One of the major causes of poverty that keep poor countries poor and may have caused middle-income countries to become poor is a too high population growth rate. Feeding the hungry and curing most of the sick is probably not a problem in the 21st century, at least logistically. But controlling other socio-economic and political factors becomes a problem when population grows too fast. Gradually, there are not enough goods and services to keep everyone happy, because while population grew, infrastructure, housing, education facilities, budget, etc. did not grow as fast. So an onset of poverty is possible for countries that simply do not control their birth rate and where population believes that raising many children in poverty is good.
War Against ISIS
- Thread starter spikehades
- Start date
First off I want to extend a word of appreciation to the respondents in this thread. This is a real quality conversation, and as an anthropology student I especially appreciate the excellent social insights you guys share. It gives me a bearing on this thing.
I've been watching and reading about this and it all made me so angry! But I realized that there's just a lot of people with legitimate grudges interspersed with some real sick b*$^*rds. But I have to say that I want to see them punished. And I think that it's the non-sicko's that are abusing the situation for public support, but that's their mistake because no one would've given a rats ass about a secular uprising (which IMHO would've gotten public support).
On the other hand I have to say (and this is all feeling guys) that I'm truly and thoroughly disappointed with Obama's reaction to all this. When I see him on the news he seems pitiful and beaten, like a baby that just made a booboo. And he did, honestly. His (over)enthusiastic withdrawal and general disinterest in Iraq at the beginning of his presidency left cracks in the fabric of Iraqi society that he could have fixed. And I think that he looks weak, not just to his country but to the world. The American people may be weary of war and Obama looks at himself as the peacemaker.
But unlike in '03 Iraq is now a place where the US really has to fight. Many respondents here have eloquently described the dichotomy in which the US both has to but can't fight this war. They really (no REALLY) not afford this war, and neither can their allies honestly. The multiple flashpoints, while riling up the Europeans pretty good, means there is a split focus and the West can't afford to take it's eyes off Russia right now. So right now a lot of Europeans (at least it's what I feel in my country) are more ready for war than in '03, but military resources might be spread a little thin.
Conversely, right now is ultimate chance to engage THE enemy in a battle we can fight! Right now they're out in the open, like they're taunting Obama and the West. And there's a whole generation that has been raised to fear and despise the scary Muslim's that chop of people's heads. I can imagine a lot of military personnel and veterans being disappointed about the way they left Iraq. And I wouldn't be surprised a lot of people to be just a bit bloodthirsty right now and ready to go!
So IMO it's not just the US that will get a beating whatever choice they make. But I think Obama will be having a very very hard time getting reelected. If he doesn't act he'll look weak, and sorry guys but airstrikes are weaksauce and you know it. Instead of the peacemaker he will be the president that didn't act and ran away from the fight. On the other hand it might take lives, and definitely take treasure. But I think, for an American president, it's still worse to be a coward than an over-spender.
Also strategically right now there a chance to take down a significant extremist population. And I dare to wager that it would take a lot less booty to make swift and powerful sweep through Iraq and Syria, than it would to finance a decade long proxy counter insurgency. IMO right now is the time to get involved, get in get out and stay invested in stabilizing the region.
Finally (the reason why I came here), today the French have started airstrikes against IS targets. So from a military geek perspective I was wondering which assets are involved? Where are they operating from? How are they routing? And what is the area of operations?
Are they launching from a carrier? I read Rafales struck a facility, but the news is vague. How did they target this facility? Are they coordinating with the Americans and/or Iraqi's and Kurds? Are they flying CAP's? Any info would be welcome and interesting. Thanks guys
I've been watching and reading about this and it all made me so angry! But I realized that there's just a lot of people with legitimate grudges interspersed with some real sick b*$^*rds. But I have to say that I want to see them punished. And I think that it's the non-sicko's that are abusing the situation for public support, but that's their mistake because no one would've given a rats ass about a secular uprising (which IMHO would've gotten public support).
On the other hand I have to say (and this is all feeling guys) that I'm truly and thoroughly disappointed with Obama's reaction to all this. When I see him on the news he seems pitiful and beaten, like a baby that just made a booboo. And he did, honestly. His (over)enthusiastic withdrawal and general disinterest in Iraq at the beginning of his presidency left cracks in the fabric of Iraqi society that he could have fixed. And I think that he looks weak, not just to his country but to the world. The American people may be weary of war and Obama looks at himself as the peacemaker.
But unlike in '03 Iraq is now a place where the US really has to fight. Many respondents here have eloquently described the dichotomy in which the US both has to but can't fight this war. They really (no REALLY) not afford this war, and neither can their allies honestly. The multiple flashpoints, while riling up the Europeans pretty good, means there is a split focus and the West can't afford to take it's eyes off Russia right now. So right now a lot of Europeans (at least it's what I feel in my country) are more ready for war than in '03, but military resources might be spread a little thin.
Conversely, right now is ultimate chance to engage THE enemy in a battle we can fight! Right now they're out in the open, like they're taunting Obama and the West. And there's a whole generation that has been raised to fear and despise the scary Muslim's that chop of people's heads. I can imagine a lot of military personnel and veterans being disappointed about the way they left Iraq. And I wouldn't be surprised a lot of people to be just a bit bloodthirsty right now and ready to go!
So IMO it's not just the US that will get a beating whatever choice they make. But I think Obama will be having a very very hard time getting reelected. If he doesn't act he'll look weak, and sorry guys but airstrikes are weaksauce and you know it. Instead of the peacemaker he will be the president that didn't act and ran away from the fight. On the other hand it might take lives, and definitely take treasure. But I think, for an American president, it's still worse to be a coward than an over-spender.
Also strategically right now there a chance to take down a significant extremist population. And I dare to wager that it would take a lot less booty to make swift and powerful sweep through Iraq and Syria, than it would to finance a decade long proxy counter insurgency. IMO right now is the time to get involved, get in get out and stay invested in stabilizing the region.
Finally (the reason why I came here), today the French have started airstrikes against IS targets. So from a military geek perspective I was wondering which assets are involved? Where are they operating from? How are they routing? And what is the area of operations?
Are they launching from a carrier? I read Rafales struck a facility, but the news is vague. How did they target this facility? Are they coordinating with the Americans and/or Iraqi's and Kurds? Are they flying CAP's? Any info would be welcome and interesting. Thanks guys
French have 6 air force Rafale aircraft based in the UAE presumably with their own tanker support, they had a few days of ISR sorties before they started strikes.
Last I heard one of the targets was a 'logistic depot'.
I've heard rumours of French navy Rafales prepping for a deployment on Charles de Gaulle so might see a French navy task force in the region.
Last I heard one of the targets was a 'logistic depot'.
I've heard rumours of French navy Rafales prepping for a deployment on Charles de Gaulle so might see a French navy task force in the region.
Nick underscore
Member
He certainly will. Actually impossible, based on the fact he has served two terms already (i.e. 22nd amendment)..
Will the RAF be operating out of Cyprus or UAE?
Currently Cyprus but that works for as long as Turkey lets us have access to their air space, the Chinooks when they were there (not sure if they still are there, probably are for SF ops) were thought to be operating out of Turkey or even Iraq itself at some point.
There's a strong current that post-Afghan, the Al-Minhad air base in the UAE is strategically important for the UK in the region.
The UK is hamstrung with their capability as Tornado numbers are drawn down and Typhoon has yet to have the capability to make it up. Not for a few years at least.
There's a strong current that post-Afghan, the Al-Minhad air base in the UAE is strategically important for the UK in the region.
The UK is hamstrung with their capability as Tornado numbers are drawn down and Typhoon has yet to have the capability to make it up. Not for a few years at least.
Nick underscore
Member
Thanks.
Al-Minhad is turning out to be quite a busy base, with RAAF operating from there too.
French Rafales are operating out of Al-Dharfa - also mentions the CdG as an option, that you alluded too earlier - France carries out first Iraq airstrike | Arab News
Turkey looking reluctant in participating against ISIS, so no airbase use, but airspace use shouldn't be an issue.
