>Soviets BTFO'd in Finland
>America (and after that China) BTFO'd in Vietnam
>Soviets BTFO'd in Afghanistan
>Americans gained nuffin in Iraq and Afghanistan
>yet there are some idiots saying America should intervene in Syria
Apparently, people never learn from history that they cannot fight guerilla if foreign power don't have local support?
Other urls found in this thread:
rand.org
twitter.com
Syria is hell purely because one side will never win. Russia is propping up Assad, and the rebels (even though they're numerous) cannot defeat the Syrian Army since they have air superiority.
It would be a lot better for the civilians if they just gave up and accepted Assad.
But we get so many economic migr-, I mean refugees to help!
Yep. People complaining about the fighting in Aleppo have to remember that the Rebels could basically stop the fighting if they wanted to.
>mfw some Western politicians are actually believing that bombing some of Assad and ISIS military bases will make rebels win and that the rebels will make totally functional pro-Western democracy even after the West saw the results of the Arab Spring
Idk why ppl cannot even remember what happened just a few years ago
>America should intervene in Syria
You make it sound like they weren't.
They should, purely to remind the world that you can't fuck with America and get away with it forever.
Also, because the BASED ASSAD tears on here would be ambrosia-tier.
Some ppl there say, 'more intervention, things will get better' which is something they did in 'Nam.
Where you get the money to do so?
Every time the USA messes around in the Middle East we fuck the dog in the ass.
Coup in Iran => Islamic Revolution
Supporting the anti-Communist forces in Afghanistan => Taliban 9/11
Overthrow Saddam => Weak ass military that runs away from Isis
Overthrow Assad => We literally got Isis.
Oh yeah and forgot...
Overthrow Gaddafi => Get Isis in Lybia
Every time we try to give the Muslims democracy they get Islamist instead.
US military interventions aren't that expensive, honestly, at least the air interventions.
In order to have a plane or a ship be useful in a conflict, you need to be using it regularly, and the munitions expire, so you may as well use real sand niggers instead of fake ones for your exercises.
this picture makes me want to commit suicide
>Muslims
>democracy
So many Westerners are trying to jerk off on the idea of muh pro-Western democracy in Muslim countries
Yet we got Iranian revolution, Morsi of Muslim Brotherhood, and Erdogan of AKP
And most of pro-Western Muslim countries are run by monarchs like Qatar and Kuwait
>Supporting the anti-Communist forces in Afghanistan => Taliban 9/11
A lot happened between those 10 years which resulted in the formation of the taliban.
>Overthrow Saddam => Weak ass military that runs away from Isis
Saddam's military was easily curb-stomped by the Americans. The reason the Iraqi military was weak against ISIS was due to corruption in the military
>Overthrow Assad => We literally got Isis.
ISIS has been around since the late 2000's
Assad probably even supported them during the Iraq occupation because a number of their leaders were ex Ba'athists whom Assad had close links with
>Soviets BTFO'd in Finland
But the Finns still lost Karelia, though?
What you leave out is that in every instance, America assumed... nay... hoped a democratic government would come into being that would exist like the US one without corruption and generally asshatary.
Every fucking time the US got involved to fight the dirty Communists, Socialists, or god forbid a secular Dictatorship and then tried to get the Muslims to install American democracy... It failed. It failed so bad in all instances.
Really, the best thing that the US was done was let the Socialists have iran, Soviets take Afghanistan, let Saddam, Assad, and Qaddafi alone to kept their Islamists in check.
Then we'd have literally 90% less problems with Isis, Al-Queda, and millions of migrants who want to bring Sharia to Europe and the US.
Ron Paul was right. The US needs to stop fucking with the rest of the world. It just makes it worse.
>Soviets BTFO'd in Finland
>If your enemies win you BTFO'd them
Are you a Canadian prime minister?
Nice facebook tier history.
Are you saying the Middle East is doing well right now?
The U.S. invasion of Iraq was a mistake but the region has been unstable since 1922
>What you leave out is that in every instance, America assumed... nay... hoped a democratic government would come into being that would exist like the US one without corruption and generally asshatary
Yes, 'hoping' is different from doing. After the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan, the US didn't bother doing anything about the Afghan refugee crisis or the factions which had appeared during the war. the neocons who planned the Iraq invasion were retarded enough to think that they'd be welcomed as heroes in a country which bordered hostile Iran.
>Every fucking time the US got involved to fight the dirty Communists, Socialists, or god forbid a secular Dictatorship and then tried to get the Muslims to install American democracy... It failed. It failed so bad in all instances.
See above
>Really, the best thing that the US was done was let the Socialists have iran, Soviets take Afghanistan, let Saddam, Assad, and Qaddafi alone to kept their Islamists in check.
except that Saddam supported Islamists in Palestine, Assad supported Islamists in Lebanon and Gaddafi built his own 'Islamic Legion' to fight a war with Chad
>Then we'd have literally 90% less problems with Isis, Al-Queda, and millions of migrants who want to bring Sharia to Europe and the US.
Ron Paul was right. The US needs to stop fucking with the rest of the world. It just makes it worse.
Hi Infowars!
And then every male between 14 and 50 in the rebel-held area, fighter or not, will be rounded up and shoved in a dungeon to be slowly tortured before 'disappearing'.
The Iranian revolution was never about democracy, you total fucking retard. Nor the Islamic Brotherhood, nor AKP. They are about exploiting democracy to bring in illiberal theocratic government (to varying degrees).
I remember sometime back in 2006 or so, in some politics class I had during my BA, the issue of Egypt and the Brotherhood came up. I recall positing to the teacher/class what should we do if we 'help' democracy but then Islamist parties are elected. The lecturer got pissed and dismissed my question. At the time I wasn't even trying to be edgy, it was a legit quandary.
I think the real question we need to ask ourselves is are whether not guerilla wars are winnable period without starving out major population centers and going village to village indiscriminately murdering whoever you find.
Is it true that people thought the brotherhood was basically dead?
Seemed to work in Sri Lanka. There were huge human rights violations but the Tamil Tigers were more or less wiped out.
It helps if the country is an island like Sri Lanka.
The deciding factor in guerrilla warfare is third party support for the guerrilla. If a powerful third party gives them support, they win, if it doesn't, then it's easy as fuck to defeat them.
The Soviets were "BTFO'd" in Afghanistan because the U.S. supported the Mujahideen. During their campaigns against anti-communist guerrillas in Eastern Europe after World War II (the "Forest Brothers" of the Baltic countries, the "Cursed soldiers" of Poland, the "UPA" of Ukraine etc) the anti-communists received no foreign support, no support from journalists and intellectuals to denounce the human rights abuses of the Soviets, so they were easily crushed.
RAND institution published a study on successful COIN campaigns several years ago, and indiscriminate killing was actually seen as a bad COIN practice
rand.org
They were quiet for a while, but I don't think anyone thought they were dead.
I visited Egypt in 2007, and all that any young person (wth good enough English) could talk about was how corrupt Mubarak was, how he was then grooming his son as successor, how hopeless the situation was, and how a revolution was gonna happen some day.
The Tigers were themselves huge shit stains who spent more time torturing and murdering fellow Tamil civilians and other Tamil political parties.
>Taliban 9/11
>Taliban
Oy vey!
So what? That's what Muslims have if they do anything resembling democracy. They just cannot do democracy properly
Hit the nail right on the head many. If they choose Islamists through democratic means is that democracy as intended? Should we discourage democracy then? Or influence it ourselves to ensure the right people win? Is that really democracy then? In which case the argument that they shouldn't have an Islamist government because it's authoritarian and democratically illegitimate is btfo because the alternative is a western puppet state. It is indeed a conundrum.
From a realistic perspective better to have secular dictatorship than repressive religious regimes. However I completely understand the butthurt this generates.