Fumbling Bumbling Bungling...

Anything else you want to talk about.
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2881
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Fumbling Bumbling Bungling...

Postby Dave Saxton » Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:07 am

Read this:

http://www.news-press.com/article/20130 ... ds-message

This President could be the worst, either by accident or by design.......
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Fumbling Bumbling Bungling...

Postby RF » Fri Jun 14, 2013 8:41 am

Are the Syria rebels really our friends? Are they worth backing?

No on both counts I think.

Bismarcks' comment on the Balkans applies equally here. Syria isn't worth the bones or bodybag of a single US soldier and certainly not a British one.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
frontkampfer
Member
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 2:35 am
Location: Phillipsburg, NJ - USA

Re: Fumbling Bumbling Bungling...

Postby frontkampfer » Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:19 pm

The russians, chinese and iranians support Assad. AQ supports the rebels. They all hate the US and we need to get involved in this crap because? If afghanistan & iraq were worng, how the hell is this conflict right? Topping it off, barry wants to bring syrian refugees to this country. Why? So in 10-15 years one of theier radicalized kids can set off an IED somewhere? Where the hell is the outrage over even thinking about this?
"I will not have my ship shot out from under my ass!"

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 571
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Fumbling Bumbling Bungling...

Postby paul.mercer » Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:08 pm

frontkampfer wrote:The russians, chinese and iranians support Assad. Ause the waQ supports the rebels. They all hate the US and we need to get involved in this crap because? If afghanistan & iraq were worng, how the hell is this conflict right? Topping it off, barry wants to bring syrian refugees to this country. Why? So in 10-15 years one of theier radicalized kids can set off an IED somewhere? Where the hell is the outrage over even thinking about this?


I agree entirely, We (the Brits and the Americans) never seem to learn from history, the British got shot at in Afganistan in the late 1800's, the Russians in the 1900's and both GB and US today - to so say nothing about the mess left in Iraq.We also have had noises being made about attacking Iran not so long ago and now they want to get involved with Syria. What is the point in arming these rebels whose jihadist tendencies will sooner or later use them against us? To be quite honest I think the biggest danger to World peace comes from North Korea if the Chinese cannot control then sufficiently.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Fumbling Bumbling Bungling...

Postby RF » Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:13 pm

Actually I don't think that North Korea poses any significant threat to Japan or even South Korea, let alone the US or Britain.

Hoardes of goose-stepping soldiers in Pyongyang doesn't frighten me. No, it reminds me of Monty Pythons Ministry of Silly Walks.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 571
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Fumbling Bumbling Bungling...

Postby paul.mercer » Mon Jun 17, 2013 8:04 pm

RF wrote:Actually I don't think that North Korea poses any significant threat to Japan or even South Korea, let alone the US or Britain.

Hoardes of goose-stepping soldiers in Pyongyang doesn't frighten me. No, it reminds me of Monty Pythons Ministry of Silly Walks.


Nicely put!

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2881
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Fumbling Bumbling Bungling...

Postby Dave Saxton » Fri Jun 21, 2013 1:58 pm

What Krauthammer is really pointing to, using Syria as an example, is the extremely poor leadership on matters of state which have lead us to these no win situations.

Earlier this week it was down right embarrassing to have an American president give such a sophmoric speach in Berlin Germany. Unilaterral nuclear disarmament and (phoney baloney) climate change containment? Really ? Nuclear disarmament was Obama's term paper topic as an undergraduate at a left wing community college in the early 80's. It's the 21st century Mr President and his masters.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Fumbling Bumbling Bungling...

Postby RF » Fri Jun 21, 2013 5:13 pm

Yes, he can't even seem to get the name of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer quite right.....

Mind you, he does have some way to go to beat the faux paus of President Jimmy Carter - I gather that on a visit to communist Poland, he made a speech apparently in Polish expressing the hope for future friendship between the American and Polish peoples, only for his mispronounciation of friendship came out to mean that he desired carnal relationships rather than friendly ones.....
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 571
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Fumbling Bumbling Bungling...

Postby paul.mercer » Mon Jun 24, 2013 8:52 pm

Dave Saxton wrote:What Krauthammer is really pointing to, using Syria as an example, is the extremely poor leadership on matters of state which have lead us to these no win situations.

Earlier this week it was down right embarrassing to have an American president give such a sophmoric speach in Berlin Germany. Unilaterral nuclear disarmament and (phoney baloney) climate change containment? Really ? Nuclear disarmament was Obama's term paper topic as an undergraduate at a left wing community college in the early 80's. It's the 21st century Mr President and his masters.


I can well believe that! I have had the argument of unilateral nuclear disarmament with a number of people in our local paper. What they will not accept is that even if everyone did disarm and scrap all the nuclear weapons nobody, is going to forget how to make them and at the first sign of a threat will build them again. I have no doubt that the French would have liked to have the longbow banned!

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2881
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Fumbling Bumbling Bungling...

Postby Dave Saxton » Tue Jun 25, 2013 11:13 pm

As much as we hate to think about nukes and what they can do, their existence has probably kept a WWIII or IV from happening during the last 70 years.

What is really scarey is what Iran or the like will do once they have one or two, given there's not a strong likely -hood that the westen nuclear powers won't retaliate -and not 1:1.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

User avatar
frontkampfer
Member
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 2:35 am
Location: Phillipsburg, NJ - USA

Re: Fumbling Bumbling Bungling...

Postby frontkampfer » Wed Jun 26, 2013 1:56 am

Hate to sound like a doom sayer, but this country and the west is in decline and we are running to a modern Dark Age!
"I will not have my ship shot out from under my ass!"

Vic Dale
Senior Member
Posts: 903
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:53 pm

Re: Fumbling Bumbling Bungling...

Postby Vic Dale » Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:45 am

The USA is not capable of intervening in the Middle East. The whole of US foreign policy in that region has been a shambles, right from the start.

In the 1980s Saddam Hussein was their friendly butcher who murdered enemies of the USA and kept the Kurds down, not forgetting the extent of the Kurdish nation, which if it ever did realise it's national rights would be the biggest oil rich nation in the world. Saddam went to war against Iran at the behest of the USA and waged a terrible 4 year war, which end in stalemate and the deaths of millions on both sides. Saddam's reward was supposed to be Kuwait, but as usual attitudes changed and after all no one likes a looser.

The goons at the pentagon under Bush Sr. launched a terrible war against Saddam, but having driven him out of Kuwait, did not have the strength or the will to put him down at that time. A second war under Bush Jr dislodged Saddam and created a failed state which lurched from one sectarian excess to another. Now Iraq has come fully under the influence of Iran who apparently dictates it's foreign policy. We have come full circle and the target of US foreign policy, Iran, is now the big boy on the block in the Middle East, an ally of Assad in Syria, of Iraq, of Hezbollah in Lebanon and the sworn enemy of Israel.

The fumbling, bumbling and bungling did not begin with Obama, it is simply the fullest expression of US foreign policy. They either get their arses kicked or make such a mess they make more enemies than friends.

The USA is now so weak militarily that it cannot intervene in the Middle East. If it tried to it would simply demonstrate that weakness and that would encourage the anti Israel coalition to settle a few old scores. Thanks to US intervention with the help of Britain, the Middle East is a powder keg which could explode over a single issue.

The regime in Syria has got the upper hand now and any help given to the opposition will simply prolong the agony. Far better to have a solution, even if it is not the desired one, because the people of Syria need peace above all else. Cannibalism and other atrocities are a clear sign of a demoralised army. I do not think the opposition can win.

In my personal view, the uprising in Syria was wrong to try and take on the regime militarily. Displays of solidarity with the soldiery coupled with mass strikes would have toppled the regime in time. The mass of opposition would have been hard to stop and in tens and twenties at first, then in greater numbers as time was passed, oppositionists among the army would have come over. In fact a major part of the armed uprising came from the army, but armed aggression instead of solidarity appeals, alienated the rest of the army, who, even though they may have disliked the regime, had no where else to go. This was a blunder of some magnitude and lessons for future uprisings have to be learned from it.

Sabre rattling by the likes of Britain and others, agreeing to send arms, will not make the rebels victorious, it will simply prolong the agony and cause Syria to further degenerate. It is clear that British foreign policy would see Syria in complete ruins rather than see Assad reassert his grip. They have forgotten nothing and learned nothing from the mess they helped create in Iraq and Afghanistan. They would arm Al-Queada just to see Assad lose power.

So against this impending catastrophe, the USA is for once in it's history doing the right thing in staying out of it. Obama is one of the weakest presidents the USA has had since Jimmy Carter. This is not due to any personal spinelessness, but stems from his position as the representative of the ruling elite of the USA. He has executive power but cannot use it. The republicans have savaged everything he has tried to do and he has let them get away with it. This tells us that there is little difference between Democrats and Republicans these days, there is a lot of name calling, on domestic policy, but it seems they are basically in agreement on foreign policy. OK they wheeled out McCain a few weeks back, but they know he is a spent force and convinces no one.

The USA is staying out of it, because it knows it can no longer intervene decisively and partial intervention could ignite the whole shooting match in the Middle East. This is not Obama policy but is a script written for him and approved by military men who stand in the shadows and oversee what goes on abroad. This is where the Republicans and Democrats see eye to eye and meet on equal terms, around the military conference tables.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Fumbling Bumbling Bungling...

Postby RF » Sun Jul 14, 2013 6:56 pm

Vic Dale wrote:The USA is not capable of intervening in the Middle East. The whole of US foreign policy in that region has been a shambles, right from the start.


This is not analysis but a cliche. It isn't very helpful to make these generalisations, particulary as the very generality of the statement invites contradiction. For example the policy of the administration of John Adams, second US president, towards US interests and Africa I certainly would not describe as a shambles.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Vic Dale
Senior Member
Posts: 903
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:53 pm

Re: Fumbling Bumbling Bungling...

Postby Vic Dale » Sun Jul 14, 2013 8:10 pm

If the USA tried to intervene militarily in the Middle East in it's present condition, it would simply serve to demonstrate weakness and such weakness would invite aggression against Israel.

Let us not forget that all the USA can produce is an expeditionary force and extended reach with a heavy clout, but insufficient to be decisive in an armed conflict, which would most certainly include Iran, Iraq, Syria and elements of armed force from Lebanon. We cannot rule out the possibility of further alliances in that region against the USA. In the past the USA was able to call on a coalition of force to get it's way. Not any more and the lack of supporting forces exposes the USA for all that it is worth and also for what it is not worth.

Continuing civil unrest in Egypt has possibly robbed the US of an armed ally. A war could cause Egypt to perform a volte face and side with the pro Muslim forces. Possibly the hidden reason that Morsi was deposed may have been because of the risk that he would bring Egypt over to the side of the Anti-Israel coalition. At present the Egyptian army, which seems to be the final arbiter in decisions about who should rule, accepts large quantities of arms from the US. Morsi may have been about to cut the ground out from under that arrangement. Nothing is very clear in Egypt at present, but one thing history has taught us is that Military coups do not produce stable government. Look for the backlash.

The US would not be able to get sufficient troops on the ground to prevent defeat at the hands of an Arab coalition grouping itself around Iran. Then there is every danger that the victorious powers would go after Israel. In that event, the US would have to engage in a campaign of mass destruction, in a desperate attempt to reduce the infrastructures in the region to zero, in order to protect Israel. Such a conflict would see millions dead and the US would become the greatest mass murderer since Adolf Hitler.

Nazi Germany did not realise it's true military potential until Britain and France had demonstrated their weakness in Norway. Within a very few months, Europe found itself under the heel of the jackboot and Britain was isolated. I do not compare Iran to Nazi Germany, but the military weight of opposition to the USA in the Middle East is very similar, because the armed force is growing. What we see now could easily escalate, as anti US sentiment crystalises. We do not know the full extent of military potential in the Arab nations at the present time, but we do know that US military capability at this time is not sufficient to fight a land war in that region. Partial commitment by the USA to the military tasks would simply serve to ignite and inflame the situation. Then if Israel was not to be wiped out, the US would have to commit 100%. This is an eventuality the USA simply cannot countenance, at strategic level, nor domestically.

Turkey and Jordan stand in opposition to Syria, but as to their attitude to Iran and Iraq, things are not too clear. Certainly in a war, they would have to choose sides and they know they would not be capable of winning a war. They would both have to carefully weigh up on which side their bread was buttered. I think Jordan would have no choice but to align with the other Arab nations. Turkey might stand out, but would know she would court the full fury Iran if she entered a war against her, so I think she would have to remain neutral.

The US citizen is not willing to fight any more wars and apart from some extreme outrage, such as a terror attack on the lines and magnitude of 911, or an outright attack on Israel, will not sign up for any major military operations abroad. Only the most dire threat to US national security would turn the situation favourably to war and hoping for such an outrage to intervene would be a vain hole. Such an outrage would have to be engineered. Enter the department of dirty tricks.

The USA is perfectly capable of gearing itself to war once the go ahead is given, but at the present time it would probably take 12 full months to prepare, by which time Israel could be over run. An incautious act on the part of a foreign power, by the Arab nations, or even Israel itself, could be the event on which war or peace in the Middle East hinges. Such a war would be truly hideous and would polarise attitudes globally. It could lead to WWIII. It might be that the largest powers in the world decided that it was high time the mad dog - the only power to have used Atomic force - was finally put down.

The situation in the Middle East is extremely tricky at present and the USA is rightly handling it with kid gloves, not by choice, but from pure necessity.

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 730
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Fumbling Bumbling Bungling...

Postby Byron Angel » Sun Jul 14, 2013 10:04 pm

[ 1 ] The Egyptian army is receiving more financial backing, by an order of magnitude, from Saudi Arabia - because the Saudis are terrified of the potential consequences of an Egypt under Muslim Brotherhood control.

[ 2 ] Can anyone actually explain what American Middle East policy is at this point? The opacity of current American Middle East policy is only exceeded by the mendacity of our current administration.

[ 3 ] The Syrian situation may have originally started as an "Arab Spring" effort to unseat the Assad family, but it has IMO very rapidly evolved into a struggle between the Saudi/Wahhabist factions on the "rebel" side and the Iranian/Hezbollah/Shia faction on the regime side for dominance of the cockpit of the Middle East. God knows what the Islamist radicals are up to. The hapless Syrian students who originally took to the streets are now caught between two gigantic geo-political millstones. Russia appears to understand the nature of its interests in Syria and is backing Assad. The US is, as the topic line of this thread suggests - fumbling, bumbling, bungling and generally making itself look foolish and inconsequential.

[ 4 ] Whatever one's political sentiments may be, it must be conceded that American Middle East policy - i.e. maintaining the Middle East status quo by paying Egypt a couple of billion dollars per year to stay at peace with the Israelis - has bought about 40 years of "relative peace" in the Mideast through a succession of presidential administrations both Republican and Democrat - until our current genius in the White House decided to start tinkering with the tinder box.

[ 5 ] There is unquestionably a great deal we do NOT know about this, but I fear that little or none of it is good.

B


Return to “Off Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests