|
icantfindaname posted:I agree the window is rapidly closing, but that's what makes the situation dangerous. Don't forget North Korea. And any combination of these events pulling the US's attention prompting a Paksitan-India-China conflict.
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 09:59 |
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:well. He makes sort of a "Go away" gesture at the end of that clip, right as he looks away. Someone was definitely drawing his attention but he seemed more annoyed than scared.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
Just seeing the kind of disaster MBS was so ready to jump into in Yemen makes it obvious any theories regarding Saudi foreign policy strategy assuming long-term planning or coherent and consistent objectives beyond the fleeting whims of a tyrant can be discarded. icantfindaname is right, this is just flailing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
I don't expect people to really push for war anywhere on behalf of KSA, if even because their leader is untested and it's not clear they will hold up commitments. If Europe can get some level of commitment from Iran about not destabilizing X places, the risks will be greater than the upside. Iran/Hez messaging has been on point & France is keen on making sure Lebanon remains stable as it can be, so I think we're seeing this happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 05:51
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:there was just an earthquake apparently this has apparently killed over 100 people, mostly in Iran
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 07:41
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:Loool holy poo poo Maybe former PM Hariri has their family fortune tied in KSA to his name personally and MbS have gently reminded him that he could confiscate those assets due to him being a citizen. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 09:10
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I agree the window is rapidly closing, but that's what makes the situation dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 10:59
|
|
|
Elyv posted:this has apparently killed over 100 people, mostly in Iran https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/12/dozens-killed-by-earthquake-in-iraniraq-border-region
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 11:18
|
|
|
If one of the other Republicans not named Trump were in office right now we would probably be at war with Iran The Hillary foreign policy team was also full of Iran hawks but she would not have been dumb enough to scrap the Iran deal
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:If one of the other Republicans not named Trump were in office right now we would probably be at war with Iran I don't know. Bush's neocons were a little unusual because they actually went for the big invasion instead of just talking the talk. Reagan and H. W. Bush preferred to just faff about supporting anti-communist rebels and maybe sending a few hundred marines in for "security." I think the 90s/00s interventionist streak was the product of a very particular post-Cold War mindset in both parties and the "foreign policy establishment" in general that presupposed American righteousness and military invulnerability. The forever war has dramatically changed the discourse about intervention and regime change and I don't think any modern Republican would be able to pull a cassus belli out of his rear end the way Bush did in Iraq. Intervening in a civil war is one thing, but Iran isn't a failed state, they're not officially at war with anyone, and they have a real military. You don't just announce you're going to try to crack the toughest nut in the Middle East when you can't even beat the Taliban. Also, the Europeans have way too much money invested in Iran and would never go for it. E. Lol I just realized I forgot to mention Desert Storm. It's sort of amazing that they left Saddam in power. Duckbox fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Nov 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
Duckbox posted:I don't know. Bush's neocons were a little unusual because they actually went for the big invasion instead of just talking the talk. Reagan and H. W. Bush preferred to just faff about supporting anti-communist rebels and maybe sending a few hundred marines in for "security." I think the 90s/00s interventionist streak was the product of a very particular post-Cold War mindset in both parties and the "foreign policy establishment" in general that presupposed American righteousness and military invulnerability. The forever war has dramatically changed the discourse about intervention and regime change and I don't think any modern Republican would be able to pull a cassus belli out of his rear end the way Bush did in Iraq. Intervening in a civil war is one thing, but Iran isn't a failed state, they're not officially at war with anyone, and they have a real military. You don't just announce you're going to try to crack the toughest nut in the Middle East when you can't even beat the Taliban. Beating insurgents and guerillas like the Taliban is way harder than destroying a conventional military though. At least for the US, if the US was simply interested in destroying the Iranian military and did not care at all about what happened after that they could probably do it pretty quickly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
Duckbox posted:E. Lol I just realized I forgot to mention Desert Storm. It's sort of amazing that they left Saddam in power. Given their own objectives, it was a smart move. Removing Saddam means the US was responsible for what came next. Civil war would have been the likely outcome then, too. It made strategic sense not to go down that road.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
But it also meant that it gave Junior a way to overcome his daddy issues by "finishing the job".
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
Here is Dick Cheney explaining why the US shouldn't invade Iraq: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY It's a pretty concise summary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Given their own objectives, it was a smart move. Removing Saddam means the US was responsible for what came next. Civil war would have been the likely outcome then, too. It made strategic sense not to go down that road. There was a civil war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:There was a civil war. I assume you're talking about the shia whose uprising was put down? Don't know if I'd call that a civil war, seemed pretty one sided.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/KreaseChan/status/929863786193965056
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Ramrod Hotshot posted:I think the opposite may be happening. This newfound aggressiveness is really just desperation. Oil's been cheap for a while and it's running out. There's plans in the works to turn assets liquid, like privatizing Aramco and "Vision 2030". There's a lot of unemployed young men. The real world is seeping in on the Wahhabist oil utopia, and time is running out. They want to take on Iran now before they're too weak to be able to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Your post kinda made me think of Saudi Arabia like pre-WW1 Germany - bad leader and an establishment feeling that the opening to take down their biggest rival was shrinking rapidly, so they had to do something decisive, soon. Good thing Saudi Arabia isn't the German Empire I suppose. I think a better analogy (this is silly and none of it is really analogous, but let me have fun for a minute) is Saudi Arabia as the pre-WW1 Austrian Empire. An antiquated monarchy too weak to really act decisively on its own, but acting aggressively towards its neighbors (Serbia) with the assumption that its more powerful ally (Germany, analogous to the US or Israel) will come to its aid in a pinch. And if the crown prince is killed, that really would spark a war, as it did then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
Elyv posted:this has apparently killed over 100 people, mostly in Iran Oh wow, I have friends in the area and they are giving blood. Not a good situation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
The BBC posted an interesting article on a SDF-ISIS deal to evacuate fighters from Raqqa: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/raqqas_dirty_secret
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Ramrod Hotshot posted:I think a better analogy (this is silly and none of it is really analogous, but let me have fun for a minute) is Saudi Arabia as the pre-WW1 Austrian Empire. An antiquated monarchy too weak to really act decisively on its own, but acting aggressively towards its neighbors (Serbia) with the assumption that its more powerful ally (Germany, analogous to the US or Israel) will come to its aid in a pinch. And if the crown prince is killed, that really would spark a war, as it did then. It is silly, given Austro-Hungary's main motive for doing so was the different ethnicities it worried about splitting off constantly (mine included), which they somewhat brought on themselves by overreaching with their presence in Bosnia. I doubt Saudi Arabia quite has that problem, but does moreso have other civil and economic ones instead. Would KSA react similarly, were one of its prominent royals take his own version of Archduke Ferdinand's tour, but this time in Yemen and they get capped? Eh...honestly, I don't think they have the balls for it. Back then, Austro-Hungary might've held antiquated notions of warfare and that with the Germans on their side and the Turks, surely it'll all be over quick. But nowadays, with not even the USA being able to decisively defeat any nation or people, that are willing to resort to long-term guerilla warfare...even Saudi royals can't be that disconnected from reality to not know, how dumb repeating history would be nowadays.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
CrazyLoon posted:even My friend Donald Trump is president. I don't think anyone "knows" anything anymore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:My friend Donald Trump is president. I don't think anyone "knows" anything anymore. Well, when you put it that way - sure. Given the Saudi prince is going for more of an autocracy thing, it could happen. But so far the moves he's made don't strike me as someone who is this stupid. Then again, like you say, maybe another meeting with Trump and The Orb will happen lol.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
CrazyLoon posted:Would KSA react similarly, were one of its prominent royals take his own version of Archduke Ferdinand's tour, but this time in Yemen and they get capped? Eh...honestly, I don't think they have the balls for it. Back then, Austro-Hungary might've held antiquated notions of warfare and that with the Germans on their side and the Turks, surely it'll all be over quick. But nowadays, with not even the USA being able to decisively defeat any nation or people, that are willing to resort to long-term guerilla warfare...even Saudi royals can't be that disconnected from reality to not know, how dumb repeating history would be nowadays. Yeah, the more likely scenario is a Saudi civil war caused by the power vacuum.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
CrazyLoon posted:
The equivalent figure to Archduke Franz Ferdinand would be Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
the_seventh_cohort posted:The BBC posted an interesting article on a SDF-ISIS deal to evacuate fighters from Raqqa: Really good link, btw, and yea...pretty much suspected this poo poo is what really happened, but good to have it confirmed anyway. And... quote:The other path is to Idlib, to the west of Raqqa. Countless IS fighters and their families have found a haven there. Foreigners, too, also make it out - including Britons, other Europeans and Central Asians. The costs range from $4,000 (£3,000) per fighter to $20,000 for a large family. *sigh* Quelle surprise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:Atlantic has been pretty hawkish on Iran on most pieces I've read there. Maybe that's just Jeff Goldberg. The Atlantic has always been this way about Iran and it running another article like this and Tony Blair being a dumbass as usual does not mean the Western establishment is about to run into a guaranteed disastrous war with Iran.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
quote:“We were scared from the moment we entered Raqqa,” he says. “We were supposed to go in with the SDF, but we went alone. As soon as we entered, we saw IS fighters with their weapons and suicide belts on. They booby-trapped our trucks. If something were to go wrong in the deal, they would bomb the entire convoy. Even their children and women had suicide belts on.” That explains that sudden end to the Raqqa campaign after ISIS was fragmented into a enclaves throughout the city.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:I assume you're talking about the shia whose uprising was put down? Don't know if I'd call that a civil war, seemed pretty one sided. It wasn't just the Shia, it was the whole country. Saddam lost control of 14 out of 18 of Iraq's provinces at its height, and the KRG was established as a result of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Mr_Alhamdo/status/930059806668451840
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
the_seventh_cohort posted:The BBC posted an interesting article on a SDF-ISIS deal to evacuate fighters from Raqqa: really reassuring stuff
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
The BBC article makes it sound like some terrible dirty secret has been exposed, but idk, the news of a deal having been reached between the SDF and IS regarding their evacuation of the city on october 12th was discussed on twitter the day after the evacuation took place, and there's even an official statement from the SDF on the 14th, so: http://sdf-press.com/en/2017/10/statement-to-public-opinion-5/ not extremely secretive e: I even made a post about it lol https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3390388&pagenumber=3111&perpage=40#post477372239 Bohemian Nights fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Nov 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Bohemian Nights posted:The BBC article makes it sound like some terrible dirty secret has been exposed, but idk, the news of a deal having been reached between the SDF and IS regarding their evacuation of the city on october 12th was discussed on twitter the day after the evacuation took place, and there's even an official statement from the SDF on the 14th, so: USG and SDF has a shitfit when Hezbollah did the same thing at Ansal. Of course.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
I do remember, though, how the SDF up and down said they wouldn't let foreign fighters through (made a big show of catching them in other instances before this deal was struck in the city), yet lo and behold they hitched their rides out in droves along with the others. Hell, the whole way of how they handled it (lying to the truck drivers about what they'd be doing, zero escort and no screening of whom ISIS was sending and after they got abused by the ones they were transporting, the drivers don't even get paid or receive it late) should tell you how little the SDF would want the details known.
CrazyLoon fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Nov 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
CrazyLoon posted:I do remember, though, how the SDF up and down said they wouldn't let foreign fighters through (made a big show of catching them in other instances before this deal was struck in the city), yet lo and behold they hitched their rides out in droves along with the others. Hell, the whole way of how they handled it (lying to the truck drivers about what they'd be doing, zero escort and no screening of whom ISIS was sending and after they got abused by the ones they were transporting, the drivers don't even get paid or receive it late) should tell you how little the SDF would want the details known. Coldwar timewarp posted:USG and SDF has a shitfit when Hezbollah did the same thing at Ansal. Of course. the article posted:Back in May, US Defence Secretary James Mattis described the fight against IS as a war of “annihilation”.“Our intention is that the foreign fighters do not survive the fight to return home to north Africa, to Europe, to America, to Asia, to Africa. We are not going to allow them to do so,” he said on US television. quote:Irreconcilable #ISIS terrorists should be killed on the battlefield, not bused across #Syria to the Iraqi border without #Iraq's consent 1/2 https://twitter.com/brett_mcgurk/status/902793167250092032 quote:Our @coalition will help ensure that these terrorists can never enter #Iraq or escape from what remains of their dwindling "caliphate." 2/2 The SDF have always been more pragmatic/opportunist (for better or worse), so in this case they went against the US line and cut a deal with ISIS: the article posted:In light of the BBC investigation, the coalition now admits the part it played in the deal. Some 250 IS fighters were allowed to leave Raqqa, with 3,500 of their family members. Honestly though, I don't think I'd prefer the alternative where the US lit up the convoy and killed a bunch of civilians, so I guess I'll side more with the SDF's deal-making on this one. Saladin Rising fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Nov 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
Ah yes, the same war of annihilation which destroyed the taliban and al-quada. The US needs to learn how to admit it has won a conflict and go to the peace table.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
rear end struggle posted:Ah yes, the same war of annihilation which destroyed the taliban and al-quada. 'We don't negotiate with terrorists!!!!' I mean that might turn out to be really loving impractical in reality but drat if it doesn't sound good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Lol, I just noticed that beeb article referring to the "US and British-led coalition."
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 09:59 |
|
|
Duckbox posted:Lol, I just noticed that beeb article referring to the "US and British-led coalition." 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 07:51
|
|