Jump to content


Photo

Because Trump 2.0


  • Please log in to reply
14672 replies to this topic

#14661 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,174 posts

Posted Yesterday, 06:29 PM

 

As for the Europeans not getting involved, it's worth taking a look at those taking part, some more serious than others, in the coalition against ISIS.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Joint_Task_Force_–_Operation_Inherent_Resolve

Contributing nations:[13]
Primary:[10]
United States
United Kingdom
France
Turkey
Australia
Canada
Jordan
Denmark
Netherlands
Belgium
Lebanon[11]
Saudi Arabia
United Arab Emirates
In support of:
Iraq
Iraqi Kurdistan
Rojava
Syrian National Army
Non-combat support only:[12]
Morocco
Qatar
Bahrain
Italy
Germany
Spain
Portugal
Poland
Georgia
Japan
Taiwan
South Korea
New Zealand
Hungary
Estonia
Austria
Albania
Greece
Bulgaria
Slovakia
Slovenia
Serbia
Romania
Kosovo
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Luxembourg
Latvia
Lithuania
Iceland
North Macedonia
Moldova
Montenegro
Ukraine
Croatia
Czech Republic
Cyprus
Fiji
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Somalia
Singapore
Kenya
Kuwait
Oman
Tunisia
Ireland
Switzerland (non-military aid)

https://en.m.wikiped...yrian_Civil_War

American's are just in it by themselves? Just because Trump said it does not make it true.

 

How many were boots on the ground in Syria and are they still there? Why are we the lead when Europe has the most to lose? The Turks don't seem to be worried about tripping over any EU forces in the area. Maybe the EU could send a peace keeping force to keep them separate?

 

 

Of course a major complicating factor is Turkey's membership of NATO.  If Syria punches back, whose side will NATO take or will it be another Falklands War scenario due to the ME not being part of NATO's purview?


  • 0

#14662 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,681 posts

Posted Yesterday, 07:04 PM

Of course a major complicating factor is Turkey's membership of NATO.  If Syria punches back, whose side will NATO take or will it be another Falklands War scenario due to the ME not being part of NATO's purview?

 

That doesn't seem to concern the Orange Man Bad, let's wage war on Turkey, crowd.


  • 0

#14663 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,039 posts

Posted Yesterday, 09:24 PM

 

When he is the leader of the free world, and he is bollocking up everything in sight, you are damn skippy I do.

 

Sorry, you've got the wrong accent to blame the state of Brexit on Trump. ;-)


  • 0

#14664 Detonable

Detonable

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 984 posts

Posted Yesterday, 09:46 PM

[quote name="DougRichards" post="1452319" timestamp="1570773347"]

[quote name="R011" post="1452303" timestamp="1570757278"]

 [quote name="DougRichards" post="1452179" timestamp="1570700201"]
 [quote name="Stuart Galbraith" post
 
Actually that is why I admire George Bush 1st.  As a naval aviator he had experienced war, and knew when a war should be fought and for what outcomes.  When that outcome was reached he commanded that the US stop fighting.  The goal had been accomplished.  He had no desire to waste US blood or treasure on some other goal.  It is a pity that his son went to war and didn't consider that his father was correct.[/quote]

Uh, no. George 1st left Saddam Hussein in office, created a no-fly zone where Iraqis couldnt fly (an act of war),and imposed a blockade (an act of war). Clinton bombed Iraq, another act of war. George 1st left is in an endless conflict.

George 2nd hamfisted attempt to bring the conflict to a close was the right thing to do, extremely poorly executed. Note that when George Patton was criticized for the number of Nazis he left in power he pointed out they were the most effective in keeping things under control. Thats the opposite of what Bush 2 did.

Nobody in the Middle East cares if blockading Iraq was proper. They notice that people who look like them are being bullied by a wealthy, distant country and they naturally resent it. George 1 left us in an endless conflict guaranteed to generate anti-Americanism.
  • 0

#14665 Detonable

Detonable

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 984 posts

Posted Yesterday, 09:53 PM

As to the Vietnam/Korea analogy, if the US had bailed on the Koreans the way they bailed on the South Vietnamese, South Korea would look like North Korea now.

Ive talked to a couple Vietnamese immigrants to the US, and they commented on the re-education camps and the hundreds of thousands of deaths at sea. From their perspective (which may not be reflective of the population as a whole), the US desertion was a disaster.
  • 0

#14666 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,973 posts

Posted Yesterday, 11:03 PM

The boat people if I recall correctly, who the Vietnamese essentially drove into the sea. Interestingly, many were of Chinese race, illustrating that Japanese were not the only ones to target them in various ways.


  • 0

#14667 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,987 posts

Posted Yesterday, 11:21 PM

The boat people if I recall correctly, who the Vietnamese essentially drove into the sea. Interestingly, many were of Chinese race, illustrating that Japanese were not the only ones to target them in various ways.


What are you even talking about?

Most Vietanamese living in Japan today were from boat people.

Second Sino-war started not for purpose of targeting Chinese.

But for Vietnam you're brushing over the Hoa as simply "Chinese". There are many sub-han chinese groups out there.
  • 0

#14668 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,174 posts

Posted Yesterday, 11:48 PM

 

 



[quote name="R011" post="1452303" timestamp="1570757278"]

 [quote name="DougRichards" post="1452179" timestamp="1570700201"]
 [quote name="Stuart Galbraith" post
 
Actually that is why I admire George Bush 1st.  As a naval aviator he had experienced war, and knew when a war should be fought and for what outcomes.  When that outcome was reached he commanded that the US stop fighting.  The goal had been accomplished.  He had no desire to waste US blood or treasure on some other goal.  It is a pity that his son went to war and didn't consider that his father was correct.


Uh, no. George 1st left Saddam Hussein in office, created a no-fly zone where Iraqis couldnt fly (an act of war),and imposed a blockade (an act of war). Clinton bombed Iraq, another act of war. George 1st left is in an endless conflict.

George 2nd hamfisted attempt to bring the conflict to a close was the right thing to do, extremely poorly executed. Note that when George Patton was criticized for the number of Nazis he left in power he pointed out they were the most effective in keeping things under control. Thats the opposite of what Bush 2 did.

Nobody in the Middle East cares if blockading Iraq was proper. They notice that people who look like them are being bullied by a wealthy, distant country and they naturally resent it. George 1 left us in an endless conflict guaranteed to generate anti-Americanism.

 

Perhaps George the First realised that it would take a sociopathic dictator to be left in place to keep the lid on Iraq.

 

I personally feel, and I have coped flak for this, that George the Second went to war because his father was no longer in power but his father's opponent still was, so that GW2 was really about George the Second seeking to impose a dynastic war against Saddam.

 

We would be in less of a mess overall if Saddam had been left in power, but he may have died from natural causes by now.


Edited by DougRichards, Yesterday, 11:58 PM.

  • 0

#14669 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,973 posts

Posted Yesterday, 11:58 PM

There was some precedent for removal based on the Noriega experience. I don't think it excuses the decisions made for war in Iraq, but it provides some context for them.


  • 0

#14670 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,587 posts

Posted Today, 01:43 AM

 

 

As for the Europeans not getting involved, it's worth taking a look at those taking part, some more serious than others, in the coalition against ISIS.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Joint_Task_Force_–_Operation_Inherent_Resolve

Contributing nations:[13]
Primary:[10]
United States
United Kingdom
France
Turkey
Australia
Canada
Jordan
Denmark
Netherlands
Belgium
Lebanon[11]
Saudi Arabia
United Arab Emirates
In support of:
Iraq
Iraqi Kurdistan
Rojava
Syrian National Army
Non-combat support only:[12]
Morocco
Qatar
Bahrain
Italy
Germany
Spain
Portugal
Poland
Georgia
Japan
Taiwan
South Korea
New Zealand
Hungary
Estonia
Austria
Albania
Greece
Bulgaria
Slovakia
Slovenia
Serbia
Romania
Kosovo
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Luxembourg
Latvia
Lithuania
Iceland
North Macedonia
Moldova
Montenegro
Ukraine
Croatia
Czech Republic
Cyprus
Fiji
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Somalia
Singapore
Kenya
Kuwait
Oman
Tunisia
Ireland
Switzerland (non-military aid)

https://en.m.wikiped...yrian_Civil_War

American's are just in it by themselves? Just because Trump said it does not make it true.

 

How many were boots on the ground in Syria and are they still there? Why are we the lead when Europe has the most to lose? The Turks don't seem to be worried about tripping over any EU forces in the area. Maybe the EU could send a peace keeping force to keep them separate?

 

 

Of course a major complicating factor is Turkey's membership of NATO.  If Syria punches back, whose side will NATO take or will it be another Falklands War scenario due to the ME not being part of NATO's purview?

 

 

If you look at that link above on the CJTF, you will see NATO is already part of the operation as far as resources are concerned.

https://en.m.wikiped...nherent_Resolve

NATO's resources are also used by CJTF-OIR, and while the operation is not taking place under the NATO banner, the coalition has pointed out that all 29 members of the military alliance are also contributors to CJTF-OIR.

 

So its just one more example of Donald Trump being wrong about NATO. And when he pulls America out, which surely will only be a matter of time, America will be paying through the nose for capablities he got for granted as part of the NATO club.  And still people will cheer him for it for sticking it to those damn Europeans.

 

 

 

 

 

When he is the leader of the free world, and he is bollocking up everything in sight, you are damn skippy I do.

 

Sorry, you've got the wrong accent to blame the state of Brexit on Trump. ;-)

 

Ill let him off on Brexit. Most Americans dont understand that either. :)


  • 0

#14671 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,587 posts

Posted Today, 01:48 AM

 

 

 



[quote name="R011" post="1452303" timestamp="1570757278"]

 [quote name="DougRichards" post="1452179" timestamp="1570700201"]
 [quote name="Stuart Galbraith" post
 
Actually that is why I admire George Bush 1st.  As a naval aviator he had experienced war, and knew when a war should be fought and for what outcomes.  When that outcome was reached he commanded that the US stop fighting.  The goal had been accomplished.  He had no desire to waste US blood or treasure on some other goal.  It is a pity that his son went to war and didn't consider that his father was correct.

Uh, no. George 1st left Saddam Hussein in office, created a no-fly zone where Iraqis couldnt fly (an act of war),and imposed a blockade (an act of war). Clinton bombed Iraq, another act of war. George 1st left is in an endless conflict.

George 2nd hamfisted attempt to bring the conflict to a close was the right thing to do, extremely poorly executed. Note that when George Patton was criticized for the number of Nazis he left in power he pointed out they were the most effective in keeping things under control. Thats the opposite of what Bush 2 did.

Nobody in the Middle East cares if blockading Iraq was proper. They notice that people who look like them are being bullied by a wealthy, distant country and they naturally resent it. George 1 left us in an endless conflict guaranteed to generate anti-Americanism.

 

Perhaps George the First realised that it would take a sociopathic dictator to be left in place to keep the lid on Iraq.

 

I personally feel, and I have coped flak for this, that George the Second went to war because his father was no longer in power but his father's opponent still was, so that GW2 was really about George the Second seeking to impose a dynastic war against Saddam.

 

We would be in less of a mess overall if Saddam had been left in power, but he may have died from natural causes by now.

 

 

Im not sure we would you know. You can look at sources online and see that the people agitating the most to bring down the sanctions were France and Russia. Who interestingly were the people that armed him in the 1980's. If Saddam had been left in place, the sanctions would have failed, and he would have rearmed, and right now he, or his kids, would probably threatening to invade Syria, or Iran, or Saudi Arabia or Kuwait again. Saddam couldnt stand the idea of being in a box. The more you put him in one, the more he tried to climb out of it. So we would have had a problem, just a different, more expensive one from the one we have.

 

One less dictator in the world is no tragedy. The tragedy was the white house (and No10, lets not evade our guilt in that mess) were full of not very smart guys that didnt realise when you get rid of a dictator, you have to replace him with a strong democratic leader. And with Iraqi society being what it is, there was nobody left to take up that mantle.

 

I think Iraq will now work out, though that isnt to say it isnt going to cost a lot more lives among Iraqi's to make it so. Such is the price of freedom I guess, and its not as if they were not dying in Iraq under Saddams reign anyway.


  • 0

#14672 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,587 posts

Posted Today, 02:01 AM

 

As for the Europeans not getting involved, it's worth taking a look at those taking part, some more serious than others, in the coalition against ISIS.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Joint_Task_Force_–_Operation_Inherent_Resolve

Contributing nations:[13]
Primary:[10]
United States
United Kingdom
France
Turkey
Australia
Canada
Jordan
Denmark
Netherlands
Belgium
Lebanon[11]
Saudi Arabia
United Arab Emirates
In support of:
Iraq
Iraqi Kurdistan
Rojava
Syrian National Army
Non-combat support only:[12]
Morocco
Qatar
Bahrain
Italy
Germany
Spain
Portugal
Poland
Georgia
Japan
Taiwan
South Korea
New Zealand
Hungary
Estonia
Austria
Albania
Greece
Bulgaria
Slovakia
Slovenia
Serbia
Romania
Kosovo
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Luxembourg
Latvia
Lithuania
Iceland
North Macedonia
Moldova
Montenegro
Ukraine
Croatia
Czech Republic
Cyprus
Fiji
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Somalia
Singapore
Kenya
Kuwait
Oman
Tunisia
Ireland
Switzerland (non-military aid)

https://en.m.wikiped...yrian_Civil_War

American's are just in it by themselves? Just because Trump said it does not make it true.

 

How many were boots on the ground in Syria and are they still there? Why are we the lead when Europe has the most to lose? The Turks don't seem to be worried about tripping over any EU forces in the area. Maybe the EU could send a peace keeping force to keep them separate?

 

 

If you look at the list, the first 10 on the list are described as being present. Ive no idea if thats still true or not, but ive read nothing to suggest the British Special Forces has been removed, and I doubt the Aussies will have either. We all get the threat ISIS presents to he world community. The French have 100 plus reasons why they should still be present. Coalition air bombardment, of which many European members have taken part, have killed 80000 ISIS members. Will we get any of the credit for that? Hardly.

 

Here is the mind fuck Donald Trump cannot sell to me. He blames us for letting terrorists in, right? Opened the borders, blames us for letting in terrorists from the middle east, a mantra keep keeps selling to his supporters. Then he blames us for NOT letting terrorists in. How the hell is that supposed to work? Even in custody, you dont allow them on your soil either, thats why you have Gitmo. So why  should we? And why does he make it sound as if he personally is being charged for their upkeep, when clearly its the Kurds themselves that are doing all the jailing?

 

Do I think they should come back? Well speaking for British ISIS members, yes, because in 1946 we had no problem jailing British members of the Waffen SS or other traitors. In the case of William Joyce, we even stretched his neck. I dont see this as different. Id even be ok with lining traitors up against the Tower of London and shooting the murderous bastards, though I accept we have moved beyond that for treachery. The negative with jailing them is that in the 1980's, there were countless hijack attempts to get terrorist's released. We probably dont want to go back down that road again, let along let them somehow become martyrs for spending their lives behind bars.

 

Ultimately, Syria was a most excellent jail for them, and there they could rot for evermore. It wasn't us that decided to unlock the door on it.


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, Today, 02:02 AM.

  • 0

#14673 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,257 posts

Posted 54 minutes ago

That covers Iraq. Why hasn't the EU taken the lead in boots on the ground in Syria since refugees from that conflict are their problem. Erdogan has threatened to open that spigot on several occasions. If you don't like how the US does it then show them how.

 

Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. They were involved in Syria from at least 2012 when the war escalated from the initial phase of the FSA insurgency after the UN-mediated truce collapsed, and sidelined the FSA by 2014. And I seem to recall that some Americans happily blamed the Arab Spring and its less desirable effects, including in Syria, on the Obama administration. I find that contribution at least overrated, but while the effects have been largely a European problem, the EU wasn't who created it. The Europeans just get to deal with it.

 

NATO has actually had a training mission for local security forces in Iraq from 2004 to 2011, and again since 2017, which in 2018 was united with the coalition-of-the-willing type arms support and training missions of the US, Australia and several European nations (France, Germany, Italy, Czech Republic etc.) for the Kurds in Northern Iraq going on since 2014. This is seperate from the anti-IS alliance conducting combat operations in both Iraq and Syria since the same time, with contributors already listed.


  • 0