Fundamentally, this fight is Iraq's. Obama managed to galvanise the international community to rally against IS, and even unilaterally conducted limited but effective airstrikes on time-sensitive targets to stymie the growing IS threat, on top of playing a big role in humanitarian support. Resource commitment is kept to a low while producing maximum effect on IS - they basically halted all IS advances and foiled their plans for Yazidi genocide.
On top of that, Obama managed to get some form of agreement to operate in Syrian airspace, and surprisingly (to me, at least) Iran is still kept in the fight against IS when they could have packed up and leave since they would be seen fighting a common enemy 'alongside' the US.
I don't think you can ask for more given the situation.
2007yellow430
Active Member
This should be required reading:
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm"]A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Please note the date, and for whom it was prepared.
Art
Despite these air strikes, ISIS is still gaining ground. Several important questions still remain:
1. Given that the situation in Syria is linked to Iraq, what policy will the U.S. undertake in Syria? After all, despite wanting to see Assad and his government gone, the fact remains that the West and Assad share a common enemy and any further lost of ground by Assad will strenghten ISIS.
2. Who are the ''moderates'' that we keep hearing about? The ones the U.S. intends to bolster. The ones we are told are not cut from the same cloth as ISIS.
3. What role will the Sunni Gulf Arabs play in this? Will we see Saudi or UAE fighters hitting targets in Northern Iraq in support of raqi and Kurdish fighters? I doubt it.
4. Will the West insist that Turkey starts to be more selective as to who crosses its border into Syria?
5. Will Gulf Arab countries take serious steps to ensure that funding
from private sources and charities does not reach ISIS?
John Kerry
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ing-president-obama-into-its-web-9737292.html
Why would Iran leave the fight when defeating ISIS and propping up the Shia dominated Iraqi government is vital to its national interests? No doubt, countries like Saudi Arabia, who does all it can to contain Iran and who pumped in billions to ensure a Saddam victory over Iran during the 1980's, will be more than happy to see Iran dis-engage from Iraq.
Iran and the U.S. have cooperated in the past when it was mutually beneficial, over containing the Taliban and other issues. Although it may not publicly say so, the Obama administration realises that Iranian help is vital in containing ISIS. Ironically, Iran may be of far greater help in containing ISIS than the West's oil rich Sunni Arab ''friends'' and ''allies''.
It seems to me that the policy is to simply eliminate IS wherever it exists, whether it is Syria or Iraq. I mean, the the first air strikes against IS in Syria have just taken place. The policy is quite clear, if you ask me.
Also, IS seems to have been gaining ground where there were no international forces. With more international military involvement, and with nations collaborating with each other i.e. Syria turning a 'blind eye' to it's airspace being used by others, I'm quite certain this is the beginning of the end of IS.
BBC News - Syria: US begins air strikes on Islamic State targets
I don't really have the answers for you, but there's news that the latest round of strikes involved Arab nations. I think it is it fair for me to assume that Gulf States are involved? They have the capability, and lately the will to do so. I will make the assumption that they too will also be cutting off funding to IS.
Regarding the strikes in Northern Iraq, it seems that the issue might be worked around by having non-Gulf State nations handle Iraq, and Gulf State nations operate in Syria. This is my simplistic view of how the areas of operation are divided, but I'm more than happy to hear others' views on this.
Re: Turkey. UN has already been appealing to Turkey to allow more refugees through their border, but the numbers (130,000) are staggering. ( BBC News - UN appeal as Syrian refugees flood over Turkish border) On top of that, doesn't Turkey already have an internal issue with Kurdish radicals? I can see why Turkey would be hesitant, but this is a humanitarian matter...yet I don't see the borders being thrown open any time soon, if at all.
On hindsight now...yeah, I shouldn't expect Iran to just pack up and go just because the US is close by. Iranian anti-US rhetoric can be annoying at times, but at the end of the day it is a reasonably rational actor. Surprise probably isn't the right word I was looking for, I think what I really wanted to say is that Iran could be told to buzz off, take a break, but they are now kept in the fight against IS, albeit in geographically different areas (seems like Iranian HZB has been really active in Lebanon lately), but that's fine. IS leadership will probably need a lot aspirins, everywhere they go they are getting a drubbing.
The enemy of my enemy.
Meant to do this a while ago, but a bit of a round off.
The US is - reportedly - to deploy A-10 support in the ME to support operations in Iraq and Syria
Pentagon to deploy 12 A-10s to Middle East | TheHill
Initial strikes against ISIS in Syria have happened including the launching of 47 TLAM. The F-22 is - reportedly - in action over Syria.
BBC News - LIVE: US begins air strikes against Islamic State in Syria
- Australia deploying to strike ISIS in Iraq with 8 SHornet + Wedgetail + A330 MRTT support
- France began bombing targets the other day with Rafales based in the UAE
The US is - reportedly - to deploy A-10 support in the ME to support operations in Iraq and Syria
Pentagon to deploy 12 A-10s to Middle East | TheHill
Initial strikes against ISIS in Syria have happened including the launching of 47 TLAM. The F-22 is - reportedly - in action over Syria.
BBC News - LIVE: US begins air strikes against Islamic State in Syria
The Implications of Expanding ISIS Airstrikes Into Syria - USNI News unremarkable article but has great link to TLAM firing vid from CG58 on syria. I do hope for at least backchannel cooperation with Iran but considering the Sunni gang and their interests I've not much to hope for
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Defence-Aerospace reports the F-22 performed its first combat mission over Syria.
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
This appears to be the video of that F-22 strike
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bpakeG9x7o#t=12
And two other strikes, platform unknown
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5tyRw8INSs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nShvy9S4pg4
While I don't see any vehicles in the "vehicle staging ground" you have to admire the target saturation.
Number of impacts make me think it's possibly a B-1 strike
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
That's particularly misleading.
As the article specifically states:
"The six-month deployment from the 122nd Fighter Wing is not specifically part of President Obama’s fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, but the airmen and jets could provide air support to troops battling ISIS on the ground."
Given that it is an Air National Guard unit, the deployment, especially of this size, would have been in the pipeline for at the very least several months in advance.
It seems to me that there is a problem with the plan to send 5000 moderate Syrian fighters to Saudi Arabia for 1 year of training. What happens to the people they are protecting in the mean time? Are these fighters only going to be selected from those whose families are refuges outside of Syria?
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
They won't be going to Saudi Arabia for one year of training.
Problem solved.
5000 fighters will be trained in one year. Not all at once.
The Pasdaran have had a presence in Lebanon since the 1980's.
I suspect that Western politicians also don't have any answers. Countries like Saudi Arabia will continue to depend on the West to sort out the mess but at the same time will do what's best for it's national interests, which might be contrary to what the West desires and will be contrary to Western interests, which in turn might not be in the interests of the people who actually live in Syria and Iraq.
Logically, the West needs some kind of informal, loose backdoor understanding with Assad to deal with IS: a bit hard to sell to the public given how Assad has been portrayed as an evil and ruthless dictator - which off course he is - and a bit hard to do given that allies like Saudi and others view Assad as a ''heretic'' who needs to be deposed - not because Assad's not a liberal democrat - to weaken the real enemy, the ''heretic'' mullahs in Tehran. In short, the West and its Sunni Arab allies have slightly different reasons for wanting Assad gone and have different objectives.
The IS leadership were expecting to be hit. At the end of the day my feeling is that these strikes won't accomplish much unless conducted in parallel with other long term military and political efforts aimed at weakening IS. Irrespective of how many IS fighters are obliterated by HE, it will still manage to draw more recruits in to its cause. The hope is that strikes will weaken IS and that the ''moderates'' - assuming they are really ''moderates'' - will gain some breathing space and perhaps regain some lost ground. We will see ...
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARqCVlvWXc0"]Syria strikes: Expanding the war on ISIL - YouTube[/nomedia]
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAbMMjOBC8E"]US and allies strike ISIL targets in Syria - YouTube[/nomedia]
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ar-alassad-keep-his-regime-alive-9751776.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...is-forces-america-to-change-tack-9751912.html
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
ISIL or Assad. These are the two most likely outcomes for Syria. I will go with the latter.