West's solution against violence is more violence...

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8659
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: West's solution against violence is more violence...

Postby Fade2Gray » Thu 19 Nov 2015 20:38

Killertomato wrote:
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.


There is this vague way of looking at it like that though. It took state owned oil companies and put them up for grabs for outside corporations. That's about the only possible way you can make Iraq seem like it was "about oil."

Mostly it seems as if Iraq was a sideshow just to let all these corrupt "no bid" crony companies to come in and rip off the tax payers. "But some of the money was properly used!" Oh goodie, maybe 5% (ie the Green Zone only) tops in the first 4 years actually accomplished something, yay!

Overall Iraq was handled so poorly it just blows the mind.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

User avatar
frostypooky
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4334
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 14:12
Contact:

Re: West's solution against violence is more violence...

Postby frostypooky » Thu 19 Nov 2015 20:51

Let's devil's advocate this with objective statements, and you may reconcile these with your view:

There have been six attacks I can recall against European and American nations (Charlie Hebdo, recent Paris attacks, Russian plane, Canada attack, and abortive attempts with Belgian train and Texas), for the thousands of airstrikes that have rained down by US, France, Russia, etc. Said air support has helped freeze IS expansion, and indeed they are being rolled back in Iraq as well as Syria (albeit much more slowly there).

Polling shows most of the Muslim world not only hates IS, but more polling will show you much of the Muslim world supports rather than opposes US (since that was the only subject of the poll) military intervention against IS.

Iraq is unquestionably a mess, but I will always stand by Afghanistan being better than it has been in the last 40 years. Despite the problems it has caused Russia with occasional attacks, Chechnya is turning out better than worse as well.

Taken together, I am not saying there is a sound plan to dismantle IS, or that it is the right way forward, but I am saying the situation has enough different context and factors that one cannot simply point to Iraq as some sort of proof that foreign counter insurgency in unstable areas is going to be a terrible idea for the rest of history, and I argue that many Kurdish, Yazidi, etc lives are not debating about the morality of violence in their immediate defense.
Last edited by frostypooky on Thu 19 Nov 2015 23:42, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Sarvik
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 779
Joined: Fri 9 Mar 2012 15:03
Contact:

Re: West's solution against violence is more violence...

Postby Sarvik » Thu 19 Nov 2015 21:33

SpeisCheese wrote: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

There are no boots on ground because nobody really wants to intervene. There are airstrikes because Kurds were getting overrun without support. Now there will be more airstrikes because pulling back at this point would be basically a capitulation.

admiralzeech
Sergeant Major
Posts: 296
Joined: Wed 9 Sep 2015 13:10
Contact:

Re: West's solution against violence is more violence...

Postby admiralzeech » Thu 19 Nov 2015 23:09

There are situations that have no solutions. Everyone takes the only actions available to them at the time in the short term, even if it results in bad outcomes long term.
And of course everyone also has their own agenda to benefit from any events.

The cycle of violence has been around for thousands of years, it's not going away anytime soon. Although humans have slowly been learning from our mistakes over time.

User avatar
Shrike
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4515
Joined: Sun 22 Sep 2013 04:30
Location: Central California, US
Contact:

Re: West's solution against violence is more violence...

Postby Shrike » Fri 20 Nov 2015 18:39

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.
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.

Well, in the case of France all they did recently was help Mali out, before that they were Afghanistan. Other than that they got attacked by terrorists several times within a short period. Compared to everyone else, there is little reason to attack France. If they attacked France in the past and recently, then they will probably do again very soon.

In my opinion ignoring something and hoping it goes away will not solve the problem. If there is an annoying mosquito in the room, it's still going to annoy you and bite you no matter how hard you try to ignore it. A burning building isn't going to put itself out no matter how many times you ignore it.

Another thing to add is that the middle east has always seen conflict. ISIS is a force of disorder, if left uncheck they will just leave behind hard to govern territories that even they can't control. New radical groups will form to fight them, and even they will be hard to contain, which paves the way for more radical groups. Too many groups want power, and there are too many power vacuums.

User avatar
SpeisCheese
Captain
Posts: 1709
Joined: Thu 3 Apr 2014 18:18
Location: Somewhere in space...
Contact:

Re: West's solution against violence is more violence...

Postby SpeisCheese » Sat 21 Nov 2015 00:58

Shrike wrote:Well, in the case of France all they did recently was help Mali out, before that they were Afghanistan. Other than that they got attacked by terrorists several times within a short period. Compared to everyone else, there is little reason to attack France. If they attacked France in the past and recently, then they will probably do again very soon.

In my opinion ignoring something and hoping it goes away will not solve the problem. If there is an annoying mosquito in the room, it's still going to annoy you and bite you no matter how hard you try to ignore it. A burning building isn't going to put itself out no matter how many times you ignore it.

Another thing to add is that the middle east has always seen conflict. ISIS is a force of disorder, if left uncheck they will just leave behind hard to govern territories that even they can't control. New radical groups will form to fight them, and even they will be hard to contain, which paves the way for more radical groups. Too many groups want power, and there are too many power vacuums.

Perhaps I forgot mentionning this. the main reason I hate France's intervention in Irak/Syria are the bombings. With such a method, civilian dies, and the survivor's hate against the West is growing. Compare it to Mali. There are many soldiers instead of bombers. I am pretty sure this is an important factor concerning opinions in those countries. But I'm not a philosoph nor a specialist. But if France wants to intervene, than not with bombing targets. Perhaps military casualities will be higher, but the risk of getting many civilians casualities SHOULD decrease, but this can be proven wrong.

User avatar
Megiddo
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 678
Joined: Thu 23 Jul 2015 22:57
Contact:

Re: West's solution against violence is more violence...

Postby Megiddo » Sat 21 Nov 2015 01:47

The Mali question is totally different : First, we have a colonial history in the Sahel region, and France has to honour some treaties of protection (written or "moral") with these countries. France always had, and still has, specific interests in the region. With all the respect i have for the local populations and their rights, the Mali alone does not represent huge amounts of resources. some gold mines, some petrol concentrated in the north where AQMI is quite active, some bauxite and iron minerals... almost no uranium. some french firms settled in Mali, but you have to take a bigger view of the picture. Nigeria, Mauritania, Algeria, Niger, Côte d'Ivoire... all the near countries have way bigger resource interests and many firms, french, europeans or other ones are implanted there, and the main mission of the french forces is to stabilize the whole region against the terrorists, against the ethnics civil wars...and to protect these interests. Not to say that all this part of the african continent is subject to a hard struggle to know who will obtain the tremendous contracts tied to the infrastructures constructions and properties, and overall the telecommunications contracts : Vivendi and Bolloré are on the breach to obtain these ones, with the help of the government, but some other "competitors" don't see this the same way, and don't use the same rules for sure : the Qatar for example and their "allies". those contracts represent a great geostrategic asset and a valuable source of intelligence for any country obtaining them...France, Germany and UK as allies have good chances, and they have to secure this bet.

France has to maintain some ground forces, operational bases and immediate projection capacities in this "pré-carré", this region. when saying that, i mainly think about the populations safety of course, their protection, their own interests and natural rights about the resources of their countries, but we all know that the truth is sadly way more complex than that..

The syrian conflict is another thing. Here, no natural and uncontested "circle of influence". noone wants to put the foot on the ground because the whole region is historically a wasp nest and the whole action procedure has to be approved by the ONU. you have to understand that primarily, at the ONU security Council, Hollande is (was??) one of the last politics blocking the idea of keeping Assad in charge. So the french forces are not welcome, and couldn't intervene on the syrian ground without it being considered as an unauthorized military action on a foreign soil. Putin would have used his right of veto as Russia is a permanent member of the council. With the recent events and the fact that the french country was hurt directly, we are going in an "approved joint operation" with the US, okay, but also with the russians, and these last ones don't want to hear about the Assad's departure. that's another consequence of the terrorist attacks in France. today, the international position of France about Syria is about to evolve, and Hollande will have to deal with Assad for now. it's sad to say that, but of two evils, you sometimes have to choose the least. Even if some french lobbyists, Under the cover of diplomatic missions with deputies, approached Assad with some economic and strategic purposes, the real objective is beyond the Assad concern today : hitting ISIS hard and quick is the priority. This is an important development on the international scene, and another win for Putin. Not to say finally, that in pre-electing periods, any (inevitable) casualties in our army forces linked to a ground engagement in syria would be unacceptable for the opinion. i won't even talk about budget or operational capacities...nor about the old, but logically still active, alliance signed by François Ier...

The money trail could equally be a good lead to strike ISIS. but here, the problem is that pursuing those who buy the petrol, the antiquities and make some deals with ISIS would lead to incriminate ally countries or corporations. too risky and degrading... So, what's left? distant strikes on the objectives. you can justify it as a politic and response measure, the opinion can accept that. As you said, i also hope that the innocents will remain far from the danger.

Just my humble opinion. you may say cynical. i'd reply realistic.
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.

User avatar
BTR
General
Posts: 6298
Joined: Fri 9 Dec 2011 21:16
Location: Россия
Contact:

Re: West's solution against violence is more violence...

Postby BTR » Sat 21 Nov 2015 08:50

Image

User avatar
Mitchverr
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 10646
Joined: Sat 24 Mar 2012 18:08
Contact:

Re: West's solution against violence is more violence...

Postby Mitchverr » Sat 21 Nov 2015 14:33

BTR wrote:


My go-to when my fellow lefties do "violence solves nothing" :lol:
Image

User avatar
libbmaster
Lieutenant
Posts: 1267
Joined: Sun 2 Jun 2013 00:00
Contact:

Re: West's solution against violence is more violence...

Postby libbmaster » Sat 21 Nov 2015 15:50

Fade2Gray 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.



Forcing Pakistan to confront Islamic extremism?

We wouldn't have just avoided Daesh, India would have liked us too!

Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests