NorthDallas40
Displaced Hillbilly
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2014
- Messages
- 56,764
- Likes
- 82,464
IDGAF about who does what as long as we (The United States) isn't wasting more blood and treasure over there.
That’s not going to happen. Putin is too smart to let that happen. They will slowly get rid of ISIS. Syria will consolidate its power. Iran will build more bases in Syria, Putin will broker a deal between Assad and Erdogan and Putin will go back to Moscow and proclaim that Russia did wha the imperialist Americans could not by defeating ISIS.No. That isn’t what the thread said. All of the parties really don’t like each other anyway but they hate ISIS more, for varying reasons. So let them kill ISIS and maybe along the way kill a bit of each other too!
As long as we aren’t involved go nuts!
Works for me!That’s not going to happen. Putin is too smart to let that happen. They will slowly get rid of ISIS. Syria will consolidate its power. Iran will build more bases in Syria, Putin will broker a deal between Assad and Erdogan and Putin will go back to Moscow and proclaim that Russia did wha the imperialist Americans could not by defeating ISIS.
Exactly.That's almost exactly what I said a few days ago. We've been flailing and floundering around over there since the post Shah days. We have spent (owe) Trillions and don't have any more real influence now than we did then. If we leave and Russia fills the void do you think they will fare any better than we did? If they try to take over their politics and defy the people it will be them facing IEDs, roadside, bombs and hit and run snipers. They will be just like we have been. Not safe anywhere except behind their barbed wire perimeters. They will spend their money and lose their soldiers just like we have. Get the hell out of there and let the law of the jungle rule the region.
I hope our nukes are out of Incirlik. Erdogan wants his Ottoman Empire, including parts of Iraq.
Those weapons, one senior official said, were now essentially Erdogan’s hostages. To fly them out of Incirlik would be to mark the de facto end of the Turkish-American alliance. To keep them there, though, is to perpetuate a nuclear vulnerability that should have been eliminated years ago.
That's almost exactly what I said a few days ago. We've been flailing and floundering around over there since the post Shah days. We have spent (owe) Trillions and don't have any more real influence now than we did then. If we leave and Russia fills the void do you think they will fare any better than we did? If they try to take over their politics and defy the people it will be them facing IEDs, roadside, bombs and hit and run snipers. They will be just like we have been. Not safe anywhere except behind their barbed wire perimeters. They will spend their money and lose their soldiers just like we have. Get the hell out of there and let the law of the jungle rule the region.
I’m sure you will continue to throw whatever rhetoric you can to try and make people think involving our military in civil war is righteous and just and in the lesser dominant parties self interest. Btw how did Gilpin feel about the 2003 invasion of Iraq?I guess I could have just been more direct and hit you with Robert Gilpin's Hegemonic stability theory.
I’m sure you will continue to throw whatever rhetoric you can to try and make people think involving our military in civil war is righteous and just and in the lesser dominant parties self interest. Btw how did Gilpin feel about the 2003 invasion of Iraq?
So a civil war by its very definition implies insurrection with a sovereign entities own population does it not? And in your second statement it sounds like you’re selling carlos’s we’re only meddling for their own good because we’re big and strong and know what’s best mentality.So, does a civil war only occur within established borders, or do we bow out of every regional conflict with a long history of tribal/religious conflicts?
So a civil war by its very definition implies insurrection with a sovereign entities own population does it not? And in your statement sentence it sounds like you’re selling carlos’s we’re only meddling for their own good because we’re big and strong and know what’s best mentality.
I honestly don’t know how a one size fits all answer can be given. Do I think they are a civil war? No. Could exiled nationals operate from across an adjacent border to promote civil unrest? Sure. I don’t know that is the issue in every case however. For example look at Kashmir. As was explained to me by an Indian coworker yesterday everything was fine until the damn Brit’s moved people for the sake of religious alignment. And nobody has gotten any peace since. His opinion not mine. But you could use that as an example of an ongoing border skirmish exacerbated by people exiled from their former residences?No, not really, on the selling Carlos's take. I was more interested if you thought border disputes were technically still a civil war, if the wars/skirmishes predate someone declaring sovereign borders.
His analysis of what lead to the Iraq War was correct just like he is correct that once a hegemon lacks the will to lead, and the capability to enforce international laws and standards the international order goes into chaos.I’m sure you will continue to throw whatever rhetoric you can to try and make people think involving our military in civil war is righteous and just and in the lesser dominant parties self interest. Btw how did Gilpin feel about the 2003 invasion of Iraq?
Edit: I know how he felt. I went and looked up the article. Enjoy.
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals
I honestly don’t know how a one size fits all answer can be given. Do I think they are a civil war? No. Could exiled nationals operate from across an adjacent border to promote civil unrest? Sure. I don’t know that is the issue in every case however. For example look at Kashmir. As was explained to me by an Indian coworker yesterday everything was fine until the damn Brit’s moved people for the sake of religious alignment. And nobody has gotten any peace since. His opinion not mine. But you could use that as an example of an ongoing border skirmish exacerbated by people exiled from their former residences?
You’re still trying to rationalize it’s ok and righteous even for us to fill a power vacuum... even if we had a hand in creating it. And we de facto DID create it in Iraq. GTFO with that war hawk rationalization. You can and we in fact have used that rationale to maintain a constant state of war for 18+ years now.His analysis of what lead to the Iraq War was correct just like he is correct that once a hegemon lacks the will to lead, and the capability to enforce international laws and standards the international order goes into chaos.
So this is about Israel and Palestine?Considering the redrawing of ME borders by western nations has created more problems than it has ever solved. I think just washing hands of the whole mess is a convenient cop out. At the very least, I'm not sure how we, with a straight face, say "respect the borders"