Page 2 of 2 First 12
Results 26 to 43 of 43

  1. Post
    #26
    Vulcan wrote:
    PMF is a broad umbrella term.

    Soleimani was an Iranian general in Iraq, backing a terror group (Kata'ib Hezbollah) and actually meeting with them (as in killed in the same car as the leader of the terrorist group Kata'ib Hezbollah). Kata'ib Hezbollah are the group that have been attacking american bases.

    Saying it is PMF is a bit misleading.
    Name:  Capture.JPG
Views: 218
Size:  23.5 KB

    The leader of Kata'ib Hezbollah was Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis who was deputy commander of PMF

    Claiming they are merely some 'terror group' is a bit misleading

    bradc wrote:
    I think we can probably agree though that while not perfect, certainly better than most empires.
    That's entirely dependant on if they're bringing your country 'democracy & freedom' or not

  2. Post
    #27
    Why don't you quote the whole Wikipedia article, right under that bit you have there:

    that is supported by Iran.[34] It has been active in the Iraqi Civil War[35] and the Syrian Civil War.[36] During the Iraq War, the group fought against coalition occupation forces.[32][37] The group was commanded by Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis[38] until he was killed by a US airstrike in Baghdad on 3 January 2020.[39]

    Kataib Hezbollah is officially listed as a terrorist organisation by the governments of Japan, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States.
    and the rest of the article is just terrorism terrorism terrorism except for a small period fighting ISIL.

    So yeah, they are merely some terror group.

  3. Post
    #28
    funny these 'terrorists' were fighting the other terrorists

    to the Iraqis I guess they were not so terrorist? or is USA the only relevant point of view here?

    tldr USA killed official Iraqi forces commander while whacking Iranian Quads commander invited into Iraq to provide response to diplomatic negotiations with Saudia Arabia.

    A force for good in action

  4. Post
    #29
    US is mad because of the Iraqi-Chinese deal. They cause chaos and distractions and pressure Iraq to not go ahead with that deal.

  5. Post
    #30
    Snuffles wrote:
    funny these 'terrorists' were fighting the other terrorists

    to the Iraqis I guess they were not so terrorist? or is USA the only relevant point of view here?

    tldr USA killed official Iraqi forces commander while whacking Iranian Quads commander invited into Iraq to provide response to diplomatic negotiations with Saudia Arabia.

    A force for good in action
    Yeah I'm sure they were lovely people, I also have a great deal for you on a bridge.

  6. Post
    #31
    hammed wrote:
    US is mad because of the Iraqi-Chinese deal. They cause chaos and distractions and pressure Iraq to not go ahead with that deal.
    I would love to see China get sucked into the ME mess. Their treatment of Muslims within China should make it quite interesting.

  7. Post
    #32
    if only US would stay away from ME, that mess would be much less than now.

  8. Post
    #33
    hammed wrote:
    if only US would stay away from ME, that mess would be much less than now.
    the USA can not afford to, it's real power is the ability to print money without suffering the effects of inflation

    this is only possible with the maintenance of the petrodollar, without this mechanism they overtake Zimbabwe overnight

  9. Post
    #34
    I think America's involvement in the Middle East, actually stems from Containment of China.
    Don't mean to go off topic, but I think you have to look at the cold war, to understand more about the modern USA Middle East conflicts.

    I think it's a proxy, about keeping the Middle East areas that form choke points (E.g - Isreal, Iraq), and/or close to China (Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and the other couple of middle east countries to the North of Pakistan) in such a state/manner that prevents, or discourages the spread of China's influence throughout the Middle East. Also keeping the Pakistan-India relations and border in a manner that's conducive to containing China in general.

    I feel like China in response, decided to win more long game by merely diverting attention to the developing countries of Africa. Which, is now starting to get more and more interesting... It's always been a bit knarely there with proxy activity, helped/installed govt and elections, civil wars and conflicts... but I feel like Africa is much more on the scene now with regards to global politics and activity, and I fear conflicts in Africa will worsen.

    This is quite a bit of longshot hypothesis, and I may have my wires crossed a bit, I've been trying to be more informed about 1920-2000 history, it gets pretty complicated and conspiracy-esq though, cold war and everything.

