Out of curiosity, how dangerous would unified islamic nations be militarily?
>>29781739
The Middle Eastern and Asian ones have tons of willing bodies, but poor leadership and no technology.
UK, Sweden and Germany have leadership and technology, but not enough bodies. All together they may be formidable.
>>29781739
Not very. Read:
http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars
A more practical example of this is the Arab wars against Israel. In their current state, they are hopeless against the military might of modern, Western style militaries, nevermind the absolute might of the United States.
>>29781749
lol
>>29781739
They'd still get wrekt.
They're usually tinier people, we used to say they were a Buck Twenty soaking wet. Stupid too. Also why Iraq soldiers lost my AO in Iraq to ISIS.
>>29781749
I hear the Ottoman Empire was bretty gud in its day. I forget why it fell apart though.
>>29781751
>>29781739
This has always puzzled me
How can a continent that has been at war a lot in the past 50 years be so shit at it?
GROOMING STANDARD!
>>29781808
Guerilla warfare doesn't necessarily translate into conventional warfare.
>>29781808
Because they all suck at it. They're shitty soldiers fighting other shittier soldiers. They don't have the military traditions and hundreds of years of tradition in organized, firearms warfare. They're also entirely driven by their tribal / religious loyalties, so for example you'll never have a Sunni fight seriously for a Shia area, or even an area that his family isn't in. Iraq is a good example of this. Most of the Sunni soldiers abandoned Baghdad and millions of US given equipment to ISIS as soon as they came in contact with them.
>>29781827
It absolutely doesn't. Conventional modern warfare requires skillful soldiers and tight, coordinated cooperation between ALL possible units. Guerilla warfare relies on never being stuck in continuous firefights and never truly assaulting a prepared enemy, as such things require far more than your average bubbamilitia can offer.
>>29781827
true
Israel showed how easy it is to blow the fuck out of a combined Islamic army.
>>29781751
This was really enjoyable to read, basically confirms everything we think.
>>29781796
Because it did not resemble any modern Islamic republic and it was grown from the bones of the Byzantine Empire which was the Roman Empire. A lot of them were Christian.
>>29781739
Not very. It'd have a lot of benefits actually, assuming you mean the ME and not all Muslims everywhere.
>>29781749
This you can't play air bombing game anymore, they will have nukes. You will be bound to play by the rules, go play dirty in mud like in the Vietnam against millions and millions of jihad warriors.
>>29781808
Because none of them have tried winning yet.
>>29781889
>It'd have a lot of benefits actually
Oh really? What, exactly? They have the bodies, but those bodies aren't even willing to fight, unlike the Chinks and Koreans. They have ZERO advantage over Western forces.
>>29781739
http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars
http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars
http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars
>>29781739
Pretty decent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire
>>29781889
Facial hair, shoot 'em there.
>>29782034
No. The Ottoman Empire was vastly superior to modern Arab shitters.
Imagine Abu Hajaar on a multi-national scale
>>29782011
>>29781751
i think its an interesting piece,but 100% accurate and i think this is an interesting counterargument.
and actually read it before you go all
>rrreeeeeeeeeeee reddit
on me
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3n9nng/why_were_modern_arab_army_generally_incompetent/cvm7l7b
>>29781903
eh rollback the rules of engagement and anti guerrilla warfare is pretty easy in a desert environment
>>29781739
At the least they'l be a regional power.
They could also grow into a competent military power. Arabs lose wars™ because their governments are shit, hanging on by a non-existent thread of legitimacy that demands corruption and incompetence to exist. A unified islamic country has potential to be a real country that its soldiers can see worth in actually fighting for.
>>29781739
Ottoman Tier.
Meaning rather shit.
>>29781739
Abu Hajaar tier.
Depends what you mean by united. If under a single stable government or a coalition of stable governments, then I would say they would be on par with Europe.
But religious divisions, and tribal/ethnic ones, keep the stability from happening.
Even if you give them top tier exported tanks, the result is still the same. Which is shit.
>>29781796
>I hear the Ottoman Empire was bretty gud in its day.
For landed muslims, sure. If you were any kind of non-muslim, your Ottoman overlords would promise to protect you one week and slaughter you the next, rinse and repeat.
