Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes, we need one anyway.

17 (21.8%)

No, we should take that elsewhere and keep this thread as-is.

27 (34.6%)

I don't care, let's see what happens.

34 (43.6%)

Total Members Voted: 75

[Zangi]

The Iraqi Rabbit Army deserves very few words in their defense. Here's eight, which is probably six more than needed.

"They were cowards, so what can you expect?"

Its probably more then that. 
The Iraqi troopers probably ain't as... invested in their nation or some grand ideal.  Ya know, nationalism or some such common ideal that would convince people to freely volunteer to be shot/exploded at.  The new Iraqi administration, already booted those people to the curb...
Basically building a fledgling army from the ground up... made up mostly of people just looking for a steady paying job and would rather stay alive then lay down their life.  Compound that problem with the corruption we now know about...  What could go wrong?

[Loud Whispers]

Loud Whispers, using this source: http://www.vox.com/2015/11/19/9760284/isis-history

I'm guessing that your 800 figure comes from the number of ISIS fighters in the battle for Mosul in June 2014.

Assad ensured that (a) there would be a civil war instead of peaceful protests, by immediately attacking protesters, and (b) that the civil war would be dominated by islamic extremists, by attacking the most moderate / secular rebels and ignoring the most extreme ones, and also:

In amnesties issued between March and October 2011, Assad released a significant number (exact counts are hard to know) of extremists from Syrian prisons. Hof called this an "effort to pollute the opposition with sectarianism": Assad gambled that if his enemies were Islamic militants, then the West wouldn't intervene against him.

(ISIS, in 2012-13, also freed "somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,000 inmates" from Iraqi prisons, including "many terrorists [that] elite US military forces caught over the years." Of course, that has nothing to do with Assad.)

Once ISIS was declared (from AQI) and in Syria (2013), Assad avoided attacking them, and ISIS concentrated on attacking the other rebel groups, including Al-Nusra, to take land that had already been taken from Assad's forces.

Once ISIS was declared a caliphate after the fall of Mosul and the blitz across Iraq (2014), recruitment went way up:

Establishing a caliphate had long been the goal of the entire jihadist movement. By declaring that he had actually created one, Baghdadi gained a huge leg up on al-Qaeda in the struggle for global jihadist supremacy. Since then, ISIS has "succeeded in attracting far, far more recruits" than al-Qaeda, Will McCants, the director of the Brookings Institution's Project on US Relations With the Islamic World, told me. This has also has allowed it to gain a following among foreign terrorist groups, with major ISIS franchises in Libya, Egypt's Sinai desert, and Nigeria.

Even so, they've been losing ground and suffering enough setbacks lately that their image of being winners (to use a Trumpism) was at risk, so they resorted to dramatic Al Qaida style suicide attacks in foreign countries, including western ones since western citizens tend to ignore news articles about them in the middle east (and then apparently blame the media for not covering them :V).

Hahaha, hindsight's a fucking bitch
What a git

[Cthulhu]

The Iraqi Rabbit Army deserves very few words in their defense. Here's eight, which is probably six more than needed.

"They were cowards, so what can you expect?"

Its probably more then that. 
The Iraqi troopers probably ain't as... invested in their nation or some grand ideal.  Ya know, nationalism or some such common ideal that would convince people to freely volunteer to be shot/exploded at.  The new Iraqi administration, already booted those people to the curb...
Basically building a fledgling army from the ground up... made up mostly of people just looking for a steady paying job and would rather stay alive then lay down their life.  Compound that problem with the corruption we now know about...  What could go wrong?

That's part of the reason I think the Kurds will come out of this the best.  They've got the will and the incentive to reclaim their territory and make sure it doesn't go to hell again.  I'd like to see a recognized state of Kurdistan in ten years or so.

[smjjames]

The Iraqi Rabbit Army deserves very few words in their defense. Here's eight, which is probably six more than needed.

"They were cowards, so what can you expect?"

Its probably more then that. 
The Iraqi troopers probably ain't as... invested in their nation or some grand ideal.  Ya know, nationalism or some such common ideal that would convince people to freely volunteer to be shot/exploded at.  The new Iraqi administration, already booted those people to the curb...
Basically building a fledgling army from the ground up... made up mostly of people just looking for a steady paying job and would rather stay alive then lay down their life.  Compound that problem with the corruption we now know about...  What could go wrong?

That's part of the reason I think the Kurds will come out of this the best.  They've got the will and the incentive to reclaim their territory and make sure it doesn't go to hell again.  I'd like to see a recognized state of Kurdistan in ten years or so.

They'd have to carve the borders out of Iraq and Syria first though.

[martinuzz]

Apparently the Paris attacks influenced public opinion enough in Germany, to reconsider sending military prescence to Syria. The government announced they will be sending Tornado fighters to Syria, to be used for intelligence gathering. Germany is also considering sending a frigate, and tanker planes to aid in the battle against IS.

Also, it is starting to look like public opinion in the UK has shifted enough for Cameron to get the parliament to agree on sending bombers to Syria to bomb IS.
The voting in the House of Commons is next week, preliminary polls show it will probably pass, which would mean UK bombers will likely deploy over Syria before coming Christmas.

[scrdest]

It seems to me like the Paris attacks were, from the standpoint of someone who is not an apocalypse cultist, the worst decision strategically they could conceivably make. Like, starting a land war in Asian part of Russia in winter to attack Pearl Harbor-tier bad.

[Sheb]

Why?

[scrdest]

Why?

Up to this point it was pretty much the kind of deal US had pre-Pearl Harbor. 'Hey, bad stuff are happening and we don't like 'em, but we can't be arsed to expend our own resources TBH'.

Now the governments have a thing to point at to justify why should they bother NOW without a massive outcry.

[Fniff]

The thing is, they kinda are apocalypse cultists. They said it themselves, in their own magazine no less, that the West invading is one of the triggers for Armageddon.

From their point of view, they need everyone angry at them or the apocalypse won't happen.

... Yes, we are dealing with an organization that would be too insane to have as videogame villains.

[scrdest]

The thing is, they kinda are apocalypse cultists. They said it themselves, in their own magazine no less, that the West invading is one of the triggers for Armageddon.

Yeah, that's kinda why I specified that in the post

[Vilanat]

It seems to me like the Paris attacks were, from the standpoint of someone who is not an apocalypse cultist, the worst decision strategically they could conceivably make. Like, starting a land war in Asian part of Russia in winter to attack Pearl Harbor-tier bad.

How so? ISIS spent 10K USD in equipment, plus let's guess something along the lines of 1M USD in human assets and in result inflicted direct damages in the hundreds of millions. if the UK and France start escalating their bombing in Syria and Iraq and it appears they will, it translates to additional hundreds of millions (Conservative estimate). the tightening of the security in France and Belgium cost additional hundreds of millions in spending and lost revenues (Conservative estimate) since they are basically paying for people to just stand in street corners and scare innocent people off.

On the other hand, it is entirely possible that the Paris terror attacks generated significant revenues from donations to ISIS. it is also quite possible and reasonable that it also generated a fresh stream of recruits.

They have achieved their goals since they had made their enemies lose a couple of billions, disrupted the population and terrorized it to such extremes, that i dare any European cartoonist to portrait Muhammad shagging a pig signed under his own real name. ain't gonna happen and not out of respect. as for the west invading them and meet them at the battlefields, well, that's actually one of ISIS goals.

As for the fantasy of France, the UK or the US achieving their goals and demolishing ISIS through air strikes, then they will have to also bomb in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Libya, Algeria, Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan, Yemen, Tunisia, Israel, the Palestinians, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, France, Belgium, the UK, Spain, Bosnia, India, Russia and a bunch of other countries in order to demolish ISIS and that's simply not going to happen. if, for some obscure reason, the french suddenly become competent and do manage to eliminate the entire ISIS leadership in both Syria and Iraq, very soon new leaders will emerge and history taught us that eliminating a leader does not necessarily ends an organization. you can call them ISIS, you can call them Daesh, you can call them Al Qaeda in Iraq, you can call them Al Qaeda, you can call them Mujahideen, you can call them Jihadists and you can call them Islamists, it doesn't matter, Crush one, the other will rise.

You are also forgetting one little thing. the US had its "Pearl Harbor", it was called 9/11. they went to war. they didn't win this time.

[Fniff]

The thing is, they kinda are apocalypse cultists. They said it themselves, in their own magazine no less, that the West invading is one of the triggers for Armageddon.

Yeah, that's kinda why I specified that in the post

Oh, whoops. My mistake.

[Bohandas]

So I suppose they're counting on direct and overt divine intervention then (like, not little nebulous coincidences that could possibly be attributed to divine favor). Because thet's the only possible way they'd win in an apocalyptic war; as soon as it's clear that it's the apocalypse anyway all the major powers are gonna nuke the crap out of them.

[Shadowlord]

Our response to pearl harbor was a total war involving the mobilization of the entire nation towards the pursuit of victory and the defeat of the axis powers, accepting whatever costs were necessary (or the government hid them to keep morale up)

Our response to 9/11 was completely different. No total war. Volunteer military. Chase the Taliban and Al Qaida into Pakistan but don't follow them. Knock over Saddam, who had been successfully keeping terrorists out of Iraq, etc.

[misko27]

You are also forgetting one little thing. the US had its "Pearl Harbor", it was called 9/11. they went to war. they didn't win this time.

Digression. I'm really not interested in arguing the rest of your point, and I haven't up until this point so don't bug me with it.

Pearl Harbor was not 9/11. Yalta was not Munich (nor was it Potsdam or the Tehran Conference). 1914 was not 1939, and neither were 1949, or 1950, or 1962, 1990, or 2015. The Cuban missile Crisis was not the Berlin Airlift. The Korean War was not the Vietnam War. Russia's Patriotic War was not the Great Patriotic War. South Ossetia is not Donetsk. The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan was not the American Invasion of Afghanistan, or even either of the British Invasions of Afghanistan (technically three). The Afghan Mujahideen are not the Taliban, nor are the Al Qaeda or ISIS. Imperial Germany was not Nazi Germany, and the Central Powers were different from the Axis (and the Entente was quite different from the Allies). US occupation of Japan was different from US occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan, and every other country. The Six-day war was not the Yom Kippur War, and neither were the First Arab-Israeli War. The First Iraq War was not the second Iraq War, and neither are the ongoing Third one. I made a cheap joke in a different thread about the longevity of "Greece vs kebab", but even while joking it should be obvious that the nature of the greco-turkish conflict has changed radically from when it was the Byzantine Empire vs the Ottomans. Turkey didn't even exist when it started!

Historical analogies are useful for the purposes of "compare and contrast", but they are not a method of analysis in and of themselves. Your example is imperfect (which you point out), so why not explain what's different? But you don't do that. At all.  All you do say is

the US had its "Pearl Harbor", it was called 9/11. they went to war. they didn't win this time.

Great. except that's WRONG. Saying "9/11 was Pearl Harbor" is wrong, even if you put 'pearl harbor' in quotes. It was not. So much was different: The location, ideology, and nature of the enemy; the global political situation; the local political situation; the economic reaction; the world diplomatic reaction; the domestic and global military situations (wasn't an ongoing World war to join, for example); the damage inflicted, both type, cost, and effect on civilians and political thought; all of these things are just tossed in the toilet for the sake of a cheap comparison that fits your views. And what are those? You don't say. You don't make a point with your comparison, even assuming (and it's a big assumption that you don't defend) that is a fair comparison. You don't explain. Is Islam just more powerful then the Axis was? More difficult to defeat? Is America weaker? Does it just not have the support of the glorious Soviet Union behind it? Who is to say? You don't.

Historical examples are useful, but they are often just laziness. I even see people attempt to shoe-horn current actors into the roles of previous actors, when the very fact that they don't fit should set off an alarm bell saying "hey, this analogy sucks, don't use it". Look at yours. Here's my idea: Since your example has a huge issue (the US didn't nuke and occupy Al Qaeda/Afghanistan/Iraq/The Middle East/SOMETHING into democracy like it did with Japan), maybe that just means your example sucks.

Thank you for your time.