The battle for Mosul

For discussion on international politics and world affairs.
User avatar
Peter1469
Forum Framer
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 5:19 pm
Location: NOVA
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 270 times
Been thanked: 168 times

Re: The battle for Mosul

Postby Peter1469 » Mon Oct 24, 2016 7:40 am

UncleRansom wrote:
Peter1469 wrote:We can manage the region without occupation and democracy. As I have consistently said.


Put your policies down, not your straw men. How do we "manage" the region in your opinion, Pete. BE sure to name all the things you wouldn't do......because we've never seen those. Try putting down something you'd actually do. How would you manage the region?

Make sure your specific, Peter. So that I can return to your specifics later. In other words, quote you. Thus alter your opinions.


Diplomacy.

And a shadow war in the background.

But no to occupations and pushing Jeffersonian democracy on them.

UncleRansom
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:30 am
Location:
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: The battle for Mosul

Postby UncleRansom » Mon Oct 24, 2016 7:56 am

Specifics Pete. And I'm asking what you would do, I'm straight on your "but no" this or that. It will change over time of course, you flip flop like a Jimmy Buffett concert......but nevermind the shell hole that you once occupied on tpf, we're on another forum thanks to you.

What specifically......would you actually so.

Diplomacy? Who, what, where, how?

Shadow war doing what?

User avatar
Peter1469
Forum Framer
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 5:19 pm
Location: NOVA
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 270 times
Been thanked: 168 times

Re: The battle for Mosul

Postby Peter1469 » Mon Oct 24, 2016 8:10 am

UncleRansom wrote:Specifics Pete. And I'm asking what you would do, I'm straight on your "but no" this or that. It will change over time of course, you flip flop like a Jimmy Buffett concert......but nevermind the shell hole that you once occupied on tpf, we're on another forum thanks to you.

What specifically......would you actually so.

Diplomacy? Who, what, where, how?

Shadow war doing what?


I have provided these answers before.

I would not be opposed to Assad. I would have eliminated Bankers that traffic ISIL money. I would keep the Arab tribes busy with trinkets. I would not spend trillions as the Neocons have. That makes no sense. And this brings us back to constraints. Neocons don't understand that word.

UncleRansom
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:30 am
Location:
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: The battle for Mosul

Postby UncleRansom » Mon Oct 24, 2016 7:43 pm

I would not be opposed to Assad.

Then you'd not be opposed to Iran's expanded influence?

I would have eliminated Bankers that traffic ISIL money.

How do you do that. Oil sakes on the black market, funds stolen or outright overrun. Many facilitating ISIS Peter are from Turkey, it's government one of the primary 'bankers' and backers, please be specific as asked. What exactly does elimination mean? Kill? Remove from the planet?

I would keep the Arab tribes busy with trinkets.

And why they could be negotiated with by ISIS. Disenchanted and disenfranchised from the majority Shia government in Baghdad, Sunni tribal members in Iraq initially made alliances with ISIS rather than oppose them......just an example of how they're no longer interested in your trinkets, Peter, that clearly didn't work out just as your prediction didn't. They want support. Money. So they can purchase weapons.

I would not spend trillions as the Neocons have. That makes no sense. And this brings us back to constraints. Neocons don't understand that word.

Please be more specific, I've not heard any answers. We know what you wouldn't do, you're a great sewing machine, no one will argue that fact, your straw men legendary. This a new thread......please be specific. No need to add a neocon comment when it starts to so south, I'll repair the leaks.

Your Floor, Mr. Detail. "Eliminate" bankers. Give "trinkets" to Arab Tribes in Anbar for example?

User avatar
Peter1469
Forum Framer
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 5:19 pm
Location: NOVA
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 270 times
Been thanked: 168 times

Re: The battle for Mosul

Postby Peter1469 » Mon Oct 24, 2016 10:23 pm

UncleRansom wrote:I would not be opposed to Assad.

Then you'd not be opposed to Iran's expanded influence?


This is a perfect example of showing how the Neocons go too far. There are national security interests and there are vital interests. I have long said that the US needed to oppose the Shia "crescent arch" from the Iranian plateau to the Mediterranean. OK.

But is opposing Assad in favor of the Jihadists' in vital US interests? No. That is insanity.


UncleRansom wrote: I would have eliminated Bankers that traffic ISIL money.




UncleRansom wrote:How do you do that. Oil sakes on the black market, funds stolen or outright overrun. Many facilitating ISIS Peter are from Turkey, it's government one of the primary 'bankers' and backers, please be specific as asked. What exactly does elimination mean? Kill? Remove from the planet?


Assassination. Much cheaper than occupation and nation building.

UncleRansom wrote:
I would keep the Arab tribes busy with trinkets.

And why they could be negotiated with by ISIS. Disenchanted and disenfranchised from the majority Shia government in Baghdad, Sunni tribal members in Iraq initially made alliances with ISIS rather than oppose them......just an example of how they're no longer interested in your trinkets, Peter, that clearly didn't work out just as your prediction didn't. They want support. Money. So they can purchase weapons.



Yes that is what they want our money. They don't care for our Jeffersonian democracy. We stay for a decade and spend money but get zero results.
UncleRansom wrote:
I would not spend trillions as the Neocons have. That makes no sense. And this brings us back to constraints. Neocons don't understand that word.

Please be more specific, I've not heard any answers. We know what you wouldn't do, you're a great sewing machine, no one will argue that fact, your straw men legendary. This a new thread......please be specific. No need to add a neocon comment when it starts to so south, I'll repair the leaks.




Nation states, to include the super-power the US have constraints. It is impossible to do everything the Neocons want to be done. We don't have the money and the recourses to do it. Pick wisely.

UncleRansom wrote:Your Floor, Mr. Detail. "Eliminate" bankers. Give "trinkets" to Arab Tribes in Anbar for example?


Yes manage the problem wisely.

UncleRansom
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:30 am
Location:
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: The battle for Mosul

Postby UncleRansom » Wed Oct 26, 2016 7:10 am

Peter1469 wrote:This is a perfect example of showing how the Neocons go too far. There are national security interests and there are vital interests. I have long said that the US needed to oppose the Shia "crescent arch" from the Iranian plateau to the Mediterranean. OK.


I see. By supporting the withdrawal from Iraq, feeding us your nopd bullshiit, not to mention your let them fight it out idiocy.......you're "opposing the Shia crescent arch." Sorry, that's not your record in forums, Peter. We weren't in 'occupation' nor inserting democracy in 2011, we'd turned over Iraq to Iraqis and were playing a support role only....when you and your 'less world cop' role inserted itself. You hop and skip forums I note....and bring your disingenuous bullshiit with you, Peter. Why is that, it's not going to help you.

But is opposing Assad in favor of the Jihadists' in vital US interests? No. That is insanity.


Who is opposing Assad in favor of the Jihadists, Peter(straw man)

Assassination. Much cheaper than occupation and nation building.


You cannot name a banker, Peter, and cannot walk over sovereign borders to gun down or terrorize bankers. Might you give me specifics here? What banker or bank? Who? In Syria? In Turkey? In Switzerland?

Yes that is what they want our money. They don't care for our Jeffersonian democracy. We stay for a decade and spend money but get zero results.


We got results, just because you're unaware of them doesn't mean they don't exist, you're merely ignorant of them.

I would not spend trillions as the Neocons have. That makes no sense. And this brings us back to constraints. Neocons don't understand that word.


I wasn't asking what you wouldn't do, rather, what would you do. You keep going back to what you wouldn't do.....that's transparent cluelessness. Try to focus.

Nation states, to include the super-power the US have constraints. It is impossible to do everything the Neocons want to be done. We don't have the money and the recourses to do it. Pick wisely.


Specifics, thanks.

Yes manage the problem wisely.


NOPD, let them fight it out, support withdrawal, the chaos makes us safer, we've no interest in the outcome, has not only been exposed as unwise.....it's been exposed as f'n stupid.

User avatar
Peter1469
Forum Framer
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 5:19 pm
Location: NOVA
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 270 times
Been thanked: 168 times

Re: The battle for Mosul

Postby Peter1469 » Wed Oct 26, 2016 9:21 am

UncleRansom wrote:
Peter1469 wrote:This is a perfect example of showing how the Neocons go too far. There are national security interests and there are vital interests. I have long said that the US needed to oppose the Shia "crescent arch" from the Iranian plateau to the Mediterranean. OK.


I see. By supporting the withdrawal from Iraq, feeding us your nopd bullshiit, not to mention your let them fight it out idiocy.......you're "opposing the Shia crescent arch." Sorry, that's not your record in forums, Peter. We weren't in 'occupation' nor inserting democracy in 2011, we'd turned over Iraq to Iraqis and were playing a support role only....when you and your 'less world cop' role inserted itself. You hop and skip forums I note....and bring your disingenuous bullshiit with you, Peter. Why is that, it's not going to help you.

But is opposing Assad in favor of the Jihadists' in vital US interests? No. That is insanity.


Who is opposing Assad in favor of the Jihadists, Peter(straw man)

Assassination. Much cheaper than occupation and nation building.


You cannot name a banker, Peter, and cannot walk over sovereign borders to gun down or terrorize bankers. Might you give me specifics here? What banker or bank? Who? In Syria? In Turkey? In Switzerland?

Yes that is what they want our money. They don't care for our Jeffersonian democracy. We stay for a decade and spend money but get zero results.


We got results, just because you're unaware of them doesn't mean they don't exist, you're merely ignorant of them.

I would not spend trillions as the Neocons have. That makes no sense. And this brings us back to constraints. Neocons don't understand that word.


I wasn't asking what you wouldn't do, rather, what would you do. You keep going back to what you wouldn't do.....that's transparent cluelessness. Try to focus.

Nation states, to include the super-power the US have constraints. It is impossible to do everything the Neocons want to be done. We don't have the money and the recourses to do it. Pick wisely.


Specifics, thanks.

Yes manage the problem wisely.


NOPD, let them fight it out, support withdrawal, the chaos makes us safer, we've no interest in the outcome, has not only been exposed as unwise.....it's been exposed as f'n stupid.


1. I supported leaving two bases in Iraq. One at Balad, and the other at Q-West. I did not support interfering in their government. They should not have been toyed with concerning Jeffersonian democracy. They need a autocrat to keep the tribes together or they need to be broken up.

2. Obama, the Neocons, and the CIA are opposing Assad in favor of Jihadists. Most of the rebels are Jihadists. Very few are moderates. If any.

3, Bankers world wide. It is a dangerous world. They would be safer if they did not move Jihadist money.

4. You got results that lasted less than a couple of years. That is not impressive.

5. I have answered what I would do in general. Contain the region.

6. The American people, and the locals in the Middle East disagree with that last statement.

UncleRansom
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:30 am
Location:
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: The battle for Mosul

Postby UncleRansom » Thu Oct 27, 2016 7:14 am

Peter1469 wrote:1. I supported leaving two bases in Iraq. One at Balad, and the other at Q-West. I did not support interfering in their government. They should not have been toyed with concerning Jeffersonian democracy. They need a autocrat to keep the tribes together or they need to be broken up.


You're a member of another forum from back in the Dec 2011 withdrawal timeline, Peter, and your position then wasn't in support of leaving US bases in Iraq in some world cop role. You can prove me wrong by pointing me to the exact post number. Wow, your evolution on these issues shouldn't include disingenuous nonsense, that was not your position on matters. Please, you're amusing at best.

2. Obama, the Neocons, and the CIA are opposing Assad in favor of Jihadists. Most of the rebels are Jihadists. Very few are moderates. If any.


Neocons opposed his use of wmd's. Oppose his proxy war against Israel and as a puppet of Iran's, Neocons weren't calling for his removal and we both know this. You're defle3cting again.

3, Bankers world wide. It is a dangerous world. They would be safer if they did not move Jihadist money.


Please be specific, as asked. What bankers...where?

4. You got results that lasted less than a couple of years. That is not impressive.


A couple of years until you promoted and supported total withdrawal...like your realist comrade, Obama.