>>29781927
I'm not talking about advantages over America, I'm saying having a unified ME state would be advantageous to us as Americans, and to the region as a whole.
>>29782533
>I'm saying having a unified ME state would be advantageous to us as Americans,
Depends on its leadership and loyalties. Non-US-deposed leaders are traditionally anti-US and pro-Arab. Gaddafi, Assad, Saddam. If the US deposes the lot, destabilizes the region with islamists and places puppet leaders in their place, then it's beneficial. Syria is work in progress though. The US has been seriously cucked in the country by Russia and the Brits. Obama wanted an invasion, what he got instead was SOF and CAS in support of Kurds and now the SAA is gaining ground every day and the gas-pipeline-dream goes ever further.
>>29781796
Arabs got assmad over secularization and revolted
>>29781751
Arabs are a minority of Muslims. Some hypothetical United Islamic Empire would get the bulk of their bodies from India / Pakistan / Indonesia.
>>29781739
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM3ElTvF52I
>>29781739
About as dangerous as fucking Surinam would be if space aliens gave every one of its inhabitants Magneto-like super powers. These two scenarios are equally likely.
Were the West not sending troops over there to protect our interests, and Israel packed up and left, they'd happily continue shooting at one another for the rest of time over some shit that happened in some guy's imagination 1000 years ago.
>>29781796
After their high water mark (the last siege of Vienna) they started getting rekt over and over again by slavs, with WW1 as the coup de grace. They were also slow to industrialize and so were left behind economically.
>>29782644
True. Didn't give any thought to them. Pakis would be fucked by the Designated Poopers, but the Indonesians could prove a superior force to Arabs, though I must admit I have no clear idea of their military capabilities.
>>29782264
I'm afraid I'm a bit too drunk to form a concise argument based on that, but to me it would seem that the guy on Reddit did not even attempt to counter the original arguments, but simply brought up possible issues in the original essay, with no evidence of his own.
So, in Molyneyx often quoted words: Not an argument.
>>29782343
>THE BULLET CASINGS ARE HITTING ME
>MY FEET HURT
>WHERE'S MY MAGAZINE
>>29782644
Honestly, the same principles outlined in that article apply to almost all Islamic nations (including the not mentioned large scale inbreeding). It's just that apart from the Middle East, most Islamic nations haven't seen a modern conventional, national conflict like the many Arab wars, mostly guerrilla insurgencies.
The biggest danger of a Unified Islamic Caliphate is its large amount of Muslims living inside other nations as sometimes sizeable minorities. Assuming all Muslim loyalty will lie with the new Caliphate, then most European countries, much of North and East Africa, India, Indochina and Oceania will face insurrections large enough to be considered civil war.
>>29781796
the ottoman empire was gay as fuck and probably smelled like cumin and poo
1453 nevar forget
>>29782264
>https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3n9nng/why_were_modern_arab_army_generally_incompetent/cvm7l7b
I think the primary topic of discussion in the main article is modern armies, further more it seems to me that insisting that the the Ottomans were Arab is blatantly incorrect. The purpose of the article is to address the staggering and humiliating defeats faced by the militaries of contemporary Arab states.
In my opinion the author of this rebuttal shows his true colors when he insinuates that the U.S.'s failure strategically in Vietnam is a valid way of dismissing the author of the original article's argument.
It is clear throughout that the focus of the article is squarely on the abilities of Arab militaries as a coherent, modern, combined arms force. The comparison in the original work is quite valid, and when contrasted to the United States military, even in the Vietnam war they remain valid.
Arabs fail in most/all the criteria that would make a military an effective fighting force. The author of the rebuttal largely dances around this reality and attempts to supplement the previous topic of discussion with generally different ideas.
>>29782594
Being in a state of constant war is not to our benefit, nor is making client kingdoms of the region, as that only fosters resentment and terrorists leanings.
>>29781739
The only ones you'd really have to worry about would be the UK and Germany.
>>29782262
That motherfucker fired a burst off the interior wall of the "APC" lmafo how did he not kill all of his own guys?
>>29782728
The whole inbreeding thing is completely irrelevant
It's one of those grasping explanations for why the mid east is shit, since admitting they have 80 average IQ is verboten
This is why the mid east has shit militaries
low average IQ
>>29782997
>Being in a state of constant war is not to our benefit,
>have a massive fucking military with a massive fucking military industry
>war is not a benefit
Wut? Seriously, explain this to me.
