What military intervention has no strategy? The war on the IS is a broad coalition of regional powers and outside forces, and since the intervention began the IS have lost 40% of the territory they held in Iraq and 20% in Syria (and have lost almost 30,000 men); so I'd say that that is going rather well.
well, as per my knowledge - this has happened because their money/oil and reserouces have been targeted - instead of carpet bombing raqqa...
or as Bush says... "go in there, fight both sides"
Stop getting into bed with them... both bibi and salman
well, as per my knowledge - this has happened because their money/oil and reserouces have been targeted - instead of carpet bombing raqqa...
or as Bush says... "go in there, fight both sides"
Also, I was talking more generally about the things we engage in which fuels the growth of terrorism in the middle east.
It is undeniable that the war on Iraq created the conditions for ISIS to spawn; it is also clear that tyranny and terrorism perpetuate the existence of each other; and the arms we sell do end up in the hands of terrorists.
If we keep repeating the same patterns of 'solving' the issue then we are going to end up with the same outcome- more extremism, more terrorism, more global unrest.
Stop getting into bed with them... both bibi and salman
i am a bit conflicted on this. i do think that we should not be supplying states with military equipment with possible complicity in war crimes, nor should we be rewarding states that act contrary to international law or are dictatorships with a diplomatic alliance. however, the reverse of this is degrading our sphere our influence; if we stop supplying saudi/israel with arms russia/china will instead, and we will just lose an ally whose behaviour we can at least somewhat influence
But I don't see what Israel has to do with tackling terrorism, if I'm honest.
well, as per my knowledge - this has happened because their money/oil and resources have been targeted - instead of carpet bombing raqqa...
or as Bush says... "go in there, fight both sides"
I don't really get the relevance of this? I was responding to EW's assertion that the intervention lacks a strategy, this can be rejected by virtue of the success of the intervention to date.
i am a bit conflicted on this. i do think that we should not be supplying states with military equipment with possible complicity in war crimes, nor should we be rewarding states that act contrary to international law or are dictatorships with a diplomatic alliance. however, the reverse of this is degrading our sphere our influence; if we stop supplying saudi/israel with arms russia/china will instead, and we will just lose an ally whose behaviour we can at least somewhat influence
Good point. Better the enemy you know. Maybe there should be some sort of incentive (maybe financial) to not do war-crimes. I don't think sanctions are the answer, it went horribly wrong in Iran (and Iraq) but I think there should be more international pressure on KSA.
I don't really get the relevance of this? I was responding to EW's assertion that the intervention lacks a strategy, this can be rejected by virtue of the success of the intervention to date.
well I would call Bush's rhetoric as "intervention without a strategy"... and even Hillary's four step "plan" to defeat ISIS...
There seems to be a lot of "we gonna be strongman!" rhetoric going on - mainly in the US...
This doesn't help anyone - if anything they give the rest of the world a headache...
EDIT: that's what EW meant by "intervention without strategy" ... I think
Send all terrorists, radicalists and anyone else who supports terror to the Middle East, build a big wall / cage / electric fencing (anything to keep them from escaping) around them and let them just kill each other. Sorted within a couple of years and saves us a bunch of money.
The rest of us can actually live in peace.
So you'd put a bunch of fanatics disillusioned with western scoiety, with the same pro Islamic ideas, together in direct proximity with each other? In an artificial hell of all places? Can you see why this might be a problem?
-Stop ill-thought out military intervention with no strategy
And yet, you probably count Iraq as an ill-thought out intervention, which kind of contradicts your first point.
It's more sensible to deal with the root of the problem through foreign policy than the symptom through domestic because so long as ISIS are doing their thing people within our society can be targets for radicalisation.
If people have not got a successful terrorist organisation to join which has the money and expertise to target them, then the extent to which homegrown radicalisation is a problem will diminish.
This whole business of 'radicalisation' seems to me a product of the nonsense relativism in which people love to indulge these days. People don't go from being angels to joining the IS because they watched a 30-second propaganda video. It's best that we let the fifth columners go join their precious Islamic state and let the RAF take care of them from there.
What military intervention has no strategy? The war on the IS is a broad coalition of regional powers and outside forces, and since the intervention began the IS have lost 40% of the territory they held in Iraq and 20% in Syria (and have lost almost 30,000 men); so I'd say that that is going rather well.
Also millions of displaced people, hundreds of thousands of killed civilians. Not going too well by those measures, hmm?
Also millions of displaced people, hundreds of thousands of killed civilians. Not going too well by those measures, hmm?
You seem to be forgetting that IS and other groups are kidnapping, raping and murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians. What the war on terrorism has done is nothing compared to the acts of terrorism itself.
Of course it would result in less displaced people and probably less people being killed.
People seek stability, whether it is at the hands of a democratic state, or under a despotic regime.
Compare the numbers of people killed under the reign of Saddam, with those killed in the ensuring intervention and invasion.
Compare the numbers of people killed under Bashar Al Assad's continuing reign, with those killed after 2011.
Even though they may be tyrants, dictators are also extremely intelligent and probably more in tune with what the people are thinking than perhaps our own leaders are to us, because their reign depends on it.
Yes, they commit gruesome and perpetrate horrendous acts, but stability will always win over instability for any person, whether they are in a democratic state, or living under a despotic regime.
So you'd put a bunch of fanatics disillusioned with western scoiety, with the same pro Islamic ideas, together in direct proximity with each other? In an artificial hell of all places? Can you see why this might be a problem?
If they can't escape and can't contact the outside world with youtube threats etc then I don't see the problem, they would be doing our job for us and extinguishing themselves due to their own evil.
The problem would be when they escape, yes, but then we would really be in the same position we are now.
You're stopping them from voting what we truly believe, we learned biased questionnaires in GCSE statistics lessons. Everyone knows this is a biased survey.