In the news

It's someone's. And the people making the choice are the ones we elected to represent you and I.

Well, my point is it's really not Britain's business at all. Let the UN deal with it. Just stay out of it, with the exception of taking in any refugees, who don't want to live there.

There are plenty of other countries who are doing absolutely nothing, and I don't see why Britain needs to be different.

The UN doesn't have an army. As Benn pointed out, it passed a resolution calling on member states to do something about Daesh. We're a member state, we have a military. Should we ignore the UN resolution?

They didn't approve military action. And if the do went military action, it should be under a unified UN force, not individual member states taking action in their own name.

It kind of is our business. Daesh bloomed and flourished in the chaos we and the US stirred up in Iraq. Even Blair admits this. It's our mess.

Air strikes as a response to the impotent need to 'do something' are unlikely to work, though. What's required is a political settlement in Syria, and cutting off Daesh's supplies and money. It will collapse under its own weight if that happens.

http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sc12132.doc.htm

'All necessary measures' includes military in UN-speak.

I'd agree with that. It's certainly to a significant part Britain's fault. I just see more of the same making it worse.

I agree, I'd like to see Dave and his cronies leading the troops out of the trenches.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7qkQewyubs

I agree something needs to be done to stop the ISIS psychos, but something needed to be done with the psychos in Rwanda, DRC, Sudan, Eritrea, Bosnia, Indonesia, ect, ect, ect. Obviously this forthcoming clusterfuck has nothing to do with egos or oil.

Well, the bombing has started. The BBC report from the Cyprus airbase had echoes of Hanrahan's "I counted them out... " report in the Falklands war.

I really don't get those who suggested that people against bombing wanted to do nothing, and it's a shame that the need to do something (which everyone agrees) was largely conflated with bombing. I hope the govt. are held to account on this, and actually take the necessary political and economic actions with as much gusto.

Maybe I'm cynical about politicians, but bombing means less Armed Forces personnel returning home with missing body parts and minds. Less propaganda fodder for the anti-bombing lobbyists, campaigners and Corbyn to use. We are just pawns in the game of oils.

I really don't get the 'leave Daesh alone' argument.

I feel like like it is mostly the pro-airstrikes argument that frames it as airstrikes or inaction. Most of the anti-airstrikes argument is not to do nothing instead. Is that a straw man?

As I said just before, at least knowing the Gulfis are corrupt means we know they're not going to spend their oil wealth starting a war.

No they don't start wars, they just ship out their own extremists to other countries to maintain stability, and fund Militias like Daesh to fight as their proxies. Same thing is happening in Yemen too, FWIW.

Have a watch of this too, shows how much good intervention has done
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p02gyz6b/adam-curtis-bitter-lake

Well aware of what the Gulfis have done, thanks - that's exactly the reason why I'm arguing that they're bad enough, so why should we want to let Daesh have its caliphate? That doesn't seem like a good outcome to me.

I don't really see what in Curtis' film suggests leaving Daesh alone is a good idea.

You can make the argument that the invasion of Afghanistan was more justifiable and there was the potential to do some good there. We (collectively, as the West) still managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by allowing the US to install their warlords in power, and then getting distracted from Afghanistan by the utterly pointless invasion of Iraq. So I would say that while military action may sometimes be justified, it must also be reasonable to expect a positive outcome. If either of these conditions is wanting, consider looking for a less macho solution.

No worse than the anti-bombing straw man that has the choice as bombing civilians or not bombing at all.

I feel like you may not be exactly clear on how bombing works. The planes we launched today were carrying Paveway bombs - laser guided, which should increase accuracy, except that you need a laser designator on the ground to make use of that, which is exactly what we don't have.

Right now we may be able to find targets with low densities of civilians, but if there is any end-game in mind, then bombing Raqqa is presumably part of that. ISIS have been building tunnels under other cities against exactly this eventuality, so I suspect the civilian to insurgent hit rate is going to skew pretty radically at that point.

Laser guidance can be done from the ground, from a support aircraft, or from a pod on the attack aircraft. You don't need a designator on the ground, in fact. But thanks for being patronising.

I really don't think bombing Raqqa is a good idea. I think bombing the oil logistics and cutting off their revenues is a great idea. Weaken Daesh and let local forces sort out the situation on the ground. Like the way the Iraqi army has been taking back cities from Daesh over the last few weeks (with Western air support).

But this is again part of the problem - I say I want us to hit their oil smuggling operation, you say that must mean I'm happy for urban areas to be bombed. That's not what I've said at all.

Again you're presenting the fallacy that because I think bombing them is a bad idea then doing nothing must be what I support.

How about we... I don't know... stop selling weapons to the Saudis?

The Curtis film mostly shows how useless traditional force is in these situations, and how the British troops in Afghanistan were basically used as hit men for the different tribal groups

Re Curtis film - yes, we were out of our depth having troops on the ground trying to do 'nation-building' in Afghanistan. Part of the reason nobody wants to attempt the same in Syria.

Not sure how not selling weapons to the Saudis is going to solve the problem of Daesh right now. Longer term, I'd be really rather happy if we went renewable, abandoned fossil fuels and made Saudi oil reserves worthless. Sadly I don't believe that's going to happen any time soon, as the technology still isn't good enough.

Part of the reason nobody wants to attempt the same in Syria.

Sure. So let's just bomb them back into the stone ages in stead. That'll definitely win hearts and minds

Not sure how not selling weapons to the Saudis is going to solve the problem of Daesh right now.

Maybe it might make it slightly harder for them to support their proxies in these "wars". At the moment we're arming both sides (moderate rebels and Daesh via Saudi Arabia)

Sure. So let's just bomb them back into the stone ages in stead. That'll definitely win hearts and minds

Contrast

But this is again part of the problem - I say I want us to hit their oil smuggling operation, you say that must mean I'm happy for urban areas to be bombed. That's not what I've said at all.

Re Saudi Arabia - you think we're the only people they can buy weapons from? Part of the reason we sell stuff to them is to try to keep them closer to our side. It's grubby and corrupt but it is what it is. Unilaterally declaring ourselves above that sort of thing will only result in them going and getting the same kit from someone else, and that someone else will try to use the relationship to their advantage.

Also, I'm unaware of any Western kit getting into Daesh hands through Saudi. Quite a lot of it got into their hands when they overran big chunks of Iraq, though.

Now that's a punchy front page for a Murican newspaper

So; "as there is evil in the world, we might as well be the ones to profit from it?" and our enlightened values will rub off on them at the same time and magically make them better people?

Fair enough if you can stop the oil smuggling with bombs, but it begs the question, if the US, France and Russia haven't managed it so far, what are we going to add to the mix?

Daesh are shooting M16's and driving the Humvees they pillaged from the Iraqi army.

but it begs the question

the terrorists have already won.