Bombing Syria - could somebody explain the argument for?

[RedMapleLeaf]

Just that really. All I've heard from Cameron is "I am fully convinced about the argument for strikes against Syria" which isn't a very strong argument.

What about Cameron? What are his allegiances? His (proposed) actions are opaque to me, too.

I agree that Merkel's weak but who's pressuring her?

From a legal point of view I don't think you can declare war on a group you refuse to accept legally exists.

Therefore we cannot declare war on IS, not officially. Legally the only thing we could do is back Assad and get his permission to put troops on the ground, anything else would be considered an invasion of a sovereign nation.

Given that Putin is backing Assad, there is a good chance that any troops in Syria would be attacked by IS, any rebel groups that dislike us, the Syrian military (because of our invasion) and the Russians.

I'm not sure that I can see any quicker route to world war 3 personally, but that said it is a difficult situation and there is no quick fix.

'What about Cameron? What are his allegiances?'

I don't understand Cameron. He is a moderniser and had a rooftop wind turbine. That's a mystery to me. He took part in the disaster that is Libya, he wanted to bomb Assad and now he wants our 6 or so planes to bomb Isis who are fighting against Assad. I don't get it..

'I agree that Merkel's weak but who's pressuring her?'

I don't know, but possibly she is controlled, another puppet

"WikiLeaks: US spied on Angela Merkel's ministers too, says German newspaper

The NSA did not just tap German chancellor Angela Merkel’s phone but also listened in on finance, economy, agriculture and other ministers"

www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/02/wikileaks-us-spied-on-angela-merkels-ministers-too-says-german-newspaper

I don't understand Cameron or Merkel - well, Merkel a bit more now as I agree that she is being pressured somewhere but Cameron - no. Can't fit him in anywhere. He's not stupid, but I can't fit him into the puzzle. I suppose that someone's leaning on him as well.

'Sending in ground troops would be a nightmare and have massive casualties for us'

We don't have to send our own ground troops in. We should come to an arrangement where other countires who want to send their ground troops in, with the agreement of the Syrian government, and as George Galloway said, we should come to an arrangement where the Syrian Army's ground troops are allowed to do the job with the backing of all the major powers. Then Isis will be finished within weeks.

It's been pointed out numerous times we don't have a clear strategy with regard to Syria and until we do there is no argument for either bombing or ground troops. Cameron hasn't been able to make a convincing case for joining our supposed allies because he has no more idea what the real objective should be in Syria than they do. I think everyone can agree ISIS need to be wiped out but figuring out how to do that around the current civil conflict already ongoing is not something which can be done quickly or without in depth consideration. In the meantime our energies should be focused on counter terrorism efforts within Europe and that's where our security and armed services should be concentrated. I find the conflict between pro and anti Assad as confusing as the next person and there's a lot of conflicting information out there, I do worry about the motivation of some of our NATO allies especially when we don't know for sure the truth behind reports regarding who's funding ISIS and whether Turkey are indeed buying oil from ISIS and facilitating their progress. It's an incredibly complex situation and I worry that we may well look back on the decisions Cameron makes now with similar hindsight to Blair's massive errors over Iraq in years to come. For now I feel our troops are best placed protecting us on our own soil and our political focus should be on helping the innocent people of Syria and fighting terrorism within Europe.

Isis are not militarily what they are cracked up to be in the tabloids. They have never faced a real military. The French Foreign Legion and local forces could finish them if theeir accomplices were forced to stop buying oil from them and forced to stop resupplying them.

If the French, whom Hollande said are at war with Isis, don't want to send ground troops in, the Chechen leader, Kadryov has offered to do it for free. He said it would be a "celebration". So it is not as if Isis can't be wiped out within weeks if there is a will to do it.

"Putin should unleash Chechen troops on Isis, says region's president

Former rebel Ramzan Kadyrov says if Russian PM sent his ‘death battalion’ to Syria in a ground operation, Islamic State would be wiped out within weeks

The Chechen leader, Ramzan Kadyrov, has asked Vladimir Putin to send him to Syria, claiming that a land operation using Chechen ground troops would wipe out Islamic State terrorists.

“The terrorists don’t know what a real war is, because they have only been subjected to airstrikes. They don’t have experience of real military action,” said Kadyrov in an interview with a Russian news agency.

“If our request is granted, it will be a celebration for us,” he said. “But it’s the decision of the commander-in-chief to take.”

www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/02/putin-should-unleash-chechen-troops-on-isis-says-regions-president

The London DJ Jihadis and Belgian bar owners and drug takers wouldn't know what hit them.

Good god Claig please don't promote any strategy put forward by Galloway, the man's a raving nutcase!

Fern25, I don't like Galloway, but on this one he talks sense.

Syria is where Isis or Daish has its' HQ.

Re Cameron - SA is involved (given the 'deal over Human Rights Council place', Cameron's silence over SA funding for ISIS, beheadings, etc.) but why, who else is involved, what's in it for the various parties, what are the long term implications?

"In the meantime, Saudi Arabia is investing in alternative sources of energy. It has US$107 billion invested in solar energy already and is drawing up plans for nuclear energy with the cooperation of a number of other countries including the US, France, Japan, and S. Korea.

It is diversifying its economy and now has around 30% of its GDP coming from non-oil sources. It looks to become the center of a GCC-wide power grid and railroad grid. It is also becoming a center of Sukuk financing -- that is, "Islamic bonds.""

I think being a known supporter of Islamic terrorist groups means any strategy he puts forward should be viewed with suspicion.

'I think being a known supporter of Islamic terrorist groups means any strategy he puts forward should be viewed with suspicion.'

I view most of what he says, on climate change, and everything else with suspicion but this time he makes sense.

WhothefuckisSimon: "But Assad doesn't seem too bothered about IS."

One of the long reads in the Guardian a few weeks ago said that once the civil war was underway, Assad deliberately released a lot of Islamic terrorists from prison, knowing that they would attack, not only him, but his opponents, thus wreaking havoc and splitting the anti-Assad forces.

The whole business about the pipeline is interesting and makes sense. There is now a bewildering array of alliances and counter-alliances in the Middle East, and we have to ally ourselves with some very dodgy countries whichever side we end up on. (Because they're all dodgy, of course.)

Fern25 I think everyone can agree ISIS need to be wiped out Not everyone, which is Galloway's main point (and he's right). What's the point of fighting them with one hand when the other is resupplying/maintaining them?

I guess if the Chechyan rebels went in a lot of people wouldn't really care how many casualties there were.

'what's in it for the various parties, what are the long term implications? '

We know that there was a plan, as General Wesley Clark, told us to go to war with seven countries in the Middle East - Iraq, Libya, Syria etc

Lots of analysts reference a New York Times piece by Robin Wright about reshaping the Middle East. Lots of players will benefit from a bust up of the Middle East, the end of Sykes-Picot and new statelets ruled more on ethnic/religious lines rather than the current secular/multicultural type lines of today. Saudi Arabia, Turkey etc all stand to gain influence and so do other players.

"Syria’s prime location and muscle make it the strategic center of the Middle East.
...
A different future is taking shape: a narrow statelet along a corridor from the south through Damascus, Homs and Hama to the northern Mediterranean coast controlled by the Assads’ minority Alawite sect. In the north, a small Kurdistan, largely autonomous since mid-2012. The biggest chunk is the Sunni-dominated heartland.

Syria’s unraveling would set precedents for the region, beginning next door. Until now, Iraq resisted falling apart because of foreign pressure, regional fear of going it alone and oil wealth that bought loyalty, at least on paper. But Syria is now sucking Iraq into its maelstrom."

www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/opinion/sunday/imagining-a-remapped-middle-east.html

That probably explains why all the politicians say that "Assad must go".

If you want to reshape the Middle East, it is no good going to Syrian government and saying we want to break up your country for you, because they probably won't agree. So you have to set Takfiri terrorists on them and start a war, fund the terrorists, resupply them and buy oil off them to keep them in enough funds to buy weapons, and then blame the whole thing on Assad.

That probably explains why all the politicians say that "Assad must go". - So, Russia stands to lose if Assad goes but who in Europe and US stands to gain if "new statelets ruled more on ethnic/religious lines rather than the current secular/multicultural type lines of today. Saudi Arabia, Turkey etc all stand to gain influence and so do other players" given the islamisation of these countries and their incompatibility with Europe/US (I'm thinking of diplomatic relations, business relationships, economic factors, etc.)?

That is interesting, babybarrister. You are right, this time everyone is united in wanting to finish off Isis, so hopefully it will happen because otherwise it looks like our liberties ay start being taken from us in Europe because London DJ Jihadis are sitting in Syria plotting to attack us. Let's wipe them out on the ground so that our liberties can be saved.

'who in Europe and US stands to gain'

Given that General Wesley Clark told us about the US plan to go to war with seven countries, I guess the US stands to gain and all of Europe too because we are all part of the West, and the Middle East countries that stand to gain, such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan etc are all our allies.

But as many real conservatives in America have said, the policy has ended up strengthening the enemy of Saudi Arabia i.e. Iran because Iraq is now governed by a Shiite rather than Sunni majority government. But we don't know if that is also part of the plan, to allow Iran to oncrease some of its influence in the region too. I don't really understand that bit.

'given the islamisation of these countries and their incompatibility with Europe/US'

The threat of the Islamic Jihadis is slowly meaning that some of our liberties are being removed, but we have no problems with Islamic regimes as long as they are our allies eg Saudi Arabia who is one of our best allies on the planet by the looks of it.

The threat of the Islamic Jihadis is slowly meaning that some of our liberties are being removed, but we have no problems with Islamic regimes as long as they are our allies eg Saudi Arabia who is one of our best allies on the planet by the looks of it. but will the Western populations accept this? The human rights abuses are slowly permeating public consciousness, much more so than was the case, say, ten years ago. Even the most ardent supporters of liberalism will balk at these eventually, won't they?