    " Although President Lyndon B. Johnson stated that the aim of the Vietnam War was to secure an "independent, non-Communist South Vietnam", a January 1965 memorandum by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara stated that an underlying justification was "not to help a friend, but to contain China".[7][8]

    McNamara accused China of harboring imperial aspirations like those of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. According to McNamara, the Chinese were conspiring to "organize all of Asia" against the United States.

    As laid out by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the Chinese containment policy of the United States was a long-run strategic effort to surround Beijing with the USSR, its satellite states, as well as:
    a) The Japan–Korea front,
    b) The India–Pakistan front, and
    c) The Southeast Asia front
    "

    It's funny, even during the cold war, you cannot really say USA and USSR were enemies, the USA had a preference for China to be surrounded with USSR proxy states (E.g - Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan... USSR attempt at Afghanistan and that brings us right up to 1989 Middle East).
    Last edited by BattleCrap; 20th February 2020 at 2:21 am.

  10. Post
    #35
    During the cold war china was seen as a potential ally against the USSR - the whole the enemy of my enemy thing.

  11. Post
    #36
    Vulcan wrote:
    During the cold war china was seen as a potential ally against the USSR - the whole the enemy of my enemy thing.
    Absolutely agree, BUT :-

    As laid out by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the Chinese containment policy of the United States was a long-run strategic effort to surround Beijing with the USSR, its satellite states

    And:-

    a January 1965 memorandum by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara stated that an underlying justification was "not to help a friend, but to contain China" - (RE: Reasons for USA in Vietnam, by McNamara)

    So it's like, they (USA) are slightly enemies with both China and USSR during the Cold war, but yet USSR and China weren't allies, so possible enemy of my enemy thing works BOTH ways, for and against both China and USSR relations. It's basically just a massive game of the board game Risk, almost laughable how crazy it was/is.
    Big balancing act with "balance of powers" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanc...nal_relations)

    Vividly brings up the notion/strategy of divide and conquer too, but with no single defined "enemy", just a whole bunch of grey area relations.

    Global politics and relations is a massive puzzle, very complex, it's crazy when you try have discussions about this sort of stuff, people will pigeonhole you in with conspiracy theorists, flat earthers.

    I recommend anyone and everyone watch "CNN Cold War" (Sometimes referred to as BBC Cold War (funding)), it's that old school 1998 mini TV series (24, 40 minute episodes) documentary where the intro is the school kids venturing down a dark bunker tunnel with flashlights, projector images on the walls, discovering the crazy period that was the Cold War. Will be really interesting how the Cold War is taught and perceived 100 years from now. It can be a little dry in parts, but i thoroughly recommend sticking it out, as the way the doco is presented and formatted, it all ties together and you end up having a really good broad (with decent depth) knowledge of the Cold War, and you immediately understand much more about today as well. Some good Highschool history teachers try to show as much as the curriculum will allow. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH2k...CVnplwK1HWyXb7

  12. Post
    #37
    I don't need to google it, I lived it.

  13. Post
    #38
    Me too

  14. Post
    #39
    I've googled things during a time period that I have lived in.
    And learned something everytime.

    Excuse me for needing to Google it(?)

    Also, the Cold War really needs to be looked at from about 1920s (Russian Revolution) (or 40s, end of WW2) ish onwards, so that would make you about a hundred years old.
    Last edited by BattleCrap; 21st February 2020 at 5:03 pm.

  15. Post
    #40
    It should be noted that Churchill's request to Roosevelt to prioritise Germany first, was in an effort to stop the Russian's taking over the rest of Western Europe, which they surely would have.

  16. Post
    #41
    Vulcan wrote:
    I don't need to google it, I lived it.
    I ate chips and watched the second Gulf War with the best of them.

    It was my generations Normandy Beach. We lost a lot of good remotes down the back of the couch that day.

  17. Post
    #42
    Awww bradc you're so cute when you try and have a crack at me.

    The cold war experience was more watching the shit go on around the world hoping nobody would finally push the button. It wasn't about watching front line battles on tv.

  18. Post
    #43
    Well, it's kinda like making predictions by looking at stars in the sky, hah. Total significance of 222 in angel number 222 maintains that the harmony and balance pave the way for great and ultimate greatness and 222 meaning is all about your choice in this life and how you will act and react on certain situations.
    Last edited by anders055; 22nd March 2020 at 3:11 am.