User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 8:17:55 AM EDT
[#1]
Regarding Saudi Arabia,I highly suggest reading http://www.amazon.com/Saudi-Arabia-Exposed-Kingdom-Updated/dp/1403970777
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 8:30:27 AM EDT
[#2]
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? Why not? Not like the Saudis killing thousands of American citizens, destroying the WTC, hitting the Pentagon, etc has done anything to reduce the fervor with which our government kisses their ass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 8:31:57 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why not? Not like the Saudis killing thousands of American citizens, destroying the WTC, hitting the Pentagon, etc has done anything to reduce the fervor with which our government kisses their ass. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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? Why not? Not like the Saudis killing thousands of American citizens, destroying the WTC, hitting the Pentagon, etc has done anything to reduce the fervor with which our government kisses their ass. The question is whether that was the Saudi Government's policy. Saudi government is hated by both ISIS and Iran. Iranian government policy is the killing of Americans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 9:23:45 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The question is whether that was the Saudi Government's policy. Saudi government is hated by both ISIS and Iran. Iranian government policy is the killing of Americans. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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? Why not? Not like the Saudis killing thousands of American citizens, destroying the WTC, hitting the Pentagon, etc has done anything to reduce the fervor with which our government kisses their ass. The question is whether that was the Saudi Government's policy. Saudi government is hated by both ISIS and Iran. Iranian government policy is the killing of Americans. Also in '79, the Grand Mosque seizure, which kicked off modern Wahhabi as we now know it, was concluded with the phrase purportedly from the Saudi king: "...the solution to the religious upheaval was simple -- more religion..." So while Riyadh probably didn't cut any orders on 9/11, they certainly are responsible for a lot of American deaths. And sure ISIS hates the Saudi government. But the Saudi rank and file? They are pretty cozy, it seems: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/saudi-funding-of-isis And of course, don't forget, Saudis sent a lot of money to the wrong people in Iraq during the height of fighting there: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-12-08-saudis-sunnis_x.htm American foreign policy shouldn't be driven by supporting Sunni over Shiite states. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 9:34:43 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:Also in '79, the Grand Mosque seizure, which kicked off modern Wahhabi as we now know it, was concluded with the phrase purportedly from the Saudi king: "...the solution to the religious upheaval was simple -- more religion..."
So while Riyadh probably didn't cut any orders on 9/11, they certainly are responsible for a lot of American deaths. And sure ISIS hates the Saudi government. But the Saudi rank and file? They are pretty cozy, it seems: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/saudi-funding-of-isis And of course, don't forget, Saudis sent a lot of money to the wrong people in Iraq during the height of fighting there: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-12-08-saudis-sunnis_x.htm American foreign policy shouldn't be driven by supporting Sunni over Shiite states. Saudi arabia is not a monolith. But, to your point, my proposal is to support neither. Let them kill each other, conventionally. Many are proposing that somehow shiite islamic terrorism is OK and we should be on the side of the mullahs. Fuck them both. But to ally with Iran is to hand them a nuclear weapon. For a people that use "Death to America" as a daily greeting, that would seem, from an American viewpoint at least, foolish. But, I am no academic. It takes a Chomsky type figure to justify that level of stupidity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:32:03 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. Pro-Iranian? Lol. I'm advocating a position that is in US interests. The fact that you and others are incapable of seeing that doesn't make me a fan of the Mullahs. And spin? I don't need to spin the Saudis' failures. They speak for themselves. It's hilarious that you would say that it is me doing the spinning of events when you are the one making all kinds of excuses for the Saudis' failure to accomplish their objectives in Yemen... I, on the other hand, am only telling you the result of their failures. They were fighting Hezbollah and skinny ass Somali mercenaries? And they weren't successful? You certainly didn't just bolster the Saudis' competence by pointing that out. Lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:35:24 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Saudi arabia is not a monolith. But, to your point, my proposal is to support neither. Let them kill each other, conventionally. Many are proposing that somehow shiite islamic terrorism is OK and we should be on the side of the mullahs. Fuck them both. But to ally with Iran is to hand them a nuclear weapon. For a people that use "Death to America" as a daily greeting, that would seem, from an American viewpoint at least, foolish. But, I am no academic. It takes a Chomsky type figure to justify that level of stupidity. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:Also in '79, the Grand Mosque seizure, which kicked off modern Wahhabi as we now know it, was concluded with the phrase purportedly from the Saudi king: "...the solution to the religious upheaval was simple -- more religion..."
So while Riyadh probably didn't cut any orders on 9/11, they certainly are responsible for a lot of American deaths. And sure ISIS hates the Saudi government. But the Saudi rank and file? They are pretty cozy, it seems: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/saudi-funding-of-isis And of course, don't forget, Saudis sent a lot of money to the wrong people in Iraq during the height of fighting there: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-12-08-saudis-sunnis_x.htm American foreign policy shouldn't be driven by supporting Sunni over Shiite states. Saudi arabia is not a monolith. But, to your point, my proposal is to support neither. Let them kill each other, conventionally. Many are proposing that somehow shiite islamic terrorism is OK and we should be on the side of the mullahs. Fuck them both. But to ally with Iran is to hand them a nuclear weapon. For a people that use "Death to America" as a daily greeting, that would seem, from an American viewpoint at least, foolish. But, I am no academic. It takes a Chomsky type figure to justify that level of stupidity. Shocker that you wouldn't be a fan of Chomsky. Lol By the way... everything you just posted was a load of crap. No one is talking about a formal alliance. And no one is going to just allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. We've been over this, and why your assumptions are stupid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 10:49:34 AM EDT
[#8]
So we aren't going to allow Iran to have Nukes? Such insight. How amazingly progressive, that takes us...To exactly where we have been.
Didn't you say a few pages back that Obama's recent policies are too forgiving on Irans nukes? So they are already getting more than you propose for incentive, and aren't doing what we want to be our new good friend. The police would call that a clue. One of a million enormous, raging clues that should poke you in the face about Iran. But hey if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit. Am I right? OJ had a better case for defense than the Iranians do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 11:23:26 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So we aren't going to allow Iran to have Nukes? Such insight. How amazingly progressive, that takes us...To exactly where we have been.
Didn't you say a few pages back that Obama's recent policies are too forgiving on Irans nukes? So they are already getting more than you propose for incentive, and aren't doing what we want to be our new good friend. The police would call that a clue. One of a million enormous, raging clues that should poke you in the face about Iran. But hey if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit. Am I right? OJ had a better case for defense than the Iranians do. The fact that Obama is being too flexible isn't a problem with the strategy, it's a problem with the implementation. There is a huge difference. Technically, even the flexibility they are offering Iran could work, if the Iranians were interested in keeping to the terms of the deal, but there is no reason to be so flexible, since we are the ones with the leverage. Obama is pissing away that leverage by giving such good terms to the Iranians. Until a deal gets done, the Iranians aren't likely to be as helpful as they could be. Somehow, the Obama admin has turnEd their desire for a deal into Iranian leverage. This article explains how the Obama Admin managed to find themselves in this position. Even then, if a deal is done, the Iranians could remain in compliance with it, and remain a nuclear capable state, that never crosses the threshold. Time will tell if such a deal actually gets done, what the terms will be if it does, and how the Iranians comply with the terms agreed to. I think we could exert much more pressure on the Iranians through sanctions and get much better terms, but I'm not advising the President. The president's advisors probably fear Iran will respond to such pressure not by giving concessions, but with escalation, taking the lid off their program and enriching to 20% or above as a response. The Iranians could also start up the other 10,000 centrifuges they currently have sitting dormant, doubling their enrichment capacity, which would certainly be very bad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 11:36:17 AM EDT
[#10]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 12:04:04 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Shocker that you wouldn't be a fan of Chomsky. Lol By the way... everything you just posted was a load of crap. No one is talking about a formal alliance. And no one is going to just allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. We've been over this, and why your assumptions are stupid. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:Also in '79, the Grand Mosque seizure, which kicked off modern Wahhabi as we now know it, was concluded with the phrase purportedly from the Saudi king: "...the solution to the religious upheaval was simple -- more religion..."
So while Riyadh probably didn't cut any orders on 9/11, they certainly are responsible for a lot of American deaths. And sure ISIS hates the Saudi government. But the Saudi rank and file? They are pretty cozy, it seems: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/saudi-funding-of-isis And of course, don't forget, Saudis sent a lot of money to the wrong people in Iraq during the height of fighting there: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-12-08-saudis-sunnis_x.htm American foreign policy shouldn't be driven by supporting Sunni over Shiite states. Saudi arabia is not a monolith. But, to your point, my proposal is to support neither. Let them kill each other, conventionally. Many are proposing that somehow shiite islamic terrorism is OK and we should be on the side of the mullahs. Fuck them both. But to ally with Iran is to hand them a nuclear weapon. For a people that use "Death to America" as a daily greeting, that would seem, from an American viewpoint at least, foolish. But, I am no academic. It takes a Chomsky type figure to justify that level of stupidity. Shocker that you wouldn't be a fan of Chomsky. Lol By the way... everything you just posted was a load of crap. No one is talking about a formal alliance. And no one is going to just allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. We've been over this, and why your assumptions are stupid. Oh, an informal alliance. Much better. Everything I posted was a fact. Maybe not visible from the ivory tower of your community college, but still there. And if you have insight into tehran's actual nuclear program, and not the publicly available bullshit (aka NOT facts) maybe you should share that with NIC. Pretty important info. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 12:38:09 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pro-Iranian? Lol. I'm advocating a position that is in US interests. The fact that you and others are incapable of seeing that doesn't make me a fan of the Mullahs. And spin? I don't need to spin the Saudis' failures. They speak for themselves. It's hilarious that you would say that it is me doing the spinning of events when you are the one making all kinds of excuses for the Saudis' failure to accomplish their objectives in Yemen... I, on the other hand, am only telling you the result of their failures. They were fighting Hezbollah and skinny ass Somali mercenaries? And they weren't successful? You certainly didn't just bolster the Saudis' competence by pointing that out. Lol Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. 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. Pro-Iranian? Lol. I'm advocating a position that is in US interests. The fact that you and others are incapable of seeing that doesn't make me a fan of the Mullahs. And spin? I don't need to spin the Saudis' failures. They speak for themselves. It's hilarious that you would say that it is me doing the spinning of events when you are the one making all kinds of excuses for the Saudis' failure to accomplish their objectives in Yemen... I, on the other hand, am only telling you the result of their failures. They were fighting Hezbollah and skinny ass Somali mercenaries? And they weren't successful? You certainly didn't just bolster the Saudis' competence by pointing that out. Lol I'm sorry I misunderstood your position, I am just a lowly High school graduate so I misinterpreted your stating how great an alliance with Iran would be with a pro Iranian stance. I have no idea what Saudi's objectives are. I know that the Houthi's jumped a border crossing and occupied some Saudi territory. The Saudi's pushed them out and back into the mountains while they were engaged on the ground. Now don't get me wrong , the Saudi's are not a first world military power, but neither is ISIS, Iran or even Russia. As too saying hezbullah and Somali Mercs are not a worthy adversary for the Saudi's, consider this, The Isreali's struggled against hezbullah in Lebanon last go around and a few thousand skinny warlords tied up Ranger company for a few days, so I think you dismiss them to easily |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 1:44:31 PM EDT
[#13]
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? You're speaking of Saudi Arabia or Iran? We're allied with both @ the moment. We have a formal alliance with Saudi Arabia, quite a few of whose citizens have waged active war against us for religious reasons. We have an informal alliance with Iran, which in the past we have sometimes cooperated with, and sometimes fought - sometimes openly, sometimes covertly. We might as well make the most of this informal alliance with Iran while it lasts. To do otherwise gives tactical advantage to the forces of the Islamic State. The Iranians are already well aware of our capabilities, having studied us closely for the last decade in Iraq and Afghanistan, so we're not giving any secrets away by co-operating with them on the ground. The other alternative, if you believe we must do SOMETHING about the Islamic State, is to commit massive amounts of ground troops. That will crush it, and the theology will take 10 years or so to become virulent in Saudi Arabia. So we'll have peace long enough that I can retire. Or we can let the Iranians, Syians, and Iraqis do the dirty work, and let them call us targets we can hit w/ our airpower & drones. Which is apparently the informal alliance with Iran we currently have. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 1:53:58 PM EDT
[#14]
Providing support to the Iranians in Iraq reminds me of Obama's other endeavor to the south:
"We should team up with the Sinola Cartel and arm them in order to combat gun running and drug cartels in Mexico and the US." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 1:57:01 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Providing support to the Iranians in Iraq reminds me of Obama's other endeavor to the south: "We should team up with the Sinola Cartel and arm them in order to combat gun running and drug cartels in Mexico and the US." Good analogy. And almost as distubing as your avatar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 2:03:32 PM EDT
[#16]
The major problem with the IS image-wise is the fact that they make other crazies like AQ and Hezbollah look restrained or even moderate (I recently saw somewhere the oxymoronic label 'moderate terrorist', I shit you not!). This, I think, is a dangerous perception. The atrocity spectacle of the IS does not make AQ or Hezbollah or Hamas any less dangerous to the Western world and its interests. Just something worth bearing in mind.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 2:06:20 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The major problem with the IS image-wise is the fact that they make other crazies like AQ and Hezbollah look restrained or even moderate (I recently saw somewhere the oxymoronic label 'moderate terrorist', I shit you not!). This, I think, is a dangerous perception. The atrocity spectacle of the IS does not make AQ or Hezbollah or Hamas any less dangerous to the Western world and its interests. Just something worth bearing in mind. What is interesting is that we are not the audience for the IS PR campaign. They show the brutality and depravity to attract recruits. And it works. So what does that say about "hearts and minds?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 2:14:24 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What is interesting is that we are not the audience for the IS PR campaign. They show the brutality and depravity to attract recruits. And it works. So what does that say about "hearts and minds?" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The major problem with the IS image-wise is the fact that they make other crazies like AQ and Hezbollah look restrained or even moderate (I recently saw somewhere the oxymoronic label 'moderate terrorist', I shit you not!). This, I think, is a dangerous perception. The atrocity spectacle of the IS does not make AQ or Hezbollah or Hamas any less dangerous to the Western world and its interests. Just something worth bearing in mind. What is interesting is that we are not the audience for the IS PR campaign. They show the brutality and depravity to attract recruits. And it works. So what does that say about "hearts and minds?" What you suggest is very disturbing indeed. In order for Hezbollah or AQ or Hamas or the next new Kid Jihad on the block to compete for the same human resources they would have to get even more hardcore with the unbelievers and the heretics. We've already seen the beheadings and the stonings. What's next, human centipedes? Scheissekrieg? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 4:24:07 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm sorry I misunderstood your position, I am just a lowly High school graduate so I misinterpreted your stating how great an alliance with Iran would be with a pro Iranian stance. I have no idea what Saudi's objectives are. I know that the Houthi's jumped a border crossing and occupied some Saudi territory. The Saudi's pushed them out and back into the mountains while they were engaged on the ground. Now don't get me wrong , the Saudi's are not a first world military power, but neither is ISIS, Iran or even Russia. As too saying hezbullah and Somali Mercs are not a worthy adversary for the Saudi's, consider this, The Isreali's struggled against hezbullah in Lebanon last go around and a few thousand skinny warlords tied up Ranger company for a few days, so I think you dismiss them to easily Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. 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. Pro-Iranian? Lol. I'm advocating a position that is in US interests. The fact that you and others are incapable of seeing that doesn't make me a fan of the Mullahs. And spin? I don't need to spin the Saudis' failures. They speak for themselves. It's hilarious that you would say that it is me doing the spinning of events when you are the one making all kinds of excuses for the Saudis' failure to accomplish their objectives in Yemen... I, on the other hand, am only telling you the result of their failures. They were fighting Hezbollah and skinny ass Somali mercenaries? And they weren't successful? You certainly didn't just bolster the Saudis' competence by pointing that out. Lol I'm sorry I misunderstood your position, I am just a lowly High school graduate so I misinterpreted your stating how great an alliance with Iran would be with a pro Iranian stance. I have no idea what Saudi's objectives are. I know that the Houthi's jumped a border crossing and occupied some Saudi territory. The Saudi's pushed them out and back into the mountains while they were engaged on the ground. Now don't get me wrong , the Saudi's are not a first world military power, but neither is ISIS, Iran or even Russia. As too saying hezbullah and Somali Mercs are not a worthy adversary for the Saudi's, consider this, The Isreali's struggled against hezbullah in Lebanon last go around and a few thousand skinny warlords tied up Ranger company for a few days, so I think you dismiss them to easily Sure, Hezbollah is capable. But the larger issue in the 2006 Lebanon war was that the Israeli military is made up of mostly reservists and conscripts that suck. They don't do so well against people armed with more than just rocks. I won't comment on the Somalia situation because brave Americans died that day, but it should never have happened and wouldn't have happened if the General incharge of that mission would have gotten the resources he requested for the mission. His requests were rejected by his command. Saudi's military still blows balls, as do the rest of the Arab world's militaries. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 5:52:31 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good analogy. And almost as distubing as your avatar. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Providing support to the Iranians in Iraq reminds me of Obama's other endeavor to the south: "We should team up with the Sinola Cartel and arm them in order to combat gun running and drug cartels in Mexico and the US." Good analogy. And almost as distubing as your avatar. Nancy Pelosi is my spirit animal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 6:57:57 PM EDT
[#21]
I was once affronted by this mk who presumed to lecture me about my personal legacy of the Winter War (my grandfather died fighting Soviet Communists in 1941, which was more mk has ever done), but lately I have come to view him as a kind of a dressed monkey that dances for my personal amusement.
I just want to say this thread delivers entertainment. Edited so as not to question MK262's profound knowledge and sincere intentions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 7:51:43 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was once affronted by this mk who presumed to lecture me about my personal legacy of the Winter War (my grandfather died fighting Soviet Communists in 1941, which was more mk has ever done), but lately I have come to view him as a kind of a dressed monkey that dances for my personal amusement. I just want to say this thread delivers entertainment. Edited so as not to question MK262's profound knowledge and sincere intentions. If you are going to violate the CoC and insult me, at least insult me well. That was just whiney and gay. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 8:04:16 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you are going to violate the CoC and insult me, at least insult me well. That was just whiney and gay. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I was once affronted by this mk who presumed to lecture me about my personal legacy of the Winter War (my grandfather died fighting Soviet Communists in 1941, which was more mk has ever done), but lately I have come to view him as a kind of a dressed monkey that dances for my personal amusement. I just want to say this thread delivers entertainment. Edited so as not to question MK262's profound knowledge and sincere intentions. If you are going to violate the CoC and insult me, at least insult me well. That was just whiney and gay. you are a sensitive soul. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 8:24:46 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
you are a sensitive soul. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was once affronted by this mk who presumed to lecture me about my personal legacy of the Winter War (my grandfather died fighting Soviet Communists in 1941, which was more mk has ever done), but lately I have come to view him as a kind of a dressed monkey that dances for my personal amusement. I just want to say this thread delivers entertainment. Edited so as not to question MK262's profound knowledge and sincere intentions. If you are going to violate the CoC and insult me, at least insult me well. That was just whiney and gay. you are a sensitive soul. Not really. Though I do have a soft spot for dogs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 8:45:58 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nancy Pelosi is my spirit animal. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Providing support to the Iranians in Iraq reminds me of Obama's other endeavor to the south: "We should team up with the Sinola Cartel and arm them in order to combat gun running and drug cartels in Mexico and the US." Good analogy. And almost as distubing as your avatar. Nancy Pelosi is my spirit animal. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2014 5:58:33 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not really. Though I do have a soft spot for dogs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was once affronted by this mk who presumed to lecture me about my personal legacy of the Winter War (my grandfather died fighting Soviet Communists in 1941, which was more mk has ever done), but lately I have come to view him as a kind of a dressed monkey that dances for my personal amusement. I just want to say this thread delivers entertainment. Edited so as not to question MK262's profound knowledge and sincere intentions. If you are going to violate the CoC and insult me, at least insult me well. That was just whiney and gay. you are a sensitive soul. Not really. Though I do have a soft spot for dogs. You would not enjoy the muslim world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2014 10:15:06 AM EDT
[#27]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2014 12:26:17 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not really. Though I do have a soft spot for dogs. Even this dog? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2014 1:02:58 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Even this dog? http://boulderjewishnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/oliver_chandler_1024.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not really. Though I do have a soft spot for dogs. Even this dog? http://boulderjewishnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/oliver_chandler_1024.jpg That's fucking hilarious. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2014 2:14:50 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
...But to ally with Iran is to hand them a nuclear weapon... I don't see how this all plays out with American interests (Iraq, KSA) protected where Iran doesn't come out ahead. We're going to bash ISIS, they're gonna sink their hooks even further into Iraq and Syria. Short of hitting Iran, not a lot to be done about it. But the nuclear question is completely separate. We will kill/marry/fuck ISIS, Al Nusra, FSA, Hizbollah, Iraq, you name it, and that won't affect our actions or lack of actions re: their nuke. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2014 2:17:44 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't see how this all plays out with American interests (Iraq, KSA) protected where Iran doesn't come out ahead. We're going to bash ISIS, they're gonna sink their hooks even further into Iraq and Syria. Short of hitting Iran, not a lot to be done about it. But the nuclear question is completely separate. We will kill/marry/fuck ISIS, Al Nusra, FSA, Hizbollah, Iraq, you name it, and that won't affect our actions or lack of actions re: their nuke. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
...But to ally with Iran is to hand them a nuclear weapon... I don't see how this all plays out with American interests (Iraq, KSA) protected where Iran doesn't come out ahead. We're going to bash ISIS, they're gonna sink their hooks even further into Iraq and Syria. Short of hitting Iran, not a lot to be done about it. But the nuclear question is completely separate. We will kill/marry/fuck ISIS, Al Nusra, FSA, Hizbollah, Iraq, you name it, and that won't affect our actions or lack of actions re: their nuke. Let Iran defend their equities. We have top men arguing Iran doesn't need our help anyway, so why give it them. However, if we cooperate with Iran, they will demand a pound of flesh, and that will be the lifting of sanctions. You can already see Obama preparing to do just that. If we stay out of it, we can continue to pressure Iran. If we get involved, we can't. They are linked. If not in your mind, then certainly in both Iran's mind and the current administration. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2014 2:22:57 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Let Iran defend their equities. We have top men arguing Iran doesn't need our help anyway, so why give it them. However, if we cooperate with Iran, they will demand a pound of flesh, and that will be the lifting of sanctions. You can already see Obama preparing to do just that. If we stay out of it, we can continue to pressure Iran. If we get involved, we can't. They are linked. If not in your mind, then certainly in both Iran's mind and the current administration. Lifting or reducing sanctions in return for airstrikes against ISIS (maybe some IRG spotters?) would be more a matter of incredibly weak American negotiating than of any logical tit-for-tat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2014 2:24:52 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lifting or reducing sanctions in return for airstrikes against ISIS (maybe some IRG spotters?) would be more a matter of incredibly weak American negotiating than of any logical tit-for-tat. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Let Iran defend their equities. We have top men arguing Iran doesn't need our help anyway, so why give it them. However, if we cooperate with Iran, they will demand a pound of flesh, and that will be the lifting of sanctions. You can already see Obama preparing to do just that. If we stay out of it, we can continue to pressure Iran. If we get involved, we can't. They are linked. If not in your mind, then certainly in both Iran's mind and the current administration. Lifting or reducing sanctions in return for airstrikes against ISIS (maybe some IRG spotters?) would be more a matter of incredibly weak American negotiating than of any logical tit-for-tat. and....? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2014 2:33:45 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
and....? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Lifting or reducing sanctions in return for airstrikes against ISIS (maybe some IRG spotters?) would be more a matter of incredibly weak American negotiating than of any logical tit-for-tat. and....? Oh, nothing. Just stating the obvious. Everyone should be steeled to the fact that American foreign policy is pretty much count to potato. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2014 2:36:05 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oh, nothing. Just stating the obvious.
Everyone should be steeled to the fact that American foreign policy is pretty much count to potato. At least ARFCOM is well-prepared to take high-resolution photographs of..... oh, wait.... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2014 2:58:31 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh, nothing. Just stating the obvious. Everyone should be steeled to the fact that American foreign policy is pretty much count to potato. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lifting or reducing sanctions in return for airstrikes against ISIS (maybe some IRG spotters?) would be more a matter of incredibly weak American negotiating than of any logical tit-for-tat. and....? Oh, nothing. Just stating the obvious. Everyone should be steeled to the fact that American foreign policy is pretty much count to potato. Exactly. Totally agree with Tomislav's analysis. There is nothing wrong in the approach I've argued for, but plenty of room for dicking it up by poor management and negotiating from the current Administration. I still don't ever see a true quid pro quo happening in exchange for acquiesce on Iranian nuclear capability. The administration wants a comprehensive nuclear deal to avert a crisis... Not because they want Iran's help with ISIS. The two issues are separate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2014 5:20:23 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Exactly. Totally agree with Tomislav's analysis. There is nothing wrong in the approach I've argued for, but plenty of room for dicking it up by poor management and negotiating from the current Administration. I still don't ever see a true quid pro quo happening in exchange for acquiesce on Iranian nuclear capability. The administration wants a comprehensive nuclear deal to avert a crisis... Not because they want Iran's help with ISIS. The two issues are separate. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lifting or reducing sanctions in return for airstrikes against ISIS (maybe some IRG spotters?) would be more a matter of incredibly weak American negotiating than of any logical tit-for-tat. and....? Oh, nothing. Just stating the obvious. Everyone should be steeled to the fact that American foreign policy is pretty much count to potato. Exactly. Totally agree with Tomislav's analysis. There is nothing wrong in the approach I've argued for, but plenty of room for dicking it up by poor management and negotiating from the current Administration. I still don't ever see a true quid pro quo happening in exchange for acquiesce on Iranian nuclear capability. The administration wants a comprehensive nuclear deal to avert a crisis... Not because they want Iran's help with ISIS. The two issues are separate. And here is the separation between theory and reality. In theory, things are separate. In reality, they are all connected. And that is prioritization of objectives. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2014 8:09:32 PM EDT
[#38]
BAGHDAD — Speaking from a base besieged by Islamic State fighters, a police lieutenant in Anbar province painted a grim picture of the Iraqi government's faltering hold on this restive western region. Surrounded on all sides, he expects the jihadi group to be within firing range any day now.
Sitting just to the west of Hit, a small town along a key highway connecting the city of Haditha to Anbar's provincial capital of Ramadi, al-Asad is the largest military base in Anbar and one of just two that remain in government control. Last week, after first attacking the eastern edge of Hit with suicide bombers, Islamic State militants overran the town. The United Nations says the ensuing clashes displaced more than 180,000 people. "Unfortunately, after we lost Hit, [the Islamic State] has been advancing dramatically," the lieutenant explained over the phone. "They're coming specifically for us." http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/10/21/barbarians_at_the_gates_of_baghdad_anbar_province_isis_iraq |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2014 8:24:43 PM EDT
[#39]
Boeing has sold plane parts to Iran Air, the first time it has done business with the Tehran's national carrier since the 1979 hostage crisis, the US aviation firm reported.
The sales generated $120,000 in revenue, Boeing said, ending a 35-year break in business between the two air companies prohibited under decades of US sanctions. "During the third quarter of 2014, we sold aircraft manuals, drawings, and navigation charts and data to Iran Air," Boeing said in its quarterly report. The sales earned Boeing $12,000 in gross profits, according to the report. In April, the US government issued a license allowing Boeing, for a "limited period of time," to provide "spare parts that are for safety purposes" to Iran. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/10/boeing-sells-first-parts-iran-since-1979-20141022231229101691.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2014 8:27:39 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Boeing has sold plane parts to Iran Air, the first time it has done business with the Tehran's national carrier since the 1979 hostage crisis, the US aviation firm reported. The sales generated $120,000 in revenue, Boeing said, ending a 35-year break in business between the two air companies prohibited under decades of US sanctions. "During the third quarter of 2014, we sold aircraft manuals, drawings, and navigation charts and data to Iran Air," Boeing said in its quarterly report. The sales earned Boeing $12,000 in gross profits, according to the report. In April, the US government issued a license allowing Boeing, for a "limited period of time," to provide "spare parts that are for safety purposes" to Iran. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/10/boeing-sells-first-parts-iran-since-1979-20141022231229101691.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2014 8:41:42 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe we can sell them some TOWs next to replace the ones Reagan sold them. You know...for safety purposes.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Boeing has sold plane parts to Iran Air, the first time it has done business with the Tehran's national carrier since the 1979 hostage crisis, the US aviation firm reported.
The sales generated $120,000 in revenue, Boeing said, ending a 35-year break in business between the two air companies prohibited under decades of US sanctions. "During the third quarter of 2014, we sold aircraft manuals, drawings, and navigation charts and data to Iran Air," Boeing said in its quarterly report. The sales earned Boeing $12,000 in gross profits, according to the report. In April, the US government issued a license allowing Boeing, for a "limited period of time," to provide "spare parts that are for safety purposes" to Iran. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/10/boeing-sells-first-parts-iran-since-1979-20141022231229101691.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Nah, parts for their tomcats and maybe some JDAMs so they can "attack IS", we'll be bestist friends then |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2014 9:35:21 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe we can sell them some TOWs next to replace the ones Reagan sold them. You know...for safety purposes.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Boeing has sold plane parts to Iran Air, the first time it has done business with the Tehran's national carrier since the 1979 hostage crisis, the US aviation firm reported.
The sales generated $120,000 in revenue, Boeing said, ending a 35-year break in business between the two air companies prohibited under decades of US sanctions. "During the third quarter of 2014, we sold aircraft manuals, drawings, and navigation charts and data to Iran Air," Boeing said in its quarterly report. The sales earned Boeing $12,000 in gross profits, according to the report. In April, the US government issued a license allowing Boeing, for a "limited period of time," to provide "spare parts that are for safety purposes" to Iran. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/10/boeing-sells-first-parts-iran-since-1979-20141022231229101691.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Iran makes their own copies of the TOW now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 12:36:39 AM EDT
[#43]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 12:38:35 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And here is the separation between theory and reality. In theory, things are separate. In reality, they are all connected. And that is prioritization of objectives. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lifting or reducing sanctions in return for airstrikes against ISIS (maybe some IRG spotters?) would be more a matter of incredibly weak American negotiating than of any logical tit-for-tat. and....? Oh, nothing. Just stating the obvious. Everyone should be steeled to the fact that American foreign policy is pretty much count to potato. Exactly. Totally agree with Tomislav's analysis. There is nothing wrong in the approach I've argued for, but plenty of room for dicking it up by poor management and negotiating from the current Administration. I still don't ever see a true quid pro quo happening in exchange for acquiesce on Iranian nuclear capability. The administration wants a comprehensive nuclear deal to avert a crisis... Not because they want Iran's help with ISIS. The two issues are separate. And here is the separation between theory and reality. In theory, things are separate. In reality, they are all connected. And that is prioritization of objectives. They don't have to be, and they will only be so if the Administration allows it to happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 2:13:05 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And here is the separation between theory and reality. In theory, things are separate. In reality, they are all connected. And that is prioritization of objectives. Why are you mocking the pride of the Penn-Foster School of Medical Billing and Encoding & International Relations? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 4:26:42 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why are you mocking the pride of the Penn-Foster School of Medical Billing and Encoding & International Relations? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And here is the separation between theory and reality. In theory, things are separate. In reality, they are all connected. And that is prioritization of objectives. Why are you mocking the pride of the Penn-Foster School of Medical Billing and Encoding & International Relations? That's funny coming from someone who can't pay for their own $24 membership and who probably graduated from Paul Mitchell's beauty college.
Try again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 4:27:06 AM EDT
[#47]
Doubletap
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 4:33:44 AM EDT
[#48]
What's the situation at Mosul Dam?
That's the key to taking Baghdad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 11:49:33 AM EDT
[#49]
Conflict News ?@rConflictNews 10m10 minutes ago
Intense photo of an #ISIS member on the edge of a Coalition airstrike in #Kobane 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 11:50:46 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Conflict News ?@rConflictNews 10m10 minutes ago Intense photo of an #ISIS member on the edge of a Coalition airstrike in #Kobane https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0pETJ2IEAEV4kg.jpg |
|
|
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.
