User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 2:23:01 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol. You want to stop Islamic terrorism, but want to let them kill each other for as long as possible. Which is it? Or is it you don't give a damn about terrorism, as long as it's not directed against the US, or our interests? Ultimately, the religious theology behind the Islamic State WILL go to Saudi Arabia. The Arabians themselves will have to decide for themselves which Islam they wish to practice in the 21st Century. We or the Iranians, or both, can defeat the Islamic State. We cannot defeat a theology that exists within Sunni Islam, of which Iran and the US have little influence over. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: so, is our objective to ensure that ISIS doesn't go to Saudi Arabia?
I argue we are trying to stop islamic terrorism. Something which Iran sponsers, btw. Let them kill each other for as long as possible. Lol. You want to stop Islamic terrorism, but want to let them kill each other for as long as possible. Which is it? Or is it you don't give a damn about terrorism, as long as it's not directed against the US, or our interests? Ultimately, the religious theology behind the Islamic State WILL go to Saudi Arabia. The Arabians themselves will have to decide for themselves which Islam they wish to practice in the 21st Century. We or the Iranians, or both, can defeat the Islamic State. We cannot defeat a theology that exists within Sunni Islam, of which Iran and the US have little influence over. Ah. good catch. Yes. Protecting US interests. Now, if we can defeat the Islamic State without strengthening other terrorist organizations and their supporters, more power to you! IS will require a signficant ground presence to effectively combat. And right now not only does the will to deploy US forces not exist, the will to maintain their presence indefinately doesn't exist. This isn't Korea and Western Europe. You don't get 70 years of occupation to try to fundamentally change a society. I have no preference for a Sunni or Shiite Islamic State. Both have chosen violence against Americans and American interests. Now, if we wish to strengthen the defenses of "friendly" sunni states (read Kuwait Saudi Arabia et al) then fine. But as long as sunni islamic state and the shia islamic state are killing each other, all the better for western interests. The largest problem for Saudi Arabia isn't its two faced endorsement of wahhabism and its export. Its the fact that its dynastic policies are utterly confusing. 20,000 princes vying for every position. A simplistic paternal dynasty like most other kingdoms would much better stabilize the country. Ultimately if we can expand oil production outside the persian gulf while decreasing demand, you take away the money, which takes away the power. The largest problem overall is our entire strategy vis a vis islam is based upon a highly questionable and unchallenged assumption: Islam is a religion of peace. Where is the evidence for this pronouncement? And what are the ramifications if islam is not inherently peaceful? We assume that acts of terrorism commited by IS, taliban, AQ, Iran and its many proxies will utlimately work against them throughout the Umma. And yet the more videos of barbarity IS releases, the more strength it gets. The more the mullahs of qom talk about the destruction of the big satan, the more support they receive. Violence and terror appears to be selling well outside the madrassas of pakistan. From Indonesia to Morroco, the message of violence resonates and strengthens those who propogate it. So where does that leave the US? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 2:24:19 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wait a sec. WHO just spent the better part of a decade deliberately destabilizing Iraq?  Let's be very honest here. WE destabilized Iraq. We swept up some of the pieces, but let's not pretend that we didn't upset the apple cart.Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Its different this time.
I mean, sure Iran spent the better part of a decade deliberatly destabilizing Iraq. But this time they are sorry and it will be different. Only they haven't said they are sorry and have made no promises it will be different. We are just saying it for them. I somehow keep imagining Charlie Brown and Lucy playing football. Wait a sec. WHO just spent the better part of a decade deliberately destabilizing Iraq? Let's be very honest here. WE destabilized Iraq. We swept up some of the pieces, but let's not pretend that we didn't upset the apple cart.Agreed. But then when we were trying to put the pieces back together, Iran did everything they could to undermine US support for the mission. And killed at least a few hundred americans direclty and thousands more Iraqis. In the absence of direct Iranian support, US forces would still be in Iraq and there would be no IS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 2:24:36 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The first has already been done. The second doesn't equate with making someone competent to speak on US foreign policy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's a gross oversimplification of a very complex argument that I've laid out over pages and pages, but it certainly does make for a nice and tidy strawman. You really have won over everyone with your impecable logic and bona fides. You think you could get me a gig guest writing for Cicero Online magazine? Then I can tout bona fides as stellar as yours. Lol so get published. Or at least join the military. The first has already been done. The second doesn't equate with making someone competent to speak on US foreign policy. So lets read it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 2:25:16 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Were you referring to 1953? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Are you one of Obama's foreign policy advisers? I'm too smart to work for this admin. I also have too much integrity to qualify to work for them. With what you've posted in this thread, I think your forward thinking would fit in well. Accomplish half assed short term goals at the cost of long term strategic blunders that will take decades to fix. Were you referring to 1953? Try 16 May 1916. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 2:25:57 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Its the summation of a strategy of hope, against 30 years of US engagement in the ME WRT Iran. You really think you're the first guy to build an Iranian strategy that's completely self-referential to the US, with little or no consideration of what the Iranians want, think or act upon? For example, do you really think that the destruction of IS is an acheivable Iranian endstate? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That's a gross oversimplification of a very complex argument that I've laid out over pages and pages, but it certainly does make for a nice and tidy strawman. Its the summation of a strategy of hope, against 30 years of US engagement in the ME WRT Iran. You really think you're the first guy to build an Iranian strategy that's completely self-referential to the US, with little or no consideration of what the Iranians want, think or act upon? For example, do you really think that the destruction of IS is an acheivable Iranian endstate? You mean our half assed attempts at "engagement" over several administrations, which attempted not to seek common ground with the Iranians, but laid out a list of do's and don't's to get off our shit list? That engagement? The plan I laid out, if you had read it, advised a cautious approach which did factor in that Iran would have to be a willing participant in creating a change in relations between itself and the US. I made crystal clear that the US couldn't will a different relationship with Iran into existence on its own. So again, what you are saying once again completely misses the mark in comparison to what I have actually argued for. Yes, it is certainly a policy goal of Iran to destroy IS, and with or without our participation, they would do it eventually. Our help would simply speed up the time table and prevent the region from going to shit anymore than it already has. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 2:30:39 PM EDT
[#6]
Shami Witness ?@ShamiWitness 2m2 minutes ago
That is very weird for FSA. first batch of US trained dudes? Conflict Reporter ?@Conflict_Report Syrian rebels in #Daraa with new uniforms and new body armor 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 2:43:39 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol. You want to stop Islamic terrorism, but want to let them kill each other for as long as possible. Which is it? Or is it you don't give a damn about terrorism, as long as it's not directed against the US, or our interests? Ultimately, the religious theology behind the Islamic State WILL go to Saudi Arabia. The Arabians themselves will have to decide for themselves which Islam they wish to practice in the 21st Century. We or the Iranians, or both, can defeat the Islamic State. We cannot defeat a theology that exists within Sunni Islam, of which Iran and the US have little influence over. My first question is, what is the difference between post-Westphalian population-centric warfare and terrorism, in this context. Both the Iranians and IS share the endstate of the end of the Westphalian world order. How can we stop them believing in that, since its a core belief in both of their worldviews? The Second is related to the first...namely what message can the US give Sunni populations that will counter-act 50 years of combined IO to which Arab states have been subjecting their populations? Because, ultimately, the other shared core belief between Iran and IS is the religious requirement that Islamic-based rule is the only permissible political structure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 2:48:47 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Were you referring to 1953? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Are you one of Obama's foreign policy advisers? I'm too smart to work for this admin. I also have too much integrity to qualify to work for them. With what you've posted in this thread, I think your forward thinking would fit in well. Accomplish half assed short term goals at the cost of long term strategic blunders that will take decades to fix. Were you referring to 1953? Read the recent Foreign Affairs article on the Mossedegh coup. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141527/ray-takeyh/what-really-happened-in-iran Its behind a paywall, but is worth digging up at the local library. The historiography you reference is a combination of communist Tudeh and Khomenei revisionism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 2:49:51 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, it is certainly a policy goal of Iran to destroy IS, and with or without our participation, they would do it eventually. Our help would simply speed up the time table and prevent the region from going to shit anymore than it already has. Why do you think Iran can destroy IS without our participation. They couldn't stop it when they had all the advantages. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 2:53:17 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Agreed. But then when we were trying to put the pieces back together, Iran did everything they could to undermine US support for the mission. And killed at least a few hundred americans direclty and thousands more Iraqis. In the absence of direct Iranian support, US forces would still be in Iraq and there would be no IS. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Its different this time.
I mean, sure Iran spent the better part of a decade deliberatly destabilizing Iraq. But this time they are sorry and it will be different. Only they haven't said they are sorry and have made no promises it will be different. We are just saying it for them. I somehow keep imagining Charlie Brown and Lucy playing football. Wait a sec. WHO just spent the better part of a decade deliberately destabilizing Iraq? Let's be very honest here. WE destabilized Iraq. We swept up some of the pieces, but let's not pretend that we didn't upset the apple cart.Agreed. But then when we were trying to put the pieces back together, Iran did everything they could to undermine US support for the mission. And killed at least a few hundred americans direclty and thousands more Iraqis. In the absence of direct Iranian support, US forces would still be in Iraq and there would be no IS. And Iran would have been surrounded by US troops. The fact that they were going to push back surely was understood before taking that brilliant maneuver to invade Iraq. I mean, only a true genius could predict that Iran wasn't going to sit quietly as the US encircled them. It wasn't Iran that went looking to change the status quo in the region, we did. And we shot ourselves in the foot doing it because we had morons in charge in Washington at the time, and we continue to dick it up with new morons with this Administration. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 2:54:46 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So lets read it. I'm not Arock-ing myself for you. Lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 2:56:00 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not Arock-ing myself for you. Lol Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So lets read it. I'm not Arock-ing myself for you. Lol I don't care about that. Cut and paste the meat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 2:58:00 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And Iran would have been surrounded by US troops. The fact that they were going to push back surely was understood before taking that brilliant maneuver to invade Iraq. I mean, only a true genius could predict that Iran want going to sit quietly as the US encircled them. It wasn't Iran that went looking to change the status quo in the region, we did. And we shot ourselves in the foot doing it because we had morons in charge in Washington at the time, and we continue to dick it up with new morons with this Administration. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Its different this time.
I mean, sure Iran spent the better part of a decade deliberatly destabilizing Iraq. But this time they are sorry and it will be different. Only they haven't said they are sorry and have made no promises it will be different. We are just saying it for them. I somehow keep imagining Charlie Brown and Lucy playing football. Wait a sec. WHO just spent the better part of a decade deliberately destabilizing Iraq? Let's be very honest here. WE destabilized Iraq. We swept up some of the pieces, but let's not pretend that we didn't upset the apple cart.Agreed. But then when we were trying to put the pieces back together, Iran did everything they could to undermine US support for the mission. And killed at least a few hundred americans direclty and thousands more Iraqis. In the absence of direct Iranian support, US forces would still be in Iraq and there would be no IS. And Iran would have been surrounded by US troops. The fact that they were going to push back surely was understood before taking that brilliant maneuver to invade Iraq. I mean, only a true genius could predict that Iran want going to sit quietly as the US encircled them. It wasn't Iran that went looking to change the status quo in the region, we did. And we shot ourselves in the foot doing it because we had morons in charge in Washington at the time, and we continue to dick it up with new morons with this Administration. So Iran sees the US as an enemy. We are finding some common ground. Clearly, we should ally with them immediately. Because that will change what is a religious imperitive to oppose the United States. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 3:01:08 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why do you think Iran can destroy IS without our participation. They couldn't stop it when they had all the advantages. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yes, it is certainly a policy goal of Iran to destroy IS, and with or without our participation, they would do it eventually. Our help would simply speed up the time table and prevent the region from going to shit anymore than it already has. Why do you think Iran can destroy IS without our participation. They couldn't stop it when they had all the advantages. Because they haven't committed substantial forces to the effort to fight ISIS. They have relied largely on indigenous militia proxies and bolstering Peshmerga forces.They have committed only a miniscule fraction of their combat capability to ops in Syria and Iraq. They have yet to employ substantial numbers of troops or air assets to provide CAS and strike capability. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 3:02:22 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't care about that. Cut and paste the meat. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So lets read it. I'm not Arock-ing myself for you. Lol I don't care about that. Cut and paste the meat. Copy and pasting the "meat of the article" into Google would give you the same results. No thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 3:03:24 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because they haven't committed substantial forces to the effort to fight ISIS. They have relied largely on indigenous militia proxies and bolstering Peshmerga forces.They have committed only a miniscule fraction of their combat capability to ops in Syria and Iraq. They have yet to employ substantial numbers of troops or air assets to provide CAS and strike capability. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes, it is certainly a policy goal of Iran to destroy IS, and with or without our participation, they would do it eventually. Our help would simply speed up the time table and prevent the region from going to shit anymore than it already has. Why do you think Iran can destroy IS without our participation. They couldn't stop it when they had all the advantages. Because they haven't committed substantial forces to the effort to fight ISIS. They have relied largely on indigenous militia proxies and bolstering Peshmerga forces.They have committed only a miniscule fraction of their combat capability to ops in Syria and Iraq. They have yet to employ substantial numbers of troops or air assets to provide CAS and strike capability. Because they can't. If Iran can do it on their own, have at it. I non-concur with your assessment of Iranian expeditionary capbilities. Iran's military is capable of internal policing functions and the training and support of terrorist organizations. If they didn't need our help, they wouldn't be asking for it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 3:03:52 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Copy and pasting the "meat of the article" into Google would give you the same results. No thanks. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So lets read it. I'm not Arock-ing myself for you. Lol I don't care about that. Cut and paste the meat. Copy and pasting the "meat of the article" into Google would give you the same results. No thanks. Lie to me and tell me the name of the journal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 3:08:07 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Try 16 May 1916. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: With what you've posted in this thread, I think your forward thinking would fit in well.
Accomplish half assed short term goals at the cost of long term strategic blunders that will take decades to fix. Were you referring to 1953? Try 16 May 1916. Figured that's what you were talking about, but I had to look it up to check the date. Not our doing. 1953 was our doing. We had good reasons @ the time - but let's recognize the Iranian perception, and it costs us nothing now to formally apologize for it. When I was in Iraq, I was a legitimate target, and the Iranians wanted me dead. That's fair play, and EFPs on military targets are not terrorism. Our interests temporarily coincide. Why not figure out how to work with Iran in this single instance, as we worked with them during the Iran-Contra project, and when our interests are realized, then see how the relationship stands? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 3:08:07 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So Iran sees the US as an enemy. We are finding some common ground. Clearly, we should ally with them immediately. Because that will change what is a religious imperitive to oppose the United States. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Its different this time.
I mean, sure Iran spent the better part of a decade deliberatly destabilizing Iraq. But this time they are sorry and it will be different. Only they haven't said they are sorry and have made no promises it will be different. We are just saying it for them. I somehow keep imagining Charlie Brown and Lucy playing football. Wait a sec. WHO just spent the better part of a decade deliberately destabilizing Iraq? Let's be very honest here. WE destabilized Iraq. We swept up some of the pieces, but let's not pretend that we didn't upset the apple cart.Agreed. But then when we were trying to put the pieces back together, Iran did everything they could to undermine US support for the mission. And killed at least a few hundred americans direclty and thousands more Iraqis. In the absence of direct Iranian support, US forces would still be in Iraq and there would be no IS. And Iran would have been surrounded by US troops. The fact that they were going to push back surely was understood before taking that brilliant maneuver to invade Iraq. I mean, only a true genius could predict that Iran want going to sit quietly as the US encircled them. It wasn't Iran that went looking to change the status quo in the region, we did. And we shot ourselves in the foot doing it because we had morons in charge in Washington at the time, and we continue to dick it up with new morons with this Administration. So Iran sees the US as an enemy. We are finding some common ground. Clearly, we should ally with them immediately. Because that will change what is a religious imperitive to oppose the United States. Iran's leaders aren't led by religious imparatives. They are led by what they perceive as their interests. They currently see the US as an obstacle to realizing regional hegemony, which is their strategic goal. Getting the Iranians to buy into the established order promulgated by the US would defuse that antagonistic zero sum dynamic. Getting the Iranians to do so will take will and compromises on both sides. It's not impossible, but it's made much more difficult due to short sighted people like you, and by the many interests groups in the region that have an interest in seeing such efforts fail. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 3:13:13 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because they can't. If Iran can do it on their own, have at it. I non-concur with your assessment of Iranian expeditionary capbilities. Iran's military is capable of internal policing functions and the training and support of terrorist organizations. If they didn't need our help, they wouldn't be asking for it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes, it is certainly a policy goal of Iran to destroy IS, and with or without our participation, they would do it eventually. Our help would simply speed up the time table and prevent the region from going to shit anymore than it already has. Why do you think Iran can destroy IS without our participation. They couldn't stop it when they had all the advantages. Because they haven't committed substantial forces to the effort to fight ISIS. They have relied largely on indigenous militia proxies and bolstering Peshmerga forces.They have committed only a miniscule fraction of their combat capability to ops in Syria and Iraq. They have yet to employ substantial numbers of troops or air assets to provide CAS and strike capability. Because they can't. If Iran can do it on their own, have at it. I non-concur with your assessment of Iranian expeditionary capbilities. Iran's military is capable of internal policing functions and the training and support of terrorist organizations. If they didn't need our help, they wouldn't be asking for it. Basing of forces in Iraq and Syria is still viable, and logistics wouldn't be nearly as difficult as you think. Iran has nonstop flights carrying 100's of metric tons of supplies to Assad and Iraq. Iran's expeditionary capability is weak, but they wouldn't be facing an opposing nation state attempting to keep them out. Both Syria and Iraq want Iran's forces there. Lol They figure why spend their money, when they are cash strapped due to sanctions, when they can get the US to provide assistance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 3:21:37 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Iran's leaders aren't led by religious imparatives. They are led by what they perceive as their interests. They currently see the US as an obstacle to realizing regional hegemony, which is their strategic goal. Getting the Iranians to buy into the established order promulgated by the US would defuse that antagonistic zero sum dynamic. Getting the Iranians to do so will take will and compromises on both sides. It's not impossible, but it's made much more difficult due to short sighted people like you, and by the many interests groups in the region that have an interest in seeing such efforts fail. And what evidence of this is there? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You've just postulated that the Iranian leadership doesn't believe in the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist. That's an interesting position. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 3:24:30 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Basing of forces in Iraq and Syria is still viable, and logistics wouldn't be nearly as difficult as you think. Iran has nonstop flights carrying 100's of metric tons of supplies to Assad and Iraq. Iran's expeditionary capability is weak, but they wouldn't be facing an opposing nation state attempting to keep them out. Both Syria and Iraq want Iran's forces there. Lol 100s of tons of supplies? We can argue your love affair with all things Iranian all day long. But your understanding of military operations and logisitics is lacking, to say the least. If Irans proxies couldn't fight off IS initially, you think they could fight their way there? The US has real logistical capabilities and it was a hard fought effor to get through Iran's proxies to keep logistics going. You think Iran will somehow be able to go through Sunni controlled territory? Or do you think they will air bridge their logistical capabilites. Iran can't do it. Full stop. and, for hypothetical arguments sake they pull it off. They won't be able to keep it. To your earlier point. They don't like US forces near Iran? Well, they won't have it. Hows that working out for you? Iran directly supported Sunni terrorist organizations because they hate america more than they hate IS/AQ. And thats the basis for long term understanding? this isn't your grandfather's Iran. The Mullahs do run the country. yeah, no shit. Their government is set up around a shiite absolutist theocracy. They are IS, same long term objective, different tactics. A true Persia-phile would argue that giving IS a state would make them more maleable to a agreement. Thats the argument used to support Iran's Mullahs. Let IS have a state and then recognize them and incorporate them into the UN. Put them in charge of the human rights council. Thats the pro-Iran play book. Born in blood and terror. Incorporated into the westphalian nation state. But, on the other hand, sometimes they really mean it when they say, "Death to America" |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 3:26:03 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol. You want to stop Islamic terrorism, but want to let them kill each other for as long as possible. Which is it? Or is it you don't give a damn about terrorism, as long as it's not directed against the US, or our interests? Ultimately, the religious theology behind the Islamic State WILL go to Saudi Arabia. The Arabians themselves will have to decide for themselves which Islam they wish to practice in the 21st Century. We or the Iranians, or both, can defeat the Islamic State. We cannot defeat a theology that exists within Sunni Islam, of which Iran and the US have little influence over. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: so, is our objective to ensure that ISIS doesn't go to Saudi Arabia?
I argue we are trying to stop islamic terrorism. Something which Iran sponsers, btw. Let them kill each other for as long as possible. Lol. You want to stop Islamic terrorism, but want to let them kill each other for as long as possible. Which is it? Or is it you don't give a damn about terrorism, as long as it's not directed against the US, or our interests? Ultimately, the religious theology behind the Islamic State WILL go to Saudi Arabia. The Arabians themselves will have to decide for themselves which Islam they wish to practice in the 21st Century. We or the Iranians, or both, can defeat the Islamic State. We cannot defeat a theology that exists within Sunni Islam, of which Iran and the US have little influence over. The Saudi military in not the Iraqi military. While maybe not at Syria's level they are professional enough to take care of Isis(isil). They occasionally have problems with radicals and tend to wipe them out. I have spent consideral time on a Saudi military installation and you couldn't go 50 meters without running into a mosque. The Saudi's understand how the game is played. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 3:29:43 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And what evidence of this is there? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You've just postulated that the Iranian leadership doesn't believe in the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist. That's an interesting position. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Iran's leaders aren't led by religious imparatives. They are led by what they perceive as their interests. They currently see the US as an obstacle to realizing regional hegemony, which is their strategic goal. Getting the Iranians to buy into the established order promulgated by the US would defuse that antagonistic zero sum dynamic. Getting the Iranians to do so will take will and compromises on both sides. It's not impossible, but it's made much more difficult due to short sighted people like you, and by the many interests groups in the region that have an interest in seeing such efforts fail. And what evidence of this is there? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You've just postulated that the Iranian leadership doesn't believe in the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist. That's an interesting position. The concept vali-e faghih-e doesn't conflict with Iran's view of its role in the region or its strategic interests, because one doesn't rely on the other. Iran realizes that spreading the Revolution to other states and creating similar theocracies is a non-starter in a Sunni Arab region. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 3:33:28 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
100s of tons of supplies? We can argue your love affair with all things Iranian all day long. But your understanding of military operations and logisitics is lacking, to say the least. If Irans proxies couldn't fight off IS initially, you think they could fight their way there? The US has real logistical capabilities and it was a hard fought effor to get through Iran's proxies to keep logistics going. You think Iran will somehow be able to go through Sunni controlled territory? Or do you think they will air bridge their logistical capabilites. Iran can't do it. Full stop. and, for hypothetical arguments sake they pull it off. They won't be able to keep it. To your earlier point. They don't like US forces near Iran? Well, they won't have it. Hows that working out for you? Iran directly supported Sunni terrorist organizations because they hate america more than they hate IS/AQ. And thats the basis for long term understanding? this isn't your grandfather's Iran. The Mullahs do run the country. yeah, no shit. Their government is set up around a shiite absolutist theocracy. They are IS, same long term objective, different tactics. A true Persia-phile would argue that giving IS a state would make them more maleable to a agreement. Thats the argument used to support Iran's Mullahs. Let IS have a state and then recognize them and incorporate them into the UN. Put them in charge of the human rights council. Thats the pro-Iran play book. Born in blood and terror. Incorporated into the westphalian nation state. But, on the other hand, sometimes they really mean it when they say, "Death to America" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Basing of forces in Iraq and Syria is still viable, and logistics wouldn't be nearly as difficult as you think. Iran has nonstop flights carrying 100's of metric tons of supplies to Assad and Iraq. Iran's expeditionary capability is weak, but they wouldn't be facing an opposing nation state attempting to keep them out. Both Syria and Iraq want Iran's forces there. Lol 100s of tons of supplies? We can argue your love affair with all things Iranian all day long. But your understanding of military operations and logisitics is lacking, to say the least. If Irans proxies couldn't fight off IS initially, you think they could fight their way there? The US has real logistical capabilities and it was a hard fought effor to get through Iran's proxies to keep logistics going. You think Iran will somehow be able to go through Sunni controlled territory? Or do you think they will air bridge their logistical capabilites. Iran can't do it. Full stop. and, for hypothetical arguments sake they pull it off. They won't be able to keep it. To your earlier point. They don't like US forces near Iran? Well, they won't have it. Hows that working out for you? Iran directly supported Sunni terrorist organizations because they hate america more than they hate IS/AQ. And thats the basis for long term understanding? this isn't your grandfather's Iran. The Mullahs do run the country. yeah, no shit. Their government is set up around a shiite absolutist theocracy. They are IS, same long term objective, different tactics. A true Persia-phile would argue that giving IS a state would make them more maleable to a agreement. Thats the argument used to support Iran's Mullahs. Let IS have a state and then recognize them and incorporate them into the UN. Put them in charge of the human rights council. Thats the pro-Iran play book. Born in blood and terror. Incorporated into the westphalian nation state. But, on the other hand, sometimes they really mean it when they say, "Death to America" There wasn't a logical argument in any of that, but that was an average rant. I give it a 4/10. Needs more use of Netanyahu's colorful language. Lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 3:45:26 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Saudi military in not the Iraqi military. While maybe not at Syria's level they are professional enough to take care of Isis(isil). They occasionally have problems with radicals and tend to wipe them out. I have spent consideral time on a Saudi military installation and you couldn't go 50 meters without running into a mosque. The Saudi's understand how the game is played. From what I understand, a large portion of Saudi ground troops are mercenaries. They've been well paid and had to do little fighting. The Islamic State has been going clockwise around the map, probing the Syrians, the Kurds, and now the Iraqis. When the Iraqi front stabilizes, the Saudis are next. Will the Saudi army hold any better than the Iraqi Army? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 3:52:56 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Saudi military in not the Iraqi military. While maybe not at Syria's level they are professional enough to take care of Isis(isil). They occasionally have problems with radicals and tend to wipe them out. I have spent consideral time on a Saudi military installation and you couldn't go 50 meters without running into a mosque. The Saudi's understand how the game is played. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: so, is our objective to ensure that ISIS doesn't go to Saudi Arabia?
I argue we are trying to stop islamic terrorism. Something which Iran sponsers, btw. Let them kill each other for as long as possible. Lol. You want to stop Islamic terrorism, but want to let them kill each other for as long as possible. Which is it? Or is it you don't give a damn about terrorism, as long as it's not directed against the US, or our interests? Ultimately, the religious theology behind the Islamic State WILL go to Saudi Arabia. The Arabians themselves will have to decide for themselves which Islam they wish to practice in the 21st Century. We or the Iranians, or both, can defeat the Islamic State. We cannot defeat a theology that exists within Sunni Islam, of which Iran and the US have little influence over. The Saudi military in not the Iraqi military. While maybe not at Syria's level they are professional enough to take care of Isis(isil). They occasionally have problems with radicals and tend to wipe them out. I have spent consideral time on a Saudi military installation and you couldn't go 50 meters without running into a mosque. The Saudi's understand how the game is played. The Saudis have failed miserably in their attempts to assist Yemen in combating the Houthi rebels. The rebels now control the capital San'a. The Saudis can't fight for shit, even with all their western gear. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 3:53:08 PM EDT
[#28]
Double tap
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 5:13:38 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can't argue your points. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Basing of forces in Iraq and Syria is still viable, and logistics wouldn't be nearly as difficult as you think. Iran has nonstop flights carrying 100's of metric tons of supplies to Assad and Iraq. Iran's expeditionary capability is weak, but they wouldn't be facing an opposing nation state attempting to keep them out. Both Syria and Iraq want Iran's forces there. Lol 100s of tons of supplies? We can argue your love affair with all things Iranian all day long. But your understanding of military operations and logisitics is lacking, to say the least. If Irans proxies couldn't fight off IS initially, you think they could fight their way there? The US has real logistical capabilities and it was a hard fought effor to get through Iran's proxies to keep logistics going. You think Iran will somehow be able to go through Sunni controlled territory? Or do you think they will air bridge their logistical capabilites. Iran can't do it. Full stop. and, for hypothetical arguments sake they pull it off. They won't be able to keep it. To your earlier point. They don't like US forces near Iran? Well, they won't have it. Hows that working out for you? Iran directly supported Sunni terrorist organizations because they hate america more than they hate IS/AQ. And thats the basis for long term understanding? this isn't your grandfather's Iran. The Mullahs do run the country. yeah, no shit. Their government is set up around a shiite absolutist theocracy. They are IS, same long term objective, different tactics. A true Persia-phile would argue that giving IS a state would make them more maleable to a agreement. Thats the argument used to support Iran's Mullahs. Let IS have a state and then recognize them and incorporate them into the UN. Put them in charge of the human rights council. Thats the pro-Iran play book. Born in blood and terror. Incorporated into the westphalian nation state. But, on the other hand, sometimes they really mean it when they say, "Death to America" I can't argue your points. True. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 5:52:50 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry I don't have any facts to back up my arguments Mk262 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Basing of forces in Iraq and Syria is still viable, and logistics wouldn't be nearly as difficult as you think. Iran has nonstop flights carrying 100's of metric tons of supplies to Assad and Iraq. Iran's expeditionary capability is weak, but they wouldn't be facing an opposing nation state attempting to keep them out. Both Syria and Iraq want Iran's forces there. Lol 100s of tons of supplies? We can argue your love affair with all things Iranian all day long. But your understanding of military operations and logisitics is lacking, to say the least. If Irans proxies couldn't fight off IS initially, you think they could fight their way there? The US has real logistical capabilities and it was a hard fought effor to get through Iran's proxies to keep logistics going. You think Iran will somehow be able to go through Sunni controlled territory? Or do you think they will air bridge their logistical capabilites. Iran can't do it. Full stop. and, for hypothetical arguments sake they pull it off. They won't be able to keep it. To your earlier point. They don't like US forces near Iran? Well, they won't have it. Hows that working out for you? Iran directly supported Sunni terrorist organizations because they hate america more than they hate IS/AQ. And thats the basis for long term understanding? this isn't your grandfather's Iran. The Mullahs do run the country. yeah, no shit. Their government is set up around a shiite absolutist theocracy. They are IS, same long term objective, different tactics. A true Persia-phile would argue that giving IS a state would make them more maleable to a agreement. Thats the argument used to support Iran's Mullahs. Let IS have a state and then recognize them and incorporate them into the UN. Put them in charge of the human rights council. Thats the pro-Iran play book. Born in blood and terror. Incorporated into the westphalian nation state. But, on the other hand, sometimes they really mean it when they say, "Death to America" I can't argue your points. Sorry I don't have any facts to back up my arguments Mk262 It's ok Sylvan. I'm used to it with you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 7:47:28 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Probably was Mossad making those EFPs, clearly not innocent Iran our partner and friend who dindunuffin since 1979. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Sure. Maybe you have some friends who died in Iraq fighting Iranian proxies, but, you really don't care about them. Me neither. You are ensnared by the jew trap. Probably was Mossad making those EFPs, clearly not innocent Iran our partner and friend who dindunuffin since 1979. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 7:53:46 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That doesn't mean we can't have a working relationship w/ Iran to defeat the Islamic State. It might be more productive to that end than say, a working relationship with Turkey, our long-time NATO ally. Quote HistoryQuoted:
That doesn't mean we can't have a working relationship w/ Iran to defeat the Islamic State. It might be more productive to that end than say, a working relationship with Turkey, our long-time NATO ally. itshappening.jpg SURUC, Turkey — In a significant shift, Turkey’s top diplomat announced on Monday that his country is helping Iraqi Kurdish fighters cross into Syria to “give support” to fellow Kurds defending the border town of Kobani from Islamic State militants.
The remarks by Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu came hours after the U.S. military announced it for the first time had airdropped weapons, ammunition and medical supplies provided by Iraqi Kurdish authorities to Kurdish forces in Kobani. http://www.pressherald.com/2014/10/20/after-u-s-airdrop-turkey-lets-iraqi-kurds-cross-to-fight-at-kobani/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 9:55:09 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Probably was Mossad making those EFPs, clearly not innocent Iran our partner and friend who dindunuffin since 1979. http://i58.tinypic.com/rvhyde.jpg "The devils yarmulke"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 10:05:32 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Every good plan has assumptions. This article is neither good, nor a plan, but let's look at the assumptions and see if they are true. Is the American definition of help acceptable to Iran? What help can we give? At the operational to tactical level, what is it that we'd be doing, exactly? What is the backlash and cost to our critical relationships in the Sunni world, especially with countries like Morocco, Jordan, and Bahrain that support our efforts at no small cost to themselves? Why should the Americans be the Syrian Air Force, and is the end state any different than being AQ's Air Force, that was COA rejected after the Sarin attack in Syria? What is the endstate, exactly? The article doesn't say. Iran and Syria are described by the author as "self-protective powers." Is pursuing multiple campaigns of destabilizing regional neighbors in Lebanon and Yemen, conducting terror attacks in Asia and South America, and attacking US forces for decades in the ME "self-protective?" If so, this loops back to question 1, namely if the Iranians have tried to get us out of the ME for so long, why will they let us back in? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Every good plan has assumptions. This article is neither good, nor a plan, but let's look at the assumptions and see if they are true. Is the American definition of help acceptable to Iran? What help can we give? At the operational to tactical level, what is it that we'd be doing, exactly? What is the backlash and cost to our critical relationships in the Sunni world, especially with countries like Morocco, Jordan, and Bahrain that support our efforts at no small cost to themselves? Why should the Americans be the Syrian Air Force, and is the end state any different than being AQ's Air Force, that was COA rejected after the Sarin attack in Syria? What is the endstate, exactly? The article doesn't say. Iran and Syria are described by the author as "self-protective powers." Is pursuing multiple campaigns of destabilizing regional neighbors in Lebanon and Yemen, conducting terror attacks in Asia and South America, and attacking US forces for decades in the ME "self-protective?" If so, this loops back to question 1, namely if the Iranians have tried to get us out of the ME for so long, why will they let us back in? You fail to strategically nuance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 10:11:01 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And the alternative to Assad is what? Hand Syria over to the various Islamist factions that currently make up the "moderate Syrian opposition"? Give it to Al Nursa Front and Al-Queda? ISIS?Let's just double down on that Libya strategy that worked out so well. As if you really give two shits about how many people died in Tehran, or anywhere else in the region. You have no problem letting the whole region burn...  It keeps them occupied and keeps resources focused in that fight, instead of the Chik-fil-A near my house. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 10:12:33 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's ok Sylvan. I'm used to it with you. Do you think we should try your strategy with Russia? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 10:15:25 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It keeps them occupied and keeps resources focused in that fight, instead of the Chik-fil-A near my house. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And the alternative to Assad is what? Hand Syria over to the various Islamist factions that currently make up the "moderate Syrian opposition"? Give it to Al Nursa Front and Al-Queda? ISIS?Let's just double down on that Libya strategy that worked out so well. As if you really give two shits about how many people died in Tehran, or anywhere else in the region. You have no problem letting the whole region burn... It keeps them occupied and keeps resources focused in that fight, instead of the Chik-fil-A near my house. Considering it is ISIS that is the most likely to launch an attack on the U.S. homeland, perhaps that should factor into our strategic calculus...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 10:26:17 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you think we should try your strategy with Russia? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's ok Sylvan. I'm used to it with you. Do you think we should try your strategy with Russia? Russia and Iran are in two very different positions. We don't have nearly the leverage over the Russians that we do the Iranians. Employing this strategy against the Russians would require a long process of escalating the financial and diplomatic isolation of Russia. Even if we were to do so, it is unlikely we would be able to create the leverage necessary to incentivize them into seeking a new security dynamic / relationship with its neighbors and the United States. (Getting the EU to sign on to harsh sanctions against Russia isn't likely, nor is the current Admin likely to seek them.) And should sanctions fail to motivate the Russians, there is no military option comparable to that with which we can threaten the Iranians. Obviously. We have already put the Iranians through such a process, encompassing years of increasing sanctions and pressure, bringing leverage to bare that gives them reason to seek ways to break the impasse and compromise... To want better relations to decrease tensions and to reintegrate themselves into the international community. Good luck trying it with the Russians. They have the power and influence to resist coercion much better than Iran. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 10:39:02 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The first has already been done. The second doesn't equate with making someone competent to speak on US foreign policy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's a gross oversimplification of a very complex argument that I've laid out over pages and pages, but it certainly does make for a nice and tidy strawman. You really have won over everyone with your impecable logic and bona fides. You think you could get me a gig guest writing for Cicero Online magazine? Then I can tout bona fides as stellar as yours. Lol so get published. Or at least join the military. The first has already been done. The second doesn't equate with making someone competent to speak on US foreign policy. Apparently, neither does being a self-described "academic". |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 11:11:51 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Probably was Mossad making those EFPs, clearly not innocent Iran our partner and friend who dindunuffin since 1979. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Sure. Maybe you have some friends who died in Iraq fighting Iranian proxies, but, you really don't care about them. Me neither. You are ensnared by the jew trap. Probably was Mossad making those EFPs, clearly not innocent Iran our partner and friend who dindunuffin since 1979. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 11:14:29 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: That doesn't mean we can't have a working relationship w/ Iran to defeat the Islamic State. It might be more productive to that end than say, a working relationship with Turkey, our long-time NATO ally. itshappening.jpg SURUC, Turkey — In a significant shift, Turkey’s top diplomat announced on Monday that his country is helping Iraqi Kurdish fighters cross into Syria to “give support” to fellow Kurds defending the border town of Kobani from Islamic State militants.
The remarks by Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu came hours after the U.S. military announced it for the first time had airdropped weapons, ammunition and medical supplies provided by Iraqi Kurdish authorities to Kurdish forces in Kobani. http://www.pressherald.com/2014/10/20/after-u-s-airdrop-turkey-lets-iraqi-kurds-cross-to-fight-at-kobani/ Our reluctant Turkish ally. Don't get me wrong. I've met some Turkish officers, and they're on the ball. But their perceptions of their interests do not always coincide with ours. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 11:15:37 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm too smart to work for this admin. I also have too much integrity to qualify to work for them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Teaming up with a known state sponsor of terrorism in the name of fighting terrorism? Genius. Meh. We've worked with the Iranians before and they supported terrorism then too. So what? Are you one of Obama's foreign policy advisers? I'm too smart to work for this admin. I also have too much integrity to qualify to work for them. As incompetent and stupid as their handling of ISIS/Syria/Iraq have been, it seems you have a great plan to one up it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 11:18:57 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Our reluctant Turkish ally. Don't get me wrong. I've met some Turkish officers, and they're on the ball. But their perceptions of their interests do not always coincide with ours. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: That doesn't mean we can't have a working relationship w/ Iran to defeat the Islamic State. It might be more productive to that end than say, a working relationship with Turkey, our long-time NATO ally. itshappening.jpg SURUC, Turkey — In a significant shift, Turkey’s top diplomat announced on Monday that his country is helping Iraqi Kurdish fighters cross into Syria to "give support” to fellow Kurds defending the border town of Kobani from Islamic State militants. The remarks by Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu came hours after the U.S. military announced it for the first time had airdropped weapons, ammunition and medical supplies provided by Iraqi Kurdish authorities to Kurdish forces in Kobani. http://www.pressherald.com/2014/10/20/after-u-s-airdrop-turkey-lets-iraqi-kurds-cross-to-fight-at-kobani/ Our reluctant Turkish ally. Don't get me wrong. I've met some Turkish officers, and they're on the ball. But their perceptions of their interests do not always coincide with ours. The Turks are probably wounding the Kurds just a little bit before safe passage |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 11:21:01 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Its the summation of a strategy of hope, against 30 years of US engagement in the ME WRT Iran. You really think you're the first guy to build an Iranian strategy that's completely self-referential to the US, with little or no consideration of what the Iranians want, think or act upon? For example, do you really think that the destruction of IS is an acheivable Iranian endstate? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That's a gross oversimplification of a very complex argument that I've laid out over pages and pages, but it certainly does make for a nice and tidy strawman. Its the summation of a strategy of hope, against 30 years of US engagement in the ME WRT Iran. You really think you're the first guy to build an Iranian strategy that's completely self-referential to the US, with little or no consideration of what the Iranians want, think or act upon? For example, do you really think that the destruction of IS is an acheivable Iranian endstate? Not only is it an unachievable end state, it isn't even desirable from the Iranian perspective. So there is that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 11:23:01 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"The devils yarmulke" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Probably was Mossad making those EFPs, clearly not innocent Iran our partner and friend who dindunuffin since 1979. http://i58.tinypic.com/rvhyde.jpg "The devils yarmulke" bahahahaha. awesome |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 11:32:09 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As incompetent and stupid as their handling of ISIS/Syria/Iraq have been, it seems you have a great plan to one up it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Teaming up with a known state sponsor of terrorism in the name of fighting terrorism? Genius. Meh. We've worked with the Iranians before and they supported terrorism then too. So what? Are you one of Obama's foreign policy advisers? I'm too smart to work for this admin. I also have too much integrity to qualify to work for them. As incompetent and stupid as their handling of ISIS/Syria/Iraq have been, it seems you have a great plan to one up it. Coming from you sweetie, that is too cute. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 7:49:10 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Our reluctant Turkish ally. Don't get me wrong. I've met some Turkish officers, and they're on the ball. But their perceptions of their interests do not always coincide with ours. So we should then ally with our sworn enemy in the region, who has been running a massive regional destabilization campaign since 1979 resulting in the deaths of thousands, including thousands of Americans? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 7:51:23 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So we should then ally with our sworn enemy in the region, who has been running a massive regional destabilization campaign since 1979 resulting in the deaths of thousands, including thousands of Americans? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Our reluctant Turkish ally. Don't get me wrong. I've met some Turkish officers, and they're on the ball. But their perceptions of their interests do not always coincide with ours. So we should then ally with our sworn enemy in the region, who has been running a massive regional destabilization campaign since 1979 resulting in the deaths of thousands, including thousands of Americans? I know a guy from Iran. He is really cool. We just don't understand the nuances of persian cultures. Fools, we all are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 8:01:41 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From what I understand, a large portion of Saudi ground troops are mercenaries. They've been well paid and had to do little fighting. The Islamic State has been going clockwise around the map, probing the Syrians, the Kurds, and now the Iraqis. When the Iraqi front stabilizes, the Saudis are next. Will the Saudi army hold any better than the Iraqi Army? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: The Saudi military in not the Iraqi military. While maybe not at Syria's level they are professional enough to take care of Isis(isil). They occasionally have problems with radicals and tend to wipe them out. I have spent consideral time on a Saudi military installation and you couldn't go 50 meters without running into a mosque. The Saudi's understand how the game is played. From what I understand, a large portion of Saudi ground troops are mercenaries. They've been well paid and had to do little fighting. The Islamic State has been going clockwise around the map, probing the Syrians, the Kurds, and now the Iraqis. When the Iraqi front stabilizes, the Saudis are next. Will the Saudi army hold any better than the Iraqi Army? I agree that ISIS thinks they have the ability to take on the Saudi's, they will be unpleasantly suprised. The Saudi's generally are not an expendetionary force.(Yemen is the closest they came) An attack on the Saudi's won't go so well, when we did force on force with tank's and bradleys with them they failed on the offensive against us but they had M60A3's and we had M1A2's although we we serverely outnumbered. On the defensive they were successfull and very inventive in their defenses. I think ISIS needs alot more equipment before taking them on. They will be defending turf they train on every day and logistics won't be as difficult, not to mention they have a fucntioning Air Force. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 8:03:23 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Saudis have failed miserably in their attempts to assist Yemen in combating the Houthi rebels. The rebels now control the capital San'a. The Saudis can't fight for shit, even with all their western gear. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: so, is our objective to ensure that ISIS doesn't go to Saudi Arabia?
I argue we are trying to stop islamic terrorism. Something which Iran sponsers, btw. Let them kill each other for as long as possible. Lol. You want to stop Islamic terrorism, but want to let them kill each other for as long as possible. Which is it? Or is it you don't give a damn about terrorism, as long as it's not directed against the US, or our interests? Ultimately, the religious theology behind the Islamic State WILL go to Saudi Arabia. The Arabians themselves will have to decide for themselves which Islam they wish to practice in the 21st Century. We or the Iranians, or both, can defeat the Islamic State. We cannot defeat a theology that exists within Sunni Islam, of which Iran and the US have little influence over. The Saudi military in not the Iraqi military. While maybe not at Syria's level they are professional enough to take care of Isis(isil). They occasionally have problems with radicals and tend to wipe them out. I have spent consideral time on a Saudi military installation and you couldn't go 50 meters without running into a mosque. The Saudi's understand how the game is played. The Saudis have failed miserably in their attempts to assist Yemen in combating the Houthi rebels. The rebels now control the capital San'a. The Saudis can't fight for shit, even with all their western gear. Well they are not an expendetionary force and I disagree they failed miserably, they didn't commit completely. If they had it would be a different outcome. ETA: They were not only fighting the Houthi rebels they also were fighting Hezbollah and Somali mercenaries. They only entered the fray when the Houthi's attacked a border post in Saudi Arabia. they repelled the attacks and pushed the rebels back into the mountains. They had relatively high causualties by western standards but the value of human life varies in some cultures. The Jordainians and the Morrocon cammando's also join the fray as well. The Saudi's used mostly air power after the initial ground action and have since left it mostly to Yemen. I wouldn't exactly call that failing miserably but if you are pro Iranian I can understand the need for spin. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
