Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Syria Civil War II

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Syria Civil War II Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Syria Civil War II - 10/15/2015 4:18:19 PM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

Do you think that any nation is going to undertake serious military action (home soil + possessions excepted) without the full agreement of the US?

Not when home soil and possessions excepted.

But then I thought that the main purpose with NATO was the home soil and possibly the possessions.

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 61
RE: Syria Civil War II - 10/15/2015 4:19:48 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

Ya, now you are showing your age! That was joint effort by both Great Brittan and France to take back the Suez Canal until the USA pulled the rug from under the whole deal IIRC. My third grade class had quill pens then.
warspite1

Except I wasn't around then BTW it was the UK, France and Israel.

But its a serious matter - sounds like just a bit of Euro bashing. Is he suggesting that Brezhnev or Kruschev (sorry spelling) was afraid of any one European power??

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 10/15/2015 5:26:35 PM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to operating)
Post #: 62
RE: Syria Civil War II - 10/15/2015 4:25:01 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

Do you think that any nation is going to undertake serious military action (home soil + possessions excepted) without the full agreement of the US?

Not when home soil and possessions excepted.

But then I thought that the main purpose with NATO was the home soil and possibly the possessions.
warspite1

I was thinking of the Falklands and the fact that the UK took action despite the protestations of the US and many of our European 'friends'.

As it turned out both the US and France came down ultimately with the UK, but many didn't... But because this was an attack on British owned territory, the British decided it was for them to decide what action to take.

However, if - in this example - Turkey were invaded, then I would expect a NATO response. That is what its there for.

quote:

If Obama doesn't lead NATO into battle, no other NATO member will lift a finger militarily even if another member is invaded


This quote suggested that some/all members of NATO should act regardless of what its main member does, and furthermore, is a very strange thing to say (unless of course I have the idea of NATO wrong and the treaty states that NATO countries will act if one is attacked - unless they don't want to and can opt out and leave to others).

As I say - just sounds like Euro bashing.

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 10/15/2015 7:46:45 PM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 63
RE: Syria Civil War II - 10/15/2015 7:51:32 PM   
operating


Posts: 3158
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline 		Like Brittan: Wouldn't be Turkey's decision on calling for help from NATO, if another country DOW on it followed up with some kind intrusion of it's sovereign soil? However, if was Turkey DOW on another nation, then it would be up to NATO to join in? Or, Would it be up to member states to arbitrarily chose to join the conflict or not? My belief is that NATO was set up more for a defensive organization (mutual aid) than an offensive organization. Although in recent times NATO has been on the offensive outside of the domain of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 64
RE: Syria Civil War II - 10/15/2015 7:55:00 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

Like Brittan: Wouldn't be Turkey's decision on calling for help from NATO, if another country DOW on it followed up with some kind intrusion of it's sovereign soil? However, if was Turkey DOW on another nation, then it would be up to NATO to join in? Or, Would it be up to member states to arbitrarily chose to join the conflict or not? My belief is that NATO was set up more for a defensive organization (mutual aid) than an offensive organization. Although in recent times NATO has been on the offensive outside of the domain of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
warspite1

My understanding is its a defensive organisation. If attacked it would expect help from its NATO allies. If Turkey is the aggressor - then I see no requirement (unless they wanted too) for those allies to assist.

Not sure why you said Like Britain?


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 10/15/2015 8:55:43 PM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to operating)
Post #: 65
RE: Syria Civil War II - 10/15/2015 8:15:30 PM   
operating


Posts: 3158
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline 		I'm not aware that Turkey has been supplied arms to Russian insurgents (surely they do other for countries or insurgent groups), which is accepted to some extent. What if other countries are supplying arms to the Turkish Kurds? How do you think the Turks should respond? "You reap what you sow", is what comes to mind... Come to think of it: I don't think Turkey has DOW on Syria, yet the Turks bomb in Syrian territory, even at times in Iraq... No innocence there...

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 66
RE: Syria Civil War II - 10/15/2015 8:20:01 PM   
operating


Posts: 3158
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline 		I think the smart thing to do for Assad is to give the Syrian Kurds autonomy, a state of their own. One less headache..

(in reply to operating)
Post #: 67
RE: Syria Civil War II - 10/15/2015 11:45:13 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

Like Brittan: Wouldn't be Turkey's decision on calling for help from NATO, if another country DOW on it followed up with some kind intrusion of it's sovereign soil? However, if was Turkey DOW on another nation, then it would be up to NATO to join in? Or, Would it be up to member states to arbitrarily chose to join the conflict or not? My belief is that NATO was set up more for a defensive organization (mutual aid) than an offensive organization. Although in recent times NATO has been on the offensive outside of the domain of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
warspite1

My understanding is its a defensive organisation. If attacked it would expect help from its NATO allies. If Turkey is the aggressor - then I see no requirement (unless they wanted too) for those allies to assist.

Not sure why you said Like Britain?



Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

Article 6

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack: on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America,
, on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.


< Message edited by Aurelian -- 10/16/2015 12:51:21 AM >

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 68
RE: Syria Civil War II - 10/16/2015 1:03:22 AM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
You make it sound like this is a recent development which seems a little strange.


Sorry I was trying to convey my thoughts without getting political. I’ll try and clarify. The current administrations actions in world affairs make it seem to me he believes that any NATO member can take the lead on military issues at the flip of a switch. I think he’s made a fundamental misjudgment on the state of military readiness in the world and fails to understand it’s the US or no one in the lead. This has lead to power vacuums opening up all around the globe which opportunistic leaders with ill intent are now moving to fill.

His announcement today about leaving a few troops in Afghanistan gives me a faint glimmer of hope that he is finally starting to get it. But as far as Putin is concerned I think it’s too late. The only thing that will reign in Putin is Putin himself, I doubt this administration will do anything to stop him even if he attacks the Baltic state members of NATO. Obama will “red line” it with talking points and speeches about NATO obligations, but when push comes to shove I think Putin has his ticket and no longer even listens to what he says. I pray I’m wrong but I bet Putin tests him before his term is up.

So even though my statements seem a simple statement of fact to you, there are many people in the world who simply do not understand Geopolitics and the military the way most of us in this forum do. We have been witness to on the job training with this administration and it has left me with a firm belief no one should be allowed to run for office without passing an exam first. The job is simply too important to world peace to allow that chance will give us someone who knows what they’re doing every 4 years.

Jim



_____________________________


(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 69
RE: Syria Civil War II - 10/16/2015 2:53:18 AM   
operating


Posts: 3158
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Not sure why you said Like Britain?



Falkland Islands: Britain went on it's own, by choice I believe..

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 70
RE: Syria Civil War II - 10/16/2015 5:17:18 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: operating


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Not sure why you said Like Britain?



Falkland Islands: Britain went on it's own, by choice I believe..
warspite1

Deleted. Getting too complicated and I think we are both on the same page.


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 10/16/2015 6:20:35 AM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to operating)
Post #: 71
RE: Syria Civil War II - 10/16/2015 7:19:28 AM   
Jagdtiger14


Posts: 1686
Joined: 1/22/2008
From: Miami Beach
Status: offline 		Burns: I understood what it was you were doing...and once again I whole heartedly agree. Thanks for spelling it out. Believe it or not, there are some who read these forums who would disagree.

I think Obama realized his mistake in Iraq...and that's why he's not pulling out of Afghanistan (He is still making a mistake in Afghanistan with his rules of engagement and his saying there will only be support personel). No one knew that ISIS or some other group would rise, and I think there was a lot of "hope" (I hate that word) that Iraq would/could take care of itself. Iran was able to take control of the Iraqi government. US troops in Iraq kept everything relatively stable after the surge...the Sunni areas (tribesmen) were brought on board as key elements for stability in at least their areas...when the US left...anarchy, suspicion of the Iranian influenced Iraqi government in the non-****e areas (the Sunni tribesmen thought they could trust the US, even though they could not trust their own government). This same mistake in Afghanistan could have seen the Taliban coming back into power there...in fact they are constantly testing the various conditions and situations.

Never tell your enemy what you will do, and never conduct a mostly political war...this has been happening these last 7 years (among other things).

_____________________________

Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 72
RE: Syria Civil War II - 10/16/2015 8:00:00 AM   
rhondabrwn


Posts: 2570
Joined: 9/29/2004
From: Snowflake, Arizona
Status: offline 		Definitely some "who disagree"... and you are on very thin ice

I'm going to settle for padding my post count in my quest for my 5th Star... and will forget I read this...

Good night.


_____________________________

Love & Peace,

Far Dareis Mai

My old Piczo site seems to be gone, so no more Navajo Nation pics :(

(in reply to Jagdtiger14)
Post #: 73
RE: Syria Civil War II - 10/16/2015 3:34:24 PM   
PipFromSlitherine

 

Posts: 1446
Joined: 6/23/2010
Status: offline 		Yep - this is getting very close to political.

Cheers

Pip


_____________________________

follow me on Twitter here

(in reply to rhondabrwn)
Post #: 74
RE: Syria Civil War II - 10/16/2015 4:37:20 PM   
KISSMEUFOOL!


Posts: 121
Joined: 11/18/2013
Status: offline 		FEAR NOT. THE GREYS WILL RESCUE US FROM CERTAIN DOOM!!

(in reply to PipFromSlitherine)
Post #: 75
RE: Syria Civil War II - 10/16/2015 4:40:00 PM   
Jagdtiger14


Posts: 1686
Joined: 1/22/2008
From: Miami Beach
Status: offline 		Would it be too political if I simply pasted a link to a Washington Times article from this morning? The article discusses troop levels in Afghanistan.

_____________________________

Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC

(in reply to PipFromSlitherine)
Post #: 76
RE: Syria Civil War II - 10/16/2015 5:16:53 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline 		In the interest of steering things away from politics, let’s discuss what we think Putin’s long term goals in the Middle East are. Personally I don’t think propping up Assad is his main intent. I think he’s embarked on a cold war era goal of positioning himself to be in a position to control most of the world’s oil supply.

If he can turn Iran into a satellite state of Russia, he’ll create lots of military bases along the Persian Gulf. Russia will then be within 10 minutes of wiping out Saudi oil wells at will and he’ll then have two deterrents he can use to leverage what he wants from the world. His nuclear arsenal and shutting off the oil spigot.

Building a Russian military base on the Mediterranean is already a guarantee, once he builds it up he’ll have clear airspace to threaten any NATO member that borders the Mediterranean Sea. Russia will not leave once they help Assad stabilize Syria. I think from this point forward Syria is a puppet state of Russia and if he then clears out ISIS on his own, I bet he does the same thing in Iraq too.

Jim


< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 10/16/2015 6:23:37 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Jagdtiger14)
Post #: 77
RE: Syria Civil War II - 10/16/2015 6:16:51 PM   
operating


Posts: 3158
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline 		Hi Pip,

Can we get a little more leeway here? There's been a lot of interesting discussion and information being shared here. Yes, there is some that is not on the straight and narrow. Hey! That goes on all over this forum, some funny, some not so funny, it takes all kinds to make up society and this thread is a pretty good example. Besides, the discussion is not so much about the past as it is in the present, which is what we don't always get here.

Thanks, Operating

(in reply to PipFromSlitherine)
Post #: 78
RE: Syria Civil War II - 10/16/2015 6:42:32 PM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

let’s discuss what we think Putin’s long term goals in the Middle East are. Personally I don’t think propping up Assad is his main intent.

One could suspect that the proposed gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey play part in current events.

There is a interesting quote about this on the linked wiki page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar-Turkey_pipeline

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 79
RE: Syria Civil War II - 10/16/2015 6:57:57 PM   
operating


Posts: 3158
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline
quote:

In 2012 an analyst cited by Ansa Mediterranean suggested that Qatar's involvement in the Syrian civil war was based in part on its desire to build a pipeline to Turkey through Syria:


"The discovery in 2009 of a new gas field near Israel, Lebanon, Cyprus, and Syria opened new possibilities to bypass the Saudi Barrier and to secure a new source of income. Pipelines are in place already in Turkey to receive the gas. Only Al-Assad is in the way. Qatar along with the Turks would like to remove Al-Assad and install the Syrian chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood

Yes the above quote caught my eye from your suggested site..

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 80
RE: Syria Civil War II - 10/16/2015 7:09:28 PM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		The following quote cut from: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines

"Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter's North field, contiguous with Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets - albeit crucially bypassing Russia. An Agence France-Presse report claimed Assad's rationale was "to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas"."

----

Interesting part at the end. The article it is cut from is interesting albeit old.

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to operating)
Post #: 81
RE: Syria Civil War II - 10/16/2015 7:22:49 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 5358
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Would it be too political if I simply pasted a link to a Washington Times article from this morning? The article discusses troop levels in Afghanistan.


I personally see no objection to mentioning troop levels, but I would suggest that a new geographical area deserves a new thread.

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Jagdtiger14)
Post #: 82
RE: Syria Civil War II - 10/16/2015 7:39:33 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline 		I think the only chance left for the US to prevent a totally Russian dominated Middle East, is if the current administration re-engages in Iraq. Unrealistic I know, but keeping Russian land forces out of Iraq is imperative I think, since once they arrive Putin can threaten any Arab state into submission at will.

If we do re-engage it will have to be with the intent to stay long term (i.e. the US Korea commitment) since it is too vital to world peace to keep Russia out and Iraq has proven it can’t stand on its own yet. If Iraq ever stabilizes in the future then perhaps we could leave, but as long as Russian troops are in Syria and Iran is its ally, we need the wedge kept open between the two else the entire Arabian Peninsula falls under Russian influence and eventual control.

I doubt the US will re-engage, so chances are Russia will try and get into Iraq within the next year I think to make it in before the election. They’ve already shown a willingness to operate militarily inside a country alongside the US (and tried to intimidate us into standing down), so we need to get into Iraq and get it cleared of ISIS ASAP if we hope to stop Putin from eventually turning it into a puppet state as well.

Jim


_____________________________


(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 83
RE: Syria Civil War II - 10/16/2015 7:43:39 PM   
Jagdtiger14


Posts: 1686
Joined: 1/22/2008
From: Miami Beach
Status: offline 		I think his main goal is to destroy NATO as an alliance. If he could maneuver a NATO member into attacking Russian forces (likely in Syria) and pretend to have casus beli in his response against that NATO member, it would be possible that the weak western leadership we have at the moment might flinch. FYI: NATO has been bolstered recently with the addition of Montenegro into its ranks.

I also think Iran (and shi-ite Iraq) are already willing minor powers for Russia. Some of the Persian Gulf States have Shi-ite majority populations and could be over-thrown. As for Saudi Arabia (as well as UAE and Oman), I highly doubt Russia would attack/invade, but possibly leave that to Iran if that was to become a goal. Notice, since the world signed off on the Iranian nuke deal, UAE has recently announced it will now attempt to aquire nuclear weapons...that already includes Saudi Arabia. So much for non-proliferation...the Iran nuke deal guarantees it.

I don't think shutting off the oil spigot will help Russia and its allies that much as it will hurt them as well (sales). It wont hurt the US since we have become self sufficient with fracking...in fact with Canada, we could supply Europe...not just with oil, but all of its natural gas needs. North America would make a ton of money.

_____________________________

Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 84
RE: Syria Civil War II - 10/16/2015 7:52:00 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14
I don't think shutting off the oil spigot will help Russia and its allies that much as it will hurt them as well


Higher oil prices = Riches in Russia's coffers. Russia is in this for Russia, Putin couldn't care less about his Arab allies. Once he's destroyed the oil fields (or gains the ability to influence/control how much oil gets pumped), Russia will be awash in cash for years to come. Hell, I bet he'd even go so far as to spark off a Shia vs. Sunni nuclear exchange to make it happen.

Jim


< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 10/16/2015 9:20:50 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Jagdtiger14)
Post #: 85
RE: Syria Civil War II - 10/16/2015 8:05:31 PM   
Jagdtiger14


Posts: 1686
Joined: 1/22/2008
From: Miami Beach
Status: offline 		Jim - The Russians already have fly over permission, and I saw a news story last week that they were operating out of a base in Iraq:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-conversation-us/russian-cooperation-with_b_8313356.html

Sorry about linking to the Huffington Post (conspiratorial, political, and generally unreliable), I hope it doesn't get the thread closed...but the article is in cooperation with another news source.

_____________________________

Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC

(in reply to Jagdtiger14)
Post #: 86
RE: Syria Civil War II - 10/16/2015 8:21:17 PM   
Jagdtiger14


Posts: 1686
Joined: 1/22/2008
From: Miami Beach
Status: offline 		Ok, so you are saying the Arabian Peninsula oil fields are destroyed, not invaded and taken over for the purpose of blackmailing the planet...because I don't think the latter would work. If those oil fields were destroyed, it pretty much only really hurts Europe...but they can choose who to buy oil/gas from, and it probably will not be Russia and its clients in that case. There would be a separate oil market created including only the "free world". Venezuela's "Bolivarian Revolution" would come to a quick and merciful end.

The US will not re-engage in Iraq within the next 15 months minimum...and that will make it too late. The situation has changed in Iraq since the government there is now dominated by Iranian influence. Only in the Kurdish area could the US be welcomed back, and that's if they forgive us for abandoning them.

_____________________________

Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC

(in reply to Jagdtiger14)
Post #: 87
RE: Syria Civil War II - 10/16/2015 8:28:28 PM   
Josh

 

Posts: 2576
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Leeuwarden, Netherlands
Status: offline 		It's a powder keg that's for sure. Way too complicated for me. Awhile ago I followed a similar thread over at Battlefront, lots and lots of tankbattles in Syria on youtube, didn't make things any more clear to me. With Iran, Turkey, Russia and who knows else now involved...I don't know maybe they'll have peace within a year or so, and then it blows up again 1-2 years after that. It's a mess. I mean I just read in the news today that there are thousands and thousands of russians fighting for ISIS? What the...

(in reply to Jagdtiger14)
Post #: 88
RE: Syria Civil War II - 10/16/2015 8:33:24 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14
Jim - The Russians already have fly over permission, and I saw a news story last week that they were operating out of a base in Iraq:


It may well already be too late, since as I said the only chance I can see to stop him is a total US re-engagement which isn’t likely. I’m just trying to imagine what the world will look like in 10 years once he has total dominance in the Middle East. How far will the world let him go before we begin to push back? Hitler had modern conventional weapons to scare the free world with, Putin has nukes. It may very well come to be that he can threaten and intimidate his way into total dominance in Europe as well once he controls the oil.

This is the beginning of a whole new strategic era in the world as power is going to rapidly shift into the hands of dictators as they grab up the resources that control the energy engines of the world. History may well look back on this as the beginning of what eventually leads to WWIII. Then again with the wrong kind of leadership the free world may simply fold and submit to slavery without a fight, who knows.

Jim


_____________________________


(in reply to Jagdtiger14)
Post #: 89
RE: Syria Civil War II - 10/16/2015 8:38:04 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14
Ok, so you are saying the Arabian Peninsula oil fields are destroyed, not invaded and taken over for the purpose of blackmailing the planet


Edited my post, sorry didn't mean to imply I thought his main goal was destruction. I just don't think he would care if they do get destroyed as control or destruction both make him rich. I assume he prefers control of course, but I don't put it past him to destroy them if it looks like he may get pushed out.

Jim


_____________________________


(in reply to Jagdtiger14)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Syria Civil War II Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.891