Syria- Is it time we re-assessed who we support?

tapzilla2k

Hezbollah are supported by Iran who use them to fight proxy battles with Israel. It's in Iran's interest to see ISIS crushed. Basically it's Sunni vs Shia. Saudi Arabia are support Sunni Jihad groups in Syria as a way of fighting a proxy war with Iran. Basically it's one massive mess that few here have taken the time to understand.  

I do not want to get involved for the time being as there is no coherent plan to defeat ISIS or how to end the Civil War in Syria. If we do get involved, mission creep will set in and before you know it we'll be sending troops into it, repeating the mistakes of the Iraq war.

And yes ISIS needs to be crushed, but without solving Syria's problems another Jihadist group will rise out of the ashes just as bad as ISIS if not worse.

The IDF has carried out a lot of raids and Special Forces missions since the Syrian Civil War broke out. Hezbollah might have some of Assad's chemical and biological weapons, hence the air raids on convoys going from Syria to Lebanon carried out by the IDF. Iran's mucky finger prints are all over it.



The SNP don't actually matter all that much. All Cameron has to do is secure enough votes from Labour MP's and from his own party and he'll carry the vote through.

If you take Corbyn's view about Air strikes in isolation from the blindingly obvious need for ground forces to destroy ISIS, he will likely be vindicated in the long run. No plan on how to destroy ISIS or having a Political solution for Syria once you've cleared out the Jihadists will get us nowhere.

It's not really upto us. MP's will likely vote against our wishes anyway. I think technically Cameron can still use the Royal Prerogative to declare war without a vote in the commons, but that leads to all sorts of complications.  

There are many ways for people to reenter the UK, in fact I'd not be surprised if British born Jihadists have fought and trained in Syria and are now back in the country plotting Paris like attacks. They only have to be lucky once, we have to be lucky every single time.

I would send those who've fought in Syria to the Hauge for War crimes and crimes against Humanity trials. Lets follow the Geneva conventions and not stoop to the level of Jihadist morons.

It's because the RAF (despite the cuts) are still pretty good at what they do. Bombing will not defeat them by a long shot, in fact they probably want to be bombed. The only way to deal with them is with ground forces. Which I think will probably happen at some point in 2016.

Things are as a messy as they were before WWI broke out, we need to be extremely careful. The clamour to do something is not allowing a rational debate to take place within Parliament. It's the same sort of frenzy that occurred in the run up to Iraq. I doubt Cameron's claims about there being 70,000 moderate Syrians ready to fight.

It's also geopolitics at play and so Cameron can look like a statesman as he did with the early part of Libya. The US has the manpower and equipment to destroy ISIS, but they won't due to Obama. Who probably views sending in US troops to defeat ISIS as destroying his policy to withdraw from the Middle East in Military terms and thus tarnish his legacy (he'll have his eye on the history books now). So unless events over take Obama, I doubt we'll see US forces on the ground in Syria and Iraq in significant numbers until the next President is sworn into Office in 2017.

If Trump becomes President, WWIII will happen.

johntheexpat

I didn't know that the previous war in Iraq had ended.  Lets just continue with the previous one, for the moment.  Make it easier for historians in the future.
They would have to be.  I assume all the choice targets have now been hit and anything that is left to bomb is either much harder to hit or a lesser value target, both of which translate into high civilian casualties

Yes, they arrived as refugees in the UK last week, apparently

OR:
Are there still 70,000 Syrians left in Syria?



I think WW3 may be Obama's legacy, when all is reviewed, in 50 years time, in the cold light of day

tapzilla2k

Well that's if there is anything left of humanity, given all those nuclear weapons laying around. Of course if we destroy ourselves at least we'll cool the planet down with nuclear winters and give the cockroaches an easier ride.

tapzilla2k

Unconfirmed, but it appears Cameron might well be too late to join the party -
MAJOR NEWS OUT OF SYRIA: Russian ground troops arrive in Syria in unprecedented military action | USA Politics Today

The Russians were beyond brutal in Chechnya, so I don't expect they'll be any different in Syria. Disaster possibly coming right up.

rodd1000

Really dont see any situation where nuclear war could arise, all the capable nations are more than aware of the costs. Putins a very clever man (both sides enjoy their posturing) and judging by his actions and tone he certainly isn't insane, which you'd need to be to even consider it.

Syria might be a mess, even unsolvable but it is contained to the middle east (as ever) Terrorism at home maybe linked but it's a separate issue which needs to be tackled from within, hunting down and tracking the instigators and educating ethnic communities. The media should have a bigger role in this, creating awareness to recognise the signs of radicalisation, in schools, newspapers, pop media..TV etc. It won't happen overnight but eventually the tide will turn. Imo anyway.

rodd1000

This news is a few days old now and was reported on Nov 23rd, if it's at all true given the source.

The Jerusalem Post

johntheexpat

As far as nuclear war goes.....
Israel has nuclear weapons.  If Iran has them nobody would be surprised.  There was talk a while back about how insecure some Russian military installations are.  Pakistan almost certainly has them so like Russia, theirs might be anywhere.  And then there are dirty bombs.  Anything can happen.

tapzilla2k

Israel would likely only use their nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack or on the verge of being destroyed as a nation. As for Iran ? The clerics believe in the same doomsday prophecy ISIS do. So who knows what they might do with Nuclear weapons.

As for Putin ? He's clever and unpredictable, so I don't think we can really assume what he may or may not do. And you have to remember he heads up a Mafia like Government in Russia, so it's possible a coup could be staged and somebody worse takes over who has no qualms about using Nuclear weapons. Mutually assured destruction worked in the cold war, it doesn't seem to really work now. Given both the US and Russia are upgraded their nuclear stockpiles i.e. replacing warheads that are past their destructive best. And it's beyond doubt that ISIS and other Jihadists would use a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb given the chance.

If Iran does indeed have a nuclear weapon or weapons, expect Saudi Arabia to have them very quickly indeed. That's the big danger in the Middle East, a nuclear arms race. Not caused by Israel but the enmity between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shia Iran.

Fred Quimby

what exactly do you mean.

Sve

I was replying to your post regarding 70000 Turks flooding into Britain if they gain entry into the EU, but its ok for 70000 of another nationality to gain entry.