Board index Community Off-Topic
West's solution against violence is more violence...
SpeisCheese
Joined: Thu 3 Apr 2014 18:18
Location: Somewhere in space...
Contact SpeisCheese
Postby SpeisCheese » Thu 19 Nov 2015 18:30
Everybody knows what happened in 2003. US and UK's intervention in Irak. And also about Afghanistan. Many people seem to forget that there is a relation between ISIS and the intervention in 2003. I don't think that I need now to explain why, because most of you know about it.
But I am here to ask, why the West(mainly the US and France) are making the same errors they did during the last 50 years. France's "declaration of war" won't be different from other wars they made. Even after killing ALL ISIS member, the so-called ideology will remain in the souls of all civilians who suffered during the bombings and interventions of Russia, France, UK and the US(and even more if other nations are willing to help). It's just a matter of time until a new terrorist group will "rise", naturally the West will again intervene, and the same happens over and over again.
So can someone answer me this question:
Is it pure neo-colonialism or ignorance to destabilize the Middle East?
Because I have really no idea why they are doing this. A war is expensive. And like in 2003, they want (usually) resources like petrol, a point of view that many people believe. But they only bomb positions. What does France, UK and the US try to get? Certainly not destroying ISIS since they could have done that way faster. I'm still clueless
I'm pretty sure not everyone is really sharing my same point of view, but don't make a fuss about that either.
A small remark: I know that my vocabulary is very limited, but that's not my fault if I only started English at 14. Not to forget that I'm very bad at speaking and writing. So please, don't mention my mistakes I made, because I know myself that this is poorly written.
Last edited by SpeisCheese on Thu 19 Nov 2015 20:27, edited 1 time in total.
https://www.facebook.com/SpeisCheese/
Mitchverr
Contact Mitchverr
Re: West's solution against violence is more violence...
Postby Mitchverr » Thu 19 Nov 2015 18:52
I believe the UK has yet to bomb ISIS officially, a major fuss was made about UK pilots on cross training with the US doing it as it went against the parliamentry vote.
When it came to Iraq, the UK went in mostly to try and help keep the peace post war, it was well known that shit would hit the fan, everyone knew it, people didnt expect it to be so extreme, the US however dropped the ball by ignoring most of its experts and having interns and people whom had no idea what they were doing operating the whole thing while having soldiers and marines not trained to do it act as peacekeepers. The reasons for the US going in are a clustermess.Also, 2003 invasion for "oil" really makes no economic sense as a motive, the numbers show it simply doesnt work, other factors must have been at play.
UK again not bombed ISIS, as for the rest, given that moving troops in is a highly and i mean highly unpopular move in the US and Europe as a whole, the main reasons at first were due as with others to stop systematic genocides then it kind of devolved into supporting Kurdish forces and those wanting democracy, personally i was glad the UK stayed out of it but feel that something needs to be done and that it should be with Assad to restore order.
Personally i think that what should be done is a Mali style operation, boost the local government, deploy with a lightning force of troops, smash through the known ISIS forces and stay away from combat in areas with civillians, iirc the Mali op went with 11 civillians killed by the French but saved thousands. Just in, wipe out the most of them, restore order for local forces and leave.
BTW i do wonder what your "could have done it by now" thing is, i assume move troops in but as said, highly unpopular.
Romiros
That was soooo easy
Joined: Thu 30 Jun 2011 23:37
Contact Romiros
Postby Romiros » Thu 19 Nov 2015 18:57
SpeisCheese wrote: Everybody knows what happened in 2003. US and UK's intervention in Irak. And also about Afghanistan. Many people seem to forget that there is a relation between ISIS and the intervention in 2003. I don't think that I need now to explain why, because most of you know about it.
Because I have really no idea why they are doing this. A war is expensive. And like in 2003, they want (usually) resources like petrol. But they only bomb positions. What does France, UK and the US try to get? Certainly not destroying ISIS since they could have done that way faster. I'm still clueless
My vote for ignorance. Saddam forever will stay in our memories as a person who proofed that violence can solve troubles with radical muslim if you put enough of it.
Last edited by Romiros on Thu 19 Nov 2015 19:00, edited 1 time in total.
Hitler's reaction on Ultimate patch
Soul of Wargame
My fantrailer
Why, Mr. Krysov?
Joined: Thu 23 Jul 2015 22:57
Contact Megiddo
Postby Megiddo » Thu 19 Nov 2015 18:58
That's a legitimate question. Geopolitics and resources, strategic placement, commercial and corporates' purposes and lobbying, interdependant alliances, religious and ethnics factions, national and international politics power games, and historical reasons are at stake of course. The conjunction of these elements results in an obscure and total mess. For the most part, we created this, it became out of control, and populations, who often are far from these considerations, pay the heaviest price.
As a good basis for discussion, here is a link giving what me may call a different and frank perspective on the recent events, given by someone who was the boss of the anti-terrorist pole and instructed the toughest cases at the TGI (court) of Paris for more than 10 years. Marc Trevidic. His conclusions are the same since years :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz0WKTmmTxs
Sorry, it's in french.
The violence starts where the cleverness ends. we're here talking about greed, pride, anger. You can take it as a religious element or a human science argument regarding your own sensibilities. Nothing else.
Last edited by Megiddo on Thu 19 Nov 2015 19:08, edited 1 time in total.
That's the saddest part of the story. I was getting used to think, after nearly three decades of its existence, that the word "Strategy" was the main cornerstone of the RTS genre and golden age.
Yakhont
Contact Yakhont
Postby Yakhont » Thu 19 Nov 2015 19:07
Post attack reaction; the public and politicians demand response and revenge for those attacks.
The response will likely to be too feeble to change anything on the ground while EU increasing pressure and being pressured for a political solution. No one is still willing in the EU to put boots on the ground and even then from where
Before the attack EU's main concerns were refugee flows and terrorist cells forming; this was not an unknown factor and was indeed very likely.
But it's is very unlikely they will intervene in a neighbourhood with powerful regional players like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey; it's much too complicated and messy.
Most likely scenario is they work with Turkey to lessen refugee flows and tighten security.
Megiddo wrote: That's a legitimate question. Geopolitics and resources, strategic placement, commercial and corporates' purposes and lobbying, interdependant alliances, religious and ethnics factions, national and international politics power games, and historical reasons are at stake of course. The conjunction of these elements results in an obscure and total mess. For the most part, we created this, it became out of control, and populations, who often are far from these considerations, pay the heaviest price.
I saw this reportage too. Sadly, it is always pretty short since you can't talk during one hour on the 20H news unless it is shown on Envoyé Special
Even Pierre Servant (a french "specialist" about the military and operational questions) listened silently. His silence was Worth all the debates^^
mmh, as for the "Envoyé Spécial" and such, i guess you learned to keep a critical spirit and give limited credit to the major part of the medias. the first victim of any war is the truth.
Killertomato
Joined: Mon 9 Jul 2012 02:46
Contact Killertomato
Postby Killertomato » Thu 19 Nov 2015 20:10
Because I have really no idea why they are doing this. A war is expensive. And like in 2003, they want (usually) resources like petrol
Lol, this again.
orcbuster wrote: USSR gets prototype marsupials, why would you need moose when you got stuff with kickers like that AND transport capability? And I'm not even gonna START on the french Marsupilami, I don't even think thats a real animal! Why no trolls for Norway?
Fade2Gray
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact Fade2Gray
Postby Fade2Gray » Thu 19 Nov 2015 20:26
Romiros wrote:
Ironically, violence could have solved the whole Al Qaeda mess without giving rise to ISIS.
Last time I posted this it was extremely unpopular, but I will still stand behind it. Instead of invading Iraq, Dubya should have gone into the Swat. We could have easily strong armed Pakistan is blocking off surrounding areas while we went in and did all the dirty work for them. The end result would have been far different than it was when Dubya made that fateful choice to stop at the border. Once we stopped, the whole game changed. Instead of the Taliban fleeing for their lives and getting gunned down whenever we caught up with them, they successfully regrouped and started coming back to fight us. Now we're looking at yet another joke of a failed state that we have to prop up (if not with troops, with an endless stream of money) and will crumble if left to itself.
We all know that OBL managed to hide out in Pakistan for years. Pakistan became the perfect safe haven. Worse yet, it also became a hilarious supply choke point whenever Pakistan felt like fucking with us, or allowed the insurgents easy kill zones to raid our supplies. The "alliance" we made from "diplomacy" with Pakistan has been a joke. Whether Pakistan makes half-assed attempts to "clear" insurgents in their border regions before turning around to negotiations with them, to their soldiers firing on American soldiers from time to time, to how they've managed to acquire all sorts of interesting tech from us (from salvaging failed cruise missiles for example), and of course all that money we threw at them, Pakistan has used us.
If we strong armed Pakistan into making a cordon in which would have prevented Al Qaeda and the Taliban from escaping, they would have been left with the grim choice of simply having to stand, fight, and die. It would have been grim work, but we could have cleansed those dangerous regions, and terrorism would not have had anywhere to run to. Instead of having the chance to morph, spread, and look "successful" (All they need to do is not be wiped out to look good. The more they keep fighting and resisting the more it helps them.) to the point where they could spawn off all sorts of other cells and off shoots. That they were allowed to adapt and morph in Pakistan has created all sorts of problems, and made the USA look "weak" (ie we can't finish the fight) in turn.
Sadly, the half-assed occupation of Afghanistan was just a sideshow for Dubya, and instead? We went into Iraq.
Because WMDs.
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?
Killertomato wrote:
Well, it's the argument that many people use. I know there is more than that
Users browsing this forum: Shifu and 19 guests