PDA

View Full Version : NATO Intervention



davth
18-Nov-15, 14:32
In the aftermath of recent events, do you think that NATO should now stand tall and go in Syria to cut off the head of ISIS?

rich62_uk
18-Nov-15, 17:29
As its head do you mean Bashar al-Assad or bomb the Country ?

davth
18-Nov-15, 17:37
In review, the term cutting the head from the organisation was poorly chosen.
I meant take out known ISIS locations and senior figures in the organisation.

rich62_uk
18-Nov-15, 17:42
I still cant vote, I think yes to taking out senior figures but no to bombing entire areas even if they are ISIS locations innocent people will be killed.

BetterTogether
18-Nov-15, 17:50
I suspect by the time NATO has decided whether or not it's going to do anything the Russians wil have done some fairly significant damage to Isis with Iranian and Hezzbollah forces coming in to deal with the mopping up operation. It should be remebered that France has already invoked article 42.7 of the Lisbon treaty which is a bit of a game changer for members of the EU.

davth
18-Nov-15, 18:04
Innocents are being slaughtered in Europe, there will always be innocent victims in the battlefield.

I just cant see how we can justify sitting on our hands with this one, there is only so many times a person will take being punched in the face before you decide to retaliate, but I do think it should be a NATO response with all members standing shoulder to shoulder against these animals.

BetterTogether
18-Nov-15, 18:31
It's starting become like Neville Chamberlin all over again " peace in our time " everyone frightened to deal with the bad guys while they where still manageable look what happened when appeasement failed.

davth
18-Nov-15, 18:39
A good comparison.

We should also be asking questions of the likes of Toyota who ISIS seem to find a plentiful supply of new Hilux vehicles.
Also who is buying the oil from the oilfields that ISIS now run?
Any firms found to be dealing with or supplying ISIS should be banned from trading in the West

Alien Adrenaline Reflex
18-Nov-15, 19:43
Toyota trucks you ask? thats easy, the united states has been supplying them to "moderate rebels" along with weapons and other supplies. for "moderate rebels" you can read, "free Syrian army". This was supposed to help them defeat Assad but as they are best pals with ISIS and they also want to defeat Assad who would have beliebed that they would share their resources. there is a nice article here http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/october/09/the-mystery-of-isis-toyota-army-solved/ with lots of links to sources and further information. and I totally agree with you when you say that these sources should be banned from trading in the west or east for that matter. although I think the uk and us governments might be a little upset by your suggestion.

dragonfly
18-Nov-15, 19:45
It's time to hit them where it really will hurt them and that's to find their Swiss bank accounts and seize them. In this day and age of technology it must be possible for the worlds governments agencies to come together to find their money route and kill that

davth
18-Nov-15, 20:08
Toyota trucks you ask? thats easy, the united states has been supplying them to "moderate rebels" along with weapons and other supplies. for "moderate rebels" you can read, "free Syrian army". This was supposed to help them defeat Assad but as they are best pals with ISIS and they also want to defeat Assad who would have beliebed that they would share their resources. there is a nice article here http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/october/09/the-mystery-of-isis-toyota-army-solved/ with lots of links to sources and further information. and I totally agree with you when you say that these sources should be banned from trading in the west or east for that matter. although I think the uk and us governments might be a little upset by your suggestion.

Well there you go, we have armed and trained them over the years and now the tail is wagging the dog.
Its time the dog bit its tail off

Rheghead
18-Nov-15, 20:16
I have very grave concerns about military action only because we can look back on 15 years of Western military action in the middle east and the terrorist acts have arguably got more frequent and severe. ISIS feed into the narrative that they are the defendants of Islam against the terror of the West. More military action just reinforces that narrative in order to recruit more terrorists against us. In other words, I think if we drop a bomb we recruit twice as many terrorists.

We need to explore a negotiated settlement, Saudi Arabia and Iran should exert more sway in the region. They need to relax religious intolerance and restrictions on free speech. It needs a culture of change in regards human rights in the middle east to sort ISIS out.

davth
18-Nov-15, 20:17
it has been reported that ISIS have no desire to enter into negotiation with the West.

Alrock
18-Nov-15, 20:24
I have very grave concerns about military action only because we can look back on 15 years of Western military action in the middle east and the terrorist acts have arguably got more frequent and severe. ISIS feed into the narrative that they are the defendants of Islam against the terror of the West. More military action just reinforces that narrative in order to recruit more terrorists against us. In other words, I think if we drop a bomb we recruit twice as many terrorists.

We need to explore a negotiated settlement, Saudi Arabia and Iran should exert more sway in the region. They need to relax religious intolerance and restrictions on free speech. It needs a culture of change in regards human rights in the middle east to sort ISIS out.

We let the cat out of the bag, would have been better if we hadn't, but since we did then we should take responsibility for puttin it back in. And if that means putting boots on the ground & casulties then so be it.

Rheghead
18-Nov-15, 20:53
it has been reported that ISIS have no desire to enter into negotiation with the West.

You are right they do not wish to negotiate and we do not need to negotiate with them. However, the middle east creates a culture of religious and social intolerance. The terrorists are a product of this culture. There is a lack of democracy, secular education and human right across the region. This feeds into how the religious zealots view the West. However, the real powerbrokers in the region are Saudi Arabia and Iran. They need western relationships to for their own security and custom for their oil.

I believe a knee jerk military reaction will fan the flames, however, a long term two pronged international pressure on human rights with a greater effort to make the West more energy self-reliant will open up the region to human rights by disempowering those who think they have us over a barrel.

Once we are in a better position then we can impose economic sanctions on oil exports, with a huge international effort we could perhaps restore pearls as the Arabian peninsular's biggest export.

We stand at a crossroad, bomb them into a submission that won't be coming anytime soon or actually change tack for the greater good.

BetterTogether
19-Nov-15, 00:26
The problem is as Rheghead says other powers within the region and their agenda Saudi promotes Wahhabism which as more extreme interpretation of Islam. You then have the inherent divide between Sunnis and Shia neither of whom are going to see eye to eye anytime soon, that before you put into play the various ethnic and tribal factions. The Middle East will remain a divided region whatever negotiations are put into play. It's true to say Iran is a major player that has yet to lay it's hand on the table and intervene fully in the ongoing crisis. The main reason we have dealt with players like Saddam Hussein and Basser is our lack of understanding in how strong leaders are viewed in the region and the role they play, it may upset our western sensibilities to accept that with all the in fighting that goes on in the area a strong intolerant hand is required to keep all the various factions in check and that free speech,human rights are principles we have taken centuries to apply in our own region and even now they aren't fully accepted by all sectors of society. To try and apply a westernised mentality to middle eastern problems becomes part of the problem itself.
When we eventually do have to intervene it has to be viewed as a long term project and that casualties will occur. It's no good committing to a war then get upset when a few hundred pay the ultimate fight. It is only in modern day western societies that we consider hundreds unacceptable losses, in most wars throughout history casualties are measured in the thousands, tens of thousands or higher. The main issue will be to gain control of the region then commit to disarming the entire area.
It's quite sensible to ensure that the finances are tracked down and blocked also those who are supplying weapons and munitions are stopped quickly, but there also has to be an acceptance that there are vast stockpiles of weapons in region.
Like any other war in history it can be stopped before it escalates or allowed to grow and gain momentum.
At the moment the degrading and destruction of Isis is the main aim, but once they have been dealt with rest assured their are other groups ready to replace them or regain their position aka al Qaeda.

rich62_uk
19-Nov-15, 03:01
If innocent people are killed wouldn't that just convince more Muslims to join ISIS ?

davth
19-Nov-15, 09:26
If innocent people are killed wouldn't that just convince more Muslims to join ISIS ?

Did you sign up to the forces post London bombings?

bekisman
19-Nov-15, 09:36
I've seen a few UN reports, quite surprising, but it seems that ISIS actually kill 10,000's of Muslims!!!
I really don't understand why the western leaders don't fly to ISIS held territory and sit down with ISIS leadership and negotiate sensibly, I'm sure that ISIS will listen to reason, and if the west are really really nice and ask ISIS to hand over their weapons and those awfully sharp knife's they use to cut people's heads off, I'm sure that ISIS will be grateful for the west listening to them, and of course with us showing how nice we can be, ISIS will do the same.

Because IF they don't we will stop using their oil, so there! and then after half a century of them having no oil to sell from their captured areas they will then have to be very good and hand over their nasty nasty guns.. it's all so easy.

Of course this is all total crap (whoops already got a red 'un for that).. Considering the western nations AND Russian are fully behind bombing the guts out of ISIS, think their very experienced political advisors with all the security know-how have a much better idea on things that us selection of prats here on this forum sat on our comfortable backsides in our comfortable homes, keyboard warriors spouting 'stuff' they have gained from their widely traveled world of experience.. OK we all make mistakes, let's face it Germany and FRANCE were strongly against going into Iraq, it makes NO difference to fundamentalist Islam for example: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent." "Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' " ... "Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." ..."Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel." WAIT. That's from the Christian Bible by the way (old testament)
So finally WHO was it that locked the Paris thread?? and why????

cptdodger
19-Nov-15, 09:40
To be honest, I don't know how to vote. Of course NATO could bomb Syria and hope whatever intelligence they have is correct and they do hit whoever is in charge of ISIS. However, the "people" carrying out these attrocities, as we have clearly seen are already in place. With the best will in the world Friday night in Paris was not carried out on a whim, that was planned. How many more are already in place? The more anybody, be it NATO, France or Russia bombs Syria, the more I think we are playing right into their hands.

I don't profess to know enough about the Middle East, but to me it's like assassinating a President, there is always somebody else to step into their shoes as was the case with JFK and Johnson, and I think that will be the case with ISIS, ISIL, whatever they are calling themselves today. The problem is, how many times have you heard after an attack, oh he was so nice, he was so quiet, he was a family man and so on and the persons family look as stunned as the rest of the world that this person could carry out an attrocity.

So in reality, we or whoever could kill as many of the leaders we want, but how many are already in place poised to retaliate ?

BetterTogether
19-Nov-15, 10:24
There will always be extremists in society whether we allow them to become a cohesive force and rampage around the globe doing untold damage is a separate issue. A single extremist can do some damage but generally not that much in the greater scheme of things, if you allow them to group together and just do as they please then more are attracted to their ideals and it grows and gains momentum.
We can either bite the bullet and degrade them to such an extent they are virtually unable to exsist in any worthwhile form, yes you might still get a few lurking around creating havoc here and there for a while after but eventually they will wither off the vine.

BetterTogether
19-Nov-15, 10:40
Here's an article worth reading for those who claim it's all retaliation for western intervention

http://qz.com/553733/isils-terrorism-is-not-a-reaction-to-western-foreign-policy/

cptdodger
19-Nov-15, 15:25
That's very interesting, and I also think it suits their purpose (ISIS, ISIL, whatever) to let the Western world think that. They are terrorists, so what better than to instill terror in people, it suits their agenda. That Assad person must be made of Teflon then because I don't think anybody, clearly including ISIS has got anywhere near him to remove him. But then what, they remove him and then they are running Syria ?