Why don't we help the Assad regime to destroy ISIS? Watch

KingBradly
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#21
Report 2 years ago
#21
(Original post by Metalfros)
Great idea! Last time they put boots on the ground they ****ed up Iraq and Afghanistan, who are still suffering from it. ISIS is even an (in)direct result of these invasions. Sending a platoon of soldiers is going to make it a lot worse. ISIS has to be destroyed, but conventionally it cannot. I am sure the people with actual military education and understanding know a better solution than this.
Oh, and bombing is a better idea? Boots on the ground is far more precise, there is far less collateral. If you think accidentally blowing up whole families as collateral damage is somehow less reckless and stupid than having actual human beings on the ground who can try to work with the Syrian people then you mustn't have a clue. This isn't like Iraq or Afghanistan. This is a mess which we helped to create, therefore we should be helping to clean it up. Most Syrian people desperately want their country to be sorted out, they really want help. This is therefore unlike Iraq or Afghanistan.
0
reply
KingBradly
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#22
Report 2 years ago
#22
(Original post by Farm_Ecology)
If Nato were on the same side as Syria and Russia, we might have been able to influence this somewhat. Instead, we make the civil war worse, and turn into utter mayhem.
I don't see how us failing to side with Assad made the civil war into mayhem.
0
reply
Metalfros
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#23
Report 2 years ago
#23
(Original post by KingBradly)
Oh, and bombing is a better idea? Boots on the ground is far more precise, there is far less collateral. If you think accidentally blowing up whole families as collateral damage is somehow less reckless and stupid than having actual human beings on the ground who can try to work with the Syrian people then you mustn't have a clue. This isn't like Iraq or Afghanistan. This is a mess which we helped to create, therefore we should be helping to clean it up. Most Syrian people desperately want their country to be sorted out, they really want help. This is therefore unlike Iraq or Afghanistan.
I never implied that bombing was a better idea. In fact, I don't endorse either of the two options. I am sure there is a better option than these two. But I am 100% sure boots on the ground is not going to make things better.
0
reply
Ladbants
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#24
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#24
(Original post by KingBradly)
Oh, and bombing is a better idea? Boots on the ground is far more precise, there is far less collateral. If you think accidentally blowing up whole families as collateral damage is somehow less reckless and stupid than having actual human beings on the ground who can try to work with the Syrian people then you mustn't have a clue. This isn't like Iraq or Afghanistan. This is a mess which we helped to create, therefore we should be helping to clean it up. Most Syrian people desperately want their country to be sorted out, they really want help. This is therefore unlike Iraq or Afghanistan.
There is no requirement for us to clean up the mess. I really don't think boots on the ground is a good idea- there is no need to put British lives on the line- air strikes can be a lot safer.
0
reply
Fadel
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#25
Report 2 years ago
#25
(Original post by KingBradly)
Why? Why not get boots on the ground to combat ISIS, rather than just carpet bombing Aleppo? I don't have a problem with how Britain and America are currently conducting airstrikes on ISIS, they seem pretty tactical and precise, but Russia and Assad's approaches are just horrible and counter-intuitive.
Because it's effective. No one is going to send soldiers into a bloodbath, soldiers are humans too. Boots on ground isn't just a bunch of soldiers running around. They're gonna have armoured vehicles, tanks, artillery and air support which would make it much worse since it would be considered a full invasion. Russians/Syrians/Americans don't target the homes and hospitals deliberately. Americans aren't war gods either, they have quite a reputaton in targetting civilians. No weapon is 100% accurate and the orienteering isn't easy, this happens in all wars and there's nothing that can be done about it other than just stopping everything.
0
reply
Fadel
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#26
Report 2 years ago
#26
(Original post by KingBradly)
I don't see how us failing to side with Assad made the civil war into mayhem.
The FSA would've been done by now and the war over. Assad's army isn't strong enough to handle all the burden by himself, hence why the war has been ongoing for 5 years.
0
reply
Reformed
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#27
Report 2 years ago
#27
because our current and prior governments have all been alligned to the saudi and therefore sunni agenda in mid east, so despite the fact that much of our funding to pakistan, somalia and or arms to saudi ends up in islamist hands, we have to ignore this reality ( and indeed saudis war crimes in Yemen) with the level of stupidity that our governments have shown over the last few decaeds rather than admit our mistakes. this may all change however if the rump administration decides to reverse policy in mid east and the sheep minded opportunist Ms May follows suit
0
reply
ward47
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#28
Report 2 years ago
#28
(Original post by Fadel)
Because it's effective. No one is going to send soldiers into a bloodbath, soldiers are humans too. Boots on ground isn't just a bunch of soldiers running around. They're gonna have armoured vehicles, tanks, artillery and air support which would make it much worse since it would be considered a full invasion. Russians/Syrians/Americans don't target the homes and hospitals deliberately. Americans aren't war gods either, they have quite a reputaton in targetting civilians. No weapon is 100% accurate and the orienteering isn't easy, this happens in all wars and there's nothing that can be done about it other than just stopping everything.
1) It is no more of a bloodbath than any other recent war as afr as I can tell.

