Revolution in the middle east Page 79

  • Page

    of 84 First / Last

  • RightBean 5 Sep 2013 00:22:24 639 posts
    Seen 4 days ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    tomorrows headline: Asshead to get obombered
  • Khanivor 5 Sep 2013 00:23:58 40,520 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Graveland wrote:
    Waiting two years to get involved in Syria, yes. But he was quick to jump into Libya and seems to be dragging his feet in his exit from Afghanistan. Bolstering troop numbers at one point, and then removing them the next and then bolstering them and then removing them. And for what? A truly pointless war.
    How long did the Libyan conflict go on before the US and Europe got involved? It was a rather long time, IIRC.

    Afghanistan is a cluster fuck all round but at the end of the day he's not exactly been behind keeping it going any longer than he can get away with.
  • DigitalDelay 5 Sep 2013 01:15:14 216 posts
    Seen 5 months ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    That's the kind of impression I was getting Khanivor. More of a reference to the security of the likes of Israel, and not just the US. But shouldn't that kind of case be made properly and not just mumbled as a loose vague excuse? Surely global influence/image differs from "national security". Just thought it was just a bit flippant to be sneaking it in now really.

    EDIT: @Khanivor. The above was in response to your post on previous page, I should've quoted it really.

    Edited by DigitalDelay at 01:17:16 05-09-2013
  • Khanivor 5 Sep 2013 01:34:34 40,520 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    You gotta speak in terms that will make it onto a new clip. So you gots about five seconds. Fucking sad but true.

    There's probably a small worry that Syria's stockpiles could wind up in the wrong hands but it's surely almost 100% unlikely any of that could ever directly harm the US. It's more likely to wind up being flung at Israel, which I suppose is near enough the same thing. Saying that, the Obama admin has been somewhat admirable in decoupling itself from Israel's interests, at least on the surface.

    Saying all that, the language being used lately is reminding me more and more of Iraq. And that makes me less and less able to talk myself into thinking this could be a good idea, as I don't want to be so badly fooled as I was back then.
  • Deleted user 5 September 2013 09:27:56
    Speaking of Libya

    Hysterical claims that Qadhafi was on the verge of carrying out a genocide rang out in the Western press. However, these had little basis. Forte quotes Alan J. Kuperman, noting that, “The best evidence that Khadafy did not plan genocide in Benghazi is that he did not perpetrate it in the other cities he had recaptured either fully or partially — including Zawiya, Misurata, and Ajdabiya.” During his 42 year rule, Qadhafi faced numerous coup attempts and armed revolts. Though he typically dealt with the alleged perpetrators in a brutal fashion, at no point did his regime behave in a genocidal manner.
  • Khanivor 5 Sep 2013 12:14:29 40,520 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Are civilian lives only worth protecting if they are being snuffed out in a genuine genocide? Or can we allow the public the looser use of the word while still recognizing that the slaughter should be stopped? Surely we shouldn't allow the extermination of people just because some folks throw around words with little care for their true meaning?
  • glaeken 5 Sep 2013 13:27:37 11,138 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    It's not a matter of allowing it. It's recognising that intervention often makes things worse. The least harm option may be to let it run its course. Of course you cannot really know up front what the least harm option is but going on past history it would certainly seem like armed intervention is not a sound bet.

    Of course letting something run its course makes us look impotent which is why some want to see action of some sort even though it's probably not going to help. At least then it can be say we tried. It just seems to me that doing something so we can assuage our guilt over something we cannot control anyway is not something we should really be doing.
  • whatfruit 5 Sep 2013 14:04:43 1,420 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    This reasons presented to us that we are ordering military strikes and possible ground operations in Syria on humantarian grounds is pure fiction. Over the last 4 months the FSA, JNF and ISIF have all slowly gained momentum and begun to push the government forces back from their respective theatres. In Damacus the rebels have seized control of large sections of the city’s infrastructure and have begun to lay siege to the airport. Government efforts to retake these rebel held quarters have proven to be futile with the 23 brigades that make up this front under the leadership of Alshar-Al-ham brigade. Furthermore there are signs that the rebels have captured and are now operating Anti-Air artillery which has significantly reduced Assad’s forces strike capability. Assad is in addition facing growing discontent from his army officers who are ill at ease with some of the more draconian counter insurgency measures being carried out on civilians.

    All this suggests that the rebels will overthrow Assad in the next twelve months. The reason why the U.S is so keen to strike now is that it will give them the biggest chance is facilitating the creation of new political system without pesky interference from the U.N. The JNF and the ISIF the two most effective military organisations are anti western in their ideological outlook and the ISIF wishes to create an Islamic Sunni superstate comprising of Iraq and Syria united under one banner. This is terrifying to the U.S since Syria could potentially become a rouge state like Iran but with the added headache of being next door to it's bezzie Israel.

    If Syria was to an elect a radical islamist anti west party, it would destabilise an Iraq which is on the verge of civil war following Sh'ite President Mahlki’s granting himself exception from judicial oversight and making himself chief of all Iraq’s security forces.

    Edited by whatfruit at 14:10:18 05-09-2013
  • bitch_tits_zero_nine 5 Sep 2013 14:09:57 6,654 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    it would be ironic if Obama hits the war jackpot and kicks off WW3.
  • whatfruit 5 Sep 2013 14:12:16 1,420 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    I don't think it would be ironic from one of the most insidious U.S presidents.
  • bitch_tits_zero_nine 5 Sep 2013 14:19:50 6,654 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    Bit strong, he seems to mean well. Not that I'm particularly knowledgeable about his tenure. Seems like enough of a socialist to think war is bad.
  • whatfruit 5 Sep 2013 14:24:42 1,420 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    He has worked the P.R magically, but Obama is as much a fan of violating international law as his predecceor except that he likes to use drone strikes to bomb soverign nations
  • Deleted user 5 September 2013 21:31:25
    I read Russia has a ship in place. Would they really shoot the the U.S. ships should the U.S. shoot at Syria ?
  • FWB 5 Sep 2013 21:32:43 44,208 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    whatfruit wrote:
    He has worked the P.R magically, but Obama is as much a fan of violating international law as his predecceor except that he likes to use drone strikes to bomb soverign nations
    Whether you like it or not, they do have permission for them.
  • fletch7100 5 Sep 2013 21:39:31 7,204 posts
    Seen 9 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    FWB wrote:
    whatfruit wrote:
    He has worked the P.R magically, but Obama is as much a fan of violating international law as his predecceor except that he likes to use drone strikes to bomb soverign nations
    Whether you like it or not, they do have permission for them.
    Yemen gave US permission for drone/missile strikes but at the start publicly denied the US was involved.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-cruise-missile-parts-found-in-yemeni-village-where-52-died-1993253.html
  • FWB 5 Sep 2013 21:44:19 44,208 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Denying their involvement and giving permission are two different issues. They are still strikes from and within states with permission. Not condoning or condemning them.
  • Deleted user 5 September 2013 22:10:28
    whatfruit wrote:

    All this suggests that the rebels will overthrow Assad in the next twelve months. The reason why the U.S is so keen to strike now is that it will give them the biggest chance is facilitating the creation of new political system without pesky interference from the U.N. The JNF and the ISIF the two most effective military organisations are anti western in their ideological outlook and the ISIF wishes to create an Islamic Sunni superstate comprising of Iraq and Syria united under one banner. This is terrifying to the U.S since Syria could potentially become a rouge state like Iran but with the added headache of being next door to it's bezzie Israel.


    I'm not sure on that. If that was the case, we would have intervened with, what was then recognised opposition being oppressed two years ago that asked for western help .
  • FWB 5 Sep 2013 23:05:05 44,208 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    The only way the US can control the elections is by putting boots on the ground.
  • RedSparrows 5 Sep 2013 23:19:32 22,256 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I think it's about oil.

    That's an insightful thing to say, right?!
  • DaM 5 Sep 2013 23:24:25 12,985 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    @FWB Maybe they can advise the non religious fundamentalists not to fight each other, but put up a united party. That's what went wrong in Egypt.

    Edited by DaM at 23:25:58 05-09-2013
  • localnotail 5 Sep 2013 23:26:16 23,093 posts
    Seen 6 months ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    FWB wrote:
    The only way the US can control the elections is by putting boots on the ground.
    I don't think that is true in this instance - the US public seems as gunshy as the UK about Syria.

    A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

  • FWB 5 Sep 2013 23:32:36 44,208 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Didn't say they would, and don't think they will. But it's the only way to do it. You cannot control things without men on the ground. Situations like this do not respond to soft power. Now that doesn't mean I think we should go in.

    They aren't going to convince anyone to do anything. The rebels will use US support and then stick two fingers up at them afterwards. One could argue, so what? You use the tools at your service to achieve your aims.

    Edit: Thank you, sajasanman. :)

    Edited by FWB at 23:37:08 05-09-2013
  • Khanivor 5 Sep 2013 23:36:06 40,520 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Even with boots on ground they haven't had much luck controlling things.
  • FWB 5 Sep 2013 23:39:04 44,208 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Well they manage to get their man in. Whether they'll stay in the long run is something else. Certainly haven't won the peace, but then that's because the military isn't equipped to do that. Civilian security (police) is far more complicated than military. It requires an entire justice institution, system and culture which people can have faith in.

    Edited by FWB at 23:39:48 05-09-2013
  • localnotail 5 Sep 2013 23:41:24 23,093 posts
    Seen 6 months ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Ah, sorry. Sleepy.

    A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

  • Page

    of 84 First / Last

Log in or register to reply