certainly wasnt a war zone
ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.
- Thread starter RoboCod
- Start date
No we can't really comment, so why should we invade them then?
The only reason Iraq is marginally improved at the moment is ultimately because they had a semi-common enemy to deal with, the tribalism will come back in short order (I mean ISIS was the result of it regardless, but much too extreme for a lot of Sunni in the northwest/west Iraq).
Maybe this will sort them out, like it did with their armed forces after their catastrophe at the beginning.
I have no idea about Afghanistan though, seems intent on being permanently crap, could probably do with China taking over frankly.
Last edited:
Personally I've some concept as to how hard it can be to govern or to bring things to a more modern age, etc. in that part of the world - I have connections to Egypt (and my brother in law is Egyptian) going back decades and seen the conflict between fundamental Islamic elements and those more inclined towards secular government, etc. and some exposure to the less pleasant sides to that - even the better times didn't come without a price :s
Some German politicians are now calling for a halt on a program to upgrade/supply Turkey's German made tanks after they used them to illegally invade another country and attack it's inhabitants.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42795943
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42795943
Sorry but that's nonsense, at no point has Syria lost control of the airspace. The reason the Syrian air force hasn't been shooting down extremist planes is because the rebels don't have any and Daesh only have two that are in a questionable state of maintenance. The reason they haven't been shooting down US planes is because they're not suicidal and know that just because they would be within their right to do so wouldn't stop the UN from sitting back while the US roflstomped them in response.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?
Assad supports the Kurds in their conflict with the rebels/ISIS. They are one of (if not) the only groups backed by Syria and Russia and the USA.
Last edited:
Soldato
He was behaving yes because there was a no fly zone since the 90s....
The halabja gas attacks, the invasion of Iran/Kuwait and the crushing of the marsh arabs in the south was "around the first world war" was it?
If you think Saddam brought stability and peace that speaks volumes for how much you know about Saddam himself and Iraq.
Soldato
Libya is quite different, there was an uprising, Gaddafi was going to kill people, the UN past a resolution and various countries stopped that from happening.
obviously I meant the first gulf war.He was behaving yes because there was a no fly zone since the 90s....
The halabja gas attacks, the invasion of Iran/Kuwait and the crushing of the marsh arabs in the south was "around the first world war" was it?
If you think Saddam brought stability and peace that speaks volumes for how much you know about Saddam himself and Iraq.
no fly zone was only for planes not helicopters and it didn't stop iraq having an army.
USA had no problem with the iraq-iran war and sold weapons to both sides.
till saddam used gas but even then im sure it was only when it hit the news the USA had a problem with it.
pretty sure USA even gave the go ahead for saddam to use gas and
According to Iraqi documents, assistance in the development of chemical weapons was obtained from firms in many countries, including the United States, West Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and France. A report stated that Dutch, Australian, Italian, French and both West and East German companies were involved in the export of raw materials to Iraqi chemical weapons factories.
resolution for a no fly zone.
no one was supposed to do anything unless gaddafi attacked benghazi but they bombed his forces anyway.
lets face it both wars was just a reason to overthrow people the west suddenly didn't like.
far worse happening in africa, no one cares, far worse rulers in africa no one cares, ethnic cleaning in africa no one cares.
doesnt even make the news.
north korea makes saddam and gaddafi look like angels.
west doesnt really care
dunno why you think the west are always the good guys protecting the world, they switch sides as it suits them.
its nothing to do with justice in the world only our own interests
Sorry, not nonsense. You can control as much airspace as you like, it means nothing if there aren't boots on the ground below occupying that space beneath which you control. Hence I state Assad had no control there really and thus it's a bit moot to state planes are flying there in sovereign states, without invite and that's so wrong. Essentially it was the Wild West.
Except that you have control of the airspace ofc, you know the thing you claimed Syria didn't have.
Firstly, they didn't just stop it from happening, they full on entered the skirmish on behalf of the uprisers, acted as their air force, turned the thing into a civil war and won said war for the rebel side without even commiting ground forces (none of which was part of the UN resolution).
Secondly, the reason it's different is the reason Syria is such a mess right now. Had it not been for the looming threat of the US/etc pulling another Libya then the Syrian forces could have defeated the rebel extremists long before ISIS arrived on the scene then defeated them too, all with minimal damage to the country. Instead they had to fight them with kiddie gloves on and that still didn't stop the US/etc from trying to pull another Libya, if it hadn't been for Cameron losing the vote in parliament over intervening and that in turn scuppering Obama's plans then both Assad and the Syrian army would have been gone years ago (and ISIS in control).
Last edited:
They didn't. Assad lost control of his country in the Arab Spring. Ergo, the US aren't really invading a sovereign state by flying in the parts of the country that they are. I'm sorry that fact doesn't fit your sensationalist agenda whereby the US are committing some heinous war crime by flying where they are.
Soldato
Assad/Syria is a perfect example of there being consequences of doing nothing instead of something sadly this did not work it self out well. Who know if things would be better or worse in Libya or Iraq if they where left alone for **** to happen.
Well they obviously did and still do as their air force is running fine and their combined air force and air defense give them control of the airspace. Civilian flights are running fine (as the rebel extremists aren't going to shoot down passenger jets and ISIS don't have the capability) the only issue really is the American/etc jets that are illegally flying around.
Lol, Syria didn't even enter a period of civil war until two years after the arab spring (and the only reason it got that far is because Syria was fighting the rebels as lightly as possible to avoid western aggression). It wasn't until ISIS showed up and forced the Syrian forces to fight on two fronts that they really lost territory however most of it has been reclaimed. At no point during the conflict did the Syrian government really lose control of the majority of the important areas of the country. (by which I mean that ISIS controlling a massive area of desert with nobody/nowhere in it doesn't count).
Ergo, the US aren't really invading a sovereign state by flying in the parts of the country that they are.[/quote]
That's exactly what they are doing, they are flying around in and dropping bombs on a sovereign state in clear violation of international law despite protests be the elected government. If it was any other country doing ti the UN would be in an uproar.
I don't agree with the inaction at an international level with regard to what is happening within NK but it is a very different story to Iraq and Libya - no one is taking military action against NK without it turning into a nasty mess and likely huge casualties on both sides that would dwarf those other invasions and potentially even spark an incident with other regional powers.
anyone who thinks what happened in libya was fine should think of it like this.
manchester rebels against our government.
the UK army surrounds Manchester on all sides but sits 10 miles or so away doing nothing.
Russia declares it a no fly zone, gets UN resolution for no fly zone.
russia decides to bomb the UK army before civilian life is lost and topples our government so the rebels can take power.
russia bombs our prime ministers convoy, she is then found hiding in a tesco carpark behind the bins, gets lynched by the manchester rebels, sodomised with sticks and tortured before being murdered.
what if when the IRA was kicking off in northern ireland, russia, china or whoever decided the IRA should win?
it's no different to what we did in the middle east
I think you lack a grasp on the realities of the military and political situation there.
hes right though planes still fly to damascus airport
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/airports/dam
Nope I've been following it since the beginning, hence why I know that the Syrian government and it's allies still control the majority of the country, who's fighting whom, why, how the US intervention broke international laws, that Syrian airspace is still under government control and passenger jets still running, etc etc.
Just because Syria have refrained from shooting down US planes doesn't mean they have lost control of their airspace, if they wanted to shoot them down they could start tomorrow they're just not that stupid. To use an analogy, if you're getting pushed around by a bully while all his mates are watching, you don't hit him because that would result in a gang of people kicking the **** out of you and that's much worse.
Syria lost a large amount of its on paper air force and actual operational numbers are lesser still - without Russia's help they'd have no control of their air space and even there Russian S-300 and 400 systems and what is left of Syrian air defences and even Russia's aircraft support are limited in how large an area they can control. Part of the reason Russia has expedited the deployment of two additional S-400 systems to the country.
Soldato
Never said it was fine, but prob would have ended up being a different kind of poo show with the same people criticising western intervention then criticising the lack of intervention.
Point I was trying to there's consequences of doing nothing as well as something
edit: also in your scenario the government would have have to be spending police and troop to shoot and kill peaceful protests for weeks wanting a change in government before they rebelled
Last edited:
