BF2S Forums United States War in Iraq -- Can We Afford to Lose?

Slavoj Žižek

The so-called “war on terror” has become a clash within each civilisation, in which every side pretends to fight Isis in order to hit its true enemy
...
Recently as the fierce clashes between Russian army and Isis terrorists raging across the war-torn Syria, countless number of Isis injured fighters enter the Turkish territory and are being admitted in the military hospitals.
...
The deal between the EU and Turkey anounced at the end of November (under which Turkey will curb the flow of refugees into Europe in exchange for a generous financial help, initially €3bn) is a shamelessly disgusting act, a proper ethico-political catastrophe. Is this how the “war on terror” is to be conducted, by way of succumbing to the Turkish blackmail and rewarding one of the main culprits of the rise of Isis in Syria?

http://www.newstatesman.com/world/middl … out-turkey


What an embarrassingly ignorant article from someone who is supposed to be very intelligent and thoughtful. Even people who are supposed to be the apex of leftist thought are completely disconnected from reality regarding the situation on the ground and solutions.

I don't think anyone has any illusions about any actors involved in that conflict being 'good guys'.

like, legitimately, how many conflicts do you know in history that have clearly been a case of good vs evil, or David and Goliath? that stuff belongs to myth and Hollywood movies, not history. as a history student im kind of surprised about how naive you are towards this whole thing.

Last edited by uziq (2015-12-13 03:33:41)

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/d … -airstrike

good job. seems assad and russia have more precise weapons at their disposal than dropping barrel bombs on peasant markets. one more promulgator of sunni death-cult cancer gone to dust. merry xmas.

i am totally pro-putin.

sunni extremist and anti-ISIS --> must be one of our guys

maybe he would have had a successful late career in flying airliners into western skyscrapers.

Last edited by uziq (2015-12-26 11:08:52)

why is it respectable to fight Russians or Iranians? ISIS are a short term aberration; Sunni extremism is the long term strategic foe in the region, imo.

Sunni extremism does palpable harm to our societies here and now. the red bear or Iranian nuke are mostly kept for the Hollywood imaginary.

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Sunni extremists can't destroy nations other than their own. Russian aggression and Iranian nuclear ambitions are a threat to human survival.

Sunni extremists nearly brought down the USSR once, arguably they did.

Saudi Sunni extremists carried out 9/11 and suckered us all into 10 years of war, now Saudi and Qatari sponsored Sunni extremists are sweeping across the rest of the ME and North Africa, and colonising Europe.

Iran has never attacked anyone, Iranian nuclear weapons are no threat to anyone - provided the Sunnis don't get hold of them.
If Israeli and Saudi agitation had not misdirected us against Iran the Iranians would not even be seeking the bomb.

Who are the real threats? Israel and the Saudis.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2015-12-26 15:54:07)

Western involvement in the ME is basically tied to Israel and oil - without them we could fence it off and forget about it - just as we do with Africa and Asia.
The Sunni-Shia rift would be a spectator sport.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2015-12-26 23:01:42)

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Russia ate Crimea and the world barely responded.

I find it difficult to feel too sorry for Nazi Ukraine.

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Iraqi Security Forces finally took back Ramadi. Took them forever even with airstrikes. Now they have to hold it from ISIS counter offensives and insurgents still in the city. Best of luck to them.

Had the U.S. had units leading the offensive or lightly mixed in with Iraqi forces, this city would have fell quicker and so many ISIS fighters wouldn't have escaped. We wouldn't have to occupy it either. Could have just set up base  away from it and supported the Iraqi forces from counter offensives when needed. But Obama doesn't have the stomach to do that.

It took the US over 6 months to "take" Ramadi in 2006.  It took ISIS about the same amount of time to take it back in 2014/2015..  It took the Iraqi Forces about the same amount of time to take it from ISIS in 2015.

Tell us more about your RISK strategies for liberating the Middle East, Mr. Armchair PFC.

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Right Sector has one seat in parliament. And they started in response to the Russian invasion. Most European countries have right wing groups with one or two seats in parliament.

You drank the Russian coolaid.

As opposed to what non-koolaid, exactly? I don't actually care what inspired Neo-Nazis to become the face of Ukrainian paramilitary imagery export. I'm not shedding tears for the government of a front-page corruption indexer.

It was all I felt like addressing. Is this what you envision?

you argue points without any basis.  "If the US helped with troops on the ground it would have been faster" despite the fact that the US armed forces fought largely an ISIS and AQI force just like the insurgents that are currently fighting there and it took roughly the same amount of time, with somewhat similar results.  The solution isn't as simple as throwing some boots on the ground and it's a bit silly for you to say that.  I'm not an Army strategist, and I'm certainly not ignorant enough to talk about how to solve what is obviously a very intricate and FUBAR'd situation in Ramadi as if I have any idea what I am talking about.

You seem to offer up very generic and broad solutions to detailed and involved problems, including in Syria and Iraq.  It's not that simple, and you as a credentialed history buff should be smarter than that.

It reminds me of a dumb army vet I had a class with who was arguing about how to take Iraq and he drew a basic picture of the region with the Tigris and the Euphrates and invoked the Maginot Line in his stupid little RISK-light "push all the troops to this position, and then defend this position" battle cry.

Argue against my point that if we carpet bomb the city then we don't have to worry about Ramadi anymore.  You can't, so by default my strategy is correct. It's nonsense all the way down, man.