"The Houthis now rule the Red Sea America has" Topic

SBminisguy, no, the USSR did not support Germany, it supported itself. The USSR needed technology and equipment that the "democratic countries" refused to sell it. So it had to buy them from Germany. By the way, the same thing is happening now. The West refused Russia – that means we will go to China, Iran and others. You left us no choice.
What technology and equipment did Israel need when supporting Hamas? What technology did the US and the West need when supporting other terrorists?

Hamas can only be destroyed by the Palestinians themselves, simply by stopping their support. But you are unlikely to force them to do this by mass destruction… What else can you offer them?

Legion 4, why should all other countries agree that the US is a policeman? Who gave the US that right? It seemed to me that such things should be resolved democratically – that is what international organizations like the UN and the corresponding procedures are for. And if such decisions are made in a different way, then this is simply aggression and actions in one's own interests.

35thOVI, the problem of migration of people with different traditions and cultures exists in Russia too. In my opinion, this is a monstrous mistake, which will ultimately lead to the destruction of the established European civilization (yes, Russians still consider themselves to be part of it)))
To be honest, I just don't understand its point. Cheap labor? But modern technologies already allow us to largely replace most of the low-productivity labor. Of course, this requires investment, but doesn't the arrival of millions of migrants require expenses? It does – and serious ones.
If the need remains – then in the countries that are sources of migrants, it is necessary to create training centers where they will be taught the language, culture, laws of the country where they would like to move, where they will master the necessary professions. And their views, their past, their compatibility with the environment of the future country of arrival will also be studied there. Priests of the confession to which the future migrant belongs will work with him. Priests carefully selected for such work. If a person does not meet some criteria for moving, he can, for example, stay in his country, but work at the enterprises of the country that carried out all this work on his training… Or receive a temporary work visa, without the right to receive citizenship of another country. This entire process must be under the full and constant control of the state, since this is a matter of security of the country and its citizens.

We agree it is a monstrous mistake. But it is not just Europe that is making it.

I would say that the European civilization is making a fatal mistake… I personally think that migration policy in its current form is an absolute evil that could turn into a real catastrophe. The European autochthonous population is aging and dying out, while migrants bring a different culture and traditions… What do we have ahead of us? European Emirates? Russian Caliphate?)))
Thankfully, new laws are being adopted in Russia that tighten migration legislation. But this is only the beginning of the journey.

SBminisguy, no, the USSR did not support Germany, it supported itself. The USSR needed technology and equipment that the "democratic countries" refused to sell it. So it had to buy them from Germany

LoL! Totally untrue! The Stalin-Hitler Pact included not just a non-agression pact, but carved Europe into spheres of influence – and they later coordinated the invasion and partition of Poland. Why do you claim otherwise?

why should all other countries agree that the US is a policeman? Who gave the US that right?

I didn't say that but as NATO's #1 Threat during the Cold War. I'd expect nothing less from the former USSR. We are all products or victims of our past. I spent over a decade of my young life prepping for WWIII with Russia & the WP. As well as the Chicoms.

As I have said many times before after the fall of the USSR many former WP nations decided to join NATO. IMO the speaks for itself, IMO.
The US working with other NATO nations and even non-NATO countries, e.g. South Korea, Australia, etc. In many cases the USA has the assets to provide some level of C3. Working with the other nation C3, etc.

The USA has one of the most powerful militaries on the planet. Or at least it used to ? The only NATO country that come close to the USA in power/assets, etc. is Turkey.

One of lessons learned from WWII is many nations allied together to defeat the threats. I.e. Nazis, IJFs, etc. And at that time the Allies included Russia. But it was not too long after WWII the West saw what Stalin's plan was. And it was not being an ally with Western Europe.

I'm sure some here will probably agree with me … The USSR and the Chicoms proved they were not friends of the West. That was made clear during both the Korean War and Vietnam …

What is the military solution is for taking out this gang and ending the problem? There were some US airstrikes, but these guys are pretty slippery guerrilla type fighters and Iran makes sure they get what they need. There are apparently a lot of them moving around. How do we eliminate them?

Talking to a couple of my former/retired USN Officer friends today. One a Seahawk Pilot and was a Fire Control Officer on a Guided Missile Cruiser IIRC. They both believe that the USN should be very aggressive and strike Iran hard. As they are the head of the snake.

Military targets only e.g. C3, supplies, radars, ADA, IRGC locations, IRGCN, etc.

But all agreed, that with the current US leadership this will never happen. Our enemies know our weaknesses …

Agree. At least take out the Iranian Navy surveillance ships that give the Houthis targeting data. Some way to stop the missile shipments from Iran also.

SBminisguy, study what happened before the USSR signed a pact with Germany. Many years of unsuccessful attempts to create an anti-Hitler coalition. Only Czechoslovakia signed a real anti-Hitler military alliance with the USSR, but this alliance was undermined by "democratic" countries. Hitler could have been stopped back in 1938. And with the direct participation of the USSR.

