It is currently Sat Apr 20, 2019 11:38 am

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 411 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 4 517 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Dec 02, 2015 12:43 pm 
Offline
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 16749
Location: Earth
'Britain is on the verge of entering into a long war in Syria based on wishful thinking and poor information...'

2nd December, 2015

Britain is on the verge of entering a conflict in Syria in which its political and military strategy is based on wishful thinking and poor information. British air strikes in Syria will be too few to make much difference to Isis, but are important because they signal Britain’s entry into what may be a long war.

In one crucial respect, David Cameron’s approach is similar to that which saw Britain fight two small but unsuccessful wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2003, in both cases without an effective local partner on the ground. Similarly in Syria, Britain will be at the mercy of events which are being shaped by the numerous other players in the conflict, all of whom have their own highly contradictory agendas.

Much of the debate around the feasibility of the British strategy has focused on Mr Cameron’s statement that we do indeed have a partner, of whose existence few were previously aware. He said that there are 70,000 “Syrian opposition fighters on the ground who do not belong to extremist groups”. The impression given is that there is a “third force” in Syria which will provide a powerful ally for the US, France and Britain.

This would be very convenient but, unfortunately, its existence is very debatable. “The notion that there are 70,000 moderate fighters is an attempt to show that you can fight Isis and [President Bashar al] Assad at the same time,” says Professor Joshua Landis, the director of the Centre for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma and an expert on Syrian politics. But he is dismissive of the idea that such a potential army exists, though he says there might be 70,000 Syrians with a gun who are fighting for their local clan, tribe, warlord or village. “The problem is that they hate the village down the road just as much they hate Isis and Assad,” he said.

The armed opposition to President Assad is dominated by Isis, the al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra and the ideologically similar Ahrar al-Sham. Some of the smaller groups, once estimated by the CIA to number 1,500, might be labelled as moderate, but only operate under license from the extreme jihadists. Aymenn al-Tamimi, a fellow at the Middle East Forum and an authority on the Syrian armed opposition, says that these groups commonly exaggerate their numbers, are very fragmented and have failed to unite, despite years of war.

He recalls that one group he met during a recent visit to Latakia province in north-west Syria claimed to have 2,000 fighters, but probably numbered only 500.

He warns that they pretend to the outside world that they are more moderate than they really are, speaking of “the equality of all Syrians before the law” when they are outside Syria or communicating with people who have never been to the country, but express “hatred for Shia and Allawites” on all other occasions.

Mr Tamimi says that the smaller armed groups, which sometimes have good weapons supplied by the Americans, had acted as auxiliaries to Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham when they captured Idlib City in fierce fighting with the Syrian army in May.

Even if such groups are not extreme Islamists, they do not have the strength to refuse to cooperate. This will make any ceasefire very difficult to arrange because such moderate fighters as there are who might be willing to accept a truce, are intermingled with powerful Nusra forces which will not do so.

Moreover, radical Islamic ideology has been gaining ground in all parts of the Syrian opposition. James Harkin, the author of Hunting Season about the kidnapping of foreigners in Syria and a frequent visitor to opposition-held areas, says that it is important to grasp that “none of these people [the armed opposition inside Syria] like us”.

They see the US, Britain and France as enemies. This includes the non-jihadists, whom the West hopes to enlist, who suspect they will be used as cannon fodder and then discarded.

The one group that has some claim to be non-sectarian, secular and a powerful fighting force is the Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) who claim to number 50,000, but probably total half that. It has been the most effective anti-Isis ground force and, heavily supported by US air strikes, its territory now stretches across northern Syria between the Tigris and Euphrates.

It claims to be non-sectarian and that it does not persecute Sunni Arabs, but sectarian fear and hatred is today so deep in Syria – partly but not entirely because of the atrocities of Isis – that people flee the attack of every other sectarian or ethnic group different from themselves. The Sunni population in Raqqa, Isis’s Syrian capital, or in Mosul in Iraq, may dislike Isis, but they are even more terrified of the Kurds or the Shia militias.

Britain is entering a war against the self-declared “Islamic State”, probably the most dangerous and violent organisation in the world, but without a realistic policy to win that war. Mr Cameron stresses the limited nature of the engagement, but Britain will be fighting a state that is also a ferocious sect, does not negotiate and may well retaliate with some atrocity similar to Paris. This is not an argument for rejecting military action against Isis, but it is one for thinking very carefully what we are doing because the only exit strategy will be military victory.

It is not only in Syria that Britain lacks a powerful local partner. In Iraq, its ally will be the Iraqi government and army, neither of which has recovered from their defeats by Isis over the past two years. “Syria is a nightmare and Iraq is becoming a nightmare,” said the Iraqi political scientist and activist Ghassan al-Attiyah. If the present government of Haider al-Abadi falls it is likely to be replaced by one closer to the Iranian-backed Shia militias that are more numerous and better armed than the Iraqi army.

The US-led air campaign has already launched around 8,300 air strikes against Isis which have slowed up its advance, but without bringing it to its knees. Professor Landis says that the difficulty is that the three powers in Syria capable of winning the war are Isis, a Jabhat al-Nusra led alliance or Mr Assad but “the US doesn’t want any of these to win”. He cites three attempts by the US to create a moderate armed opposition which have humiliatingly failed and, on each occasion, extreme jihadists have captured quantities of modern American weapons.

The British Government has shared in a widespread but ill-founded belief over the past four years that the Assad government was about to collapse. But of the 22 million Syrian population, 4 million have fled abroad and are refugees, and about 12 million are in government-controlled areas. Though exhausted and after suffering heavy casualties, including 47,000 dead, the Syrian army is still the largest military force in the country. It now has the support of the Russian air force and is not going to lose the war, though it is not strong enough to win it.

This is the terrible conflict in which Britain is about to engage, but with only limited understanding of the dangers that lie ahead.

_________________
Image

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen … if you would be a man speak what you think to-day in words as hard as cannon balls, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict everything you said to-day." - Ralph Waldo Emerson


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Dec 02, 2015 8:20 pm 
Offline
Sergeant
Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2003 6:08 am
Posts: 1853
Professor Landis says that the difficulty is that the three powers in Syria capable of winning the war are Isis, a Jabhat al-Nusra led alliance or Mr Assad but “the US doesn’t want any of these to win”.

That right there about sums it up. The US doesnt care who wins, it only cares how long it will last. As long as possible is the goal, so the government can keep feeding the gluttonous, traitor bastards who make up the military industrial complex.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Dec 02, 2015 11:34 pm 
Offline
Colonel
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:42 am
Posts: 24763
Looks like we are air striking.




:-SS

_________________
Empir immoto


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2015 12:01 am 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 12:00 pm
Posts: 18566
^^Yup.

I don't see us bombing as a big deal to be honest (is Assad/Putin ok with that btw?), but if I can't see the big deal, then why the fuck would we do it?

Smacks of us wanting to stick our oar in, even though it won't mean much. What the fuck?
Just to show solidarity with allies? Is that it?
I'd be happier if a proper coalition got its shit together first then dealt with things, you know, a proper plan and all that boring stuff....

“Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2015 12:14 am 
Offline
First Sergeant
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 12:00 am
Posts: 6121
Location: Vancouver BC
Cameron needs to look tough so he can peacock on this in the next general election. If the terrorist respond with another 7/7 then even better for dave because the fear and shock this will produce will give the Tories the support they need for future chances to strut, preen and posture.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2015 12:35 am 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 2:27 pm
Posts: 17782
nuke mecca


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:11 am 
Offline
Colonel
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:42 am
Posts: 24763
geronimo95 wrote:
Cameron needs to look tough so he can peacock on this in the next general election. If the terrorist respond with another 7/7 then even better for dave because the fear and shock this will produce will give the Tories the support they need for future chances to strut, preen and posture.



Camerloon said he would stand down after his tenure was up.

_________________
Empir immoto


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:19 am 
Offline
First Sergeant
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 12:00 am
Posts: 6121
Location: Vancouver BC
then the muscle flexing and penis measuring is for the successor.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:20 am 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 12:00 pm
Posts: 18426
Location: teh internet
El Sid wrote:
nuke mecca


No way! That place gives us lulz every year.

_________________
Foota wrote:
In 2008, Iraq was stabilizing, Gadaffi gave up his WMD's, the Arab Spring was starting and even the people in Iran were protesting against the Mullahs. But Obama threw it all away.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:56 am 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 2:27 pm
Posts: 17782
PBFMullethunter wrote:
El Sid wrote:
nuke mecca


No way! That place gives us lulz every year.


Well obviously I meant during the Haj.

Then we can do it again every year. Make a thing of it, like Thanksgiving and the turkey, only a bit more burnt.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2015 5:56 am 
Offline
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 10631
Location: North
:))

_________________
I like it here. Get to do what you want, nobody fucks with you. The only worry you got is dying. And if that happens you won't know about it anyway. So what the fuck man?


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2015 6:21 am 
Offline
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 12:00 pm
Posts: 11737
Location: NORTH QUEENSLAND
25th Soldier Select wrote:
Professor Landis says that the difficulty is that the three powers in Syria capable of winning the war are Isis, a Jabhat al-Nusra led alliance or Mr Assad but “the US doesn’t want any of these to win”.

That right there about sums it up. The US doesnt care who wins, it only cares how long it will last. As long as possible is the goal, so the government can keep feeding the gluttonous, traitor bastards who make up the military industrial complex.


nah it's not about that, any more than iraq was for muh oil profits

believe it or not none of this shit is done for defence companies. not that i can see. they dont have the influence to start wars lol let alone seriously influence foreign policy in major ways

im open to be shown im wrong

_________________
Alaskan Viking wrote:
Trump is going to lose to Hillary in a landslide, he is literally the only candidate who could have lost to her, we will have 4-8 more years of lefty insanity, possible lose the congress, and have a liberal dominated supreme court for a generation.

And I fucking blame you fuckwits who voted for Trump in the primary, classic low information voter.

We need pull taxes, to cull the opinions of DINDU's and inbred Trump supporters. >>::$


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2015 10:23 am 
Offline
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 16749
Location: Earth
Hoff wrote:
nah it's not about that, any more than iraq was for muh oil profits

believe it or not none of this shit is done for defence companies. not that i can see. they dont have the influence to start wars lol let alone seriously influence foreign policy in major ways

im open to be shown im wrong


I think it's probably a fool's errand to look for a single reason why the U.S. (and other Western states) can't stop meddling in the Middle East.

What are the plausible candidates?

For the oil; for the pipeline routes; to feed the Military-Industrial Complex; to keep Israel's potential enemies divided and weak; to present the re-emergence of Arab Nationalism; to allow Western politicians to have their bijou "Wars"; to maintain and prolong the Shia-Sunni sectarian conflict; to act as a proxy war between the World's leading powers; to keep Western populations afraid and distracted; plain old sociopathy and psychosis; maybe even a sincere belief in the efficacy of a military-led Humanitarian Intervention...

Chances are that it's all of the above, plus a whole load of other reasons too.

We can sit here and argue the toss over what might-could-possibly-probably be the single reason why the Middle East is in such turmoil. But I suspect we'll never reach consensus on "The Single Reason", because I don't think there *IS* a single reason.

Though if there is... How could that single reason *NOT* be the oil?

:-??

_________________
Image

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen … if you would be a man speak what you think to-day in words as hard as cannon balls, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict everything you said to-day." - Ralph Waldo Emerson


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2015 10:54 am 
Offline
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 12:00 pm
Posts: 11737
Location: NORTH QUEENSLAND
Holyman wrote:
Hoff wrote:
nah it's not about that, any more than iraq was for muh oil profits

believe it or not none of this shit is done for defence companies. not that i can see. they dont have the influence to start wars lol let alone seriously influence foreign policy in major ways

im open to be shown im wrong


I think it's probably a fool's errand to look for a single reason why the U.S. (and other Western states) can't stop meddling in the Middle East.

