| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 3:40 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| rollo wrote: |
India and Pakistan are engaged in a proxy war in Afghanistan. Neither wants a stable Afghanistan. Russia is also involved to some extent. It is a mess, probably no long term solution will come out of it.
Salidin fought several "wars" to curb Shia influence. Not just empires butting heads but contesting religious beliefs.
Iraq was bloody and unstable in the thirties and was very violent under Saddam with the purges and executions. The Kurds will probably be the losers as the Syrians, Turks oppose their having a homeland. Saladin was a Kurd. |
India is involved in Afghanistan? Are you sure about that, I doubt it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rollo wrote: |
India and Pakistan are engaged in a proxy war in Afghanistan. Neither wants a stable Afghanistan. Russia is also involved to some extent. It is a mess, probably no long term solution will come out of it.
Salidin fought several "wars" to curb Shia influence. Not just empires butting heads but contesting religious beliefs.
Iraq was bloody and unstable in the thirties and was very violent under Saddam with the purges and executions. The Kurds will probably be the losers as the Syrians, Turks oppose their having a homeland. Saladin was a Kurd. |
1. As Leon said, India is engaged in a proxy war in Afghanistan? Are you sure about that?
2. You're mixing two of stillcho's claims there. I said the Ottomans and Safavids were butting heads, not Salidin with the Shias.
3. Yes. Your point about Iraq? There was a power vaccum after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Same happened in Syria.
| Quote: |
| In this article it says that Saladin purged Shia "influence" from the fatamid caliphate. Its my understanding that the influence stemmed from a military/governing class made up of Shia leftover from the previous dynasty. If I can remember the name of the frenchie book I will stick it up here. |
Ah, well that I believe. The way you stated it before made it sound like Saladin spent most of his time wiping out the Shia populace (similar to a pogrom or genocide). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 5:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| 1. As Leon said, India is engaged in a proxy war in Afghanistan? Are you sure about that? |
Eric Margolis says that the Indians are throwing money around Kabul and that the country is host to hoards of Indian intelligence agents. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 5:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I believe it has intelligence officers there and is pouring resources into the country. I don't believe it wants an unstable Afghanistan; what it wants is influence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 5:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| I believe it has intelligence officers there and is pouring resources into the country. I don't believe it wants an unstable Afghanistan; what it wants is influence. |
I assume it wants a stable Afghanistan. The region is darn complicated. It is almost impossible for an outsider to understand all the competing/complementary interests. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 6:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| 1. As Leon said, India is engaged in a proxy war in Afghanistan? Are you sure about that? |
Eric Margolis says that the Indians are throwing money around Kabul and that the country is host to hoards of Indian intelligence agents. |
Far from a proxy war, and peanuts compared to the ISI's game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-09-01/ron-paul-to-obama-mission-not-accomplished/
| Quote: |
The President�s announcement that all U.S. combat troops have left Iraq is no more believable than the �Mission Accomplished� declaration was in 2003.
Once again, we are being told the mission has been accomplished and our brave men and women are coming back home. Though the people are hopeful they remain skeptical, and rightfully so.
The biggest problem is that success in Iraq is undefinable since the mission was never defined. The reasons given for the invasion were based on misinformation. Now, the war has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars and this has contributed significantly to our economic woes.
Forty-four hundred Americans are dead, thirty thousand severely wounded, and more than a hundred thousand are suffering from serious health problems related to Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. This alone should tell us that it was not worth the investment and the needless sacrifice of our young people and the taxpayers.
It is deceitful to imply we will avoid hostilities with this new policy. We still have to contend with:
* the 50,000 troops carrying weapons that remain in Iraq
* the 100,000 contractors that remain with more expected to go to Iraq
* the 9,000 special ops personnel trained in assassinations that remain in Iraq
* a huge embassy, bigger than the Vatican, that will remain
* Dozens of military bases that will stay
* Al Qaeda organizations that did not exist before the war
* Muqtada al Sadr, a strong nationalist who has gained much political power
* The fact that Iran benefits tremendously with the Shiites now in power in Iraq and is a close ally of al Sadr
Osama bin Laden wins by �proving� that America has an agenda of occupation in the Middle East. And, we continue to walk into his trap and hand him up his best recruitment tool in his efforts to incite hatred and terrorism against the United States.
What�s worse, President Obama made it clear last night that the troops and resources leaving Iraq will not come home to defend our country or ease our economic woes. They will instead be diverted to Afghanistan, perhaps also Pakistan and, I fear, even Iran.
From my viewpoint we are the losers in this fool�s errand of endless war. Tragically, this new policy is not one of peace but merely a charade that will severely undermine our national security and continue us down the path to bankruptcy � a threat that we best not long ignore. |
The Obama admin is all PR. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Since February 2009, Obama has withdrawn roughly 100,000 troops, down to the current number of about 50,000.
And if he replaced them all with contractors, there's still a meaningful accomplishment: At least 100,000 families will have their loved ones home. Well, minus those sent to Afghanistan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It is much better than nothing. The presentation of it is dishonest though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| The presentation of it is dishonest though. |
Well. I can't argue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| The presentation of it is dishonest though. |
Well. I can't argue. |
Yes and no. I would say that the mission is fundamentally different now than it was a year ago. There are no more Fallujahs to fight for instance. I'm inclined to believe that 50,000 is to many, but I think that some troops needed to be left behind, at least initially. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| I would say that |
Why not just say it, instead of saying that you would say it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| I would say that |
Why not just say it, instead of saying that you would say it? |
Because if I had just said it then it would have presented it as a fact instead of my analysis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's quite obvious that whatever you say is your analysis. On the contrary, prefacing your thoughts that way comes across as arrogant, as if you think someone might easily mistake your opinion for a fact if you didn't warn them beforehand.
I'm not trying to pick on you. It's a convention we all picked up in college because it sounds smart. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
It's quite obvious that whatever you say is your analysis. On the contrary, prefacing your thoughts that way comes across as arrogant, as if you think someone might easily mistake your opinion for a fact if you didn't warn them beforehand.
I'm not trying to pick on you. It's a convention we all picked up in college because it sounds smart. |
Yeah I don't know why I say it, just they way my thoughts come out sometimes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