It is mentioned here in passing (Western sources do not like to write about this):

link

The text of the contract. Automatic transfer. Finding the English version proved difficult:

link

As you can see, the agreement provided for the inclusion of any other willing party into the coalition… Where were your "democracies"?

In pursuance of the assumed allied obligations, on September 23, 1938, the USSR People's Commissar of Defense Voroshilov and the General Staff issued a directive to put the troops of the Belorussian and Kalinin military districts on combat alert, as well as to move a number of their operational units to the state border.

To strengthen the Czechoslovak Air Force, 4 air brigades (548 aircraft) were prepared. A total of 330 thousand people were called up from the reserve to the army. But Poland refused to allow Soviet troops into Czechoslovakia.

Statement of the USSR Government to the Polish Government, published in the Soviet newspaper Izvestia in September 1938.

On September 23, 1938, the USSR sent a note to Poland, where it stated that any attempt by the latter to occupy part of Czechoslovakia would annul the Polish-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 1932. Despite this, Poland nevertheless occupied and annexed the Teschen region of Czechoslovakia. Accordingly, the non-aggression pact between Poland and the USSR was automatically annulled.
Poland acted as Hitler's ally in this conflict, not only preventing the passage of allied troops to defend Czechoslovakia, but also directly participating in the occupation and dismemberment of that country. Remember who and why Churchill called "the hyena of Europe"?

After that it became clear that we couldn't count on the West and we had to take care of defending the country on our own. If we could get the necessary equipment and technology even from the devil – we had to get it. If we had to push back the border as a line of enemy attack – we pushed it back. Realpolitik…

Legion 4, I know the history of the confrontation between Russia and the West. But I asked who gave the US the right to create and interfere in conflicts around the globe… On what basis? This is arbitrariness. This is not a policeman – this is a bandit.

"politicians decide that they should stay and "nation build""-35thOVI

1. I believe we should play to our strengths, send an expeditionary force destroy their military if they choose to stand and fight.

2. Then we destroy their industrial capacity / GDP ( This works for countries that actually have something to lose like Iran)

3. Then we pack up and leave with no costly insurgency and minimal collateral damage.

4. We remind them we can come back and repeat this ordeal as often as we like.

I think part of nation building is plundering the countries resources it just goes unsaid to be PC…

"What is the military solution is for taking out this gang and ending the problem?"-Tortorella

I still think the cheaper option is to sail around Africa but if we want a military solution to the Houthis.

1. Expeditionary force, hammer them then pack up and leave.

2. Once they have lost what little they have as far as military equipment we invite the Yemeni government, Saudis or some tribal / religious group that absolutely detests the Houthis to AHEM become peace keepers… ( We wash our hands of whatever ever happens after we leave…)

No talk of nation building.

And yes I know there is no willpower to do this after our forever wars!

A cavalry raid? But how will they respond?
Outbreaks of terror around the world… This is also a kind of cavalry raid…
War is easy to start but difficult to stop.

Caprum and Dragon, I agree. Quick in, destroy those there and then leave when they flee. When the Taliban ran to the mountains, we should have left. When the Taliban returned and started occupying the cities, (which they would have been forced to, to control the other Afghans), we go back in and kill again. No occupation and no long term nation building in 3rd world countries that have never been able to support or are capable of one.

Politicians, Political officers and big business. 🤬

Western states – including the US – used to carry out something they called "punitive expeditions." These were essentially military operations designed explicitly to punish conduct by a state or what we would today call a non-state actor. They involved the direct use of military force to create an impression on the rulers of a society – and to the degree that those rulers might not be the ones at fault, on the society itself – to convince them to change their conduct. The Emperors of China were one direct target, when the British and French burned their palace in Beijing in 1860. Individual villages on the Northwest Frontier of India were another, on the numerous occasions when British and Indian troops burned their villages in reprisal for their depredations.

They have fallen out of fashion, not least because there is a significant component of western society that is actively advocating – when they don't do more – for the cause of what they probably would describe as underdeveloped nations. There is a case to be made that this would be a more effective model than the gigantic and expensive model of invading and occupying a country for twenty years, and spending billions of dollars in trying to change their culture.

Exactly!

Pirates, of course, were another frequent target.

Muslims planning terrorism!? That is just not possible! It "a gentle peace loving religion". That's what the MSM and politicians keep telling us worldwide in the West.

"Pope Francis famously denied the existence of Islamic terrorism in 2017. "Christian terrorism does not exist, Jewish terrorism does not exist, and Muslim terrorism does not exist. They do not exist," he said."

