Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Middle Eastern Conflict [General]

2,523 replies to this topic
Doland J. Trump
  • Doland J. Trump

    Li'l G Loc

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2012
  • United-States

#61

Posted 16 June 2014 - 02:34 AM

See, this is why nobody should have pulled any troops out. It was only a matter of time. Now I know people say America shouldn't act as a global police force but when this happens American and other countries like Australia need to act. Terrorism is a global problem and it must be eradicated. I give it just under a week before US jets are in Iraq. 


a20characterusername
  • a20characterusername

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2013
  • None

#62

Posted 16 June 2014 - 02:42 AM Edited by gtarelatedusername2, 16 June 2014 - 02:46 AM.

 

Another US invasion won't help anyone.

Do you suggest it's better to let those terrorists take over the country?

 

Oh stop with all the fearmongering already. You sound like an AIPAC lobbyist for crying out loud.

 

This "war on terror' is just an excuse for endless, undeclared wars against anyone who doesn't play ball with the U.S., which only creates more aggression in the form of blowback. It's a neverending cycle.

 

f*cking neoconservatives, how do they work?

  • Shmoopy, Perez84, Special Members and 1 other like this

ddyoung
  • ddyoung

    Get freaky... Not that freaky

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2010
  • England

#63

Posted 16 June 2014 - 03:12 AM

See, this is why nobody should have pulled any troops out. It was only a matter of time. Now I know people say America shouldn't act as a global police force but when this happens American and other countries like Australia need to act. Terrorism is a global problem and it must be eradicated. I give it just under a week before US jets are in Iraq. 

We never should have gone in to Iraq in the first place. But what's done is done. The USS George HW Bush along with 2 guided missile ships have been deployed to the Persian Gulf. They might help the Iraqi AF, but I think they're there to deter ISIS from going into Baghdad. The CIA and US special operations units are probably already involved in the fighting, but I hope it doesn't escalate from that.


Eris
  • Eris

    Ghetto Star

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2013
  • None

#64

Posted 16 June 2014 - 03:24 AM

See, this is why nobody should have pulled any troops out. It was only a matter of time. Now I know people say America shouldn't act as a global police force but when this happens American and other countries like Australia need to act. Terrorism is a global problem and it must be eradicated. I give it just under a week before US jets are in Iraq. 

The only reason this is happening is because the US got involved. 


KD himan
  • KD himan

    The Electro AfghaN™

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2013
  • Vietnam

#65

Posted 16 June 2014 - 05:15 AM Edited by KD himan, 16 June 2014 - 05:26 AM.

I can't imagine how 2.75 Lakh iraqi soldiers cant break out 12 thousand Terrorists and because of such war, india is in big trouble, the currency will have less value and gold and silver may be much expensive as well as petrol. on the other side, in afghanistan, terrorists are cutting off the fingers of people who are voting. and also in iraq, they are uploading the photos on how they are cruel, killing the iraqi soldiers. i really don't want to post such photos on society. please sorry.


SouthLand
  • SouthLand

    CE SABADELL FC

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2013
  • Spain

#66

Posted 16 June 2014 - 05:43 AM

These guys are ambitious:

 

isid-in-hedefinde-turkiye-de-mi-var--446

 

 

 

Hahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahaha

 

They can dream all they want... By the way, the map is quite wrong, they did NOT conquer the whole peninsula:

 

Green stands for the Arab occupation :

 

Spanish_reconquista-es.gif


Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#67

Posted 16 June 2014 - 06:41 AM

 

These guys are ambitious:

 

isid-in-hedefinde-turkiye-de-mi-var--446

 

 

 

Hahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahaha

 

They can dream all they want... By the way, the map is quite wrong, they did NOT conquer the whole peninsula:

 

Green stands for the Arab occupation :

 

Spanish_reconquista-es.gif

 

 

 

Umayyad-Empire.png

 

That's a map of the Umayyad Caliphate at its greatest extent. While it's not the entirety of the Iberian peninsula, it's pretty close. If you look back on page 2, I linked a map which shows the spread of Islam, which includes Ottoman, Umayyad, and other conquests. It goes up into modern day France and includes the entire peninsula. 

 

The extra areas shown might just be the creators saying, "Hey, why not out-do our predecessors?"


SouthLand
  • SouthLand

    CE SABADELL FC

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2013
  • Spain

#68

Posted 16 June 2014 - 07:11 AM

 

 

These guys are ambitious:

 

isid-in-hedefinde-turkiye-de-mi-var--446

 

 

 

Hahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahaha

 

They can dream all they want... By the way, the map is quite wrong, they did NOT conquer the whole peninsula:

 

Green stands for the Arab occupation :

 

Spanish_reconquista-es.gif

 

 

 

Umayyad-Empire.png

 

That's a map of the Umayyad Caliphate at its greatest extent. While it's not the entirety of the Iberian peninsula, it's pretty close. If you look back on page 2, I linked a map which shows the spread of Islam, which includes Ottoman, Umayyad, and other conquests. It goes up into modern day France and includes the entire peninsula. 

 

The extra areas shown might just be the creators saying, "Hey, why not out-do our predecessors?"

 

 

They are just crazy... 


K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Best Poster [Technology / Programming] 2016
    Best Poster [Programming] 2015
    Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#69

Posted 16 June 2014 - 07:38 AM

So apparently US is already in the talks with Iran about what they can do in Iraq. No talks of direct cooperation yet, but it already looks like ISIS has pushed US-Iran relations further along than they have been in a very long time.

 

And I doubt there is any reason for US to put boots on the ground. Between Iraqis that are enlisting and potential help from Iran ground forces, they have the troops they need. If US can provide intelligence and air support, that's all the help they will need.


Lil ski
  • Lil ski

    Hawai'i 5-O

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2012

#70

Posted 16 June 2014 - 01:58 PM

So they got the US Marine FAST teams about to go in and rescue everyone the f*ck outta the US Embassy in Baghdad and another 500 Marines on stand by just in case sh*t goes south. I hope the boys will be alright. I'm not hoping for another boots on ground assault or anything, we already had enough 15 years of this sh*t but these crazy ass niggas need to be dealt with some way or another!

SingularSoul
  • SingularSoul

    "Danger zonnnne".

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2013
  • Scotland
  • Contribution Award [Snapmatic Competition]

#71

Posted 16 June 2014 - 03:34 PM

1 word; Oil.
  • Detective Phelps likes this

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#72

Posted 16 June 2014 - 06:05 PM

oil has literally nothing to do with the current Iraqi conflict, but that's like the 5th time somebody has mentioned it in this thread.

  • gta dad likes this

SingularSoul
  • SingularSoul

    "Danger zonnnne".

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2013
  • Scotland
  • Contribution Award [Snapmatic Competition]

#73

Posted 16 June 2014 - 06:50 PM Edited by SingularSoul, 16 June 2014 - 09:44 PM.

oil has literally nothing to do with the current Iraqi conflict, but that's like the 5th time somebody has mentioned it in this thread.

 

Are you honestly trying to suggest that our governments actually give a sh*t about anything that goes on in the middle east?

Money talks in politics. If they sniff oil, they'll use any excuse to get their corporate mittens on it.

 

Ok, so perhaps there's little return left on Iraq's oil; That doesn't mean it's not the reason we want to get involved.

Truth be told, it's simply continuity to support the middle east, in order to keep up the act that we "give a sh*t".

Frankly, I'd rather we invested our defense budgets into paying off our national debts, or funding public services.

War and conflict is never the answer.

 

As much as I sympathize with those involved in conflict, I still feel like we have no business getting involved in the issues of other states.

If they're going to fight, they're going to fight. 

That'll never change, until their ideology's change; intervention or no intervention.

 

Wrong.


El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#74

Posted 16 June 2014 - 08:49 PM

Are you honestly trying to suggest that our governments actually give a sh*t about anything that goes on in the middle east?

no.

 

but that's not what I said.

what I said is this: "oil has literally nothing to do with the current Iraqi conflict,"

 

you may now try to respond again.

  • sivispacem likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#75

Posted 16 June 2014 - 09:34 PM

Anyone who thinks the current sectarian conflict in Iraq has anything to do with oil must be living in some bizarre alternate reality. The initial invasion had nothing really to do with oil (if it did, then why do the Chinese and Russians run basically all of Iraq's oil economy for their benefit?) so the idea the ongoing conflict does it totally ludicrous.
  • Brad, Failure, gta dad and 1 other like this

SingularSoul
  • SingularSoul

    "Danger zonnnne".

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2013
  • Scotland
  • Contribution Award [Snapmatic Competition]

#76

Posted 16 June 2014 - 09:41 PM Edited by SingularSoul, 16 June 2014 - 09:48 PM.

 

Are you honestly trying to suggest that our governments actually give a sh*t about anything that goes on in the middle east?

no.

 

but that's not what I said.

what I said is this: "oil has literally nothing to do with the current Iraqi conflict,"

 

you may now try to respond again.

 

 

 

Anyone who thinks the current sectarian conflict in Iraq has anything to do with oil must be living in some bizarre alternate reality. The initial invasion had nothing really to do with oil (if it did, then why do the Chinese and Russians run basically all of Iraq's oil economy for their benefit?) so the idea the ongoing conflict does it totally ludicrous.

 

Turns out, I was wrong. *holds hands up*

This is what I get for listening to my father's rhetoric.

 

After spending the last hour reading into the crisis, I realize that listening to your parent's opinions on controversial topics is never a good place to start.

 

Goddamn, now I look like a right tit. :p

 

EDIT: tin-foil-hat-3.jpg

  • Davo the Assassin likes this

Moth
  • Moth

    Sheamus McF*ckyourself

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2006
  • Canada

#77

Posted 16 June 2014 - 09:45 PM

 (if it did, then why do the Chinese and Russians run basically all of Iraq's oil economy for their benefit?)

The Illuminati used the US to pave the way for the Russians and Chinese! It all makes perfect sense, you see!

  • I<3GTAV likes this

ddyoung
  • ddyoung

    Get freaky... Not that freaky

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2010
  • England

#78

Posted 17 June 2014 - 03:51 AM

So the US has deployed 275 special forces members to evacuate the US embassy in Baghdad. I wonder if they'll also go on the offensive with capture/kill missions against ISIS


SouthLand
  • SouthLand

    CE SABADELL FC

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2013
  • Spain

#79

Posted 17 June 2014 - 06:02 AM

Bush did the right thing invading Iraq. There where nuclear weapons Remember?  :santa:


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#80

Posted 17 June 2014 - 06:33 AM

I don't think it was ever alleged that Iraq had nuclear weapons.

acmilano
  • acmilano

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2011

#81

Posted 17 June 2014 - 06:35 PM

http://edition.cnn.c...html?hpt=imi_c2

 

Quite a horrible pictures of executions. But it is obviously with pragmatic goal. This way all the people who were involved in executions become co-conspirators in crime and have to fight  for ISIS till death. End of ISIS would mean also personal end for all who are involved.


Moth
  • Moth

    Sheamus McF*ckyourself

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2006
  • Canada

#82

Posted 17 June 2014 - 08:45 PM

I don't think it was ever alleged that Iraq had nuclear weapons.

Just WMDs, and the first thing people think of, are nukes.


ddyoung
  • ddyoung

    Get freaky... Not that freaky

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2010
  • England

#83

Posted 18 June 2014 - 12:42 AM

 

I don't think it was ever alleged that Iraq had nuclear weapons.

Just WMDs, and the first thing people think of, are nukes.

 

Iraq had chemical weapons, but they were removed after the Gulf War. Bush and Blair said that he had amassed a new arsenal that may or may not include nukes. And with the Global War on Terror as good a reason as any, they invaded a country which had nothing to do with 9/11. While I don't agree with the war, I do support the removal of Saddam, but we really should not have stayed so long in Iraq or Afghanistan. 

  • SingularSoul likes this

Moth
  • Moth

    Sheamus McF*ckyourself

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2006
  • Canada

#84

Posted 18 June 2014 - 12:45 AM

Well the Poles did find Sarin gas warheads.

http://www.foxnews.c...sarin-warheads/


Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#85

Posted 18 June 2014 - 12:48 AM

 

 

I don't think it was ever alleged that Iraq had nuclear weapons.

Just WMDs, and the first thing people think of, are nukes.

 

Iraq had chemical weapons, but they were removed after the Gulf War. Bush and Blair said that he had amassed a new arsenal that may or may not include nukes. And with the Global War on Terror as good a reason as any, they invaded a country which had nothing to do with 9/11. While I don't agree with the war, I do support the removal of Saddam, but we really should not have stayed so long in Iraq or Afghanistan. 

 

 

To add to what Moth said in case you don't trust FOX, here's an official U.S. DoD report:

 

http://www.defense.g...e.aspx?id=15918

  • Moth likes this

ddyoung
  • ddyoung

    Get freaky... Not that freaky

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2010
  • England

#86

Posted 18 June 2014 - 12:58 AM

Well then, I guess we went in with a purpose other than oil.  :blink:


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#87

Posted 18 June 2014 - 07:09 AM

Even disregarding the findings on active WMD programs (though it is worth pointing out that we've found chemical weapon munitions in Iraq and the precursors for chemical weapons, these have tended to be quite old and usually beyond their shelf life) Iraq violated numerous UN treaties designed to prevent them from constructing and testing long-range missile technology. Had the focus of politicians been on the missiles and not their possible warheads...

WTFThisIsntWii
  • WTFThisIsntWii

    Twerk Team

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2014
  • Australia

#88

Posted 18 June 2014 - 07:38 AM

NATO countries need to think about their contribution, the best method would be to provide both medical, security, logistical, geospatial and intelligence support. Whether it be logistical. Iraq is going to counterattack eventually and anyone who's been deployed with the Iraqi Army or ANA know they are not renounced for planning their offensives tactically and have a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later. By providing both intelligence and data NATO can ensure these forces are definitely attacking ISIS militants rather than civilians. We've already had reports of Iraqi Army helicopters shooting at their own troops after mistakenly identifying them as ISIS.

 

As far as I know from briefings on the situation in Iraq is that the US started deploying troops on the 15th of June. There are approximately 170 US military personnel with boots on the ground in Baghdad already with another 105 or so being cleared for deployment shortly. As far as I know from the US Marine's I speak to on base these troops are not Special Forces and are essentially there to help government and diplomatic staff with evacuation. But there are rumours around base that the US military is considering deploying Special Forces troops if the situation in the capital escalates but it would only be an authorised as an AT mission not an actual combat op.

 

Right now as it stands from an Australian perspective my regiment and the SASR are both currently on standby alert for a deployment to Iraq to help evacuate any Australian embassy staff or government officials should the fighting reach Baghdad. Although putting troops on the ground would only be a worst case scenario. Side note we are also on standby for a deployment to Nigeria.

  • Spaghetti Cat likes this

Doc Rikowski
  • Doc Rikowski

    First Generation Gamer

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 May 2008
  • Mars
  • Best Gang 2013 - D1RTY12
    Best Event 2011 "Turf Wars"

#89

Posted 18 June 2014 - 09:29 AM Edited by Doc Rikowski, 18 June 2014 - 09:37 AM.

As many pointed out the current conflict is focused on other issues.

But let's be honest and not so naive, the West obviously had substantial economical interests when it got involved in the Iraq war a decade ago and so far had substantial gains for being part of it.

 

True, Russia and China are getting away with most of the oil (are they?) but there's a reason for this and there are other revenues for Western companies in Iraq:

http://www.businessi...raqi-oil-2013-6

 

Also true that some Western companies are indeed making at least some money with Iraq's oil after being completely out of that market during Saddam's years:

http://en.wikipedia....censing_Results

+

http://uk.reuters.co...N0CCAP520130320

http://online.wsj.co...585923769346910

http://www.businessw...1019_649543.htm

http://www.aljazeera...3134071641.html

 

It also seems everyone forgot the September Dossier... :p


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#90

Posted 18 June 2014 - 10:24 AM

Yeah, no one is claiming that the West hasn't had a vested interest in various sectors in post-Saddam Iraq. The material gains for stakeholders in the West as a net result of the conflict, when you take into account the logistics of the actual invasion, of providing security for staff operating there, from the huge financial investments made in Iraqi infrastructure, are nil at best and significantly negative at worse. It was, when everything is taken into account, basically a negative-sum game for the Western world as a whole.

That's why the war-for-oil argument is largely bunk- because there's no individual stakeholder or group of stakeholders in the West who have actually profited from the conflict. Big oil? Not really. Military-industrial? When the strategic crux of the conflict was "expensive technology doesn't win counterinsurgency conflicts" and defence budgets have been adjusted to suit that mantra, I don't think so.

Of course, there's some merit to the argument that attempts by the West to install a friendly regime in Iraq for the purposes of opening up the market for the benefit of the West. It logically does make some sense, but still isn't reflected in the military conduct of the conflict. Had there been enough foresight amongst policy makers to actually think about what to do after the initial invasion, they probably wouldn't have ignored all the academics and strategic theorists telling them that they needed to instigate a strong, tribally based and decentralised regional administrative approach rather than trying to run everything from Baghdad. They would have started investing in infrastructure and local security from the off rather than three years down the line. The behaviour of the decision makers pretty much contradicts the idea that there was any post-invasion plan to speak of, much less one with defined economic objectives.
  • Moth and Max like this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users