Why The U.S Middle East Strategy Won't Work | World Defense

Why The U.S Middle East Strategy Won't Work

John Snort

NEW RECRUIT
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
27
Reactions
2
Country
Egypt
Location
Jamaica
The Middle East is always at war. It has been so for centuries. At the moment the fight against terrorism is in the spotlight but whether ISIS is defeated or not, the best we can all expect is a temporary lull before fighting breaks out somewhere in the Middle East.

Why is it impossible for peace to be restored in the Middle East?

It's because the U.S and other countries which claim to be helping bring peace aren't that interested in ending the wars. It's obvious that when you support one side, the side you didn't support will fight against the side which was allied to you once you leave.

For there to be peace in the Middle East no one should choose sides in any conflicts.

What do you think is the best way to bring peace to the Middle East?
 

remnant

MEMBER
Joined
Feb 21, 2016
Messages
157
Reactions
8 1
Country
Kenya
Location
Kenya
The US strategy in the Middle East flopped from the beginning. First, it was Obama's hands off approach which gave a carte blanche to Assad to continue with his murderous policy in Syria. When they actually intervened, it was too late and ISIS had spread its tentacles in Iraq and entrenched itself in Syria. I think the best strategy should have been to bomb both ISIS and Assad simultaneously with concomitant arming of the Syrian secular opposition. With the entrance of Russia into the fray, the equation has drastically changed and it will take serious negotiations or the alternative - sweat and blood to restore normalcy or a semblance of level headedness in Syria.
 

Falcon29

THINK TANK
Joined
Nov 29, 2014
Messages
2,161
Reactions
1,038 14
Country
Palestinian Territory, Occupied
Location
USA
I'd like to hear peoples opinions, I'm frankly tired of trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together, and I don't have an answer anymore. It's that sad of a situation.

US policy in the meantime, is not to take sides strongly(besides Israel), but to protect oil supply to the world.
 

explorerx7

MEMBER
Joined
Jan 17, 2016
Messages
220
Reactions
36 1
Country
Jamaica
Location
Jamaica
"So it is in the beginning so it shall be in the end." The middle East has been in a perpetual state of war for hundreds of years and this situation doesn't seem will end anytime soon. I don't think it's right for powers outside the region to seek to intervene there and influence should rule certain countries. The truth be told, is that some of these leaders that have been ousted or that are been seeking to be ousted by outside intervention were adversaries to groups like ISIS and their demise have paved the way for advanced of these rogue jihadists.
 
Joined
May 3, 2016
Messages
18
Reactions
6 1
Country
Faroe Islands
Location
France
The Middle East is always at war. It has been so for centuries. At the moment the fight against terrorism is in the spotlight but whether ISIS is defeated or not, the best we can all expect is a temporary lull before fighting breaks out somewhere in the Middle East.
The Middle East is not always at war. It is akin to saying the planet Earth is always at war, which would be a rather pointless statement.

The Middle East has not been at war for centuries.

It had been at peace for centuries e.g. during Ottoman rule.

The fight against 'terrorism' is an excuse used by the US to enslave the Middle East, and the Middle Easterners being of low IQ origin and suffering from poor work ethic, are unable to escape out of those clutches.


Why is it impossible for peace to be restored in the Middle East?
Primarily, due to the USA in the modern age, and prior to that, the UK.

Restoration of the Ottoman empire in a modern form a neo-Ottoman Turkish Empire may be desirable if peace is to be sought in the Middle East.

It's because the U.S and other countries which claim to be helping bring peace aren't that interested in ending the wars. It's obvious that when you support one side, the side you didn't support will fight against the side which was allied to you once you leave.
It is the US who has killed and raped and tortured and injured the most Middle Easterners, more than Israelis, Arabs, Iranians and all others combined, yet the Middle East is chock full of such low IQ retards that they have not yet succeeded in acquiring sufficient conventional and non conventional means of warfare to dissuade the US from engaging there.

That is all the more reason that one should laud the North Korean regime, whatever its other flaws may or may not be.

Unlike the Middle Easterners, Africans or Indians, the North Koreans are a tough nut to crack.


What do you think is the best way to bring peace to the Middle East?
A neo-Ottoman Empire should be established.

Turkey should militarize along the North Korean lines, for example.

If North Korea possesses at least 13,000 self propelled, towed artillery, multiple launch rocket systems and such, then Turkey should possess at least 3 times as much, or at least 39,000 self propelled, towed artillery and MLRS. This is because Turkey's population is at least 3 times that of North Korea's (23 million X 3 = 69 million, Turkey's population = 77 million, DPRK population = 23 million)

If North Korea controls around 200,000 special operations forces, the largest in the world, then Turkey should militarize at the same rate if not higher, and train, equip and maintain at least 600,000 special operations forces.

If North Korea operates and maintains around 5,000 main battle tanks which are mostly outdated, then Turkey should operate and maintain at least 15,000 main battle tanks which are almost mostly outdated. The current Turkish fleet of main battle tanks is actually mostly outdated, consisting of vintage US armour and some German earlier model Leopards.

If North Korea has its own research and experimental reactors up and running, Turkey should redouble its efforts in this area and have at least 3 times as many reactors of the same types up and running. If North Korea can use its Taepodong-2/3 to hit anywhere as far away as 6,000 kilometres to 13,000 kilometres away, Turkey should obtain the same capabilities to hit targets as far as 15,000 kilometres away from land based and submarine launched ballistic missiles.

If North Korea has its KN-06 SAM systems obtained or modified from those delivered by Russia, serving its upper layer of air defense, then Turkey should have its ASAT (anti satellite) weapons up and running.

And the argument goes on and on along the same line.

Essentially, Turkey needs to militarize at least at the same rate as the North Koreans to be the very dominant military power in its region, including the considerations that both NATO and Russia may like to intervene in the Middle Eastern theatres.

If Turkey can militarize at the same rate as I have mentioned above, then both Russia and NATO together will be forced to eat humble pie when it comes to military misadventures in the Middle East. However, given Middle Eastern moderate IQs, moderate work ethic, moderate builts, moderate temperaments and moderate talents, none of this is ever likely to materialize.

Not just Turkey, but all native Middle Easterners, Iranians, Arabs, Kurds, Berbers are just 'moderates', who have moderate skin tones (not the darkest or lightest), moderate intelligence, moderate work ethic, moderate abilities and moderate talents.

That is why their ability to resist greater military powers is nil. Not like North Korea.
 
Joined
May 3, 2016
Messages
18
Reactions
6 1
Country
Faroe Islands
Location
France
I'd like to hear peoples opinions, I'm frankly tired of trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together, and I don't have an answer anymore. It's that sad of a situation.

US policy in the meantime, is not to take sides strongly(besides Israel), but to protect oil supply to the world.
If you are at your wit's end, that would not be a surprise. It is to be expected, if we believe your ethnic kin's report, a report by an Arab.

https://www.questia.com/library/jou...or-the-standard-progressive-matrices-in-qatar

Norms for the Standard Progressive Matrices in Qatar
By Khaleefa, Omar; Lynn, Richard
Data for a recent standardization of the Progressive Matrices in Qatar for the ages 6 through 11 are presented. The results show that the mean IQ relative to that in Britain is approximately 88. The variance of the girls is greater than that of the boys.

Key Words: Intelligence; Progressive Matrices; Qatar; Variance.

Mean IQs for a nine countries in the Middle East have been reported in Lynn (2006) and Lynn and Vanhanen (2006). These IQs have been calculated in relation to a mean IQ of 100 (standard deviation of 15) in Britain. The countries for which these data have been reported are Egypt (IQ =81), Iran (84), Iraq (87), Israel (95), Jordan (84), Kuwait (86), Lebanon (82), Qatar (78), Syria (83), Turkey (90), and Yemen (85). Thus, apart from Israel which has a large number of European immigrants, the IQs of these countries lie in the range between 78 (in Qatar) and 90 (in Turkey), and have a median value of 83. Some critics of these figures have contended that they are unreliable. The best way to examine this criticism is to examine further data and see whedier they are consistent with those already published. In this paper we summarize a new study of this kind in Qatar. The IQ of 78 reported for Qatar is derived from a standardization of the Progressive Matrices on a sample of 273 10-13 year olds by Bart, Kamal & Lane (1987).

Method

The Standard Progressive Matrices has been standardized in Qatar by Al-Thani (2001) for a representative sample of 1135 (males, N=517; females, N=618) aged 6.0 through 11.6 years). The data are presented in a master's thesis awarded by Umm AlQura University, Saudi Arabia. The thesis is written in Arabic and therefore difficult to access by western scholars.

Results

The numbers, means and standard deviations of 12 age groups are given in Table 1. The right hand column gives the British percentile equivalents (PCE) of the scores taken from the 1979 British standardization given by Raven (except for the 6.0 age group for which there are no British norms).

The thesis does not give separate means for males and females for each single age group. However, it does the overall means for males and females as 23.7 (SD 9.98) for males and 25.7 (SD 11.34) for females.

The study reports a test-retest correlation coefficient of 0.89 for males, 0.95 for females and 0.93 for the total sample, and a split-half reliability of 0.84 for males, 0.88 for females and 0.87 for the total sample. The study also reports a test validity obtained as the correlation coefficient of 0.86 between the SPM and the Draw-a-Man test.

Discussion

The results provide four points of interest. First, they confirm the conclusion advanced in Lynn (2006) that average IQs in the Middle East are somewhat lower than in the economically developed nations of Europe and North America. The last column of Table 1 shows that this is true for these results from Qatar. The mean of the British percentile equivalents is 29.6 and this is equivalent to an IQ of 92. The IQ in Britain measured by the Progressive Matrices has been increasing since the 1930s at about 2 IQ points a decade (Lynn & Hampson, 1986). The British IQ should have increased by 4 IQ points from 1979-1999. Adjusting for this (and assuming that the Qatar data were collected in 1999), 4 IQ points need to be deducted from the Qatar IQ to give a figure of 88.

Second, the IQ of 88 estimated from this study is somewhat higher than the IQ of 78 reported for 10-13 year olds in Qatar by Bart, Kamal & Lane (1987). However, as noted in the introduction, the median IQ of the middle east countries is 83. Thus, the Qatar IQ obtained by Bart et al. is 5 IQ points lower than the median, while the Qatar IQ obtained in the present study is 5 IQ points higher than the median. It looks as if these differences are due to sampling or administration errors and that the best reading for a Qatar IQ is obtained by averaging the two results to give an IQ of 83, precisely the same as the median of other countries in the middle east. …

Selected excerpts:

The results provide four points of interest. First, they confirm the conclusion advanced in Lynn (2006) that average IQs in the Middle East are somewhat lower than in the economically developed nations of Europe and North America.
And the mean IQs in Europe and North America are lower than in East Asian Confucius states, too.

This explains why you, a particular person, are always at your wit's end.

This result above also explains why the Middle East is unable to replicate the North Korean effort on a much grander scale. Lower IQ and poor work ethic of the moderately capable Middle Easterners with moderate IQs (higher than Hindus or Africans, lower than Europeans and Confucians Orientals), moderate organizational capability, moderate industriousness, moderate entrepreneurial spirit all contribute to it.
 
Joined
May 3, 2016
Messages
18
Reactions
6 1
Country
Faroe Islands
Location
France
@Falcon29

Why the negative rating?

Is it hard to accept undeniable facts?

If you are a Muslim, why would you be bothered by factual analyses?

Middle Easterners are not only Muslims but also Christians, Jews, Allawites and Druze.

There is no reason Arabs of all people should hold their race or ethnicity in high esteem given that Arabs are the largest Muslim populations in the world.
 

T-123456

MEMBER
Joined
Apr 4, 2015
Messages
354
Reactions
246 1
Country
Turkey
Location
Netherlands
The Middle East is not always at war. It is akin to saying the planet Earth is always at war, which would be a rather pointless statement.

The Middle East has not been at war for centuries.

It had been at peace for centuries e.g. during Ottoman rule.

The fight against 'terrorism' is an excuse used by the US to enslave the Middle East, and the Middle Easterners being of low IQ origin and suffering from poor work ethic, are unable to escape out of those clutches.




Primarily, due to the USA in the modern age, and prior to that, the UK.

Restoration of the Ottoman empire in a modern form a neo-Ottoman Turkish Empire may be desirable if peace is to be sought in the Middle East.



It is the US who has killed and raped and tortured and injured the most Middle Easterners, more than Israelis, Arabs, Iranians and all others combined, yet the Middle East is chock full of such low IQ retards that they have not yet succeeded in acquiring sufficient conventional and non conventional means of warfare to dissuade the US from engaging there.

That is all the more reason that one should laud the North Korean regime, whatever its other flaws may or may not be.

Unlike the Middle Easterners, Africans or Indians, the North Koreans are a tough nut to crack.




A neo-Ottoman Empire should be established.

Turkey should militarize along the North Korean lines, for example.

If North Korea possesses at least 13,000 self propelled, towed artillery, multiple launch rocket systems and such, then Turkey should possess at least 3 times as much, or at least 39,000 self propelled, towed artillery and MLRS. This is because Turkey's population is at least 3 times that of North Korea's (23 million X 3 = 69 million, Turkey's population = 77 million, DPRK population = 23 million)

If North Korea controls around 200,000 special operations forces, the largest in the world, then Turkey should militarize at the same rate if not higher, and train, equip and maintain at least 600,000 special operations forces.

If North Korea operates and maintains around 5,000 main battle tanks which are mostly outdated, then Turkey should operate and maintain at least 15,000 main battle tanks which are almost mostly outdated. The current Turkish fleet of main battle tanks is actually mostly outdated, consisting of vintage US armour and some German earlier model Leopards.

If North Korea has its own research and experimental reactors up and running, Turkey should redouble its efforts in this area and have at least 3 times as many reactors of the same types up and running. If North Korea can use its Taepodong-2/3 to hit anywhere as far away as 6,000 kilometres to 13,000 kilometres away, Turkey should obtain the same capabilities to hit targets as far as 15,000 kilometres away from land based and submarine launched ballistic missiles.

If North Korea has its KN-06 SAM systems obtained or modified from those delivered by Russia, serving its upper layer of air defense, then Turkey should have its ASAT (anti satellite) weapons up and running.

And the argument goes on and on along the same line.

Essentially, Turkey needs to militarize at least at the same rate as the North Koreans to be the very dominant military power in its region, including the considerations that both NATO and Russia may like to intervene in the Middle Eastern theatres.

If Turkey can militarize at the same rate as I have mentioned above, then both Russia and NATO together will be forced to eat humble pie when it comes to military misadventures in the Middle East. However, given Middle Eastern moderate IQs, moderate work ethic, moderate builts, moderate temperaments and moderate talents, none of this is ever likely to materialize.

Not just Turkey, but all native Middle Easterners, Iranians, Arabs, Kurds, Berbers are just 'moderates', who have moderate skin tones (not the darkest or lightest), moderate intelligence, moderate work ethic, moderate abilities and moderate talents.

That is why their ability to resist greater military powers is nil. Not like North Korea.
And what if Turkiye is not interested in a Neo-Ottoman future?
 
Top