What are the plausible candidates?

For the oil; for the pipeline routes; to feed the Military-Industrial Complex; to keep Israel's potential enemies divided and weak; to present the re-emergence of Arab Nationalism; to allow Western politicians to have their bijou "Wars"; to maintain and prolong the Shia-Sunni sectarian conflict; to act as a proxy war between the World's leading powers; to keep Western populations afraid and distracted; plain old sociopathy and psychosis; maybe even a sincere belief in the efficacy of a military-led Humanitarian Intervention...

Chances are that it's all of the above, plus a whole load of other reasons too.

We can sit here and argue the toss over what might-could-possibly-probably be the single reason why the Middle East is in such turmoil. But I suspect we'll never reach consensus on "The Single Reason", because I don't think there *IS* a single reason.

Though if there is... How could that single reason *NOT* be the oil?

:-??


well to maintain control of the oil of course, tho not for actual profit. american oil companies dont get shit from the mid east and never did

all i see is how this whole clusterfuck weakens usa's position. what helps usa is having some strong cops on the beat like israel and saudi (and iraq before rummy and cheney fucked that with their personal vendetta). this instability doesnt help usa at all. how the fuck does it help usa that the regime they were building goes to shit, and hardcore anti usa islamist shit at that

tbh this whole thing helps israel more than anything, but israel aint got the power to scheme shit like this

the rest of your reasons are conspiracy-esque stuff that give too much credit to washington's ability to plan and carry out foreign policy

im looking for the real clusterfuck of reasons. even if it's just a bunch of fuck ups in the state department and cia (most likely) or some cunt in some department on a power trip

i cbf reading up much on this stuff these days it doesnt interest me enough for that. not like iraq and afghan where i went full autistic on it and basically figured the whole thing out. i was hoping some of u cunts could do the leg work for me :hoff :hoff :hoff :hoff

_________________
Alaskan Viking wrote:
Trump is going to lose to Hillary in a landslide, he is literally the only candidate who could have lost to her, we will have 4-8 more years of lefty insanity, possible lose the congress, and have a liberal dominated supreme court for a generation.

And I fucking blame you fuckwits who voted for Trump in the primary, classic low information voter.

We need pull taxes, to cull the opinions of DINDU's and inbred Trump supporters. >>::$


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2015 10:55 am 
Offline
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 12:00 pm
Posts: 11737
Location: NORTH QUEENSLAND
as always i have absolutely nothing invested emotionally and ideologically in any of this. at all. all i care about is australia and this is irrelevant to that. im just kinda curious as to what's going on.

_________________
Alaskan Viking wrote:
Trump is going to lose to Hillary in a landslide, he is literally the only candidate who could have lost to her, we will have 4-8 more years of lefty insanity, possible lose the congress, and have a liberal dominated supreme court for a generation.

And I fucking blame you fuckwits who voted for Trump in the primary, classic low information voter.

We need pull taxes, to cull the opinions of DINDU's and inbred Trump supporters. >>::$


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2015 11:11 am 
Offline
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 16749
Location: Earth
Well, I guess apart from oil, the one plausible reason I omitted to list was:

Sheer incompetence and hubris.

We're generally conditioned to assume that those human beings among us who manage to rise to the top our political trees must have *SOME* degree of expertise and competency.

What if the shocking Truth that none of us want to consider, much less face up to, is that our “Leaders” are all just morons?

Their egos are large and robust enough to endure political popularity campaigns, and to go through the compromises and debasements necessary to achieve political office… But does that necessarily equate to their having the degree of competency, understanding and wisdom necessary to engineer and manage the development and progress of the Human Race?

As best as I can tell, one of the driving factors for many peoples’ beliefs in various Conspiracy Theories, is the sheer and desperate hope that *SOMEONE* is in control… Somewhere..! Anywhere..!

