[quote=“rowland”][quote=“Cooperations”]
This is the kind of generalized nonsense that only highly partisan people argue about the president who is not a member of the party they support. It has zero depth. It takes about 5 brain cells to come up with this kind of drivel.[/quote]
It seems I hit a nerve.
Take some valium and have a nap.[/quote]
This kind of post downgrades the forum a lot. You have in fact hit a nerve- I hate stupidity. What you posted was stupid. Your MO is to post something stupid and then when people point out how stupid it is, you think it proves that the stupid post has validity, which is even more stupid. Luckily for me, there is a block function on Forumosa.
[quote=“Cooperations”][quote=“rowland”][quote=“Cooperations”]
This is the kind of generalized nonsense that only highly partisan people argue about the president who is not a member of the party they support. It has zero depth. It takes about 5 brain cells to come up with this kind of drivel.[/quote]
It seems I hit a nerve.
Take some valium and have a nap.[/quote]
This kind of post downgrades the forum a lot. You have in fact hit a nerve- I hate stupidity. What you posted was stupid. Your MO is to post something stupid and tYAMMER YAMMER YAMMER[/quote]
You seem to have anger issues.
Also, a frothing intolerance for points of view other than your own.
Would the ISIS issue be under control had Obama went through with attacking Assad last year? Even if the US doesn’t sent ground forces into Syria, would supporting the rebels in Aleppo to take Damascus be enough for the rebels to counter ISIS on their own?
Maybe, but I doubt it. Way too many variables. For one thing, attacking Assad would have given ISIS even more of a free hand to operate. Both the Free Syrian Army and non-ISIS extremist rebels operate mostly in the western parts of Syria while ISIS controls the east.
For another, the FRA was never much of an organised army; there were many semi-independent bands who switched their loyalty to al Qaeda and other Sunni extremist groups; there’s no way to say that arming them wouldn’t have simply meant a more powerful Islamist opposition.
Right now the rebels, both “moderate” and “extremist” have been largely beaten down by Assad; leaving him in the position of being able to say “me or ISIS”.
I fear you have highlighted the fact that with any Radical/Extremist faction or Religion, peace does not seem to be an option. We are all trying to see a solution but I really believe that there can be no peace …at least for now. People are using unfairness ,suppression, religious differences, border disputes, many reasons , to justify genocide on all sides. We have to try to protect every person’s right to free speech, whilst trying to preserve freedom and injustice in the World…tall order
I saw this video, which was shown in response to a video called , “Hateful response unleashed upon muslim student”. I just do not see it that way at all. It seems that both sides in this issue continue to be driven further apart.
The solution to this whole situation is obvious, if a little callous. Iraq never should have existed as a country, ditto with Syria as it exists now. Blame it on Sikes-Picot, or the Ottomans. It took an evil genius like Saddam Hussein to hold Iraq together, and now that he’s gone (good job, neocons!) there’s nothing anyone can do to keep it together. For some kind of geopolitical equilibrium to be reached, all the local actors are just going to have to duke it out among themselves with no outside interference. Any other “solution” is just going to prolong the agony.
…all of which puts the Shia back in power, with no US boots on the ground to police the situation. Well, it’s a messed up part of the world, and always will be. But it doesn’t have to be a threat to the civilized parts of the planet. Shoot the rabid dog, and let the other dogs alone to tear each other apart. Our objective should be to solve our problems, not theirs.
An American (not a government official ) wandering around an unsettled area gets captured and later killed by a local group. This is an ‘existential challenge’ to America how?
Sounds like same old con to stir up the rubes- “Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead!”
Wiki:
[quote] Roosevelt’s resolve weakened when he was advised on 1 June that Perdicaris was not a US citizen, that in fact he had forfeited his American passport for a Greek one forty years earlier [in order to maintain ownership of his textile mills in the Confederacy]; but Roosevelt reasoned that, since Raisuli thought Perdicaris was an American citizen, it made little difference. Roosevelt tried to get Britain and France to join the US in a combined military action to rescue Perdicaris, but the two countries refused and France actually reinforced its garrison in anticipation of an American assault. Instead, the two powers were covertly recruited to put pressure on the Sultan to accept Raisuli’s demands, which he agreed to do on 21 June. Hay saw the need to maintain face so he issued a statement to the Republican National Convention:
This government wants Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead.
According to all witnesses, the Convention, which had been lukewarm towards Roosevelt up until then, went wild at this remark. One Kansas delegate exclaimed, “Roosevelt and Hay know what they’re doing. Our people like courage. We’ll stand for anything those men do.” [3] This famous catchphrase quickly caught on, and helped Roosevelt secure his election. [/quote]
Yes mikeN many examples of wars fought over , what appear and sometimes are, silly motives. However if you watch the video I posted, the Lady argues that the “peaceful majority” , are irrelevant when it comes to most World wars.
The “peaceful majority” are a bunch of enablers. They let dangerous thugs come to power.[/quote]
Well, that is more or less the point that the Lady makes in the video.
I agree. Iraq is a quagmire the U.S. will never escape from and Obama was a fool for trying. He should embrace the muck instead and insist that the enablers of the quagmire suit up along with their military age family members and go fight their own recreational wars themselves for a change because nothing separates wars from war mongers faster than insisting that they do it themselves.
Well, for once I agree with Rowland- the “peaceful majorities” are often just as enthusiastic about charging into wars as their supposedly sinister master.
Basically beside the point- my post was intended to be the start of a fisking of the link provided,
which for absolute stupidity is one of the most awesome things to float down the Intertubes in a long time- but it was such an isolated piece of sheer idiocy that in the end I couldn’t be arsed.
The author is avowedly a paleocon who first tries to blame the whole thing on the Turks, Saudi and Qataris.
In this he has a point- remember when the Republicans were screaming to high heaven against Obama for not supplying the “good rebels” in Syria?
The incomparable John McCain/Lindsay Graham clown posse (with full support of Cruz, Perry, Palin etc.):
[quote] “Thank God for the Saudis and Prince Bandar,” John McCain told CNN’s Candy Crowley in January 2014. “Thank God for the Saudis and Prince Bandar, and for our Qatari friends,” the senator said once again a month later, at the Munich Security Conference.
McCain was praising Prince Bandar bin Sultan, then the head of Saudi Arabia’s intelligence services and a former ambassador to the United States, for supporting forces fighting Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria. McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham had previously met with Bandar to encourage the Saudis to arm Syrian rebel forces.
…
Qatar’s military and economic largesse has made its way to Jabhat al-Nusra [extremist Sunni Islamist group], to the point that a senior Qatari official told me he can identify al-Nusra commanders by the blocks they control in various Syrian cities. But ISIS is another matter. But ISIS is another matter. As one senior Qatari official stated, “ISIS has been a Saudi project.”
ISIS, in fact, may have been a major part of Bandar’s covert-ops strategy in Syria. The Saudi government, for its part, has denied allegations, including claims made by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, that it has directly supported ISIS.
[/quote] theatlantic.com/internationa … ar/373181/
(Note that neither of these guys will ever be called on this on the allegedly liberal MSM. They’ll be back on every Sunday talking heads show to demand Obama get in a war with someone, anyone, even if once again they change from week to week who they’re supporting or opposing.)
In spite of The McCain’s blessing, Bandar was finally removed from his post as chief organiser of aid to Syrian rebels for his support of ISIS( but kept on as secretary-general of the Saudi National Security Council)
Okay, so fair enough, the author of the link opposes what at the time was the general Republican push to indiscriminately give weapons to anyone from Syria who could get a selfie with McCain or manage to say “America! Freedom! Democracy ! You Betcha!”
cont’d
Anyway on to our fearless author’s solutions. He puts out a basically good analysis of the origins of the ISIS- they’re a bunch of local yokels who capitalised on discontent with Maliki’s Shi’ite supremacism to rope in the Sunni tribes, old Baathists, and would-be jihadists from everywhere.
Following that, the solution would seem to be to get rid of Maliki, push a more conciliatory line with the Sunnis, support the Kurds- maybe even acknowledging a federal solution for Iraq- do some American bombing in Iraq and Syrias- contain them and let the locals deal with the problems.
Nope-he then goes totally over the edge as to what must be done- this is WWIII!!
Hmmm…maybe a leetle difficult to get the EU to cut off all dealings with what is, after all, a NATO member and one of the bulwarks not only against the Middle East but also against Russia. Not to mention threatening China, Japan etc.
Also since up to now Turkey has been supplying the Syrian rebels at US behest.
[quote]
Given enough willpower, America has enough leverage to cause the Saudis to fight in their own interest. Without American technicians and spare parts, the Saudi arsenal is useless. Nor does Saudi Arabia have an alternative to American protection.[/quote]
Well. I suppose they could call up President Xi and say “Hey, you want some oil in exchange for those knock-off Sukhois you produce?”
Hands up anyone else who thinks it might be a good idea to put Ayatollah Khamenei in charge of the entire Gulf oil supply.
Dear Saudis: please ignore your deadly enemy Iran and allow America to be seen to push into you into causing massive casualties among your fellow Sunnis for the benefit of Shias who will then
This of course will have no domestic repercussions in Saudi Arabia
Like I say, this guy is such an obvious looney that it’s hard to see how anyone remotely sane could possibly…
Meanwhile McCain and Graham are given a spot on the op-ed page to denounce Obama’s lack of action against Obama without being asked to explain the 180-degree reversal of their previous demands that Obama do his utmost to support Prince Bandar and the Saudis in their arming and funding of ISIS.
Yes, I know they weren’t deliberately supporting ISIS- their defense is “we’re morons who shoot our mouths off about launching wars without having a clue what we’re talking about.” Anytime either of these guys appear on the Sunday talking heads show they should be required to wear big red noses and floppy clown shoes
