- 29,155
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
The war on ISIS.
- Thread starter mister dog
- 3,128 comments
- 132,795 views
- 2,726
- England
- ECGadget
- Eh???
I am confused about one thing. If we were to bomb just the oil fields that ISIS seem to control, would that not be a crippling blow with minimal civilian casualties? I don't know much about politics and all that, but would that not be a reasonable step?
Also... people in commons are like schoolchildren...
Also... people in commons are like schoolchildren...
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
The US excuse for not bombing the oil fields (wellheads and facilities) is that it would cause too much environmental damage. And the trucks and transport should not be bombed without prior notification so that civilians can flee before being bombed. One almost gets the impression that the US is happy with the status quo.
- 2,726
- England
- ECGadget
- Eh???
I can understand the environmental damage, BUT can we not clean that up? Surely every day we don't do that we let the Da'esh become stronger and hurt more people (and in turn the environment too)? Don't get me wrong, I want them out of all power and unable to do anything, but it seems that everything is getting too political.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Remember that, as the proposition stands, we won't be deploying any kind of ground force. I'm sure we already are in some respects but that's either covertly or under other banners. Putting Westerners in the region is something that's proven to radicalise more quickly than it solves things.
- 2,726
- England
- ECGadget
- Eh???
Another question (sorry for having so many): RAF wipes out oil fields. RAF does those famous victory barrel rolls over the UK. We send in engineers, environmentalists, scientists to repair the environmental damage, NOT ground forces to wipe out more Da'esh; leave that to the forces already there. Maybe ground forces only to protect our people as we repair the damage we had to do to weaken and in turn defeat these people. After all, surely the life of an innocent human would be more valuable than some oil and damage we can repair? Or am I being naive?
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 2,726
- England
- ECGadget
- Eh???
What if some of the wells catch fire and spew a few thousands tonnes of carbon dioxide into the air, raising the global temperature by 0.0000000001C? Think about the penguins man
Dude, I adore penguins xD
But seriously, I know we're all talking about climate change and how we are the major contributers etc (but that is a debate for another thread I believe), but our hands are becoming more and more tied. For all we know, these guys know we won't bomb the oil because we are so concerned with climate change, so they have a constant income that gives them the power to go ahead and blow anything. Now we are unwilling to send in ground troops, for reasons that do make sense considering what happened last time. But if we cannot take the fields by taking the ground territory, then how do we cut of their (possibly greatest) source of funding?
- 2,532
- Netherlands
- Denur; GTP_Denur
According to scientists from Leuven University both sides are not being entirely truthful. They calculated, using simple laws of physics, that the plane did fly through Turkish airspace, but for no more than 10 seconds.
Translation
Translation
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
The US aren't ignoring it, they (and everybody else who has watched the news for the last year) knows that Turkey is the main destination of contraband oil. US source.
It's one thing saying that oil from Da'esh-held assets is making its way into the mainstream supply chain (which it is), but Russia have yet to link Da'esh oil with Erdogan or a wilful Turkish government acquistion programme. So far they've demonstrated how the Middle East supply chain works. Hats off, I guess.
Personally I think Putin's accusation isn't one that he can prove and that it's more of his usual propoganda.
Bear in mind that another big purchaser is the Assad regime (knowingly). Putin seems less alarmed at that, I have to say...
- 4,572
- Moscow
- Rage_Racer_VOLK
- RageRacer48
Daymm, if they gave me this text I'd read it better
Citation needed.
I've already read somewhere that 'Assad created ISIS himself'...
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
It's in the post you quoted
I didn't say that, not really a relevant response
US Source
That's one of the reasons that Russia's unaccountably pro-Assad stance (which admittedly they've now dropped) was causing a lot of concern.
In news from the House, Corbyn continues to get a mauling from his own benches while the PM continues to get one from the simultaneous (but ultimately voteless) debate in the Higher Chamber.
Keef
Premium
- 25,011
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
I don't distrust theirs any more than our own.
Also, since when did Russia stop supporting Assad? Pretty sure their mission statement is specifically to keep Assad in power.
I think Putin is still sustaining that.
I haven't heard any agreements on deposing power from Assad, what Russia wants is stabilize the region to invoque general democratic elections there, but want to do so once the conflict is over and ISIS defeated and while having Assad on power during that transition.
I think Russian intelligence is right about large convoys of smuggled oil to be stockpiled in Turkey, is like money laundering, Turks keep barrels and use legal companies to report more stockpile than the one being produced, and then use that information to manage their oil price in the international market.
ExigeEvan
Premium
- 17,192
Because attacking the oil wells isn't the answer, attacking the oil refineries is. And that to my knowledge is much of what Russia has been doing, attacking infrastructure that Daesh have been using, including refineries and Depots. Even America has taken out dozens upon dozens of tanker trucks.
The other issue with taking out the oil fields is you also make it difficult to fly in that area, and it will have a huge impact on the local population. At least if you lose the refinery you can still export crude in the future.
- 17,086
- United Kingdom
Interesting viewpoint from someone who's been face to face with ISIS...
Apologies if it's been posted already but it seems to be doing the rounds on social networks.
Apologies if it's been posted already but it seems to be doing the rounds on social networks.
VolkswagenX
(Banned)
- 1,532
- Netherlands
I stopped when he used the words Syrian regime and when he said the west was to passive.
mister dog
(Banned)
- 8,396
- Spain
- misterdog
- misterdog7
On the one hand you have a bunch of lunatics forming a terrorist state, trying whatever they can to destroy us because they hate our guts, and on the other hand we can't bomb the crap out of them as we might anger muslims doing so...
I'd prefer bombing the crap out of them wherever they are, that's what guided missiles are for. The Germans under Nazi rule were less lucky back in the day as there weren't any precision guided weapons. Just make sure it's a muslim army that does the work on the ground which is the plan anyway.
I'd prefer bombing the crap out of them wherever they are, that's what guided missiles are for. The Germans under Nazi rule were less lucky back in the day as there weren't any precision guided weapons. Just make sure it's a muslim army that does the work on the ground which is the plan anyway.
Last edited:
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Therein lies the problem: Shiites would do it, but we can't let them win. So it must be Sunnis, and they mostly either support or merely condone ISIS, so they simply can't and won't do it by themselves - they would need massive US support on the ground.
- 29,155
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
There's a lot of 'Stop The War' sentiment and posts on social media today as one might expect.
But while I am strongly in favour of diplomacy and political solutions, I fear that ISIS are not, and neither is President Assad for that matter, which poses a dilemma for those who would seek to 'Stop The War' by peaceful means. So how do you stop (or at least minimize) the slaughter and mass displacement of the Syrian people, if not by some kind of outside intervention?
There are multiple aims here - stopping ISIS, ending the Syrian civil war, and the welfare of the Syrian people. All are important separately, but the latter is arguably the most important and most pressing situation. Sorting out the first two will, ultimately, help achieve the latter - but there is plenty more that the outside world can and is doing to help in the meantime. But, if the millions of displaced Syrians ever wish to return home and live safe and secure lives, then something needs to be done about ISIS and about Assad - and when neither can be dealt with via diplomacy (Assad is protected by Russia, and ISIS are not in the business of diplomacy), then it falls to the international community to act.
I was strongly opposed to UK intervention against Assad because of the danger of aiding the extremists - but I am not opposed to intervening against ISIS militarily, and intervening against Assad politically and diplomatically. The sad truth is that millions of people face a terrible ordeal, and thousands are dying at the hands of extremists and, tragically, at the hands of those whose responsibility it should be to protect them. Limited UK airstrikes against ISIS infrastructure is likely not going to make a great deal of difference either way, but it is certainly not the case that the UK is likely to make the situation worse in the long term for the Syrian people.
But while I am strongly in favour of diplomacy and political solutions, I fear that ISIS are not, and neither is President Assad for that matter, which poses a dilemma for those who would seek to 'Stop The War' by peaceful means. So how do you stop (or at least minimize) the slaughter and mass displacement of the Syrian people, if not by some kind of outside intervention?