Persuading yourself that there is group of human beings competent and confident enough to orchestrate something like 9/11, in order to progress some sinister Master Plan for World Domination, is I think primarily an exercise in Self-Delusion, driven by the nagging fear that maybe *NO-ONE* is in Control..!

In my 44 years of life, and my 25 years of work, I’ve met plenty of individually intelligent and capable people. But as soon as they are put together in a group to work on some collective effort, there seems to be some form of inverted gestalt dynamic that reduces their combined abilities to around the level of pre-school children.

It seems quite feasible to me that over the years, there have been one, several and many reasons why various factions and power-collectives have gotten involved in the Middle East. And it seems equally feasible that every one of them has seen their carefully devised plans deteriorate rapidly from their Wildest Dreams to their Worst Nightmares.

Isn’t the most plausible explanation for the state that the Middle East is in, the vast and evident differences between what our “Leaders” believe themselves to be capable of achieving, and their actual and miserable capacities to come anywhere even near such achievements?

Just sayin’…

:-"

_________________
Image

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen … if you would be a man speak what you think to-day in words as hard as cannon balls, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict everything you said to-day." - Ralph Waldo Emerson


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Dec 03, 2015 2:45 pm 
Offline
Sergeant
Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2003 6:08 am
Posts: 1853
im open to be shown im wrong

I'll concede that the MIC is not entirely the reason for the warring going on in the middle east, but they are a big part in continuing the efforts. It seems to me that if you want shit to calm down over there, you'd pull back operations that tend to piss the native people off. Yet you continue to see drone attacks and proxy armies running around destablizing the whole region everyday.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 2:28 pm 
Offline
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 16749
Location: Earth
DECEMBER 4, 2015

More Planes Than Targets: Why the Air War on ISIS Will Fail

by PATRICK COCKBURN


Britain has now joined a US-led campaign to weaken and ultimately defeat Isis in which air power is very much the dominant component. The British contribution will not make much difference because there are already far more aircraft available than there are identifiable targets.

The coalition has conducted 59,015 sorties in Iraq and Syria starting in August 2014, of which only 8,573 have resulted in air strikes, indicating that the great majority of planes return to their bases without having used their weapons.

Even if Britain’s role is symbolic at this stage, it has joined a very real war against an enemy of great ferocity and experience, not least of air attacks. The highly informed Turkish military analystMetin Gurcan, writing on Al-Monitor website, says that air strikes may have been effective against Isis communications and training facilities, but adds that “it is extraordinary that there is not a single [Isis] control facility that has been hit by allied air strikes”.

This is not for lack of trying and shows that talk of destroying Isis command and control centres in Raqqa is wishful thinking, given that 2,934 American air strikes in Syria have failed to do so over the last 14 months.

Air strikes have had an impact on Isis’s tactics and casualty rate, above all when they are used in close co-operation with a well-organised ground force like the Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG). Isis may have lost as many as 2,200 fighters at Kobani which is a small and closely packed city. On the other hand, the length of time it took to drive Isis out of it with 700 air strikes demonstrated their fighters’ willingness to die.

Many Isis commanders reportedly regard their tactics at Kobani as a mistake which cost the group too many casualties and which it should not repeat. To do so it sacrificed two of its most important military assets which are mobility and surprise. This does not mean that it will not fight to the last bullet for cities like Raqqa and Mosul, but it did not do so for Tikrit and Sinjar where it used snipers, booby traps and IEDs, but did not commit large detachments of troops.

Isis has modified its tactics to take account of the continuing risk of air strikes. It now has a decentralised command structure, with tactical decisions being taken by leaders of small units of eight to 10 men, whose overall mission is determined from the centre – but not how it should be accomplished. This limits the ability of its opponents to monitor its communications.

Its forces assemble swiftly and attack soon afterwards with multiple diversionary operations, as was seen when Mosul was captured in June 2014 and again when they took Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, this May.

They had been fighting their way into Baiji refinery, but this turned out to be a diversion and Isis units pulled back from there as soon as Ramadi fell.

Isis’s approach is to use a mixture of conventional, guerrilla and terrorist tactics, none unique in themselves, but they have never been used before in combination. Air strikes mean that it is less able to use captured tanks or big concentrations of vehicles packed with fighters. Instead it uses IEDs, booby traps, snipers and mortar teams in even greater numbers.

Public martyrdom as an expression of religious faith is such a central part of its ideology that it can deploy suicide bombers on foot or in vehicles in great numbers to destroy fortifications and demoralize the enemy. Some 28 suicide bombers were reportedly used in the final stages of the battle for Ramadi. Psychological warfare has always been an important element of Isis’s tactical armory. It has sought to terrify opposition forces by showing videos in which captured Iraqi or Syrian soldiers are filmed being ritually decapitated or shot in the head.

Sometimes, the families of Syrian soldiers get a phone call from their son’s mobile with a picture of his body with his severed head on his chest. Mass killings of prisoners have taken place after all Isis’s victories (the al-Qaeda affiliate, al-Nusra Front, does the same thing).

Heavy air attack will increase Isis’s losses and it will be more difficult to bring in foreign volunteers through Turkey because most of the border is now closed. But Isis rules an area with a population of at least six million and conscripts all young men, who often want to become fighters because there is no other employment. Isis may have a fighting force of 100,000 men, as is strongly suggested by the very long front lines it holds and its ability to make multiple attacks simultaneously. Whatever Britain’s role, we will be fighting a formidable military machine.

Patrick Cockburn is the author of The Rise of Islamic State: ISIS and the New Sunni Revolution.

_________________
Image

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen … if you would be a man speak what you think to-day in words as hard as cannon balls, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict everything you said to-day." - Ralph Waldo Emerson


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 2:53 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:00 pm
Posts: 19951
Holyman wrote:
[b]More Planes Than Targets: Why the Air War on ISIS Will Fail



The reason why it will fail is very simple. Air power alone cannot ever win a war. It's the problem and pitfall all the so called "modern" forces of the world from the US to Russia to the UK and France and beyond have fallen into.

To truly win a war, sooner or later, preferably sooner you have to get in there on the ground and get your hands dirty.

_________________
Ill sell ya the rope with which you shall hang yourself.
Capitalism for the Win.

PCNC and PBF live in death!


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 9:44 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 12:00 am
Posts: 6121
Location: Vancouver BC
The root cause of the constant US interference in the ME is the inherent weakness of the dollar. World oil sales are denominated in dollars and the US needs this to continue in order to prop up the dollar. Anyone who tries to sell oil in other currencies is an enemy of the US (Iran, Russia etc). Saddam wanted to sell oil in euros so he had to go. Saudi arabia sells oil in dollars so they are friends. The US pokes around there so they can prevent anyone who doesn't follow orders from getting oil to the market by trying to control the route of pipeline construction. This is why syria is blowing up (competing potential pipeline projects. one from qatar for usd oil and one from iran, russian backed with euro oil sales). Pipeline projects to control the currency of oil sales are ultimately why afghanistan got knocked over also (did you know the taliban were negotiating with american oil companies in the late 90s for pipeline construction projects? the failure of these deals happened shortly before the taliban got toppled.)


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 9:46 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 12:00 am
Posts: 6121
Location: Vancouver BC
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/10/the-wars-in-the-middle-east-and-north-africa-are-not-just-about-oil-theyre-also-about-gas.html

http://www.nationofchange.org/2015/09/27/underlying-reasons-for-the-raging-syrian-war-competing-natural-gas-pipelines/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/petrodollar-us-saudi-policy_b_6245914.html

http://ftmdaily.com/preparing-for-the-collapse-of-the-petrodollar-system/

http://ftmdaily.com/preparing-for-the-collapse-of-the-petrodollar-part-2/

http://ftmdaily.com/preparing-for-the-collapse-of-the-petrodollar-system-part-3/

http://ftmdaily.com/preparing-for-the-collapse-of-the-petrodollar-system-part-4/


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 10:20 pm 
Offline
Major
Major
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 16838
25th Soldier Select wrote:
It seems to me that if you want shit to calm down over there, you'd pull back operations that tend to piss the native people off.


Isn't that EXACTLY what Obama did by pulling all US troops out of Iraq in 2011?

Now we got ISIS with their own caliphate, terrorist attacks in Europe and the US and the biggest refugee crisis since WWII.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2015 1:27 am 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 12:00 pm
Posts: 18566
Frankie Boyle is pretty funny here...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... e-them-one

"What is Cameron’s problem with IS? Ordinary people who in their spare time have formed a huge multinational oil trade and a workforce of thousands willing to be paid in rice and fear – that’s the Big Society right there."


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2015 5:32 am 
Offline
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 12:00 pm
Posts: 11737
Location: NORTH QUEENSLAND
SomeGuy wrote:
Holyman wrote:
[b]More Planes Than Targets: Why the Air War on ISIS Will Fail



The reason why it will fail is very simple. Air power alone cannot ever win a war. It's the problem and pitfall all the so called "modern" forces of the world from the US to Russia to the UK and France and beyond have fallen into.

To truly win a war, sooner or later, preferably sooner you have to get in there on the ground and get your hands dirty.


hahah what about bosnia bro. sure a fuckin genocide happened in the meantime cause usa wasnt willing to put a single boot on the ground but still, in the end air power actually won a "war" leeeeeeel

_________________
Alaskan Viking wrote:
Trump is going to lose to Hillary in a landslide, he is literally the only candidate who could have lost to her, we will have 4-8 more years of lefty insanity, possible lose the congress, and have a liberal dominated supreme court for a generation.

And I fucking blame you fuckwits who voted for Trump in the primary, classic low information voter.

We need pull taxes, to cull the opinions of DINDU's and inbred Trump supporters. >>::$


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2015 10:30 am 
Offline
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 16749
Location: Earth
Hoff wrote:
hahah what about bosnia bro. sure a fuckin genocide happened in the meantime cause usa wasnt willing to put a single boot on the ground but still, in the end air power actually won a "war" leeeeeeel


Diplomacy ends Wars.

Nothing else.

No side in the Balkans surrendered because they just couldn't take being bombed any more.

I'm struggling to think of any incident in Modern History where a faction, city or nation surrendered because they couldn't cope with being bombed.

And no, of course the Japanese at the end of World War II doesn't count, for all the reasons that are too obvious to re-state.

Most societies and cultures *PRIDE* themselves on their ability to endure bombardment, whether that's an aerial blitz or a terrorist campaign.

The more you bomb people, the more they resist. That's just a fact of life.

Most British people living in England, Wales and Scotland never really gave a fig for what religion or national allegiance the people living in the North of Ireland wanted for themselves. The only reason anyone even had an opinion on Northern Ireland, was *BECAUSE* the I.R.A. kept bombing the Mainland. And that opinion was, predictably, anti-Republican.

As soon as the Provos stopped their bombing campaign and entered into political negotiations: Peace was created.

Same thing in the Balkans during the 1990's.

All the warlords that scrambled for power in the post-Yugoslavia vacuum would have been content to keep the violence going indefinitely. For the most part, they were all psychopaths. Why would they have given a shit if "their" populations were being killed in large numbers..?

You have to go back to the Peninsular Campaign of the British against the French at the beginning of the 19th Century to see the last examples of populations in citadels actually capitulating in response to relentless artillery bombardments and sieges.

These days: the more of them you kill, the more of yours they want to kill in retaliation.

I would have thought that was fairly obvious.

>&8~

_________________
Image

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen … if you would be a man speak what you think to-day in words as hard as cannon balls, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict everything you said to-day." - Ralph Waldo Emerson


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 411 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 4 517 Next

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited