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.
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.
Because it's very unlikely that that would be the outcome of the intervention of ground forces by Russia or the West.
ISIS/ISIL began life as 'Al Qaeda in Iraq' – it's self styled 'Caliph' is called al-Baghdadi.
It's the product of our last go at imposing “controlled order” in the area - the invasion of Iraq - and it's now part of the wider 'Sunni'–'Shia' conflict in the region headed by Saudi Arabia and Iran respectively.
However, taking steps to stop their financing by Sunni gulf states and Saudi Arabia and stopping their illicit oil sales - much of which enters the world market via Turkey – would be something the UK and the West generally could and should be doing.
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
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
Looking up Levant on Wiki...it can mean Eastern Med....this includes Israel and Cyprus amongst others https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levant#st ....but agree with what your saying with regards to Chizzs point.
Another idea would be to decide which branch of Islam deserves to survive, arm it to the teeth and let it go off on a war of annihilation against its rival. Once the butchery is over the middle east will be much easier to control. The great thing about this plan is that it's already well supported in the region and (quietly of course) by several of the worlds great powers.
Another idea would be to decide which branch of Islam deserves to survive, arm it to the teeth and let it go off on a war of annihilation against its rival. Once the butchery is over the middle east will be much easier to control. The great thing about this plan is that it's already well supported in the region and (quietly of course) by several of the worlds great powers.
That is a morally bankrupt suggestion, but might be our best option. Make the winner your friend but you would have the associated atrocities on your consience. And in a sense, IS can be deemed to have brought it on itself. Maybe something like this would save lives in the long run. I suspect the big issue would be our other friends like Saudi Arabia.
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.
Again, you seem to be assuming that I want a nuclear option used. I don't! I think it is possible that those that are in a position to make it happen might not feel the same way I do.
Politically there is no will to send in troops, despite the fact that they are trained to fight. After Blair and Bush's war in Iraq based on something that just didn't exist I don't have a lot of faith in the decision making of those that put us into this mess in the first place.
It is a little offensive when you suggest that I would want us (or anyone else) to use these weapons. Just because I believe it could happen doesn't mean I think it is a good idea!
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
Da'esh better. Only UK really lagging behind with this.
Another idea would be to decide which branch of Islam deserves to survive, arm it to the teeth and let it go off on a war of annihilation against its rival. Once the butchery is over the middle east will be much easier to control. The great thing about this plan is that it's already well supported in the region and (quietly of course) by several of the worlds great powers.
So basically decide which country to attack between Saudi Arabia and Iran... hmmmm that will end well.
Another idea would be to decide which branch of Islam deserves to survive, arm it to the teeth and let it go off on a war of annihilation against its rival. Once the butchery is over the middle east will be much easier to control. The great thing about this plan is that it's already well supported in the region and (quietly of course) by several of the worlds great powers.
So basically decide which country to attack between Saudi Arabia and Iran... hmmmm that will end well.
I think you perhaps missed the tone of my post. I'm genuinely frightened that Syria is just the starting point of the regions religious/sectarian wars and that plenty of actors across the middle east think in the way the way I highlighted previously.
Comments
ISIS/ISIL began life as 'Al Qaeda in Iraq' – it's self styled 'Caliph' is called al-Baghdadi.
It's the product of our last go at imposing “controlled order” in the area - the invasion of Iraq - and it's now part of the wider 'Sunni'–'Shia' conflict in the region headed by Saudi Arabia and Iran respectively.
However, taking steps to stop their financing by Sunni gulf states and Saudi Arabia and stopping their illicit oil sales - much of which enters the world market via Turkey – would be something the UK and the West generally could and should be doing.
Just leave Syria and the rest of their neighbours to sort themselves out.
Step away from the situation. Stop trying to be the policemen of the world.
Politically there is no will to send in troops, despite the fact that they are trained to fight. After Blair and Bush's war in Iraq based on something that just didn't exist I don't have a lot of faith in the decision making of those that put us into this mess in the first place.
It is a little offensive when you suggest that I would want us (or anyone else) to use these weapons. Just because I believe it could happen doesn't mean I think it is a good idea!