Biden Administration targets Iran-backed militias in Syria

Watch
MatureStudent37
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#41
Report 1 month ago
#41
(Original post by Megacent)
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.
Big boy politics rarely stop because of who’s in power.

The US is trying to reign in Russia. The EU, aka greater Germany has given Biden the middle finger as Merkel doesn’t want to jeopardise Russian gas and German car exports. (Germany will bode its time with Russia. Probably until the European army is well established)

Nobody wants Tartus to get up and running, so weakening the Assad regime means targeting pro Assad militia. Neither is anybody wanting Iranian backed militia’s allowed to operate on Israel’s border.

The lat thing the world needs is the Israelis having to spank the Syrians and reigniting the Middle East.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#42
Report 1 month ago
#42
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
The Americans have criticqued a lot of thugs recently.
Theyve supported a lot more though which is the problem..
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 .
Meh this is a decades old issue and a rather complex one. Suffice it to say NATO helps America just as much as it helps Europe and every time the Europeans have looked to their own devices the Americans have **** the bed.. they cant have it both ways. Of course this completely ignores the fact they have ordered most Europeans to be peaceful and subservient.. again, they cant have it both ways.
Nobody does anything out of the goodness of their own heart.
Indeed they dont.
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.
Again, this is a highly complex and long winded subject suffice it to say;
They bailed out europe once and only once. Their contribution in WWI was minimal.
WWII they only got involved when they had no other choice, the fact they were content to watch the continent fall to Germany (at which point not even America could have beaten them) is rather damning in my book. We need only look at the ex post facto rationalisation to 'save the jews' the see the dishonest portrayal of self interest pure and simple. As far as WWII goes for America they made a fortune (they didnt expend much) without WWII they would not have been the super power that they were.
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.
Which ones in particular?
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#43
Report 1 month ago
#43
(Original post by Napp)
Theyve supported a lot more though which is the problem..

Meh this is a decades old issue and a rather complex one. Suffice it to say NATO helps America just as much as it helps Europe and every time the Europeans have looked to their own devices the Americans have **** the bed.. they cant have it both ways. Of course this completely ignores the fact they have ordered most Europeans to be peaceful and subservient.. again, they cant have it both ways.

Indeed they dont.

Again, this is a highly complex and long winded subject suffice it to say;
They bailed out europe once and only once. Their contribution in WWI was minimal.
WWII they only got involved when they had no other choice, the fact they were content to watch the continent fall to Germany (at which point not even America could have beaten them) is rather damning in my book. We need only look at the ex post facto rationalisation to 'save the jews' the see the dishonest portrayal of self interest pure and simple. As far as WWII goes for America they made a fortune (they didnt expend much) without WWII they would not have been the super power that they were.

Which ones in particular?
I’m afraid not a app on several of those points. (Apologies I don’t know how to do the different quotes.)

In WW1 the US role was pivotal in ending WW1. US material support prior to 1916/17 was helpful. But it was helpful to both sides . The Americans were after all neutral and happy to sell goods to both sides. In fact the American stock market was seen by some an an indicator of who the Americans thought would win. A German success resulted in the value of German financial tools increasing. A German loss saw their values drop.

The Royal Navies blockade of Germany and the German use of U boat warfare, gradually isolated the Germans from the US. The realisation by the old powers of the ascendancy of the US into a great power had always been a concern for the Germans.

Although tensions between the US and Germany has been increasing since the sinking of the Lusitania, the Zimmerman telegram of 1917 was one of the clinching points for driving the US into war.

With the end of hostilities in the east against Russia, Germany was able to redeploy vast amounts of manpower to the west in order to defeat both British, French and American troops. The spring offensive was a knock out blow against the allies. The Germans knew that once amber is had fully mobilised against them, they’d lost.

The spring offensive was a resounding success at the start. However, ever more quantities of American troops were thrown into the line. Their use was one of several factors that resulted in German defeat.

The Americans realised towards the end of WW2 the threat that Russia was becoming. During WW2, both Roosevelt and Churchill were very much focused on the immediate challenges of defeating the axis. They then realised too late that Stalin had been playing the long game. His almost complete penetration of US and British government was only realised at the end. That was one of the reasons why the pendulum swung the other way and caused Macatherism.

People can do things for non beneficial reasons. Often however, people will do things that are mutually beneficial. NATO is a prime example. The Americans have heavily funded NATO. It needed to begin with. Europe was in ruins.

However Europe hit quite happy getting somebody else to front the bill.

One area that I found quite interesting about Trump was the way he challenged the status Quo. The way he dealt with Syria, Iran , China,NATO, the EU and North Korea, didn’t show a particular change in US foreign policy. It shows a change in diplomacy more than anything else. I think that’s what shook people up a bit. Rather the change the rules to the game, he changed the style of playing. Liken it to the style in one day cricket is played versus test cricket.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#44
Report 1 month ago
#44
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
I’m afraid not a app on several of those points. (Apologies I don’t know how to do the different quotes.)
Not a problem.
In WW1 the US role was pivotal in ending WW1. US material support prior to 1916/17 was helpful. But it was helpful to both sides . The Americans were after all neutral and happy to sell goods to both sides. In fact the American stock market was seen by some an an indicator of who the Americans thought would win. A German success resulted in the value of German financial tools increasing. A German loss saw their values drop.
I would point out that selling arms is not what anyone considers the same as helping a side win the war. When people speak of assistance rendered they talk in terms of boots on the ground and in that regard the US's help, whilst welcome, was anything but decisive.
The Royal Navies blockade of Germany and the German use of U boat warfare, gradually isolated the Germans from the US. The realisation by the old powers of the ascendancy of the US into a great power had always been a concern for the Germans.
I dont disagree but what point is this serving sorry? Although i would point out that the US was considered one already and had been for some time. If an aloof one.
Although tensions between the US and Germany has been increasing since the sinking of the Lusitania, the Zimmerman telegram of 1917 was one of the clinching points for driving the US into war.
Again, i dont disagree per-se, merely that the US's contribution in terms of combat forces didnt help end the war in any meaningful context (as most historians will happily agree) it might have shortened it and given a moral boost but thats it. It was nothing compared to the effect they had in WWII.
With the end of hostilities in the east against Russia, Germany was able to redeploy vast amounts of manpower to the west in order to defeat both British, French and American troops. The spring offensive was a knock out blow against the allies. The Germans knew that once amber is had fully mobilised against them, they’d lost.

The spring offensive was a resounding success at the start. However, ever more quantities of American troops were thrown into the line. Their use was one of several factors that resulted in German defeat.
Except that wasnt the case though.. As i said, American troops had an effect but they did not in any way, shape or form meaningfully win the war.
The Americans realised towards the end of WW2 the threat that Russia was becoming. During WW2, both Roosevelt and Churchill were very much focused on the immediate challenges of defeating the axis. They then realised too late that Stalin had been playing the long game. His almost complete penetration of US and British government was only realised at the end. That was one of the reasons why the pendulum swung the other way and caused Macatherism.
I'm not sure which bit this is in response to sorry, what point is this paragraph in service to?
People can do things for non beneficial reasons. Often however, people will do things that are mutually beneficial. NATO is a prime example. The Americans have heavily funded NATO. It needed to begin with. Europe was in ruins.
Dubious, i've yet to come across a truly selfless act. All acts come from some corner of **** selfishness, that isnt a bad thing per-se merely a fact of life. When it comes to IR though nations act in their own interest only. If it benefits others or serves a longer term purpose so much the better. But to argue that NATO is some form of altruistic endeavour is simply incorrect at every single level.
However Europe hit quite happy getting somebody else to front the bill.
Doesnt that rather apply to all countries? Either way, as i have said as nauseum, it is far from just the Europeans who benefit from it, although im inclined to agree with trump and macrons assessments on nato these days.
One area that I found quite interesting about Trump was the way he challenged the status Quo. The way he dealt with Syria, Iran , China,NATO, the EU and North Korea, didn’t show a particular change in US foreign policy. It shows a change in diplomacy more than anything else. I think that’s what shook people up a bit. Rather the change the rules to the game, he changed the style of playing. Liken it to the style in one day cricket is played versus test cricket.
I'd contend it showed a lack of it, more a reversion to Bush's term as a rogue state than anything else. Disregarding international law, ignoring allies, committing a series of crimes etc. etc. etc.
As for the status quo, depending on whom you listen to he didnt really break from anything, more gave a screach to the whimper that the fruitcakes like Bolton, Pompeo and other terrorist sympathisers like them used to have. His entering into a war with Iran being a case in point - the economic warfare he is using being the sort that got the US bombed by the Japanese back in the day.
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#45
Report 1 month ago
#45
(Original post by Napp)
Not a problem.

I would point out that selling arms is not what anyone considers the same as helping a side win the war. When people speak of assistance rendered they talk in terms of boots on the ground and in that regard the US's help, whilst welcome, was anything but decisive.

I dont disagree but what point is this serving sorry? Although i would point out that the US was considered one already and had been for some time. If an aloof one.

Again, i dont disagree per-se, merely that the US's contribution in terms of combat forces didnt help end the war in any meaningful context (as most historians will happily agree) it might have shortened it and given a moral boost but thats it. It was nothing compared to the effect they had in WWII.


Except that wasnt the case though.. As i said, American troops had an effect but they did not in any way, shape or form meaningfully win the war.

I'm not sure which bit this is in response to sorry, what point is this paragraph in service to?

Dubious, i've yet to come across a truly selfless act. All acts come from some corner of **** selfishness, that isnt a bad thing per-se merely a fact of life. When it comes to IR though nations act in their own interest only. If it benefits others or serves a longer term purpose so much the better. But to argue that NATO is some form of altruistic endeavour is simply incorrect at every single level.

Doesnt that rather apply to all countries? Either way, as i have said as nauseum, it is far from just the Europeans who benefit from it, although im inclined to agree with trump and macrons assessments on nato these days.

I'd contend it showed a lack of it, more a reversion to Bush's term as a rogue state than anything else. Disregarding international law, ignoring allies, committing a series of crimes etc. etc. etc.
As for the status quo, depending on whom you listen to he didnt really break from anything, more gave a screach to the whimper that the fruitcakes like Bolton, Pompeo and other terrorist sympathisers like them used to have. His entering into a war with Iran being a case in point - the economic warfare he is using being the sort that got the US bombed by the Japanese back in the day.
American troops played a significant part in stemming the German spring offensive. UKPlc and the French were busted flush. There were meaningful reserves left.

The Americans didn’t beat the Germans in WW1, but their troop contributions in 1918 made the victory happen.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#46
Report 1 month ago
#46
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
American troops played a significant part in stemming the German spring offensive. UKPlc and the French were busted flush. There were meaningful reserves left.

The Americans didn’t beat the Germans in WW1, but their troop contributions in 1918 made the victory happen.
You're welcome to that view but the facts simply do not support your thesis that America won WWI. Contributed, sure. Instrumental? No. Germany had already been bled white by the time the Americans arrived and the lack of any significant number of notable engagements rather aptly shows that their main contribution was psychological, not tactical. Dont forget that half of their troops arrived without any training or guns as well.
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#47
Report 1 month ago
#47
(Original post by Napp)
You're welcome to that view but the facts simply do not support your thesis that America won WWI. Contributed, sure. Instrumental? No. Germany had already been bled white by the time the Americans arrived and the lack of any significant number of notable engagements rather aptly shows that their main contribution was psychological, not tactical. Dont forget that half of their troops arrived without any training or guns as well.
American troop numbers were very important.

Germany had been bled dry as had the French and the British. But the Germans had also disengaged from the eastern front. The therefore had superior numbers.

Germany was wired upon the entry of the Americans that the allies would gain numerical advantages in numbers.
0
reply
MatureStudent37
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#48
Report 1 month ago
#48
(Original post by Napp)
You're welcome to that view but the facts simply do not support your thesis that America won WWI. Contributed, sure. Instrumental? No. Germany had already been bled white by the time the Americans arrived and the lack of any significant number of notable engagements rather aptly shows that their main contribution was psychological, not tactical. Dont forget that half of their troops arrived without any training or guns as well.
American didn’t win WW1.

The allies won world war 1.

Merely pointing out that the American troops deployments of late 1917 and 1918 were the final nail in the coffin.

The British and French armies were busted flush. Hence the huge gains the Germans made in their spring offensive.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#49
Report 1 month ago
#49
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
American troop numbers were very important.

Germany had been bled dry as had the French and the British. But the Germans had also disengaged from the eastern front. The therefore had superior numbers.

Germany was wired upon the entry of the Americans that the allies would gain numerical advantages in numbers.
Since they didnt do anything they werent.. as i said, they had an effect of morale but given the lack of fighting they had no tactical impact on the outcome. Note the distinct difference between a phycological and practical impact though.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#50
Report 1 month ago
#50
(Original post by MatureStudent37)
American didn’t win WW1.

The allies won world war 1.

Merely pointing out that the American troops deployments of late 1917 and 1918 were the final nail in the coffin.

The British and French armies were busted flush. Hence the huge gains the Germans made in their spring offensive.
You're the one arguing that they had a decisive role in winning the war...
Thats not what you said.. you have repeatedly said they played a critical role, being a 'final nail' is decidedly not the same thing.
Need i point out that that is like saying the battle of the bulge showed that Germany was winning WWII...
0
reply
Pythian
Badges: 18
#51
Report 1 month ago
#51
This does seems to me to be a completely justified & proportional response to a rocket attack on US targets.

The Iran regime has been able to run amok in the region especially with Soleimiani. In my opinion, restricting Iranian influence in the region is necessary to keep any semblance of a nuclear deal on the table. I don't actually think a nuclear deal is a conceivable endgame. Due to the inherent nature of the regime, hopes that it may reform have proven chimerical time-and-time-again (e.g. Iranian green movement).
0
reply
Paranoiaa
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#52
Report 1 month ago
#52
Trump increased tensions way too much and Biden is probably made to continue those remarks lmao.
0
reply
Pythian
Badges: 18
#53
Report 1 month ago
#53
(Original post by Paranoiaa)
Trump increased tensions way too much and Biden is probably made to continue those remarks lmao.
Obama's foreign policy significantly exacerbated Iranian influence in the region. However, whatever tension may exist, it really is exclusively the result of that deplorable regime - and not a reflection of the US.
0
reply
Paranoiaa
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#54
Report 1 month ago
#54
(Original post by Pythian)
Obama's foreign policy significantly exacerbated Iranian influence in the region. However, whatever tension may exist, it really is exclusively the result of that deplorable regime - and not a reflection of the US.
True, I myself a Iranian hate the regime and wish the revolution never happened.
0
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)
4.87%
Uncertainty around my education (439)
14.75%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (334)
11.22%
Lack of purpose or motivation (416)
13.97%
Lack of support system (eg. teachers, counsellors, delays in care) (139)
4.67%
Impact of lockdown on physical health (180)
6.05%
Loneliness (255)
8.57%
Financial worries (109)
3.66%
Concern about myself or my loves ones getting/having been ill (121)
4.06%
Exposure to negative news/social media (135)
4.53%
Lack of real life entertainment (161)
5.41%
Lack of confidence in making big life decisions (262)
8.8%
Worry about missed opportunities during the pandemic (281)
9.44%

Watched Threads

View All