You Could Have Protected Her....
News0 min ago
Losing Everything
Apparently, David Cameron will make the case for war with Assad later this week. Possibly sometime later there may be a vote in the Commons on war, which may or may not sanction it.
Meanwhile the Russians have flew 141 bombing missions over Syria this weekend, and Defence Ministry say they destroyed almost 500 ISIS targets in the country.
http://
Has the West already lost in Syria?
Russia are seriously tackling ISIS, and Assad will probably survive. The Russians will remain in Syria and the Saudi sectarian war will have been crushed.
And we in the West are spectators.
Meanwhile the Russians have flew 141 bombing missions over Syria this weekend, and Defence Ministry say they destroyed almost 500 ISIS targets in the country.
http://
Has the West already lost in Syria?
Russia are seriously tackling ISIS, and Assad will probably survive. The Russians will remain in Syria and the Saudi sectarian war will have been crushed.
And we in the West are spectators.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// History is about learning what went before, to avoid making the same mistakes again. //
nope - there is only one lesson from History and that is there are no lessons from History - Maurois
( jim360 will understand how I talked myself onto a math course with crap A level grades on that quote )
we could rehearse all our fave Hx quotes:
History acted out twice - once as comedy and then as tragedy
If Historians could add - the ecxhequer would be a much better place
nope - there is only one lesson from History and that is there are no lessons from History - Maurois
( jim360 will understand how I talked myself onto a math course with crap A level grades on that quote )
we could rehearse all our fave Hx quotes:
History acted out twice - once as comedy and then as tragedy
If Historians could add - the ecxhequer would be a much better place
-- answer removed --
In 2013 Cameron wanted to remove Assad by arming and helping the rebels (ISIS) to win.
Now 2015, they want Assad to lose and ISIS to lose. That isn't going to happen. They can't have both.
The Russians know ISIS has to be defeated for Assad to win. And the rest of the World is now strongly supporting ISIS must be defeated. Which is perfect for the Russians and bad new for the US and the West.
The Russians will probably achieve all their objectives, and we won't achieve any. That's the problem with a lame duck President.
Now 2015, they want Assad to lose and ISIS to lose. That isn't going to happen. They can't have both.
The Russians know ISIS has to be defeated for Assad to win. And the rest of the World is now strongly supporting ISIS must be defeated. Which is perfect for the Russians and bad new for the US and the West.
The Russians will probably achieve all their objectives, and we won't achieve any. That's the problem with a lame duck President.
-- answer removed --
The Chinese will be helping to wipe out ISIS ( maybe ).
http://
http://
Dave plan's a vote next week.
http://
http://
Naomiour wonderful leader 16th September.
// President Assad and Isis must both be defeated by "hard military force," David Cameron has said in his strongest signal yet that Britain will soon bomb Syria. //
The main objective in going into Syria is the same as it has always been - to topple Assad. For Cameron, ISIS are a side show.
// President Assad and Isis must both be defeated by "hard military force," David Cameron has said in his strongest signal yet that Britain will soon bomb Syria. //
The main objective in going into Syria is the same as it has always been - to topple Assad. For Cameron, ISIS are a side show.
// Mr Cameron told MPs at Prime Minister's Questions:
"We have to be part of the international alliance that says we need an approach in Syria which will mean we have a government that can look after its people.
"Assad has to go... ...that will require not just spending money, not just aid, not just diplomacy, but it will on occasion require hard military force." //
"We have to be part of the international alliance that says we need an approach in Syria which will mean we have a government that can look after its people.
"Assad has to go... ...that will require not just spending money, not just aid, not just diplomacy, but it will on occasion require hard military force." //
President Assad ( who is bad ) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels ( who are good ) started winning ( Hurrah!).
But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State ( who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy ( who are still good.)
So the Americans ( who are good ) started bombing Islamic State ( who are bad ) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) so they could fight Assad ( who is still bad ) which was good.
By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS ( which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.
Getting back to Syria.
So President Putin ( who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi ) has decided to back Assad ( who is still bad ) by attacking IS ( who are also bad ) which is sort of a good thing?
But Putin ( still bad ) thinks the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans ( who are good ) who are busy backing and arming the rebels ( who are also good).
Now Iran ( who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good ) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad ( still bad ) as are the Russians ( bad ) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.
So a Coalition of Assad ( still bad ) Putin ( extra bad ) and the Iranians ( good, but in a bad sort of way ) are going to attack IS ( who are bad ) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) which is bad.
Now the British ( obviously good, except that nice Mr Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad ) and the Americans ( also good ) cannot attack Assad ( still bad ) for fear of upsetting Putin ( bad ) and Iran ( good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS ( who are super bad).
So Assad ( bad ) is now probably good, being better than IS ( but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there ) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America ( still Good ) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin ( now good ) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran ( also Good ) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS ( still the only constantly bad group).
To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims ( Assad and Iran ) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good ( Doh!.)
Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal ( mmm.might have a point.) and hence we will be seen as Bad.
So now we have America ( now bad ) and Britain ( also bad ) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels ( bad ) many of whom are looking to IS ( Good / bad ) for support against Assad ( now good ) who, along with Iran ( also Good) and Putin ( also, now, unbelievably, Good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?
But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State ( who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy ( who are still good.)
So the Americans ( who are good ) started bombing Islamic State ( who are bad ) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) so they could fight Assad ( who is still bad ) which was good.
By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS ( which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.
Getting back to Syria.
So President Putin ( who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi ) has decided to back Assad ( who is still bad ) by attacking IS ( who are also bad ) which is sort of a good thing?
But Putin ( still bad ) thinks the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans ( who are good ) who are busy backing and arming the rebels ( who are also good).
Now Iran ( who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good ) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad ( still bad ) as are the Russians ( bad ) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.
So a Coalition of Assad ( still bad ) Putin ( extra bad ) and the Iranians ( good, but in a bad sort of way ) are going to attack IS ( who are bad ) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels ( who are good ) which is bad.
Now the British ( obviously good, except that nice Mr Corbyn in the corduroy jacket, who is probably bad ) and the Americans ( also good ) cannot attack Assad ( still bad ) for fear of upsetting Putin ( bad ) and Iran ( good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS ( who are super bad).
So Assad ( bad ) is now probably good, being better than IS ( but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there ) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America ( still Good ) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin ( now good ) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran ( also Good ) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS ( still the only constantly bad group).
To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims ( Assad and Iran ) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good ( Doh!.)
Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal ( mmm.might have a point.) and hence we will be seen as Bad.
So now we have America ( now bad ) and Britain ( also bad ) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels ( bad ) many of whom are looking to IS ( Good / bad ) for support against Assad ( now good ) who, along with Iran ( also Good) and Putin ( also, now, unbelievably, Good ) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?
Khandro/Naomi
// So you think Cameron's the agenda is; Wipe out ISIS, then Assad, then Russia? //
No. I said the main target is Assad. ISIS are useful as a pretext to get the Commons to approve military action in Syria, but they are not the main target, Assad is. The Russians are there at the invitation of Assad. If Assad goes, the Russians must leave.
Cameron is not asking for permission to engage ISIS. He is asking for permission to make attacks in Syria. A subtle but important difference.
// So you think Cameron's the agenda is; Wipe out ISIS, then Assad, then Russia? //
No. I said the main target is Assad. ISIS are useful as a pretext to get the Commons to approve military action in Syria, but they are not the main target, Assad is. The Russians are there at the invitation of Assad. If Assad goes, the Russians must leave.
Cameron is not asking for permission to engage ISIS. He is asking for permission to make attacks in Syria. A subtle but important difference.
Naomi
It is difficult to know what the US/Cameron position is. It seems to be made up on the hoof. But as far as I can tell, they haven't changed from their objective that Assad has to be beaten. The UK Parliament rejected attacking Assad in 2013. The Government can use ISIS as an excuse to fight in Syria, but you can be sure that we will be attacking Syrian Government positions as well.
ISIS have grown exponentially in the last 5 years. Strangely, most of its hardware and ammunition appear to be US made. The Russians have begun to contain them and will defeat them. Which is why the US (and its allies) is rapidly trying to now join in. They are doing what the Americans always do, wait to see who is winning and then join belatedly on the winning side to reap the spoils.
It is difficult to know what the US/Cameron position is. It seems to be made up on the hoof. But as far as I can tell, they haven't changed from their objective that Assad has to be beaten. The UK Parliament rejected attacking Assad in 2013. The Government can use ISIS as an excuse to fight in Syria, but you can be sure that we will be attacking Syrian Government positions as well.
ISIS have grown exponentially in the last 5 years. Strangely, most of its hardware and ammunition appear to be US made. The Russians have begun to contain them and will defeat them. Which is why the US (and its allies) is rapidly trying to now join in. They are doing what the Americans always do, wait to see who is winning and then join belatedly on the winning side to reap the spoils.