2) i tottally agree with u that soldiers lives matter to probably more than most people as a lot of my family are in various branches of the armed forces and so are a few of my good freinds. however i have asked them about their opinion on what they think we should do about syria and the majority of them agree with me that we should be putting boots on the ground as we a partially responsible for the destabilization of the region that has led to this conflict but also because they believe much like I do that even if this war does not directly affect us we have a moral responsibility as the most well trained army in the world to help protect the people of syria.

3) ariel bombing alone is not an effective millitary tactic, no war in human history has ever been won simply through ariel superiority or even ariel supremacy and strategic bombing alone.
0
reply
Fadel
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#29
Report 2 years ago
#29
(Original post by ward47)
1) It is no more of a bloodbath than any other recent war as afr as I can tell.

2) i tottally agree with u that soldiers lives matter to probably more than most people as a lot of my family are in various branches of the armed forces and so are a few of my good freinds. however i have asked them about their opinion on what they think we should do about syria and the majority of them agree with me that we should be putting boots on the ground as we a partially responsible for the destabilization of the region that has led to this conflict but also because they believe much like I do that even if this war does not directly affect us we have a moral responsibility as the most well trained army in the world to help protect the people of syria.

3) ariel bombing alone is not an effective millitary tactic, no war in human history has ever been won simply through ariel superiority or even ariel supremacy and strategic bombing alone.
The protection of Syrians is too late now. As most of Syria is in Europe. If you interfeered earlier, much earlier then it would've been better. Bombings in Syria aren't used to win, they're used to help ground troops.
0
reply
ward47
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#30
Report 2 years ago
#30
(Original post by Ladbants)
There is no requirement for us to clean up the mess. I really don't think boots on the ground is a good idea- there is no need to put British lives on the line- air strikes can be a lot safer.
1) as ive said in a number of other posts that ive made on this thread it is effectively impossible to win a war using strategic bombing and ariel superority or even ariel supremacy alone as ground troops are needed to flush out targets, set up checkpoints, hold strategic positions and other important battlefield roles. plus as istated in a previous post research suggests that in the case of combating extremist elements the collateral damage being caused by the coalitions startegic bombing campaign has led to increasing radicalisation among memebers of the populace and has in many cases led to increases in estimated ISIS recruitment levels.

2) second of all no offense mate but i think you have a very naive view on millitary strategy and political affairs you may be correct in that we have no legal obligations to help those people but as a suppsedly civilised , ethical and moral society we have a moral obligation to help those people not only because it was party due to intervention from britain that led to that area becoming such a politically unstable hellhole in the first place but also because regardless of what patch of land they were born on they are still people and therefore we should be doing all in our power to help them.
0
reply
ward47
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#31
Report 2 years ago
#31
(Original post by Fadel)
The protection of Syrians is too late now. As most of Syria is in Europe. If you interfeered earlier, much earlier then it would've been better. Bombings in Syria aren't used to win, they're used to help ground troops.
but thats one of the main points that I am trying to make their not our ground troops that were supporting but local kurd forces primarily and as a result from what i can tell from various reports from conflict zones particulaly around Aleppo these air strikes are not being coordinated with the the kurdish forces effectively.
0
reply
Fadel
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#32
Report 2 years ago
#32
(Original post by ward47)
but thats one of the main points that I am trying to make their not our ground troops that were supporting but local kurd forces primarily and as a result from what i can tell from various reports from conflict zones particulaly around Aleppo these air strikes are not being coordinated with the the kurdish forces effectively.
Russian air strikes are used to help Syrian Army and Russian ground troops. Yes, Russian soldiers are there too. Kurds have no ties with anyone. They're fighting for their own sake and they have problems with everyone around them. Basically conflict between allies.
0
reply
SaucissonSecCy
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#33
Report 2 years ago
#33
Don't ever expect foreign policy to be logical, sane, or in our best interests. I've given up with that.
0
reply
CookieButter
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#34
Report 2 years ago
#34
For the first three years of the conflict Britain was openly funding, training and arming ISIS. Today the British government has withdrawn its support for that group. It only arms Alqaeda and the FSA....terrorists arming terrorists....you want terrorists to help fight against terrorism? doesn't make sense, no?
0
reply
Cato the Elder
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#35
Report 2 years ago
#35
(Original post by CookieButter)
For the first three years of the conflict Britain was openly funding, training and arming ISIS. Today the British government has withdrawn its support for that group. It only arms Alqaeda and the FSA....terrorists arming terrorists....you want terrorists to help fight against terrorism? doesn't make sense, no?
That is complete nonsense. We were not "openly funding, training and arming ISIS". Where the hell do you get your information?
0
reply
RF_PineMarten
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#36
Report 2 years ago
#36
(Original post by CookieButter)
For the first three years of the conflict Britain was openly funding, training and arming ISIS. Today the British government has withdrawn its support for that group. It only arms Alqaeda and the FSA....terrorists arming terrorists....you want terrorists to help fight against terrorism? doesn't make sense, no?
Absolute rubbish. No western country has funded, trained or armed ISIS at any point.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (1384)
79.54%
Leave (356)
20.46%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise