Britain must talk to dictator Assad to defeat Islamic State, says former head of the Army - Polidicks

[IMG]http://aranews.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/%D8%B416-620x465.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE]Britain must co-operate with President Assad, the Syrian dictator, in order to confront Isil, the former head of the Army has said. General Lord Dannatt, the former Chief of General Staff, said the West must secure the permission of the Syrian government in order to launch airstrikes on Islamist militants. The “time will come” for British Tornado jets to move from surveillance missions to bombing raids, he said. The remarks came as US General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said strikes inside Syria are necessary to defeat the organisation. General Lord Dannatt’s comments come almost a year since David Cameron lost a Commons vote authorising air strikes on President Assad in response to chemical weapons attacks on civilians – action that would likely have toppled him from power. Britain and its allies have repeatedly called for Assad to step down to bring the three-year civil war that spawned Isil to an end. Isil must be “opposed, confronted and defeated” in Iraq and Syria before it spreads through the region, Lord Dannatt told BBC Radio 4. "The Syrian dimension has got to be addressed. You cannot deal with half a problem," he said. "The old saying 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' has begun to have some resonance with our relationship with Iran. "I think it's going to have to have some resonance with our relationship with Assad." "I think whether it is above the counter or below the counter, a conversation has got to be held with him. "Because if there are going to be any question of air strikes over Syria airspace it's got to be with the Assad regime's approval." The former chief of the general staff said it was "worth just reflecting... who actually understood that country, Syria, best - was it us, was it other people, or was it Assad himself?" "It's clearly turned out over the last two or three years to be a very diverse, very complicated country," he said. "I think the reason why, quite rightly, the British Parliament voted against intervention (in Syria) a year ago and we didn't join American air strikes was we couldn't be sure who we would be supporting. "What's become quite clear overt the last couple of months is that Isil are awful. They received a bloody nose from Assad themselves, that is why they have gone off to Iraq and are operating in Iraq." Lord Dannatt repeated his call for Parliament to be recalled to address the crisis. Last night Francois Hollande, the French President, said the world now faces a "terrible choice" between fighting Assad and defeating Isil.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11050367/Britain-must-talk-to-dictator-Assad-to-defeat-Isil-says-former-head-of-the-Army.html[/url]

A European nation taking action, rather than just the US? Preposterous.

Assad is a fucking monster. This isn't a great position to be in. Something does have to be done about Syria though, it's just getting worse.

[QUOTE=MuTAnT;45774085]Assad is a fucking monster. This isn't a great position to be in. Something does have to be done about Syria though, it's just getting worse.[/QUOTE] This is a simple case of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" I'd say. If the West were to "ally" with Assad it's more power and position leveraged against them.

When you compare Assad vs ISIS. You have to go with Assad. ISIS reminds me of a more radical Iranian Revolution of the 70's. Dont think so? [img]http://puu.sh/b44qV/749a89d4cf.png[/img] Replace Iran with Syria. Replace supported United States with Russia. Replace Ruhollah Khomeini with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. And heres what it would look like. [img]http://puu.sh/b44Oq/4ba7543a08.png[/img]

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;45774341]Assad already [URL="https://news.yahoo.com/70-jihadists-killed-syria-clashes-monitor-093621127.html"]killed 70 ISIS[/URL] in the last few days.[/QUOTE] Out of several tens of thousands. If IS over runs or takes over the last parts of the al-Raqqa area and the Tabqa air force base under siege finally falls ISIS will just recruit more men into their ranks to repace the 70 lost. If not from the al-Raqqa region, then other near by areas in Syria. They enter a village with 10 militants and exit with 100. It's how they work. Assad, the FSA, and the moderate Islamic rebels groups will all be squished by IS if they don't realize that bigger monster is heading their way. And right now they need help. I don't like Assad, I never liked him but when the revolution started importing thousands of foreign extremist jihadi fighters I had this terrible itch that it would snowball from there. Also in brighter new Iran has just sent tank battalions into Iraq to aid them.

Saddam is looking better than ISIS.

I'm not too sure of ISIS' origins but are they a result of Syrian rebels not receiving Western aid?

[QUOTE=Dr.C;45774507]I'm not too sure of ISIS' origins but are they a result of Syrian rebels not receiving Western aid?[/QUOTE] They were a small scale terrorist group in Iraq that was strengthened when Saddam was toppled. Now they're the richest terrorist organization on Earth with billions of dollars in funding.

[QUOTE=Aide;45774252]When you compare Assad vs ISIS. You have to go with Assad. ISIS reminds me of a more radical Iranian Revolution of the 70's. Dont think so? [img]http://puu.sh/b44qV/749a89d4cf.png[/img] Replace Iran with Syria. Replace supported United States with Russia. Replace Ruhollah Khomeini with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. And heres what it would look like. [img]http://puu.sh/b44Oq/4ba7543a08.png[/img][/QUOTE] What leftist organizations?

[QUOTE=Megadave;45774488]Saddam is looking better than ISIS.[/QUOTE] Saddam killed FAR more people than ISIS has and in just as brutal a fashion. A lot of people have either forgotten (or were too young to remember) 2002/2003, where people made extremely similar remarks about Iraq as we've been hearing about ISIS. [editline]23rd August 2014[/editline] The "nuke them from orbit" and "they're not human" comments sound particularly familiar to me.

Saddam kept portions of Iraq stable, but that's aside from the attempted genocide and chemical warfare. [url]http://history1900s.about.com/od/saddamhussein/a/husseincrimes.htm[/url] - [quote]Officially from February 23 to September 6, 1988 (but often thought to extend from March 1987 to May 1989), Saddam Hussein's regime carried out the Anfal (Arabic for "spoils") campaign against the large Kurdish population in northern Iraq. The purpose of the campaign was ostensibly to reassert Iraqi control over the area; however, the real goal was to permanently eliminate the Kurdish problem. The campaign consisted of eight stages of assault, where up to 200,000 Iraqi troops attacked the area, rounded up civilians, and razed villages. Once rounded up, the civilians were divided into two groups: men from ages of about 13 to 70 and women, children, and elderly men. The men were then shot and buried in mass graves. The women, children, and elderly were taken to relocation camps where conditions were deplorable. In a few areas, especially areas that put up even a little resistance, everyone was killed. [b]Hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled the area, yet it is estimated that up to 182,000 were killed during the Anfal campaign.[/b] Many people consider the Anfal campaign an attempt at genocide.[/quote] Saddam wasn't a great leader...

[QUOTE='[sluggo];45774951']Saddam kept portions of Iraq stable, but that's aside from the attempted genocide and chemical warfare. [url]http://history1900s.about.com/od/saddamhussein/a/husseincrimes.htm[/url] - Saddam wasn't a great leader...[/QUOTE] And that's only one specific example. Saddam and his fascist government killed millions of Iraqis (as well as all the Iranians and Kuwaitis he ended up killing during those wars that he caused) during his reign.

Saddam was a terrible person with a terrible regime. al-Baghdadi is a terrible person with a terrible regime. But they do not have the resources or weapons of Saddam's Iraq. Hopefully they never will.

So wait, Because Assad finally stopped ignoring ISIS now that they're not only killing other rebels he's suddenly worth supporting? Just in case you lost count, we're talking about the same Assad that killed tens of thousands (possibly over a hundred thousands, if I'm reading [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War"]wikipedia[/URL] correctly) of his own people over the last three years, including thousands of children. And thousands of Palestinians, incidentally. And arrested and tortured thousands of children. And used chemical weapons on people. That Assad. But hey, he doesn't decapitate people on liveleak. I guess ISIS is worse.

[QUOTE=ScumBunny;45775463]So wait, Because Assad finally stopped ignoring ISIS now that they're not only killing other rebels he's suddenly worth supporting? Just in case you lost count, we're talking about the same Assad that killed tens of thousands (possibly over a hundred thousands, if I'm reading [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War"]wikipedia[/URL] correctly) of his own people over the last three years, including thousands of children. And thousands of Palestinians, incidentally. And arrested and tortured thousands of children. And used chemical weapons on people. That Assad. But hey, he doesn't decapitate people on liveleak. I guess ISIS is worse.[/QUOTE] Assad doesn't want to conquer the entire Middle East. ISIS does though, and they also want to impose the most brutal interpretation of Sharia Law on the people who live there. imo, ISIS is the greater evil without a doubt.

Everyone should have supported Assad from the beginning since rebels taking over countries almost always never ends well.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;45775473]ya that guy sending in snipers and apcs to kill peaceful unarmed protesters[/QUOTE] I'd rather have Assad in power than the new caliphate.

[QUOTE=Coffee;45775508]I'd rather have Assad in power than the new caliphate.[/QUOTE] That's nice. Where exactly in Syria do you live? Anyway, Britain says no: [QUOTE]Britain will not work with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to combat Islamic State (IS) fighters in the country and his permission would not be needed for any military intervention, Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said Friday. Hammond also said Britain had no plans to arm moderate fighters in Syria's civil war, and insisted that Western troops on the ground in Iraq would only make the situation worse.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://news.yahoo.com/britain-not-assad-combat-143757482.html"]http://news.yahoo.com/britain-not-assad-combat-143757482.html[/URL]

This civil war is also having a terrible effect on neighboring countries.

[QUOTE=Coffee;45775508]I'd rather have Assad in power than the new caliphate.[/QUOTE] Why?

[QUOTE=Hamaflavian;45775631]Why?[/QUOTE] Let's see, one is a dictator who, while doesn't provide the best quality of life in the world to his people, does try to keep the order without introducing extremism. The other is a terrorist organisation who could potentially pose a threat to a lot of other countries. [editline]23rd August 2014[/editline] On top of that, I can't think of a single revolution that's actually not caused wars/horrible shit/more dictatorships that don't benefit anyone.

Well hey it only took 3 years for the government to work out that, out of that entire cluster fuck assad may be on the slightly less shitty list.

And as soon as the Second Gulf War approached its end, here comes the Third.

We have to be realistic. Assad was a pretty nasty dictator but at least he was secular and enforced relative stability in the region until the Civil War. I bet most Syrian civilians now think that things were better under Assad than they are now too. Whether you like it or not the Syrian Government led by Assad is the only force in the region that powerful enough to wipe out ISIS, it makes sense to support Assad because at least Assad doesn't threaten us while ISIS do.

[QUOTE=Coffee;45775687]Let's see, one is a dictator who, while doesn't provide the best quality of life in the world to his people, does try to keep the order without introducing extremism. The other is a terrorist organisation who could potentially pose a threat to a lot of other countries. [editline]23rd August 2014[/editline] On top of that, I can't think of a single revolution that's actually not caused wars/horrible shit/more dictatorships that don't benefit anyone.[/QUOTE] shelling civilians while you disappear specific individuals for speaking against your regime and massacre swathes of the population with nerve gas, pinning down armed resistance with snipers and military death squads "without introducing extremism"

[QUOTE=Cone;45776292]shelling civilians while you disappear specific individuals for speaking against your regime and massacre swathes of the population with nerve gas, pinning down armed resistance with snipers and military death squads "without introducing extremism"[/QUOTE] *religious extremism

[QUOTE=Coffee;45776294]*religious extremism[/QUOTE] A) what's the difference when he's still committing brutal ethnic cleansing much like IS, and B) how does what was at the time a small minority of Al Qaeda soldiers compare to a government force committing the exact same crimes on a nation-wide scale? people point this out about Israel but not someone doing literally the exact same thing

there are rebel groups that oppose isis. apparently, the US is already funding them.

But both Assad and Saddam have killed far more people than ISIS could only dream of and in horrific fashion as well [editline]23rd August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=The mouse;45776177]We have to be realistic. Assad was a pretty nasty dictator but at least he was secular and enforced relative stability in the region[/QUOTE] What kind of mental gymnastics arrives at this conclusion. "was secular and enforced stability" By ruling the country with a Alawite cult and ordering planes to drop bombs on public rallies somehow enforces stability? Assad has been the biggest force of instability in the middle-east in the last decade. He's a crazy despot that has only harmed the region. The reason why there is so much trouble in the world right now [I]directly because of people like Assad.[/I]