That has indeed been the Western political stance up until now, but I think that may be necessarily changing, as more be-headings take place.

Not quite, the stance has been that it is a local nation issue, but they have refused to arm anyone in any way that would be both helpful or meaningful..the usual half measures!!

That number of troops is not available, nor would be made available. There are only 28 states in NATO, whereas there are over 40 countries signed up to the coalition.

100,000 troops is easily available, look at the figures used for the invasion of Iraq? NATO alone could supply this many if the will was there, the 40 nations in the current coalition could commit even more, but that number would not be needed.

That will never happen either, unless you are suggesting the old adage "set a thief to catch a thief".

It is not ideal, but lets face facts, we sided with Stalin against Hitler, yet historically Stalin was a bigger maniac against his own people. It has been estimated his purges cost more than 20 million Russian lives.. ISL are a very real threat to the West and others in the region, Sysria is not. Lesser of two evils is always the better option.

I repeat the figures I stated before, Iraq population is 33 million, Syria population is 23 million, Isis 60,000.

Raw figures do not tell the real picture. We have some 62 million People in the UK. If ISL invaded here how many would or could fight...Nations are different, but you have to take into account that of the number in the impacted nations that are of the right age etc to fight (Perhaps 5 million) evidence is showing that around 10% or more may be sympathetic to ISL for other reasons rather than ideology..that changes the picture dramatically as you are dealing with a force that is dedicated and driven...Look at history, how many times have a well organised, dedicated and the well driven force overcome a numerically superior foe...History is littered with these stories, so please understand it is not simply a numbers game.

I don't know how up to date with the news that you are, but this is a worrying development.

BBC news

That is old news, not accurate and neither does it change things too dramatically on the ground.

---

(Although true Arabic culture has never achieved anything until the modern era) `

I seem to recall that the Arabs where far ahead in a lot of fields of science and culture at a time where Europe was dragging itself through the mud. They had their achievements during their golden age, again, don't gloss over those things.

And no, history is not irrelevant. The West far to often does not take the local history into account and as a result makes huge mistakes that have far reaching consequences in the future.

(Although true Arabic culture has never achieved anything until the modern era) `

I seem to recall that the Arabs where far ahead in a lot of fields of science and culture at a time where Europe was dragging itself through the mud. They had their achievements during their golden age, again, don't gloss over those things.

And no, history is not irrelevant. The West far to often does not take the local history into account and as a result makes huge mistakes that have far reaching consequences in the future.

When, as you describe it "Europe was dragging itself through the mud" Arabs where the peoples inhabiting Arabia. The Arab world you are thinking of did not start until the 7th century at its very earliest, long after the period when Mesopotamians lead the world in science and culture.

When, as you describe it "Europe was dragging itself through the mud" Arabs where the peoples inhabiting Arabia. The Arab world you are thinking of did not start until the 7th century at its very earliest, long after the period when Mesopotamians lead the world in science and culture.

In the 7th century Europe was not exactly very enlightened itself, now was it?

I was talking about the golden age of Islam, so from the dawn of Islam to the 15th century.

Local history into account? So what!

Why are Muslim's, and people of that region, held to a lesser standard than Europeans?

Would we excuse Jewish People Be-Heading Germans? Ukrainians Crucifying Russians? No, we would not.

Do I smell Racial, Ethnic, Religious, Cultural Superiority and Bigotry? Yes.

They are not. Being mindful of their history is not excusing their behavior, its part of knowing the people and the culture that spawns a group like ISIS. Its knowing and understanding your enemy. If you think thats irrelevant, then clearly you don't know how to wage war in the first place.

(Although true Arabic culture has never achieved anything until the modern era) `

I seem to recall that the Arabs where far ahead in a lot of fields of science and culture at a time where Europe was dragging itself through the mud. They had their achievements during their golden age, again, don't gloss over those things.

And no, history is not irrelevant. The West far to often does not take the local history into account and as a result makes huge mistakes that have far reaching consequences in the future.

That is because of your stereotype image of what is or is not an ARAB. Persians, people from Mesopotamia, that became Persia (Modern day Iraq and Iran) are NOT Arabs. People from Modern day Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Israel are not Arabs, they are Assyrian for the most part.

The Kurds (Nthn Iraq, Nthn Iran and Sthn Turkey and a small part of Nthn Syria) are NOT Arabs, they are Kurds or Peshmurga.

Egyptians are NOT Arabs..

Arabs are people from the Arabian Penninsula, namely Saudi's, Yemeni, Omani, and those from the UAE and Kuwait. There is a slight cross over in Southern Iraq/Ian with the people known as Marsh Arabs, but even here not all are of Arabic origins as there are a small number of communities with Aramaic origins and who still speak Aramaic not Iraqi Arabic or Farsi.

In future I would suggest you get some cultural history education before you paint everyone with the same brush.

---

Arabs are people from the Arabian Penninsula, namely Saudi's, Yemeni, Omani, and those from the UAE and Kuwait.

I was taught that back in school in the 1950's. The Red sea to the West, the Gulf of Aden to the South, and the Persian Gulf to the East. It even has its own sea to the SE that borders the Indian Ocean. It just beggars belief that there are people today 60 years later that just don't understand that.

Need to pay attention to the news my good man ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2496427.stm

---

Local history into account? So what!

Why are Muslim's, and people of that region, held to a lesser standard than Europeans?

Would we excuse Jewish People Be-Heading Germans? Ukrainians Crucifying Russians? No, we would not.

Do I smell Racial, Ethnic, Religious, Cultural Superiority and Bigotry? Yes.

They are not. Being mindful of their history is not excusing their behavior, its part of knowing the people and the culture that spawns a group like ISIS. Its knowing and understanding your enemy. If you think thats irrelevant, then clearly you don't know how to wage war in the first place.

How would you wage this war to defeat their ability to Expand, then destroy their Sanctuary's?

How?

By not waging a war with the goals you have stated which anyone who wages that war will be defeated.

---

How would you wage this war to defeat their ability to Expand, then destroy their Sanctuary's?

How?

I've literally told you my answer a dozen times. Go look it up in one of the other threads.

How would you wage this war to defeat their ability to Expand, then destroy their Sanctuary's?

How?

I've literally told you my answer a dozen times. Go look it up in one of the other threads.

I am curious about something, I saw reading some other threads that you were referred to as Michael...but your name is Michelle, albeit in Russian..care to elaborate? Why do you have your name in Russian yet you are in the Netherlands..? (I'm seriously just curious)

---

How would you wage this war to defeat their ability to Expand, then destroy their Sanctuary's?

How?

I've literally told you my answer a dozen times. Go look it up in one of the other threads.

I am curious about something, I saw reading some other threads that you were referred to as Michael...but your name is Michelle, albeit in Russian..care to elaborate? Why do you have your name in Russian yet you are in the Netherlands..? (I'm seriously just curious)

I think his name is Michiel, he's Dutch.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

I am curious about something, I saw reading some other threads that you were referred to as Michael...but your name is Michelle, albeit in Russian..care to elaborate? Why do you have your name in Russian yet you are in the Netherlands..? (I'm seriously just curious)

I used google translate to translate my name. And apparently when you translate Michiel from Dutch to Russian, you get Michelle :P

I don't mind it though :)

I am curious about something, I saw reading some other threads that you were referred to as Michael...but your name is Michelle, albeit in Russian..care to elaborate? Why do you have your name in Russian yet you are in the Netherlands..? (I'm seriously just curious)

I used google translate to translate my name. And apparently when you translate Michiel from Dutch to Russian, you get Michelle :P

I don't mind it though :)

Come across many weird translations on the so called online translators..I have an advantage in living with a fluent Russian Speaker hence being aware of the spelling issue :)

---

I'm left wondering, just who is brainwashing who?

Do politicians really think we're that dumb?

Down the track? - Would that be Ascot or Kentucky?

Turkish action unrealistic

Further proof that bureaucrats & politicians live in their "own little world"...

Social media war

""We have tended to produce content that is appealing to us but is not going to take apart their narrative. It's the kind of content that will be cleared through government departments - messages that have made us feel good about ourselves but are not going to do anything to encourage those who are committed to jihad not to do so."

The US government has seen how this approach can fail. It launched a counter-narrative campaign on Twitter which sought to lampoon IS's use of computer game imagery. The result was something that lacked focus - and was swiftly counter-lampooned by Western IS fighters, in a way that a rebellious teenager sneers at his parents."

Many comments but little substance from some.

I do not know what peoples backgrounds are here, but for those who have suggested Military Action (I am not opposed as diplomacy is never going to work in this case) I wonder how may of you know how to plan a military camapaign at it's most basic?

---

First off, a military action is entirely different from a military campaign. Secondly we've been lied to. There are many here who know that air strikes alone will not stop IS only slow them down.

Where the Middle East is concerned, there are only two options: -

1: Pull out & let them slaughter each other.

2: A full co-ordinated military campaign utilising all three arms, land, air & sea(where applicable).

The problem with option two is that it will suck in too many countries & it will end up an "International Vietnam" & we all know how the original turned out.

There was a 3rd option, but as can be seen throughout the 14 years so far of the 21st century, modern diplomacy is totally useless.

Personally, I cannot see option 2 ever working for 2 reasons "vietnamisation & $$$$$", which is why the Middle East is being handled in a haphazard manner.

First off, a military action is entirely different from a military campaign. Secondly we've been lied to. There are many here who know that air strikes alone will not stop IS only slow them down.

No, you were not lied to, you just didn't pay any attention when the politicians were talking. They clearly stated that airstrikes alone would not stop ISIS and they never suggested that it was just a matter of dropping some bombs. The bombing campaign is designed to do two things.

First of all its supposed to prevent ISIS from gaining more territory. This of course, needs to be coordinated with ground forces such as the Iraqi army or Kurdish fighters. The coalition takes out hard targets and the ground forces move in to properly secure the area.

Second of all, the bombing is supposed to hit valuable targets, such as oil refineries, supply dumps, training camps and administrative centers. That way their command structure gets hit, their ability to pump up and sell oil gets taken out thus reducing their income and obviously the enemy is a bit easier to take out if they are low on ammo and don't drive around in tanks, IFV's and APC's.

IF you had read the papers you would have known that bombing is just step one. There is still a step two and three.

Where the Middle East is concerned, there are only two options: -

1: Pull out & let them slaughter each other.

2: A full co-ordinated military campaign utilising all three arms, land, air & sea(where applicable).

Thank god youre not a policy maker. There are, of course, more than the two 'all or nothing' options you just summed up. If international relations really was just a matter of staying out or going in guns blazing in some all out war the human race would have gone extinct centuries ago.

So what is the third option? Well, support the moderate forces in the region with training and equipment and have them do the ground war, while if necessary you drop a few well placed bombs whenever necessary. You know, basically the thing we are currently doing. And afterwards, set up some kind of marshal plan for the region.

Oh dear, what drivel! Isn't that what the USA & their CIA did for the Afghans in their fight against the Russians...

...just who is fighting in Afghanistan today?

Oh dear, what drivel! Isn't that what the USA & their CIA did for the Afghans in their fight against the Russians...

...just who is fighting in Afghanistan today?

Not to mention, Sirus, that Мишель's suggested course of action will result in what the US has been accused of doing... propping up Dictators.

The belief, probably really hope, in a Limited War and Limited Air Strikes, have been proven wrong, and wrong, and wrong, again and again.

Where are the Long Term Successes, from Vietnam onwards? Why would anyone advocate a Failed Strategy?

Ah but that's what bureaucratic intellectuals & politicians want, after all, the armed forces are there to "do & die" & then get told to sod off after doing their duty.
I'm sorry to say that once diplomacy fails & those "glorious leaders" of ours give the military the go-ahead, they should stay of out it until one side or another is defeated.

Look to Germany & Japan. Did the allies keep them down or assist in their recovery back into the real world?

Personally, I think the West should provide all the weaponry possible to Israel. The Middle East knows without any shadow of doubt that they would not hesitate to put that weaponry to good use.

Peace at last in the Middle East.