There are multiple aims here - stopping ISIS, ending the Syrian civil war, and the welfare of the Syrian people. All are important separately, but the latter is arguably the most important and most pressing situation. Sorting out the first two will, ultimately, help achieve the latter - but there is plenty more that the outside world can and is doing to help in the meantime. But, if the millions of displaced Syrians ever wish to return home and live safe and secure lives, then something needs to be done about ISIS and about Assad - and when neither can be dealt with via diplomacy (Assad is protected by Russia, and ISIS are not in the business of diplomacy), then it falls to the international community to act.
I was strongly opposed to UK intervention against Assad because of the danger of aiding the extremists - but I am not opposed to intervening against ISIS militarily, and intervening against Assad politically and diplomatically. The sad truth is that millions of people face a terrible ordeal, and thousands are dying at the hands of extremists and, tragically, at the hands of those whose responsibility it should be to protect them. Limited UK airstrikes against ISIS infrastructure is likely not going to make a great deal of difference either way, but it is certainly not the case that the UK is likely to make the situation worse in the long term for the Syrian people.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
It's going to cost a lot of lives to enforce a military solution on ISIS and a regime change on Assad. Consequences of such a plan could be unpredictable or even catastrophic. The most likely approach is with the full cooperation of the Russians.
One the other hand, we know for a fact that vast numbers of angry, alienated young men are at the heart of the problem.
Supply them with gainful employment, money, and free access to desirable women and there will be no more problems.
One the other hand, we know for a fact that vast numbers of angry, alienated young men are at the heart of the problem.
Supply them with gainful employment, money, and free access to desirable women and there will be no more problems.
- 29,155
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Better the devil you don't know than the devil you do... allowing ISIS free reign will lead to pretty predictable and catastrophic results.
Dealing with Assad is a different matter - but the Russians have effectively ruled that out for the time being. ISIS pose a severe and credible threat to the Syrian people that needs to be dealt with on its own merits.
- 17,086
- United Kingdom
Why?
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
I haven't followed this thread for a couple of days, but to play theory craft for a moment:
The issue that Putin now is supporting Assad may have become superficial at best. Everyone who has a stake in the current middle east crisis flat out knows that it isn't the fate of one country that is on the line here now, but rather two, Syria and Iraq. ISIS did swarm a large tract of land in these two countries to be placed under their control. That said, the current treaty that divided up the former Ottoman Empire after World War I is basically in shambles. With no clear boundary between Syria and Iraq, any potential fall of ISIS talks that has to take place between the G8 or even the Security Council must include discussion on how to redefine the boundary between Syria, Iraq and Turkey (Since they are really pushing for a 10km "buffer zone" to drive the Kurds out.) It is this discussion among our world leaders and ambassadors that is not happening.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
IMO, Putin is willing to discuss the political future of Syria without Assad.
But, as vital as the Kurds are to the containment of ISIS in Syria and Iraq, nary a soul ventures a kind word for their territorial/national ambitions.
If I were in charge, I would provide for a lesser West Syria to include Alawites, Shiites, Druze, Christians, Yazidis, Zoroastrians, Jews and anyone else who is not a Sunni extremist in a secular, democratic arrangement. I would carve off a large swathe in the east for Sunnis and perhaps attach it to Iraq, and in the northeast I would provide a nation state for Kurds, also to include portions of Iraq, Turkey and Iran.
But, as vital as the Kurds are to the containment of ISIS in Syria and Iraq, nary a soul ventures a kind word for their territorial/national ambitions.
If I were in charge, I would provide for a lesser West Syria to include Alawites, Shiites, Druze, Christians, Yazidis, Zoroastrians, Jews and anyone else who is not a Sunni extremist in a secular, democratic arrangement. I would carve off a large swathe in the east for Sunnis and perhaps attach it to Iraq, and in the northeast I would provide a nation state for Kurds, also to include portions of Iraq, Turkey and Iran.
