.
Joining forces with Putin would facilitate a speedier end to all conflict and give the best opportunity to bring the badly needed stability to the region.

1 to 20 of 24rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

The Truth Trickles Out..

Answer Question >>

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.