• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Paris

PalmettoDeac19 said:
Ultimately I don't see a long term solution that keeps Syria and Iraq intact. I think, given the highly sectarian atmosphere in the region, that a multi-ethic, multi-religious, pluralistic state united under one government in those two countries isn't realistic. The best play may be working with the regional and global powers to divide up the two nations into smaller and more homogeneous states. Let Assad retain control of the Alawite heartlands in northwest Syria. Divide the Sunni territories and empower local leaders and tribes by giving them autonomy and money in return for rooting out extremists groups in their territory. This is similar to the approach we took to bring peace to Anbar, however briefly. Give them a stake in the fight. Shi'a areas of Iraq can become vassal states to Iran if they wish, which is still preferable to all of Iraq being lost to Iran. Iran and Russia will retain their areas of influence, the Gulf states theirs, and the West can support and empower groups that are friendly to our interests (such as the Kurds perhaps). Work locally instead of trying to preserve nation states that were the artificial constructs of Britain and France to start with. Ultimately there is no complete victory on the horizon for anyone in this conflict, so a solution needs to be reached that is tolerable to all the main parties while leveraging the distrust and hatred virtually all of them share against Isis.
Click to expand...

This guy gets it. Sounds very similar to a piece Joe Biden wrote some 10 years ago.
 
PalmettoDeac19 said:
I think we need to resist the urge to look back with any fondness for dictators like Saddam. He was hardly a stabilizing force in the region, and only looks good compared to the current chaos in Iraq and Syria. It's a false choice to say that the only two possible choices in government for the Middle East are brutal, totalitarian dictatorships and Islamist dominated anarchy. In fact much of the Arab streets' hatred and distrust of the United States and the West is driven by our support for these dictatorships over the decades. Increasingly I'm seeing people coming around to the idea that we need to back Assad against Isis, but that isn't a long term solution. Virtually every Sunni group fighting in Syria hates Assad far more than Isis and overt support for Assad by the West will only inspire more attacks.

Ultimately I don't see a long term solution that keeps Syria and Iraq intact. I think, given the highly sectarian atmosphere in the region, that a multi-ethic, multi-religious, pluralistic state united under one government in those two countries isn't realistic. The best play may be working with the regional and global powers to divide up the two nations into smaller and more homogeneous states. Let Assad retain control of the Alawite heartlands in northwest Syria. Divide the Sunni territories and empower local leaders and tribes by giving them autonomy and money in return for rooting out extremists groups in their territory. This is similar to the approach we took to bring peace to Anbar, however briefly. Give them a stake in the fight. Shi'a areas of Iraq can become vassal states to Iran if they wish, which is still preferable to all of Iraq being lost to Iran. Iran and Russia will retain their areas of influence, the Gulf states theirs, and the West can support and empower groups that are friendly to our interests (such as the Kurds perhaps). Work locally instead of trying to preserve nation states that were the artificial constructs of Britain and France to start with. Ultimately there is no complete victory on the horizon for anyone in this conflict, so a solution needs to be reached that is tolerable to all the main parties while leveraging the distrust and hatred virtually all of them share against Isis.
Click to expand...

1000 words to say IDK?
 
BillBrasky said:
Sadly he's not wrong

Putin's emphasis on stability might be the smart play
Click to expand...

Only he is. Saddam was not a stabilizing force at all, nor was he pragmatic. He viewed himself as a messianic hero of the Arabs in the mold of Nasser, but didn't even realize that no other Arabs recognized his claim to leadership of the Arab world with the possible exception of disenfranchised Palestinians. He started two major conflicts in the region, and consistently thwarted efforts at maintaining nuclear nonproliferation in the region. Hafez al-Assad, while aligned against the United States, was certainly a rational actor. Saddam was not. He was mentally unstable, and prone to use force whenever he thought he was backed into a corner, which was constantly. He legitimately believed that Israel, Iran, the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Russia were all cooperating in a vast global conspiracy to keep him from assuming his rightful place on the throne of all Arabs. Even al-Assad recognized the danger of his mental incompetence, when he quietly gave the Bush administration crucial intelligence on his defense capabilities after his annexation of Kuwait.

The rational actors in the region are Abdullah, the leaders of the GCC states, and the Egyptian military establishment. These are the actors we should be working with. And in response to the inevitable counterargument that the Saudi royal family allows money to flow abroad to actors espousing Wahhabist ideology, this is a necessary evil. You do not want to see what happens if Salafists actually hold the levers of power on the peninsula, which is what would happen if the royal family attempted to consistently defy the ulema at the wishes of external powers. It would be ISIS on crack, sitting on top of trillions of dollars of oil wealth.
 
HowardDeanSux said:
You seem to be getting this backwards. They are the ones killing anyone who doesn't acquiesce to their will and their world view. Their terrorist activities will lead to a much greater US presence. Obama was withdrawing our troops. I would love to read your solution. Just love them a little more and all will be ok? Having spent some time in Iraq, let me assure you, the people in this region do not think this way.
Click to expand...

Nope Nope Nope. We're the bad guys. We broke 1978 Afghanistanirvana and kill millions of civilians because Cheney wanted to. Please try to pay closer to attention. Where have you gone, Saddam Hussein? Puss Nation turns its lonely eyes to you...
 
Last edited:
WakeForestRanger said:
Afghanistan was one of the poorest countries in the world before the Soviet invasion. It made some modest modernization between 1933-1973 that was largely limited to its urban areas. 85% of its population was rural and lived pretty much the way they had for centuries. A lot of the moderization it did experience was in the 1960's as it benefitted from Cold War aid and assistance from both the USA and the USSR.

Obviously, the wars that have raged there have destroyed most of what infrastructure was there before.
Click to expand...

See that was easy.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Agreed. I am not in favor of bombing them again, I would just take all of the trillions of dollars that would be spent doing that towards a strategy of extensive access control to flights and boats coming into the US, Canada, and Mexico. If you have any ties to a middle eastern country or Islam, I don't care if you are the Muslim version of Mother Theresa, you ain't getting in here. You lost your collective chance, and we don't need your business/money. Then increase investigations on everyone already here to clear them of affiliation.
Click to expand...

jhmd2000 said:
Right. The Soviets dropped a bomb on the one bridge and then we hit the other one. That pretty much did it.
Click to expand...

Who took out the orchestras?
 
While the French were taking action, our President was, uhm, busy saying this: "I’m sure that in the days ahead we’ll learn more about exactly what happened, and my teams will make sure that we are in communication with the press to provide you accurate information. I don’t want to speculate at this point in terms of who was responsible for this."


That's adorable.

 
jhmd2000 said:
Nope Nope Nope. We're the bad guys. We broke 1978 Afghanistanirvana and kill millions of civilians because Cheney wanted to. Please try to pay closer to attention. Where have you gone, Saddam Hussein? Puss Nation turns its lonely eyes to you...
Click to expand...

there he is. jhmd, you're a military guy. Give us the high-level look at the new war on ISIS. What are the targets? How many troops required. How much will it cost? How does the region look afterward, and how long is our surge'y occupation? How much will that cost?

This is so exciting!
 
jhmd2000 said:
While the French were taking action, our President was, uhm, busy saying this: "I’m sure that in the days ahead we’ll learn more about exactly what happened, and my teams will make sure that we are in communication with the press to provide you accurate information. I don’t want to speculate at this point in terms of who was responsible for this."


That's adorable.

Click to expand...

They were the ones attacked, right? But you're right, we should strike when the French are hit! How much does that cost me the US taxpayer?
 
jhmd2000 said:
While the French were taking action, our President was, uhm, busy saying this: "I’m sure that in the days ahead we’ll learn more about exactly what happened, and my teams will make sure that we are in communication with the press to provide you accurate information. I don’t want to speculate at this point in terms of who was responsible for this."


That's adorable.
Click to expand...

You prefer your wars to be started troops first, enemy determined later, I know. I wouldn't call it adorable, but it's something.
 
The French asked Obama to do something and he didn't do it? What a fucking dumbass, he should have just start deploying jets immediately after the smoked cleared in Paris.
 
Shorty said:
Clearly not a classical music lover.
Click to expand...

You see, Shorty, in the Idyllic Kingdom of Pre-Soviet Invasion Afghanistan, the streets were paved with locally-sourced organic gold by Union workers who were paid $15.00 per hour and had 11 months of paid family leave per year. Each day, the State's Gross Domestic Product was harvested by the government and redistributed among the population according to their want and need. Then as now, the population was 99.7% Islamic, so it was simply too peaceful a place to have a need for any form of law enforcement. The Universities---free to all who could desire to attend them---were filled with cisgender girls reading autographed copies of The People's History of the United States, but there were no tests since the teachers---all of whom were hardworking---innately knew which students were the most gifted and which students were simply above average.

Thanks for absolutely nothing, 1979.
 
WakeandBake said:
They were the ones attacked, right? But you're right, we should strike when the French are hit! How much does that cost me the US taxpayer?
Click to expand...

Reports are that France is going to invoke Article 5 of NATO. So everybody is going to be involved soon.
 
TownieDeac said:
You prefer your wars to be started troops first, enemy determined later, I know. I wouldn't call it adorable, but it's something.
Click to expand...

I'm just glad the President has learned that he has to endeavor to tell the truth about workplace violence sparked by a Youtube video terrorism. This is a milestone we shouldn't casually brush off.
 
WakeandBake said:
The French asked Obama to do something and he didn't do it? What a fucking dumbass, he should have just start deploying jets immediately after the smoked cleared in Paris.
Click to expand...

Hell no, I think we're overdue for some Sweet Baby James.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top