|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On October 07 2015 08:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2015 02:59 KwarK wrote:On October 06 2015 17:54 xDaunt wrote:On October 06 2015 17:41 Velr wrote:
I just wonder what the media would be like if that US-Airstrike on the Hospital (which most likely was a sad accident, don't get me wrong) would have been executed by the Russians.
I have a feeling the story would have been handled "slightly" diffrent... Or imagine if Bush was still president, and it happened on his watch. Nobody I know has been giving Obama a pass on foreign policy for a while now. About the only good thing he has going for him vs Bush is that he didn't manufacture the clusterfuck he now manages. This idea that American foreign policy became okay for the opponents of it once Obama won the Presidency is a delusion of people desperate to see hypocrisy where none exists. Obama has been a colossal letdown for myself and people like me. Saying that Obama didn't manufacture this clusterfuck is giving Obama a pass. There are American intelligence fingerprints all over the uprising in Syria (not that the U.S. is solely responsible, but there very clearly has been a longstanding policy of destabilizing Syria and Assad during Obama's presidency). And Obama most certainly is responsible for the mess in Iraq due to pulling out all Ameican support way too early and basically giving the country away.
I agree on Iraq, but I think Syria is a diehard American position that would have been the case for any president aside from maybe Ron Paul or someone 100% isolationist. Doing things 100% for the purpose of weakening Russia in some way is the way we do business.
|
On October 07 2015 08:33 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2015 08:31 xDaunt wrote:On October 07 2015 02:59 KwarK wrote:On October 06 2015 17:54 xDaunt wrote:On October 06 2015 17:41 Velr wrote:
I just wonder what the media would be like if that US-Airstrike on the Hospital (which most likely was a sad accident, don't get me wrong) would have been executed by the Russians.
I have a feeling the story would have been handled "slightly" diffrent... Or imagine if Bush was still president, and it happened on his watch. Nobody I know has been giving Obama a pass on foreign policy for a while now. About the only good thing he has going for him vs Bush is that he didn't manufacture the clusterfuck he now manages. This idea that American foreign policy became okay for the opponents of it once Obama won the Presidency is a delusion of people desperate to see hypocrisy where none exists. Obama has been a colossal letdown for myself and people like me. Saying that Obama didn't manufacture this clusterfuck is giving Obama a pass. There are American intelligence fingerprints all over the uprising in Syria (not that the U.S. is solely responsible, but there very clearly has been a longstanding policy of destabilizing Syria and Assad during Obama's presidency). And Obama most certainly is responsible for the mess in Iraq due to pulling out all Ameican support way too early and basically giving the country away. I agree on Iraq, but I think Syria is a diehard American position that would have been the case for any president aside from maybe Ron Paul or someone 100% isolationist. Doing things 100% for the purpose of weakening Russia in some way is the way we do business.
Sure, and destabilizing adversaries is a good idea in a vacuum. The problem here is the combination of destabilizing Syria and abandoning Iraq while it was still vulnerable.
|
On October 07 2015 05:27 Gorsameth wrote:
My position (while controversial) still remains that the only way you get peace in the Middle East is to move in an mass as the west. Occupy the entire region and reform them into stable democratic countries.
Just like we tried with Afganistand and Iraq you say. And look how that turned out!
That's because we want to rush it. We want to get back out and have our hands clean as soon as possible. If you want to fix it you need to play the long game. Occupy for a century or more and have Western armies guarantee the democratic process is actually allowed to grow and take root.
They can have their own laws their own elections/politicians. We just stay there to make sure no Dictator rises to power and that they don't try to cut each others throats.
But as Kwark so nicely put, this isn't about peace or democracy. Its about money. So nothing is going to chance and they are going to keep on killing each other for the next few decades until maybe some Western backed warlord finally conquers it all and we have 'peace' for a few years before he dies and we start it all over again.
Honestly this superiority complex is rather baffling to me. This idea that people in the middle east are hate mongering ignoramus's is rather stupid.
Most of the fighting is done by mercenary's and military. Most of which have been funded by petrodollars and weapons.
Let me tell you what the problem is. You cannot FIX anyone. Its NOT your JOB to FIX anyone. You had your dark period. Worked through it and came out stronger. History can tell you as much. No one was fucking with your politics and no one was trying to fix you from the outside.
If you genuinely believe that you can inorganically fix the middle east, I'm sorry you are mistaken. Any help that any western country offers to the MIddle East has been agenda driven. The Shah, Mubarak, Gaddafi, The Sauds, Saddam
Iran was well on its way to becoming a stable democracy. It took the US 50+ years to say "sorry we orchestrated a coup and put a Puppet up because we wanted your oil." And it was a one line admission not even an apology. And then you say "Iran" cant be trusted. Those fucking Ayatollahs would be irrelevant if they didnt have the "Fuck the USA" crutch to stand on all those years.
And now its so fucked no one knows what to do anymore. Thats the problem.
I have seen with my own eyes wahabi radicalism grow in with money flowing into Madrassas everywhere and it comes from petro dollars. Exporting their vile ideology while sitting pretty in KSA acting like guardians of the Holy Land while commercializing the crap out of it.
A poor country cannot combat that easily, but they can. It will take time and maybe alot more suffering but it has to come organically and it will. You need to have faith and stop messing around. But its not about that.
The reason you cannot fix the middle east is because you dont want to. You never have, and thats fine. All powers have done that in the past throughout history. Unfortunately its harder to get away with these days.
You cannot insult a people by "moving enmasse" and policing them. No nation or people with a hint of sovereignty will accept that and you will simply encourage extremist thinking.
Assad is a despicable, Saddam was despicable but the country's at the very least were functioning and would have found their way through it. The evolution of every successful democracy can tell you as much
|
United States44271 Posts
On October 07 2015 08:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2015 02:59 KwarK wrote:On October 06 2015 17:54 xDaunt wrote:On October 06 2015 17:41 Velr wrote:
I just wonder what the media would be like if that US-Airstrike on the Hospital (which most likely was a sad accident, don't get me wrong) would have been executed by the Russians.
I have a feeling the story would have been handled "slightly" diffrent... Or imagine if Bush was still president, and it happened on his watch. Nobody I know has been giving Obama a pass on foreign policy for a while now. About the only good thing he has going for him vs Bush is that he didn't manufacture the clusterfuck he now manages. This idea that American foreign policy became okay for the opponents of it once Obama won the Presidency is a delusion of people desperate to see hypocrisy where none exists. Obama has been a colossal letdown for myself and people like me. Saying that Obama didn't manufacture this clusterfuck is giving Obama a pass. There are American intelligence fingerprints all over the uprising in Syria (not that the U.S. is solely responsible, but there very clearly has been a longstanding policy of destabilizing Syria and Assad during Obama's presidency). And Obama most certainly is responsible for the mess in Iraq due to pulling out all Ameican support way too early and basically giving the country away.
By manufacture I mean the Iraq invasion in 2003. I refuse to blame Obama for that, even though I will happily criticize his decisions since taking office.
|
On October 07 2015 09:45 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2015 05:27 Gorsameth wrote:
My position (while controversial) still remains that the only way you get peace in the Middle East is to move in an mass as the west. Occupy the entire region and reform them into stable democratic countries.
Just like we tried with Afganistand and Iraq you say. And look how that turned out!
That's because we want to rush it. We want to get back out and have our hands clean as soon as possible. If you want to fix it you need to play the long game. Occupy for a century or more and have Western armies guarantee the democratic process is actually allowed to grow and take root.
They can have their own laws their own elections/politicians. We just stay there to make sure no Dictator rises to power and that they don't try to cut each others throats.
But as Kwark so nicely put, this isn't about peace or democracy. Its about money. So nothing is going to chance and they are going to keep on killing each other for the next few decades until maybe some Western backed warlord finally conquers it all and we have 'peace' for a few years before he dies and we start it all over again.
Honestly this superiority complex is rather baffling to me. This idea that people in the middle east are hate mongering ignoramus's is rather stupid. Most of the fighting is done by mercenary's and military. Most of which have been funded by petrodollars and weapons. Let me tell you what the problem is. You cannot FIX anyone. Its NOT your JOB to FIX anyone. You had your dark period. Worked through it and came out stronger. History can tell you as much. No one was fucking with your politics and no one was trying to fix you from the outside. If you genuinely believe that you can inorganically fix the middle east, I'm sorry you are mistaken. Any help that any western country offers to the MIddle East has been agenda driven. The Shah, Mubarak, Gaddafi, The Sauds, Saddam Iran was well on its way to becoming a stable democracy. It took the US 50+ years to say "sorry we orchestrated a coup and put a Puppet up because we wanted your oil." And it was a one line admission not even an apology. And then you say "Iran" cant be trusted. Those fucking Ayatollahs would be irrelevant if they didnt have the "Fuck the USA" crutch to stand on all those years. And now its so fucked no one knows what to do anymore. Thats the problem. I have seen with my own eyes wahabi radicalism grow in with money flowing into Madrassas everywhere and it comes from petro dollars. Exporting their vile ideology while sitting pretty in KSA acting like guardians of the Holy Land while commercializing the crap out of it. A poor country cannot combat that easily, but they can. It will take time and maybe alot more suffering but it has to come organically and it will. You need to have faith and stop messing around. But its not about that. The reason you cannot fix the middle east is because you dont want to. You never have, and thats fine. All powers have done that in the past throughout history. Unfortunately its harder to get away with these days. You cannot insult a people by "moving enmasse" and policing them. No nation or people with a hint of sovereignty will accept that and you will simply encourage extremist thinking. Assad is a despicable, Saddam was despicable but the country's at the very least were functioning and would have found their way through it. The evolution of every successful democracy can tell you as much
So while Europe was killing each other into peace and happiness what was the Middle East doing?
Its a genuine question, my eastern history isn't that amazing. So why did Europe fix itself while the Middle East is still obsessed about killing their neighbor because god said so.
As for the problems of Western intervention, I said as much myself aswell. Every time we act in the Middle East its about us, never about them. No where do I deny we did anything but destabilize the region in the past.
|
They were still recovering after getting demolished by Mongol hordes. Then Turks conquered everything and there was no room for conflicts because they were much stronger than anyone in that region.
|
Germany535 Posts
Mongols conquered the Middle East around 1250, fragmented a few years later where the Ilkhanate was established. That lasted until ~1350 when the Black Death proved too much for them to handle and the Empire shattered. Ottomans filled the void in Anatolia, started to conquer parts of the failing Byzantine Empire. Timur invaded Anatolia around 1400 but died shortly thereafter. Around 1515 the Ottomans conquered the Levant and Egypt from the Mamluks. Mesopotamia and the Arabian Peninsula followed ~1535-50.
And after that pretty much nothing happened in the region until the end of WW1 where the Ottoman Empire was dissolved.
There were no "neighbors" left to bash in each others skull over religious nonsense and everyone was fairly busy fighting the Europeans.
|
On October 07 2015 21:52 Nezgar wrote:
Mongols conquered the Middle East around 1250, fragmented a few years later where the Ilkhanate was established. That lasted until ~1350 when the Black Death proved too much for them to handle and the Empire shattered. Ottomans filled the void in Anatolia, started to conquer parts of the failing Byzantine Empire. Timur invaded Anatolia around 1400 but died shortly thereafter. Around 1515 the Ottomans conquered the Levant and Egypt from the Mamluks. Mesopotamia and the Arabian Peninsula followed ~1535-50.
And after that pretty much nothing happened in the region until the end of WW1 where the Ottoman Empire was dissolved.
There were no "neighbors" left to bash in each others skull over religious nonsense and everyone was fairly busy fighting the Europeans.
That is why the "support one of them to conquer all the others" won't help. That already happened. If Britain+France had decided to be really nice to the Ottomans after WWI and send them funds to quash all the rebellions in their territory, the area would be just as bloody/backward/unstable now.
If on the other hand we Let one nation take over all the others (without providing Any support), that might work.
Honestly, the destabilize them every so often would work fine if we were destabilizing the "right" ones.
Ones that are barely stable anyways....support the opposition, and back off for a while... if the opposition consolidate into a somewhat decent government, good, help them stabilize. If they consolidate into another bad government, destabilize them when they get unstable in another couple decades.
Some areas have sorted themselves out not too badly (I wouldn't move there, but they have elements of the right direction)
|
On October 07 2015 08:09 Nezgar wrote:
Hey, here is a radical idea:
How about we accept the migrants/refugees with open arms. We give them education, show them what a wonderful and peaceful place Europe is, explain them our history and what we learned from our mistakes. In a few years or a decades's time we send them back to their homes with all that knowledge and support those people in transforming their region properly. Those are the people we want to support, no those religious nutjobs that want to bring sharia law.
And how 'bout we start hating them during this period, and create some freak state funded terrorist organisations and have Nationalsozialistischer Untergrund and our inner-state destroys the remaining evidence for state-controlled ethnic cleansing, then we start to hate more and more that we even fund other terrorist organisations already terrorizing our guests homeland and even US starts to spy on our folks. No, you are not Rolf Mützenich.
On October 07 2015 08:09 Nezgar wrote:
And how about that we start pushing the right of the Kurdish people to govern themselves - even against our dear NATO partner Turkey, who has a history of oppression and genocide towards their minorities (and denial thereof).
That way we might actually end up with people who don't (rightfully) loathe the west for everything they have done in the region for far too long...
But then again the economical benefits of such a proposal would be questionable at best and, thus, will never happen. It would also include us accepting and admitting that we seriously fucked up ever since ending the Ottoman rule in the region and taking over
Oh, here is my radical idea: Germany stops trying to dictate its agenda and nonsense solutions for like a 10 years maybe, it may feel free to justify its perpetrator role in Armenian Genocide during this period instead of counter lobbying 7/24 hoping to slip past it.Then whole EU and Middle East take a deep healthy breath.
That way we might actually end up with people who don't (rightfully) loathe the west for everything they have done in the region for far too long...
They will keep loathing long as you decide their fate, whats good and whats bad for them, how many parts their country will be divided into, what type o'regime will rule them, cant you see it yet.
*
On October 07 2015 19:49 Gorsameth wrote:
Its a genuine question, my eastern history isn't that amazing. So why did Europe fix itself while the Middle East is still obsessed about killing their neighbor because god said so..
Islam is a younger religion compared to Christianity, that's why.
Actually some parts of Mid-East fixed itself like Europe, remember a functioning, powerful IRAQ after they fed up with British-Controlled Monarchy, till they go crazy. http://www.worldology.com/Iraq/british_iraq.htm
Also stable and growing Turkey after kicking whole allied forces out of its soil, till they go full erdogan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_War_of_Independence
This sick design ruined everything and those whom are still under its remaining influence, in a shit-hole: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations_mandate
|
Syrian Army started a big offensive with russian airstrike cover.. but have lost at least 8 tanks so far.
|
|
|
I'm seeing a surprising amount of chatter that China may send an expeditionary force to Syria to fight ISIS. There are already some reports that its carrier and a cruiser have passed through the Suez Canal. If this actually happens, it will signify a grand reordering of the geopolitical landscape in Asia. Frankly, I hope they do it just because ISIS needs to go.
|
On October 09 2015 12:34 xDaunt wrote:
I'm seeing a surprising amount of chatter that China may send an expeditionary force to Syria to fight ISIS. There are already some reports that its carrier and a cruiser have passed through the Suez Canal. If this actually happens, it will signify a grand reordering of the geopolitical landscape in Asia. Frankly, I hope they do it just because ISIS needs to go.
I dont need to check any news sources to tell you that no Chinese carrier has passed the Suez canal. This is probably just the usual delusions from the pro Assad faction or random conspiracy channels.
|
United States44271 Posts
China aren't dumb enough to touch the Middle East. The US is there due to the insistence that if you keep trying you can eventually put out a fire with a flamethrower and Putin is there because he's really into Cold War LARPing right now.
|
Russia is there to make sure the Qatar-Turkey natural gas pipeline never gets built.
|
On October 10 2015 00:37 KwarK wrote:
China aren't dumb enough to touch the Middle East. The US is there due to the insistence that if you keep trying you can eventually put out a fire with a flamethrower and Putin is there because he's really into Cold War LARPing right now.
I feel like its more reenacting than larping though.
|
On October 10 2015 01:21 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2015 00:37 KwarK wrote:
China aren't dumb enough to touch the Middle East. The US is there due to the insistence that if you keep trying you can eventually put out a fire with a flamethrower and Putin is there because he's really into Cold War LARPing right now. I feel like its more reenacting than larping though.
That's just how good Putin is at LARP. He's truly ahead of his time.
|
GO RUSSIA! The only country that is doing something useful
|
What? Russia drops a few bombs and suddenly they're the only ones doing anything useful? Never mind the 2000+ sorties carried out by the US and it's allies on Isis?
|
On October 10 2015 12:08 heliusx wrote:
What? Russia drops a few bombs and suddenly they're the only ones doing anything useful? Never mind the 2000+ sorties carried out by the US and it's allies on Isis?
If you're Putin, you don't have to deal with US politics and bureaucracy. You do as you please. Ruling with an iron-fist far more appealing when dealing with these situations. Unfortunately Obama can't executive order and veto everything he pleases when bureaucracy hates everything that has to do with him.
edit: And to steer things back on topic, looks like ISIS is taking advantage of the Russian air strikes and pushing FSA territories before Assad's forces fully control them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
