[ARCHIVED THREAD] - The Arab Collapse (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 5/21/2013 10:49:41 AM EDT
|
NY Post ---Ralph Peters
So much for Arab spring. Great article byRalph Peters "Turkey has the largest military in NATO after our own, but cries “helpless” crocodile tears over Syrian refugees — while dreaming of rebuilding the Ottoman Empire upon their ruined lives. Our Saudi “friends” spent decades building the most-sophisticated military arsenal in the Middle East, apart from Israel. Now the Saudis wring their hands over Syria’s misery — but won’t intervene directly to stop the killing." |
| Well. I think its because.once their military actions start it wont stop. Not that i care but extrapolate that mess out with all of the different tribes in the different countries. whereas now we and some others do the dirty work that is more operations specific. Full out war in the oil fields. Eventual glass sheets of muslim lands. |
Dont forget this fitting article. Applicable as well. RABIC-SPEAKING ARMIES have been generally ineffective in the modern era. Egyptian regular forces did poorly against Yemeni irregulars in the 1960s. Syrians could only impose their will in Lebanon during the mid-1970s by the use of overwhelming weaponry and numbers. Iraqis showed ineptness against an Iranian military ripped apart by revolutionary turmoil in the 1980s and could not win a three-decades-long war against the Kurds. The Arab military performance on both sides of the 1990 Kuwait war was mediocre. And the Arabs have done poorly in nearly all the military confrontations with Israel. Why this unimpressive record? There are many factors — economic, ideological, technical — but perhaps the most important has to do with culture and certain societal attributes which inhibit Arabs from producing an effective military force. |
|
Quoted:
NY Post ---Ralph Peters So much for Arab spring. Great article byRalph Peters "Turkey has the largest military in NATO after our own, but cries “helpless” crocodile tears over Syrian refugees — while dreaming of rebuilding the Ottoman Empire upon their ruined lives. Our Saudi “friends” spent decades building the most-sophisticated military arsenal in the Middle East, apart from Israel. Now the Saudis wring their hands over Syria’s misery — but won’t intervene directly to stop the killing." That's a good summation of the history and current situation. Dont tl:dr this. |
|
Turkey has an almost century long history of freedom from Muslim extremism and wants no part in the "Arab Spring". In Turkey women have equal rights. In many ways it leans towards the west. The term "Young Turk" comes from the people who overthrew the remnants of the Ottoman Empire. They saw how backwards their country was and correctly inferred that it was the result of extreme Islam that was stuck in the 13th century. They took power and put radical Islam in it's place.
As to Saudi Arabia, they are too busy raking in oil money and want nothing to do with anything that will interfere with the free flow of oil. |
|
Quoted:
NY Post ---Ralph Peters So much for Arab spring. Great article byRalph Peters "Turkey has the largest military in NATO after our own, but cries “helpless” crocodile tears over Syrian refugees — while dreaming of rebuilding the Ottoman Empire upon their ruined lives. Our Saudi “friends” spent decades building the most-sophisticated military arsenal in the Middle East, apart from Israel. Now the Saudis wring their hands over Syria’s misery — but won’t intervene directly to stop the killing." The Saudis will have their lap dog Obama order US troops in as soon as he can justify it to a doubting American public. |
|
Quoted:
The only thing I can say Obama did right was to stay the fuck out of Syria. No support to either side. Let em kill each other. Makes for good TV. Other then pledging to give al Qaeda money to rebel, and whatever weapons they were sending there through Benghazi? |
|
Quoted:
Dont forget this fitting article. Applicable as well. http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/images_17/deatkine_A.gifRABIC-SPEAKING ARMIES have been generally ineffective in the modern era. Egyptian regular forces did poorly against Yemeni irregulars in the 1960s. Syrians could only impose their will in Lebanon during the mid-1970s by the use of overwhelming weaponry and numbers. Iraqis showed ineptness against an Iranian military ripped apart by revolutionary turmoil in the 1980s and could not win a three-decades-long war against the Kurds. The Arab military performance on both sides of the 1990 Kuwait war was mediocre. And the Arabs have done poorly in nearly all the military confrontations with Israel. Why this unimpressive record? There are many factors — economic, ideological, technical — but perhaps the most important has to do with culture and certain societal attributes which inhibit Arabs from producing an effective military force. This is good stuff. I'm still reading |
|
They have Saudi Festival here in Hungary and I complained to them about their lack of empathy over their common arab brothers....
I consider those in the biblical areas to be much better better and also some to be very beautiful. I pray for the Arab Chrisitians most importantly. |
|
great article.
I don't see new borders being drawn in any of these multi-sect nations... each faction wants to control it all. It's not as simple as carving out a Shiastan and a Sunnistan. These people will kill each other until the end of time. The best we can hope for is that the current fight remains fairly even, and drags out for another generation or two. I for one think mixing regions together within new borders was a stoke of unintentional genius. Maybe we'll find out who's Allah is the best in a few hundred years. |
|
I cant wait for them to just eat each other alive.
If we could get North Dakota to serve our energy needs, I'd say build a wall around the ME, park the army on it, and shoot anyone who tries to get out. Let them fuck their goats and kill their women or whatever the hell. They became worthless after inventing zero. |
|
Quoted:
I'd be strangely comfortable with Turkey starting with Syria and curb-stomping their way down the Arab peninsula stopping at the Omani border and ceding admin control of Mecca and Medina to the Jordanian Hashemites. Considering the Hashemite Kingdom once included what is now Syria, Mecca, And Medina. It was the House of Saudi that started the Arab revolt and took over the Holy cities. The Brits cut up the rest of the Middle East and created arbitrary boundaries to create countries irregardless of tribal lands and historical associations. That's when they all went bat-shit crazy fighting among the tribes and religious divisions (Sunni/Shia). |
|
Quoted:
Peters tends to get rounds on target. I remember one comment he made that Afghanistan isn't a country - it's an accident that happened where other countries placed their borders. Yep. Afghanistan was essentially a buffer zone between British India and Russian Central Asia, with Persia to the west and China to the east. To expect a country full of so many disparate peoples to act with any cohesion is an effort in futility, and it is emblematic of the conditions in the rest of the Muslim world. To be totally fair, if we and the rest of the world can sit on the sidelines (good idea), the Saudis, Turks, Jordanians, et al can, too. Hell, we have a a full blown war to our south and we're not doing a damn thing (again, probably best to stay out of that one also). |
|
Quoted:
Dont forget this fitting article. Applicable as well. http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/images_17/deatkine_A.gifRABIC-SPEAKING ARMIES have been generally ineffective in the modern era. Egyptian regular forces did poorly against Yemeni irregulars in the 1960s. Syrians could only impose their will in Lebanon during the mid-1970s by the use of overwhelming weaponry and numbers. Iraqis showed ineptness against an Iranian military ripped apart by revolutionary turmoil in the 1980s and could not win a three-decades-long war against the Kurds. The Arab military performance on both sides of the 1990 Kuwait war was mediocre. And the Arabs have done poorly in nearly all the military confrontations with Israel. Why this unimpressive record? There are many factors — economic, ideological, technical — but perhaps the most important has to do with culture and certain societal attributes which inhibit Arabs from producing an effective military force. In'shallah. ("God willing") |
|
Quoted:
The only thing I can say Obama did right was to stay the fuck out of Syria. No support to either side. Let em kill each other. Makes for good TV. Dude! You really ought to check out what the whole issue with Bengazi was REALLY about. We were supplying the Syrian rebel including Stinger missiles. |
|
Quoted:
The only thing I can say Obama did right was to stay the fuck out of Syria. No support to either side. Let em kill each other. Makes for good TV. I'm fairly certain we are arming the rebels in some fashion, under the covers. We ARE giving the rebels night vision goggles, body armor and other forms of "aid". http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-28/world/37339213_1_syrian-opposition-coalition-homs-syrian-rebel-fighters |
|
Quoted:
Dont forget this fitting article. Applicable as well. http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/images_17/deatkine_A.gifRABIC-SPEAKING ARMIES have been generally ineffective in the modern era. Egyptian regular forces did poorly against Yemeni irregulars in the 1960s. Syrians could only impose their will in Lebanon during the mid-1970s by the use of overwhelming weaponry and numbers. Iraqis showed ineptness against an Iranian military ripped apart by revolutionary turmoil in the 1980s and could not win a three-decades-long war against the Kurds. The Arab military performance on both sides of the 1990 Kuwait war was mediocre. And the Arabs have done poorly in nearly all the military confrontations with Israel. Why this unimpressive record? There are many factors — economic, ideological, technical — but perhaps the most important has to do with culture and certain societal attributes which inhibit Arabs from producing an effective military force. Great article! Thanks. |
|
Quoted:
Insh' alla Translated in modern times means: " let the Americans pay for it" and in most parts of souther Iraq: " look like you are confused and the Americans will do it for you and gives us money" I thought it meant, "It's probably not going to happen, and if it doesn't it's not my fault." |
|
Quoted:
I cant wait for them to just eat each other alive. If we could get North Dakota to serve our energy needs, I'd say build a wall around the ME, park the army on it, and shoot anyone who tries to get out. Let them fuck their goats and kill their women or whatever the hell. They became worthless after inventing zero. The trouble is that zero is now our president and it appears that inventing it was not such a great idea after all. |