Biden Administration targets Iran-backed militias in Syria

Watch
Tempest II
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#21
Report 1 month ago
#21
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Well it's only the start of his term but we'll see.

Trump's Syria Strike just blew up a bit of abandoned airfield. No one died.

Solemsani was assassinated, still wrong but this is better than indiscriminate bombing.

Trump inherited Afghanistan and Iraq and repeatedly attempted and was partially successful on bringing troops home and leaving those conflicts but was stymied by Congress.

Trump is the most peaceful US president since Jimmy Carter.
Democrats are generally weaker on the foreign policy front, although the last few Republican Presidents haven't exactly excelled in that area either. Biden & Harris are going to be far more focused on domestic issues and creating / maintaining international agreements (Paris Climate Change, JCPOA etc) than military action. Hopefully they won't make the same mistakes Obama did regarding Russia, which has proven that it's still a threat to the West. All his "reset" seems to have done is make the Russians bolder. That said, the PRC is far more of a threat to the US in the longer term, although I'd argue Russia will remain the UK's & Europe's primary antagonist.
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#22
Report 1 month ago
#22
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
I am well aware of all that.

I personally don't see what the big deal is over public execution but to each their own. I would happily see nonces and terrorists hung up by cranes.

You've also ignored my other more pressing points. I suspect because I'm right.
Apologies for that.

No, they shouldn’t have them because their mindset is stuck in the 13th century.
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#23
Report 1 month ago
#23
(Original post by Tempest II)
Democrats are generally weaker on the foreign policy front, although the last few Republican Presidents haven't exactly excelled in that area either. Biden & Harris are going to be far more focused on domestic issues and creating / maintaining international agreements (Paris Climate Change, JCPOA etc) than military action. Hopefully they won't make the same mistakes Obama did regarding Russia, which has proven that it's still a threat to the West. All his "reset" seems to have done is make the Russians bolder. That said, the PRC is far more of a threat to the US in the longer term, although I'd argue Russia will remain the UK's & Europe's primary antagonist.
Yep Russia is such a threat . ..

How dare they put their country next to all our military bases!
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#24
Report 1 month ago
#24
(Original post by MatureStudent37)

No, they shouldn’t have them because their mindset is stuck in the 13th century.
Why because they hang people?

If that was the case they wouldn't be capable of acquiring nukes in the first place
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#25
Report 1 month ago
#25
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Why because they hang people?

If that was the case they wouldn't be capable of acquiring nukes in the first place
No. Because Islam began 700 years after Christianity.

700 years ago Christianity was doing some rather horrific things in the name of religion. Fortunately those activities were limited to arrows, spears and swords.

A crusade mentality with the knowledge of how to split the atom worries me greatly.
0
reply
Just my opinion
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#26
Report 1 month ago
#26
Love or hate Trump, he was the first president since Carter in the 70's to not start a new war in his first term. This wasn't by accident, it was a policy decision.
I wonder what odds you'd get on Biden following suit? I think it's back to business as usual for the military industrial complex.
Last edited by Just my opinion; 1 month ago
1
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#27
Report 1 month ago
#27
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
No. Because Islam began 700 years after Christianity.

700 years ago Christianity was doing some rather horrific things in the name of religion. Fortunately those activities were limited to arrows, spears and swords.

A crusade mentality with the knowledge of how to split the atom worries me greatly.
Crusade mentality...

How many wars has Iran started in the last fifty years? Now how many have NATO started? 🤣

The only crusade in game is liberal internationalism.

Name:  Screenshot_2021-02-27-11-52-38-76.jpg
Views: 14
Size:  77.0 KB
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#28
Report 1 month ago
#28
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Crusade mentality...

How many wars has Iran started in the last fifty years? Now how many have NATO started? 🤣

The only crusade in game is liberal internationalism.

Name:  Screenshot_2021-02-27-11-52-38-76.jpg
Views: 14
Size:  77.0 KB
I don’t know. How many wars has NATO started? I’m going to have to say zero. Although we can debate about the article 5 one.
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#29
Report 1 month ago
#29
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
I don’t know. How many wars has NATO started? I’m going to have to say zero. Although we can debate about the article 5 one.
I'll show you then:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...t-century_wars
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#30
Report 1 month ago
#30
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
I'll show you then:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...t-century_wars
Afghanistan was a NATO article 5 mission backed up by UN security resolution by UN resolution 1386. There was of course quite a few non NATO members involved and the US continued their US only Operation Enduring Freedom. So. Not really started by NATO.

Gulf War 2. Again, not NATO. Backed by UN resolution 1441.

Drone strikes in Pakistan. Not NATO. US again. No real problem with that. From personal experience it was a pain in the area being shot at doing your job whilst you know W the bad guys would jus run over the border. I wouldn’t get too hung up on that though. FATA and SWAT areas are as about as difficult for us and they were for PAKMIL. PAKMIL lost an awful lot of their own guys operating in those areas. The US had the advantage of not having to put boots on the ground.

Somalia. Again UN sanctioned. Ethiopian troops however have been operating in Somalia for some time in order to keep the crazies at bay. On the positives though, Somalia is a lot more stable than it used to be. Somalia are beginning to live past 40 now, by a whole ten years.

Libya. Again, UN resolution 1970 and 1973. You’re correct. That one was NATO. It was mainly because a lot of NATO assets were on the doorstep. I think it’s fair to say quite a few wanted a bit of payback. However Gaddafi’s neighbours were more than happy to put the boot in.

Uganda? Been asked by the host nation. Not NATO.



Syria. UN sanctioned. Syria’s use of chemical weapons broke international law. Mari wasn’t involved in that. It did get involved in Turkey in operation active Fence. But that was help installing air defence missiles in Turkey. That was an NATO member asking other NATO members for help. You don’t want a civil war on your doorstep. It tends to destabilise your own country.

You could’ve gone back a bit more. NATO was getting a load of criticism for its involvement in the former Yugoslavia. One of my Sergeants hung himself not long after I’d joined up. He’d been involved in excavating the mass graves. The PTSD got to him.
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#31
Report 1 month ago
#31
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
Afghanistan was a NATO article 5 mission backed up by UN security resolution by UN resolution 1386. There was of course quite a few non NATO members involved and the US continued their US only Operation Enduring Freedom. So. Not really started by NATO.

Gulf War 2. Again, not NATO. Backed by UN resolution 1441.

Drone strikes in Pakistan. Not NATO. US again. No real problem with that. From personal experience it was a pain in the area being shot at doing your job whilst you know W the bad guys would jus run over the border. I wouldn’t get too hung up on that though. FATA and SWAT areas are as about as difficult for us and they were for PAKMIL. PAKMIL lost an awful lot of their own guys operating in those areas. The US had the advantage of not having to put boots on the ground.

Somalia. Again UN sanctioned. Ethiopian troops however have been operating in Somalia for some time in order to keep the crazies at bay. On the positives though, Somalia is a lot more stable than it used to be. Somalia are beginning to live past 40 now, by a whole ten years.

Libya. Again, UN resolution 1970 and 1973. You’re correct. That one was NATO. It was mainly because a lot of NATO assets were on the doorstep. I think it’s fair to say quite a few wanted a bit of payback. However Gaddafi’s neighbours were more than happy to put the boot in.

Uganda? Been asked by the host nation. Not NATO.



Syria. UN sanctioned. Syria’s use of chemical weapons broke international law. Mari wasn’t involved in that. It did get involved in Turkey in operation active Fence. But that was help installing air defence missiles in Turkey. That was an NATO member asking other NATO members for help. You don’t want a civil war on your doorstep. It tends to destabilise your own country.

You could’ve gone back a bit more. NATO was getting a load of criticism for its involvement in the former Yugoslavia. One of my Sergeants hung himself not long after I’d joined up. He’d been involved in excavating the mass graves. The PTSD got to him.
US is part of NATO is it not? The whole point of Nato was to combat the USSR. It's completely outlived it's purpose.

You keep saying UN as if it means something. International law isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Regardless of whether you want to dress it up as UN approved (which doesn't apply to Iraq or Libya) the US has invaded far more states than Iran
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#32
Report 1 month ago
#32
Name:  Screenshot_2021-02-27-17-08-32-22.jpg
Views: 5
Size:  89.1 KB

Whatever people's views I'm sure we can agree that this is indefensible
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#33
Report 1 month ago
#33
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
US is part of NATO is it not? The whole point of Nato was to combat the USSR. It's completely outlived it's purpose.

You keep saying UN as if it means something. International law isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Regardless of whether you want to dress it up as UN approved (which doesn't apply to Iraq or Libya) the US has invaded far more states than Iran
The US is part of NATO. But NATO is not the US.

The US is the de facto international policeman.

The US has never tried to block off the straights of Hormuz or float mines through it.

Don’t get me wrong, Iran has had a chequered history, but they haven’t exactly enamoured them selves with the west.

Never a good idea to have a revolution and then take over a superpowers Embassy and hold its people hostage.

I think that’s where the tension starts. Policy makers on both sides making decisions influenced by events in the late 80s.

of course it front help that Iran was taking pot sits at allied troops in Iraq, threatened to wipe a key ally off the map and has generally tried to destabilise the whole area.

That’s on top of breaching their nuclear non
proliferation treaty obligations.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#34
Report 1 month ago
#34
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
I think there’s a slight misunderstanding here. A country’s foreign policy doesn’t shift over night just because a new leader comes into power.

What I find funny is that supporters of Biden have screamed and shouted about Trump because Trump was dangerous.

So far, Biden seems to be enacting exactly the same foreign policy issues.

Remember when they were criticising Trumps attitude towards China?

https://www.smh.com.au/business/mark...25-p575qj.html
You'd be surprised. Plenty of countries have seen radical overhauls of their foreign policy with a change of government. The fact Dems/Republicans are two sides of the same coin doesnt detract from that though.

They are indeed hypocrites.

Well, Americans are nothing if not consistant when it comes to liberally sprinkling foreigners with expensive weaponry.
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#35
Report 1 month ago
#35
(Original post by Napp)
You'd be surprised. Plenty of countries have seen radical overhauls of their foreign policy with a change of government. The fact Dems/Republicans are two sides of the same coin doesnt detract from that though.

They are indeed hypocrites.

Well, Americans are nothing if not consistant when it comes to liberally sprinkling foreigners with expensive weaponry.
The Americans are also happy to liberally sprinkled their cash as well.

There’s a lot of reconstruction and Aid been spent on other countries courtesy of the US taxpayer.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#36
Report 1 month ago
#36
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
The Americans are also happy to liberally sprinkled their cash as well.

There’s a lot of reconstruction and Aid been spent on other countries courtesy of the US taxpayer.
Maybe so but your inference that its from alturism is clearly beyond incorrect. USAID itself is exercised as part of its foreign policy and the funds directed from the DoD budget for reconstruction, nation building etc. are the epitome of self serving. The fact none of it has ever actually worked just makes it somewhat more ironic.
Then again, the moral onus is on them. If america slaughters tens of thousands of civillians and destroys every piece of infrastructure, basic humanity dictates its them who need to rebuild it. Contrary to Trumps moronic comments advocating piracy.
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#37
Report 1 month ago
#37
(Original post by Napp)
Maybe so but your inference that its from alturism is clearly beyond incorrect. USAID itself is exercised as part of its foreign policy and the funds directed from the DoD budget for reconstruction, nation building etc. are the epitome of self serving. The fact none of it has ever actually worked just makes it somewhat more ironic.
Then again, the moral onus is on them. If america slaughters tens of thousands of civillians and destroys every piece of infrastructure, basic humanity dictates its them who need to rebuild it. Contrary to Trumps moronic comments advocating piracy.
Marshall plan?
Lend lease?
NATO?
UN?

The Americans always seem to get criticised after they’ve dug deep.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#38
Report 1 month ago
#38
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
Marshall plan?
Lend lease?
NATO?
UN?

The Americans always seem to get criticised after they’ve dug deep.
Er i suggest you look into the first two if you think there was an ounce of altruismin those.. the destruction of Britains empire was a key plank in them, the fact we even got in was a minor miracle :lol: Simply read the work of Tombs and Stephens for a basic primer on how those two, in relation to Britain at least, were tailored to ruining Britain, in a manner of speaking. In the broader strokes they served to help America itself in several ways;
1) ensure they wouldnt get dragged into another war
2) Create markets at the time - who do you think the money was spent on?
3) Bind the worlds major economies to it
4) Keep the reds out and the europeans in their orbit
I could go on but i dont see the need to write a thesis on this when the point has been made.
NATO is equally not an altruistic endeavor, im not sure how anyone can even try to make that case? It is specifically designed to enhance America's security. The case in point being they're the only ones to ever physically use it.

Given the Americans themselves critique(d) all of those.. either way, my point was simply that they didnt do any of those out of the goodness of their heart and to be honest anyone who thinks otherwise simply doesnt know enough about any of the programmes or of American foreign and domestic policy to know better.

As a broader point though, you make it sound like they should get kudos for paying for being the worlds hegemon? That isnt how things work. If you want to be a super power with wide ranging power across the world and mould it to suit your interests you have to stump up the cash for it. It may help others but it primarily helps them. At least until the Chinese checked them.
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#39
Report 1 month ago
#39
(Original post by Napp)
Er i suggest you look into the first two if you think there was an ounce of altruismin those.. the destruction of Britains empire was a key plank in them, the fact we even got in was a minor miracle :lol: Simply read the work of Tombs and Stephens for a basic primer on how those two, in relation to Britain at least, were tailored to ruining Britain, in a manner of speaking. In the broader strokes they served to help America itself in several ways;
1) ensure they wouldnt get dragged into another war
2) Create markets at the time - who do you think the money was spent on?
3) Bind the worlds major economies to it
4) Keep the reds out and the europeans in their orbit
I could go on but i dont see the need to write a thesis on this when the point has been made.
NATO is equally not an altruistic endeavor, im not sure how anyone can even try to make that case? It is specifically designed to enhance America's security. The case in point being they're the only ones to ever physically use it.

Given the Americans themselves critique(d) all of those.. either way, my point was simply that they didnt do any of those out of the goodness of their heart and to be honest anyone who thinks otherwise simply doesnt know enough about any of the programmes or of American foreign and domestic policy to know better.

As a broader point though, you make it sound like they should get kudos for paying for being the worlds hegemon? That isnt how things work. If you want to be a super power with wide ranging power across the world and mould it to suit your interests you have to stump up the cash for it. It may help others but it primarily helps them. At least until the Chinese checked them.
The Americans have criticqued a lot of thugs recently.

One of the things I did like Trump raising was why the US so heavily funded NATO whilst most member states didn’t feel the need to even meet their minimal spending requirements .

Nobody does anything out of the goodness of their own heart.

However, the Americans twice last century had to spend a lot of blood an treasure baling Europe out twice. Had to be at the vanguard during the Cold War because time and time again countries couldn’t stand firm themselves.

This wasn’t trump deciding this. One major criticism of Trump was that he didn’t play by the normal rules. He raised concerns that were there, but were normally dealt with a bit more diplomatically in the past.
0
reply
Megacent
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#40
Report 1 month ago
#40
Didn't take Biden long to show his true colours. Par for the course with any lefty though, big song and dance about how tolerant, peaceful, and progressive they are. Then they get into power, the masquerade stops and you see what they're really like.
Last edited by Megacent; 1 month ago
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What factors affect your mental health the most right now?

Anxiousness about lockdown easing (145)
4.89%
Uncertainty around my education (437)
14.73%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (333)
11.22%
Lack of purpose or motivation (413)
13.92%
Lack of support system (eg. teachers, counsellors, delays in care) (138)
4.65%
Impact of lockdown on physical health (180)
6.07%
Loneliness (255)
8.59%
Financial worries (109)
3.67%
Concern about myself or my loves ones getting/having been ill (121)
4.08%
Exposure to negative news/social media (135)
4.55%
Lack of real life entertainment (160)
5.39%
Lack of confidence in making big life decisions (261)
8.8%
Worry about missed opportunities during the pandemic (280)
9.44%

Watched Threads

View All