Jump to content

Misadventures in the Middle East

F250

By F250
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Aqua Buddha

Aqua Buddha 14530

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Bolded for emphasis.

Long-term strategic thinking needs to be planning for a world where the staggeringly rich petrocracies lose their wealth and power.  That descent into chaos will be really, really nasty.  Like, "could end the fucking world" level of nasty.

We have a population that has swelled in a region that can't support that many people without the massive influx of wealth and resources (water, power, food) that petroleum extraction provides for.  When that means of providing for them is gone....shit will hit the fan.

You think the middle east is a mess because people want its oil?  Wait till people DON'T want it anymore.

Then it basically becomes Africa, which no one gives a shit about now.

Where is it written that the world has to be involved in the ME?  Only reason we have been is because of oil.  When that’s gone, why bother?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104752

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Then it basically becomes Africa, which no one gives a shit about now.

Where is it written that the world has to be involved in the ME?  Only reason we have been is because of oil.  When that’s gone, why bother?

For the same reason that we try to contain Ebola in the Congo whenever it breaks out?

The ME isn't stable....but if it further destabilizes, the shit there becomes seriously contagious, and seriously dangerous.  9/11 and whatnot.

We don't have the luxury of pretending that the ME isn't part of an interconnected world.  Maybe we did when much of the region was populated by goat herders and tents and stuff, but not anymore.

 

Oh, and also....you're wrong about Africa.  It's going to be a significant player in the global future.  And you're right, nobody here seems to give much of a shit, but ummmm.....these guys do.....they play the long game.....

CN-EPS-02-6002.png

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
staboner

staboner 4959

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

That is down thread a few more decades more than likely, but very true. That's when they'll be the most dangerous with nothing to lose.

I feel like if we started to show true decline and commitment to leaving fossil fuels then the speculation would wind down, effectively removing the power way ahead of when the actual oil runs out. And earlier than most expect

Of course having other shit that fat money can invest in with confidence would help too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28717

Posted
  • Author
Posted

A majority of the Trump defenders I know on social media are suddenly advocates of non-interventionism. Strange because I remember when they were the biggest advocates of "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29457

Posted
Posted

Given Turkey's relatively recent slide toward Islamism and authoritarianism, turn toward Russia, and now invasion of Kurdish Syria under Erdogan, is there room for discussing its future in Nato? Or is that being too reactionary at this point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45609

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

Just came to post this.  Unreal.

We are LITERALLY handing over ground gained by our allies to our enemy.  

Yes, when an article leads off with the phrase "U.S. forces are set to aid the Russian military" you know we're in a whole new world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104752

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Given Turkey's relatively recent slide toward Islamism and authoritarianism, turn toward Russia, and now invasion of Kurdish Syria under Erdogan, is there room for discussing its future in Nato? Or is that being too reactionary at this point?

Would it be reactionary to make any moves or say something publicly?  Yep.

Is Turkey's future role/membership in NATO being discussed privately among NATO members right now?  Almost certainly.  As it should be.  Ignoring a problem won't make it go away.  Planning and strategy are necessary to solve it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104752

Posted
Posted
Gee, Lindsey, seems like you’ve got more leverage than just hope. He’s apparently trying out for the Ben Sasse school of scolding the President while still being a spineless sycophant

Dude, he’s already locked down a spot on the “spineless cocksucker” roster.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23403

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

I know the news comes at us like a fire hose, but this seems like a big fucking deal

It's crazy that we 1) didnt removed the b61s when the Turkish coup failed, and 2) don't appear to have a clear contingency plan dialed up for removing the weapons from incirlik.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45609

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:
I know the news comes at us like a fire hose, but this seems like a big fucking deal

Nah, they don't have the codes.

<Trump sends Erdogan the codes along with a box of chocolates and a photo of himself wearing lingerie and sporting a ball gag>

OK, it's a big fucking deal.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mapache

Mapache 1117

Posted
Posted (edited)

50 US Nukes now held hostage by Turkey.


Turkey ‘effectively holding 50 US nuclear bombs hostage’ at air base amid Syria invasion

White House officials scrambling to retrieve weapons of mass destruction, reports say


An estimated 50 US nuclear bombs are effectively being held hostage in Turkey as Washington attempts to find a diplomatic way of responding to the country’s invasion of Syria, officials are reported to have warned.

The withdrawal of American troops from northern Syria – creating a power vacuum that has allowed Turkey and Russia to move into the region and displace Washington’s Kurdish allies – has caused international outcry.

And as even his supporters accuse the White House of betraying its allies, Donald Trump has been forced to escalate his opposition to Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, threatening to “destroy” his counterpart's economy and contract America’s alliance with Ankara.

However, the rapid pace of withdrawal and the tumultuous decline of relations between the two countries has left administration officials scrambling to find a plan for the nuclear weapons stored under American control at the shared Incirlik Air Base in south east Turkey, reports said.

Officials from the State Department and Energy Department, which manages Washington's nuclear arsenal, met at the weekend to consider how they might retrieve an estimated fifty tactical nuclear weapons held at the site, according to The New York Times.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/turkey-syria-us-nuclear-weapons-bombs-trump-war-isis-kurds-a9158416.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1w1W_U
 
But her emails !!
 
 
 
Edited by Mapache
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RPM

RPM 26238

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Nah, they don't have the codes.

<Trump sends Erdogan the codes along with a box of chocolates and a photo of himself wearing lingerie and sporting a ball gag>

OK, it's a big fucking deal.

They don't need the codes. Russian hackers have talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
American Swindle

American Swindle 102

Posted
Posted
the true bootlickers.
 



I find that laughable. We’ve been at war for like fucking ever. The irony here is they whipped up a resolution and voted on keeping troops in Syria in what....like 5 minutes?...while never voting for the AUMF to send troops to Syria in the first place.

Here’s the antithesis of one of those “bootlickers” to explain it for you.





It pains me to say it but the only Party that is anti-war now is the Libertarian party.

George W. Bush called Democrat’s, and he’s complaining that y’all jacked his foreign policy and warhawkish swagger.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
American Swindle

American Swindle 102

Posted
Posted
the true bootlickers.
 



I find that laughable. We’ve been at war for like fucking ever. The irony here is they whipped up a resolution and voted on keeping troops in Syria in what....like 5 minutes?...while never voting for the AUMF to send troops to Syria in the first place.

Here’s the antithesis of one of those “bootlickers” to explain it for you.





It pains me to say it but the only Party that is anti-war now is the Libertarian party.

George W. Bush called Democrat’s, and he’s complaining that y’all jacked his foreign policy and warhawkish swagger.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23403

Posted
Posted

The point of that video is that the roles as described in the constitution have been upended. Congress should be making declarations of war and the commander in chief should be executing those wars. I don't think that you can call a house resolution that doesn't really do anything unconstitutional, but it seems pretty clear that our process around war making is not as intended, at least based on my reading of the constitution.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31330

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The point of that video is that the roles as described in the constitution have been upended. Congress should be making declarations of war and the commander in chief should be executing those wars. I don't think that you can call a house resolution that doesn't really do anything unconstitutional, but it seems pretty clear that our process around war making is not as intended, at least based on my reading of the constitution.  

Yet another instance of Congress abdicating its authority because it might be unpopular.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45609

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The point of that video is that the roles as described in the constitution have been upended. Congress should be making declarations of war and the commander in chief should be executing those wars. I don't think that you can call a house resolution that doesn't really do anything unconstitutional, but it seems pretty clear that our process around war making is not as intended, at least based on my reading of the constitution.  

And this has jack shit to do with this particular Congress.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pig Bellmont

Pig Bellmont 8695

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm 50/50 as to whether I believe Trump sent that letter.  It's quite possible he drafted it yesterday but dated it October 9th.  

Because Trump.

By that point the letter was all for show and it was released for damage control with GOP senators. Let’s not forget the timeline:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...