AuthorTopic: WW3??  (Read 105511 times)

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 41791
    • View Profile
Re: WW3??
« Reply #90 on: December 07, 2015, 08:56:57 AM »
What's with all the brown background?

There's some bad HTML on the page somewhere.  I don't feel like trying to trace it down.  When we get to the next page it will revert to normal.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 41791
    • View Profile
Re: WW3??
« Reply #91 on: December 07, 2015, 08:58:53 AM »
What's with all the brown background?

There's some bad HTML on the page somewhere.  I don't feel like trying to trace it down.  When we get to the next page it will revert to normal.

RE

There ya go. Back to normal.  :icon_sunny:

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline edpell

  • Waitstaff
  • ***
  • Posts: 367
    • View Profile
Re: WW3??
« Reply #92 on: December 07, 2015, 09:28:13 AM »
Thanks RE, wouldn't want WW3 to be in a dreary color.

Offline Palloy

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3751
    • View Profile
    • https://palloy.wordpress.com
Re: WW3??
« Reply #93 on: December 07, 2015, 02:15:57 PM »
Quote
wouldn't want WW3 to be in a dreary color.

No indeed.  Perhaps the theme could be changed to a sunny, fresh green colour to cheer us all up.
The State is a body of armed men

Offline Eddie

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 19494
    • View Profile
Re: WW3??
« Reply #94 on: December 07, 2015, 02:50:26 PM »
The brown background, does that just happen randomly as a consequence of how the site is set up? When it happens I can't read the articles on the brown background at all.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/AIWaJC3_-PE&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/AIWaJC3_-PE&fs=1</a>
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 41791
    • View Profile
Re: WW3??
« Reply #95 on: December 07, 2015, 03:07:12 PM »
 it happens if there's some bad HTML in the message.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Palloy

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3751
    • View Profile
    • https://palloy.wordpress.com
Re: WW3??
« Reply #96 on: December 09, 2015, 05:58:25 PM »
Sounds like Turkey is bombing the same lot they are training to fight ISIS, but maybe there are two lots of Kurds - one lot fighting ISIS and the other fighting Turkey.

https://www.rt.com/news/325265-turkish-jets-kurds-iraq/
Turkish jets strike Kurdish positions in Iraq amid rising tension between Ankara & Baghdad
9 Dec, 2015

Ankara carried out airstrikes targeting Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) forces in northern Iraq, the Turkish army said on Wednesday. The action comes in the wake of rising tensions between Ankara and Baghdad over the deployment of Turkish troops in Iraq.

Ten F-16 fighter jets launched an attack between 10pm and 10:50pm on Tuesday, targeting PKK positions in the Kandil, Hakurk, Zap and Avasin-Baysan regions in northern Iraq, the Turkish General Staff said in a statement. It added that the targets were “destroyed in an aerial campaign.”

Tensions have been rising between Ankara and Baghdad after Turkey deployed hundreds of troops equipped with tanks and artillery to Iraq’s northern Nineveh Governorate last Thursday, saying they will train forces battling Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL).

Baghdad said it had not asked for the help of Turkish forces, and demanded their withdrawal after it said Turkey had “illegally” sent the troops into Iraq. Describing the move as violation of sovereignty, the Iraqi government also asked NATO to intervene.

Meanwhile, Shiite paramilitary groups have threatened to use force against Turkey unless it pulls its forces out of Iraq. Likening the Turkish incursion to the occupation of Iraq by IS militants, Badr Brigade spokesman Karim al-Nuri said "all options" were available.

"We have the right to respond and we do not exclude any type of response until the Turks have learned their lesson," Nuri said on Wednesday. "Do they have a dream of restoring Ottoman greatness? This is a great delusion and they will pay dearly because of Turkish arrogance."

Also on Wednesday, the Iraqi parliament unanimously approved a motion condemning the Turkish intervention, supporting the government in taking whatever measures it viewed as appropriate.

Russia raised the issue at a meeting of the UN Security Council on Tuesday, expressing hope that Ankara will avoid escalating the situation in the region with any further reckless actions. Following the meeting, Russia’s UN envoy Vitaly Churkin said that Moscow expects Ankara to “settle the situation in Iraq in a way that would satisfy the Iraqi government."

“Now the situation is within the focus of the attention of the Security Council, so we hope it will help resolve [it] to the satisfaction of the Iraqi government, whose sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence will be respected,” he said.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov slammed Ankara’s actions while speaking to Italian media on Wednesday.

Lavrov proposed a thorough examination of how Turkey performs goals set by the coalition in Syria. “We need to examine how a member of the US-led coalition – the Republic of Turkey – performs goals set by the coalition,” the minister said. "Why is it not bombing terrorists as such, but the Kurds instead?”

On Wednesday, Ankara argued that Turkish soldiers were sent to northern Iraq after a threat from IS to Turkish military trainers in the area. Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said that the deployment was an act of solidarity, not aggression.

"The [military] trainers in the Bashiqa camp were threatened by Daesh (Islamic State) because it is 15-20 kilometers from Mosul and they have only light arms," he told media in Istanbul. "So when these threats increased... we sent some troops to protect the camp, not as an act of aggression but as an act of solidarity."
The State is a body of armed men

Offline Palloy

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3751
    • View Profile
    • https://palloy.wordpress.com
Re: WW3??
« Reply #97 on: December 09, 2015, 06:39:07 PM »
If Iraq goes ahead with cutting ties to US and replacing them with Russia, and (as seems likely) China supports Russia, that would put UNSC in deadlock, leaving fighting to oust Turkey and US from northern Iraq as the only option.  Then Barzani (Kurdish Iraq) might declare independence from Iraq, which the US would support so they could continue to train the Kurds.  After that its anyone's guess, so a big move for Iraq.

Q1.  Discuss the causes of WW3 in 1,000 words or less.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-09/china-says-turkey-needs-respect-iraqs-sovereignty-territorial-integrity
China Says Turkey Needs To Respect Iraq's Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity
Tyler Durden
12/09/2015

“Turkey is acting recklessly and inexplicably,” Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s ambassador to the UN told the Security Council at a closed-door meeting on Tuesday.

Churkin was not, as you might have guessed, referring to Ankara’s brazen move to shoot down a Russian warplane near the Syrian border late last month (although we’re quite sure that Moscow would classify that as “reckless and inexplicable” as well).

Churkin was referencing Erdogan’s decision to send between 150 and 300 Turkish troops along with around two dozen tanks to Bashiqa, just northeast of the ISIS stronghold in Mosul.

The Russian ambassador is correct to characterize the deployment as “inexplicable” - at least in terms of Ankara being able to offer an explanation that makes sense to the general public. The official line is that it’s part of an ongoing “training mission” that Iraqi officials agreed to at some point in the past. Baghdad denies this.

Masoud Barzani supports the Turkish effort (and how could he not, given the fact that without Turkey, the Kurds wouldn’t be able to transport crude independently of Baghdad) which serves to provide a kind of quasi-legitimacy to the Turkish presence. But as we outlined last weekend, this may simply be an attempt to secure oil smuggling routes and ensure that Turkey’s interests in Islamic State-held territory are preserved.

The latest from Iraq - as we outlined earlier today - is that some lawmakers are now looking to annul the country’ security agreement with the US on the way to inviting the Russians in to help fight ISIS. As for the “situation” with Turkey, Iraq’s UN ambassador Mohamed Ali Alhakim told reporters after Russia raised the issue that Baghdad and Ankara "are solving it bilaterally."

"We have not yet escalated it to the Security Council or to the United Nations," he added.

Yes, "not yet," but it's difficult to see how "bilateral" talks are going to solve this given the fact that Erdogan clearly had some idea of what he wanted to accomplish by sending troops and tanks to Mosul. He had to have known going in that the whole "we're just replacing 90 troops that had been there for the better part of two years" excuse wasn't going to fly with Shiite politicians and the various Iran-backed militias who are all hyper-sensitive now that the The Pentagon has suggested the US is set to insert ground troops to assist the Peshmerga in their efforts against ISIS.

Well, when you start to discuss the Security Council in the context of the conflicts raging in Syria and Iraq, it's important to remember that Russia isn't the lone voice of dissent among the five permanent members. Recall that back in May of 2014 Beijing voted with Moscow to veto a Security Council resolution that would have seen the conflict in Syria referred to the Hague. Here’s what China had to say at the time:

    For some time now, the Security Council has maintained unity and coordination on the question of Syria, thanks to efforts by Council members, including China, to accommodate the major concerns of all parties. At a time when seriously diverging views exist among the parties concerning the draft resolution, we believe that the Council should continue holding consultations, rather than forcing a vote on the draft resolution, in order to avoid undermining Council unity or obstructing coordination and cooperation on questions such as Syria and other major serious issues. Regrettably, China’s approach has not been taken on board; China therefore voted against the draft resolution.

Thus far, China hasn't involved itself directly in the latest round of Mid-East conflicts, but if Xi were to step in, it's clear that he would side with the Russians and the Iranians which means that when it comes to Turkey and the US putting boots on the ground in Iraq against Baghdad's wishes, Beijing would almost surely fall on the side of the Iraqis.

Sure enough, on Wednesday, the Chinese Foreign Ministry weighed in for the first time. Here's an excerpt from the statement by spokesperson Hua Chunying:

    "The Chinese side believes that we should deal with state-to-state relationship in accordance with purposes and principles of the UN Charter as well as other widely-recognized basic norms governing international relations, and that Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity shall be respected."

That may sound like a rather generic statement, but in fact it sends a very clear message. The implication is that Turkey has violated Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity and that is not something the Security Council should condone.

The question becomes this: what happens when Baghdad annuls its agreement with Washington and the US troop presence ends up representing a similar violation of Iraq's sovereignty?

If Baghdad were to go to the Security Council and claim that The Pentagon's deployment of SpecOps to northern Iraq constitutes an illegal act, how would the five permanent members resolve an intractable dispute between the US and France on one side (don't forget, the French are bombing Iraq as well) and Russia and China on the other?

In short: how long until Xi decides it's time to awaken the sleeping dragon and enter the Mid-East fray?

For now, Chunying says Beijing will "closely follow the development of the incident."
The State is a body of armed men

Offline Eddie

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 19494
    • View Profile
Re: WW3??
« Reply #98 on: December 11, 2015, 05:56:26 AM »
Paul Craig Roberts gets it right here. I doubt any of us would argue with his analysis, but reading this really made my blood run cold. The crazy bastards in the USMIC and the State Dept. are flirting with Armageddon, and for what?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-10/war-horizon-it-too-late-stop-it
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline Surly1

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 18654
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: WW3??
« Reply #99 on: December 11, 2015, 09:21:00 AM »
Paul Craig Roberts gets it right here. I doubt any of us would argue with his analysis, but reading this really made my blood run cold. The crazy bastards in the USMIC and the State Dept. are flirting with Armageddon, and for what?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-10/war-horizon-it-too-late-stop-it

Absolutely.

The money quote:
All that Russian military leaders need to do is to look at the composition of the forces sent by NATO to “combat ISIS.” As George Abert notes, the American, French, and British aircraft that have been deployed are jet fighters whose purpose is air-to-air combat, not ground attack. The jet fighters are not deployed to attack ISIS on the ground, but to threaten the Russian fighter-bombers that are attacking ISIS ground targets.

There is no doubt that Washington is driving the world toward Armageddon, and Europe is the enabler.


FSA foreign policy remains fiormly in the hands of the neocons embedded in State and Defense and drunk on their own arrogance.

Recall the quote made by Karl Rove to Ron Suskind as an indicator of the state of mind these people possess:

Quote
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, The New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, "Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush," quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush (later attributed to Karl Rove).
"...reprehensible lying communist..."

Offline Palloy

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3751
    • View Profile
    • https://palloy.wordpress.com
Re: WW3??
« Reply #100 on: December 11, 2015, 02:18:38 PM »
This monster image contains a lot of detail it is worth having on the record. 

http://cigeography.blogspot.sg/2015/10/russian-presence-in-syria-from-arms.html#more
Russian Presence in Syria
From arms deliveries, to direct intervention.
'Syrian Express', air bridge,
And base in Latakia.
28 October 2015



This graphic appeared first on Offiziere.ch - Graphic by LMV, all rights reserved, for usage see contact/our maps   

Version 2 – 2015 12 06. https://www.offiziere.ch/wp-content/uploads-001/2015/12/RussianInSyria_v2b.png for a high-resolution version with a size of 2520×4344.

Here's a list of sources/additional informations. (from Offiziere.ch)

    Sukhoi Su-34 (Fullback): fighter bomber to fight ground, sea and air targets. Should replace the Su-24s. During ground operations of the Syrian armed forces, Russian fighter jets reach on average 60 sorties per day.
    Sukhoi Su-30SM (Flanker-C): 4.5 generation multirole fighter plane. First falsely identified as SU-27 by the Institute for the Study of War;
    Sukhoi Su-25SM single-seated and 2 Sukhoi Su-25UM two-seated (Frogfoot): jet for close air support;
    Sukoi 24M and Sukhoi Su-24M2 (Fencer-D): fighter bomber to fight ground, sea and air targets;
    Mil Mi-24P (Hind): large helicopter gunship, attack helicopter and low-capacity troop transport with room for eight passengers;
    Mil Mi-8AMTSh (Hip): transport and assault helicopter with room for about 24 passengers;
    Orlan-10 UAVs: already been used for reconnaissance in Syria for a longer time;
    Yakovlev Pchela-1T UAVs: ​​had probably already been used for reconnaissance in Syria before September 2015;
    Granat-3 UAVs;
    Il-20M Coot-A: an ECM/ELINT version of the Ilyushin Il-18;
    Il-22M Coot-B: an airborne command post version of the Ilyushin Il-18;
    BTR-82A/B armored personnel carrier: originating from the 27th Separate Motorized Rifle Brigade;
    Main Battle Tank (MBT): According to Anthony H. Cordesman for example the T-90 -- a third-generation MBT, which is essentially a modernization of the T-72B, incorporating many features of the T-80U;
    BM-30 Smerch: a multiple launch rocket system with a max. range of 90 km. Two of them were located in a stadium about 10 km north-east of Latakia in May 2014 and are probably operated by the Syrian Army (35.466484°N 36.051163°E).
    R-166-0.5 (ultra) high-frequency signal (HF/VHF) signalling vehicles: these allow interference resistant transmission of voice and data with a possible range, depending on frequency, of from 25 km to over 1,000 km;
    Krasukha-4: a mobile, ground-based, electronic warfare system with an operational range of about 300 km;
    Pantsir S-1 (SA-22 Greyhound): land-based short-range air defense missile systems;
    KaMaz 4350, Gaz 66, Ural 4320: most likely unarmored or probably lightly armored troop transport vehicles;
    "PM-56" or "PM-138": Amur class floating workshop in the port of Tartus (for satellite imagery see here);
    Moskva: Missile cruiser (Slava-Klasse) located on the coast of Latakia. Among other equipment Moskva has a S-300F (SA-N-6 Grumble) short-range air defense missile system

    Regarding the Russian overflights, check that source: David Cenciotti, "Online flight tracking provides interesting details about Russian air bridge to Syria", The Aviationist, 11.09.2015.
    "Russian power politics in Syria", offiziere.ch, 21.10.2015.
    The Syria General Archive - updated end of each day.




One thing the above doesn't show is how close to the Syrian coast the Russian warships are.  Do they hang around in territorial waters, or are they well off-shore?  Given that it is only 70 nautical miles to Cyprus (half Turkish, half Greek, some British bases), there's not a lot of sea room.  Where are the French and US aircraft carrier groups located?  How much sea space do they need or feel comfortable with in these tense times?
The State is a body of armed men

Offline Palloy

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3751
    • View Profile
    • https://palloy.wordpress.com
Re: WW3??
« Reply #101 on: December 12, 2015, 06:53:06 PM »
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43703.htm
Sistani Orders Turkey Out Of Iraq
Moon Of Alabama
December 12, 2015

After the U.S. invasion of Iraq the U.S vice consul Paul Bremer tried to install a handpicked Iraqi government.  The top Shia religious authority in Iraq, Grand Ajatollah Sistani, demanded a democratic vote. The issue was thereby decided. There was no way the U.S could have circumvented Sisitani's edict without a massive revolt by the 65% of Iraqis who are Shia and mostly follow his advice. Bremer had to fold.

Now Ajatollah Sistani takes position against the Turkish invasion of Iraq:

    Iraq's top Shi'ite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, called on the government on Friday to show "no tolerance" of any infringement of the country's sovereignty, after Turkey deployed heavily armed troops to northern Iraq.

    Sistani's spokesman, Sheikh Abdul Mehdi Karbala'i, did not explicitly name Turkey, but a row over the deployment has badly soured relations between Ankara and Baghdad, which denies having agreed to it.
    ...
    "The Iraqi government is responsible for protecting Iraq's sovereignty and must not tolerate and side that infringes upon on it, whatever the justifications and necessities," Karbalai'i said in a weekly sermon.

The issue is thereby decided. Turkish troops will have to leave or will have to decisively defeat all Shia of Iraq (and Iran). If Erdogan were smart he would now order the Turkish troops stationed near Mosul to leave Iraq.

The Russian President Putin also increased pressure on Turkey:

    President Vladimir Putin on Friday ordered Russia's armed forces to act in an "extremely tough way" in Syria to protect Russian forces striking Islamic State targets there.

    "Any targets threatening our (military) group or land infrastructure must be immediately destroyed," Putin said, speaking at a Defence Ministry event.

Note to Erdogan: Beware of funny ideas...

---


There was some Syrian opposition conference yesterday in Saudi Arabia were the Saudis tried to bribe everyone to agree on a common position. But the conference failed. Some 116 delegates took part under "international guidance" of their various sponsors. A spokesperson for the al-Qaeda aligned Ahrar al Sham, which closely cooperates with the al-Qaeda entity Jabhat al Nusra in Syria, also took part. No women were present.

The conference resulted in the decision to hold another conference. The 116 delegates at the conference decided to select 33 delegates for a conference which would decide on 15 delegates to confer and maybe take part in some negotiations with the Syrian government side. The NYT's Ben Hubbard, who was there, tweeted:

    Ben Hubbard @NYTBen
    ...The meeting created yet another new opposition body, a high commission, meant to oversee negotiations.

    There was debate about how large it should be and what proportion should represent armed groups. Final was 32, changed after meetings to 33.

    Those 33 now tasked with choosing a 15 person negotiating team. So, yeah, umbrella groups making a new umbrella.

The political demands the conference agreed upon include non-starters for negotiations like the demand that the Syrian President Assad would leave within 6 weeks of the negotiations start. There was also this illuminating word game:

    Islamist delegates objected to using the word “democracy” in the final statement, so the term “democratic mechanism” was used instead, according to a member of one such group who attended the meeting.

The Ahrar al-Sham delegate at the meeting signed the deal while the Ahrar al Sham bigwigs, who took not part, damned the deal and announced they were completely against it. They demand an Islamic State in Syria that would follow their militant Salafi line of believe. Hubbard again:

    Ben Hubbard ‏@NYTBen
    Re: @Ahrar_Alsham2. It's main delegate did not walk out. Before meeting ended, members not present released statement announcing withdrawal.

    The session's moderator said Ahrar delegate was not aware of statement by his group until later, but did sign the final communiqué.

    Then Ahrar members like @aleesa71 and @a_azraeel complained on Twitter, suggesting a split between military and political leaders.

The Saudi and Qatari Wahhabi rulers want Ahrar al Sham to be part of any future solution in Syria. They hired "western" think tanks like Brookings Doha to propagandize that Ahrar is "moderate". But Ahrar can not be "moderate" when it is fighting together with al-Qaeda and kills civilians because they are "unbelievers". It is now in an uncomfortable position. If it takes part in a peace conference with the Syrian government its Jabhat al-Nusra ally will roast it, if it doesn't take part its Saudi and Qartari financiers will fry it.

Since the start of the war on Syria no unity has been achieved in the opposition of the Syrian government. The U.S., in form of the CIA head John Brennan, teamed up (again) with al-Qaeda while the State Department tried to sponsor more "moderates". The ensuing chaos continues today.

To prevent further blowback from this nonsense strategy will obviously require a change towards a position that supports the Syrian government. It is doubtful that the U.S. is capable of such foresight and flexibility.
The State is a body of armed men

Offline K-Dog

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3932
    • View Profile
    • K-Dog
Re: WW3??
« Reply #102 on: December 13, 2015, 06:25:19 PM »

The Russian destroyer Smetlivy which fired warning shots at a Turkish vessel in the Aegean Sea.

A Russian destroyer has used small arms fire to ward off a Turkish fishing ship and prevent a collision in the Aegean Sea, the Defence Ministry said.   The guided missile destroyer Smetlivy was unable to establish radio contact with the approaching Turkish boat, which also failed to respond to visual signals and flares, the ministry said in a statement.

When the Koroglu Balikcilik was about 660 yards away, warning shots were fired from the destroyer and the Turkish vessel quickly changed course, passing within 600 yards.

The incident occurred in the northern part of the Aegean, about 13 miles from the Greek island of Lemnos, the ministry said.

Tensions between Moscow and Ankara have been heightened since a Turkey downed a Russian warplane along the Syrian border last month, and this could further strain relations.

The Defence Ministry summoned the Turkish defence attache in Moscow over what it described as the "provocative actions" of the Turkish ship.

Russian deputy defence minister Anatoly Antonov informed Turkish Rear Admiral Ahmet Gunes of "the possible harmful consequences of the reckless actions of Ankara in regard to the Russian military contingent fighting international terrorism in Syria", the ministry said in a statement.
advertisement

Turkish foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said Turkey would get the fishing ship's side of the story before making an announcement, but added that Turkey does not want an escalation of tensions.

"We don't want tensions. We want to overcome tensions through dialogue," Mr Cavusoglu said.

Source - The Belfast Times

************************************************************************************

And remember this character?  Actually I mean this P.O.S..



The propaganda machine has him working.   That's right, war criminal John Bolton still wears the suit and tie and tells America to eat shit and like it.

About John:  http://www.warcriminalswatch.org/index.php/the-culpable/36-the-culprits/67-john-r-bolton

His latest offense.  And hey why not, he helped herd the sheep into the IRAQ war.  Why not have him help herd the sheep into a SYRIAN war too!

His article:  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/25/opinion/john-bolton-to-defeat-isis-create-a-sunni-state.html

The pot boils. Here is a snippet early into Bolton's abomination.

Quote
Before transforming Mr. Obama’s ineffective efforts into a vigorous military campaign to destroy the Islamic State, we need a clear view, shared with NATO allies and others, about what will replace it. It is critical to resolve this issue before considering any operational plans.
Under ideal conditions of temperature and pressure the organism will grow without limit.

Offline Palloy

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3751
    • View Profile
    • https://palloy.wordpress.com
Re: WW3??
« Reply #103 on: December 13, 2015, 07:07:57 PM »
Bolton = PoS   :emthup:

The bit you quoted was actually the most reasonable bit of the whole thing - it makes sense to define the final outcome desired (and get an agreement on that with NATO and others) before doing any more military escalation.  His ideas on the final outcome, which he admits wouldn't get agreement from Russia  or Iran, let alone Syria and Iraq, therefore cannot even begin to be taken seriously. Just like the obvious solution to the Turkey-Kurds problem would be for Turkey to give their south-east corner to the new Kurdistan and wish them good luck.  It'll never happen.

It was the most colossal blunder in 2003 to invade a secular state with 60% Shia, 20% Sunni and 20% Kurd, and then to hold democratic elections, and be surprised at getting a Shia-controlled government.
The State is a body of armed men

Offline Surly1

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 18654
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: WW3??
« Reply #104 on: December 14, 2015, 03:36:53 AM »

It was the most colossal blunder in 2003 to invade a secular state with 60% Shia, 20% Sunni and 20% Kurd, and then to hold democratic elections, and be surprised at getting a Shia-controlled government.

If only we had had someone in place there, a strongman type, who knew how to hold such a fractious state together...


Someone who had been a proven friend and ally...
"...reprehensible lying communist..."