Hereās some analysis on the 70,000 figure:
Iām no expert, so not able to interrogate whether the information in this is factually accurate or not, but clearly itās come from research on the ground, and not just Cameron plucking a number from thin air. Make of that what you will.
The 70,000 figure has already been derided by members of his own party. The Ministry of Defence implored the Prime Minister not to use the figure, Looks to me as if the 70,000 exist to justify the plan, not to be any meaningful part of it.
Have a read of the article, Pap. The world doesnāt revolve around David fucking Cameron, you know.
Originally posted by @Coxford_lou
Have a read of the article, Pap. The world doesnāt revolve around David fucking Cameron, you know.
I read the article days ago when you posted it on SaintsWeb. Iāve also read around 20 articles ripping the claim to pieces, and have posted some here.
David Cameron may not be the celestial centre of the universe, but he reckons he knows the numbers better than his own Ministry of Defence. I trust their assessment more.
Suggestions of waylaid bombs, rapidly vanishing evidence for this 70,000 ground forceā¦ that kind of thing. Was always going to be this way, hence why I was so against the strikesā¦
You cherry pick your alliegences to suit your argument, no matter who you are siding with as a consequence. It makes it hard for me to take any of your input seriously. I wish you would sometimes take a step back and look at the picture you are painting, and have a modicum of perspective about what your saying. Iām sure thereās plenty of value and interesting insight in your unique point of view on the world, but itās often hard to find amongst the constant agenda youāre pushing.
I guess weāll see. As Super Michael points out, that 70,000 number was looking stale even before the vote had been cast, and looking worse by the day. Thereās nothing wrong in considering cumulative opinion on a given issue, and that is one of the few articles trying to justify the claim, written by a man marketing the crisis to sell his latest book.
In your opinion, as a layman like myself, what is it about this outrider article that is so informed that it allows me to dismiss a chorus of qualified opinion, including our own Ministry concerned with the task of Defence?
Meant to reply to this earlier but forgot. Fair point re the timing.
But if, as you suggest, chemical attacks were carried out by an opposition group, supplied by one of the āproxiesā, then to what end was this done? To blame it all on Assad and push the US into getting involved in earnest? To me that requires a level of Machiavellian calculation that I just donāt think was there. And what āproxyā do you think supplied the requisite chemical weapons? Thereās no more evidence to support this line of thinking than to support the idea that it was carried out by Assadās forces.
In Assadās position, I might have been willing to take a chance on Obama not actually living up to his tough talking. After all, how great was the appetitie within the US for military involvement in yet another Middle Eastern country? Alternatively, given that the Syrian military had access to chemical weaponry, the attack could have been carried out without Assadās specific approval. After all, thereās no question that barrel bombs have been deployed by the Syrian military, and they are about as indiscirminate as it gets. I hardly think theyād shrink from the use of chemical weapons, and we know that they had such weapons.
Iāve read the artilcle and I have to say it doesnāt convince - at least, it doesnāt convince me that there are 70,000 or more fighters whoāll be willing to unite and fight against IS, or who would even be able to do so. The 70,000 figure could well be about right if all youāre looking for is a headcount of those opposed to both Assad and IS, and whose views in other areas we wouldnāt find too unsavoury. But thatās only a small part of the picture.
These fighters are spread out across Syria; getting them all together to take on IS would be a massive logistical operation. And why would they effectively ditch their fight against Assad in order to join forces against IS? If they did do this, what would happen to the areas that they are currently defending against Assadās forces? These would be left open to attack and occupation by those same regime forces. Put simply, I just donāt see it happening. And without troops on the ground air strikes stand no chance of defeating IS.
The objective was never a mystery. The leaders of the US, France and the UK were quite clear, even before the 2013 chemical gas attack, that Assad could no longer rule Syria. That clamour hasnāt died down, even as the focus shifts to ISIS. Western leaders are still saying the same things now.
Perhaps weāre forgetting how precarious Assadās position was in the days following the chemical attack. The Russian intervention pretty much saved them, and as someone with his own internal security problems, at a stage when he was winning the war, it makes no strategic sense for Assad to have engaged in a high stakes game of chicken with the one bloc he didnāt want involved.
I take your point about the barrel bombs, but the reason youāre having to make that speculative jump is because there is no credible evidence that Assad launched a chemical attack on his own people, no sensible motivation for him to do so. Iām not saying he isnāt a bastard; Iām saying he isnāt a stupid bastard.
Western powers want Assad gone. If they got their way two years ago, ISIS would probably be the government of that country, or at least capitalising from the dissolution of the regime.
One last post on this topic for now - an article from the Guardian on how IS are actually running all the mechanisms of a functioning state. This is not to suggest that they have any legitimacy, but it does serve to illustrate that they are rather more than just a rag-tag bunch of terrorist nutters. Put another way, any campaign against them will need to be properly managed or it will fail pretty abjectly.
I class the mysterious 70,000 along with the pre-election pledge to help hardworking families.
Just say whatever it takes to win the vote.
Have we decided which side we are bombing yet or are we doing them in some sort of order?
Well, we hate IS and Assadās mob, plus once we nobble them, one of the other militias will create some caliphate dictatorship and we will definately hate that, so probably best to bomb all of them. It will save a fortune in jet fuel.
What a fucking mess. To quote from one of the best Christmas songs ever, āHallelujah, Noel, be it Heaven or Hell, the Christmas we get we deserve,ā
Isnāt it more polite to arm and train, or at least fund the militia, before deciding later to bomb them?
What I struggle with is that we are now 15 years into the 21st century yet we still fail to learn from history and carry on making the same mistakes we always made.
Nah, if we have to live with austerity, so can the militia.
Yes, even though some of us seem to me more in it all together than others.
I agree, but then what isnāt entirely clear about this whole campaign is the primary objective. Defeating Daesh, or helping the Syrians oppose Assad. I suspect the two are intrinsically linked, but Iād like more clarity on our commitment to the latter. 70,000 fighters isnāt a significant amount, and being reduced with every Russian bomb.
Cameron has promised more than just bombs, but unless Iāve missed it, weāve not yet seen detail on the wider commitment. Maybe thatās to come, fine, but I worry intentions will get diluted as times goes on.
Originally posted by @Coxford_lou
Cameron has promised more than just bombs, but unless Iāve missed it, weāve not yet seen detail on the wider commitment. Maybe thatās to come, fine, but I worry intentions will get diluted as times goes on.
I think he said they would be dropping secret Santa presents at some point.