@shavixmir saidThere is only one way to fight a war and it involves killing as many of the enemy as possible in the shortest time possible.
How did the Taliban beat the Americans?
How did the Dutch fight the Nazis?
What's the bloody situation in Iraq now?
Let me make it clear for you: there are many ways to wage war, win battles and influence situations.
Han, Luke, Ben and Chewie... when caught in the tractor beam... did they fight or hide to achieve their goals?
You have to judge each situation a ...[text shortened]... the West has larger political goals, you don't. You just sit back and watch the kids burn to death.
The worst kind of war is the one that the Taliban were forced to fight, a twenty year insurgency is something you do if you have no other choice due to an overwhelming disparity between the invading force and the invaded force.
Only a retarded idiot takes that option if they have the classic option of putting up a viable defence to the invasion.
The Ukrainians gave themselves that option by training and tooling up a big enough defensive force post 2014 but strategic geniuses obviously believe they should have ignored that option and gone straight to an insurgency and given the Russian forces access to the whole of Ukraine only to be ultimately defeated by strong worded emails from the UN and student sit ins.
You know the Dutch resistance was coordinating with the US and the Brits right and ultimately the NAZIS were ousted by a general defeat by the allies. It’s a good job for the Dutch the allies were not swayed by the kind of arguments being put forward by the defeatists on this forum.
Iraq is a lot more complex in that any invader could take advantage of the Sunni / Shiite divide and what Iraq is left with is exactly that. A simmering sectarian civil war exasperated by the meddling of the west and its mainly Shiite neighbour Iran.
Everybody fights invasion and colonisation as best they can, but your red carpet and argue the toss later strategy would have been the worst possible option for Ukraine In my and the Ukrainian peoples opinion.
23 Jun 22
@no1marauder saidWell it a gourd job nobody is claiming otherwise but like any nation they have the potential for improvement. That’s what the EU roadmap is all about.
The Ukraine is a notoriously corrupt, flawed democracy which oppresses its Russian minority and is the poorest country in Europe by GDP per capita despite Western aid since 2014.
The idea that Russia invaded it because it was too shiny a beacon of success is laughably insane.
Ukraine will have to tackle its corruption levels and democratic shortfall if it has one and certainly any issues surrounding its treatment if minorities will need to be addressed before that application could be seriously considered. But potentially they could be a prosperous and functional democracy with all the advantages if EU membership.
I hardly think being subsumed by or in any way tied to Putins Russia is going to lessen its levels of corruption.
Ukraine has been invaded by Russia yet the implication seems to be that they should tolerate pro Russian political parties or activists within their body politic, imo that is a ridiculously high standard, especially given the authoritarian nature of the state that has invaded them. I wouldn’t try starting a pro Ukrainian party in Russia anytime soon.
23 Jun 22
6 edits
@kevcvs57 saidNATO invaded Libya to "protect citizens", right? Tell me: why won't NATO actually put troops into Ukraine while thousands die? Why did NATO send troops to Afghanistan to "fight terror" but won't directly confront Russia's terrorist actions? Why did the U.S. send troops into Yemen and Syria but not to Ukraine?
We are obviously watching different news feeds. I seem to remember Iraq being cited as the 4th or 5th biggest military in the world just before the 2nd Iraq war. Apparently there’s a massive drop off after the 1st biggest military in the world.
When you say the 2nd biggest navy I hope your not including that smoke belching diesel Cold War era aircraft carrier that spends mo ...[text shortened]... more than a mediocre conventional power using a massive nuclear arsenal to keep that reality at bay.
It's simple: the US and NATO weren't worried about Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya. etc., because they were much weaker countries who didn't have nukes. But they are worried about the giant that is Russia.
If you think Iraq was ever close to being the "4th or 5th biggest military in the world" then that explains a lot. They were not more powerful than India, the UK or France, which all also have nukes.
23 Jun 22
@vivify saidNATO didn’t invade Libya to the best of my knowledge it operated a no fly zone for the Libyan Air Force and destroyed military hardware that gaddafi was going to use on the opposition stronghold in the east.
NATO invaded Libya to "protect citizens", right? Tell me: why won't NATO actually put troops into Ukraine while thousands die? Why did NATO send troops to Afghanistan to "fight terror" but won't directly confront Russia's terrorist actions? Why did the U.S. send troops into Yemen and Syria but not to Ukraine?
It's simple: the US and NATO weren't worried about Afghanistan ...[text shortened]... plains a lot. They were not more powerful than India, the UK or France, which all also have nukes.
The reason that NATO isn’t wanting to escalate this into a war with Russia is simple, it’s Russia’s nuclear arsenal. Can you guess why NATO haven’t invaded any nuclear armed powers because I can. I don’t think anyone in NATO would choose even a conventional war with Russia they do have a lot of destructive power and we’ve seen in Syria, Chechnya and now Ukraine now have no problem using cowardly long range weapons on women and children far from the front line but if you think Russia is a serious contender for NATO or even the US on its own. I wouldn’t even fancy them against a united European force without the US. They are a one trick pony and that trick is M.A.D. They should have stuck with what they excel at namely:- gravy train corruption at home and sewing internal divisions amongst their perceived enemies in the west.
I didn’t for one minute think that stat concerning Iraq was true, ( more specifically it was the size of its army rather than military power per se) I’m pretty sure it was the pentagon that said it. By the same token I do not accept your dark fantasies regarding Russia’s conventional forces.
The constant Russian set backs and missteps during the first 3 months of the war would support my version of reality.
23 Jun 22
@vivify saidThe Libyan intervention was UNSC approved so not quite the same thing.
NATO invaded Libya to "protect citizens", right? Tell me: why won't NATO actually put troops into Ukraine while thousands die? Why did NATO send troops to Afghanistan to "fight terror" but won't directly confront Russia's terrorist actions? Why did the U.S. send troops into Yemen and Syria but not to Ukraine?
It's simple: the US and NATO weren't worried about Afghanistan ...[text shortened]... plains a lot. They were not more powerful than India, the UK or France, which all also have nukes.
Saddam’s Iraq on paper had a huge mechanized army but as with many armies, particularly Arab ones, it was not very competent. A paper lion with thousands of tanks but when it came down to actual warfare they disassembled their tanks, put the guns on static mounts and used the vehicle batteries for indoor lighting. They had almost no communications and soldiers were expected to die in battle to protect individual buildings with no large scale coordination or mobility.
23 Jun 22
@athousandyoung saidQuite true.
The Libyan intervention was UNSC approved so not quite the same thing.
That said, the U.S. has no problem waging war in weaker nations (Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, etc.) all in the name of "fighting terror", but won't directly engage Russia. And it's not because they're the incompetent weaklings Kev thinks they are.
23 Jun 22
@vivify saidIt’s because they have nukes. Pretty simple explanation.
Quite true.
That said, the U.S. has no problem waging war in weaker nations (Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, etc.) all in the name of "fighting terror", but won't directly engage Russia. And it's not because they're the incompetent weaklings Kev thinks they are.
23 Jun 22
@vivify saidLet's get the facts straight on Libya; what NATO did went far beyond what was UN authorized. It waged a war focused on regime change where the rebels hardly moved except where NATO mercilessly bombed the government forces. And many of these air strikes were directed by Western ground troops embedded in the rebel forces.
Quite true.
That said, the U.S. has no problem waging war in weaker nations (Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, etc.) all in the name of "fighting terror", but won't directly engage Russia. And it's not because they're the incompetent weaklings Kev thinks they are.
The West decided to oust Qaddafi and did so. Please don't tell me they did it because of Western leaders' deep concern for the Libyan People; surely no one can be naive enough to believe that.
23 Jun 22
1 edit
@no1marauder saidQaddafi's savagery provided overwhelming international support allowing the West to do what it did. I'm the first, maybe the only one to point out in specific detail in what ways France exploited this crisis for cynical ends for example, but the man did it to himself and it was his own citizens, not NATO, who shoved a bayonet up his rear, to retaliate for the brutality inflicted by his FOREIGN soldiers from the south.
Let's get the facts straight on Libya; what NATO did went far beyond what was UN authorized. It waged a war focused on regime change where the rebels hardly moved except where NATO mercilessly bombed the government forces. And many of these air strikes were directed by Western ground troops embedded in the rebel forces.
The West decided to oust Qaddafi and did so. Plea ...[text shortened]... tern leaders' deep concern for the Libyan People; surely no one can be naive enough to believe that.
23 Jun 22
@athousandyoung saidYou could probably muster a sufficient domestic force almost anywhere in the world willing to overthrow their country's leader IF promised massive bombing by the US and NATO.
Qaddafi's savagery provided overwhelming international support allowing the West to do what it did. I'm the first, maybe the only one to point out in specific detail in what ways France exploited this crisis for cynical ends for example, but the man did it to himself and it was his own citizens, not NATO, who shoved a bayonet up his rear, to retaliate for the brutality inflicted by his FOREIGN soldiers from the south.
An investigation by a bipartisan group in the UK Parliament found:
"Qaddafi was not planning to massacre civilians. This myth was exaggerated by rebels and Western governments, which based their intervention on little intelligence.
The threat of Islamist extremists, which had a large influence in the uprising, was ignored — and the NATO bombing made this threat even worse, giving ISIS a base in North Africa.
France, which initiated the military intervention, was motivated by economic and political interests, not humanitarian ones.
The uprising — which was violent, not peaceful — would likely not have been successful were it not for foreign military intervention and aid. Foreign media outlets, particularly Qatar's Al Jazeera and Saudi Arabia's Al Arabiya, also spread unsubstantiated rumors about Qaddafi and the Libyan government.
The NATO bombing plunged Libya into a humanitarian disaster, killing thousands of people and displacing hundreds of thousands more, transforming Libya from the African country with the highest standard of living into a war-torn failed state."
https://www.salon.com/2016/09/16/u-k-parliament-report-details-how-natos-2011-war-in-libya-was-based-on-lies/
23 Jun 22
@no1marauder saidBut it is exceedingly uncommon to find a conflict in which the UN, the US Congress and the Arab League all support intervention.
You could probably muster a sufficient domestic force almost anywhere in the world willing to overthrow their country's leader IF promised massive bombing by the US and NATO.
An investigation by a bipartisan group in the UK Parliament found:
"Qaddafi was not planning to massacre civilians. This myth was exaggerated by rebels and Western governments, which based thei ...[text shortened]... ww.salon.com/2016/09/16/u-k-parliament-report-details-how-natos-2011-war-in-libya-was-based-on-lies/
23 Jun 22
2 edits
@athousandyoung saidNeither the UN nor the Arab League supported regime change. The Resolution made no mention of it and the Arab League made clear it opposed it:
But it is exceedingly uncommon to find a conflict in which the UN, the US Congress and the Arab League all support intervention.
https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Global-Viewpoint/2011/0323/Arab-League-chief-Goal-in-Libya-is-to-protect-civilians-not-regime-change
From UN Resolution 1973:
1. Demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;
“2. Stresses the need to intensify efforts to find a solution to the crisis which responds to the legitimate demands of the Libyan people and notes the decisions of the Secretary-General to send his Special Envoy to Libya and of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union to send its ad hoc High-Level Committee to Libya with the aim of facilitating dialogue to lead to the political reforms necessary to find a peaceful and sustainable solution;
https://www.un.org/press/en/2011/sc10200.doc.htm#Resolution
23 Jun 22
https://academic.oup.com/ia/article-abstract/89/2/365/2449996?redirectedFrom=fulltext
The Libyan conflict of 2011 divided Africa, but nonetheless the African Union (AU) was able to agree on a political strategy aimed at achieving a negotiated settlement and power transition.
Another extremely relevant group...