Will the UK send troops to combat ISIS?

We don't need to go to IS, they are coming to us and the ******* stupid lefty liberals are welcoming them with open arms.

Who's fault will it be when tube trains and busses start exploding?
 
Having proved we cant do regime change, but are good at destroying benign dictatorships we now need to sit on our hands. The thrusters and politicos who want a good quick decisive war need to think twice. I am sure DC still feels miffed that we didn't get to play in Syria, who knows maybe things could be a little bit different had we shipped H20 there at the end of their tour in Helmand.
Perhaps a bit more emphasis on keeping the home borders secure and a wee bit of rendition (dirty word I know) of the home grown baddies wouldn't be a bad thing.
 

Oxygen_Thief

On ROPS
On ROPs
We don't need to go to IS, they are coming to us and the ******* stupid lefty liberals are welcoming them with open arms.

Who's fault will it be when tube trains and busses start exploding?
They will be British citizens by then, and so the media/liberal left won't report them as being immigrants.

Basically it will be brushed under the carpet and you will be accused of islamaphobia/racism/xenophobia if you try and make any link.
 
With the fall of the air base in Idlib now reducing Assads presence in that region to a few pockets defended only by his onside militias rather than his forces, and with recent Russian build up in the area does the question become will we soon see Russian troops combating IS and other counter goverment fighters on the ground in Syria?

I am sure that Putin will dearly want a Syrian government that they can offically recognise and dela with on a friendly footing to remain in (nominal) power and I wonder to what extent they would go to ensure that it stays that way?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34196438
 
Hmmm, so Putin offers a hand to a very diminished powerbase to restore stability (and extend his influence up to, notionally, countries which we consider we are inclined favourably towards us).
Plus ca change! Shades of Afghanistan there. Maybe this time we let KSA do their own hands on (rather than let the West be their mamluks again). It'd be quite satisfying watching the ensuing brouhaha. And, no, I don't think we should offer any assistance in hardware, tech, int, or advisors (other than all those who Saudi petrodollars have propogated in otherwise secular nations).
 
With the fall of the air base in Idlib now reducing Assads presence in that region to a few pockets defended only by his onside militias rather than his forces, and with recent Russian build up in the area does the question become will we soon see Russian troops combating IS and other counter goverment fighters on the ground in Syria?

I am sure that Putin will dearly want a Syrian government that they can offically recognise and dela with on a friendly footing to remain in (nominal) power and I wonder to what extent they would go to ensure that it stays that way?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34196438
Putin having major influence & bases in the Med really would highlight the unintended (& unconsidered) consequences of seeking to remove regional hard men.
 

alib

LE
No, no, no, we'll back the courageous rebel fight for freedom and democracy with mighty words and covert aid. Then decide they are actually rather rum coves way to close to AQ and back away from them. Then we'll do much the same with the Kurds as we'd rather have the Turks onside. Then we'll be betraying them all and letting Assad stay on, for a bit, at first... If that doesn't get out ahead of the Americans.

Meanwhile let's support the good old Saudis in bombing and blockading the Yemeni population into flight. It's the only moral thing to do and there are those lucrative arms sales to consider.

Now the dastardly Russians are putting boots on the ground to stop Damascus being overrun by competing teams of anti-Western beards. Why they are as bad as the Iranians destabilising the whole region after we handed them the keys to Baghdad. They are just so irresponsible meddling in countries they don't understand. Look at how Vlad tried to stop us being the saviours of Benghazi. Some people just never learn.
 

Mr_Fingerz

LE
Book Reviewer
Just leave it to Vlad. He's helping Al Assad, and may even have forgotten the lessons of Russia's previous forays into sandy places.
 
why can we not invade/liberate portugal or the canary islands, ibiza perhaps ...?

Getting tired of dealing with crazy followers of allan ...lets go somewhere nice...ignore the rest and it will all go away.
No one will give a feck and the yanks wont care as theres no oil.

If any reporters are reading this keep it quiet ...
.
 

Mr_Fingerz

LE
Book Reviewer
why can we not invade/liberate portugal or the canary islands, ibiza perhaps ...?

Getting tired of dealing with crazy followers of allan ...lets go somewhere nice...ignore the rest and it will all go away.
No one will give a feck and the yanks wont care as theres no oil.

If any reporters are reading this keep it quiet ...
.
You can't invade Portugal they're the UK's oldest ally. Goes all the way back to Catherine of Braganza. Oh and they've done a nice line in guerilla warfare in the past.
 
Syria is a disaster!!!

You have the Assad regime (who have used weapons of mass destruction) who are part of the "axis of evil", who back terrorists in other countries (unlike Iraq there is solid evidence of this. They are crushing an Arab Spring type rebellion so they are the natural enemy. Of course, they also have Hizbollah, Russia, Iran and North Korea supporting them.

Would the UK (and West) be willing to fight on their side?
 
Last edited:

Mr_Fingerz

LE
Book Reviewer
And the election of Corbyn as Labour leader means that CMD won't get the consensus that he needs for concerted action. So the Army isn't going to sandy places in the immediate future.
 

Brotherton Lad

LE
Kit Reviewer
The only way UK troops will go to Syria is if there's diplomatic agreement involving NATO (inc Turkey), Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia.. At the moment that seems highly unlikely, but Putin is preparing something. It may be simply Balkanisation or something else may come of it.

Who knows what discussions are going on in chanceries?
 
Putin sending / rotating troops through combat zones is worrying. I suggest he is building capability: how many on here speak of how poor his forces are... Well, maybe he listened.
 
There are a number of areas that need addressing in Syria:

1 - the combating of ISIS
2 - regime change / Arab Spring / revolution / democracy
3 - the mass migration due to the Civil War

They are all interlinked

The problem is if you want to put troops on the ground you will be fighting a 2 front war (ISIS and either the regime or rebels). Given the human rights abuses and use of chemical weapons by the regime (plus the fact your already backing the rebels), it's more than likely the regime and ISIS that you'll be combating.

That leads to regime change and possibly invasion (unlikely to happen).

The piecemeal air strikes aren't working, training of fighters isn't working.

I'd say the best the West could do is to politically encourage democracy in Syria with a few carrots. While continuing current efforts (training and air strikes). The only other thing on the ground you could do is establish weapons free safe areas (which could mean combat with all sides) and NFZs.
 
Last edited:
And the election of Corbyn as Labour leader means that CMD won't get the consensus that he needs for concerted action. So the Army isn't going to sandy places in the immediate future.
Agreed, Mr Corbyn has made his defence policies very clear.

Scary & worrying defence policy admitingly.

The future of the UK may now rest on either Boris (future Tory PM) or Corbyn?

The future SDSR's are becoming more uncomfortable and worrying for all concerned..
 

Latest Threads

Top