Paris Terror Attacks

[Jroc]

Islam is more then the Quran, try again. Unless you're saying Muslims in Europe are all Quranist of course, but I doubt it. 

 

 

Iraq people were against. Happened. Afghanistan people were against. Happened. Libya people were against. Happened. Syria people were against. Thankfully the worst was averted, but they still support those "moderates".

I knew all those moves were wrong and would cause stuff like this, but with taking out ISIS? I see no problem there, you go in, help Assad/Kurds/you get the picture. Let Assad/Kurds establish their state fully (once again in Assad's case) and there you go, bobs your uncle. They'll serve as a bulwark against anymore such fanatical uprisings, something they would have done if the west hadn't helped ISIS rise up in the first place.

 

Russia is already there and willing. If America didn't keep trying to salvage their investment in their own group of fanatics in Syria all this would have been over with already. 

 

 

Are you saying Russia/China/Britain should have just surrendered in the world war and let the Axis win? After all, no need to fight, you can just run. 

 

I see a lot more men than women and children in images/videos/reports not that I think the gender has much to do with it, the women should be fighting too as I don't discriminate. When the Germans advanced forward more and more in their conquest, Russian women didn't all flee, they fought. Just an example for you. I've seen reports of Kurdish women fighting for example which is a good example of such a thing too. 

 

And the Bible isn't everything in Christianity but it is. Just like it is for Islam, they follow its teachings and just like Christians some have warped views.

 

So, yeah....

 

 

[LordRahl2]

The question that you are failing to address, Roz, is if the expenditure of power against ISIS is worth it. At the moment they are bottled up without any real potential for expantion that would mean anything.

 

Attacks like Paris are horrific in several ways. But they do not threaten the targeted States in an existential way...and it remains highly improbable that you as an individual will be threatened. The choice therefore exists from a practical standpoint to conserve your power for other requirements.

 

There is always a trade off when you decide to "do something". The US and Europe could probably find something more productive to do with its collective power.

Edited November 16, 2015 by LordRahl2

[Fox Fire]

There's no solution to this problem. Even Obama made it clear at the G20, that he has no idea what else to do. The French drop 20 bombs as retaliation, which is not the retaliation I would expect. 

ISIS is a cult that believes the end is near, so they are following Islamic prophecy and they don't have anything to lose and no intentions for peace.

The problem with not invading is that they have a haven for terrorists and attacks like this will continue.

The problem with invading is that it would be long and bloody and even if we take the land, it will never solve the overall problem. It would simply cost lives and money. The ideology would continue.

[Jroc]

There's no solution to this problem. Even Obama made it clear at the G20, that he has no idea what else to do. The French drop 20 bombs as retaliation, which is not the retaliation I would expect. 

ISIS is a cult that believes the end is near, so they are following Islamic prophecy and they don't have anything to lose and no intentions for peace.

The problem with not invading is that they have a haven for terrorists and attacks like this will continue.

The problem with invading is that it would be long and bloody and even if we take the land, it will never solve the overall problem. It would simply cost lives and money. The ideology would continue.

 

 

Because as V said,

 

 

Ideas are bulletproof. 

[Rozalia]

Here's the thing; just because you don't see a problem with it, doesn't mean other people won't. You know just as well as I that Western military intervention in the Middle East has always led to animosity and more problems. And see, if people like Assad are such effective bulwarks against fanatical uprisings, how did the current ongoing uprising come into place to begin with? How did the situation get this bad? The answer is right there, it's because Assad isn't a good leader to have and because people like him aren't effective bulwarks against any kind of uprising, in fact people like him usually provoke uprisings.

 

You'll find the answer in the post you quoted. If the West hadn't armed and supported their own brand of fanatics to get regime change, Assad (at full strength) would have defeated the ISIS incursion if it even ever happened as I doubt ISIS would attack then. Assad isn't genocidal nor bent on world conquest, and this constant angle that only free American brand democracy can stop revolts is a joke, and a bad one. Countries are different and meddling in places like Iraq, Libya, Syria is why we're at this stage.

 

Dude that's a false equivalence and I don't know why you think World War II is the same as the Syrian Civil War (which is basically just a giant government conducted massacre).

 

World War II was a war by nation-states between nation-states. What's going on in Syria, whether you call it a civil war or systematic mass murder (the ruling minority Alawite party is pretty much massacring everyone Non-Alawite not working for them), is not the same.

 

Russia, China and Britain all had standing armies (armies that weren't fighting their own population), they all had civilian populations who lived and worked untouched by the war and they weren't fighting themselves in civil wars. And your example is only half right, when the Germans advanced quite a few people actually supported them (especially Ukrainians and the Baltic peoples), but that's besides the point. I guarantee you that plenty of women, men and children have fled every war that has ever happened, including World War II. If you think that literally every single woman in the Soviet Union fought and that none of them fled, then think again.

 

But yet again, this shouldn't really matter, because you really just can't blame someone for not wanting to spend their lives struggling in a demolished country where their basic needs are barely met, if at all, fighting ruthless enemies on all sides.

 

First that nonsense you just spoke sets off big alarm bells that it really ain't worth continuing to talk, if the propaganda is that ingrained in your mind then it is likely a lost cause... but I'll continue. The ruling Alawite party (Assad) is not seeking the genocide of non Alawites. The Alawites are being massacred by those thugs ISIS and the "moderates" so to say that is wow... I suppose you should just accept being genocided now, give ISIS what they want. 

 

Assad is not fighting his own civilian population, though obviously civilians die in the crossfire. Considering America has killed many civilians in their airstrikes are they purposely massacring civilians too? He is fighting American bought fanatics and another band of even worse fanatics (who are aided by Turkey/Gulf states). 

 

Yeah I'll not doubt some women fled in the Soviet Union, not sure what that matters to the point I made. 

 

And the Bible isn't everything in Christianity but it is. Just like it is for Islam, they follow its teachings and just like Christians some have warped views.

 

So, yeah....

 

 

 

Well that depends on the Christianity you follow actually. Fundamentalism is also different between the two as while the Christian version is strict following to the Bible, the same cannot be said of the Islamic version (obviously to the Quran and not the Bible). In fact those who follow simply a strict version of the Quran and nothing else are what Ibrahim would call, apostates. Who if you haven't heard deserve to be killed (surely we can discard that bit from Islam yes?)

 

So please do explain what you issue is with reforming Islam. Those nasty bits aren't "real" Islam right? Then what is the issue discarding them? Please do explain.

 

This naive/childish defense of Islam via Christianity is as I said, blasé, and has no punch as I'm agnostic. Argue the points I make without distracting towards Christianity (which is reformed where I am) please, otherwise just let someone else do it. 

 

The question that you are failing to address, Roz, is if the expenditure of power against ISIS is worth it. At the moment they are bottled up without any real potential for expantion that would mean anything.

 

Attacks like Paris are horrific in several ways. But they do not threaten the targeted States in an existential way...and it remains highly improbable that you as an individual will be threatened. The choice therefore exists from a practical standpoint to conserve your power for other requirements.

 

There is always a trade off when you decide to "do something". The US and Europe could probably find something more productive to do with its collective power.

 

You say that but yet they continue funding and supporting their brand of fanatics in Syria still. They can afford to spend power there but not in actually ridding us fully of ISIS instead of these pointless anemic attacks they're currently doing? The job is simple. Smash ISIS, agree with Russia on Syria and let Assad remain to rebuild the smashed country our governments helped smash, allow the Kurds their state at last, and Iraq... well I think that may be too far gone now. Let the Kurds have half of it and the rest Iran will take or something, anything is better than the weak American puppet state. 

[Jroc]

I like how you go right to supporting Russia. They only got involved in Syria because they felt that Assad could lose and they want that port.

 

Assad is the reason, we have the Syrian Civil War in the first place and to back him would not be cool. And, if we give into the kurds, we would be going against our own ally, Turkey who wants nothing to do with a Kurdish state. 

 

I don't get how you can be pro-Russia and think that if we side with them, that this will all magically go away. I mean arming the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan sure went away, oh nvm. 

 

If we take out ISIS, then we will have another militant Islamic extremist group will take its place. We have yet to kill it at its source, which is ignorance.

 

And, yeah, lets go with Russia, they sure know how to handle Islamic extremists....

[Fox Fire]

I like how you go right to supporting Russia. They only got involved in Syria because they felt that Assad could lose and they want that port.

 

Assad is the reason, we have the Syrian Civil War in the first place and to back him would not be cool. And, if we give into the kurds, we would be going against our own ally, Turkey who wants nothing to do with a Kurdish state. 

 

I don't get how you can be pro-Russia and think that if we side with them, that this will all magically go away. I mean arming the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan sure went away, oh nvm. 

 

If we take out ISIS, then we will have another militant Islamic extremist group will take its place. We have yet to kill it at its source, which is ignorance.

 

And, yeah, lets go with Russia, they sure know how to handle Islamic extremists....

Assad is the only realistic option. The "moderate" rebels are too intermixed with hardline Salafists. They are loosely organized and weak. Assad isn't a great leader, but he wasn't burning people alive in cages. He also obviously wasn't lying when he was claiming that terrorists infiltrated the protesters and uprising. Also, Russia is actually inviting the Syrian rebels to peace talks while the US government is opposing the move. 

Turkey is a garbage ally who is playing on both sides. They should be removed from NATO. Syria is not going to be ruled by Kurds obviously, and driving out all Shia is just as bad as driving out Sunni. So I'm going to say I'm on the side of both the US and Russia, and think both need to work together.

[LordRahl2]

Who is "they" Roz?

[Rozalia]

I like how you go right to supporting Russia. They only got involved in Syria because they felt that Assad could lose and they want that port.

 

Assad is the reason, we have the Syrian Civil War in the first place and to back him would not be cool. And, if we give into the kurds, we would be going against our own ally, Turkey who wants nothing to do with a Kurdish state. 

 

I don't get how you can be pro-Russia and think that if we side with them, that this will all magically go away. I mean arming the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan sure went away, oh nvm. 

 

If we take out ISIS, then we will have another militant Islamic extremist group will take its place. We have yet to kill it at its source, which is ignorance.

 

And, yeah, lets go with Russia, they sure know how to handle Islamic extremists....

 

No. America funding and supporting their regime change brigade and their constant attempt to salvage their investment is what has caused this mess.

 

Turkey has been helping those fanatics, so I could not care less what they think about the Kurds. In fact, so much so that when the new Kurd state undoubtedly clashes with Turkey I hope they take their land there back too. 

 

??? What? Like what? America armed the Mujaheddin against Russia, how was that siding with Russia exactly? In fact your statement there is an example of why America should cease their current efforts of regime change and join with Russia on this. Arming fanatics never works if the goal is to magically fix everything.

 

Did you just not say an idea cannot be killed? Now suddenly it can be killed... which is it exactly? If you're going to make wishy washy statements then don't make contradictory ones please. 

 

Correct, they do unlike America who only increases the extremist's strength with all their actions. 

 

Who is "they" Roz?

 

I'm not sure why you labouring things here, quite obvious I was refering to the West/America. I mean who else could I be referring to? Japan?

Edited November 16, 2015 by Rozalia

[Big Brother]

You'll find the answer in the post you quoted. If the West hadn't armed and supported their own brand of fanatics to get regime change, Assad (at full strength) would have defeated the ISIS incursion if it even ever happened as I doubt ISIS would attack then. Assad isn't genocidal nor bent on world conquest, and this constant angle that only free American brand democracy can stop revolts is a joke, and a bad one. Countries are different and meddling in places like Iraq, Libya, Syria is why we're at this stage.

 

First that nonsense you just spoke sets off big alarm bells that it really ain't worth continuing to talk, if the propaganda is that ingrained in your mind then it is likely a lost cause... but I'll continue. The ruling Alawite party (Assad) is not seeking the genocide of non Alawites. The Alawites are being massacred by those thugs ISIS and the "moderates" so to say that is wow... I suppose you should just accept being genocided now, give ISIS what they want. 

 

Assad is not fighting his own civilian population, though obviously civilians die in the crossfire. Considering America has killed many civilians in their airstrikes are they purposely massacring civilians too? He is fighting American bought fanatics and another band of even worse fanatics (who are aided by Turkey/Gulf states). 

 

Yeah I'll not doubt some women fled in the Soviet Union, not sure what that matters to the point I made.

 

I'm the nonsensical one? You're an Assad apologist, if anything is nonsense in this thread, it's your support of a vicious dictator who's responsible for the deaths of thousands of Syrians. This uprising began because Syria was undergoing a devastating drought (amongst other socioeconomic issues), and when the Syrian people decided to peacefully protest Assad and his ruling Alawite party, they decided to straight up shell them and fire upon them. I never claimed that democracy is some kind of quick fix to no revolts, but to claim that Assad prevents uprisings rather than being one of the main agitators of the entire civil war, is completely baffling nonsense. I'm obviously not the one brainwashed by propaganda here.

 

I never actually used the term genocide, but let's get this straight: Bashar al-Assad is a mass murderer. Come to terms with this fact, and consider the possibility that in this case, you're mistaken and your logic doesn't add up.

 

I understand that you see Daesh as the greater evil here but that is no reason to excuse another evil, and al-Assad most certainly is an evil, one that should never be condoned or accepted.

[Rozalia]

I'm the nonsensical one? You're an Assad apologist, if anything is nonsense in this thread, it's your support of a vicious dictator who's responsible for the deaths of thousands of Syrians. This uprising began because Syria was undergoing a devastating drought (amongst other socioeconomic issues), and when the Syrian people decided to peacefully protest Assad and his ruling Alawite party, they decided to straight up shell them and fire upon them. I never claimed that democracy is some kind of quick fix to no revolts, but to claim that Assad prevents uprisings rather than being one of the main agitators of the entire civil war, is completely baffling nonsense. I'm obviously not the one brainwashed by propaganda here.

 

I never actually used the term genocide, but let's get this straight: Bashar al-Assad is a mass murderer. Come to terms with this fact, and consider the possibility that in this case, you're mistaken and your logic doesn't add up.

 

I understand that you see Daesh as the greater evil here but that is no reason to excuse another evil, and al-Assad most certainly is an evil, one that should never be condoned or accepted.

 

Considering you claimed the Alawites who are risk of genocide are the ones genociding, yeah you are being nonsensical. Not sure why people keep missing the key point that ISIS kills civilians because that is a goal of theirs, while Syria kills them because on the battlefield things like that happen. Remember that even the "precision strikes" from the most advanced military in the world does it in fact, so why should Syria's military be expected to not have any civilian casualties? 

 

And Assad was correct in what he said about the protesters, not that I didn't have that opinion from the start. Like in Libya I knew the "rebels" were vile from the beginning. 

 

Sometimes you have to put/keep evil in the world to rid it of greater evil. Would I have liked Syria to have some perfect leader? Sure, don't we wish every leader everywhere was perfect. However between him, ISIS, and the "moderate" fanatics? Him all day, no contest. America for all it's usual talk is not trying to improve Syria, but salvage all their lost money and effort in getting regime change to happen. I'm glad at last we have someone (Putin) to stand up to them. He is also not perfect by any means, but when put next to the Americans who have helped all this along? Yeah, I'll go with him on this matter.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Rozalia

[Spite]

I think the point Rahl was trying to make was that you're grouping a lot of state and non-state actors together with inclusive generalisations, when in reality there is only limited unity in terms of foreign policy even within Europe, never mind the wider developed world.

[Rozalia]

I think the point Rahl was trying to make was that you're grouping a lot of state and non-state actors together with inclusive generalisations, when in reality there is only limited unity in terms of foreign policy even within Europe, never mind the wider developed world.

 

That is a fair point. 

[Robert Ap Ioan]

Maybe you aren't informed that Raqqa (current capital of ISIS/ISIL) is the largest and most secured stronghold they have. Why shouldn't the French Government bomb it? Most of the attacks are on ISIS POSITIONS in the city, it's not like they're bombing markets like Assad is doing. They're not bombing Hospitals like U.S.A did in Afghanistan. 

 

Now, as you noted civilian casualities, are always going to be the risk, it's warfare, not your walk in the park. I believe it's well worth the risk, I rather have some small amount of casualities, compared to the damage ISIS will do, and is currently doing. Beheadings, throwing people over a cliff, and shooting them isn't justified. You of all people should know this, but then again, you've never been in our arguments to even make an correct judgement. 

I have very mixed feelings on the French bombing Raqqa. I do think that they are trying to be careful and hitting appropiate targets, however I am concerned at the speed of their entry into this conflict. As Tolkien writes "the hasty stroke oft goes astray", in that case the context is of provoking a response from the enemy. I think the people of Raqqa are in for a hard time, either at the hands of ISIS or France, for them there is no good outcome. ISIS need to be destroyed and sadly I cannot see a better way of doing it at present.

 

 

While the loss of human life is always a tragedy, I think this whole thing is being blown out of proportion due to the overdose of information we're receiving about it.

 

Compared to the millions of people who have been slaughtered fighting for their respective governments and countries, this is hardly even noticeable. Heart disease and car accidents kill more people than terrorism does. No Western country is actually under any significant threat from any terrorist organization, we're not fighting a war between cultures or civilizations and the vast majority of refugees that come to Europe aren't out to hurt Europeans. We're not in some grand struggle for existence of Western civilization.

 

Attacks like these aren't just meant to kill, they're meant to polarize our societies, to make us see enemies where there are none. Daesh would like nothing more for us to actually buy into the narrative that Muslims are the bad guys and Non-Muslim Westerners are the good guys. If we do what they want, if we buy into that narrative and become bigoted idiots who believe it's okay to mindlessly murder and repress Muslims, that's good for them because then they gain support and strength. They will have a much easier time recruiting Muslims if Muslims are actually being persecuted in the countries they live in simply because you know, persecution tends to piss people off. And when people are pissed off and get their panties all in a bunch (like a lot of people who posted in this thread), they're suddenly a lot more okay with murdering people who aren't actually that much different from themselves.

 

Let's not sink to their level, just keep calm and carry on.

 

 

@Rozalia

I don't remember if it was this thread or the other one just like this one but whenever you mention immigration to Europe, you make it seem like there are absolutely no rules whatsoever regarding who's actually allowed to remain in the Schengen Area and who isn't. You realize that's not the case, right? You know there's all kinds of conditions and criteria refugees need to meet?

 

Oh and about the whole "refugees should stay and fight" thing, why don't you try having your home turned into a warzone of pure death and destruction before you start giving people crap for attempting to flee places like that. You usually have pretty good opinions but that's some ignorant nonsense right there.

 

I totally agree! The worst thing we can do at this time is further marginalise Muslims in Western countries, we need to work to integrate them into non-religious society in such a way as to give no reason to desire to follow radical Islam. I see Ibrahim as a failure of society, what has happened that someone can be so motivated to advocate a law system that would make his life far riskier? We have to treat incomers with compassion to prevent them desiring evil against us. Most people in the UK and America are immigrants of some kind.

 

Here's the thing; just because you don't see a problem with it, doesn't mean other people won't. You know just as well as I that Western military intervention in the Middle East has always led to animosity and more problems. And see, if people like Assad are such effective bulwarks against fanatical uprisings, how did the current ongoing uprising come into place to begin with? How did the situation get this bad? The answer is right there, it's because Assad isn't a good leader to have and because people like him aren't effective bulwarks against any kind of uprising, in fact people like him usually provoke uprisings.

 

I wonder if the uprising was able to kick off in Syria because America and her allies took out the majority of the strongmen in the Middle East. By going to war in the Middle East a power vacuum has been created. Vacuums like to be filled. ISIS unfortunately has been able to fill the void, aided by good 'ole Western know how. We have reaped what we sowed. Somehow we now need to repair the damage that we have done. The key thing will be to cut off the financial aid that Daesh is getting from the West and it's allies.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

The Sheer Hypocrisy Of World Media

 

[Fox Fire]

 

The Sheer Hypocrisy Of World Media

 

 

You just shitposting or what, Catbeard? 

Of course the media will report on a sophisticated attack in Paris when that isn't a normal thing in a nation that has its shit together. Just like they report on all the other conflicts around the world, with whatever bias they please. The middle east is a warzone because some religious or corrupt nutjob always has to be !@#$ing it up. 

If it were up to you, how would you solve this problem and restore peace? 

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

If it were up to you, how would you solve this problem and restore peace? 

 

Governments are responsible primarily for the lives of their citizens and their first priority is to safeguard their homeland. They're not doing this by taking sides in civil wars half way across the world and France's bombing campaign in Syria/Iraq since 2014 is a case in point. 

• The truth is no power outside the region can solve the problems of the Middle East.
• The current wars in the Middle East can't be avoided and needs to be fought by the people in that region until a winner emerges. 
• If Western government's pull out of the Middle East and keep out of the conflict in that part of the world: No side will have any incentive to attack them.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Ibrahim

[Buorhann]

I'm wondering, what is the Middle Eastern media view on the Western world?

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

I'm wondering, what is the Middle Eastern media view on the Western world?

 

Highly negative I would imagine. 

[Ekejen Luish]

I'm gonna need more popcorn.

 

[Franz Von Dietrich]

 

Governments are responsible primarily for the lives of their citizens and their first priority is to safeguard their homeland. They're not doing this by taking sides in civil wars half way across the world and France's bombing campaign in Syria/Iraq since 2014 is a case in point. 

• The truth is no power outside the region can solve the problems of the Middle East.
• The current wars in the Middle East can't be avoided and needs to be fought by the people in that region until a winner emerges. 
• If Western government's pull out of the Middle East and keep out of the conflict in that part of the world: No side will have any incentive to attack them.

 

Define your term of "western governments"

 

As China and Russia are starting to get more involved in the region. It's not just U.S.A and their allies. It's now a proxy war, with Iran and Russia in one corner, and the U.S.A and their allies in the other. No one is going to back off from this plate of conflict.

 

Iran would do a great job in fixing this situation, if they could fully use their military, but then again, the Iranian Government is another Theocracy.

[LordRahl2]

  I'm not sure why you labouring things here, quite obvious I was refering to the West/America. I mean who else could I be referring to? Japan?

 

Calm down man, it really didn't make sense to me in context (you could have meant other groups/States).  As Spite suggests, there is no monolithic "they"but if there was it would be "we" yeah?  But anyway I just wanted clarification before I replied.

 

 

You say that but yet theWest/America continue funding and supporting their brand of fanatics in Syria still. TheWest/America can afford to spend power there but not in actually ridding us fully of ISIS instead of these pointless anemic attacks they're currently doing? The job is simple. Smash ISIS, agree with Russia on Syria and let Assad remain to rebuild the smashed country our governments helped smash, allow the Kurds their state at last, and Iraq... well I think that may be too far gone now. Let the Kurds have half of it and the rest Iran will take or something, anything is better than the weak American puppet state. 

 

Maybe you do not realize how little relative power the US and its allies are currently expending.  Most, although not all, of the US aircraft being used in those strikes are organic to CENTCOM and/or EUCOM.  Many of the European assets are forward deployed outside their normal rotation -true.  However, this is still not a lot of power -again relative to the absolute capabilities of the US/Europe.  And that is just air power.  Land units are not deployed in really significant numbers at all.  As far as spending large sums on training and equipping a "brand of fanatics" Washington and Europe are not spending much at all (again relative to capacity).  All said it is a very limited form of action at the moment.  So "actually ridding us fully of ISIS" implies a vast increase in the expenditure of power (troops, money, resources, intel assets, etc).  I would argue that power should be directed elsewhere such as containing Russia and, I suppose, in SE Asia.

 

As to your concept - dismantling the Sykes/Picot State concept and replacing it with a similarly Westphalian construct by making a Kurdish state, reestablishing Syrian borders, and giving southern (and mostly Shia) Iraq to Iran is interesting.  However, you are neglecting a host of secondary and tertiary impacts that construct would have.  I would suggest that such a strategy would have huge regional stability impacts that are hard to calculate but would almost certainly be negative.  The potential for actual State on State warfare would go way up.  Even barring that it would move the conflict from one of proxies to more direct action.  This would be unbalancing even more than what we currently see.

 

Frankly, the region that includes the Tigris and Euphrates rivers south of Anatolia, east to the Med, and south to the Arab desert has historically been either a battle ground for the four surrounding powers or was dominated by one of them.  The rise of the British and then American Empires/systems kept the region relatively stable - after the Northern Anatolian power lost control that is.  So what we see today is simply a return to a more normal state of affairs with three of the surrounding powers vying for influence but insufficiently powerful to seal the deal (the fourth is too weak and internally focused at this time).  So the global hegemon and its allies are just managing the situation expending little relative power at very little risk.  Actually probably the best course of action given the alternatives.  I suppose that this is a hard pill to swallow especially when a terrible event such as Friday's occurs.  But it is, sadly, the cost of doing business.

Edited November 17, 2015 by LordRahl2

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

Define your term of "western governments"

 

As China and Russia are starting to get more involved in the region. It's not just U.S.A and their allies. It's now a proxy war, with Iran and Russia in one corner, and the U.S.A and their allies in the other. No one is going to back off from this plate of conflict.

 

Iran would do a great job in fixing this situation, if they could fully use their military, but then again, the Iranian Government is another Theocracy.

 

I'm not aware of China getting involved but Russia has already lost a passenger plane with 224 Russian civilians on-board due to it's intervention in the Syrian civil war. For the west this doesn't seem like a proxy war worth fighting and they should just let Russia burn it'self in Syria, I highly doubt the Russians will be able to put the most failed state in the world (Syria) back together again. The whole world couldn't do that for Somalia in 1993 and Somalia had far less problems. Not to mention the fact that the Russian economy is being crippled by sanctions and the war they're still fighting in Ukraine.

 

Though Iran want's nothing more than to take over Syria and Iraq:  

1. It's not a military power like Russia and America.
2. Sunni Majority countries in the Middle East would declare war on Iran if they sent their military to take over Syria, Iraq, or Yemen.
3. Iran is no friend of the west and it would back the Gulf Countries and Turkey in a war with Iran.
4. The Sunni populations of Iraq and Syria would never allow themselves to be ruled by Iran due to deeply entrenched sectarian hatred. 

Iran has also suffered from decades long Arms embargoes and sanctions which still haven't been lifted

Edited November 17, 2015 by Ibrahim

[Rozalia]

Calm down man, it really didn't make sense to me in context (you could have meant other groups/States).  As Spite suggests, there is no monolithic "they"but if there was it would be "we" yeah?  But anyway I just wanted clarification before I replied.

 

Maybe you do not realize how little relative power the US and its allies are currently expending.  Most, although not all, of the US aircraft being used in those strikes are organic to CENTCOM and/or EUCOM.  Many of the European assets are forward deployed outside their normal rotation -true.  However, this is still not a lot of power -again relative to the absolute capabilities of the US/Europe.  And that is just air power.  Land units are not deployed in really significant numbers at all.  As far as spending large sums on training and equipping a "brand of fanatics" Washington and Europe are not spending much at all (again relative to capacity).  All said it is a very limited form of action at the moment.  So "actually ridding us fully of ISIS" implies a vast increase in the expenditure of power (troops, money, resources, intel assets, etc).  I would argue that power should be directed elsewhere such as containing Russia and, I suppose, in SE Asia.

 

As to your concept - dismantling the Sykes/Picot State concept and replacing it with a similarly Westphalian construct by making a Kurdish state, reestablishing Syrian borders, and giving southern (and mostly Shia) Iraq to Iran is interesting.  However, you are neglecting a host of secondary and tertiary impacts that construct would have.  I would suggest that such a strategy would have huge regional stability impacts that are hard to calculate but would almost certainly be negative.  The potential for actual State on State warfare would go way up.  Even barring that it would move the conflict from one of proxies to more direct action.  This would be unbalancing even more than what we currently see.

 

Frankly, the region that includes the Tigris and Euphrates rivers south of Anatolia, east to the Med, and south to the Arab desert has historically been either a battle ground for the four surrounding powers or was dominated by one of them.  The rise of the British and then American Empires/systems kept the region relatively stable - after the Northern Anatolian power lost control that is.  So what we see today is simply a return to a more normal state of affairs with three of the surrounding powers vying for influence but insufficiently powerful to seal the deal (the fourth is too weak and internally focused at this time).  So the global hegemon and its allies are just managing the situation expending little relative power at very little risk.  Actually probably the best course of action given the alternatives.  I suppose that this is a hard pill to swallow especially when a terrible event such as Friday's occurs.  But it is, sadly, the cost of doing business.

 

Alright I get you now, sorry, thought you were simply labouring things for the sake of it there. 

 

Well obviously in absolute terms the amount of power is small, anything is small if you compare it to total war for example, but it doesn't make the power expended irrelevant. It would require more effort yes, however Russia is there and willing to help in that endeavour lets not forget. Ironic how all the unpopular excursions they've had no problem acting on, but the one that would prove popular due to it not simply being politics they won't.

 

I don't doubt it could have big effects nor can I see the future and predict them exactly. Turkey would have a real fight on it's hand in future to retain their land in the east for one. Iran, victorious, would be seen as an even bigger threat to the Sunni states in the gulf and they may out of desperation begin funding jihadists all the more. 

 

State to state war becomes more possible than currently in the region? Perhaps, but I don't see that as strictly a bad thing if we learn from the mistakes of the past and let the states do as they do. That isn't to say I don't see killing, war, and other such things as bad... but if it must happen, then it must. Better under that dynamic I would think then the current mess.

[Kyubnyan]

 

Governments are responsible primarily for the lives of their citizens and their first priority is to safeguard their homeland. They're not doing this by taking sides in civil wars half way across the world and France's bombing campaign in Syria/Iraq since 2014 is a case in point. 

• The truth is no power outside the region can solve the problems of the Middle East.
• The current wars in the Middle East can't be avoided and needs to be fought by the people in that region until a winner emerges. 
• If Western government's pull out of the Middle East and keep out of the conflict in that part of the world: No side will have any incentive to attack them.

 

Ibraham, other countries get involved in civil wars, it happens all the !@#$ time and saying that France is getting what it deserves is idiotic seeing as the only reason ISIS attacked them is because they were the most vulnerable nation currently attacking them. Also, if the US and allies stay out of the region then Russia is just going to wait for one nation to reign supreme and then attack it while it is still politically, economically, and militarily unstable and annex it.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Kyubey