- Joined
- Jun 24, 2015
- Messages
- 8,159 (2.37/day)
- Location
- Western Canada
| System Name | ab┃ob |
|---|---|
| Processor | 7800X3D┃5800X3D |
| Motherboard | B650E PG-ITX┃X570 Impact |
| Cooling | NH-U12A + T30┃AXP120-x67 |
| Memory | 64GB 6400CL32┃32GB 3600CL14 |
| Video Card(s) | RTX 4070 Ti Eagle┃RTX A2000 |
| Storage | 8TB of SSDs┃1TB SN550 |
| Case | Caselabs S3┃Lazer3D HT5 |
I say that by continuing this air campaign against Daesh we are getting ourselves in a war that we cannot win. The world has no real answer to Syria's problems and since we can't get Russia to stop their campaign (except they're the ones actually "allowed" to be there), we can at least do our part by staying out of it, and ceasing to threaten Russia by sending out all these messages of "support" for Turkey. There's nothing more to be said about Turkey. Actions speak louder than words and all they've done in the past months is adopt an outwardly neutral (of course, internally supportive) stance towards Daesh and embark on a mission to bomb the Kurds (the ones doing all the work against IS) into oblivion. Did they really think that, in the rather amicable Turkey-Russia relations pre-December, the Russian Air Force was there to challenge their sovereignty and drop bombs on Turkish soil? What else needs to be said?
Any modern conflict, be it against a conventional force or asymmetrical threat, is better off with air superiority. But that does not erase the fact that there need to be "boots on the ground" to get the job done. After all the Iraqi conflict, it seems that no nation is willing to deploy their own personnel on a massive scale. That's OK, but there still needs to be troops on the ground to do that. In this situation, the most logical candidates would be the moderate resistance groups of Syrian people.
What has Afghanistan taught us? That country has taught us that unless the people of the nation find the resolve to stand up against an imminent threat, no amount of military support from Western countries or Russia is going to solve their problems. After nearly 40 years of near-continuous warfare, Afghans have grown tired (heck, why did they flock to the Taliban in '94 while Massoud et others were struggling with that Paki-funded, excuse of a human being that is Hekmatyar? Because they wanted peace and stability more than Massoud's liberty and progressiveness and they thought the Taliban offered it) and the ANA is inept, corrupt, and undisciplined in just about all its units except for the elite commando groups, few and far between. Same thing with Iraq. While the ANA is stuck with a hodgepodge of old and some new equipment, the Iraqi Army had plenty of new Western equipment with which to keep the order in Iraq. Yet, what did they do at the first emergence of the Daesh threat last year? They dropped their weapons, new humvees and shiny M1A1s and fled in entire units, and left the fight to the Pershmerga. No amount of Western involvement is going to attack the problem at its roots.
Bringing it back to Syria, we find that this country is similarly lacking in that one thing needed to eradicate an insurgency (Daesh being an overambitious, subhuman insurgent group that takes hold in multiple countries). The current state of the Syrian Civil War reminds us of Afghanistan at the end of their efforts to drive out the Soviets; multiple armed factions, each pursuing their own agenda, unwilling to work together. Think about it. We have Assad and the SAA, we have small moderate rebel groups that refuse to work with him, we have those rebel groups that were taken under the US' wing and defected to IS/Nusra within months of finishing their training, and we have the scum. We even have smaller, lesser-known entities such as the Turkmen, which have recently surfaced in the news thanks to Turkey's supremely retarded, unhelpful and selfish act of shooting down the Russian jet; financed by Turkey and undoubtedly there to assert Turkey's interests in Syria, I don't find it far-fetched to compare them to Hekmatyar's band of thugs, who were funded and directly influenced by Pakistani ISI to further Pakistan's interests in Afghanistan. Let's pretend for a moment to take Daesh and Nusra out of the picture entirely. Can these groups work together? Absolutely not, unless they radically change their views of each other and commit to building a better future for Syria.
The closest people have ever gotten to reconciling the rebels and Assad is Kerry, who hinted at the fact that in order to achieve lasting peace, a post-war Syria would need to find a way to become democratic while keeping Assad in the picture. That's not very promising.
By getting involved in airstrikes, all Western nations are just putting a bulls-eye on their backs and welcoming terrorist attacks. These attacks such as the ones carried out in Paris, were not done by known IS members. They were carried out by people who wanted to be affiliated with, to be celebrated by ISIS. They are residents/citizens of Western countries who see the aggression against Daesh, and in conjunction with their brainwashing, come to believe that their own nations are the enemy. They don't contact al-Baghdadi and his minions to coordinate an attack. They do it because they want to, then ISIS claims responsibility for influencing their acts.
Any modern conflict, be it against a conventional force or asymmetrical threat, is better off with air superiority. But that does not erase the fact that there need to be "boots on the ground" to get the job done. After all the Iraqi conflict, it seems that no nation is willing to deploy their own personnel on a massive scale. That's OK, but there still needs to be troops on the ground to do that. In this situation, the most logical candidates would be the moderate resistance groups of Syrian people.
What has Afghanistan taught us? That country has taught us that unless the people of the nation find the resolve to stand up against an imminent threat, no amount of military support from Western countries or Russia is going to solve their problems. After nearly 40 years of near-continuous warfare, Afghans have grown tired (heck, why did they flock to the Taliban in '94 while Massoud et others were struggling with that Paki-funded, excuse of a human being that is Hekmatyar? Because they wanted peace and stability more than Massoud's liberty and progressiveness and they thought the Taliban offered it) and the ANA is inept, corrupt, and undisciplined in just about all its units except for the elite commando groups, few and far between. Same thing with Iraq. While the ANA is stuck with a hodgepodge of old and some new equipment, the Iraqi Army had plenty of new Western equipment with which to keep the order in Iraq. Yet, what did they do at the first emergence of the Daesh threat last year? They dropped their weapons, new humvees and shiny M1A1s and fled in entire units, and left the fight to the Pershmerga. No amount of Western involvement is going to attack the problem at its roots.
Bringing it back to Syria, we find that this country is similarly lacking in that one thing needed to eradicate an insurgency (Daesh being an overambitious, subhuman insurgent group that takes hold in multiple countries). The current state of the Syrian Civil War reminds us of Afghanistan at the end of their efforts to drive out the Soviets; multiple armed factions, each pursuing their own agenda, unwilling to work together. Think about it. We have Assad and the SAA, we have small moderate rebel groups that refuse to work with him, we have those rebel groups that were taken under the US' wing and defected to IS/Nusra within months of finishing their training, and we have the scum. We even have smaller, lesser-known entities such as the Turkmen, which have recently surfaced in the news thanks to Turkey's supremely retarded, unhelpful and selfish act of shooting down the Russian jet; financed by Turkey and undoubtedly there to assert Turkey's interests in Syria, I don't find it far-fetched to compare them to Hekmatyar's band of thugs, who were funded and directly influenced by Pakistani ISI to further Pakistan's interests in Afghanistan. Let's pretend for a moment to take Daesh and Nusra out of the picture entirely. Can these groups work together? Absolutely not, unless they radically change their views of each other and commit to building a better future for Syria.
The closest people have ever gotten to reconciling the rebels and Assad is Kerry, who hinted at the fact that in order to achieve lasting peace, a post-war Syria would need to find a way to become democratic while keeping Assad in the picture. That's not very promising.
By getting involved in airstrikes, all Western nations are just putting a bulls-eye on their backs and welcoming terrorist attacks. These attacks such as the ones carried out in Paris, were not done by known IS members. They were carried out by people who wanted to be affiliated with, to be celebrated by ISIS. They are residents/citizens of Western countries who see the aggression against Daesh, and in conjunction with their brainwashing, come to believe that their own nations are the enemy. They don't contact al-Baghdadi and his minions to coordinate an attack. They do it because they want to, then ISIS claims responsibility for influencing their acts.
Last edited:
