Ex-army chief urges PM to consider 'boots on the ground' to fight Isis

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Ahhh. War pigs go away, until we want you to do some stuff for us and then you can come back and do it. But then you have to leave, because we love peace and all. Except that one time when we needed you to wipe some people off the map for us. But we don't talk about that time. Not good for our image.

Great plan and all, aside from the fact you're going to have to give them an area that belongs to somebody else. And it ignores the fact that the "idea," which is something I agree with (that it's fighting an idea; I don't agree with their ideas) still won't be dead and whomever hasn't made it to the caliphate yet won't be eradicated.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Great plan and all, aside from the fact you're going to have to give them an area that belongs to somebody else.

Yeah the last time that happened in the Middle East it didn't work out too well...

a reply to: woodwardjnr

The government business secretary on Andrew Marr this morning said the UK would not put boots on the ground, but would support countries in the region to tackle ISIS. Including Syria and Iraq. Now it was only a few years ago we had a debate whether to go into attack Assad and Syria, now we want to help Syria and Iraq take on ISIS.

I think that remark doesn't mean they are going to be helping the Syrian government fight ISIS, but will instead keep aiding the "rebels" - the good Jihadist rebels of course, not the bad Jihadist rebels.

Despite all the anti-ISIS rhetoric, our own governments see them as a useful tool in the possible overthrow of the Syrian government. It's also very useful post election to use the ISIS bogeyman threat to justify their ever more Orwellian anti-terrorism and radicalization legislation nonsense. Same way they hold off on arresting other assets who they allow to "preach hate" and get all the gullible riled up and calling for the government to "do something".

Smoke and mirrors, mind games and manipulation!

a reply to: Shamrock6

I am not ignorant to the fact that military defences are needed - and they have a place in modern society. I simply disagree that that place is at the forefront of military/industrial complex global policy agenda where they have literally created the enemy they now seek to destroy - and have the lions share of the budget.

And as for convenient, put the military in their box until they are needed - like good little children - seen but not heard. Take the military budgets of western war-pig nations and win the hearts and minds of their own countrymen and women by building infrastructure and creating jobs (that's what the propaganda machine says the coalition of the willing does to Middle East local folks), after all, personal bank accounts and western war-pig nations' global reputation could do with some real change, imo.

F### ISIS, the bogeyman of convenience (with really really good 1080HD video editing skills, and an endless supply of orange overalls)

originally posted by: socketdude
Ass-hat I mean Assad has been rather quiet lately don't you think?

He is probably too busy fighting us... I mean ISIS.

...We never learn

a reply to: woodwardjnr

Just my opinion, based upon observations of the news and the various governments actions, but I think the "fix" is already in. The "western" leadership has decided to allow ISIS its way; they have no intention of intervening in any meaningful way against ISIS.

In several ways, ISIS is convenient to the west. Recall that the ISIS event is really a Religious civil war, Sunni ISIS v. Shia Iraq/Iran. ISIS is also fighting Shia Assad in Syria and seeks to carve out a Caliphate made up of Syria and Iraq.

If ISIS were to weaken Iraq to the point that Baghdad either actually falls or is isolated and made useless, then ISIS threatens the Shia holy shrines in southern Iraq which Iran has vowed to protect. That would mean a war between ISIS and Iran which might well seriously weaken Iran and its Regime.

If this works out for ISIS, it makes for a very interesting development because it would mean the old national borders established by Britain and France after WWI and WWII would disappear and in their place would arise a new nation state, i.e., the Islamic Caliphate. Syria would be gone and most of Western Iraq would be absorbed into the Caliphate.

Strange times would get even stranger.

a reply to: woodwardjnr

ISIS fulfills the dream of the Sunni muslims flank, the wahhabists. Let them have the Caliphate is the best way for the common low-IQ arabs to understand what sort of half-wit gang they have signed up for. And once they wake up, and understand that the buttocks-up five times a day physical ain't gonna fix it, there is a chance for a religious resolution in that area.

But, before going there, let this ISIS first take the Saudis down, and bring end to there sith rule.

Oh happy days.