>nor is making client kingdoms of the region, as that only fosters resentment and terrorists leanings.
As far as I can tell, the middle-east is about gas and fucking with Russia. It's an attempt at creating a massive gas-pipeline to Europe to compete with and undercut the Russian one. It's why the US leadership is so adamant with deposing Assad, despite him being THE secular, stabilizing ruler in the region.
Well, in the end there's a multitude of reasons to the conflicts, ranging from Israel, to oil and keeping the US military industry occupied and at a state of war.
>>29783240
>Having a massive military is great guys
Yeah, no. I'd rather keep my tax dollars in my pocket and inside my borders. American troops for American soil, American money for American citizens.
>>29783372
Yeah, well that isn't exactly beneficial to the massive military/contractor system in the US. The US being in war is economically beneficial for the country. Lives are cheap after all. You can get more from Mexico daily and people breeding will just create more revenue for the state itself.
Nevermind the fact that US foreign policy is pretty much 100% based on its military capability and its force projection.
>>29783418
Yeah, it's not economically beneficial to the vast majority of people, even those related to the defense industry. Especially as the national debt grows.
>>29783468
But the US military industry is worth billions. It employs and gives life-opportunities to tens of thousands of people. The national debt doesn't even matter, since nobody can ever collect on that without a massive global economical collapse and most of it is debt to the US itself.
The modern world runs on debt. It will never be paid, but it still has value because fuck everything until the economy inevitably collapses.
>>29782262
They need to make a poland ball version of this scenario, just with different Islamic countries
>>29783577
Come on m8.
>>29781749
Western Europe does have the bodies to be fair, it's just unwilling to use them.
There are 1 billion muslims worldwide, and 500 million people living in the EU. That's only 2:1 odds - and given the astronomical advantage the EU have with economics, technology and organisation i'd put my money on the Crusaders rather than the Jihadis.
In fact the only way the Jihadis might win would be to undermine the system from within by mass immigration and 'assimmilation'....
>>29781739
You presume they are capable of any kind of long-lasting, well-founded unity. There are more internal squabbles within Islam than there are external ones.
What would the Saudis have to gain by joining up, or any of the oil-rich nations? Even if the unified state managed to get their shit together, the financial powerhouses in the Middle East wouldn't want any part of it because it would compromise trade with the West, and they don't wanna lose dat oil money, so the military means of a unified Islamic nations would likely be limited.
Hell, Iran, who is not exactly the West's darling, and is already an Islamic nation, probably wouldn't even join, because they don't want the risk of guns being brought to bear on them to increase from its already uneasy current status.
I'm no Islamologist or anything, but it doesn't seem like it'd be capable of as much as "unified Islamic nations" sounds like it should be.
>>29783240
>Wut? Seriously, explain this to me.
As far as a military industrial standpoint to the economy goes, war is a huge fucking waste.
Eisenhower, a man who had fought and lived through wars puts it well.
>Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. … Is there no other way the world may live?
All those resources that go towards procuring war and its destinations is money that could be better spent on building up this nation. Im not to say that we shouldnt have a military, but the current state of the US military is way too huge. Granted, there are certian economical advantages that can be developed by causing certian countries to follow certain leaders under conflict. But our money and man power would be much better spent getting THOSE OTHER motherfuckers to fight and die for our interests. Much like we're doing now.
>>29783418
Found the Keynesian. Fuck your broken windows faggot savings and capital investment grows the economy not money printing.
DC is a net drain on the rest of the country
>>29784119
Good quote
>>29783418
You are dumb as shit if you think this.
A dollar in fighter jets is much less productive for the economy than a dollar in computers or cars.
The fighter jet only creates a demand for fighter jet parts and support. Computers and Cars improve the productivity of the people using them.
All this "muh MIC" jerk is by fucktards who get their opinions off of reddit.
>>29784119
Yeah, but guns are cool and schools and wheat are totally lame
>>29781739
Just as dangerous as the Raiders in Fallout.
>>29781739
With nukes they'd be very dangerous, but without them they're only a danger to themselves and their region. Imagine them as the MEC from Battlefield 2, sure they have some fancy toys but they'll get BTFO by any Western military because Arabs can't into conventional warfare.
