Should Britain Put 'boots On The Ground'?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-crisis-us-pledges-to-arm-kurdish-forces-as-international-momentum-against-isis-grows-9661332.html

/// Steffen Seibert, a spokesperson for the German government, told a news conference: “This German government, like its predecessors, has a principle of not exporting arms to any conflict zones or war zones... This is a principle we feel committed to upholding.” ///

That does not mean that their troops can't take those weapons into Iraq themselves, why should it be left to just the British troops?

/// In Britain, the former Army chief Lord Dannatt has said that the UK should consider deploying troops on the ground to help support US air strikes. ///

[Zacs-Master]

It's only Mr Outspoken's POV. There's no suggestion of taking anyone's arms into anywhere, officially.

[naomi24]

I'd rather they dropped a bomb on ISIS.

[ChillDoubt]

No, bar Special Forces there's no requirement for a general 'boots on the ground' deployment.

Air raids and predator strikes will more than suffice.

[Gromit]

It is in our interests to stop ISIS/ISIL. We should do everything possible to assist the Iraqi Kurds in defeating them. The US bombing is obviously a great help. As to troops on the ground, we need to assess whether the Kurds can defeat ISIS without us. If we conclude they would not be able to do it alone, then we should send personel.

[jomifl]

This is the first time that I have ever thought that nuclear weapons could be justified. The cancer that is ISIS needs to be erased and quickly.

[Ken4155]

Enough of our young men - and women - have been killed or maimed. Carry on bombing by all means but on no account should we send any more of our troops to their death.

[royfromaus]

This is the first time that I have ever thought that nuclear weapons could be justified.



To paraphrase John Mcenroe... you cannot be *** serious?l

[Gromit]

Ken4155,
If a lack of trained soldiers on the ground meant that ISIS were victorious, that could be bad news for us in the future. Attacks on the west will inevitably result and more deaths could result than the number of army personel we could expect to lose.

[naomi24]

ISIS does not intend to stop.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141611/robin-simcox/isis-western-ambitions

[youngmafbog]

No we shouldnt, unless they are boots in a humanitarian capacity. There is no need for anything else yet.

Are you sure you want the Krauts armed to the teeth marching into another country ?

[ludwig]

I agree with Gromit.

[emmie]

i read that the members of the SAS ops were in already in
no to sending in troops, that is just another mad idea.

[emmie]

shame the Iraqi army fled and left all their donated american arms behind, a gift to the madmen of ISIS, i second Naomi, bomb the basterds

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

/// If a lack of trained soldiers on the ground meant that ISIS were victorious, that could be bad news for us in the future. Attacks on the west will inevitably result and more deaths could result than the number of army personnel we could expect to lose ///

Now where have I heard this excuse for sending in troops before?

It must have been here, it was also used over Afghanistan.

*** Blair’s War in Iraq which everyone knows was illegal in its justification has radicalised so many people in this country. I am hearing all sorts of justifications for the war. The one that is marched out again and again is if we don’t defeat them there then the streets of the UK will be where we will be facing them next? ***

[Gromit]

AOG

It is in our interests to stop ISIS. If we don't, they are not going to go away.

Ideally we would like the Kurds to do the job for us with our help. But if they are not up to the job, we need to do it. It is not being the world's policeman, it is a preventative measure to stop future attacks on western targets at home and abroad.

[Orderlimit]

Yes.