Well ofcourse, but that isn't a quick pat on the back for western governments to use in election campaigns, saying that we'll be risking permanent engagement is a bit of a vote killer.
ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.
- Thread starter RoboCod
- Start date
Well ofcourse, but that isn't a quick pat on the back for western governments to use in election campaigns, saying that we'll be risking permanent engagement is a bit of a vote killer.
It's not "that" much of a nightmare really as the Kurds are supported by Russia, Syria and the USA. Add to that Turkey is mostly waging the air war, it's extremists that are doing the groundwork for them. So Russia could technically carpet bomb all the extremists and aside from get angry there isn't anything Turkey could do as nobody would want to side with them over the issue. Hell thinking about it as Turkey is illegally flying planes over Syria Russia could just shoot them down without fear of retaliation.
The US is illegally flying planes over Syria.
Yeah but the US are not bombing US backed fighters and supporting extremists, so the US would be unlikely to stand on the sidelines if anyone shot down a US plane
Not really and if Syria and Russia wanted them out tomorrow, they could make them.
Yeah but the US are not bombing US backed fighters and supporting extremists, so the US would be unlikely to stand on the sidelines if anyone shot down a US plane
Well no doubt as it's a different player in the game, but a NATO ally having their plane shot down by a Russian pilot, is not going to go down well regardless if it's to save US allies... awkward situation this is.
did they seek and gain permission from the country to fly in its airspace? seems not so surely they are not respecting sovereign territory
Regardless, Russia doesn't actually care about the US violating someone's airspace, it works to Russia's political angle about the US being an overbearing imperialistic power ignoring international consensus on national sovereignty when it suits them. (which is why Crimea is somewhat more Russian today than it was 10 years ago, moral of the story is... don't justify things when you're intent on being a paragon of justice)
Well, that's a point of contention because Assad had lost all control of most of his country and thus the airspace above it. Maybe they should have asked daesh?
Russia are happy to let the US continue their air campaign whilst they conduct their own. There is no intention for either one of them to come into direct conflict, hence the cooperation for airspace deconfliction.
Soldato
lol, you think Syria has any sovereignty atm?
Turkey invading north syria, and Assads like, "hey, hey you guys stop, stop that invading n that" He probably doesn't care, I assume Assad is no fan of the SDF.
or maybe they should stop trying to overthrow the ruler of another country.Well, that's a point of contention because Assad had lost all control of most of his country and thus the airspace above it. Maybe they should have asked daesh?
it didn't work so great in iraq or libya
He seems to have a complicated relationship with the SDF - on the one hand he is against them on the other hand he still sees them as part of Syria and an attack on them is an attack on Syria. Kind of like the guy that bullies some kid but won't stand for anyone else bullying them.
Soldato
And after Saddam died? What then? Another 40+ years of fascism and genocide at the hands of his little sons, yea great.
I'm not going down another protracted circular debate on that. You believe what you do on the matter, I probably have another perspective. We'll leave it there because it has been done to death here too many times.
we went there for the WMD's , the nukes etc supposedly.
turns out saddam wasn't so crazy after all.
libya was supposed to be a no fly zone right?
libya wasnt even ruled that bad they had access to a lot of things that first world countries did.
you can't tell me life in libya is better now than it was for the general population.
iraq probably is somewhat better now all the terrorism has mostly died down, but thats only because they moved to syria and libya
Uuh given his proclivities towards verifiable genocide and the actions his sons are well known for, etc. I'm not sure there is much merit in that statement even if the reality was WMD wise he was less of a threat than made out.
I think that those of us living in the "modern Western world" can't really comment on what is right and wrong for parts of the world that aren't. In that, our nice safe Western world, did not come about without difficult times, controversy, wrong doings and hypocrisy. Whatever agenda you might have and are trying to prove, there is no denying that progress is slow and painful. Whether that progress is rightfully catalysed in other parts of the world by the west is a different discussion but one thing is for certain, holding the view of "those brown people are better off kept in line by an iron ruler like sadam" is wrong and really quite shameful.
far worse happening in other parts of the world right now that don't even make the news, but african people don't matter I guess.
who said that?
but lets face it he brought stability and peace
what did bush and blair bring? do you remember watching "shock and awe" on the news? how was that not terrorism?
how many women and children do you think were terrified that night, probably mentally scarred for life.
then after that came all the jihadi idiots forcing children to be suicide bombers or sticking guns in their hands.
there was surely a better less disruptive way of finding those WMDs and removing saddam
saddam was pretty much behaving for his last few years anyway.
the atrocities were a long long time ago around the first world war.
unless you lived in the green zone I doubt life was much better than before saddam if at all.
since the whole country pretty much got ransacked and looted
He brought a semblance of stability and peace not real stability and peace.