Islamic State militants are the most dangerous threat the US has faced in recent years, Washington has warned.

Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel said US air strikes had helped to break the Islamist advance in Iraq, but the militants could be expected to regroup.

America's top general Martin Dempsey stressed that IS could not be defeated without attacking their base in Syria.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28891325

Two years and six months ago, I said "Let's Attack Syria"

I also said "If we don't help them (the people) then someone else will"

Now Obama's reticence has come back to haunt him. In failing to stand-up to Assad he has let the militant IS in by the back door.

A re-invasion of Iraq is on the cards (and Britain WILL join in) - and so too is the bombing of Syria.

If only they had listened to ITK two and a half years ago we would not be in this mess (and how many lives could have been saved?) ... but as I said at the time "A weak US President is a very dangerous thing".

In The Know (as always) wrote:
Two years and six months ago, I said "Let's Attack Syria"

Syrian death toll now tops 191,000 - UN

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28892552

In The Know (as always) wrote:
Islamic State militants are the most dangerous threat the US has faced in recent years, Washington has warned.

Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel said US air strikes had helped to break the Islamist advance in Iraq, but the militants could be expected to regroup.

America's top general Martin Dempsey stressed that IS could not be defeated without attacking their base in Syria.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28891325

Two years and six months ago, I said "Let's Attack Syria"

I also said "If we don't help them (the people) then someone else will"

Now Obama's reticence has come back to haunt him. In failing to stand-up to Assad he has let the militant IS in by the back door.

A re-invasion of Iraq is on the cards (and Britain WILL join in) - and so too is the bombing of Syria.

If only they had listened to ITK two and a half years ago we would not be in this mess (and how many lives could have been saved?) ... but as I said at the time "A weak US President is a very dangerous thing".

If we'd have attacked Syria two years ago ISIS would have come in sooner to fill the vacuum,as did Bin Laden's mob in the year or so after the 2003 invasion....
...Why did you think we got no support for a Syria invasion?

Pattaya wrote:
If we'd have attacked Syria two years ago ISIS would have come in sooner to fill the vacuum

There would have been no vacuum !
The Syrian people would have got what they wanted (rid of Assad).

Makes me wonder who is funding IS - could it actually be Assad?

He has largely left them alone (in Eastern Syria) while he got on with killing his own people in Damascus. He always tried to "sell" the terrorists angle (when everyone could see that it was his own people rising up against him.)

...Why did you think we got no support for a Syria invasion?

There was NEVER a plan for a Syrian invasion !!!!! (do try to get basic facts right)

A very good explanation of the current situation -
edition.cnn.com/2014/08/21/world/meast/i...index.html?hpt=hp_c1

In The Know (as always) wrote:
Pattaya wrote:
If we'd have attacked Syria two years ago ISIS would have come in sooner to fill the vacuum

There would have been no vacuum !
The Syrian people would have got what they wanted (rid of Assad).

Makes me wonder who is funding IS - could it actually be Assad?

He has largely left them alone (in Eastern Syria) while he got on with killing his own people in Damascus. He always tried to "sell" the terrorists angle (when everyone could see that it was his own people rising up against him.)

...Why did you think we got no support for a Syria invasion?

There was NEVER a plan for a Syrian invasion !!!!! (do try to get basic facts right)

A very good explanation of the current situation -
edition.cnn.com/2014/08/21/world/meast/i...index.html?hpt=hp_c1

I don't tend to bother with American news,about 90% don't even have a passport,tbose that do travel often tend to 'loose their heads'

Isis is funded primarily by the paymasters of the Arab spring...Saudis,UAE etc....all good democrats lol .

As for Assad,there's no such thing as 'Syrian people',just a collection of races/tribes/religions etc who happen to live there...a la Iraq/Afghanistan etc.Assad is a typical strong man of the area,you will never get a popular government there,as you will never do it in Libya/Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya etc...we got rid of Muammar Gaddafi/Saddam/Taliban....etc,we ended up with anarchy.

You should travel to the middle east ITK,broaden your horizons past CNN and Murdoch

Pattaya wrote:
As for Assad,there's no such thing as 'Syrian people',just a collection of races/tribes/religions etc who happen to live there...a la Iraq/Afghanistan etc.


... and the UK ?

France ?

Germany ?

Australia ?

the USA ?

Pattaya wrote:
In The Know (as always) wrote:
Islamic State militants are the most dangerous threat the US has faced in recent years, Washington has warned.

Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel said US air strikes had helped to break the Islamist advance in Iraq, but the militants could be expected to regroup.

America's top general Martin Dempsey stressed that IS could not be defeated without attacking their base in Syria.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28891325

Two years and six months ago, I said "Let's Attack Syria"

I also said "If we don't help them (the people) then someone else will"

Now Obama's reticence has come back to haunt him. In failing to stand-up to Assad he has let the militant IS in by the back door.

A re-invasion of Iraq is on the cards (and Britain WILL join in) - and so too is the bombing of Syria.

If only they had listened to ITK two and a half years ago we would not be in this mess (and how many lives could have been saved?) ... but as I said at the time "A weak US President is a very dangerous thing".

If we'd have attacked Syria two years ago ISIS would have come in sooner to fill the vacuum,as did Bin Laden's mob in the year or so after the 2003 invasion....
...Why did you think we got no support for a Syria invasion?

Bin Laden was innocent the Yanks used him as a scapegoat as Bush etc were behind the 9/11 attacks.

In The Know (as always) wrote:
Pattaya wrote:
As for Assad,there's no such thing as 'Syrian people',just a collection of races/tribes/religions etc who happen to live there...a la Iraq/Afghanistan etc.


... and the UK ?

France ?

Germany ?

Australia ?

the USA ?

All those countries evolved over a long period of time.Syria only came into existence after the fall of the Ottomans,and then was governed by the French.
Same with Iraq,Lebanon,and to a lesser extent Turkey only exists by suppressing its minorities.
You cannot force a country to follow an alien path to a political system it has no experience with,or even the majority of people wanted.
Iraq was governed by a Sunni minority despot,when we removed that we got ISIS as a result.Assad has his power base amongst certain groups in their society.Remove him and his supporters would simply evolve into a radical terrorist threat in the same way as ISIS did.Either way any action will have an opposite reaction.Can you show me a middle eastern country of any size where armed intervention has resulted in a stable democratic government being put in place?

Totally disagree with you on immigration Patt but you're spot on with the Arab countries.

JK2006 wrote:
Totally disagree with you on immigration Patt but you're spot on with the Arab countries.

We need controlled immigration like in OZ.

I think we should leave countries alone let them sort out their own battles, we should never boycott Israeli goods.