UAE sees 'parting of ways' if Qatar does not accept Arab demands

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Lame backtracking there.

Lame categorizing here. Being able to shoot a cruise missile or target a smart bomb  accurately does not mean you have a competent or competently managed military force. War is not the same as target shooting.

[Morch]

58 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>You may want to ease on posting and realize that there is no Saudi invasion. 

 

Of course there isn't a Saudi invasion and the posters above explained why not. In your posts above you profess some military knowledge, but pretend this is not a possibility.

 

If one were a corrupt privileged Saudi prince clinging to power and had the military might of Saudi and UAE (relative to Qatar), and there was absolutely nothing to prevent one from invading Qatar to get rid of the Emir, install a more compliant puppet, and shut down the pesky Al Jazeera that exposes one's shortcomings, with US forces confined to base (unless Iran became involved that is), a tut tut from US administration and Trump cheering on one's fake anti terrorist stance via Twitter, one would be a fool not to proceed, and later face an international slap on the wrist. Irritation gone; problem sorted; fait accomplit.. and we all know about those in the Middle East.

 

But the presence of Turkish troops is a fly in the ointment preventing an invasion.

 

The poster above did nothing of the sort.

If you imagine that the meager Turkish military presence is all that stands between Qatar and a Saudi invasion, you're quite out there. There is no Saudi invasion because there is no Saudi invasion. That simple. And if one was looking for reasons why its not probable such will materialize - US military presence, US diplomatic pressure, possible ramifications for GCC and an open conflict with Iran may be more relevant then the view suggested.

 

You insert a whole lot of imaginary points into your supposed scenario. Most founded on nothing much.

 

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Lame categorizing here. Being able to shoot a cruise missile or target a smart bomb  accurately does not mean you have a competent or competently managed military force. War is not the same as target shooting.

 

Isn't that what you implied just above, while stating that the US troops are out of harms' way etc? Or do you suppose that if things came to it Saudi forces will preform better against Qatar as opposed to their record in Yemen?

 

Assuming that the Saudi forces can carry out a military operation against Qatar, while completely avoiding potential confrontation with US forces is amusing, considering they couldn't manage that even without serious opposition on their backyard war.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Yes I realize that there is no Saudi invasion. But this isn't whether or not Santa Claus. Santa Claus doesn't exist now and never will exist. Just because there is no Saudi invasion now doesn't mean there won't be one. And the Qataris would have to be fools to count on the Saudi leadership exercising common sense.

 

And yet you keep treating the supposed Saudi invasion as it if is a concrete proposition, despite a whole lot of obvious reasons why it is unlikely. Qatar being worried about such is understandable. Citing Turkey's involvement as a key element, isn't.

[Kwasaki]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Just because there is no Saudi invasion now doesn't mean there won't be one. And the Qataris would have to be fools to count on the Saudi leadership exercising common sense.

Arabs are a strange lot to deal with but understand common sense,  from news morning it's mostly  " jaw jaw jaw "  and will continue that way.

Any Invasion talk is media,  as said maybe already with a large  US base & a UK base and the Turks there how would that happen.

[ilostmypassword]

28 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Isn't that what you implied just above, while stating that the US troops are out of harms' way etc? Or do you suppose that if things came to it Saudi forces will preform better against Qatar as opposed to their record in Yemen?

 

Assuming that the Saudi forces can carry out a military operation against Qatar, while completely avoiding potential confrontation with US forces is amusing, considering they couldn't manage that even without serious opposition on their backyard war.

The Saudi's sorry record in Yemen has nothing to do with the tactical situation in Qatar. In Yemen they've been doing lots of bombing of cites and hitting hospitals as well as military targets. They are also engaged in a brutal and murderous blockade. This situation has no relevance at all to the one in Qatar. And it's pretty easy to avoid a single airbase well removed from the action. In fact, you would have to work pretty hard to fail and target it.

[ilostmypassword]

27 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And yet you keep treating the supposed Saudi invasion as it if is a concrete proposition, despite a whole lot of obvious reasons why it is unlikely. Qatar being worried about such is understandable. Citing Turkey's involvement as a key element, isn't.

I keep treating a Saudi invasion as a serious possibility, not as concrete proposition. At least I think I do since I'm not quite sure what a "concrete proposition" is supposed to mean. Yes, I think it is more likely than not that it won't happen.. But I also think the Qataris would be fools not to prepare for that eventuality given the rash disposition of Saudi Arabia's current leadership. And remember the invasion of Kuwait? That seemed very unlikely until it happened. Oops is not a great excuse for lack of preparation.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

The Saudi's sorry record in Yemen has nothing to do with the tactical situation in Qatar. In Yemen they've been doing lots of bombing of cites and hitting hospitals as well as military targets. They are also engaged in a brutal and murderous blockade. This situation has no relevance at all to the one in Qatar. And it's pretty easy to avoid a single airbase well removed from the action. In fact, you would have to work pretty hard to fail and target it.

 

So, in your imagination, an imaginary Saudi invasion will not include elements such as above? And, considering Qatar's expected resistance (a wee bit more substantial than met in Yemen), the Saudis will still perform while adhering to stricter rules of engagement? As for "easy to avoid a single airbase", let me guess, again, that's the armchair general in you speaking. For starters, the Qatar Air Force uses it as well. Then there are several other US military installations other than that base. Them 20 odd kilometers aren't all that of a buffer when the attacking force isn't top notch and meeting opposition.

 

Dream on.

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I keep treating a Saudi invasion as a serious possibility, not as concrete proposition. At least I think I do since I'm not quite sure what a "concrete proposition" is supposed to mean. Yes, I think it is more likely than not that it won't happen.. But I also think the Qataris would be fools not to prepare for that eventuality given the rash disposition of Saudi Arabia's current leadership. And remember the invasion of Kuwait? That seemed very unlikely until it happened. Oops is not a great excuse for lack of preparation.

 

Was there a US base at Kuwait at the time of the invasion? Was the country invading more capable of carrying out such an operation? Details, I know. Concrete proposition as in opining on the imagined military aspects of a non-existent invasion. And doing so while exhibiting little grasp of such while at it.

 

So far, the most severe threats aired alluded to something amounting to continuation of current situation, and perhaps reconsideration of GCC status. Can't see much beating of war drums, so far.

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Was there a US base at Kuwait at the time of the invasion? Was the country invading more capable of carrying out such an operation? Details, I know. Concrete proposition as in opining on the imagined military aspects of a non-existent invasion. And doing so while exhibiting little grasp of such while at it.

 

So far, the most severe threats aired alluded to something amounting to continuation of current situation, and perhaps reconsideration of GCC status. Can't see much beating of war drums, so far.

As I've noted before, given the current administrations perception of Realpolitik, why would they intervene militarily to stop Saudi Arabia? That invasion would pose no strategic threat to the USA. Unlike the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. But angering the Saudis would.

.

"So far, the most severe threats aired alluded to something amounting to continuation of current situation, and perhaps reconsideration of GCC status. Can't see much beating of war drums, so far."

So therefore, Qataris shouldn't prepare for that possibility? Or they should wait until the war drums do begin to beat?  

Given the current leadership of Saudi Arabia, I think the Qataris are merely being prudent.

[nasanews]

I think all demands are rubbish but presence of Turkish military is what I do not understand, why would Qatar need it and it should not have done so.

 

EDIT: 

In that case Qataris don't trust Americans to protect them in case powerful ally to the Americans like the Saudis try to launch an offensive against them, that explains the Turkish military presence. 

Edited June 26, 2017 by nasanews
ADDED

[nasanews]

There is no military presence of Saudi soldiers in Yemen it is done by other Arab and Muslim soldiers like Sudan (proxy war) and air targeting is the only military offensive the Saudis can do.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

As I've noted before, given the current administrations perception of Realpolitik, why would they intervene militarily to stop Saudi Arabia? That invasion would pose no strategic threat to the USA. Unlike the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. But angering the Saudis would.

.

"So far, the most severe threats aired alluded to something amounting to continuation of current situation, and perhaps reconsideration of GCC status. Can't see much beating of war drums, so far."

So therefore, Qataris shouldn't prepare for that possibility? Or they should wait until the war drums do begin to beat?  

Given the current leadership of Saudi Arabia, I think the Qataris are merely being prudent.

 

And as pointed before, assertions regarding the current administration's perceptions of anything relating to issues of policy are questionable. Trump says one thing, his secretaries say another, then Spicer explains there's no discrepancies. The routine is there. Trump's administration's coordination issues are nothing new, by now.

 

Doubt you don't get it. but once more. The US have no interest, and not much to gain from such an imaginary Saudi move. It will put them in an awkward place, further devalue their role in the region, and may see the crumbling of its ME coalition. As such, rather than actively confronting Saudi Arabia, it is more likely that if things deteriorate further the Saudis will get a phone call telling them to back off. If you imagine that Saudi Arabia will risk a frontal confrontation or severing of ties with the US, think again. If you imagine that the US will collude or turn a blind eye to an imaginary SA invasion, think again. If you imagine that the US will not retaliate with force if its troops will be attacked, think again.

 

Not pose strategic threat how? War in the Gulf is not a strategic threat? War between Coalition members is not a strategic threat? The GCC coming apart is not a strategic threat? Things getting heated with Iran is not a strategic threat?

 

So far there are no threats of war, other than in your posts. I suggest, that harping on such imaginary scenarios is not constructive, and does not reflect the actual interests of either side. Even if you assert that it is a possibility, the argument in favor of the Turkish involvement is bogus. Bringing in another megalomaniac big mouth to the mix does not qualify as "prudent". Especially as what he brings to the table is mostly talk. Qatar already got the best protection it will ever have (US military presence), if that's not enough to deter Saudi Arabia, the meager Turkish contingent wouldn't either. 

[Morch]

18 minutes ago, nasanews said:

I think all demands are rubbish but presence of Turkish military is what I do not understand, why would Qatar need it and it should not have done so.

 

EDIT: 

In that case Qataris don't trust Americans to protect them in case powerful ally to the Americans like the Saudis try to launch an offensive against them, that explains the Turkish military presence. 

 

The origins of the Qatari-Turkish military cooperation had more to do with signaling Iran. Then they morphed into the anti-ISIS thing, and now this. While the agreement relates the presence of up to a few thousand Turkish troops, current numbers are not over a few hundred (and that may be an overestimation). Their current role is more to do with training, especially of internal security forces.

 

 

[nasanews]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And as pointed before, assertions regarding the current administration's perceptions of anything relating to issues of policy are questionable. Trump says one thing, his secretaries say another, then Spicer explains there's no discrepancies. The routine is there. Trump's administration's coordination issues are nothing new, by now.

 

Doubt you don't get it. but once more. The US have no interest, and not much to gain from such an imaginary Saudi move. It will put them in an awkward place, further devalue their role in the region, and may see the crumbling of its ME coalition. As such, rather than actively confronting Saudi Arabia, it is more likely that if things deteriorate further the Saudis will get a phone call telling them to back off. If you imagine that Saudi Arabia will risk a frontal confrontation or severing of ties with the US, think again. If you imagine that the US will collude or turn a blind eye to an imaginary SA invasion, think again. If you imagine that the US will not retaliate with force if its troops will be attacked, think again.

 

Not pose strategic threat how? War in the Gulf is not a strategic threat? War between Coalition members is not a strategic threat? The GCC coming apart is not a strategic threat? Things getting heated with Iran is not a strategic threat?

 

So far there are no threats of war, other than in your posts. I suggest, that harping on such imaginary scenarios is not constructive, and does not reflect the actual interests of either side. Even if you assert that it is a possibility, the argument in favor of the Turkish involvement is bogus. Bringing in another megalomaniac big mouth to the mix does not qualify as "prudent". Especially as what he brings to the table is mostly talk. Qatar already got the best protection it will ever have (US military presence), if that's not enough to deter Saudi Arabia, the meager Turkish contingent wouldn't either. 

Exactly and it clearly explain why the Saudis have implemented such blockade and impossible demands to be accepted by Qatar.
So, the ball now is in the american administration's hands but I doubt quick firm solution to the crisis since the commander in chief has low mental standards.

[nasanews]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

Their current role is more to do with training, especially of internal security forces.

In that case I think Qatar should answer the list of demands with cautious, like they could say the presence of the Turkish military is mainly for training purposes and so on.
It is very important to present good argument against the Saudi demands in order to have normal land and air open routes for Qatar.

[ilostmypassword]

50 minutes ago, nasanews said:

In that case I think Qatar should answer the list of demands with cautious, like they could say the presence of the Turkish military is mainly for training purposes and so on.
It is very important to present good argument against the Saudi demands in order to have normal land and air open routes for Qatar.

Because the Saudis et alii are sincerely interested in having an open and honest dialogue with Qatar?

[Morch]

46 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Because the Saudis et alii are sincerely interested in having an open and honest dialogue with Qatar?

 

That's a loaded statement. One could say most such dialogues aren't characterized by "open and honest", but by respective interests and relative power. And, of course, it is not as if Qatar doesn't have it's own agenda.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

That's a loaded statement. One could say most such dialogues aren't characterized by "open and honest", but by respective interests and relative power. And, of course, it is not as if Qatar doesn't have it's own agenda.

I agree with you completely about the nature of these dialogues. In this case, given that there's a 10 day ultimatum and given the nature of the demands, I would say that no matter how well-reasoned the replies of the Qataris are, it's extremely dubious that they will have any ameliorating effect at all.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I agree with you completely about the nature of these dialogues. In this case, given that there's a 10 day ultimatum and given the nature of the demands, I would say that no matter how well-reasoned the replies of the Qataris are, it's extremely dubious that they will have any ameliorating effect at all.

And I'd say that you insist on ignoring relevant information. The ultimatum and demands were not originally made public. In all probability, because it would have given more space for give and take. Now that it's out in the open, the tones from both sides changed. A lot of it is still posturing, though. Regardless of how one feels about each of the sides (and I don't really care much for any of them), it would be ridiculous to embrace the view that all fault lies with one and not the other. There's been issues, of one sort or another for years.

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

And I'd say that you insist on ignoring relevant information. The ultimatum and demands were not originally made public. In all probability, because it would have given more space for give and take. Now that it's out in the open, the tones from both sides changed. A lot of it is still posturing, though. Regardless of how one feels about each of the sides (and I don't really care much for any of them), it would be ridiculous to embrace the view that all fault lies with one and not the other. There's been issues, of one sort or another for years.

 

And I too condemn Qatar for rashly being embargoed by the Saudis et alii just as much as I condemn the Saudis et alii for rashly embargoing. False equivalence much?

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

And I too condemn Qatar for rashly being embargoed by the Saudis et alii just as much as I condemn the Saudis et alii for rashly embargoing. False equivalence much?

 

More nonsense. If you wish to claim Qatar did nothing whatsoever to aggravate its neighbors (whether you approve of their positions or not), that is your choice. It just makes the exchange pointless.

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

More nonsense. If you wish to claim Qatar did nothing whatsoever to aggravate its neighbors (whether you approve of their positions or not), that is your choice. It just makes the exchange pointless.

 

And let me know if you can find one sensible person who covers the mideast who thinks this action by the Saudis and their partners was a good idea.

[nasanews]

I strongly think the real reason for the Saudis did this ridiculous blockade is Aljazeera news channel which has annoyed many Arab dictators starting with junta in Egypt and the Saudis who helped them overthrow Morsi the first Arab elected president.   But the question here is it going to happen if not we need solid arguments explaining why Aljazeera news channel will continue business as usual.   Last but not least what would the Americans do about it because it is the only reasonable argument on why Qatar is being punished.

[Morch]

25 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

And let me know if you can find one sensible person who covers the mideast who thinks this action by the Saudis and their partners was a good idea.

 

Never claimed it was a good idea, never claimed the general view is that it's a good idea. This has nothing to do with the discussion, though. Just a pointless deflection.

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Never claimed it was a good idea, never claimed the general view is that it's a good idea. This has nothing to do with the discussion, though. Just a pointless deflection.

So the reasons for the embargo are valid to discuss but the counterproductivity of the embargo itself is not? That's a parse too far.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

So the reasons for the embargo are valid to discuss but the counterproductivity of the embargo itself is not? That's a parse too far.

Nothing of the sort said. Keep making up bogus claims.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

Nothing of the sort said. Keep making up bogus claims.

 

 

So you're not against discussing the counterproductivity of the embargo but are against citing the opinions of people who might have authoritative opinions on the issue? Now I understand.

[Morch]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

So you're not against discussing the counterproductivity of the embargo but are against citing the opinions of people who might have authoritative opinions on the issue? Now I understand.

Never said anything of the sort. No idea what you understand.

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

Never said anything of the sort. No idea what you understand.

"Never claimed it was a good idea, never claimed the general view is that it's a good idea. This has nothing to do with the discussion, though."