🤔 Maybe he's not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree? 🎄

Subject: Indonesia Thwarts Alleged Islamic Terror Plot Against Pope Francis


link

Dragon Gunner +1

35thOVI, Islam comes in different forms. A good example is Russia. Terror is a method brought to Russia from outside, which appears together with "instructors" from Arab countries. Note that even in the Chechen wars, Muslims did not use (at least not widely) suicide bombers. Traditional Islam in Russia is a rather soft, moderate version, developed over centuries of peaceful coexistence between Christians and Muslims. By the way, Germany also has such an experience in the middle of the last century, with the Turks…

Well, terror is a weapon of the poor. It will definitely appear where the conflicting forces are incomparable in their power potential. Only by such methods can a poor enemy cause significant damage to a rich enemy. In addition, in democratic countries it is much more difficult to resist terror than in authoritarian ones simply due to the structure of society. By the way, this is one of the reasons why it is extremely difficult for democracies to survive in the East.

I know the history of the confrontation between Russia and the West. But I asked who gave the US the right to create and interfere in conflicts around the globe… On what basis? This is arbitrariness. This is not a policeman – this is a bandit.

Bandits … hmmm ? That must be how places like Russia thinks about the US. Very quaint …

And as for conflicts around the globe, usually the host nation asks for assistance. Or like with 9/11 we counter-attack. Plus, usually we fight as part of a coalition, e.g. Desert Storm. Which IIRC was a UN Sanction to remove Saddam from Kuwait. We generally are in charge as we have the largest amount of assets on the ground, in the air or on the sea. But we work with our coalition partners, like in WWII. We work with our allies as a team. Fighting with the same strategic mission, etc.

Dragon +1

I think everything could be done with cruise missiles, drones and strike aircraft. No need to land forces, to take or hold. The mission would be to destroy their weapons systems[missile launchers, radars, etc.], C3, supplies, etc.

9lbs +1

"War is easy to start but difficult to stop."-Cuprum

We are already in a war. I will leave out the debate of who started it or who is at fault. The Houthis are the enemy of the world when they indiscriminately attack shipping and extort a toll to pass through the Red Sea unmolested.

Legion 4, you occupied Iraq… Who invited you there? Thousands of lives lost. No UN sanction.
You attacked Libya. The civil war is still going on. Thousands dead. The UN only sanctioned a no-fly regime.
Invasion of Syria. No UN sanction. You fought on the side of the jihadists against a secular government.

That's not counting the "cavalry raids" in other countries. Again, without any UN sanction.
The participation of your allies? So what? It's just that it's not just one bandit attacking, but a gang…

Where did things get better after your attacks? Where did peace and prosperity come from? I can't remember… What were you doing there and why? I don't see any reason other than the desire to control resources. Well, that's realpolitik. But where's the cop? Well, unless it's a corrupt, sell-out cop…

Dragon Gunner, it's not. They attack only those ships that enter Israel or belong to Israel (and now also to those countries that are conducting a military operation against the Houthis, which is also natural). Let's put it this way – they are carrying out a naval blockade of Israel, they have announced their position to everyone and adhere to it. This is just a belligerent side.
I have read reports that they require a fee, but I have not yet heard of any such payment. For now these are just rumors. I think if this had happened in reality, these facts would have been immediately made public in all details. So I think this is a lie.

link

Some facts Cuprum.

I would argue attacking other nations ships could be viewed as a declaration of war despite a declared blockade.

"So I think this is a lie."

Perhaps not provable and just a rumor does not mean it is a lie.

"they are carrying out a naval blockade of Israel,"-Cuprum

It is one thing to blockade a port it is another to randomly target ships at sea because the Houthis think they might be destined for Israel or might be owned by Israel.

Caprum

My opinion: Islam is not a peace loving religion. If they become the majority in a host country, if a fundamentalists Muslim country achieves perceived military superiority, if an accepted "prophet" arises in an area, you will have religious war. It is the nature of the religion if you follow it fundamentally.

"Islam: Bringing you Jihad's for over 1400 years now".

Todays latest:

Subject: Pakistani National Arrested In Canada For Allegedly Plotting Terror Attack In NYC


link

Islam is not a peace loving religion.

Islam can be a peace-loving religion, and has been in many places in history. Weren't they more tolerant in Spain than the Christians?

Possibly in some areas, for a time, after they conquered most of Spain. Not while they were doing it. The fact of the conquest, sort of negates that. Would they have conquered it if they loved peace? 🤔

But…

"Instances of such myth-making are plentiful. One instance is the myth of Islamic Spain, or utopian Andalusia: A successful and harmonious society, where urbane and wise Muslim rulers transformed the rude and barbaric Visigothic chiefdoms into an Elysian realm filled with tolerance for all faiths. This is termed the convivencia, harmonious co-existence. Both instances are retro-projections of contemporary desire, in that historical precedents are sought in order to justify current notions of the ideal society -- in this case, multiculturalism. Worthy as such endeavors might be, they deny the truth of history. In the case of Andalusia, Darío Fernàndez-Morera, a professor of Spanish Medieval literature and history at Northwestern, takes up the task of separating fact from fiction. He does so eloquently and thoroughly by drawing upon the latest European scholarship (most of which remains untranslated into English), as well as documentary and archaeological evidence.

In fact, Muslim Spain was a dystopia. Fernàndez-Morera places the Muslim conquest of Spain within the context of jihad, as evidenced by Ibn Khaldun: "In the Muslim community, holy war [jihad] is a religious duty because of the universalism of Islam and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. Therefore, the caliphate and royal authority [political and religious power] are united in Islam." Those that refused to be persuaded could live as dhimmis, insecure subalterns, who were to pay the required protection tax (jaziya), which in itself was no guarantee of tolerance. Anti-Christian pogroms were frequent, in which crucifixions, impaling, and beheadings were frequent, and Christian children were taken and raised as Muslims. At times, Jews allied themselves with Islamic authority, but this did not alter their subaltern status. Thus, in 1066, the Jews of Granada were slaughtered by Muslim mobs, while the Karaites were systematically annihilated throughout Andalusia. In the words of Maimonides, the Jewish philosopher who witnessed atrocities: "Never did a nation [the Muslims] molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they."

Women were segregated, veiled and lived in subservience to a male relative or a husband, while stoning of women for adultery was the rule of law (the sharia). Furthermore, female sexual slavery abounded, in a legally sanctioned form. Captured Christian women were much prized throughout the Muslim world, and their traffic was highly profitable.

The dystopian reality was in part the consequence of sharia, as interpreted for application in society by four official schools of jurisprudence. In Andalusia, the Maliki School prevailed, and was known for its severity towards non-Muslims. The Andalusian jurist Ibn Abdun wrote in 1100: "[Jews and Christians] must be detested and avoided. It is forbidden to accord them with the greeting, ‘Peace be upon you. Satan possesses them, leading them to forget God's warnings. They belong to Satan. A distinctive sign must be worn by them so that they may be recognized and this sign may become a source of shame for them." Thus, Christians wore a blue patch, and the Jews a yellow one. Documentary evidence also suggests a mass exodus of non-Muslims from Andalusia to Christian territories to the north. By contrast, in the Middle East and Egypt, where a different school of jurisprudence held sway, non-Muslims were less severely persecuted.

Much is also made of Andalusia as a place of free-thinking, where philosophy flourished through inter-religious dialogue. Maliki jurisprudence, in fact, effectively negated such indulgence. In the Islamic world, philosophy was only a personal pastime for a select few whose musings had no influence in directing human life, for that was the prerogative of sharia, which alone prescribed what one was to do and how one was to live. In Islam philosophy is simply not needed. This is made clear by the two thinkers associated with Andalusia, namely, Averroes (Ibn Rushd) and Maimonides. Averroes was a jurist, a dispenser of sharia, while Maimonides fled for his life because he was Jewish. Indeed, the works of both only gained popularity when Christian Europe discovered and translated them in the thirteenth century, for the West has always needed philosophy to guide social and personal life.

Further, the term "Islamic Spain" assumes that Muslim rule was stable and enduring from the eighth century on to the fifteenth, when King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella drove the last Muslim ruler from Granada in the Reconquista of 1492. But history tells a different story. The initial Muslim incursion in 711 AD did indeed reach up to the Douro River, but the conquered land soon broke apart into minor Islamic chiefdoms (taifas) that fought with each other for control of resources. From the time of Pelagius of Asturias, and the Battle of Covadonga in 722 AD, Christian reclamation (Reconquista) of territory was continuous and permanent. Thus, by the eleventh century Islamic rule shrank to just north of Madrid. By the thirteenth century it extended only as far as Seville. By the fourteenth century only the cities of Malaga and Granada remained Muslim. And by 1492, there was only Granada, which was allowed to exist because it produced good revenue for Ferdinand. But when its Muslim ruler began negotiating with the Ottoman Turks, whose empire was on the rise, Ferdinand took possession of Granada (the final act in the long Reconquista) to deny the Ottomans a foothold in Spain………….."

you occupied Iraq… Who invited you there? Thousands of lives lost. No UN sanction.

The US and its allies had to push the Iraqi Forces out of Kuwait. No one wanted Saddam to control all their oil. And the US still has 2500 troops in Iraq to observe and if need kill the remnants of ISIS.

You attacked Libya. The civil war is still going on. Thousands dead

Again there was a perceived threat. Plus a US ambassador and his 3 man retinue was killed by local AQ affiliates. However, the US Admin at the time made quite a mess of it. I will clearly admit this was really Bleeped text up by a US Admin who did not know what they were doing. And they lied about the intel, etc. to the US people. The people that many voted for them. Plus costing 4 US KIAs. Who were much better than those that put them there. Bottom line that Admin was totally incompetent when it came to geopolitics/Realpolitik. Their bumbling is still having consequences. 'nuff said.

The UN only sanctioned a no-fly regime.

Yes and I think that was in error also. But not in all cases does the UN do the right thing …

Invasion of Syria. No UN sanction. You fought on the side of the jihadists against a secular government.

Again not that Admin's finest hour. But the Turks were there and IIRC still are. They were/are protecting their border against a Kurd Terrorist group. The Kurds have a number of factions. Some more friendly than others, etc, etc. Another islamic Med-East tribal religious problem.
Syria is no friend of the USA nor its #1 ally in the region – Israel… Syria borders Israel as we know. However, the US still has about 900 troops there to keep a foot on ISIS. And we kill off a few of them now and then. ISIS is the #1 islamic terrorist threat to us… the infidels. That includes Russia which was recently attacked by ISIS [or was it AQ?] They killed many of your countrymen.

As I and other have often said. The only good islamic terrorist is a dead one. Regardless of their pedigree/faction, etc.

Also note Syria was part of the coalition vs Saddam during the first Gulf War, IIRC …

That's not counting the "cavalry raids" in other countries.

Which nations would be those ? Would that be Air or Armored Cav.

Again, without any UN sanction.

Hmmm ? Did Russia have a UN sanction to invade Ukraine ? In both 2014 and 2 years ago ? Were they a threat to Russia in any way. Save for invading to kill Nazis ? Which was a 🐮💩 reason. And most of the rest of the world knows it.

The participation of your allies? So what?

They as allies assisted the US at times and vis versa. As they too saw a perceived threat. Or in any case it was in their interest as it was with the US.

It's just that it's not just one bandit attacking, but a gang…

Ah … No … that is a Russian misguided propagandistic perception … The UN forces in the Korean War, '50-'53 were called bandits, mercs, etc. by the Communists. They probably called us the same when I served 22 months there. With 2 tours on DMZ.

FWIW – Of course the US has a number of famous bandits from our past. E.g. Billy the Kid, Black Bart, the James gang, the Hole in the Wall gang, etc. maybe the Russians were thinking about those guys ? However, they were all dead by the time the US had to go to the Mid-East. And "terminate a threat(s) with extreme prejudice".

Or were you taking about the Roaring '20s in the USA ? After WWI. When Imperial Russia turned Communist. But those US criminals were called gangsters not bandits per se. But again e.g. Al Capone, Dutch Schultz, Arnold Rothstein, etc. were all dead too by the time the US and our allies had to go to the Mid East to address a number of threats. A few times actually … But we all know history. Or at least some version of it …

I guess the USSR invasion of A'stan was purely altruistic ? Were they bandits too ? The Russians I mean …

Please don't try to convince us in the "West" of Russians wearing halos … 😇 We all know better … 🙄😏

No better examples than the Russian invasions of A'stan then Ukraine …

Also you keep mentioning the words "thousands killed" when talking about US actions, etc… you mean like in the Ukraine ? But most of those are Russian dead there …

Dragon Gunner, of course, an attack on ships belonging to third countries can be considered a pretext for war. But this decision is up to these countries. During World War II, Soviet submarines sank Swedish and Turkish ships carrying cargo to Germany (iron and chrome ore). At the same time, the USSR was not at war with these countries. But a blockade was declared and all neutral countries were warned about the consequences of smuggling.
A rumor can mean a desire to discredit someone… Therefore, a rumor is just a reason to look for reliable information – and nothing more.
They block where they can. As far as I know, the Houthis ask ships traveling through the Red Sea to report their destination ports.

Legion 4, I did not talk about Kuwait – I talked about the occupation of Iraq.

The Kurds are the problem of this region. The best solution to this problem would be to create a separate state for them or at least national autonomies in existing states. What is needed here is a lot of diplomatic work, not war.

ISIS was not an ally of Syria – quite the opposite.

Russia did not have UN sanction to invade Ukraine. But Russia does not call itself the world's policeman. We have discussed the reasons for this invasion many times, and the beginning of the intervention in the internal affairs of Ukraine was the support of internal protests by the West. The "export of revolution" of neo-globalism has become the calling card of the West in recent decades. It is funny that the West itself has become a victim of this policy, including the United States. You yourselves fed the snake that is now devouring you. It is a pity that this brings problems to many other countries in the world.

A bandit is someone who breaks the law. A bandit country is one that breaks international laws. If the US or NATO break these laws at their own discretion (repeatedly) – then who are they if not bandits?

The USSR invaded Afghanistan. That country no longer exists. You are not blaming modern Germany for the fact that the Third Reich started World War II, are you? That would look a bit strange… Every major country in this world has its own skeletons in the closet…

And when did Russia invade Kazakhstan? I don't remember that)))

35thOVI, there are significant regions in Russia populated by Muslims. In these regions, Muslims have an overwhelming majority. But this does not cause any problems for other faiths and nationalities. The only region where such facts took place is Chechnya. But the main reason here was that, with the assistance of the local government and the inaction of the Russian one, in the 90s it allowed a mass arrival of Arab religious figures, who began to actively create Wahhabi sects (one of the most aggressive varieties of Islam). Local traditional imams were simply destroyed or expelled. But by now, the Wahhabis have been expelled by the Chechens themselves and they have returned to their traditional form of Islam, so the conflicts in Chechnya on religious grounds have been forgotten for quite some time.
Islam is diverse. If you wish, you can also find a lot of extremist appeals in Christianity, especially in the Old Testament. And the "Crusades" clearly demonstrated how aggressive the Christian religion can look… It's not about religious dogma – it's about those people who interpret ancient texts… Their goal is power, and religion is just a means…
What I agree with is that peoples should live in their traditional habitats. This will help everyone avoid a huge number of unnecessary problems.

As you said, radicals came in and violence followed. It will happen again in another region. It is the nature of the religion.

Yes other religions have had violence, but it has not continued for 1400 years. With Islam there is always violence propagated somewhere. As I pointed out, Nigeria and the massacre of Christians. Hamas and the horrible atrocities on Jews.. which they filmed, bragged to family about and enjoyed. The Houthis and the firing on ships. Isis, Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Egyptian Islamic jihad, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and on and on.. not to mention the individuals like those I posted a few above. Read through history about the Muslims and their expansion since 600. Read their holy books (I had to for world religion classes in college).

At one point in time, I was actually sympathetic to the Muslims against Israel. I tried to see their view and understand it. That changed during the Carter administration. 9/11 broke any sympathy I had left in me and the massacre in Israel by Hamas was the final nail in the coffin.

Read some books by Raymond Ibrahim

He is not popular with the Islamic revisionist. Sword and the Scimitar is enlightening.

Defenders of the West: The Christian Heroes Who Stood Against Islam. Post Hill Press. 2022. ISBN 978-1642938203.
Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West. Da Capo Press. 2018. ISBN 978-0306825552.
Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christians. Regnery. 2013. ISBN 978-1621570257.
The Al Qaeda Reader. Doubleday. 2007. ISBN 978-0-385-51655-6.

I did not talk about Kuwait – I talked about the occupation of Iraq.

Yes but the US and other nations went to Kuwait to throw Saddam's Forces out. Which we did … it happened … The US and allies only occupied Iraq after the 2d Gulf War as had troops there to train the Iraqi Military, who many were glad Saddam was gone. To prep those Iraqi Forces to defend itself against its traditional enemy Iran.

The Kurds are the problem of this region. The best solution to this problem would be to create a separate state for them or at least national autonomies in existing states. What is needed here is a lot of diplomatic work, not war.

IMO most of the Kurdish factions are not a problem. Iraq does not want them to be an independent nation. May have something to do with all the oil there is in Kurdish lands. Some of Kurds were fighting ISIS alongside the US. ISIS is no one's friend …

ISIS was not an ally of Syria – quite the opposite.

So very well aware of that. It was a 3 or 4 way war going on. ISIS wanted to kill everyone who was not them. That included Syrians, Kurds, Americans, Turks, etc., etc. The US supported the Free Syrian Forces against the tyrannical Syrian dictatorship. So again, the US didn't support ISIS, but tried to kill as many a possible and we still are and do.

Russia did not have UN sanction to invade Ukraine.

Yes we all know that my comment was rhetorical. And in reality they were going to invade regardless …

But Russia does not call itself the world's policeman.

That was a name that the US was given, we didn't want it. But as history tells us. The US had to fight in two World Wars to stop the aggressors, etc. Especially in WWII the US was producing massive amounts of weapons and equipment to be used by all the Allied Forces. Including some were sent to Russia. The US had the industrial might to do that back then.

The "export of revolution" of neo-globalism has become the calling card of the West in recent decades.

The majority of the US population and even Europe does not globalism in any form. Don't know where that came from ? That must be more Russian propaganda …

A bandit is someone who breaks the law.

I know I watch a lot of cop shows. Law & Order SVU and Castle are my favorites.

A bandit country is one that breaks international laws.

Like Russia occupying Crimea in 2014 and now as it is trying to do in Ukraine.

If the US or NATO break these laws at their own discretion (repeatedly) – then who are they if not bandits?

Again an inaccurate Russian observation and more propaganda.

The USSR invaded Afghanistan. That country no longer exists. You are not blaming modern Germany for the fact that the Third Reich started World War II, are you?

Wow I never said anything like that? Where'd that come from? Russian propaganda ? And when Russia invaded A'stan it was still that country's name. Now with the islamists in charge they changed it to something like the islamic republic of something …

Every major country in this world has its own skeletons in the closet…

Yes a lot of grey areas, etc. Sometimes Realpolitik requires certain actions, alliances, etc. Like the US and Western Europe allying with Stalin's Russia during WWII.

And when did Russia invade Kazakhstan? I don't remember that)))

I did not mention anything about Kazakhstan. Have a bit of a guilty conscious about Russian aggression ?

We have an East-West impasse here. And neither will agree with the other. Just like during Cold War I and now Cold War II. We are wasting our time with this line of discussion/train of thought. Both will not change their opinions. And generally, always believe the other one is wrong …

35th OVI, radicals exist and always will. But… They mean little if the masses don't follow them.
You can't destroy all the bearers of Islam. So you need to look for another way… You need not only a stick, but also a carrot. In my opinion, this is the development and promotion of moderate forms of Islam. They exist. We need to encourage loyal forms of this religion and destroy radical ones. This will never give a final result (like the fight between good and evil), but we need to strive to control this process.
I don't see any other way out.

Legion 4, funny… For some reason it seems to me that after the US intervention, relations between Iran and Iraq have become closer than under Saddam.

Any country will be unhappy with the prospect of losing territory. Especially resource-rich territory. But if this situation is not resolved somehow, it will be an eternal source of problems.

The Free Syrian Forces publicly cut off the heads of children. They are practically the same jihadists as ISIS. In my opinion, the West (in this case I include Russia in this concept) should be supported only by secular or at least religiously tolerant parties.

The USA has waged many conflicts around the world. Far from its borders. When there was a Cold War – it was natural. But now (until recently) there was no world confrontation. Then why? I will answer – the establishment and maintenance of its own sole hegemony…

Russia cannot behave approximately in a gangster world. There are no policemen in this world… Only gangsters.

Afghanistan exists, but the USSR has not been for thirty years.

We will probably never agree on some assessments of events, but if you do not know the opinion of the opposite side, it will never be possible to understand their motives and avoid conflicts in the future. Politics is the art of compromise.

All I can say is: Let's look at western countries in another 10 years as Muslims become a larger and larger part of the population. Also if Iran brings nukes on line and use them, or gives small nukes to any of those groups above.

There are always peaceful Muslims… well…..until they're not.

But we will see.

Big changes won't be in 10 years time OVI, that's too soon. But it's coming and way too late to do anything about it. Fortunately I'll be dead by the time the scum hit the magic 33-35% number.

funny… For some reason it seems to me that after the US intervention, relations between Iran and Iraq have become closer than under Saddam.

No what really is funny is not knowing the history of this region.

After WWI, the UK leaders divided up much of what was formally Mesopotamia and created Iraq. To suit their needs … not the local inhabitants for the most part.

The new nation of Iraq was 15% Sunni, 65% Shia, with a mix of others, e.g. the Yazidis, Jews, Christians, etc. Thats the breakdown by religions not tribal affiliations. Which is another mess. Bordering Iran which is 95% Shia there came some of the inevitable friction.

Flashforward to 1941 WWII, the UK and Russia invaded Iran to make the supply lines between allies a little easier.

link

The Iranian forces were quickly defeated, and the safer overland supply routes between allies became a reality.

From '80-'88 Iraq and Iran fought a long bloody war.

link

Which was inconclusive really, save for very large losses on both sides, gas, trench warfare, human waves of martyrs, etc. etc. No real demonstration of tactical or technical expertise by either side. Has been described as WWI with modern tanks. Kind of like the Russians Force in Ukraine now.

The US generally supported Saddam in this Iran-Iraq War, '80-'88. As in '80-'81 Iranian religious fanatics, etc. overran the US Embassy there. Holding 53 US hostages for 444 days.

link

So then there was no love between the US and Iran after that or since.

Iraq being 65% Shia with most bordering Iran in Eastern Iraq. Saddam with his 15% Sunni kept an iron fist on the 65% Shia in Iraq.

So all those facts may explain why both nations now may have some understanding. Again, as in most places where islam dominates the area. Religion trumps most else. But AFAIK neither nation is in a state of conflict to any real level. But with Iraq being 65% Shia, many still sides with other 95% Shia in Iran. So that may have more to do with "Iran and Iraq have become closer than under Saddam" …

Regardless, perceptions of reality are once again clearly different when it is the USA's vs. Russia's.

So once again, we here, US v Russia, wastes time trying to convince the other of the inconvincible. The other one is wrong … More propaganda than facts …

Interesting 4 minutes if you still want to believe it is a "peace loving religion"

Subject: Thousands of Christians reportedly 'deliberately' targeted in Nigeria: 'Human rights catastrophe' | video


link

Yes, that seems to happen often many times when islam vs Christians or Jews, etc. But if I understand their dogma correctly. Anyone who is not their version of islam, e.g. Sunni vs. Shai, ISIS vs everyone else, etc.

Then those are considered infidels … and can be treated very harshly. Not all molsems believe that way. But enough do … "The few bad apples spoil it for the whole basket" … sometimes …

"Not all Muslims believe that way."

That may be the case for a while, but then a change in government, fundamentalist takeover or the rise of a "new prophet" seems to change that quickly. Look at Iran, Lebanon, etc.. Basically because it's inherit in the religion from its inception.

Well. that may happen … hopefully more modern moderate moslems like being in the 21st Century. Not back to the 15th

I agree with your hopes Legion. But sadly the 15th century ones just keep popping up. 😔

Iran's Shadow Hand in Houthi Red Sea Attacks

link

Armand

I am not sure the US has "silently admitted" defeat here, though we are not having success at stopping the attacks. . I found this interesting as detailed background.
link

Earlier, I was actually asking about the details of a U.S. punitive operation. How do you catch these guys and take out enough of them to at least reduce their capabilities? Combined arms tactical plan to get them. I ask because they seem to be able to disperse readily.

I get that US leaders would not be this aggressive, but asking if we went in, , how would we fight them?

"Houthi movement, formally known as Ansar Allah (Partisans of God),"

Must I again say it is inherent to the religion? Read in the article what they did and or are doing, to force their hold on the population and politics of the area.

Weakness can and will be exploited by fundamentalist Islam. No matter if real or perceived.

They are indeed zealots, not easy to defend against. And they never stop, driven by their beliefs. As Legion says, not all live to fight terror war. But it is an inscrutable dilemma for many of us. It seems many in the US fear them overwhelming us in the future. I don't want to feel that way, but I do.

Not just the US.

Interestingly, talking to Turks around here, they have the same issue with Syrians they have allowed in, or who have fled to Turkey. They will not assimilate and are causing issues for them. These Turks are here on visas for school. So younger Turks.

I agree with your hopes Legion. But sadly the 15th century ones just keep popping up. 😔

Yes obviously many who want to stay in the 15th century must like it. E.g. men, religious leaders, warlords, etc. They like the power they hold over others. I.e. females of all ages.

Even when ISIS in Iraq was in full power. They were auctioning off women(Yazidis, etc.) of all ages for sex slaves, maids, cooks, etc. I understand this still goes on in certain places in North Africa, the Mid East, etc.

As they believe much of what they do is because their god told them to. And it is OK …

I find slavey of any type, or location, e.g. sex trafficking or women and children being brought across the US Southern Border, unspeakable, horrendous, crimes against humanity, evil, etc. But it is still happening. And in the USA is going on right now … today.

Yes, in the USA … I guess there is no way to stop it. Or those that can lack the will, etc. …

not all live to fight terror war. But it is an inscrutable dilemma for many of us. It seems many in the US fear them overwhelming us in the future. I don't want to feel that way, but I do.

Yes, as we see the birth rate in many places in Africa, the Mid-East, many 3d World failed or failing nations, etc., etc. is very high.

Many flooding across the US borders, and Western Europe, etc. as they can't live in the conditions of those failed or failng nations. So, the USA and Western Europe are the "promised land", their last best hope, etc. However, as we see in both locations … millions upon millions flooding into the 1st World becomes rapidly untenable.

And using these masses coming into the First World as cover, etc. criminals of all types come into a "new world". Ripe for plunder, etc., …

Turks around here, they have the same issue with Syrians they have allowed in, or who have fled to Turkey. They will not assimilate and are causing issues for them.

Yes as I posted above.

@Legion

ou attacked Libya. The civil war is still going on. Thousands dead
Again there was a perceived threat.

I have to say Cuprum is right about the Libyan war. If ever there was a "Blood for Oil" war, it was Libya. Khadaffi had started to export more oil to China, and the French were going crazy since Libya is a key oil provider for France. So France wanted the oil. Also, the "Arab Spring" was crushed in Libya and the Obama admin was on an ideological campaign to topple secular leaders in the Arab world -- as they did in Egypt and Lebanon, and tried to do in Syria (of course the Obama Admin pointedly refused to aid the "Arab Spring" popular revolt in Iran against the Theocrats…).

So France the United States share responsibility for engineering the Libya War and invoking Article 5 to make it a NATO war. Which, btw, was a really BAD idea since it actually made NATO an aggressor not a defender, and further promoted Putin fears of NATO. If NATO is a defensive alliance, why did they start a war in Libya?

Long story short, the US and France led NATO coalition toppled secular Khadaffi who did NOT pose a threat to security, and sparked the on-going decade-long civil war and mass migration flows, and mass weapon flows. In the chaos half the nation was captured by Islamists, and we know now that the deadly attack on the US embassy compound in Benghazi was the result of an arms deal gone bad to ship Libyan weapons and Islamist foot soldiers to Syria.

In any event, the main result aside from lots of chaos and death is that Libya's oil fields are managed now by TotalFinaElf energy (France), Royal Dutch Shell (UK), ConocoPhillips (US) with supporting contracts to Halliburton and Honeywell. Blood for Oil indeed!

I have to say Cuprum is right about the Libyan war.

Oh yes as I posted previously above …

… a US ambassador and his 3 man retinue was killed by local AQ affiliates. However, the US Admin at the time made quite a mess of it. I will clearly admit this was really ed up by a US Admin who did not know what they were doing. And they lied about the intel, etc. to the US people. The people that many voted for them.[I didn't!]

Plus, again costing 4 US KIAs. Who were much better than those that put them there. Bottom line that Admin was totally incompetent when it came to geopolitics/Realpolitik. Their bumbling is still having consequences.[reminds me of the current admin]

Also note some of the same players of that admin are still around DC … If I say what I think I will be DH'd … 'nuff said.

Also note some of the same players of that admin are still around DC

Yes -- the architects of the Libya War, the pre-mature pull-out from Iraq and the rise of ISIS, and the Arab Spring chaos and deepening of the Syrian Civil War are now in charge of the Ukraine War….they were also in charge of the Afghanistan retreat.