The West talks, whilst the Middle East burns...

Post Reply New Topic

Yes! But what is the price of vegetables in Russia, now that Russia has terminated the EU supply?

Would we really go to war over the price of vegetables? Regrettably, I think the answer is possibly yes.

Economics.


There is no military bluff. Only sanctions.


We have never planned to win a war with the Soviet Union, only prevent them from invading Europe. Nuclear deterrents only work in extreme circumstances. Russian wouldn't dare attack the USA directly. But you are right about the changing nature of warfare in the 21st century.

I advocate giving Ukraine at least one nuke just in case Russia does invade. 20 million dead might change their mind.

Why? I would prefer them to attack the USA directly than to invade Europe...

I'm sure. Then the problem wouldn't require subtlety or diplomacy.

Al Kyeeda (I've given up trying to spell it correctly!) successfully attacked the USA without subtlety or diplomacy, and more than a decade later Al is still in the ascendancy.

The Russia v Nato approach to the Ukrainian issue is a reversion to earlier modes of dispute resolution. We have been hearing a lot recently about how WW1 changed the nature of warfare (partly through the growth of technology which went way beyond the making of better guns), and WW2 continued the process to the point where we all began to believe that the fear of nuclear attack would make future wars impossible.

Unfortunately, no such luck. Although both Russia and Nato still have a nuclear armoury gathering dust in underground silos across the world, international wars have reverted to an earlier pattern of localised conflict.

Al Kyeeda and the Islamic State have nothing to fear from nuclear attack - they don't even present any kind of identifiable target.

At the moment, the Western World seems to be losing the battle - it is a matter of debate about whether we should regard Russia as a friend, an enemy, or simply a loose cannon.

Its not whether or not he would dare to attack the US.
Its that it would make no sense for Putin to attack the US.

Putin is not Ben Ladin- who flies planes into building just to inflict injury for the sake of injury.

He is an old fashioned conqueror like Napoleon, Alexander the Great, or Hitler. He is all about "attacking" you to seize your land and conquer you. The Russian Republic doesnt border the USA, so he has no territorial designs on us. Nor is he in a position to sieze American territory even if he wanted to.

Imagine if Britain elected a fascist dictator, and this dictator sought to recreate the pre world war two British Empire (the only state larger than the old Soviet Union). And that this British Mussolini were to launch invasions of India, Canada, Egypt, and Australia,(and maybe the USA), and every place else that was once part of the British Empire to achieve that.

Thats what Putin is all about. Recreating the old soviet union by reconquering the former Russian Republics that broke away when Communism fell.

Actually...

You may be on to something!

The Russian Republic DOES almost border our state of Alaska. And Alaska WAS once part of Czarist Russia (before we bought the place from the Czar in 1867 abouts).

HOLY s**t!

Putin probably thinks he owns Alaska! Alaska might be the next Ukraine!

Get yer guns everybody! The Ruskies are coming!

I was enjoying your post until I got to the last bit...

At the beginning of WW1, which was in August 1914, we all went off to fight the Hun in the certain knowledge that we would all be home in time for christmas. No such luck!

Relatively speaking the situation whilst serious, is nothing compared to historic conflicts.

You'd have a better chance of dying tripping over, putting you underpants on, than being directly involved in a terrorist act. I'm not diminishing that impact of those that were caught up in one, and there are thing that would make your situation somewhat more likely.

I just think everything needs to be put into perspective. For instance natural disasters kill far more people than terrorism.

The whole point of terrorism is it feeds on publicity, and small world syndrome does that for them.

The situation in the middle east is down to thirteen centuries of ingrained neurosis. It need to be dealt with in the clinical way you would treat neurosis, i,.e. not pandering to it. We may need selective military action to deal with direct and immediate threats, but ultimately this is an ideological battle that need to be won.

The terrorist hate the West, but they hate nobody more than their own kind.

Relatively speaking the situation whilst serious, is nothing compared to historic conflicts
What? At what point will WW2 become a 'historic conflict', with no relevance to the current situation?

You'd have a better chance of dying tripping over, putting you underpants on, than being directly involved in a terrorist act. I'm not diminishing that impact of those that were caught up in one, and there are thing that would make your situation somewhat more likely.
Generally speaking, you are unlikely to die from putting your underpants on

I just think everything needs to be put into perspective. For instance natural disasters kill far more people than terrorism.
Yes but natural disasters are unavoidable

The whole point of terrorism is it feeds on publicity, and small world syndrome does that for them
The whole point of terrorism is that you don't need an army in order to instil terror into your enemy.

The situation in the middle east is down to thirteen centuries of ingrained neurosis. It need to be dealt with in the clinical way you would treat neurosis, i,.e. not pandering to it. We may need selective military action to deal with direct and immediate threats, but ultimately this is an ideological battle that need to be won.
The situation in the Middle East is that the people of the Middle East have discovered the insecurity of the West.

When did I say that?



Statistically the chance is higher although small. I can use another example if you like. Falling and cracking you head for example. Even events like the Concordia, and that Korean boat.

Even with soldier numbers, there are less allied casualty in a year that they were in a day in historic conflict. Ask a historians, far from violence spiraling out of control, overall trend is we find violence less acceptable, we don't take it for granted as a given, like in the past.


Preparation, harm reduction, crisis management are not unavoidable.


Yes and the publicity and the reaction are part of the that tactic. Many reactions do in fact help to legitimatise these group in many people's eyes, however harebrained that is.



Sort of, middle east is very unstable itself. However what terrorist realise is they can benefit from out freedom in order to destroy them. However by eroding our own freedom for them we are helping not stopping them.

That is probably the crucial difference between the IslamicIdiots and the WesternWonderWorld. Unfortunately, we have always taken for granted our ability to take what we want.

It is interesting that the US began launching lethal airstrikes on the Islamic State long before it landed a handful of special forces on Mount Sinjar and decided that no evacuation was necessary.

The cleverest recent act of the enemy is to install the concept of 'The Islamic State' into our consciousness - it is clearly intended to offer an alternative to the infallibility of 'The Western World'.

Western journalists and politicians should be required to stick with the 'ISIS' word, which is as vague as all the other sectarian distinctions which threaten us all.

Can't the "Middle East" figure it out for themselves? Western and Eastern influence has done little, other than money and goods flowing both ways.

Tribes either have to get along, or the weaker ones are destroyed or assimilated.

Trying to force them to get along before they're cognitively able to, just doesn't work.

They should, but they won't. U.S. presidents Carter and Reagan armed and financed the Mujahideen rebel forces against the USSR invasion of Afghanistan. U.S. presidents Clinton and George W. Bush opposed the Aghan government's Mujahideen majority when it morphed into the Taliban. U.S. presidents George H.W. Bush, Clinton and George W. Bush opposed al Qaeda which was "allied" with the Afghan Taliban government and, when that government collapsed, assumed much of the government's Taliban forces including Osama bin Laden. U.S. President Obama realligned with al Qaeda in 2012 when his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, stated to the BBC that, in addition to the United States supporting the rebel forces in Syria, that ?[w]e have a very dangerous set of actors in the region, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, and those who are on our terrorist list, to be sure, supporting -- claiming to support -- the opposition [in Syria].? The U.S. government armed and financed the rebel forces (including al Qaeda) in Syria. Those forces now call themselves the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) or simply the Islamic State (IS).

As I wrote earlier, "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia, Winston." Even if we are forced to rename our manufactured enemy to keep the public interested (afraid) of this staged event which is produced by the United States and the United Kingdom, we can count on nobody actually, truly, realizing that we have supported, then opposed, then supported again, and, most recently, opposed again the same faked "enemy."

America creates almost all of it's foreign policy problems, thru covert and or overt actions. We should not be sending troops overseas unless there is a direct imminent threat the US and we should declare war with clear and fulfillable objectives when we go to war. The fact is that we don't go to war for those reasons, we go to war because it is profitable for a select elite few to do so and maintain our global hegemony.

Islamic State was born out of our interventionism, we set it all in motion. More intervention isn't going to solve the problem, we can't occupy the Middle East for the rest of eternity. Islamic State isn't where it is today with broad popular support in the areas it controls, this is a fact in Afghanistan with the Taliban which will assuredly return to power when US troops leave. We can't civilize people, we can't build nations, we can buy the allegiance of leaders but we can't buy the support of the people.

This whole idea that we can't allow terrorists to have "a base of operations" is so silly as if it matters where they plot from. I'm not afraid of some scarved man on monkey bars. If you ever dive into what motivates these jihadists, it isn't because they want world Islam or "hate our freedom" it's almost always that they kill Muslims or that they occupy their lands. If we weren't over there and we weren't interfering in their countries then they wouldn't have any reason to pay attention to us. The people of these countries need to fight this battle themselves, other Muslims have to step up and say this is enough. The modern borders of the Middle East are all fake, they were just lines in the sand drawn by the French and British. These places should be allowed to Balkanize and separate so their peoples can exercise self determination over their lands and people. We can't stop all wars, sometimes they need to happen. The US is not and should not be the world's policeman.

Ukraine is a clear case of the EU/US/NATO trying to steal away another country from Russia's sphere of influence. The conditions Russia put on removing Soviet troops from East Germany and allowing Germany to reunify under one NATO state was that NATO did not expand "one inch to the east" and since that time they've added almost every former Warsaw Pact country. Ukraine is not much of a country, the east of country is mostly Russified while the west is nationalistic to the extreme. Why is it that western Ukraine can carry out a violent coup against a democratically elected government and be considered legitimate while the east is denied any self determination? The US spent billions of dollars orchestrating those protests in Kiev but Russia is somehow the bad guy for wanting to protect it's people in the east? The US would not tolerate a Russian/Chinese backed anti-American coup in Mexico so why would Russia tolerate a US/EU one in their back yard? It is none of our business, I don't want war with Russia and I don't want to have decades long pissing match where we proxy war each other either.

America needs to worry about America, we have more than enough problems. I care about my quality of life. We don't have the money to waste, we have better things to spend on.

Yes, but those "select elite few" don't want it that way. They have made it abundantly clear that the United States is their Judas goat. It is simple: Oppose globalism or get ready to enjoy the ride.