Read the forum code of contact
Posts: 3,652
By: - 12th September 2014 at 17:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi All,
Snafu,
The U.S. needs their backing how many they can muster it has to be seen that these Arab countries are contributing no matter how little or how effective simply because if it was the west going it alone it would be seen and portrayed by Isis as a crusade against the Muslim/Arab nations IMO.
With the backing of Arab countries the U.S. can get the support of not just the armed forces of these countries but the people's backing too! and more than likely more support from other western countries they are all in the firing line and they need a coalition to band together then ask for more support in what ever form that would take when they need it.
Geoff.
By: - 12th September 2014 at 19:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's about time someone stood up to iS.... that Salmond is getting to big for his boots..... Ohhh hang on, you mean the other IS.. :p
By: - 14th September 2014 at 00:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
IS means Islamic State - not Independent Scotland...;o)
The U.S. needs their backing how many they can muster it has to be seen that these Arab countries are contributing no matter how little or how effective simply because if it was the west going it alone it would be seen and portrayed by Isis as a crusade against the Muslim/Arab nations IMO.
With the backing of Arab countries the U.S. can get the support of not just the armed forces of these countries but the people's backing too! and more than likely more support from other western countries they are all in the firing line and they need a coalition to band together then ask for more support in what ever form that would take when they need it.
How many men does IS have? How many would the anti-IS forces need, to be on the safe side, and could these ten nations supply that number without leaving themselves unable to defend their own home territory? And which other Arabic nations are likely to join the party on the good guy's side?
By: - 14th September 2014 at 02:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The US media is reporting the French will fly airstrikes...but not the UK.
Any idea why?
By: - 14th September 2014 at 23:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
They have some munition which is approaching the best before date and want to use it rather than scrap it, or maybe they figure it is a nice way to keep the aircrew trained?
(I don't know, in case you hadn't guessed)
By: - 18th September 2014 at 00:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The U.K will not at present fly air strikes in Syria. Iraq is decidedly on the table and for a while now RAF Tornados have been gleaning photographic recce information in the region.
By: - 18th September 2014 at 09:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks for the information.
I had thought they were holding back forces in case the Scottish issue gets out of hand. :)
By: - 18th September 2014 at 14:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks for the information.
I had thought they were holding back forces in case the Scottish issue gets out of hand. :)
:applause:
Posts: 2,748
By: snafu - 11th September 2014 at 23:17
I listened to a debate about this on the radio earlier - what people don't seem to understand is that 'military support' can be defined as, for example, allowing US aircraft to use their airbases for emergency landings as much as actually sending their own troops in to fight. And unless they all send troops to get sand in their boots then their pledge is worthless; as it is there is going to be problems if some of them try to send a couple of hundred soldiers because that could represent as much as 10% of their entire force!
Just out of interest, the Peshmerga forces of Kurdistan number 200,000 and look to be a better bet to take down IS.