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

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Not in my name.

Not too often it happens but I'm in total agreement with you fella.
Not in my name either.

I don't want any of my squaddie mates sent over there again, it is a regional conflict between Wahabi, Sunni and Shia Muslims. Nothing more, unless you add the issue of control of oil, it's still not the UK's war.
'ISIS' are still selling the oil illegally in any case so it's not like there will be any real supply issues if they were to take over the entire region.

Ancient temples/artifacts being destroyed? Yep, that is of course bad, but there are no monuments in that region worth the life of a single British soldier in my opinion.
Women being raped and slaughtered? Of course that is abhorrent, but the same is happening in Nigeria with Boko Haram, do we send troops there as well?

The whole region is a tragic mess, and I'm all for sending medical and humanitarian aid, but getting involved in military action again, no, not in my name.
...and I think the majority of our population feels the same this time so Cameron is going to have a hard time raising any support for it, if indeed he is even considering it.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
If we had a clear strategy I might be convinced

How do you know we do not have a clear strategy?? The fact is nothing would be done until after the election.. Notice how the rhetoric has beem rammped up AFTER the election.. Governments have been holding off until that was decided.

From the General:

"IS has chosen to hold ground, and as such its troops are not classic insurgents but more akin to conventional soldiers. Unlike the Taliban, they're not moving in the shadows or hiding among civilians; tactics which caused huge problems in Afghanistan.
We have now reached a point when we must think the previously unthinkable and consider that British troops, acting as part of an international coalition, may be required to mount a ground campaign in Iraq and Syria"

Rather, they are operating in fully formed units and using conventional tactics.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... -evil-ISIS.html#ixzz3b3n9rH00
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

I personally think that we should not have allowed IS to get this far and have been chomping at the bit to have a go at these scum since they started... There are not many soldiers who are not up for going out there and destroying these babaric scum...

They are the biggest threat to peace we have seen in generations and are spreading like cancer.. They need a 5.56mm removal from the face of the earth.. There will be no peace without it...

It will not be like Afghanistan.. It will be old style conventional warfare with the cuffs off.. And we just happen to be the worlds best at that...

a reply to: Sublimecraft

There's a few good points in there.

Now if only you could learn to couch them in just a wee bit less condescension, you might get some traction.

Don't think that'll happen though.

a reply to: TonyS

Yes those borders will have to be changed, or nothing is going to get peaceful out there. Britain and France messed things up by creating states that didn't take account of nations so to speak. Time to redaw the map of the ME.Land for the Palestinians, land for Assads lot, land for Lebanese Christians, Jordanians, Kurds, Arabs, Druze, let em all have their own land, plus give Israel a little more land in the Sinai, say a tenth of it as they are going to need it the way the Heredim are breeding and say 'No more meddling outside Israel and stirring up Arab Springs and that's your land now take it and no more.' Give them all their very own land and govern themselves, just like we did when Europes peoples got their own land post 1918.

a reply to: Annunak1

Welcome to the end of days.

Boy, we have never heard that before on this site... The middle east is simply another trailer park of the world, there are several.... It's sad some of the oldest people on earth are so damn backwards, but look at Africa, it all started there and they can't get their shot together to save their life. Our species can't advance fast enough with these backwards morons holding us back. If the world was my family I would disown the middle east, tell them to come back when they got their # together. If they came into my house and f*cked with the family after that I would erase them from the gene pool permanently. But that's just me, maybe i'm getting old and cantankerous.


V

a reply to: EvanB I don't know there is no strategy , but a government minister this morning said there would be no british boots on the ground, just helping countries in the region deal with it like syria and Iraq. That don't sound like a strategy

a reply to: EvanB

Sorry pressed the wrong button , please remove mods

Are we just recycling the same horrible foreign policy over and over again?

How about a few more questions....

Purpose?
Method?
Endgame?

The Islamic State is certainly horrible, but are they really any worse than any of the other regimes that have been in place there over centuries? Is the current situation in Iraq and Syria a testament to the Islamic States power, or to the weakness of the region.

This M.E. conflict has continued for over a decade, and cost a large sum of money. It's time to stop. The only reasonable situation for the west to intervene would be If ISIS were to be a legitimate threat to the global community. As of now they've displayed very little ability to affect anything outside of their little regional holding.

This would be funny of it wasn't about people being raped and butchered on a daily basis.

So now we have to deploy another army to the middle east to fight the effects of our last failed intervention? To fight a destructive force that was primed through our destruction of the Iraqi state and cack handed follow through then set off by our support of Jihadis in a bungled Syrian government regime change?

I cant decide on recent history whether we are simply strategically incompetent or plain evil.

Regardless, British troops should not be sent there again. Let the regional powers deal with it. No more interventions.

a reply to: woodwardjnr

May as well throw a bit of humor into the subject . This kind of stuff you cant make up ...Or can you ?

Published on May 24, 2015
Did you know that ISIS has an official, sleek English-language propaganda magazine? And were you further aware that they are outraged about these 9/11 conspiracy theories trying to take the credit for 9/11 and other spectacular false flags away from the jihadis? Join James on today's Thought For the Day as he breaks down the latest hilarious propaganda from the powers that shouldn't be.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Not in my name.

well, definitely in my name this time and I am a higher rate tax payer and employer in the UK. I know dole spongers say is worth same as mine in law but that just wrong lol

originally posted by: woodwardjnr

A former head of the army has called on the government to “think the previously unthinkable” and consider sending ground troops to combat Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. Sir Richard Dannatt, the former chief of the general staff, said he felt air strikes had failed to stop the advance of the extremist organisation and urged parliament to debate deploying up to 5,000 infantry soldiers.

It seems our foreign policy is so mixed up we don't have a clue what we are doing. Helping one side then the other. If we don't have a clear policy over ISIS, we shouldn't be making any hasty decisions that will back fire in our faces. The west needs to get its priorities straight before making any more decisions over this part of the world.

Putting boots on the ground is playing right into ISIS desires. They want to take on western forces on the ground and we are contemplating doing it.

What does ats have to say?

I think Obamas foreign policy is working like a charm. The policy is destabilizing the ME. Why do you think he is so hellbent to have sanctions lifted off of Iran?
We should not fight any more of their wars for them and I seriously doubt we will under Obama. Hell the Saudis have shown that they cannot get a coalition and keep it to stop a group of Rebels in Yemen. The will to fight in the ME is not there. Kuwait has had ten years to cobble together their own military.... What do they have to show for it? Nothing.


I'm not an Obama fan but I like exactly what he is doing in the Middle East.... Nothing:

originally posted by: biggilo

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Not in my name.

well, definitely in my name this time and I am a higher rate tax payer and employer in the UK. I know dole spongers say is worth same as mine in law but that just wrong lol

No Speaky the Lingo Borat..?

People on this thread need to remember Nevil Chamberlain and 1939, negotiation is a sign of weakness, makes the 'other side' want more, they more they get, they more they demand, when everything has been given away for no return, then what?
A piece of paper?

originally posted by: biggilo

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Not in my name.

well, definitely in my name this time and I am a higher rate tax payer and employer in the UK. I know dole spongers say is worth same as mine in law but that just wrong lol

Wow, I'm surprised by your post, didn't realise you had a sliding scale of human life worth based on the tax bracket they fall under.
I am a self employed standard rate tax payer who has claimed benefits maybe a total of 6 months in the last quarter of a century, and I do not consider my opinion on the government of this country any more or less valid than someone who is unemployed.
Your post makes you appear like some Lord of the Manor from days past.
Remember, every soldier you would have sent to the Middle East is a standard rate tax-payer, do you feel superior to them as well?

originally posted by: woodwardjnr

A former head of the army has called on the government to “think the previously unthinkable” and consider sending ground troops to combat Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. Sir Richard Dannatt, the former chief of the general staff, said he felt air strikes had failed to stop the advance of the extremist organisation and urged parliament to debate deploying up to 5,000 infantry soldiers.

www.theguardian.com...

I thought this was interesting from this mornings papers. Not sure how I feel about it. 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. It seems our foreign policy is so mixed up we don't have a clue what we are doing. Helping one side then the other. If we don't have a clear policy over ISIS, we shouldn't be making any hasty decisions that will back fire in our faces. The west needs to get its priorities straight before making any more decisions over this part of the world.

Putting boots on the ground is playing right into ISIS desires. They want to take on western forces on the ground and we are contemplating doing it.

What does ats have to say?

Hi, as your American cousin, I have to ask: How come no one from our countries are asking why don't the Middle Eastern countries put boots on the ground?

In my opinion outside of nations like Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Israel and Syria, our so called allies in the middle east have ISIS sympathizers all throughout their populaces and that's why they don't send troops in to attack these animals. What is Turkey, a NATO member, doing right now to combat them? Why must American and UK troops die while everyone else sits back and watches the Saudi funded ISIS rape and pillage?

originally posted by: Legman

originally posted by: woodwardjnr

A former head of the army has called on the government to “think the previously unthinkable” and consider sending ground troops to combat Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. Sir Richard Dannatt, the former chief of the general staff, said he felt air strikes had failed to stop the advance of the extremist organisation and urged parliament to debate deploying up to 5,000 infantry soldiers.

It seems our foreign policy is so mixed up we don't have a clue what we are doing. Helping one side then the other. If we don't have a clear policy over ISIS, we shouldn't be making any hasty decisions that will back fire in our faces. The west needs to get its priorities straight before making any more decisions over this part of the world.

Putting boots on the ground is playing right into ISIS desires. They want to take on western forces on the ground and we are contemplating doing it.

What does ats have to say?

I think Obamas foreign policy is working like a charm. The policy is destabilizing the ME. Why do you think he is so hellbent to have sanctions lifted off of Iran?
We should not fight any more of their wars for them and I seriously doubt we will under Obama. Hell the Saudis have shown that they cannot get a coalition and keep it to stop a group of Rebels in Yemen. The will to fight in the ME is not there. Kuwait has had ten years to cobble together their own military.... What do they have to show for it? Nothing.


I'm not an Obama fan but I like exactly what he is doing in the Middle East.... Nothing:

The Saudis are funding ISIS. That fact alone makes me hope that will completely wash our hands of this mess and let the ME countries fend for themselves.

originally posted by: supremecommander

originally posted by: Legman

originally posted by: woodwardjnr

A former head of the army has called on the government to “think the previously unthinkable” and consider sending ground troops to combat Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. Sir Richard Dannatt, the former chief of the general staff, said he felt air strikes had failed to stop the advance of the extremist organisation and urged parliament to debate deploying up to 5,000 infantry soldiers.

It seems our foreign policy is so mixed up we don't have a clue what we are doing. Helping one side then the other. If we don't have a clear policy over ISIS, we shouldn't be making any hasty decisions that will back fire in our faces. The west needs to get its priorities straight before making any more decisions over this part of the world.

Putting boots on the ground is playing right into ISIS desires. They want to take on western forces on the ground and we are contemplating doing it.

What does ats have to say?

I think Obamas foreign policy is working like a charm. The policy is destabilizing the ME. Why do you think he is so hellbent to have sanctions lifted off of Iran?
We should not fight any more of their wars for them and I seriously doubt we will under Obama. Hell the Saudis have shown that they cannot get a coalition and keep it to stop a group of Rebels in Yemen. The will to fight in the ME is not there. Kuwait has had ten years to cobble together their own military.... What do they have to show for it? Nothing.


I'm not an Obama fan but I like exactly what he is doing in the Middle East.... Nothing:

The Saudis are funding ISIS. That fact alone makes me hope that will completely wash our hands of this mess and let the ME countries fend for themselves.

Agreed. It has nothing to do with my country any more, and while of course tragic for those innocents in the region, it is up to Turkey, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi, UAE, Egypt, Israel, and the rest to deal with it now.
Whoever comes out on top will still sell us oil, it's time for my relatively small nation to stay out of it and let them find their own equilibrium in the arguments between Wahabi/Shia/Sunni Islam nations.
No British dogs in that fight anymore, and nor should there be.

a reply to: grainofsand

Well, as it is my money being used to pay for it. Basic rate tax payers scarcely cover themselves in the UK. Quite a few soldiers are higher rate tax payers too, RSMs etc. I have lots of friends and relatives in the military too who agree with me...not just with the boots on the ground but with what I said about unemployed (they go a lot further!)
When I see some goat with a Scottish Saltaire speaking up I am afraid I can't bite my tongue, he is probably an SNP supporter, being Scottish gets more than he gives too.
When it comes to tax money being spent the unemployed goats should keep quiet.
Nothing to do with feeling superior at all, but fairs fair. Why should the likes of 'white dee' get a say really? Especially when it comes to spending money they have contributed nothing too.

a reply to: biggilo the elected government of the day makes the decision to commit British forces to war Not the tax payers individually and remember Scotland is still apart of the UK and contributes towards the armed forces who would be risking their lives. Whether you like it or not. Who the hell is white dee?