GostHacked Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 Suddenly these guys are all concerned about Iraq and Syria after not giving a damn for so long. Must be an election coming up, eh ? Well they did not have a 9/11 event to hang ten on the tidal wave of indignation across the country. Bush was only a year in when it happened. Quote
GostHacked Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 From to-days New York Times; "Others pointed to another embarrassment. In five of six incidents in which troops were wounded by chemical agents, the munitions appeared to have been designed in the United States, manufactured in Europe and filled in chemical agent production lines built in Iraq by Western companies." It's beyond ridiculous. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 Derek 2.0, I am not trying to convince you or anybody else of anything. You believe what you believe and if you comfortable with this NEW revelation that WMD's have been found that the USA and other forces did not find for 8 years then that is your choice. As to timing; New is clearly subjective........as was said, your link is from June. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 Suddenly these guys are all concerned about Iraq and Syria after not giving a damn for so long. Must be an election coming up, eh ? In some respects, but then I don't understand what political advantage they seek with the chicken little routine over Iraqi/Syrian chemical weapons.....I've yet to hear of any of the coalition governments attempting to leverage said WMDs for support to bomb ISIS....... Quote
GostHacked Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 New is clearly subjective........as was said, your link is from June. That is still new, considering it all can be said that the conflict started back in 1991. Quote
GostHacked Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 In some respects, but then I don't understand what political advantage they seek with the chicken little routine over Iraqi/Syrian chemical weapons.....I've yet to hear of any of the coalition governments attempting to leverage said WMDs for support to bomb ISIS....... That will come soon. Give it about 2-4 weeks. There will be some incident. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 That will come soon. Give it about 2-4 weeks. There will be some incident. It's been reported ISIS has already used mustard gas on Syrian Kurds........is that the incident that you speak of? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 In some respects, but then I don't understand what political advantage they seek with the chicken little routine over Iraqi/Syrian chemical weapons.....I've yet to hear of any of the coalition governments attempting to leverage said WMDs for support to bomb ISIS....... I never said they were logical...except for the pretzel variety. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Derek 2.0 Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 I never said they were logical...except for the pretzel variety. BUSH LIED, THERE WHERE WMDs IN IRAQ!!!!!! Quote
dre Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 I have in this and the several other related threads......Once ISIS is diminished as a conventional force, coupled with more unit level training and support for the Iraq and Kurdish forces, the elected Government will be able to contend with ISIS, with the background support(intell, air support, logistics etc) provided by the West. Right so the same thing they tried for 10 years that failed even WITH a pile of western troops on the ground... is suddenly going to work now. Talk about twisted logic. EXACTLY what Iv told you will happen is what WILL happen... AGAIN. Wait and see. And just remember you were on the record as saying this "plan" was going to work. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Derek 2.0 Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 Right so the same thing they tried for 10 years that failed even WITH a pile of western troops on the ground.. is suddenly going to work now. Talk about twisted logic. Were the "pile of Western troops" invited by the elected Government last time? And how many Western troops are on the ground now? Would you consider it a "pile"? Quote
dre Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 Were the "pile of Western troops" invited by the elected Government last time? And how many Western troops are on the ground now? Would you consider it a "pile"? Theres no western troops fighting ISI(S) that I know of right now, which makes this whole idea even more of a fantasy. As for you idea that with just a bit more "unit training" the Iraqi army will be able to "content with ISIS", this is just plain silly. The coalition or morons spent 6 or 7 years and hundreds of billions of dollars training and equipping the Iraqi army already. The Kurds will be able to hold the line, and stop ISI(S) from taking much in the way of their turf, but if you think they are going to storm Sunni cities and wrestle control by quashing the very Sunni insurgency the west failed to do even with ten years and trillions of dollars then you live in a world of pure fantasy. Even if we DID send western troops AGAIN... we already know how that plays out. They will dispatch ISILs pathetic conventional battlefield assets rather quickly and easily, but they will fail AGAIN dealing with what follows... a protracted urban insurgency. What makes you think the same dumb ideas that created this situation will somehow work this time? Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Bonam Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 What makes you think the same dumb ideas that created this situation will somehow work this time? If you try a strategy with a 1% chance of success 100 times, chances are pretty good it'll work one of those times! Quote
marcus Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 If you try a strategy with a 1% chance of success 100 times, chances are pretty good it'll work one of those times! Is this some kind of a joke? Quote "What do you think of Western civilization?" Gandhi was asked. "I think it would be a good idea," he said.
Derek 2.0 Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 Theres no western troops fighting ISI(S) that I know of right now, which makes this whole idea even more of a fantasy. I know that, hence a clear contrast between now and then (circa '03+) As for you idea that with just a bit more "unit training" the Iraqi army will be able to "content with ISIS", this is just plain silly. The coalition or morons spent 6 or 7 years and hundreds of billions of dollars training and equipping the Iraqi army already. What army did Saddam use to control ethnic tensions during his tenure? The Kurds will be able to hold the line, and stop ISI(S) from taking much in the way of their turf, but if you think they are going to storm Sunni cities and wrestle control by quashing the very Sunni insurgency the west failed to do even with ten years and trillions of dollars then you live in a world of pure fantasy. How did the Western(and Soviet) supported & trained army of Saddam control Iraq again? Even if we DID send western troops AGAIN... we already know how that plays out. They will dispatch ISILs pathetic conventional battlefield assets rather quickly and easily, but they will fail AGAIN dealing with what follows... a protracted urban insurgency. I never suggested we send Western troops in..........So, which army prevented a protracted urban insurgency under Saddam? What makes you think the same dumb ideas that created this situation will somehow work this time? I never suggested we invade and occupy Iraq......... Quote
marcus Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 The brilliant, piercing, straight arrow Pankaj Mishra: "The west has lost the power to shape the world in its own image – as recent events, from Ukraine to Iraq, make all too clear. So why does it still preach the pernicious myth that every society must evolve along western lines? . . . The collapse of communist regimes in 1989 further emboldened Niebuhr’s bland fanatics. The old Marxist teleology was retrofitted rather than discarded in Francis Fukuyama’s influential end-of-history thesis, and cruder theories about the inevitable march to worldwide prosperity and stability were vended by such Panglosses of globalisation as Thomas Friedman. Arguing that people privileged enough to consume McDonald’s burgers don’t go to war with each other, the New York Times columnist was not alone in mixing old-fangled Eurocentrism with American can-doism, a doctrine that grew from America’s uninterrupted good fortune and unchallenged power in the century before September 2001." Quote "What do you think of Western civilization?" Gandhi was asked. "I think it would be a good idea," he said.
Rue Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 (edited) Ghost Hacked your reply to me made no sense. You claim terrorists have been effective against Israel citing two grounds; I-that Israel has developed a superior military force; ii-it set up security fences. That is a hell of an argument. Both grounds directly contradict your contentions. The fact that all terrorism has done is succeed in having Israel establish one of the world's premier armed forces with leading expertise in anti-terrorism proves that the intent of terrorism, to dismantle Israel has been not only ineffective but achieved the exact opposite results of what it was intended to do and that is destroy Israel. As for the security walls the moment they went up terror attacks from the West Bank into Israel stopped from that area proving once again terrorism is ineffective when one uses appropriate security strategy. If anything you showed how ineffective terrorism is against security walls.. You done? Now please explain, what has terrorism achieved for Palestinians, Not a damn thing. You need to come to the West Bank and Gaza and understand the reality of terrorism and how it capture people with fear and prevents them from achieving anything, Fatah, Hamas, the whole stinking lot of them have produced nothing. This is why Palestinians have no country, no vision of democracy no values from which to build on. Terrorism builds nothing but fear. Fear is sand. You can not build a foundation on sand. You think terrorizing people is effective? You really think Israelis are frightened of dying? Lol Someone needs to stick you in a taxi in Tel Aviv for 30 seconds. Edited October 16, 2014 by Rue Quote
Big Guy Posted October 16, 2014 Author Report Posted October 16, 2014 If you try a strategy with a 1% chance of success 100 times, chances are pretty good it'll work one of those times! I believe the problem to be that it is not a strategy but a tactic. All recent conflict have been a reaction to unrest, imbalance of power, meddling by the West and no long term strategy on part of the West. I also believe that the key is Iran. It is only a matter of time until Iran joins the nuclear table, has the strongest military (next to Israel who is not going to get involved in this war) and will have to be wooed as an ally in the long term. If ISIS and their armed force is to be defeated, then we have to deal with Assad again, recognize that Iran is the legitimate strength in the area and that we need the cooperation of Russia. We are certainly not going in that direction. ISIS has to be stopped but it is not going to happen with the same failed tactics, the same alliances and the same attitude towards islam. We are not going in the right direction. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Rue Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 (edited) Markus if you want to quote a writer, that's very nice. It shows you can cut and paste. The point is if you have no idea how to apply it to any discussion on ISIS then what is your point.. other than cut and paste\/ Are you capable of explaining how that article applies? Back to the thread, ISIS doomed itself to failure attacking fellow Muslims. The only tactic that ever worked in the Muslim Middle East tp prevent wars amongst these Arab League nations was using Israel as a scapegoat and refocusing on hating Israel. Ever since Israel stopped being the unifying force for Arab countries to focus their hate on, they have disintegrated into the violnt inter-secular chaos their society has always been. ISIS is a symptom of the break down of Muslim Middle East society and its resistance to assimilation by the West..It is a desperate attempt by fundamentalist extremists to keep Western values and beliefs from infiltrating its people by trting to counter with Muslim totalitarian oppression.. It lost the war the moment cell phones and the internet spread like cancer across the globe. That's what ignited the revolts in Arab countries and that is what will eventually take down Muslim extremists, the very coke and Big Macs Muslim Extremists eat when no one is looking. Marcus is very well aware that the same North American tourist terrorists who join their brothers are infected with the virus. Once they get that taste of Big Mac's and cokes not to mention rap music, adidas and nike, and frontal nudity its game over and they unintentionally bring it with them when recruited. Don't look now but Halloween Boy who gets his courage from hiding his face when he cuts off heads.....he's soft Marcus. He has soft hands. He is going to take down your warriors with his own soft hands whining if you take away his front stage role. Good luck getting him to be a team player Marcus. He's a spoiled brat no one said no to. That's all. Bring him on Marcus. He will last seconds if he has to fight an actual soldier and not an unarmed civilian. He behead all the people he wants. Americans will continue to watch NFL football and that includes the Muslims within their society. Slip sliding away....that's the song for Muslim terrorists. Their attempts to wage terror on Muslims to bully them back under their submission won't work. The smell of Big Macs coming is too overwhelming. That special sauce beats the fear of Muhammed any day. Sniff sniff you smell that? Hah, nothing is funnier than watching Omar the terrorist trying to resist a bacon cheeseburger. Edited October 16, 2014 by Rue Quote
jbg Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 A dust-up between shia and sunnis is a forgone conclusion. Maybe, to paraphrase Schumpeter (link) a bit of "creative destruction." Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
dre Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 (edited) What army did Saddam use to control ethnic tensions during his tenure? How did the Western(and Soviet) supported & trained army of Saddam control Iraq again? I never suggested we send Western troops in..........So, which army prevented a protracted urban insurgency under Saddam? Iv already answered this so not sure why you keep trotting it out. Saddam kept control with torture, murder, gas attacks, intimidation, brutality, and by supressing all rights of Iraqis to make political choices. If you want the new Iraqi Government (Iranian Proxy) to do that, then what was the point of removing Hussein in the first place. In any case things are even harder now, because this is being combined with the Syrian Civil War, and theres more than 20 million angry Sunnis there to compliment the sunni minority in Iraq. I never suggested we invade and occupy Iraq......... No I know, but thats the obvious concluding youre leading to. The plan you are proposing is obviously destined to fail. When it does it will be hard for western leaders to just walk away and say "oh well... we suck". You are already starting to see posturing. The UK prime-minister used the term "at all costs". Obama says "no troops", but Biden says "yeah... we might need them". There will be western troops deployed against ISIL in Iraq by late 2015. Edited October 16, 2014 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Derek 2.0 Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 Iv already answered this so not sure why you keep trotting it out. Saddam kept control with torture, murder, gas attacks, intimidation, brutality, and by supressing all rights of Iraqis to make political choices. If you want the new Iraqi Government (Iranian Proxy) to do that, then what was the point of removing Hussein in the first place. In any case things are even harder now, because this is being combined with the Syrian Civil War, and theres more than 20 million angry Sunnis there to compliment the sunni minority in Iraq. So Saddam kept control of Iraq with a Western (and Soviet) trained and equipped army..........but the new Iraqi Government won't be able to control Iraq with a Western trained and equipped army.......riiiiiight No I know, but thats the obvious concluding youre leading to. The plan you are proposing is obviously destined to fail. When it does it will be hard for western leaders to just walk away and say "oh well... we suck". You are already starting to see posturing. The UK prime-minister used the term "at all costs". Obama says "no troops", but Biden says "yeah... we might need them". Not at all, deploying Western troops again will only rekindle the same issues found with post invasion Iraq........ ......At most, outside of forces employed in training the Iraqi and Kurdish troops, you could see a further levels of special forces employed to aid in the effectiveness of air strikes. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 ...So Saddam kept control of Iraq with a Western (and Soviet) trained and equipped army..........but the new Iraqi Government won't be able to control Iraq with a Western trained and equipped army.......riiiiiight Funny how that kind of logic works...eh ? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Derek 2.0 Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 Funny how that kind of logic works...eh ? Indeed.......as I said, much of the post invasion problems could have been solved with the retention of the Iraqi army, which then could have provided the blunt hammer to local security issues.........Such methods, namely empowering the locals under "parental supervision", allowed the British to control much of the World for centuries.......Of course, you Americans are new at the Empire game Quote
jbg Posted October 16, 2014 Report Posted October 16, 2014 This is a thread about ISIL...very trendy...and I will engage it with my usual flair. The U.S. literally has more skin in the game than Canada, which is what I expect you would prefer anyway. It is always entertaining to read about grand solutions for world affairs from nations with the least invested. What hypocrisy. This thread as you point out is about ISIL,not about finding yet another way to bash Canada. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.