Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
godardc wrote: I have just read that it is the iraqi government that ask you, american friends, to leave iraq ? Really ?
I mean, the second you went, everything fell apart. They were THAT stupid ?
At some point, we need to take the training wheels off...
Yeah, but typically you'd do that after they've practiced with the training wheels. Not just show it to them, then take them off, and sling them down the road.
We learn by doing. - Admiral James T. Kirk
Sometimes in life, wise people listen to the advice and tutelage of others to improve their situation. Other times, a belligerent person insists on doing their really stupid thing because they feel they know better than the tutors. Like teenagers. Or the Iraqi government, when they made the US leave.
Lets be real, the only reason Iraq didnt devolve into civil war before the US removed Saddam is because Saddam kept the place in line with an iron fist. Iraq is a nation created and drawn by foreign powers according to colonial designs without much regard to the ethic, economic, political or cultural realities on the ground. It is not, and never has been, a singular nation with a coherent identity. The US staying may have delayed the inevitable, but Iraq has always been an unstable pressure cooker. It's going to have to sort its own stuff out, and the Iraq of today may end up being several different states in the future. This is possibly something the US should have worked on earlier. The destruction or rewriting of Sykes-Picot continues to play heavily with almost all factions in every conflict in the region.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
godardc wrote: I have just read that it is the iraqi government that ask you, american friends, to leave iraq ? Really ?
I mean, the second you went, everything fell apart. They were THAT stupid ?
Stupid? Not quite. The US occupation was very unpopular in 2008 in Iraq. There was a particularly problematic clause, where US personnel were immune from prosecution within Iraq for any crimes committed there. This infuriated the populace when there were some high-profile incidents like the mistreatement of prisoners at Abu Graib, the Haditha Massacre, and the Nisour Square Massacre mixed with the perception (and in some cases, the reality) that US troops faced no penalties for alleged crimes. The Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki, was not a a popular dude and there were a lot of big protests. The Iraqis wanted some things that were not really workable, like prosecuting US troops domestically, getting warrants before going into homes suspected to house insurgents, etc. This is not something the US would sign, so the Iraqi Parliament refused to sign as well. Without a legal SOFA, the US would have had to pull out immediately - at the end of 2008... or else they could invade a friendly US ally, I suppose. Not only would this have been an immediate disaster since the security situation was bad, it also would have tossed that gakky security situation right into the lap of an incoming president. So, there were a lot of political angles.
The then President, George W. Bush, negotiated as best he could and ultimately signed a SOFA that agreed to troops being pulled out by 2011 with the understanding that the new administration would continue working on an updated SOFA that extended the US presence as long as needed. It turned out that the original sticking point - immunity for US troops - was not something the Iraqi parliament could get over. The then-President Barack Obama tried to negotiate for 10,000 troops to remain in country as is, but wound up having to settle for a much smaller number and some contractors iirc.
So it was a confluence of unfortunate circumstances. You can point to a lot of different people and assign blame at various points, but no one involved was stupid, just boxed in my previous bad decisions and events.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/03/19 16:52:11
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
godardc wrote: I have just read that it is the iraqi government that ask you, american friends, to leave iraq ? Really ?
I mean, the second you went, everything fell apart. They were THAT stupid ?
At some point, we need to take the training wheels off...
Yeah, but typically you'd do that after they've practiced with the training wheels. Not just show it to them, then take them off, and sling them down the road.
...I think you've just described how I learned to ride a bike.
I get what you're saying and I certainly wouldn't want to abdicate the region to waste our efforts and blood... but, do we really have specific criterias and milestones that would indicate that we could take of at least one training wheel?
godardc wrote: I have just read that it is the iraqi government that ask you, american friends, to leave iraq ? Really ?
I mean, the second you went, everything fell apart. They were THAT stupid ?
Stupid? Not quite. The US occupation was very unpopular in 2008 in Iraq. There was a particularly problematic clause, where US personnel were immune from prosecution within Iraq for any crimes committed there. This infuriated the populace when there were some high-profile incidents like the mistreatement of prisoners at Abu Graib, the Haditha Massacre, and the Nisour Square Massacre mixed with the perception (and in some cases, the reality) that US troops faced no penalties for alleged crimes. The Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki, was not a a popular dude and there were a lot of big protests. The Iraqis wanted some things that were not really workable, like prosecuting US troops domestically, getting warrants before going into homes suspected to house insurgents, etc. This is not something the US would sign, so the Iraqi Parliament refused to sign as well. Without a legal SOFA, the US would have had to pull out immediately - at the end of 2008... or else they could invade a friendly US ally, I suppose. Not only would this have been an immediate disaster since the security situation was bad, it also would have tossed that gakky security situation right into the lap of an incoming president. So, there were a lot of political angles.
The then President, George W. Bush, negotiated as best he could and ultimately signed a SOFA that agreed to troops being pulled out by 2011 with the understanding that the new administration would continue working on an updated SOFA that extended the US presence as long as needed. It turned out that the original sticking point - immunity for US troops - was not something the Iraqi parliament could get over. The then-President Barack Obama tried to negotiate for 10,000 troops to remain in country as is, but wound up having to settle for a much smaller number and some contractors iirc.
So it was a confluence of unfortunate circumstances. You can point to a lot of different people and assign blame at various points, but no one involved was stupid, just boxed in my previous bad decisions and events.
Yeah... pretty spot on.
I disagreed with pulling out as I thought the Obama Administration didn't fully engage the Iraqis to get the necessary SOPA agreement (as in, their "heart" wasn't into it). However, to be fair, he was elected twice to draw down the war so... in a way, the American voters signaled that enough was enough.
Furthermore, you really can't fault the Iraqis from wanting more agency to operate/live in their own country. It may not have been wisest decision on their part...but it is their decision ultimately.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/23 02:59:37
godardc wrote: I have just read that it is the iraqi government that ask you, american friends, to leave iraq ? Really ?
I mean, the second you went, everything fell apart. They were THAT stupid ?
At some point, we need to take the training wheels off...
Yeah, but typically you'd do that after they've practiced with the training wheels. Not just show it to them, then take them off, and sling them down the road.
...I think you've just described how I learned to ride a bike.
I get what you're saying and I certainly wouldn't want to abdicate the region to waste our efforts and blood... but, do we really have specific criterias and milestones that would indicate that we could take of at least one training wheel?
godardc wrote: I have just read that it is the iraqi government that ask you, american friends, to leave iraq ? Really ?
I mean, the second you went, everything fell apart. They were THAT stupid ?
Stupid? Not quite. The US occupation was very unpopular in 2008 in Iraq. There was a particularly problematic clause, where US personnel were immune from prosecution within Iraq for any crimes committed there. This infuriated the populace when there were some high-profile incidents like the mistreatement of prisoners at Abu Graib, the Haditha Massacre, and the Nisour Square Massacre mixed with the perception (and in some cases, the reality) that US troops faced no penalties for alleged crimes. The Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki, was not a a popular dude and there were a lot of big protests. The Iraqis wanted some things that were not really workable, like prosecuting US troops domestically, getting warrants before going into homes suspected to house insurgents, etc. This is not something the US would sign, so the Iraqi Parliament refused to sign as well. Without a legal SOFA, the US would have had to pull out immediately - at the end of 2008... or else they could invade a friendly US ally, I suppose. Not only would this have been an immediate disaster since the security situation was bad, it also would have tossed that gakky security situation right into the lap of an incoming president. So, there were a lot of political angles.
The then President, George W. Bush, negotiated as best he could and ultimately signed a SOFA that agreed to troops being pulled out by 2011 with the understanding that the new administration would continue working on an updated SOFA that extended the US presence as long as needed. It turned out that the original sticking point - immunity for US troops - was not something the Iraqi parliament could get over. The then-President Barack Obama tried to negotiate for 10,000 troops to remain in country as is, but wound up having to settle for a much smaller number and some contractors iirc.
So it was a confluence of unfortunate circumstances. You can point to a lot of different people and assign blame at various points, but no one involved was stupid, just boxed in my previous bad decisions and events.
Yeah... pretty spot on.
I disagreed with pulling out as I thought the Obama Administration didn't fully engage the Iraqis to get the necessary SOPA agreement (as in, their "heart" wasn't into it). However, to be fair, he was elected twice to draw down the war so... in a way, the American voters signaled that enough was enough.
Furthermore, you really can't fault the Iraqis from wanting more agency to operate/live in their own country. It may not have been wisest decision on their part...but it is their decision ultimately.
Obama really did half ass his attempts to get a SOPA.
That being said Bush tried as hard as possible to get one and failed. McCain would have also tried as much as possible and failed. Any Iraqi leader who would agree to SOPA would not live long enough to be tossed out of office before being torn apart by an angry mob and cannibalized by the mob like Johan de Witt. SOPA was doomed the moment Iraq had actual elections.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/23 16:21:19
Chaos isn’t a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail, and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some are given a chance to climb, but refuse. They cling to the realm, or love, or the gods…illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is, but they’ll never know this. Not until it’s too late.
Eeeeeh, I'd argue it was doomed the moment abuses by military personnel came out. Without those to latch onto and fuel the anger, there would have been less resistance to US forces staying, even after elections.
You needed those instances to bring the issue of soldiers committing crimes without being held accountable to Iraqi law into the spotlight.
Once you had verified cases of soldiers abusing people and, from the point of view of the Iraqi people, getting away with it, there was no way for the Iraqi people to allow them to stay which didn't ring of "Well, we've traded one lot of soldiers who could torture and abuse us for another lot, so what was the point?"
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Eeeeeh, I'd argue it was doomed the moment abuses by military personnel came out. Without those to latch onto and fuel the anger, there would have been less resistance to US forces staying, even after elections.
You needed those instances to bring the issue of soldiers committing crimes without being held accountable to Iraqi law into the spotlight.
Once you had verified cases of soldiers abusing people and, from the point of view of the Iraqi people, getting away with it, there was no way for the Iraqi people to allow them to stay which didn't ring of "Well, we've traded one lot of soldiers who could torture and abuse us for another lot, so what was the point?"
Mercenaries like blackwater were immune to Iraqi law and the UCMJ.
90% of the detainees at Abu Graib were never charged with any crimes and released. We were rounding people up unnecessary because we didn't have enough translators and then randomly torturing a lot of innocent civilians.
Then we allow them to hold real elections and got offended that they elected leaders whose only interest is having the USA leave ASAP.
Chaos isn’t a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail, and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some are given a chance to climb, but refuse. They cling to the realm, or love, or the gods…illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is, but they’ll never know this. Not until it’s too late.
Not an ounce of remorse. Just self pitying whinging and a rush to blame everyone else. Burning your passports wasn’t such a good idea now was it?
Boo Hoo
They can have a Tiny Violin.
They did there crimes. They are facing the results.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
As usual: 'Meh' until it happens someplace they consider important.
Sadly yeah. It's become par for course out there to have such brutal events so regularly. They rarely even make the news now.
Much like the palistine/israel situation. Unless someone's died its rarely ever covered. And even then quickly forgotten.
Most seem to have left the two sides too it, and even the mass prostests, multiple deaths have elected every little response vs other events.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
To be entirely fair there is an element of logic to that. There are over seven billion people around which leaves quite a lot to be mistreated or die evey single day. To have an emotional response to each incident that one can hear about is not only excessively stressful but entirely pointless. Now obviously this doesn't mean that people just shouldn't care, but I find it difficult to fault people for not responding to events that happen all the time and they cannot reasonably do anything about. The place where the average first world person can make a difference about such things is the voting booth, where we can see that people being apathetic is the default outside of an unusual incident, and has been for as long as anyone's been voting.
I still have no idea how killing people with barrel bombs only become a war crime if you swap the conventional explosives out for a chemical weapon.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I still have no idea how killing people with barrel bombs only become a war crime if you swap the conventional explosives out for a chemical weapon.
Because there is no defense against it for the common folk.
Case in point, there were people found dead who were in undamaged shelters at this location. They would possibly have survived conventional attacks, but the nature of this weapon makes that impossible to defend against it.
There is a reason after WW1, with all the horribly atrocious weapons that were invented and used in that war, NBC weapons were the ones singled out as just to horrible to continue to use in future conflict.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/10 00:00:38
I still have no idea how killing people with barrel bombs only become a war crime if you swap the conventional explosives out for a chemical weapon.
You have somewhat of a point, but how horrible the death is matters. To use an extreme example, torturing someone to death is considered a worse crime than shooting them in the head.
NinthMusketeer wrote: You have somewhat of a point, but how horrible the death is matters. To use an extreme example, torturing someone to death is considered a worse crime than shooting them in the head.
Have you seen how the victims of artillery and bombing die?
Also, in the very early days when some of Assad's prisons were overrun it was proven many people taken for questioning were tortured to death. The response was to talk about whether we should start talking about doing something about talking about Assad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: Because there is no defense against it for the common folk.
Case in point, there were people found dead who were in undamaged shelters at this location. They would possibly have survived conventional attacks, but the nature of this weapon makes that impossible to defend against it.
If we consider government built bomb shelters a defense for the common folk, then NBC gear provided by government would be just as much of a defense.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/10 04:50:19
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
It's hard to deny that it's a weird argument: killing a few dozen people with gas is crossing a line, but killing half a million with bullets and bombs is OK.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Well both are still war crimes. The media has just correctly noted one of the two war crimes just doesn't get attention anymore.
As for a US war:
Any war would require some serious nation building. Imagine the extent of damage that could be done to the overall region if the US just barges in, pushes the Assad regime to the point of implosion and just leaves? It would only make it a worse hell hole. Last time there wasn't a clear power in Syria we got IS and look where that crazy train ended up going. I still support intervention but its going to be so much harder today to do right. I don't doubt the competency of the US military to win, I very much question the civilian administration's ability to finish it.
Trump going to war against Assad needs a nationbuilding plan. Otherwise you would leave a massive power vacuum on the border of a NATO ally and Iraq. Worst of all, not finishing it properly would allow Assad and or Putin a chance to try and get back in it and feth over civilians for another few years, because none of the rebels have the power left to win. There is no power now that can just take over from Assad. Not engaging in nation building after toppling Assad is going to result in Somalian circumstances.
djones520 wrote: Because there is no defense against it for the common folk.
Case in point, there were people found dead who were in undamaged shelters at this location. They would possibly have survived conventional attacks, but the nature of this weapon makes that impossible to defend against it.
If we consider government built bomb shelters a defense for the common folk, then NBC gear provided by government would be just as much of a defense.
Just to add, we know the Russian/Syrian air force uses bunker buster bombs against underground and fortified hospitals. The nature of those bombs is even harder to protect yourself from than chemical weapons.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/04/10 06:33:04
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
So the title of this thread refers to ISIS, but we're okay talking off-topic about Assad's gas attack? Hard to keep up with the rules on Dakka these days.
My girlfriend has a friend who's family is still in Syria, and when Trump bombed Assad's airfield she cried and was in a panic. Nevermind that the war has already killed 100,000s of people and the base was pretty empty, but she was in such fear that now that the US was involved "it would turn Syria into another Iraq". True story.
I guess we all just look at the world and see and believe what we want.
I hope things don't escalate and cooler heads prevail.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/10 17:49:53
Which is why I think an actual intervention by the US is totally impossible. The popular and political will does not exist. I think you'll see a few ineffectual airstrikes and that's it.
I don't think even that is a good idea, to be honest. What's the point? It's better not to vacillate - all in, or all out, and all-in isn't a real option. The window to have made a real difference was years ago, and whether or not it was a good idea to have gotten involved then is debatable, what is not - it think - is that it's certainly closed now.
KTG17 wrote: So the title of this thread refers to ISIS, but we're okay talking off-topic about Assad's gas attack? Hard to keep up with the rules on Dakka these days.
I don't think the problem is that you started a thread, so much as it turned into a real gak show by like 6 posts in.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/04/10 18:02:24
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
NinthMusketeer wrote: You have somewhat of a point, but how horrible the death is matters. To use an extreme example, torturing someone to death is considered a worse crime than shooting them in the head.
Have you seen how the victims of artillery and bombing die?
Also, in the very early days when some of Assad's prisons were overrun it was proven many people taken for questioning were tortured to death. The response was to talk about whether we should start talking about doing something about talking about Assad.
Personally on the average suffering scale I believe chemical attacks > artillery/bombs, though that depends on the chemical obviously. The thing is some/most victims of explosions die horrid deaths, vs gas where they all do. As for the rest, well I did say you have somewhat of a point--I didn't mean to disregard the argument but rather comment on the logic of chemical attacks being considered worse than generic bomb ones. At the end of the day it's just about where global society has deemed these things fall on the acceptability scale, which as always is one part logic one part history and one part emotion.
Which is why I think an actual intervention by the US is totally impossible. The popular and political will does not exist. I think you'll see a few ineffectual airstrikes and that's it.
I don't think even that is a good idea, to be honest. What's the point? It's better not to vacillate - all in, or all out, and all-in isn't a real option. The window to have made a real difference was years ago, and whether or not it was a good idea to have gotten involved then is debatable, what is not - it think - is that it's certainly closed now.
Agree, now there really is no one left to support. You would have to start from the ground up. All the airstrikes will do is destroy some equipment and potentially adding a few weeks to the war Assad is inevitably going to win. Weeks in which more lives will be lost.
Personally I would still agree to an intervention, because the loss of life before Assad crushes Idlib is going to be immense. Likely thousands if not tens of thousands of deaths and tens if not hundreds of thousands of refugees to avoid. But realistically the political will isn't there to see such a massive undertaking through. The second you leave too soon is going to see conflict restart in a Saudi-Iranian struggle for political dominance. The West does not want another 10 year occupation, because the general population just doesn't care what happens half the world over.
To be honest even not doing anything will have the US take heat. Its just the way it is when the US has hegemony, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/10 20:03:44
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Mordant 92nd 'Acid Dogs'
The Lost and Damned
Inquisition
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