5. I have answered what I would do in general. Contain the region.


Devil is in the details, you spend more time sewing and writing what you wouldn't do. I asked for specifics and it's not surprising I lose you right there. What would you do, Peter? What would realists do.....specifically?

6. The American people, and the locals in the Middle East disagree with that last statement.


The locals in the ME are in occupation, Peter. Either under a tyrant's thumb ala Syria, or under ISIS control, or some Mullah's. And the one and only barometer you have for measuring 'locals' in the ME is the Iraqi elections, otherwise, they don't get a 'disagreement.' As far as the AMerican People go, Peter.....half of them are voting for Hillary Clinton. Half of them couldn't find the ME on a map if I shoved a gps up their arse.

Look to membership elsewhere, the donttreads, the Ethereals, your own boned and skull fcked analyses........don't try to use the American People in your point making Peter. You don't impress when you do.

User avatar
Peter1469
Forum Framer
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 5:19 pm
Location: NOVA
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 270 times
Been thanked: 168 times

Re: The battle for Mosul

Postby Peter1469 » Thu Oct 27, 2016 9:48 am

1. My position about the bases remains the same. The disagreement that we always had was over governance of Iraq.
2. Incorrect. Until recently the Removal of Assad was a priority for the Administration. That has changed when the Russians can in to defend Assad. However, I don't believe that has changed the CIA's mind. They still want Assad gone. I have posted a couple of articles on that elsewhere.
3. If the head of Bank of America was facilitating the laundering and movement of jihadist money, he would be gone. I am not sure why you are asking for specific names. I don't have access to classified information relating to the topic. I am telling you policy.
4. I supported removing nation building.
5. Ends, contain the region. For the ways and means use our nation's resources wisely to obtain that end. Every tool at our disposal. It is much cheaper than "destroy IS." It is also achievable.
6. Americans are fed up with Neocon nation building. That is the reason you see these half-measures in Iraq and Syria today.

UncleRansom
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:30 am
Location:
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: The battle for Mosul

Postby UncleRansom » Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:40 am

Peter1469 wrote:1. My position about the bases remains the same. The disagreement that we always had was over governance of Iraq.


Incorrect and proven wrong by your inability to give me a post number and forum name, Peter. You didn't support leaving US forces in Iraq until after it became quite apparent that you were wholesale wrong when cheering our departure. Your exact response after total withdrawal was "it's about time." Your denials look like lies here, Peter, this is your forum, don't f'n lie.

2. Incorrect. Until recently the Removal of Assad was a priority for the Administration. That has changed when the Russians can in to defend Assad. However, I don't believe that has changed the CIA's mind. They still want Assad gone. I have posted a couple of articles on that elsewhere.


A priority for this Administration, not for Neocons. You're jumping around now, you do so when cornered.

3. If the head of Bank of America was facilitating the laundering and movement of jihadist money, he would be gone. I am not sure why you are asking for specific names. I don't have access to classified information relating to the topic. I am telling you policy.


It's not the head of Bank of America, Peter. It's state sponsored. Turkey, Saudi Arabia. You cannot stroll in and shoot or kill bankers, what drivel is that. ISIS overran and stole much of its' money. Used kidnapping and black market oil sales as the Taliban and al-Qaeda used opium sales. Your solutions are ridiculous, miss the entire point, and as usual.....wrong. This one quite amateurish

4. I supported removing nation building.


You supported and cheered total withdrawal. You were wrong as usual.

5. Ends, contain the region. For the ways and means use our nation's resources wisely to obtain that end. Every tool at our disposal. It is much cheaper than "destroy IS." It is also achievable.
6. Americans are fed up with Neocon nation building. That is the reason you see these half-measures in Iraq and Syria today.


Another miscalculation in your sea of them. As discussed, we weren't in a nation building role in Iraq.....and we're not in one in Syria nor Iraq today. This is just more what you wouldn't do, discussing what you would do exposes your ignorance on these issues and why I've had to correct your record so many times. Why you made massive mistakes. Inform yourself Peter...before you type.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests