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

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Talking to you now!
McGettigans at the Clanree is a good spot, was there in February. Monday night steak night too! Have fun.

originally posted by: biggilo
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Talking to you now!
McGettigans at the Clanree is a good spot, was there in February. Monday night steak night too! Have fun.

Yeah, i Know, the "Reply to Soloprotocol" kinda gives it away...
Gotta love this place. From Abuse to best Restaurant advice in the same thread...Simply Awesome.

Maybe i'm being set up for a dose of E. coli O157. Hmmmm ?

originally posted by: biggilo
We are going to compare levels of service now are we? ( the OTC is army reserve) Wise up!

Haha, some kind of reserve service when you cannot be mobilised for active service, sounds more like cadets, although technically it is a branch of reserve service in the British Army.

And yes I will compare service when you proclaim 3 years OTC at university, at no point could you have been sent to fight. University Officer Training Corps members risk nothing, you could not be called up.
I was available to be deployed for 6 years, and did many periods of full time service.
Perhaps it is you who should wise up, or do you not believe the link I posted from the British Army website?
www.army.mod.uk...

UOTC members cannot be mobilised for active service.

That ain't serving our country, it is just jollies, outdoor pursuits and playing with SA80's.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Willtell

You advocate sending troops because Cher tweeted something? That's priceless!! Hahahaha!

When an An Oscar winner has got more sense than Obama a Nobel prize winner then we are really in trouble!

a reply to: Willtell
That is open to debate but not with me unfortunately.
This thread is about suggestions for UK troops and there is no support for it in the UK, perhaps Cher has 'more sense' than the British government then by your reasoning. I don't really care though, the US can send as many troops as it likes, but we won't be following you this time.

I repeat, again:

Egypt - 468,000 soldiers not counting reserves
Jordan - 100,000 soldiers not counting reserves
Iran - 350,000 soldiers not counting reserves
Turkey - 315,000 soldiers
Pakistan - 550,000 soldiers not counting reserves

How many ISIS fighters again? Not even 50,000.
The conflict is a solely Wahabi/Sunni/Shia sectarian Muslim issue. The UK is thousands of miles away and only 5% Muslim. It is not our fight. It is the fight of armed forces in the region, all Islamic nations, all ignoring it.

If you think it is the fight of the US then cool go for it, doesn't affect my life, but know this, the UK will not be sending troops after believing lies of the US government this time.

originally posted by: biggilo
Would you guys have appeased Hitler?

Take a look at NATO is appeasing Putin and you have your answer. Returning to the focus of the topic we won't see UK or US ground troops return to combat Isis before the outbreak of the coming world war. Even if coalition forces were deployed against Isis it would only speed up the advance of Iranian backed forces in Iraq.

Despite the delusions of Obama and other Western leaders Iran isn't an ally in the Middle East. Iran is gobbling up Yemen and by 2020 they be moving on Saudi Arabia.

a reply to: xpert11

NATO and Putin? What? What has this got to do with ATS members wanting to appease ISIS?
'Coming World War'? Where do you get this from? Is there? Americas power is crumbling and Chinas is growing but that doesn't mean a World War..

originally posted by: biggilo
NATO and Putin? What? What has this got to do with ATS members wanting to appease ISIS?

Talking about lost irony. Gee go back to your original question that I answered and think about it.

originally posted by: xpert11
Iran is gobbling up Yemen and by 2020 they be moving on Saudi Arabia.

O no the free and democratic Saudi Arabia might be attacked ooooo my heart bleeds.......heres a violin for there enlightened arses:

a reply to: crazyewok

Iran and Isis are in a race for real estate in the Middle East. Iran will win out over Isis because they have a modest industrial base. Iran is able to keep its forces resupplied and retrained. Isis doesn't enjoy the backing of any rogue regimes like North Korea. The end game for the Iranian regime is going to war against secular Turkey and there sworn enemy Israel.

a reply to: xpert11

Iran can do what it wants in the ME.

I have no interest what those savages do to each other as long as it does not spill over to Europe.

Dont want a another British solider dying in that sandy craphole or another UK pound wasted.

All the west do is make things worse anyway



Least Iran probably wont let things spill over unlike ISIS and Saudi Arabia who have let things spill over.

originally posted by: crazyewok
I have no interest what those savages do to each other as long as it does not spill over to Europe.

The terrorist threat from Isis already exists in Europe. That said Russia and not Isis is the main threat to Western Europe. Would Iran going to war against Turkey not be close enough to home?

Dont want a another British solider dying in that sandy craphole or another UK pound wasted.

I fully understand the sentiment. Just look at how New Zealand has troops training the Iraqi army . In two years time we will see the 100 anniversary of the Arab Revolt . In the end game boots on the ground will be needed to wipe out Isis and the Iranian regime. Iran lacks the industrial capacity to win any kind of war against the western powers.

Our WW2 forefathers showed us how the fanatical Japanese were over come by vastly superior American industrial capacity. Some very hard lessons are going to have be relearned.

a reply to: grainofsand

True. You've got a solid, fair stance and you've presented us the numbers. You should be able to reject your presence in any conflict.
Maybe if I had to add a couple of words... don't say "WE" too much. There's no "WE". Don't say "we-the nation" only when it fits you. I'm sure there are those who care despite the numbers and they surely want to travel with a proper travel agency.
Also if you (or someone else) likes to be a soldier not only is he always in a "WE" team but he actually became "IT" and it doesn't speak,
IT has not an opinion on things of global significance.
It should keep that in mind or it could find itself eating the sand in the middle of #s. It's always one event from a go. It should pretend a psycho or be religious. I think only the second option is able to save you from being trated as a tool of people's will. Remember the suicide numbers in Afghanistan. If you like the war it will find you.

originally posted by: PapagiorgioCZ
a reply to: grainofsand

True. You've got a solid, fair stance and you've presented us the numbers. You should be able to reject your presence in any conflict.

