That bit is what I thought was meant by it. If anyone thinks that MBDA are capable of lobbying government to go to war to sell missiles they are sadly mistaken. The defence lobby in this country is good at sipping drinks abroad at ambassadors houses, they are not in and out of Downing Street, nor do they have the ear of the top military commanders. the US, perhaps, but not here or in Europe. Sorry chaps.
They do more than "sip drinks" though. In my personal experience, they go round a party at the British Embassy openly boasting about the local politicians that they have bribed into buying expensive fighter jets. This person is not criticised at that party for what he has done. On the contrary, he is feted. He's a bit of a card and maybe what he's done is a bit naughty, but he represents a British Company of Strategic Importance. So that's alright then.
That is not of course the same as suggesting they persuade politicians to go to war. But it is heinously disgusting and demonstrates the hypocrisy that pervades the British establishment. It explains why we continue to sell military hardware to Saudi, knowing full well that Saudi money and ideology fuels Daesh.
Crikey, I've been to a lot of UK export events and I've never seen that, must have been pre 2010 bribery act surely? Be interested to hear more about that, however it does move away from the thread significantly.
There is still a huge difference to companies like MBDA lobbying for war though and that was my point, that I stand by. While it may not be bad for the economy (though you'd have to sell a huge number of missiles to have any genuine impact, as MBDA are a European conglomerate - as was panavia and as is eurofighter) it would not be enough to make he country go to war or, I believe in this case even to be a contributing factor.
Yes I think it was probably pre-2010. But I am sure you've already worked out which company he worked for (best not to mention it here).
The relevance to this thread is this: if we really want to deal with Daesh then we have to get to the root causes of it. One of those root causes is the UAE. Are we addressing it? Is it right to flog them arms, toady up to them at the mere sight of their money? I don't pretend it is black and white,, and I also understand that you have to be a bit subtle on such matters. But I didn't hear so much as a smidgin of a mention of the issue from Hilary Benn in his much lauded speech yesterday. Regardless of the right and wrongs of bombings, @micks1950 has shown Hilary Benn to be a stinking hypocrite, just like our diplomats who fete arms salesmen who bribe foreign politicians.
The UAE the root cause? Worse than Saudi and Qatar? I'd suggest probably not. Though I'm sure rich donors exist from the whole of the Middle East.
Sorry, hands up, I meant to write Saudi, don't know what I was thinking of. Apart from my third beer...
ISIS deal in fear. Whatever we base our decision on it cant be affected by fear of retaliation. People will die on both sides, but it is war and a war we (whether we like it or not) are involved in already.
We also need to stand shoulder to shoulder with allies, as we'd want them to do the same were the situations reversed.
It's difficult to convince citizens on the receiving end of Muslim beheadings and mass murder that Muslims are doing anything other than what their religion requires.
If I was Corbyn, I would set my suggestion for a global plan to defeat IS in the absence of one from anywhere else. I think something based on common sense, experience and logic would resonate with people.
More civilians will die. They will be Syrian though. Until the successful reprisal killings in the UK. Then they will be Syrian and British.
Attempted attacks in the UK are going to happen anyway, at what point do you think we should do something?
We should not make it more likely. Take an unstable country in state of civil war, having encouraged the instability, bomb the side you think are most disgusting. Repeat until we all die.
More civilians will die. They will be Syrian though. Until the successful reprisal killings in the UK. Then they will be Syrian and British.
Attempted attacks in the UK are going to happen anyway, at what point do you think we should do something?
We should not make it more likely. Take an unstable country in state of civil war, having encouraged the instability, bomb the side you think are most disgusting. Repeat until we all die.
It's difficult to convince citizens on the receiving end of Muslim beheadings and mass murder that Muslims are doing anything other than what their religion requires.
Playing into Daesh's hands who want a reaction against 99% of ordinary Muslims so they will turn to Daesh. Daesh kill muslims - Shia's and basically anyone who doesn't agree with them. Its not helpful to paint all Muslims as Daesh.
Without a decent strategy, dropping bombs on Syria is at best a massive waste of money, and at worst will cause civilian casualities and have lots of unintended consequences. IMO.
Without a decent strategy, dropping bombs on Syria is at best a massive waste of money, and at worst will cause civilian casualities and have lots of unintended consequences. IMO.
How do you know there ain't a decent strategy and while we're at it, all those who've got a better idea on dealing with this problem, please share..
Without a decent strategy, dropping bombs on Syria is at best a massive waste of money, and at worst will cause civilian casualities and have lots of unintended consequences. IMO.
How do you know there ain't a decent strategy and while we're at it, all those who've got a better idea on dealing with this problem, please share..
If there was a decent stategy that is not one that has been shared by anyone proposing air strikes so far. It is good to not go blundering forward if you don't know what you doing.
Starve Daesh of funds by blocking the sale of oil for a start. Help to close the border blocking the flow of arms and support from Turkey.
Without a decent strategy, dropping bombs on Syria is at best a massive waste of money, and at worst will cause civilian casualities and have lots of unintended consequences. IMO.
How do you know there ain't a decent strategy and while we're at it, all those who've got a better idea on dealing with this problem, please share..
If there was a decent stategy that is not one that has been shared by anyone proposing air strikes so far. It is good to not go blundering forward if you don't know what you doing.
Starve Daesh of funds by blocking the sale of oil for a start. Help to close the border blocking the flow of arms and support from Turkey.
Without a decent strategy, dropping bombs on Syria is at best a massive waste of money, and at worst will cause civilian casualities and have lots of unintended consequences. IMO.
How do you know there ain't a decent strategy and while we're at it, all those who've got a better idea on dealing with this problem, please share..
If there was a decent stategy that is not one that has been shared by anyone proposing air strikes so far. It is good to not go blundering forward if you don't know what you doing.
Starve Daesh of funds by blocking the sale of oil for a start. Help to close the border blocking the flow of arms and support from Turkey.
None of that is exactly a quick fix though is it
Do you seriously think there is a "quick fix" to regional tensions that are decades if not centuries old?
Without a decent strategy, dropping bombs on Syria is at best a massive waste of money, and at worst will cause civilian casualities and have lots of unintended consequences. IMO.
How do you know there ain't a decent strategy and while we're at it, all those who've got a better idea on dealing with this problem, please share..
If there was a decent stategy that is not one that has been shared by anyone proposing air strikes so far. It is good to not go blundering forward if you don't know what you doing.
Starve Daesh of funds by blocking the sale of oil for a start. Help to close the border blocking the flow of arms and support from Turkey.
None of that is exactly a quick fix though is it
Do you seriously think there is a "quick fix" to regional tensions that are decades if not centuries old?
I seriously think that taking the war to them and blowing as many of the fuckers up as possible is a lot quicker than 'starving' them of funds.
Without a decent strategy, dropping bombs on Syria is at best a massive waste of money, and at worst will cause civilian casualities and have lots of unintended consequences. IMO.
How do you know there ain't a decent strategy and while we're at it, all those who've got a better idea on dealing with this problem, please share..
If there was a decent stategy that is not one that has been shared by anyone proposing air strikes so far. It is good to not go blundering forward if you don't know what you doing.
Starve Daesh of funds by blocking the sale of oil for a start. Help to close the border blocking the flow of arms and support from Turkey.
None of that is exactly a quick fix though is it
Do you seriously think there is a "quick fix" to regional tensions that are decades if not centuries old?
I seriously think that taking the war to them and blowing as many of the fuckers up as possible is a lot quicker than 'starving' them of funds.
One works, the other makes good press but bad strategy. They're fanatics and extremists, drop your bombs and blow them up but the radical clerics will swiftly send over the next wave. Cut their access to money and weapons and send a properly trained and equipped army to fight them on the ground and they will be beaten for good. Bombs will just convince them to hide better
Without a decent strategy, dropping bombs on Syria is at best a massive waste of money, and at worst will cause civilian casualities and have lots of unintended consequences. IMO.
How do you know there ain't a decent strategy and while we're at it, all those who've got a better idea on dealing with this problem, please share..
If there was a decent stategy that is not one that has been shared by anyone proposing air strikes so far. It is good to not go blundering forward if you don't know what you doing.
Starve Daesh of funds by blocking the sale of oil for a start. Help to close the border blocking the flow of arms and support from Turkey.
None of that is exactly a quick fix though is it
Do you seriously think there is a "quick fix" to regional tensions that are decades if not centuries old?
I seriously think that taking the war to them and blowing as many of the fuckers up as possible is a lot quicker than 'starving' them of funds.
One works, the other makes good press but bad strategy. They're fanatics and extremists, drop your bombs and blow them up but the radical clerics will swiftly send over the next wave. Cut their access to money and weapons and send a properly trained and equipped army to fight them on the ground and they will be beaten for good. Bombs will just convince them to hide better
This is basically as I see it.
I'll say something outrageous... Imagine if a UN army took to the ground, destroyed IS, and then Assad. Oh, and all the other conflicts in the world. Yup.
The bombing has to be short term, many seem to be focusing on the deaths and underestimating the full impact on the civilian population. Every bomb dropped weakens civilian confidence in the security of their homes as well as the economy. People can't run businesses whilst worrying about their day to day security. The longer the bombing and unrest goes on, the longer it will take for stability to return. This will lead to more people fleeing the violence and settling elsewhere.
Without a decent strategy, dropping bombs on Syria is at best a massive waste of money, and at worst will cause civilian casualities and have lots of unintended consequences. IMO.
How do you know there ain't a decent strategy and while we're at it, all those who've got a better idea on dealing with this problem, please share..
If there was a decent stategy that is not one that has been shared by anyone proposing air strikes so far. It is good to not go blundering forward if you don't know what you doing.
Starve Daesh of funds by blocking the sale of oil for a start. Help to close the border blocking the flow of arms and support from Turkey.
None of that is exactly a quick fix though is it
Do you seriously think there is a "quick fix" to regional tensions that are decades if not centuries old?
I seriously think that taking the war to them and blowing as many of the fuckers up as possible is a lot quicker than 'starving' them of funds.
One works, the other makes good press but bad strategy. They're fanatics and extremists, drop your bombs and blow them up but the radical clerics will swiftly send over the next wave. Cut their access to money and weapons and send a properly trained and equipped army to fight them on the ground and they will be beaten for good. Bombs will just convince them to hide better
They can't "hide". It's a Caliphate. Without land the whole purpose is negated.
Without a decent strategy, dropping bombs on Syria is at best a massive waste of money, and at worst will cause civilian casualities and have lots of unintended consequences. IMO.
How do you know there ain't a decent strategy and while we're at it, all those who've got a better idea on dealing with this problem, please share..
If there was a decent stategy that is not one that has been shared by anyone proposing air strikes so far. It is good to not go blundering forward if you don't know what you doing.
Starve Daesh of funds by blocking the sale of oil for a start. Help to close the border blocking the flow of arms and support from Turkey.
None of that is exactly a quick fix though is it
Do you seriously think there is a "quick fix" to regional tensions that are decades if not centuries old?
I seriously think that taking the war to them and blowing as many of the fuckers up as possible is a lot quicker than 'starving' them of funds.
One works, the other makes good press but bad strategy. They're fanatics and extremists, drop your bombs and blow them up but the radical clerics will swiftly send over the next wave. Cut their access to money and weapons and send a properly trained and equipped army to fight them on the ground and they will be beaten for good. Bombs will just convince them to hide better
How do we stop the movement of oil, weapons and people without dropping bombs?
I can't see how taking away their funding, by itself, is gonna have any effect in the next 2-3 years. IMO They've stockpiled massive amounts of hardware (that can be targeted with bombs) and have access to much more regardless of money. i agree that long term it is essential to take away the dough.
If what I keep reading is correct and tbey are being funded by other states in the Region, Id love to know how we go about breaking that tie, without it kicking off with them an all
ISIS deal in fear. Whatever we base our decision on it cant be affected by fear of retaliation. People will die on both sides, but it is war and a war we (whether we like it or not) are involved in already.
We also need to stand shoulder to shoulder with allies, as we'd want them to do the same were the situations reversed.
Nobody argues that this movement isn't evil, but we have thrown our hat in with the fictitious FSA while all the other "allies" in the conflict are trying to kill each other and few share our goal of rule by moderates. The folly of dividing areas with differing tribes/factions into western ideas of nations will haunt us for decades to come.
As others have said, the answer is more likely to be isolation of Saudi's etc and UN action on arms sales.
Comments
We also need to stand shoulder to shoulder with allies, as we'd want them to do the same were the situations reversed.
Starve Daesh of funds by blocking the sale of oil for a start. Help to close the border blocking the flow of arms and support from Turkey.
I'll say something outrageous... Imagine if a UN army took to the ground, destroyed IS, and then Assad. Oh, and all the other conflicts in the world. Yup.
If what I keep reading is correct and tbey are being funded by other states in the Region, Id love to know how we go about breaking that tie, without it kicking off with them an all
As others have said, the answer is more likely to be isolation of Saudi's etc and UN action on arms sales.