User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 5678910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 100

Thread: Qatar and a major crisis in the Middle East

  1. #81
    Points: 12,573, Level: 26
    Level completed: 92%, Points required for next Level: 77
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran10000 Experience Points
    RollingWave's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    3456
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Taiwan
    Posts
    981
    Points
    12,573
    Level
    26
    Thanks Given
    105
    Thanked 367x in 292 Posts
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    Tillerson urges Qatar and the Gulf states to negotiate an end to their rift


    The US criticizes the list of demands that the Sunni Arab block gave to Qatar. Interesting times.



    Read the rest at the link.
    What is there to negotiate? most of them are demands that directly violate national sovereignty which is a no go for any country.

    The only aspect that's remotely negotiable is the funding / harboring terrorist aspect but that is much more complicated than people seem to assume. for a long time Qatar has been seen s the neutral place where the US or other governments can talk to these groups in a neutral territory in unofficial matters. that's kinda important given that most of these "terrorist" groups are born and sustained due to real political issues, the Muslim Brotherhood won a $#@!ing election in one of the most populous country in the world, that the US just paint it strait up as a terror organization I find to be generally unproductive and is part of the problem . (there are no good solutions, but the US approach is certainly not the best. )

    As I said, the UAE and KSA seem to be setting themselves up for disaster here. because if I'm ISIS my interest would be to let this escalate and these guys just set the stage for me .

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to RollingWave For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (06-27-2017)

  3. #82
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,042, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496573
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,693
    Points
    859,042
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,218
    Thanked 147,583x in 94,415 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RollingWave View Post
    What is there to negotiate? most of them are demands that directly violate national sovereignty which is a no go for any country.

    The only aspect that's remotely negotiable is the funding / harboring terrorist aspect but that is much more complicated than people seem to assume. for a long time Qatar has been seen s the neutral place where the US or other governments can talk to these groups in a neutral territory in unofficial matters. that's kinda important given that most of these "terrorist" groups are born and sustained due to real political issues, the Muslim Brotherhood won a $#@!ing election in one of the most populous country in the world, that the US just paint it strait up as a terror organization I find to be generally unproductive and is part of the problem . (there are no good solutions, but the US approach is certainly not the best. )

    As I said, the UAE and KSA seem to be setting themselves up for disaster here. because if I'm ISIS my interest would be to let this escalate and these guys just set the stage for me .
    Nothing will come of the list. There was another back in 2014 if I recall correctly.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  4. #83
    Points: 12,573, Level: 26
    Level completed: 92%, Points required for next Level: 77
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran10000 Experience Points
    RollingWave's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    3456
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Taiwan
    Posts
    981
    Points
    12,573
    Level
    26
    Thanks Given
    105
    Thanked 367x in 292 Posts
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/0...192016568.html

    Saudi Arabia: Qatar demand list is non-negotiable

    Doha must 'amend its behaviour' or 'remain isolated', says Riyadh's foreign minister Adel al-Jubeir.

    Doesn't look like KSA is gonna back down... here.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to RollingWave For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (06-28-2017)

  6. #84
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,042, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496573
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,693
    Points
    859,042
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,218
    Thanked 147,583x in 94,415 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RollingWave View Post
    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/0...192016568.html



    Doesn't look like KSA is gonna back down... here.
    Interesting times. If we could contain any refugee flow, a general war between these belligerents could bleed off some of the problems we face.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  7. #85
    Points: 12,573, Level: 26
    Level completed: 92%, Points required for next Level: 77
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran10000 Experience Points
    RollingWave's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    3456
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Taiwan
    Posts
    981
    Points
    12,573
    Level
    26
    Thanks Given
    105
    Thanked 367x in 292 Posts
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    Interesting times. If we could contain any refugee flow, a general war between these belligerents could bleed off some of the problems we face.
    Well here's a funny thing, my work is in international trade (wine & whiskey ) so I meet a lot of people from Europe (and the US but fewer.), more than one of them have told me that they feel this whole refugee crisis is a US conspiracy to break up the EU and West Europe in general.

    Not sure I can find too much fault in their logic given the US's rather active role in getting this whole thing started (granted, France too ) and that the EU is bearing the brunt of the damage .

    I don't disagree with your general point if we just look at it from a real politik POV, though from a bigger picture stand point I feel this risks a domino effect of the current world order (which still overwhelmingly favors the US more than most other powers. ) just breaking down and the US would be lucky to just come out about the same.

    Also, you know who else would be interested in this thing going to hell? ISIS and other islamic militants, it would be the best thing ever to happen to them.
    Last edited by RollingWave; 06-29-2017 at 12:43 AM.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to RollingWave For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (06-29-2017)

  9. #86
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,042, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496573
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,693
    Points
    859,042
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,218
    Thanked 147,583x in 94,415 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RollingWave View Post
    Well here's a funny thing, my work is in international trade (wine & whiskey ) so I meet a lot of people from Europe (and the US but fewer.), more than one of them have told me that they feel this whole refugee crisis is a US conspiracy to break up the EU and West Europe in general.

    Not sure I can find too much fault in their logic given the US's rather active role in getting this whole thing started (granted, France too ) and that the EU is bearing the brunt of the damage .

    I don't disagree with your general point if we just look at it from a real politik POV, though from a bigger picture stand point I feel this risks a domino effect of the current world order (which still overwhelmingly favors the US more than most other powers. ) just breaking down and the US would be lucky to just come out about the same.

    Also, you know who else would be interested in this thing going to hell? ISIS and other islamic militants, it would be the best thing ever to happen to them.
    Yes, I am real politick all the way.

    A general war in the Middle East could benefit ISIL, or not. We can always observe and take appropriate action should they become stronger.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  10. #87
    Points: 12,573, Level: 26
    Level completed: 92%, Points required for next Level: 77
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran10000 Experience Points
    RollingWave's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    3456
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Taiwan
    Posts
    981
    Points
    12,573
    Level
    26
    Thanks Given
    105
    Thanked 367x in 292 Posts
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    Yes, I am real politick all the way.

    A general war in the Middle East could benefit ISIL, or not. We can always observe and take appropriate action should they become stronger.
    It gives them much more room to run for awhile anyway.

    I think the problem you have to consider with this is that you must realistically assess the USA's ability that could be put into this. I think it's very fair to say that the US can't possibly commit to a large scale war effort in the mid east for any significant period (like, over a year or two MAX) and especially not if things aren't totally smooth sailing. With things already as feisty back home, even if they could get the US into a war (which Trump could. ) it'd be a huge political struggle every day to keep it going.

    I personally prescribe to real politik thinking too, but if you think that way you must also assume every other player think that way too. If I'm China and Russia, and Saudi bloc with US backing goes to war with Iran with the intention of invasion and overthrow of regime. I'm DEFINITELY going to help Iran as much as I can without turning this into WW3. (so probably no direct troops but potentially a ton of air and weapons and logistics support. ) meanwhile, one must realize that Saudi's army is complete garbage and I don't care how much more advanced their weapon is to Iran, no one should doubt that in strait up one on one Iran would be in Riyadh within 6 months if not less (assuming Iraq is neutral . ) while Saudi's real backup (aside from the US obviously) is Egypt who's actual interest don't line up as much as you'd think with the Sauds. ( Egypt is actually increasingly going closer to China. who has a huge huge strategic investment in almost the entire African continent. )
    If the US want to do this war WITHOUT directly getting involved too much, its going to end badly because the Sauds are complete paper tigers. if they are going directly involved it could get tight as the strategic position of Iran is pretty good, you may need to assume your ships can't sail into the Persian Gulf safely. you may need to assume suddenly J-20s and Su-35s mysteriously "piloted by Iranians" start shooting down a couple of your war planes or at least force you to be much more conservative in your air power use.

    And really what do you gain if you succeed is the bigger problem... the Sauds conquer Iran? rather unlikely, the Sauds genocide Shia's? possible but probably create bigger problems down the line. a puppet state in Iran? unlikely to last very long . meanwhile, if the war ends and Iran is still standing strong, the US are in for a world of problems (granted, they could just pull out of it all and let EuroAsia- Africa sort it all out themselves, but then you have to live with all the problems of losing the world hegemony

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to RollingWave For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (06-29-2017)

  12. #88
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,042, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496573
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,693
    Points
    859,042
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,218
    Thanked 147,583x in 94,415 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Of course nation states have a say. They run the international order. Not international institutions.

    Quote Originally Posted by RollingWave View Post
    It gives them much more room to run for awhile anyway.

    I think the problem you have to consider with this is that you must realistically assess the USA's ability that could be put into this. I think it's very fair to say that the US can't possibly commit to a large scale war effort in the mid east for any significant period (like, over a year or two MAX) and especially not if things aren't totally smooth sailing. With things already as feisty back home, even if they could get the US into a war (which Trump could. ) it'd be a huge political struggle every day to keep it going.

    I personally prescribe to real politik thinking too, but if you think that way you must also assume every other player think that way too. If I'm China and Russia, and Saudi bloc with US backing goes to war with Iran with the intention of invasion and overthrow of regime. I'm DEFINITELY going to help Iran as much as I can without turning this into WW3. (so probably no direct troops but potentially a ton of air and weapons and logistics support. ) meanwhile, one must realize that Saudi's army is complete garbage and I don't care how much more advanced their weapon is to Iran, no one should doubt that in strait up one on one Iran would be in Riyadh within 6 months if not less (assuming Iraq is neutral . ) while Saudi's real backup (aside from the US obviously) is Egypt who's actual interest don't line up as much as you'd think with the Sauds. ( Egypt is actually increasingly going closer to China. who has a huge huge strategic investment in almost the entire African continent. )
    If the US want to do this war WITHOUT directly getting involved too much, its going to end badly because the Sauds are complete paper tigers. if they are going directly involved it could get tight as the strategic position of Iran is pretty good, you may need to assume your ships can't sail into the Persian Gulf safely. you may need to assume suddenly J-20s and Su-35s mysteriously "piloted by Iranians" start shooting down a couple of your war planes or at least force you to be much more conservative in your air power use.

    And really what do you gain if you succeed is the bigger problem... the Sauds conquer Iran? rather unlikely, the Sauds genocide Shia's? possible but probably create bigger problems down the line. a puppet state in Iran? unlikely to last very long . meanwhile, if the war ends and Iran is still standing strong, the US are in for a world of problems (granted, they could just pull out of it all and let EuroAsia- Africa sort it all out themselves, but then you have to live with all the problems of losing the world hegemony
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    RollingWave (06-30-2017)

  14. #89
    Points: 12,573, Level: 26
    Level completed: 92%, Points required for next Level: 77
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran10000 Experience Points
    RollingWave's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    3456
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Taiwan
    Posts
    981
    Points
    12,573
    Level
    26
    Thanks Given
    105
    Thanked 367x in 292 Posts
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    Of course nation states have a say. They run the international order. Not international institutions.
    The actions ( or lack there of ) of international institutions are decided by nation states and there are still relative consequences of going against the general consensus both in short and longer terms. I generally feel Bush post 911 especially in the Iraq situation totally screwed up and greatly weakened the US's hold on the UN in general. When in reality after 911 it was a great opportunity for him to rally the world around the US even more. But of course perhaps just as or even more damaging was Hillary in 2011 just flat out strait up acknowledging that the US is now in the old Soviet business of sponsoring revolutions. and for what? Muammar $#@!ing Gaddafi?

    Unless we're assuming the US turns into a dictatorship, it must still reasonably manage the the morale high ground or risk another Vietnam where they won every battle and totally lost the war.

    More or less, the current world game rule is set by the US, if they don't even play by it themselves then a lot of bets are off.
    Returning to the mid east situation though , I feel part of this might be the US just also losing hold of control on the Saudi's as well, and increasingly the Saudi's feel they can do their own thing and as long as that doesn't include invading Israel the US will be all bark and no bite. (and also, the shale thing is two sided, yes it means the US isn't as reliant on the Saudis, but the reverse is also true, the Sauds no longer feel the US market is as important. )

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to RollingWave For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (06-30-2017)

  16. #90
    Points: 172,963, Level: 98
    Level completed: 83%, Points required for next Level: 687
    Overall activity: 49.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    donttread's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    88553
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    51,915
    Points
    172,963
    Level
    98
    Thanks Given
    18,303
    Thanked 20,521x in 14,780 Posts
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RollingWave View Post
    Well here's a funny thing, my work is in international trade (wine & whiskey ) so I meet a lot of people from Europe (and the US but fewer.), more than one of them have told me that they feel this whole refugee crisis is a US conspiracy to break up the EU and West Europe in general.

    Not sure I can find too much fault in their logic given the US's rather active role in getting this whole thing started (granted, France too ) and that the EU is bearing the brunt of the damage .

    I don't disagree with your general point if we just look at it from a real politik POV, though from a bigger picture stand point I feel this risks a domino effect of the current world order (which still overwhelmingly favors the US more than most other powers. ) just breaking down and the US would be lucky to just come out about the same.

    Also, you know who else would be interested in this thing going to hell? ISIS and other islamic militants, it would be the best thing ever to happen to them.
    Interesting points.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts