I1L2T3 Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 Have you read the link that Nagel posted in #701. If that analysis is true, then the only way to stop ISIS will be to destroy them in their Caliphate. Ok, we destroy then what next? Who controls the territory they occupy? What is the plan? Note the mistakes made with Saddam and Gaddafi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 Ok, we destroy then what next? Who controls the territory they occupy? What is the plan? Note the mistakes made with Saddam and Gaddafi That would be the subject of negotiations afterwards. Anything would be better than who's in control of it right now. It would be nice to finally establish a Kurdish state, even if it's not as big as the Kurds would ideally like. It might be worthwhile looking at organising free elections in Syria, but that would be tougher, so partitioning might work better. Depends on what Russia will agree to. The mistake we keep making again and again is leaving before the situation has stabilised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 Well there is a very obvious solution to that. Please explain it then because it isn't obvious to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted November 21, 2015 Author Share Posted November 21, 2015 Ok, we destroy then what next? Who controls the territory they occupy? What is the plan? Note the mistakes made with Saddam and Gaddafi Also note the two very different approaches used in Libya and Iraq too. Libya was off and running by the time we intervened with air strikes, and airstrikes only. As soon as the tyrant was killed a huge vacuum was formed and nutters from far and wide filled the void. We needlessly started something in Iraq, bombed the hell out, got rid of the tyrant, dismantled the army and a vacuum formed and despite lots of boots on the ground, ethnic groups (from home and abroad) fought each other and still do. The answer really is to back Assad. Saudi is stable because it's run by a nasty bunch who oppress its people, we just happen to like them. ---------- Post added 21-11-2015 at 13:50 ---------- That would be the subject of negotiations afterwards. Anything would be better than who's in control of it right now. It would be nice to finally establish a Kurdish state, even if it's not as big as the Kurds would ideally like. It might be worthwhile looking at organising free elections in Syria, but that would be tougher, so partitioning might work better. Depends on what Russia will agree to. The mistake we keep making again and again is leaving before the situation has stabilised. Elections didn't work that well in Egypt. Wrong people win now the place is run by the army isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Arthur Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 Ok, we destroy then what next? Who controls the territory they occupy? What is the plan? Note the mistakes made with Saddam and Gaddafi Syria and Iraq have functioning states that can have their land turned back over to them. There is no similarity to previous wars. There is no immediate need for occupation or regime change and Syria can get back to its own civil war in peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 That would be the subject of negotiations afterwards. Anything would be better than who's in control of it right now. It would be nice to finally establish a Kurdish state, even if it's not as big as the Kurds would ideally like. It might be worthwhile looking at organising free elections in Syria, but that would be tougher, so partitioning might work better. Depends on what Russia will agree to. The mistake we keep making again and again is leaving before the situation has stabilised. Totally agree about the Kurds finally gaining statehood. Big sticking point: Turkey (NATO member) does not want that to happen. Removal of Assad and partition of Syria was always the end game but we won't see the back of IS until Assad is gone. The USA isn't being honest about that. And of course the Russians are now on the ground in support of Assad. The Russians have an obvious regional interest as their southern border is little more than 250 miles from the conflict. As long as Russia props up Assad, then the USA will prop up IS. I'm surprised more people don't realise that. Paris and Mali are the collateral damage caused by the USA's unwillingness to defeat ISIS, to join in a genuine coalition with Russia and Iran that will solve the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Arthur Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 Please explain it then because it isn't obvious to me. It's crystal clear. Invite ISIL's Muslims to the Islamic war they are seeking, wipe them out, destroy the Caphilate, kill the Caliph, and release Muslims from the requirement to travel to the Caliphate and make Islamic war on the kufur. It really is that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 Syria and Iraq have functioning states that can have their land turned back over to them. There is no similarity to previous wars. There is no immediate need for occupation or regime change and Syria can get back to its own civil war in peace. That war has displaced 4 million people and led to hundreds of thousands of casualties. Surely a solution for Syria is imperative, as part of a wider regional solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubaidani13 Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 ---------- Post added 21-11-2015 at 11:50 ---------- [/color] What exactly is it you're saying IS want? IS are quite happy to create mayhem and then the infighting of opposing views in the west to muddy the waters with regards action? they want a totalitarian islamic state with their filthy views and rituals.? I don't have a problem with any of what you suggest there. i am amazed:o:o:o we agree?? How do you 'clamp down on a view'? What, precisely, are you trying to suggest? i suggest we reform freedom of speech to some extent especially with those that patently hate our culture, our way of life whilst taking and bleeding that same cash cow? stop all immigration of those that cannot provide enough to support themselves and their families and who must bring a wanted trade or business to the country and stop any welfare for any that arrive here unless under a strict policy for genuine refugees is adhered to, we must show like Australia that the UK is not the land of their dreams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 It's crystal clear. Invite ISIL's Muslims to the Islamic war they are seeking, wipe them out, destroy the Caphilate, kill the Caliph, and release Muslims from the requirement to travel to the Caliphate and make Islamic war on the kufur. It really is that simple. There is no requirement for true Muslims to travel there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts