Syria: What's the solution?
What is the solution to the problems in Syria?
Comments
-
I give this 5 pages max.4
-
5 replies!0
-
Great. another political thread just what we need. Soon they will be catching up with Palace threads.0
-
Iran can test their nuclear weapons on Syria1
-
1 -
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.
0 -
Let's hope it's "out"Henry Irving 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.
0 -
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 happen10 -
At least they're not about Sheffield WednesdayBedsaddick said:Great. another political thread just what we need. Soon they will be catching up with Palace threads.
1 -
Syria wots happened to AC Milan not the team they once was.0
- Sponsored links:
-
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?Lincsaddick 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
0 -
Russia and Syria are allies.
Why wouldnt they be giving arms and other support to Assad ?
0 -
Why hope it's out?Chizz said:
Let's hope it's "out"Henry Irving 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.
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.11 -
i am with you Bobbobmunro said:
Why hope it's out?Chizz said:
Let's hope it's "out"Henry Irving 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.
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.
2 -
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 instanceChizz said:
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?Lincsaddick 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 happen0 -
Lincsaddick said:
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 instanceChizz said:
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?Lincsaddick 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
ISIS.....Islamic State of Iraq and SyriaLincsaddick said:
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 instanceChizz said:
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?Lincsaddick 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
ISIL.....Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.0 -
pretty much the same interpretation .. except that as I typed above, Levant includes Lebanon as well as Syria, so @Chizz might have a pointHastingsaddick said:Lincsaddick said:
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 instanceChizz said:
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?Lincsaddick 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
ISIS.....Islamic State of Iraq and SyriaLincsaddick said:
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 instanceChizz said:
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?Lincsaddick 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
ISIL.....Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.0 -
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.0 -
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.bobmunro said:
Why hope it's out?Chizz said:
Let's hope it's "out"Henry Irving 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.
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.3 -
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.2 - Sponsored links:
-
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!1
-
This sounds less like a fear, more your preferred optionkings hill addick 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.0 -
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.Leuth said:
This sounds less like a fear, more your preferred optionkings hill addick 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.1 -
I'm completely dumbfounded0
-
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.kings hill addick 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.4 -
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.0 -
Drones0
-
Yeah, you do5
-
Another member of the twat club2
-
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.3
