Good God boy, you have all the prerequisites for an amazing leader, so why aren't you the President of the United States of Europe?

Eh give it time, perhaps in 10 years :P

And I never said the solution should not involve the military. It should, to a certain extend at least.

The current military involvement is a waste of taxpayers money...

How much does a missile cost?
How much does it cost per flight?

How much does a second hand pick-up truck cost?

Well try running a country on the principle that the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many. See how long that lasts.

The United Corporations of Amerika seems to be surviving. At least that is what the BHL's see the USA as.

Oh sure. But I have to say, the corporations of the US couldn't have wished for a better PR company than the republican party. No one knows better how to tug the heartstrings of American conservatives and make them think that unbridled, deregulated capitalism is actually for the benefit of the majority.

They tug far more than just conservatives heartstrings. They tug a majority of American heartstrings. If they would drop their religious based reproduction fanaticism they would easily be the majority party.

---

How much does a missile cost?
How much does it cost per flight?

How much does a second hand pick-up truck cost?

That is why IMHO Turkey should allow NATO to use their airfields and use A-10s as their cost per sortie is low compared to other platforms.

---

Well try running a country on the principle that the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many. See how long that lasts.

The United Corporations of Amerika seems to be surviving. At least that is what the BHL's see the USA as.

Oh sure. But I have to say, the corporations of the US couldn't have wished for a better PR company than the republican party. No one knows better how to tug the heartstrings of American conservatives and make them think that unbridled, deregulated capitalism is actually for the benefit of the majority.

They tug far more than just conservatives heartstrings. They tug a majority of American heartstrings. If they would drop their religious based reproduction fanaticism they would easily be the majority party.

I agree. Im regersterd as a republican. I vote in the primarys to keep those idiots from getting on the ballot.
The tea baggers have become the religious minoritys whores.
And they are to stupid to realize that they cant win.

---

[/quote]

Old James

I haven't posted on the boards for a while, and was curious to see a Political forum on here. Amazed at how many armchair politicians and warriors there are even on a science forum.

For what it is worth, the only way to resolve the issues in the Middle East is the only way that will never be allowed by the US because they are hypocritical. The US has been funding one of the biggest terror groups in the region since 1947 and yet fails to recognise this fact, even after the debarcle that was the CIA funding of the Mujahadin in Afghanistan that evolved into the Taliban.

The solution has to be holistic and be equal on all players, that means one of only two options, neither if which would ever happen.

1: The West takes the universal decision to isolate the region and bar all travel too and from, all trade too and from, offer no help in any way, shape or form and allow the region to iterate into self destroying conflict until balance is found as they reach the "stoneage". This should apply to all countries from stretching Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, the Arabian Pennisula, Israel, Lebanon, Syria and all nations across North Africa..the whole of the "arabic" Islamic world and Israel.

To keep the region secure we would patrol with warships and aircraft..nothing in and nothing out...

That will never happen as the US keep Israel in existance and the BHL's would never allow it. Corporations would cry foul and thus the Politicians do have the courage to take the action necessary.

2: The West takes decive military action, declares openly that it intends to take control of the middle East to resolve the issues impacting the world and use true shock and awe to achieve the aims. Reduce cities to rubble, destroy airports, sea ports and return the whole region to the middle ages/stoneage so that militarilly they are no threat and ensure that all funding for all groups is cut off, no matter who is funding them.

Neither of these will ever happen, but whilst we use appeasement and trade arguments the issue can never be solved. It was tried with both Germany and Japan in the 1930's, that did not work out to well as I recall!

---

How much does a missile cost?
How much does it cost per flight?

How much does a second hand pick-up truck cost?

That is why IMHO Turkey should allow NATO to use their airfields and use A-10s as their cost per sortie is low compared to other platforms.

Hasn't the A-10 been retired already?

The current military involvement is a waste of taxpayers money...

How much does a missile cost?
How much does it cost per flight?

How much does a second hand pick-up truck cost?

So instead we should also send in pick up trucks, because its cheaper?

Also funny how I made this exact point weeks ago and got accused of not understanding how logistics work :/

Chris, you raise some good points, the worry is that the CIA appear to be out of touch with what is happening in the real world..Shocker that!! :) The fact is that the real numbers are likely somewhere near the middel of the two extremes, and this is what makes the group so very different from all terror groups before...NUMBERS..

In reality I firmly believe the ONLY way for us to deal with this issue in a way that is both morally and politically expedient, and likely practical, is to tell the Middle East nations that it is their problem and they need to deal with it, but we supply them with the conventional arms to do it.

I would suggest that NATO support Turkey by putting about 100,000 coalition troops, with heavy armour and air support, along the southern Turkish border to seal that, then supply the Kurds, Iranians, Iraqi and Jordanian with the levels of conventional weapons and ammunition to deal with issue. I would also ureg that we put aside the differences with Assad and arm the Syrian Military.

This may be unpalatable to many, but the fact is that is anyone other than Muslims deal with these issues it opens the door to idiots and extremists. The other side of the coin is that is opens the door to solving many of the underlying and largely ignored issues in the Middle East that may just perhaps lead to a wider peace in the long term.

It is not easy, it will have hiccups and hurdles and it will upset many both in the West and the region, but the fact is, as someone once said..Nothing worth doing is easy...compromise from intractable stalemate is the only way forward.

ISL are a threat to anyone who does not agree with them, and we have seen in human history that whilst the majority will not agree with them, if they are under their control they will do what they need to do to survive, and if that means joining the ranks of thier Jihadists then they will do it, afterall, die now along with your family, or die fighting but your family live is not really an option..

---

The hub of the current problem is this IS/ISIL/ISIS group, which appear control and occupy large swathes of two countries, Iraq and Syria.

In August 2014, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights claimed that the number of fighters in the group had increased to 50,000 in Syria and 30,000 in Iraq, while the CIA estimated in September 2014 that in both countries it had between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters.

Yet the Iraq population is 33 million, and Syria populaton is 23 million, so the question to be asked is how and why is such a relatively small group able to make this happen?

How did Hitler rise to power? How dis Pol Pot rise to power? How does any filthy scum raise to power?

---

How much does a missile cost?
How much does it cost per flight?

How much does a second hand pick-up truck cost?

That is why IMHO Turkey should allow NATO to use their airfields and use A-10s as their cost per sortie is low compared to other platforms.

Hasn't the A-10 been retired already?

AFAIK the Air Force wanted to phase them out but congress said no.

---

How much does a missile cost?
How much does it cost per flight?

How much does a second hand pick-up truck cost?

That is why IMHO Turkey should allow NATO to use their airfields and use A-10s as their cost per sortie is low compared to other platforms.

Hasn't the A-10 been retired already?

AFAIK the Air Force wanted to phase them out but congress said no.

The Air Force never wanted the A-10. The Army wanted them for close air support but the Air Force nixed that idea claiming to have sole rights to fixed wing combat aircraft. It was only after the A-10s superb performance during the 1st gulf war that the Air Force changed it's position toward the aircraft but they didn't support it for long. Most are in Air Guard units and reserve squadrons.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Jim is therefore right in saying that neither option would ever happen in practice. Long term, the general problems in the Middle East area have been based on religious differences ever since biblical times and before. That is unlikely to ever change in the future, although when you think about it why do people kill in their god's name, when they have no evidence that their god does or ever did exist? Simple brain washing from birth is the most likely reason, coupled with unrealistic idealism.

Well two things here. When people say that the Middle East has always been a mess, they seem to conveniently skip the thousands of years where it was not mess and actually the place where human civilization pretty much started out as an actual civilization. Yeah guys, forgot the Persian Empire? The Egyptian Empire? The Eastern Roman Empire? The Ottomans? All of them civilizations that were highly advanced and most certainly infinitely more advanced than those barbarians that made up most of Europe.

Really the mess in the Middle East truly started when we (Europeans) barged in to divide the corpse of the Ottoman empire in lines that were very practical to us, but not so much to the people that actually lived there. We created those problems, not them and not their religion.

Secondly, getting to kill people for a God is not that hard. Not much harder than getting people to kill in the name of a piece of real estate or because they like one political system better than the other. It doesn't require brainwashing or some naive idealism, its within the capability of every human being, at any moment.

Yet the Iraq population is 33 million, and Syria populaton is 23 million, so the question to be asked is how and why is such a relatively small group able to make this happen?

Very easy to answer if one thinks clearly. 60 million in total, so let's break that number down: -

How many women?
How many children?
How many men with military training?

Women & children make up over 2/3rds of that number, so that leaves 20 million men. Of that total, just how many are elderly, ill & disabled?

How many are serving forces personnel & how many are ex-forces?

That 60 million is not so large now is it?

Now for the forces. An x amount are required to protect major Army/Air Force bases. Y amount for outlying bases, leaving z amount to actually fight.

There is also another factor to take into account for those fighting - Morale.

It's one thing to stand & fight, but another when one knows that coming at you is a madman prepared to die in achieving his aims & if he captured you, behead you. It's a brave man that stands and fights knowing that.

As for the question in the first place, it should not have been asked!

At the time Mein Kampf was written, the National Socialists were a relatively small fringe party, I take it that you are unaware of what happened a decade later?

Edit: & as for those IS numbers?

About to get larger

It starts the way they all start. The parents breed too many kids and there isn't work for them. They see no future. A great conman comes along and promises them a great future. As they have nothing and see no future they see nothing ethically wrong with what the conman tells them about some "them" group holding them down and how they are privileged. Next thing you know there is war. As they already have nothing to lose, they will fight with 100% as dying means nothing if you have nothing to begin with. No method of killing the "them" will be to horrible. They are on their pious mission to destroy an imagined evil and they will not stop until they win.

What should terrify you far more than a beheading or two is their kidnap of women. They are going to rape themselves an army. That means they have long term plans to be fighting two decades from now! Are you prepared to fight a multi-decade war? Are you ready to fight an enemy that is using this as a military tactic? Are you ready for no rules warfare?

---

Persian Empire 550 BC - 651 AD
Egyptian Empire 3150 BC - 332 BC
Roman Empire 27 BC – 476 AD
Eastern Roman Empire 330 AD – 1453
Ottoman Empire 1299 AD – 1923 AD

Modern civilisation with cities started in India and Iraq 5000 BC. Civilisation. But earlier timescales were

Primates 65 million BC
Home Erectus 2 million BC
Homo Sapiens 200,000 BC
Neanderthal 100,000 BC
Cro-Magnon 40,000 BC

They lived in tribes with a sort of social order, i.e. the strongest held sway.

Really the mess in the Middle East truly started when we (Europeans) barged in to divide the corpse of the Ottoman empire

So there were no problems of any kind in the Middle East before 1923 then? I've no idea where you went to school, but I'd be asking for my money back if I was you.

Chris,

No need to be quite so indo-european centric about civilization. China has a fine example of a civilization maybe 2000 years older than either the sumerian civilization (modern Iraq) or the indus river civilization (modern Pakistan).

The Jiahu culture (7000BCE - 5600BCE) in what is now China I would say definitely qualifies as a civilization.

The Jiahu had

1. Sophisticated burial practices, indicating social stratification and religion.
2. Significantly better health and life expectancy than contemporaneous peoples.
3. Crop cultivation (rice and millet) using permanent fields (as opposed to slash/burn).
4. Domesticated livestock (pigs).
5. Musical instruments (flutes carved from the wingbones of cranes).
6. Permanent buildings.
7. Weapons and fortifications.
8. Writing.
9. The ultimate hallmark of civilization... BOOZE! (wine from rice, honey, and hawthorn, with various herbs and resins as flavorings).
(edit: (forgot to mention)
10. Industry)
Yes, I know they were small... 800ish vs. tens of thousands... But they were also about 2000 years ahead of Sumer/Indus...

Are you prepared to fight a multi-decade war? Are you ready to fight an enemy that is using this as a military tactic? Are you ready for no rules warfare?

It seems they are.

---

So there were no problems of any kind in the Middle East before 1923 then? I've no idea where you went to school, but I'd be asking for my money back if I was you.

Sure there were problems, wars, fights. But the better question is, where wasn't? If you look at Europe you will see that Europe has been pretty much at constant war with itself or with outside invaders from the start. To say that the Middle East has been such a mess would be to gloss over the fact that it wasn't any better anywhere else. The Middle East just doesn't stand out as conflict zone in any particular way if we look at the big picture.

My post 1582327 was specifically in answer to post 1582194, although to be fair it didn't specifically say so in the header. the Empires of Persia,Egypt, Roman, Eastern Roman, and Ottoman were specifically mentioned as they were stated in the earlier post. So by default it was Indo-European specific. China his rightly also been mentioned as Peking Man is dated to 700,000 BC, and the Jiahu was a highly organized Chinese Neolithic society in 7000 BC.

Oh, I understood the context of your post.

I only took exception to part of the following line.

Modern civilisation with cities started in India and Iraq 5000 BC.

Yes, the Sumerian civilization was an early civilization in Mesopotamia (modern Iraq).

Yes, they did *slightly* pre-date the civilization in the Indus river valley (modern Pakistan).

But the idea that Sumer was *first* isn't really supported by the historical and archeological records.

In my opinion, the only reason that the conceit that they were first has so much traction is primarily religious in nature.

Namely, the common religious traditions of the 'Peoples of the Book' has 'YHVH'/'God'/'Allah' commanding Abram (later renamed Abraham) to leave Ur (one of the chief cities of the Sumerians and several successor empires until its decline and abandonment around 550-500 BCE) and journey to the region of Canaan.

Sorry, but it is a pet peeve of mine.

So there were no problems of any kind in the Middle East before 1923 then? I've no idea where you went to school, but I'd be asking for my money back if I was you.

Sure there were problems, wars, fights. But the better question is, where wasn't? If you look at Europe you will see that Europe has been pretty much at constant war with itself or with outside invaders from the start. To say that the Middle East has been such a mess would be to gloss over the fact that it wasn't any better anywhere else. The Middle East just doesn't stand out as conflict zone in any particular way if we look at the big picture.

I am sorry but you are being slightly naive and single minded. All areas of the world have had war and conflict to one extent or another. No-one has claimed Europeans were any better than the Arabic cultures (Although true Arabic culture has never achieved anything until the modern era) and whilst it is true to say that civilisation "may" have started in Meopotamea (Persia) these are NOT Arabs..I dare you to call an Iranian an Arab..goes down like a pig at a barmitspha..

The fact is history is actually irrelevent, all you are doing is playing into the game played by the idiots who use Historical mistakes and Religion as an excuse for Genocide, murder, rape, torture, anarchy and all the crap associated with it.

Do the Spaniards hold modern Muslims to blame for what the Moores did over a 1000 years ago, do we hold the modern Italians to blame for the actions of the Roman Empire? Of course not, that would be ridiculous, so for these idiots and others to use historical arguments to justify action or inaction is just as ridiculous. You need to deal with the immediate problem, the threat that ISL poses, and then any historical issues can be addressed by EDUCATION which is one of the big issues in the who region.

---

Whilst discussing civilisations could I also point out that they also sprang up in Central and South America (Olmecs / Toltecs and their ancestors) and there is compelling evidence that some early native American groups had advanced cultures around 5000 years ago.

There is some discussion that it is possible a city near Lake Titicaca may be up to 17,000 years old...blowing a massive hole in the supposed history of humanity.. (Not convinced personally but not ruling it out either at this stage)

---