Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

CPslograd

This one's for Tapeworm

Recommended Posts

They also beat ISIS in Raqqa because they made about 80% of it uninhabitable due to continuous bombing.

On 10/21/2017 at 4:49 PM, I am Ram said:

Weeeeeeell...that's a bit like saying Obama swiftly killed Bin Laden after Bush didn't have the will to get it done. ISIS in Raqqa was defeated from two sides: the US-backed SDF taking Raqqa and the Russian-backed Syrians taking Mayadeen, where much of the ISIS Raqqa forces had withdrawn to months ago. Now, what's probably true is that Trump and Putin work a lot better side by side than Obama and Putin. Each does their thing and fewer shits are given, so that might translate to more decisive victories on the battlefield. 

Mayadeen came towards the end, but there is still Bukamal (and al-Qaim on the Iraqi side of it) yet left to take. A very important victory, nonetheless. 

You've probably also read about the ISIS tribal fighters switching side in eastern Dayr az-Zur province and basically handing all of the oil fields in the region to the US-backed Kurdish forces. 

Once ISIS is ultimately defeated, I wouldn't be surprised to see a war break out between the Syrian Government and the US-backed Kurds. Of course, we'll have long abandoned the Kurds by then and will have moved onto some new project somewhere, leaving them at the whim of the legimate Assad gov't and the Turks. We're already seeing this happen in the north of Syria with the opening of the Gaziantep-Aleppo road, as well as ongoing negotiations of the Russians looking the other way whilst the Turks crush the Afrin Canton. 

We've yet to see the end of the Syrian Civil War, but the end of ISIS (as a functioning quasi-state) is looming quickly I think...though I'd imagine they'll switch to more "hit-and-run" tactics and an insurgency-style force in the future. It probably means more headaches for Iraq, less for Syria, given the ever-impressive Mukhbarat (Secret Police) is still as functional as ever within the country's borders. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

Doesn't seem they gave a lot of thought to post-ISIS. Based on past experience, that doesn't bode well for the future. And Nacho Duce will own it. 

GOP has a history of being ill prepared post the hawkishness. Frigging war planning in Iraq made the fatally stupid mistake of not figuring what to do after they removed Saddam from power.  Went and dissolved the Iraq army.  Talk about a vacuum.  That's what got everything started in Iraq. I still wonder if the Bush morons had planned properly for the transition to post-Saddam, if the Sunni's would have created/backed insurgent groups.

51t4uwlffaL._SL160_SS150_.jpg324804241_0b7c67b2af_m.jpg

BCS is to Football what Fox News is to Journalism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Boise fan said:

GOP has a history of being ill prepared post the hawkishness. Frigging war planning in Iraq made the fatally stupid mistake of not figuring what to do after they removed Saddam from power.  Went and dissolved the Iraq army.  Talk about a vacuum.  That's what got everything started in Iraq. I still wonder if the Bush morons had planned properly for the transition to post-Saddam, if the Sunni's would have created/backed insurgent groups.

Many of the higher ups in ISIS weren't religious crazies; I believe a lot of them were Saddam's former officers and Ba'ath Party officials. 

Given how we handled the 2003 Invasion, I've always thought that there was a plan (probably buried in the desert somewhere under Area 51) that would have had a parade take place down the main street of Baghdad with people throwing Jasmine flowers at Bush's feet as he and Cheney drove by in a cherry-red convertible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, happycamper said:

No. Iran leaned on Iraq and they told us they wanted us out. There was nothing either president could have done at that point.

(You can easily argue that Bush's administration screwed up the occupation so that Iran was calling the shots though).

Sure there was, Obama could have removed the billions in aide just to start.

Not to mention be could have just carved out a base and told the Iraqi's to shove it like we did in Germany and Japan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bluerules009 said:

Sure there was, Obama could have removed the billions in aide just to start.

Not to mention be could have just carved out a base and told the Iraqi's to shove it like we did in Germany and Japan.

No, he couldn't have. It wasn't post WW2 and our action in Iraq would have been illegal without Iraqi government sanction. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, happycamper said:

No, he couldn't have. It wasn't post WW2 and our action in Iraq would have been illegal without Iraqi government sanction. 

 

It was post war and what body would call it illegal and why would we care?

We had just killed 100k+ civilians.

 

Not to mention our billions in aide being spend how we want is not illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

 

It was post war and what body would call it illegal and why would we care?

We had just killed 100k+ civilians.

 

Not to mention our billions in aide being spend how we want is not illegal.

Because the UN is a thing now and it would have meant another, real, war, another, invigorated insurgency, trade sanctions from the rest of the world, and probably war with a lot of other arab nations. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, happycamper said:

Because the UN is a thing now and it would have meant another, real, war, another, invigorated insurgency, trade sanctions from the rest of the world, and probably war with a lot of other arab nations. 

Not sure I am following you.  You think the UN would put trade sanctions against the US for doing something "bad" in the Middle East?  Sorry but no.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Not sure I am following you.  You think the UN would put trade sanctions against the US for doing something "bad" in the Middle East?  Sorry but no.  

I think other nations would, yeah. 

Look, we have had UN sanction for all of our "real" wars that involved occupying and invading. Everything else involved supporting one faction or the actual government. 

Explicitly going against what the Iraqi government said would have meant war, and it would have meant we were there as a conquering nation, not as a temporary occupier. Pulling out was less painful than staying would have been. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, happycamper said:

I think other nations would, yeah. 

Look, we have had UN sanction for all of our "real" wars that involved occupying and invading. Everything else involved supporting one faction or the actual government. 

Explicitly going against what the Iraqi government said would have meant war, and it would have meant we were there as a conquering nation, not as a temporary occupier. Pulling out was less painful than staying would have been. 

Nah man.  No way the UN would sanction the USA because we did something bad in the Middle East shit hole.  The world is simply not that principled.  The world is far too dependent on America to even contemplate punishing us.  We can go balls deep in the middle east or most places and the UN would not dare disrupt the global exchange of wealth that we head.  I mean come on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, happycamper said:

I think other nations would, yeah. 

Look, we have had UN sanction for all of our "real" wars that involved occupying and invading. Everything else involved supporting one faction or the actual government. 

Explicitly going against what the Iraqi government said would have meant war, and it would have meant we were there as a conquering nation, not as a temporary occupier. Pulling out was less painful than staying would have been. 

You are being ridiculous.

Trade sanctions against the U.S. hurt them more than us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

You are being ridiculous.

Trade sanctions against the U.S. hurt them more than us.

No one would ever give us sanctions. Ever. We could nuke 10 different countries and mustard gas the entire continent of Africa, with Trump (or whoever was President at the time) flying over the carnage in a helicopter screaming "I AM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!! THE STREETS WILL RUN WITH THE BLOOD OF THE NON-BELIEVERS!!!" and people from around the globe would still be lining up in droves to come into the country or to do business with us. We're that powerful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, 406WarriorFan said:

No one would ever give us sanctions. Ever. We could nuke 10 different countries and mustard gas the entire continent of Africa, with Trump (or whoever was President at the time) flying over the carnage in a helicopter screaming "I AM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!! THE STREETS WILL RUN WITH THE BLOOD OF THE NON-BELIEVERS!!!" and people from around the globe would still be lining up in droves to come into the country or to do business with us. We're that powerful.

atz81.jpg

2f4b7a6d6630ef121b87ac909e64fc509a53968c

51t4uwlffaL._SL160_SS150_.jpg324804241_0b7c67b2af_m.jpg

BCS is to Football what Fox News is to Journalism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Nah man.  No way the UN would sanction the USA because we did something bad in the Middle East shit hole.  The world is simply not that principled.  The world is far too dependent on America to even contemplate punishing us.  We can go balls deep in the middle east or most places and the UN would not dare disrupt the global exchange of wealth that we head.  I mean come on.

Did I say the U.N. would sanction us?

No. I said for our other actions, we had U.N.sanction. Big difference.

Staying would have been keeping your dick in crazy. Might have been more satisfying for 7 minutes but would have meant  decades of having your life be a living hell. Just because we are the strongest country doesn't make us immune to reality or unable to be over extended.

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If China put significant trade sanctions on us it would cause a revolution.

If Japan put trade sanctions on us it would at least cause a depression and the government would change parties.

If the EU put trade sanctions on us it would again cause a depression and more defections from the EU.

We can go on and on with examples.

 

Anyone thinking the U.S. would suffer trade sanctions is delusional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...