Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Fri Nov 27, 2015 3:32 pm**

Obvious Leo wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:True but China is all over Africa and South America.
And Australia, too, if truth be told. They're buying up residential property as if money was no object, which to them it isn't, and driving property prices up into the stratosphere. They've also bought a number of strategic assets, such as the port of Darwin, and are currently negotiating to buy the Kidman agricultural holdings, which represents a land area of over 100,000 sq km. The Chinese have very deep pockets and probably figure that it's going to work out cheaper to buy the world than invade it. They already own a substantial proportion of the US foreign debt and they know bloody well how to leverage the power this brings.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: They are also hungry for oil.
They're the biggest winners out of the US-Iran nuclear detente because they'll be willing to take Iran's heavy sulphurous crude oil where many other nations might not. This is just a guess but it's not a left-field one by any means.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Sun Tzu "don't fight a fucking war you can't win"
The fearsome military technology which emerged during and after WWII has taken all the fun out of warfare. Gone are the days when you can beat the living crap out of your foe and vanquish him utterly. For all their cruise missiles, stealth bombers, ICBMs, etc etc etc the US still got kicked out of Afghanistan by a gang of bandits hiding in the hills making bombs out of cowshit and kerosene.

True, You'd thought they had leaned something about Vietnam, where the North could do more with a fucking bicycle that the US could with a helicopter.
This only underlines the fact that if you want to get rid of ISIS then China with that manpower is the only force capable.

Posted: **Fri Nov 27, 2015 9:14 pm**

Hobbes' Choice wrote:This only underlines the fact that if you want to get rid of ISIS then China with that manpower is the only force capable.

If you were only referring to an external force then I'd certainly agree with you. However I really can't see China having the inclination to maintain a military presence in the region for a century, which we both agree would probably be necessary, and simply defeating ISIS and then walking away will achieve nothing. It's rather like the "war on drugs". For every dope dealer you put in jail another two spring up to replace him.

I really think the middle east problems can only be resolved by the people of the middle east and that all external interference is futile, even if it were well-intentioned, (which in most cases I reckon it isn't). I may be one of the few optimists in this respect but I reckon if everybody just kept their noses out of it then all these countries could become responsible members of the global community very quickly. Iran and Saudi Arabia are the major players in this region, as indeed they have been for millennia, and the younger people in both of these countries have had about a gutful of the sclerotic goals of their self-appointed leaders. The internet will do what no amount of ordnance could ever do. A suicide bomber is powerless in the face of Coca-cola.

Philosophy Now Forum

How responsible is the US for the rise of ISIS?

Re: How responsible is the US for the rise of ISIS?

Re: How responsible is the US for the rise of ISIS?