The ROI is not United Kingdom.
Austria is not Germany.
Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark are separate countries;
as are Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Bhutan, and Sri Lanka;
as are a number of Arab-speaking countries;
and ROC is not PRC.
The PRC is a Borg ship trying to assimilate the ROC, but the ROC has resisted assimilation for over 75 years.
What team?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_civil_war
In a quick glance I find only one mention of Germany:
On 18 August 2011, Barack Obama issued a written statement echoed by the leaders of the UK, France, and Germany, that inter alia said: “The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Assad is standing in their way. His calls for dialogue and reform have rung hollow while he is imprisoning, torturing, and slaughtering his own people. We have consistently said that President Assad must lead a democratic transition or get out of the way. He has not led. For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside."[80][82]
So Obama wrote something—essentially an opinion—that Merkel agreed with.
I didn’t understand what you were saying in your previous post.
I figured. But which part? The steps themselves or their connection?
Let’s say the connection: what significant role did Merkel, play in the fall of Assad?
If anything, she indirectly helped it by helping to drain some of the Sunnis away from Syria.
It doesn’t, though now I know a little bit more about the distribution of the Shiites.
Have you read it all? This is the threat:
No: the article is long, and I’ve already spent much time replying to replies ITT: it’s summer, and here in Toronto, it’s about 1:50 PM (EDT) (and currently 33°C), and there’s some grass that I might want to see. Maybe later.
In 2014, Qods Force Chief Qassem Suleimani outlined Ali Khamenei’s strategy of toppling the Arab governments, through military insurgencies waged by Iran-backed Khomeinist militants. Explaining that Iran’s goal was to occupy "
I don’t see that in the linked article.
With Syria under control, Iran cannot do that.
Why would Iran want Assad overthrown? I thought they were friends.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar–Turkey_pipeline
Syria was allied with Russia and opposed the pipeline to maintain Russian influence.
Isn’t this (or at least was) the same Russia that exported natural gas to Germany?
Was this the same Assad regime that made deals with Islamic State regarding petroleum, even though they fought each other?
Is this the same Turkey that could probably use this pipeline as another source of natural gas, even if they would have to deal with the Assad gang?
Merkel was outplayed because the industry that needs the gas is moving abroad. She wanted both pipelines and now there are none.
If so, then at least it’s not her problem anymore.
Btw, kudos to Germany on developing alternatives such as solar and wind. 😁🙂
I suppose many on the German Left would be even more brave and generous, and perhaps their time in the chancellery will come.
She was not brave.
Braver than Orbán, Obama, or Canada’s Harper at any rate.
The increase in crime is used to introduce the Palantir surveillance state.
Hasn’t the crime gone down?
FWIW,
wp:Immigration and crime in Germany
The Independent reported that in 2017 crime in Germany was at its lowest for 30 years, and that crimes by non-Germans had fallen by 23% to just over 700,000.[27] At the same time, there was a significant increase in politically and racially motivated crime. Out of 462 right-wing offenders with outstanding warrants identified by Germany’s Interior Ministry, 104 were wanted for crimes classified as violent and 106 were wanted for crimes classified as politically motivated.[7]
The culturally split society will be unable to oppose the dismantling of the welfare state.
even if all the splinters oppose that?
Using left policies to achieve right objectives.
It happens. It might have been largely what made Elon Musk, the richest Nazi in history, rich.
Look closely why Iran has an Islamic regime.
IIUC, pro-West and pro-Soviet forces were kind of played out in revolutionary Iran.
Calling the US “lethargic” in Iraq and Afghanistan ignores the brutal reality of two decades of military intervention, not a lack of willpower.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear: by lethargic, I mean since Dubya left office and more so post-2021.
Many Americans, even many MAGAts, would rather the US stay out of the Middle East.
Granted, the wishes of many Americans, even many MAGAts, are probably of little concern to Trump, but thinking of such intrudes on his precious time he spends on golf games, flogging paraphernalia, micro-blogging, and masturbatory rallies.
Iran’s interest in nuclear weapons isn’t some irrational hatred of Israel; it’s a classic deterrence strategy, shaped by watching the US topple regimes in Iraq and Libya.
Their interest is understandable, given the examples you cited, but how would nukes benefit Iran against the US?
Iran is over 3x the population and over 12x the area of North Korea. Crossing over to Iran would not be as easy as crossing the DMZ of a non-nuclear North Korea. Tehran is perhaps over 400 km from the Iran-Iraq border, across the Zagros mountains, whereas Pyongyang is less than 100 km from the sea and less than 150 km from Seoul, much of it at an elevation less than 500 meters. (Though, granted it’s also less than 150 km from the PRC, which, along with Russia, supports it). Any future Douglas MacArthurs (an FDR appointee) would have quite a challenge in Iran even without nukes.
Nukes enhances North Korea’s defences in a way I don’t think it would Iran’s.
Again how would US treatment of Iran-with-nukes be much different than Iran-with-nukes—aside from probably not bombing nuclear-related or ICBM-related sites in Iran?
What if the US assassinated another Iranian general in Baghdad? Would Iran nuke the US?
What if Iran, in solidarity with Gazans and other Palestinians, attacked Israel with missiles and drones, and Israel counterattacked with a little more force? Would they nuke Jerusalem? Tel Aviv? Both?
Libya, while bigger, is, IIUC, mostly desert, with a capital on the Mediterranean cost.
Kadaffy would also have benefit more with having nukes than Iran, though I doubt he would have nuked his protesters.
You also misrepresent diplomatic dynamics. Turkey-Israel relations have been rocky for over a decade, especially after the Gaza flotilla raid.
which was over 15 years ago. Yet, presumably, the embassies in Ankara and Tel Aviv remain open.
Saudi-Israeli normalization has stalled due to overwhelming regional anger over Gaza.
Yes.
If Israel moves forward with ethnically cleansing Gaza and the West Bank as the Israeli right and centre want, will make things even worse.
Which is why they might wait until diplomatic relations with the Kingdom are (well) established.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE have made public statements on the matter.
Perhaps, though neither really need nukes as they are essentially American protectorates.
Even Turkey has hinted it won’t be left behind.
They’re in NATO.
Downplaying North Korea’s deterrent as something the US could wipe out without nukes is reckless fantasy.
No, just improbable.
Seoul would be in ruins before the second wave of bombers took off.
Seoul is not an American city, nor is it the only city in South Korea (albeit it is the biggest and the capital); and by bombers, I assume you mean American ones, as North Korea perhaps doesn’t have much in the way of bombers.
If you’re going to talk strategy, bring facts, not slogans.
good advice.
I said “live by the sword, die by the sword” to point out that violent actions have consequences. You replied with “Allahu Akbar” like I’m some kind of fanatic. That’s not debate, it’s just trolling and deflection. If your instinct is to hear a moral warning and turn it into a caricature, that says more about you than it does about me.
What I was getting at is that Iran and some other opponents of the US, particularly the commies and Isalmacists, can also be pretty violent and warlike.
Was Germany going to do that?
This is a team effort.
What team? and if it was a team effort, Germany seems to be a bit player in it.
huh?
Huh what?
I didn’t understand what you were saying in your previous post.
Maybe this helps:
It doesn’t, though now I know a little bit more about the distribution of the Shiites.
IIUC, I don’t think Merkel, or any credible German leader, was too concerned about Syria, aside from human rights abuses which she probably, like many Western leaders, wagged her finger about. That and how if affected Israel—because Israel is a Jewish state, doncha know, with lots of Jewish people, doncha know, and Germany has had a unique history with Jewish people, doncha know, which Germany is in the process of reconciling—a reconciliation that might take centuries—and Merkel, who is presumably at least a bit of an attentive German leader, probably thought about such from to time to time; but again, on a typical day, when she first woke up in the morning, or walked to her office, her first thoughts were probably not often on Syria; so I don’t see how Germany, under her, would be some prominent member of some grand coalition to depose the Assad gang.
If anything, change in Syria could be disruptive to Europe—as it did.
Which makes Germany’s actions look even better.
The Assad gang wasn’t Germany’s problem—it wasn’t Germany’s issue—yet she let those million in.
I mean that the German far-right/alt-right/ADF went into fits over it, IMO, was part of the attraction—I suppose triggering Nazis may be even more fun when your close to retirement.
Why do heroes such as Merkel (and whoever was running Sweden) do what they did?
IMO it’s less important than that they did it.
I think it was Churchill who said that bravery is the basis of morality.
Merkel was brave.
I suppose many on the German Left would be even more brave and generous, and perhaps their time in the chancellery will come.
Nonetheless, kudos to Germany and Sweden, IMO she and whoever ran Sweden showed (relatively at least) good leadership on this issue.
The PRC is committing genocide against the Uighurs. If you, say, defended Xi on a particular issue or bought something made in the PRC, would you be supporting genocide?
The Israeli apartheid regime’s genocidal policies and its reckless adventuring are far more dangerous generators of existential threats.
I don’t think so.
I think that the rise of political Islam is a far greater threat from the Middle East.
This war all but guarantees nuclear proliferation in the middle east.
No it doesn’t.
Why would any Middle Eastern country, besides Israel, want to procure nukes? Aside from nuking Israel, why would Iran need them? To repel invasion? Who would invade them besides a lethargic US that miserably failed in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Pete Hegseth or Donald Rumsfeld: which of these SoSs do you think was/is the bigger idiot?
Every potential rival of Israel from the Saudis and the Turks to Iranians themselves have just gotten a big red flashing warning in their inboxes that the Jewish-supremacist Israeli apartheid regime and its Jewish-supremacist allies in the West are not rational actors that can be negotiated with.
Turkey has diplomatic relations with Israel and IIUC, Saudi Arabia was close to it until Putin’s 71st birthday and Israel’s response to events of that day, though IMO, it’s been only postponed a few years. Neither Turkey nor SA are on great terms with Iran, and IIUC, Pakistan has nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.
They will break deals (like the deal Iran had actually signed), they will negotiate in bad faith, they will initiate first strike and they will bomb your civilian population following the insane Dahiya doctrine. The only thing they understand is mutually assured destruction (nobody touches the rocket-man in North Korea!). So why the fuck shouldn’t all of them race for nuclear weapons at this point?
Whose “they”?
Even with nukes, I doubt North Korea could destroy the US, but the US could destroy North Korea. Indeed, the US might be able to destroy North Korea without nukes.
Just because the Kim gang slipped through the cracks (IIUC Papa Bush and Dubya were too busy with Iraq; Clinton made deals with NK; and during Obama’s presidency, the occupation of Afghanistan and attempted nation-building there continued, Arab Spring fizzled, Islamic State rose, Russia invaded Ukraine and occupied chunks of it, and after 2010, Congress became even more antagonistic) doesn’t mean that the US will allow Iran to develop nukes.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Indeed. Allāh Akbar.
To weaken Assad,
which would be good.
to take over Syria, to isolate Lebanon,
Was Germany going to do that?
to eliminate the threat of a retaliating all out Shiite uprising over the entire Middle East, to attack an isolated Iran.
huh?
Hamas and Hezbollah are a product of Israeli invasion and occupation.
IIUC, Hezbollah are, while Hamas was useful to Israel in dividing Fatah/PLO, and on Putin’s 71st birthday, giving Netanyahu the excuse he needed to do what he’s been doing in Gaza.
The goals of Hamas are national goals, not religious goals.
Perhaps.
FWIW,
(my bold)
Hamas is an acronym of the Arabic phrase حركة المقاومة الإسلامية or Ḥarakah al-Muqāwamah al-ʾIslāmiyyah, meaning “Islamic Resistance Movement”. This acronym, HMS, was glossed in the 1988 Hamas Covenant[66] by the Arabic word ḥamās (حماس) which itself means “zeal”, “strength”, or “bravery”.[67]
They have nothing to do with Al-Quaeda or ISIS. Ironically Israel has treated ISIS fighters in Syria and Israeli weapons made it into ISIS camps. Now Israeli is arming and protecting lowlife criminals in Gaza with links to ISIS to plunder UN aid convoys.
Divide and rule: yep, that sounds like something Israel would do.
Meanwhile Iran wasn’t seeking a nuke since 2003 as has been maintained by the US intelligence, in particular CIA well into this year
Perhaps.
I still don’t trust them anymore than the US.
Instead Iran had negotiated the JCPOA with Obamas government and upheld it until Trump broke it, with the EU allies following suit to the US. Still Iran was seeking to get back to diplomacy even as Israel is now bombing Iran. But evidently neither Israel nor the US can ever be trusted with diplomacy. They will just turn around and bomb you whenever they feel like it.
Hasanabi rules:
I’m not sure.
The anarchist part of me says leave Iran alone, let Israel deal with them, and if Israel doesn’t, but instead gives up its land to Palestinians and tries to go back to Europe or the parts of the Middle East they left, that might be interesting.
Does the article saying anything about what she might or might not have said about Gaza?
When state-sponsored rent-a-crowds chant “Death to America!”, “Death to Israel!”, (and perhaps) “Kill for Allāh!”, and “Allāh Akbar!”, the US and Israel might take such seriously.
Do you think this theocracy, this mullahchy, is better than the Shah?
As bad as he was—and he was bad—at least he didn’t try to get nukes.
Had Saddam stayed out of Kuwait, he might still be around.
My sympathies for any of these regimes is limited.
(Modern) Israel exists because most of Europe was an antisemitic shithole, and that includes Russia and the UK; guys like Netanyahu are a product of this, and Hamas are a bunch of jihadi punks who have been used by both Iran and Israel.
I’m not so quick to curse her.
Didn’t Germany under her take about 1 million refugees at some point?
A nuclear-armed Iran would become an existential threat to Israel.
Maybe he was using a cell phone.
Where did the boy get the knife: from a store or his parents’ kitchen?
and those Russians who were injured, maimed, or died for invading Ukraine, and occupying parts of it, were injured, maimed, or died for nothing.
Taiwan has been coping for over 75 years.