Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Syria: What's the solution?

edited September 2015 in Not Sports Related
Today, it has been revealed that Russia has positioned around six tanks at an airfield in Syria. To me, that sounds like the start of an escalation in the problem, rather than a pacifying effort.

What is the solution to the problems in Syria?
«1

Comments

  • I give this 5 pages max.
  • 5 replies!
  • Great. another political thread just what we need. Soon they will be catching up with Palace threads.
  • Iran can test their nuclear weapons on Syria
  • Russia are part, a big part, of the problem. We'll see if they are willing to be part of the solution.

    Sounds like they are protecting an airfield to get people in or out. Which it is will tell us more.
  • Russia are part, a big part, of the problem. We'll see if they are willing to be part of the solution.

    Sounds like they are protecting an airfield to get people in or out. Which it is will tell us more.

    Let's hope it's "out"
  • Great. another political thread just what we need. Soon they will be catching up with Palace threads.

    At least they're not about Sheffield Wednesday
  • Syria wots happened to AC Milan not the team they once was.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Syria historically, especially under the regime of Assad Senior, had a close tie in with the old Soviet Union .. much of the military kit used by Syria in the futile wars against Israel was Soviet supplied

    The Russian leadership has an almost fanatical hatred of Islamic fundamentalism. The presence of tanks and (probably) military advisers to Assad Jnr. will at worst play a role in keeping the ISIS advance at bay.

    The UK should keep out of this mess, we have enough on our plates with Iraq and Afghanistan. Treaties between France and Britain determined that Syria and Lebanon, aka the Levant, would come under French influence. Let France, Russia and the inevitable USA interest/interference in any trouble, sort it out .. IF IF IF they can.
    My main fear is that if Assad falls, as odious as he may be, his Alawite tribe/sect and the few remaining Christians in the mid east will be massacred. This must not happen

    Is this part of the reason that Cameron insists on referring to ISIL, as opposed to ISIS or Islamic State? In other words, to "push" the problem onto France?
  • Russia and Syria are allies.

    Why wouldnt they be giving arms and other support to Assad ?
  • bobmunro said:

    Chizz said:

    Russia are part, a big part, of the problem. We'll see if they are willing to be part of the solution.

    Sounds like they are protecting an airfield to get people in or out. Which it is will tell us more.

    Let's hope it's "out"
    Why hope it's out?

    US/UK don't want to commit ground forces to bring 'order' then why not Russia. Ground forces are required though - either the West or Russia and I haven't got too much of a problem with either.

    Forget democracy, forget a peaceful negotiated settlement in Syria - it needs controlled order from chaos - and IS in Syria destroyed. Assad wants that, Russia would be happy with that and I see no reason why the West shouldn't be happy with that also.
    i am with you Bob

  • Chizz said:

    Syria historically, especially under the regime of Assad Senior, had a close tie in with the old Soviet Union .. much of the military kit used by Syria in the futile wars against Israel was Soviet supplied

    The Russian leadership has an almost fanatical hatred of Islamic fundamentalism. The presence of tanks and (probably) military advisers to Assad Jnr. will at worst play a role in keeping the ISIS advance at bay.

    The UK should keep out of this mess, we have enough on our plates with Iraq and Afghanistan. Treaties between France and Britain determined that Syria and Lebanon, aka the Levant, would come under French influence. Let France, Russia and the inevitable USA interest/interference in any trouble, sort it out .. IF IF IF they can.
    My main fear is that if Assad falls, as odious as he may be, his Alawite tribe/sect and the few remaining Christians in the mid east will be massacred. This must not happen

    Is this part of the reason that Cameron insists on referring to ISIL, as opposed to ISIS or Islamic State? In other words, to "push" the problem onto France?
    several acronyms are used: IS, ISIS, ISIL etc. .. I don't know if the different 'wording' has any significance or are the terms almost interchangeable like GB/UK for instance
  • edited September 2015

    Chizz said:

    Syria historically, especially under the regime of Assad Senior, had a close tie in with the old Soviet Union .. much of the military kit used by Syria in the futile wars against Israel was Soviet supplied

    The Russian leadership has an almost fanatical hatred of Islamic fundamentalism. The presence of tanks and (probably) military advisers to Assad Jnr. will at worst play a role in keeping the ISIS advance at bay.

    The UK should keep out of this mess, we have enough on our plates with Iraq and Afghanistan. Treaties between France and Britain determined that Syria and Lebanon, aka the Levant, would come under French influence. Let France, Russia and the inevitable USA interest/interference in any trouble, sort it out .. IF IF IF they can.
    My main fear is that if Assad falls, as odious as he may be, his Alawite tribe/sect and the few remaining Christians in the mid east will be massacred. This must not happen

    Is this part of the reason that Cameron insists on referring to ISIL, as opposed to ISIS or Islamic State? In other words, to "push" the problem onto France?
    several acronyms are used: IS, ISIS, ISIL etc. .. I don't know if the different 'wording' has any significance or are the terms almost interchangeable like GB/UK for instance

    Chizz said:

    Syria historically, especially under the regime of Assad Senior, had a close tie in with the old Soviet Union .. much of the military kit used by Syria in the futile wars against Israel was Soviet supplied

    The Russian leadership has an almost fanatical hatred of Islamic fundamentalism. The presence of tanks and (probably) military advisers to Assad Jnr. will at worst play a role in keeping the ISIS advance at bay.

    The UK should keep out of this mess, we have enough on our plates with Iraq and Afghanistan. Treaties between France and Britain determined that Syria and Lebanon, aka the Levant, would come under French influence. Let France, Russia and the inevitable USA interest/interference in any trouble, sort it out .. IF IF IF they can.
    My main fear is that if Assad falls, as odious as he may be, his Alawite tribe/sect and the few remaining Christians in the mid east will be massacred. This must not happen

    Is this part of the reason that Cameron insists on referring to ISIL, as opposed to ISIS or Islamic State? In other words, to "push" the problem onto France?
    several acronyms are used: IS, ISIS, ISIL etc. .. I don't know if the different 'wording' has any significance or are the terms almost interchangeable like GB/UK for instance
    ISIS.....Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
    ISIL.....Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
  • Chizz said:

    Syria historically, especially under the regime of Assad Senior, had a close tie in with the old Soviet Union .. much of the military kit used by Syria in the futile wars against Israel was Soviet supplied

    The Russian leadership has an almost fanatical hatred of Islamic fundamentalism. The presence of tanks and (probably) military advisers to Assad Jnr. will at worst play a role in keeping the ISIS advance at bay.

    The UK should keep out of this mess, we have enough on our plates with Iraq and Afghanistan. Treaties between France and Britain determined that Syria and Lebanon, aka the Levant, would come under French influence. Let France, Russia and the inevitable USA interest/interference in any trouble, sort it out .. IF IF IF they can.
    My main fear is that if Assad falls, as odious as he may be, his Alawite tribe/sect and the few remaining Christians in the mid east will be massacred. This must not happen

    Is this part of the reason that Cameron insists on referring to ISIL, as opposed to ISIS or Islamic State? In other words, to "push" the problem onto France?
    several acronyms are used: IS, ISIS, ISIL etc. .. I don't know if the different 'wording' has any significance or are the terms almost interchangeable like GB/UK for instance

    Chizz said:

    Syria historically, especially under the regime of Assad Senior, had a close tie in with the old Soviet Union .. much of the military kit used by Syria in the futile wars against Israel was Soviet supplied

    The Russian leadership has an almost fanatical hatred of Islamic fundamentalism. The presence of tanks and (probably) military advisers to Assad Jnr. will at worst play a role in keeping the ISIS advance at bay.

    The UK should keep out of this mess, we have enough on our plates with Iraq and Afghanistan. Treaties between France and Britain determined that Syria and Lebanon, aka the Levant, would come under French influence. Let France, Russia and the inevitable USA interest/interference in any trouble, sort it out .. IF IF IF they can.
    My main fear is that if Assad falls, as odious as he may be, his Alawite tribe/sect and the few remaining Christians in the mid east will be massacred. This must not happen

    Is this part of the reason that Cameron insists on referring to ISIL, as opposed to ISIS or Islamic State? In other words, to "push" the problem onto France?
    several acronyms are used: IS, ISIS, ISIL etc. .. I don't know if the different 'wording' has any significance or are the terms almost interchangeable like GB/UK for instance
    ISIS.....Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
    ISIL.....Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
    pretty much the same interpretation .. except that as I typed above, Levant includes Lebanon as well as Syria, so @Chizz might have a point
  • edited September 2015
    There are no easy solutions.

    One way or the other these jihadist ISIS blokes are being financed though and I suspect much of it is via richer "respectable" Gulf Islamic countries.

    It would be hard, even impossible, to do but if Western countries can find a way of obtaining oil or alternative fuel sources by significantly boycotting the Gulf countries I suspect the incentive would be there for them to sort these terrorist scum out themselves rather than the uneasy vacuum we have at the moment.

    Hitting people in the pocket tends to be effective.
  • bobmunro said:

    Chizz said:

    Russia are part, a big part, of the problem. We'll see if they are willing to be part of the solution.

    Sounds like they are protecting an airfield to get people in or out. Which it is will tell us more.

    Let's hope it's "out"
    Why hope it's out?

    US/UK don't want to commit ground forces to bring 'order' then why not Russia. Ground forces are required though - either the West or Russia and I haven't got too much of a problem with either.

    Forget democracy, forget a peaceful negotiated settlement in Syria - it needs controlled order from chaos - and IS in Syria destroyed. Assad wants that, Russia would be happy with that and I see no reason why the West shouldn't be happy with that also.
    Agree. I want to see ISIS completely and utterly destroyed. I don't care who does it. The West had the chance to deal with them and failed. The West should either help Russia do this or stand aside and let them get on with it.
  • edited September 2015
    I fear that this could escalate into the West using nuclear weapons to deal with ISIS/ISIL. We cannot subject all the young men that sign up to protect our country to another war on foreign soil with little chance of success and significant chance of casualties.

    Bombing buildings with drones will not completely and utterly destroy ISIS/ISIL and they do need to be stopped. In the end the only sure fire way to stop them is to destroy everything within a multiple mile radius of where they are. With nuclear weapons that can be done from hundreds and hundreds of miles away without any of our servicemen being flown home in boxes.

    I know this sounds like a drastic action to take but I fear that if ISIS/ISIL keep growing and acquiring wealth to buy weapons and ammunition in the end there will be no other way to stop them.
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited September 2015
    It does matter who does it. Russia might think it will buy them influence and oil if they do it. We have got an issue doing anything that would be seen as helping Assad as in 2013 we were advocating supporting the rebels - which included Islamic militants with their IS agenda against him. It is quite messy really, but what we have in IS is a problem that will only become greater. The longer we leave dealing with it, the harder it will be to do so. We should have learned that every action in the middle East has a reaction - ideally we need Arabs to be at the front of this and we need to support them as best we can but failing that, anybody really!
  • I fear that this could escalate into the West using nuclear weapons to deal with ISIS/ISIL. We cannot subject all the young men that sign up to protect our country to another war on foreign soil with little chance of success and significant chance of casualties.

    Bombing buildings with drones will not completely and utterly destroy ISIS/ISIL and they do need to be stopped. In the end the only sure fire way to stop them is to destroy everything within a multiple mile radius of where they are. With nuclear weapons that can be done from hundreds and hundreds of miles away without any of our servicemen being flown home in boxes.

    I know this sounds like a drastic action to take but I fear that if ISIS/ISIL keep growing and acquiring wealth to buy weapons and ammunition in the end there will be no other way to stop them.

    This sounds less like a fear, more your preferred option
  • Leuth said:

    I fear that this could escalate into the West using nuclear weapons to deal with ISIS/ISIL. We cannot subject all the young men that sign up to protect our country to another war on foreign soil with little chance of success and significant chance of casualties.

    Bombing buildings with drones will not completely and utterly destroy ISIS/ISIL and they do need to be stopped. In the end the only sure fire way to stop them is to destroy everything within a multiple mile radius of where they are. With nuclear weapons that can be done from hundreds and hundreds of miles away without any of our servicemen being flown home in boxes.

    I know this sounds like a drastic action to take but I fear that if ISIS/ISIL keep growing and acquiring wealth to buy weapons and ammunition in the end there will be no other way to stop them.

    This sounds less like a fear, more your preferred option
    No it is not. I think it would be a disaster on a global scale but I think we have done enough in the region. I don't want any more of our boys sent over there to lose their lives. Assuming that other nations feel the same - the US especially - there is little left on the table, and I do not believe it is an option to leave ISIS/ISIL to keep growing.
  • I'm completely dumbfounded
  • I fear that this could escalate into the West using nuclear weapons to deal with ISIS/ISIL. We cannot subject all the young men that sign up to protect our country to another war on foreign soil with little chance of success and significant chance of casualties.

    Bombing buildings with drones will not completely and utterly destroy ISIS/ISIL and they do need to be stopped. In the end the only sure fire way to stop them is to destroy everything within a multiple mile radius of where they are. With nuclear weapons that can be done from hundreds and hundreds of miles away without any of our servicemen being flown home in boxes.

    I know this sounds like a drastic action to take but I fear that if ISIS/ISIL keep growing and acquiring wealth to buy weapons and ammunition in the end there will be no other way to stop them.

    Maybe we should just drop a nuke on Mecca. The Arabs would initially be pretty unhappy about it but they would soon respect our show of strength. Sunni and Shia would probably use the event to come together and transform Islam into an even more peaceful religion and I bet within a generation there would be statues of Cameron and Obama throughout the Middle East. You're right it's time to give nukes a chance.
  • And when anyone pooh-poohs your nuclear option, just turn to them and say: "Our boys, trained at enormous expense for armed combat, have done enough armed combating. This is literally the only way, I fear."

    They won't have a response, so you can get on with literally wiping out all life on Earth in peace.
  • Drones
  • edited September 2015
    Another member of the twat club
  • Solution : leave the area and let the Arab states sort it out. Support those fighting Islamic state, with weapons, loans etc. but let's not get involved. The entire situation in the Middle East is because of western, but mostly British meddling a hundred years ago. We're reaping what we sowed. We made the region unstable to control it. Now it's uncontrollable and it's a monster that threatens to come back to haunt us.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!