BOOTS, and I dont mean the Chemists.

Then what is your alternative solution?

You cannot run a state, not a threateningly large state anyway, on the proceeds of kidnapping or extortion; and who are they kidnapping? Advise potential kidnap victims to stay away from ISIS and then refuse to pay ransoms for any foolish enough to ignore the advice.

Yes, ISIS has seized weapons (mostly weapons supplied to Iraq by the coalition!) but the sophisticated systems will need technical support and spare parts; denied these their performance will degrade. The whole of Syria and Iraq are awash with small-arms but these aren’t really the point; the point is to deny ISIS more sophisticated systems that would allow them to threaten the professional forces of the surrounding states.

As I’ve said, my aim would be to limit the extent and influence of ISIS, not eradicate ISIS quickly.

‘I would support these states, financially and militarily, to limit the extent of ISIS; the idea would be to control the export of oil (primarily) and import of weapons (primarily).’

There is no need to import weapons -ISIS has seized hundreds of vehicles and tonnes of weapons. As to oil -the group sells it to the Syrian government amongst others. Its somewhat simplistic to believe that simple import/export restrictions will have any effect on ISIS -they can very effectively support their operations within Syria and Iraq from kidnapping -extorsion and a number of other criminal acts.

An important point. I was listening to a programme about N.Korean aid the other day and I think US food and energy aid totalled nearly $1.5 billion since the mid 90s. The UN was asking for $110 million for N.Korea this year as donations have fallen back dramatically.

What who said? And what country are we talking about now; North Korea, ‘ISIS’ or Syria?

The problem, or the main problem, with trying to cut-off the money is that usually there is some other state happy to provide support; in the case of Syria it is Russia. Even conditions in North Korea would be much worse if it wasn’t for food aid supplied by the United States; the regime would possibly even fall if this aid was removed.

Even ISIS has, or had, its backers.

^^ What he said. The way to stop them is to cut of their supply of money.Surely by now we know where they get their funds for munitions etc. Lean hard on them, nicely first and with more forceful means if needed.

Yes, isolate an entire country. Like we do with North Korea.

And what a great outcome that has had for the long suffering North Koreans. Poverty, slave labour, death camps and a Police state.

Another approach would be to devote the resources it takes to maintain a presence on the ground to an international policing operation to stop the extortion, fraud and smuggling activities that fund ISIS.

Isolate and ignore an entire country? That can and does use social media to amazing effect…

Yes, isolate an entire country. Like we do with North Korea. Like we did with Iraq. Like we do / did with Iran.

As I said, it would not be easy (possible) to completely seal the country off, but that wouldn’t be the aim, and we can never isolate ISIS from the internet (if you’re assuming that the ISIS propaganda comes out of ISIS held territory). The aim would be to limit the regional expansion of ISIS; as has been quite successfully done so far with the states that border Syria (and ISIS controlled Iraq): Turkey, Jordan and Iran. I would support these states, financially and militarily, to limit the extent of ISIS; the idea would be to control the export of oil (primarily) and import of weapons (primarily).

So effectively, you are condoning the creation and the ongoing horrors of this Islamic State. Don’t forget, that every day we ignore this, poor people trapped there are being raped, murdered, tortured…

I’m not condoning anything; I just don’t think that British military intervention (as part of a United States led coalition) is the right course of action.

And the reason that I don’t think it is the right course of action is that it has been tried before, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and after thousands of ‘peacekeeper’ lives had been lost (plus tens of thousands had been maimed or mentally scarred) and billions of dollars had been spent, it hadn’t stopped people dying and it led to the conditions that produced ISIS.

If you don’t want to repeat these mistakes exactly what is your plan for not ignoring this?

These people have been indoctrinated into this ideology from birth. You can’t educate it out of them, and you certainly can’t ignore it out of them. We are an abomination to them, an insult to their culture and their god. They believe it is their divine destiny to destroy us.

Have you been indoctrinated from birth? Because, if not, you’re beginning to worry me!

You’ve clearly stated that your aims are to prevent people being ‘massacred, tortured and raped’ which does you great credit but then you state that ‘these people’ have been indoctrinated from birth and cannot be re-educated. So, some of ‘these people’ must be children still? And ISIS is presumably still indoctrinating children?

So, are ‘these people’, the children, to be included in the ‘solution’ that you proposed earlier?

If I had my way, I would slaughter them all…

Still, as long as we stop ISIS carrying-out all those filthy massacres, right? :rolleyes:

Basically, I would try to isolate, and as much as possible, ‘ignore’ it.

Isolate and ignore an entire country? That can and does use social media to amazing effect. I’m afraid sticking our heads in the sand really would make this situation much worse.

I would stop all RAF bombing missions and restrict RAF activity over Syria and Iraq to drone surveillance. And I certainly wouldn’t contemplate, under current circumstances, any ‘boots on the ground’!

So effectively, you are condoning the creation and the ongoing horrors of this Islamic State. Don’t forget, that every day we ignore this, poor people trapped there are being raped, murdered, tortured etc. I find that pretty difficult to ignore.

As I said, the whole situation is a mess, I don’t have a ‘solution’; I would just try to limit the impact on as many people as possible but without repeating the mistakes that got the region into this mess in the first place.

It wasn’t that long ago when the people of Europe thought that a similar problem would go away by itself. It resulted in one of the worst wars in history and cost over 60m people their lives.

We aren’t dealing with communists, fascists etc here. These people have been indoctrinated into this ideology from birth. You can’t educate it out of them, and you certainly can’t ignore it out of them. We are an abomination to them, an insult to their culture and their god. They believe it is their divine destiny to destroy us. And the longer we allow them this country as a platform, the more advanced and far reaching their abilities will become.

If I were younger I would not run away as a lot of these fit young men we see on TV do. If it was my country I would stand and fight ISIS. Did we chuck in the towel in 1940? Cowards I don’t want that sort here, let Europe keep them.

You still haven’t come forward with a suggestion as to how this situation should be dealt with.

Basically, I would try to isolate, and as much as possible, ‘ignore’ it.

I would stop all RAF bombing missions and restrict RAF activity over Syria and Iraq to drone surveillance. And I certainly wouldn’t contemplate, under current circumstances, any ‘boots on the ground’!

Seal off ISIS as a ‘state’ (although that would be quite difficult) by supporting the more stable states that surround ISIS territory; try and blockade ISIS and prevent the import of the many things that ISIS cannot produce itself (again, difficult). Prevent ISIS exporting anything: oil or looted antiquities.

I wouldn’t try to prevent any United Kingdom citizens going off to fight in Syria (even for ISIS); to my mind the more people that see what is going on for themselves the better; how many of these indoctrinated people are going to be so keen on their ‘jihad’ when they find-out that their holy-war to defend Islam involves mostly killing other Moslems? The more people that see this for themselves, and return to the United Kingdom to speak about it, the better.

I am conflicted about the refugees; while welcoming them into Europe to start a new life helps the individual what does it do for the region in general? Aren’t we just helping ISIS achieve their goal? What is the incentive for anybody to want to resist ISIS if it is far easier to flee across the nearest border in search of safety (but then keep going until the most favourable economic situation is reached)? I’m not blaming these refugees, faced with a similar situation I’d probably do the same, but it seems clear to me that few of them have any notion of returning to Syria (or Iraq, or Afghanistan).

As I said, the whole situation is a mess, I don’t have a ‘solution’; I would just try to limit the impact on as many people as possible but without repeating the mistakes that got the region into this mess in the first place.

Alan – I suppose the answer to your first question is that those who have been commissioning polls for the last 50 years must be satisfied by the information gained otherwise they would have been out of business a very long time ago.

The results might not convince you or others, if they produce a result contrary to your expectations but with a few exceptions they are clearly representative.

You are clearly comparing this situation to the previous one in Iraq, and as I have demonstrated it is very different.

With respect I don’t think it is different at all; you are still dealing with the same populations with the same deep sectarian divisions spread over a larger geographical area with the added complication that your enemy, ISIS, has its power-base in the civil-war of another country. If it is different, the difference is that it is more complicated that Iraq was after Gulf War II.

So your ‘solution’ is what? Armed intervention? Fine. Assuming you can raise an effective coalition, including enough Muslim states to avoid accusations of a modern crusade, then the military campaign to ‘defeat’ ISIS should be pretty straightforward; ten billion dollars and about one hundred military deaths (so long as we weren’t too careful about collateral casualties). It would be a walkover as ISIS isn’t equipped for a stand-up fight with a modern army and a modern air force so wouldn’t really fight but just melt-away into the civilian population. Pretty similar to Iraq last time.

Then what? If your UN Peacekeepers try to administer ‘security’ they are going to start taking a lot of casualties and that cannot carry on indefinitely (just like Iraq and Afghanistan); public opinion over lost lives and the cost wouldn’t allow it. So what then? Try to install a democratic government? Train an army to ensure ‘security’? Isn’t that exactly what was tried in Iraq? And what happened?

At the first large incident of ISIS extremism the Iraqi army, trained at great length and huge expense by the coalition, threw away their arms and ran away. And let’s be honest, ISIS didn’t clone ten thousand fighters and arm them overnight; a good proportion of the Iraqi army, given the choice of joining ISIS or death, (sensibly) joined ISIS! Emboldened, ISIS moved-on and the rest is history.

How would that situation change if we did it all again?

By the same token you could argue a case for the irrelevance of every poll ever conducted, since they all rely on samples. But over the decades they have generally proved useful and informative for those hundreds of organisations who rely on them. But, as always, there are exceptions to disprove the rule!!:)

Agreed, but how many people need to be involved in a poll to make it even vaguely representative, or accurate ?
Listening to a couple of phone in programmes on the radio, I don’t think there was on caller in favour of
sending troops to Syria.

No, there was one. A Syrian living in London.

That should read 46% of those who voted, not 46% of Sky viewers. Nobody asked my opinion.

.[/U]

By the same token you could argue a case for the irrelevance of every poll ever conducted, since they all rely on samples. But over the decades they have generally proved useful and informative for those hundreds of organisations who rely on them. But, as always, there are exceptions to disprove the rule!!:)

Alan. I stand to be corrected, I must get a new Hearing Aid battery…………….:D

Jim
Lincoln .7

Armed intervention did make it worse! ISIS thrived in Iraq; in a power-vacuum in Iraq created by just the sort of armed intervention you are suggesting.

Of course I don’t think the current situation is acceptable but you are talking about imposing ‘peace’ over a vast region with deep sectarian divides, porous borders, no recognised government and one that is awash with weapons; that’s not a situation that sounds like it would have a positive outcome.

We tried hard in Iraq; it didn’t work. We tried very hard in Afghanistan; it didn’t work. We half-arsed tried in Libya; it didn’t work. So now we’re going to try exactly the same in Syria and Iraq and hope it will work?

You are clearly comparing this situation to the previous one in Iraq, and as I have demonstrated it is very different.

You still haven’t come forward with a suggestion as to how this situation should be dealt with.

A Poll by SKY T.V. stated that around 46% of their viewers would like to see “Boots on the ground” in Syria.

That should read 46% of those who voted, not 46% of Sky viewers. Nobody asked my opinion.

They should ask the same people, “how many of our soldiers should we sacrifice in a hopeless cause, 100, 200, 300 ?”
I doubt the British public has an appetite to see the bodies of our servicemen being flown home.

Not to mention, seeing videos of their sons and husbands being executed by ISIS animals.

Edit: Sky Data interviewed a nationally representative sample of 1,002 Sky customers online between 18-20 September 2015.