NationStates

Senkaku wrote:

Kelmet wrote:
I am as an america saying, we definitely fucked up in withdrawing from Iraq like we did.

Yes, perhaps we should have made sure the soldiers we trained would actually fight instead of scattering like the armies of Song China before the Mongols. Or just made some bullshit treaty and divied Iraq up into three like the Ottomans, since they knew what they were doing and Churchill didn't.

Edit: although, as a fellow American, I'm sure you would agree our losses in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq have certainly not been for lack of trying.

I can tho,

Vietnam- Military wasn't allowed to invade North Vietnam

Afghanistan- Hopefully it turns out better since we have a status forces agreement

Iraq- Biggest fuck in part of the Administration, No status forces agreement and we pulled our before we or the Iraqis were ready

Can all sum it up to the civilian politicians in D.C telling our military how to win wars.

Blakk Metal wrote:

Also, the US doctrine on Communism was "Containment", not "Active Extermination".

And you know why? Because the US was pathetic.

I'm pretty sure it was because the leader of the western world knew better than to piss off the leader of the eastern world and a regional power. Like it or not, the strength of both Russia and Chine at the time were enough reason not to commit to actively pushing back communism.

Because it would have been fucking disastrous. But don't let that get in the way of your war fantasies.

Kelmet wrote:I can tho,

Vietnam- Military wasn't allowed to invade North Vietnam

Afghanistan- Hopefully it turns out better since we have a status forces agreement

Iraq- Biggest fuck in part of the Administration, No status forces agreement and we pulled our before we or the Iraqis were ready

Can all sum it up to the civilian politicians in D.C telling our military how to win wars.

Lolenope. That's flawed considering the bit where they actually bombed Hanoi, and also managed to bomb Laos and Cambodia while they were at it. If you're arguing for limited scope, then that's BS. Also, they did that because the last time they gave a general discretionary powers, he almost invaded China.

Afghanistan isn't going to have any peace any time soon. No matter how many troops America throws at it, they started something and they're going to bleed out trying to end it.

Iraq? Meh. It was also because of the colossal fuckups on the part of the provisional government set up by the USA.



Actually, that's the job of politicians. The military is not in and of itself an end. They only reason that they should fight wars is because the populace democratically makes an informed decision to get into it. If the military were allowed to have its way and act with a total free hand, then the USA would be doomed.

Greater Istanistan wrote:That's flawed considering the bit where they actually bombed Hanoi, and also managed to bomb Laos and Cambodia while they were at it.

Doesn't matter, you need troops to take and hold territory.

Blakk Metal wrote:How would they be able to defeat the US, when China was dealing with the disastrous Cultural Revolution? And besides, the Korean War ended with an American controlled South Korea.

Have you ever heard of the Third Front program? This war documentary from roughly 29:14 to 32:12 describes China's war plans as it pertained to the Vietnam war. It is also a fact that the USSR provided weapons shipments to North Vietnam via cargo ship to its port of Haiphong.

Going back to Iraq, I've been following this map very closely.

Blakk Metal wrote:

Greater Istanistan wrote:That's flawed considering the bit where they actually bombed Hanoi, and also managed to bomb Laos and Cambodia while they were at it.

Doesn't matter, you need troops to take and hold territory.

And the conventional warfare tactics which the United States was used to were abso-fucking-lutely useless in the jungles of North Vietman.

Jungles are natural labyrinths, above and below ground. Home team always wins.

Condunum wrote:

Blakk Metal wrote:Doesn't matter, you need troops to take and hold territory.

And the conventional warfare tactics which the United States was used to were abso-fucking-lutely useless in the jungles of North Vietman.

Jungles are natural labyrinths, above and below ground. Home team always wins.

Not in the Pacific War.

Blakk Metal wrote:

Condunum wrote:And the conventional warfare tactics which the United States was used to were abso-fucking-lutely useless in the jungles of North Vietman.

Jungles are natural labyrinths, above and below ground. Home team always wins.

Not in the Pacific War.

Those were islands. Not only much smaller than continental jungles, but harder to resupply defending forces by ship convoy than by jungle convoy.

Dracoria wrote:

Blakk Metal wrote:Not in the Pacific War.

Those were islands. Not only much smaller than continental jungles, but harder to resupply defending forces by ship convoy than by jungle convoy.

Also unable to support an intricate network of above ground and underground rivers which exist in the majority of Jungle areas.

Although how any of this has to do with the ISIS making moves in the Levant escapes me.

Condunum wrote:

Dracoria wrote:
Those were islands. Not only much smaller than continental jungles, but harder to resupply defending forces by ship convoy than by jungle convoy.

Also unable to support an intricate network of above ground and underground rivers which exist in the majority of Jungle areas.

Although how any of this has to do with the ISIS making moves in the Levant escapes me.

Clearly they wouldn't be able to advance as quickly in an archipelago of little desert islands!

But yeah, back onto the topic. I'm not sure if the west will even need to intervene aside from blocking arms shipments into the country.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/iran-dep ... 1402592470

Iran is sending the Revolutionary Guard into Iraq and gave its air force permission to bomb ISIS within 60 miles of the border.

Lemanrussland wrote:http://online.wsj.com/articles/iran-deploys-forces-to-fight-al-qaeda-inspired-militants-in-iraq-iranian-security-sources-1402592470

Iran is sending the Revolutionary Guard into Iraq and gave its air force permission to bomb ISIS within 60 miles of the border.

Probably the best for Iraq but it's going to be interesting to see how this affects the gulf nations.

Iraq might fall, but I'm not sure. Eventually, sunni territory wil have all been taken, and then ISIS face shiites who will actively support the government. However, with all of that land in ISIS hands, Iraq is facing gruelling civil war if nothing else.

It's gonna be very, very bad.

Keyboard Warriors wrote:

Lemanrussland wrote:http://online.wsj.com/articles/iran-deploys-forces-to-fight-al-qaeda-inspired-militants-in-iraq-iranian-security-sources-1402592470

Iran is sending the Revolutionary Guard into Iraq and gave its air force permission to bomb ISIS within 60 miles of the border.

Probably the best for Iraq but it's going to be interesting to see how this affects the gulf nations.

The Saudis probably wont be too happy.

Then again it's the Saudis so I don't give a shit if they get pissed off.

Napkiraly wrote:

Keyboard Warriors wrote:Probably the best for Iraq but it's going to be interesting to see how this affects the gulf nations.

The Saudis probably wont be too happy.

Then again it's the Saudis so I don't give a shit if they get pissed off.

True.

Napkiraly wrote:

Keyboard Warriors wrote:Probably the best for Iraq but it's going to be interesting to see how this affects the gulf nations.

The Saudis probably wont be too happy.

Then again it's the Saudis so I don't give a shit if they get pissed off.

The Saudis themselves are quite capable of tackling ISIS and surely, if Al Qaeda aren't extreme enough for ISIS, the Saudis would have reason to do so. But I'm pretty sure they're wanting the Iraqi turmoil to raise the price of oil.

Keyboard Warriors wrote:

Napkiraly wrote:The Saudis probably wont be too happy.

Then again it's the Saudis so I don't give a shit if they get pissed off.

The Saudis themselves are quite capable of tackling ISIS and surely, if Al Qaeda aren't extreme enough for ISIS, the Saudis would have reason to do so.

The Saudi military is utterly incompetent, their training and leadership is abysmal.

They are a paper tiger with nice toys, but little else.

But I'm pretty sure they're wanting the Iraqi turmoil to raise the price of oil.

Guess this one makes sense as well.

Lemanrussland wrote:http://online.wsj.com/articles/iran-deploys-forces-to-fight-al-qaeda-inspired-militants-in-iraq-iranian-security-sources-1402592470

Iran is sending the Revolutionary Guard into Iraq and gave its air force permission to bomb ISIS within 60 miles of the border.

I wonder how Washington will react to this...

EDIT: Chances are this news will further electrify the Sunni extremists.

Volnotova wrote:The Saudi military is utterly incompetent, their training and leadership is abysmal.

They are a paper tiger with nice toys, but little else.

If anything, Saudi Arabia is benefiting from this. Iran looks like it is about to fall into SA's trap of getting itself involved in another never ending sectarian conflict.
Iran may be ahead in the Syrian proxy war, but it seems the Saudis will have the upper hand in Iraq.

Mess with the ISIS, feel the crisis, I guess.

I wonder how Washington will react to this...

EDIT: Chances are this news will further electrify the Sunni extremists.

"The United States is deeply concerned at the ongoing crisis in Iraq".

I won't hold my breath.

I am more interested in Israel's reaction.

Already reports of infighting between Kurdish and Iraqi forces.

Link

Stay classy, Iraq.

EDIT: Seems like the whole rotten edifice is coming down.

Greater Istanistan wrote:

Kelmet wrote:Can all sum it up to the civilian politicians in D.C telling our military how to win wars.

Actually, that's the job of politicians. The military is not in and of itself an end. They only reason that they should fight wars is because the populace democratically makes an informed decision to get into it. If the military were allowed to have its way and act with a total free hand, then the USA would be doomed.

Not only: the President of the US is technically part of the US military, being the Commander in Chief. "Here stops the buck", you know.

Lemanrussland wrote:http://online.wsj.com/articles/iran-deploys-forces-to-fight-al-qaeda-inspired-militants-in-iraq-iranian-security-sources-1402592470

Iran is sending the Revolutionary Guard into Iraq and gave its air force permission to bomb ISIS within 60 miles of the border.

Good. This will make Iran an important partner for peace and in the fight against extremists in the region, thus easing the tensions between Iran and the West, and promoting the most progressive parts of the Iranian political landscape.

Respawn wrote:I am more interested in Israel's reaction.

"Sit back and let the angry brown people kill themselves". That's pretty much what I'd expect from them.

Volnotova wrote:Already reports of infighting between Kurdish and Iraqi forces.

Link

Stay classy, Iraq.

EDIT: Seems like the whole rotten edifice is coming down.

The Kurds have their own militia/paramilitary. It only answers to Kurdish authorities.

Risottia wrote:

Lemanrussland wrote:http://online.wsj.com/articles/iran-deploys-forces-to-fight-al-qaeda-inspired-militants-in-iraq-iranian-security-sources-1402592470

Iran is sending the Revolutionary Guard into Iraq and gave its air force permission to bomb ISIS within 60 miles of the border.

Good. This will make Iran an important partner for peace and in the fight against extremists in the region, thus easing the tensions between Iran and the West, and promoting the most progressive parts of the Iranian political landscape.

It will probably be seen as an attempt to spread Iranian influence through Iraq, and into Syria/the Levant. To be fair, this has basically been the Iranian policy since the US left Iraq.

Risottia wrote:

Lemanrussland wrote:http://online.wsj.com/articles/iran-deploys-forces-to-fight-al-qaeda-inspired-militants-in-iraq-iranian-security-sources-1402592470

Iran is sending the Revolutionary Guard into Iraq and gave its air force permission to bomb ISIS within 60 miles of the border.

Good. This will make Iran an important partner for peace and in the fight against extremists in the region, thus easing the tensions between Iran and the West, and promoting the most progressive parts of the Iranian political landscape.

Or... electrifiying the Sunni extremists, getting Iran embroiled in a sectarian conflict and consolidating Saudi Arabia's influence in the region.

Also, some are arguing that Malik intentionally ordered the retreat in order to weaken the Kurds (as they would have to fight them).

If true than he is really playing with fire ('Might also explain why he wanted to institute a state of emergency even though he has enough legal power to deal with the situation already, he is aiming to become a dictator).

Also: Two more towns captured by ISIL

Volnotova wrote:

Risottia wrote:
Good. This will make Iran an important partner for peace and in the fight against extremists in the region, thus easing the tensions between Iran and the West, and promoting the most progressive parts of the Iranian political landscape.

Or... electrifiying the Sunni extremists, getting Iran embroiled in a sectarian conflict and consolidating Saudi Arabia's influence in the region.

Also, some are arguing that Malik intentionally ordered the retreat in order to weaken the Kurds (as they would have to fight them).

If true than he is really playing with fire ('Might also explain why he wanted to institute a state of emergency even though he has enough legal power to deal with the situation already, he is aiming to become a dictator).

Also: Two more towns captured by ISIL

If so then he done goofed hard. Because from what I've seen ISIL haven't bothered to counter the advancements the Kurds have made. Those bastards want Baghdad.