Well certainly the conflict in the ME because there are large forces in the region available to deal with it themselves.

Maybe if I had to add a couple of words... don't say "WE" too much. There's no "WE". Don't say "we-the nation" only when it fits you. I'm sure there are those who care despite the numbers and they surely want to travel with a proper travel agency.
Also if you (or someone else) likes to be a soldier not only is he always in a "WE" team but he actually became "IT" and it doesn't speak,
IT has not an opinion on things of global significance.
It should keep that in mind or it could find itself eating the sand in the middle of #s. It's always one event from a go. It should pretend a psycho or be religious. I think only the second option is able to save you from being trated as a tool of people's will. Remember the suicide numbers in Afghanistan. If you like the war it will find you.

I'm sorry but I don't really understand much of that, but it is good we agree that the UK has little reason to send it's troops to a sectarian Islamic conflict in a region where Islamic forces are already there doing nothing.

a reply to: crazyewok

I don't much like the Middle East either but the problem with ISIS is they aren't going to stop. There is already ISIS terrorists in Europe.
Say what you want but we are dealing with another 'Nazi' problem here. If we bury our heads in the sand about this one it will come back to bite us. We should of left poor old Saddam alone.

a reply to: biggilo

Will the ISIS terrorists in Europe go away if the UK commits troops to Iraq again?

How do you compare less than 50,000 terrorist fighters with Nazi Germany which had an armed force (Wehrmacht) of nearly 5 million in 1939?

Why is ISIS our issue? It is not in Europe. Nazi Germany was our issue because it affected the national security of the UK and Europe. ISIS is the responsibility of troops in that region. It is a solely sectarian (Wahabi/Sunni/Shia) Muslim conflict.

If the major armed forces in the region (Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan) continue to ignore it I can see ISIS biting them, but not us. Whoever wins control of that region will still sell us oil.

...oh and you say "poor old Saddam" eh? The guy who ran a minority Sunni dictatorship over the majority Shia population. You know, the guy who gassed his own people. Yeah, that's real nice, says much about you and what you perhaps stand for.

a reply to: grainofsand

While agreeing with your stance and much of what you say I will disagree about Saddam. He was a villain but we really should have left him alone. The same with Gadaffi, regimes being murderous and repressive isn't a good enough reason to knock them over. Especially when you have no idea what to do next or no willingness to do it.

From spending a fortune and our troops lives over the last decade or so we've created nothing but increased regional bloodshed and despair.

a reply to: justwokeup

Oh I agree about the mistake of toppling Saddam and Gaddafi, it only caused greater regional problems, that is for sure.
I was just taking the member to task over his "poor old Saddam" line. Saddam himself deserved no sympathy from anyone in my opinion, he was a brutal killer.
But...he did keep Iraq relatively stable compared to the mess the West has left it now.

a reply to: grainofsand

Take me to task over that but let the goat post pictures of IRA terrorists for offence given my family have been victims of that terrorist group, your a nice man!

But then some parts of our Army reserve aren't good enough for you either, I seriously doubt you were in the RN reserve, comments like you made don't usually come from people who actually have. I wasn't the one who brought 'service' up either..

ISIS is our problem because we created them. If you can't see the similarities between this group and the NAZIS then you should go back to school or read the press more, lots of people compare them to the NAZIS not just me..
Saddam was the best of a bad bunch and we screwed him over, poor old Saddam. If Saddam was still in power there would no ISIS.
Estimates currently are that a third of the jihadis have returned to Europe, how many more will we let them train and send back before we stop them?

You are verging on borderline racism with some of your comments about Middle Easterns and you need to reign it in.

originally posted by: biggilo
a reply to: grainofsand

Take me to task over that but let the goat post pictures of IRA terrorists for offence given my family have been victims of that terrorist group, your a nice man!

I don''t let anyone post anything. That is the job of mods.

But then some parts of our Army reserve aren't good enough for you either, I seriously doubt you were in the RN reserve, comments like you made don't usually come from people who actually have. I wasn't the one who brought 'service' up either..

Any reserve service which cannot be deployed on active service is just youth cadets.
How could you advocate differently?

ISIS is our problem because we created them. If you can't see the similarities between this group and the NAZIS then you should go back to school or read the press more, lots of people compare them to the NAZIS not just me..
Saddam was the best of a bad bunch and we screwed him over, poor old Saddam. If Saddam was still in power there would no ISIS.
Estimates currently are that a third of the jihadis have returned to Europe, how many more will we let them train and send back before we stop them?

You are verging on borderline racism with some of your comments about Middle Easterns and you need to reign it in.

Nope, you just ramble lot's of silliness.
And because of your 'high status' as you employ many people you seem to present an air similar to "Lords of the Manor" in days past when I read some of your comments here.
You would send other peoples (poor) kids to battle in a region thousands of miles away with countries nearby who have strong forces doing nothing. I can provide quotes to support the poor kids thing, too late for you to edit.

...if France/Germany/Spain/etc were at risk then we would find agreement, but this is not our region, it is Egypt, Jordan, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, and more, not the UK.