The Coming War in the Middle East (2013) • Hacker News Board

Re: The Coming War in the Middle East (2013)

#51

Post by pault » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 5:29 PM UTC

nickik wrote: post #9

This is a pretty good article and worth a read for people who are not already informed. They were not completely correct. They seem to underestimate the stability and staying power of Jordan. Both US and Israel help to make sure that Jordan is protected. Stability of monarchies are typically underestimated. Syria's government has not fallen, and Nusra (now Jabhat Fateh al-Sham) never managed to unify the rebel to any…

Slightly off topic: does anyone know of any forums/news aggregators of comparable quality to the HN community (e.g. generally well informed, polite, and strictly moderated/self-moderated) that focus on geopolitics?

Re: The Coming War in the Middle East (2013)

#52

Post by nickik » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 5:31 PM UTC

jwtadvice wrote: post #40

nickik wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I've got this right, in Syria, Iran is opposed to ISIS/Daesh and Saudis are funding them? Well, I have a problem with saying "Saudis are funding them". Some people, even some in government are funding many different groups and maybe ISIS. The state itself does not directly fund ISIS. ISIS today is self funded, they function more like a normal state and they are taxing people, selling of assets and more. > While…

> The state itself does not directly fund ISIS. The State does, through 'donations' and by laundering money through private entities. Just as it has supported the Muslim Brotherhood and other organizations that have benefitted it - it has done this 'off the record'. Don't take the lack of an announcement seriously.

The evidence for these things is not very good. Specially after ISIS actually established itself as a de-facto state.

Its very hard to say who is pulling the strings and if its the government.

I find it hard to believe given the current leadership of Saudi Arabia.

ISIS has long ago transcended being on peoples pay list, they are a de-facto state with taxes and other incomes. They are most certainly not mainly funded by the Saudis or other foreign entities. The US has a major effort underway to cut of money flows and those have been effective, ISIS could not survive without a local base.

Re: The Coming War in the Middle East (2013)

#53

Post by nickik » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 5:36 PM UTC

X86BSD wrote: post #42

ralmidani wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The notion that the Syrian Revolution began with foreign (especially US) meddling is absurd. In 2011, the US was in the process of normalizing relations with the assad regime. Obama had appointed a new ambassador the year before. Clinton thought assad was a 'reformer.' The war broke out for a very simple reason: assad's forces kept shooting peaceful protesters. Despite assad's violence, the Revolution remained largel…

This is all false. The reason the US suddenly wanted to kill Assad is very simple. Qutar has natural gas. Europe relies almost solely on Russia for natgas. The west doesn't like that at all. So they want to build a pipeline from Qutar to the med through Syria. Assad says absolutely not. Assad is now enemy number one for denying the pipeline which would've freed Europe from Russia's natgas stranglehold. This is all ab…

That is totally false. Oil is a major factor but some people throw sense out of the window and want to reduce everything to energy politics.

No expert on foreign policy, or the middle east I have heard give talks in the last years, considers this to be true. The only people who believe this narrative are naive leftist who don't understand the real situation.

Re: The Coming War in the Middle East (2013)

#54

Post by jwtadvice » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 5:40 PM UTC

nickik wrote: post #52

jwtadvice wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The state itself does not directly fund ISIS. The State does, through 'donations' and by laundering money through private entities. Just as it has supported the Muslim Brotherhood and other organizations that have benefitted it - it has done this 'off the record'. Don't take the lack of an announcement seriously.

The evidence for these things is not very good. Specially after ISIS actually established itself as a de-facto state. Its very hard to say who is pulling the strings and if its the government. I find it hard to believe given the current leadership of Saudi Arabia. ISIS has long ago transcended being on peoples pay list, they are a de-facto state with taxes and other incomes. They are most certainly not mainly funded…

The evidence is profoundly good and has been: admitted by several high level cabinet officials in the United States [1], documented by historiographers [2], leaked from intelligence documents [3], circled in Washington Security Thinktanks [4], and is fully consistent with Saudi objectives in the region.

Don't be confused by propaganda and the fog of war.

[1] Joe Biden has said it: https://youtu.be/UrXkm4FImvc?t=1h32m4s

[2] https://www.amazon.com/Black-Flags-Rise-Joby-Warrick/dp/0804...

[3] http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-...

[4] https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/1...

Re: The Coming War in the Middle East (2013)

#55

Post by pault » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 5:44 PM UTC

iuhgdwij wrote: post #29

finid wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to predict a war long after it has started. It's like predicting WW II in 1942. The Syrian war, which we have a heavy hand in - before and after it began, started in 2011. That article was written in 2013. And did you check the bio of the author. It's easy to predict a war after it has started and when you have inside knowledge and a hand in how the war should proceed and end.

When you say "we", who do you mean? Hacker News readers? Tech people? Europeans?

US readers of HN assume everyone else is also in the US.

Re: The Coming War in the Middle East (2013)

#56

Post by finid » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 5:52 PM UTC

ralmidani wrote: post #45

finid wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the official (US) narrative, and it's the real absurdity here. You should find out how those "peaceful protests" started, and the activities of the US ambassador to Syria just before the protests broke out. It's from the same playbook that was used successfully in Libya and Ukraine, and almost succeeded a few years ago in Cuba. It's an interesting exercise if you have the time. Venezuela is in the same neighbo…

I am from Syria. I've been following events there from the very beginning. The protests were indeed peaceful, despite your use of air quotes in an attempt to defame.

The protests were peaceful, eh? So the govt forces that were killed during those "peaceful" protests shot themselves.

Re: The Coming War in the Middle East (2013)

#57

Post by ars » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 5:52 PM UTC

X86BSD wrote: post #42

ralmidani wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The notion that the Syrian Revolution began with foreign (especially US) meddling is absurd. In 2011, the US was in the process of normalizing relations with the assad regime. Obama had appointed a new ambassador the year before. Clinton thought assad was a 'reformer.' The war broke out for a very simple reason: assad's forces kept shooting peaceful protesters. Despite assad's violence, the Revolution remained largel…

This is all false. The reason the US suddenly wanted to kill Assad is very simple. Qutar has natural gas. Europe relies almost solely on Russia for natgas. The west doesn't like that at all. So they want to build a pipeline from Qutar to the med through Syria. Assad says absolutely not. Assad is now enemy number one for denying the pipeline which would've freed Europe from Russia's natgas stranglehold. This is all ab…

> So they want to build a pipeline from Qutar to the med through Syria.

They want to what??? You really need to look at a map before saying things like that.

I just.....

Do you realize Qatar is on the coast? Why would you need to build a pipeline to another coast?

And why go through Syria of all places? There are so many other routes you can take, and you think they want Syria so badly they triggered a war?

Re: The Coming War in the Middle East (2013)

#58

Post by nickik » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 5:52 PM UTC

mason240 wrote: post #46

nickik wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to live under the assumption that everything would have been better with the US there. That is a fantasy world that some right wing people live in. First of all, the US had a signed a agreement, breaking that would have been terrible (maybe read something about the history of foreign military bases that were not wanted in Iraq). Second, the US could not have sustained the force for financial reasons. Third,…

>First of all, the US had a signed a agreement, breaking that would have been terrible The agreement was perused because the US government wanted to withdraw. I have no idea what you are trying to argue here (aside from circular logic). If the US didn't didn't withdraw ... it wouldn't have negotiated a withdrawl. >Second, the US could not have sustained the force for financial reasons. This is false. >Third, the US h…

The agreement was negotiated because of MASSIV pressure by Iraq leaders and the US not having the financials or the political support to stay.

> This is false.

Sure. If the US really wanted, it could have sustained 1 Million guys there for the next 20 years. This is however totally absurd from a cost benefit analysis and it has absolutely no support in the population, the congress, foreign policy community, budget bureaucrats and essentially everybody accept a tiny group of right wing warmongers.

> Also false. At any rate, it was the Iraqis that elected leaders to draft their constitution and developed their government.

Clearly you have never read any analysis of the Iraqi state. It was one of the most corrupt in the world. It was politically exclusive to large groups of the population. It was not at all democratic. The constitution was absolutely meaningless.

> And the Syrian refugee crisis coupled with our current and future involvement in Syria is free?

And the US saying in Iraq would not have prevented the problems that arose from the Arab Spring. If you believe that you live in a fantasy land that nobody can help you out of.

Even if that were true, the action in Syria are much, much, MUCH cheaper then a decades long occupation with large ground forces. Maybe read up on the history of foreign occupation in Iraq to give you some estimations what would have happened.

Also, the US is not forced to 'stay in Syria'. That another fantasy, some war mongers on both sides convince them selfs of.

Re: The Coming War in the Middle East (2013)

#59

Post by jwtadvice » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 5:52 PM UTC

X86BSD wrote: post #42

ralmidani wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The notion that the Syrian Revolution began with foreign (especially US) meddling is absurd. In 2011, the US was in the process of normalizing relations with the assad regime. Obama had appointed a new ambassador the year before. Clinton thought assad was a 'reformer.' The war broke out for a very simple reason: assad's forces kept shooting peaceful protesters. Despite assad's violence, the Revolution remained largel…

This is all false. The reason the US suddenly wanted to kill Assad is very simple. Qutar has natural gas. Europe relies almost solely on Russia for natgas. The west doesn't like that at all. So they want to build a pipeline from Qutar to the med through Syria. Assad says absolutely not. Assad is now enemy number one for denying the pipeline which would've freed Europe from Russia's natgas stranglehold. This is all ab…

This is just one of the reasons Syria is a National Security interest for other countries. Another is that Ba'athism in Iraq and Syria has aligned itself against Saudi Arabia. Another is that the possibility of autonomous Kurdish regions in Syria threaten to support domestic terrorist organizations in neighboring countries (Kojave). Another is that Syria provides Russia with a Mediterranean base.

The gas pipelines are a huge reason, for sure. But it's not the only reason. Many different actors have many different reasons why supporting their side of the proxy war makes financial and strategic sense.

Re: The Coming War in the Middle East (2013)

#60

Post by jwtadvice » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 5:54 PM UTC

blahi wrote: post #48

clarry wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Russia is interested in meddling. If anything, it seems like a made up "threat" the US officials can use to justify whatever the heck they're doing.

As somebody from Eastern Europe, I can assure you that Russia is most definitely interested in meddling, controlling political parties, parliament, almost all the newspapers, key industries, online comments and pretty much everything in my country and I suspect the countries around me. I know it is a joke, but I really have to say: THANKS OBAMA.

It's a race to the bottom. The US, a leader in many things, often leads that race to the bottom.