Iraq crisis: Isis jihadists 'seize Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons stockpile'

1234568

Comments

  • zombie
    zombie Members Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Zombie, you said earlier it's going to take WW2 commitment levels for America to take on ISIS

    How many American troops you want to put in Iraq? 300K?

    How many trillions you willing to spend? Be straight up. This will be fun to hear.

    No i said it will take ww2 levels of commitment to defeat fundamentalist islam, isis is just a symptom of the larger problem that is fundamentalist islam , all we need to do is put some steel in the spine of the iraq military and populace and support them with airpower and maybe retake certain important areas. that is all it should take to defeat isis in iraq on the battle field.
  • zombie
    zombie Members Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE we have to fight all you are doing @kingblaze84 is opting for a later and harder struggle.
  • Black Boy King
    Black Boy King Members Posts: 6,984 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zombie wrote: »
    Judah Back wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    Judah Back wrote: »
    How can the economy be getting better if illegals are being flooded in by the thousands????? How can that give our economy a good outlook???

    I did not say it was perfect no economy is but in comparison to how it was a few years ago things are better.
    there are many different factors and not everything is going to be the way you want it to, that is a fact

    The point is the economy is about to take a serious down turn as a result.

    Yeah, you don't know what the ? you are talking about as usual

    Lol OK bro
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2014
    zombie wrote: »
    Zombie, you said earlier it's going to take WW2 commitment levels for America to take on ISIS

    How many American troops you want to put in Iraq? 300K?

    How many trillions you willing to spend? Be straight up. This will be fun to hear.

    No i said it will take ww2 levels of commitment to defeat fundamentalist islam, isis is just a symptom of the larger problem that is fundamentalist islam , all we need to do is put some steel in the spine of the iraq military and populace and support them with airpower and maybe retake certain important areas. that is all it should take to defeat isis in iraq on the battle field.

    Be specific on Iraq and Syria though....how much are you willing to spend? How many troops, how many years, you're being too vague.

    Put steel into the spine of the Iraqi army? How the hell is that gonna happen? Ahmed-Man isn't coming to the rescue. We gave them BILLIONS in aid and weapons, and ISIS still kicked their ass up and down Iraq. Protecting a corrupt govt like what Iraq has is a waste of time, they've lost the support of the people aside from Shias. And even some Shias want Maliki gone.

    The Iraqis are scared of ISIS and generally speaking, the Sunnis support ISIS anyway, that's a full 40% of the population. You want America to retake certain important areas, like Mosul and Fallujah? ISIS would LOOOVE a fight in those places. How many troops are you willing to use to pacify Iraq??? You also have to talk about ISIS in Syria, how many troops you want to place in Syria? You can't isolate ISIS to just Iraq, they're all over the Iraqi and Syrian borders. Your plan sounds highly unrealistic so far. Most importantly, state how many troops you're willing to have in Iraq AND Syria, and for how long.

  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2014
    zombie wrote: »
    WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE we have to fight all you are doing @kingblaze84 is opting for a later and harder struggle.

    Be specific in your plan and maybe I'll change my mind. Hell maybe 77% of Americans may change their mind. So far, me and the 77% of Americans have yet to hear a good idea regarding sending troops back into Iraq. Your plan sounds like a disaster in the making even Bush would be hesitant to try out. Even ? Cheney doesn't have the ? to say we should send troops into Syria.
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    The solution to the problem is POLITICAL.
    basically. obviously there are going to be non-political issues in the mix (for example, how do you replace Maliki with the current situation), but still.
    America is rich but not invincible, the Romans had no competition for a long time and neither did the British. And guess what? The British outspent themselves and so did the Romans. They went bankrupt with neverending wars and created so many enemies it became a drain to the national economy.
    a little oversimplified because they DID have to fight people. perhaps the issue with an empire is not that you have to watch your spending or your wars or any one thing, but the whole package?
    17 trillion in debt is not catastrophic? Okay we'll just agree to disagree there lol.....
    the concern should be less about the total value about more about percentages and where the spending is going. but hey, it's not like politicians in the US actually want to address it, so...
    And if ISIS is SOOOOOO big a threat and SOOOO dangerous, how come NATO isn't doing ? ?
    well, NATO isn't about fighting with ISIS. that would be more like the UN. and who's really got a real military out there to throw around?

  • zombie
    zombie Members Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zombie wrote: »
    Zombie, you said earlier it's going to take WW2 commitment levels for America to take on ISIS

    How many American troops you want to put in Iraq? 300K?

    How many trillions you willing to spend? Be straight up. This will be fun to hear.

    No i said it will take ww2 levels of commitment to defeat fundamentalist islam, isis is just a symptom of the larger problem that is fundamentalist islam , all we need to do is put some steel in the spine of the iraq military and populace and support them with airpower and maybe retake certain important areas. that is all it should take to defeat isis in iraq on the battle field.

    Be specific on Iraq and Syria though....how much are you willing to spend? How many troops, how many years, you're being too vague.

    Put steel into the spine of the Iraqi army? How the hell is that gonna happen? Ahmed-Man isn't coming to the rescue. We gave them BILLIONS in aid and weapons, and ISIS still kicked their ass up and down Iraq. Protecting a corrupt govt like what Iraq has is a waste of time, they've lost the support of the people aside from Shias. And even some Shias want Maliki gone.

    The Iraqis are scared of ISIS and generally speaking, the Sunnis support ISIS anyway, that's a full 40% of the population. You want America to retake certain important areas, like Mosul and Fallujah? ISIS would LOOOVE a fight in those places. How many troops are you willing to use to pacify Iraq??? You also have to talk about ISIS in Syria, how many troops you want to place in Syria? You can't isolate ISIS to just Iraq, they're all over the Iraqi and Syrian borders. Your plan sounds highly unrealistic so far. Most importantly, state how many troops you're willing to have in Iraq AND Syria, and for how long.

    None on syria and i do believe we can cleanse iraq of isis, i don't have all the information so i can't very well give you a time and date for how long we should stay. but from everything that i do know isis is winning because the iraq army is unmotivated and scared if we come back and alongside them start clearing isis from certain places they will get there confidence back, also there must be people in iraq who oppose isis i am 100% sure most of the people of iraq don't want to live under there rule, so america will have some support among the sunni we also have the kurds we can work with. THIS WON'T TAKE YEARS i am not as impressed by isis as you are,

    i don't believe for one second that isis can stand up to an american force in urban combat so the cities will be the first place they get run out of i have full confidence that the american military can crush isis without very high troop levels. WE CREATED the iraq government and that was a mistake, part of the reason for the rise of isis was the corruption of that government, i also want maliki gone.
  • zombie
    zombie Members Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2014
    zombie wrote: »
    WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE we have to fight all you are doing @kingblaze84 is opting for a later and harder struggle.

    Be specific in your plan and maybe I'll change my mind. Hell maybe 77% of Americans may change their mind. So far, me and the 77% of Americans have yet to hear a good idea regarding sending troops back into Iraq. Your plan sounds like a disaster in the making even Bush would be hesitant to try out. Even ? Cheney doesn't have the ? to say we should send troops into Syria.

    I am not a ? general i don't have all the info but i do have what they released and from what i read isis can be defeated. WHAT 77% of AMERICANS think should not affect any decision made because that 77% don't have the big picture in mind. How many times do i have to tell you i just want to flush isis out of iraq.
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zombie wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE we have to fight all you are doing @kingblaze84 is opting for a later and harder struggle.

    Be specific in your plan and maybe I'll change my mind. Hell maybe 77% of Americans may change their mind. So far, me and the 77% of Americans have yet to hear a good idea regarding sending troops back into Iraq. Your plan sounds like a disaster in the making even Bush would be hesitant to try out. Even ? Cheney doesn't have the ? to say we should send troops into Syria.

    I am not a ? general i don't have all the info but i do have what they released and from what i read isis can be defeated. WHAT 77% of AMERICANS think should not affect any decision made because that 77% don't have the big picture in mind. How many times do i have to tell you i just want to flush isis out of iraq.

    Ok well until I see some specifics on your plan, it doesn't sound very good.
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zombie wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    Zombie, you said earlier it's going to take WW2 commitment levels for America to take on ISIS

    How many American troops you want to put in Iraq? 300K?

    How many trillions you willing to spend? Be straight up. This will be fun to hear.

    No i said it will take ww2 levels of commitment to defeat fundamentalist islam, isis is just a symptom of the larger problem that is fundamentalist islam , all we need to do is put some steel in the spine of the iraq military and populace and support them with airpower and maybe retake certain important areas. that is all it should take to defeat isis in iraq on the battle field.

    Be specific on Iraq and Syria though....how much are you willing to spend? How many troops, how many years, you're being too vague.

    Put steel into the spine of the Iraqi army? How the hell is that gonna happen? Ahmed-Man isn't coming to the rescue. We gave them BILLIONS in aid and weapons, and ISIS still kicked their ass up and down Iraq. Protecting a corrupt govt like what Iraq has is a waste of time, they've lost the support of the people aside from Shias. And even some Shias want Maliki gone.

    The Iraqis are scared of ISIS and generally speaking, the Sunnis support ISIS anyway, that's a full 40% of the population. You want America to retake certain important areas, like Mosul and Fallujah? ISIS would LOOOVE a fight in those places. How many troops are you willing to use to pacify Iraq??? You also have to talk about ISIS in Syria, how many troops you want to place in Syria? You can't isolate ISIS to just Iraq, they're all over the Iraqi and Syrian borders. Your plan sounds highly unrealistic so far. Most importantly, state how many troops you're willing to have in Iraq AND Syria, and for how long.

    None on syria and i do believe we can cleanse iraq of isis, i don't have all the information so i can't very well give you a time and date for how long we should stay. but from everything that i do know isis is winning because the iraq army is unmotivated and scared if we come back and alongside them start clearing isis from certain places they will get there confidence back, also there must be people in iraq who oppose isis i am 100% sure most of the people of iraq don't want to live under there rule, so america will have some support among the sunni we also have the kurds we can work with. THIS WON'T TAKE YEARS i am not as impressed by isis as you are,

    i don't believe for one second that isis can stand up to an american force in urban combat so the cities will be the first place they get run out of i have full confidence that the american military can crush isis without very high troop levels. WE CREATED the iraq government and that was a mistake, part of the reason for the rise of isis was the corruption of that government, i also want maliki gone.

    ISIS headquarters is in Syria.....smashing ISIS with weak Iraqi support in Iraq would be a waste of time if fighters keep pouring in from Syria. Maliki should be gone, yes, but without specifics on your plan, I must say it doesn't seem very well thought out.
  • zombie
    zombie Members Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zombie wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE we have to fight all you are doing @kingblaze84 is opting for a later and harder struggle.

    Be specific in your plan and maybe I'll change my mind. Hell maybe 77% of Americans may change their mind. So far, me and the 77% of Americans have yet to hear a good idea regarding sending troops back into Iraq. Your plan sounds like a disaster in the making even Bush would be hesitant to try out. Even ? Cheney doesn't have the ? to say we should send troops into Syria.

    I am not a ? general i don't have all the info but i do have what they released and from what i read isis can be defeated. WHAT 77% of AMERICANS think should not affect any decision made because that 77% don't have the big picture in mind. How many times do i have to tell you i just want to flush isis out of iraq.

    Ok well until I see some specifics on your plan, it doesn't sound very good.

    well neither does yours
  • zombie
    zombie Members Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2014
    zombie wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    Zombie, you said earlier it's going to take WW2 commitment levels for America to take on ISIS

    How many American troops you want to put in Iraq? 300K?

    How many trillions you willing to spend? Be straight up. This will be fun to hear.

    No i said it will take ww2 levels of commitment to defeat fundamentalist islam, isis is just a symptom of the larger problem that is fundamentalist islam , all we need to do is put some steel in the spine of the iraq military and populace and support them with airpower and maybe retake certain important areas. that is all it should take to defeat isis in iraq on the battle field.

    Be specific on Iraq and Syria though....how much are you willing to spend? How many troops, how many years, you're being too vague.

    Put steel into the spine of the Iraqi army? How the hell is that gonna happen? Ahmed-Man isn't coming to the rescue. We gave them BILLIONS in aid and weapons, and ISIS still kicked their ass up and down Iraq. Protecting a corrupt govt like what Iraq has is a waste of time, they've lost the support of the people aside from Shias. And even some Shias want Maliki gone.

    The Iraqis are scared of ISIS and generally speaking, the Sunnis support ISIS anyway, that's a full 40% of the population. You want America to retake certain important areas, like Mosul and Fallujah? ISIS would LOOOVE a fight in those places. How many troops are you willing to use to pacify Iraq??? You also have to talk about ISIS in Syria, how many troops you want to place in Syria? You can't isolate ISIS to just Iraq, they're all over the Iraqi and Syrian borders. Your plan sounds highly unrealistic so far. Most importantly, state how many troops you're willing to have in Iraq AND Syria, and for how long.

    None on syria and i do believe we can cleanse iraq of isis, i don't have all the information so i can't very well give you a time and date for how long we should stay. but from everything that i do know isis is winning because the iraq army is unmotivated and scared if we come back and alongside them start clearing isis from certain places they will get there confidence back, also there must be people in iraq who oppose isis i am 100% sure most of the people of iraq don't want to live under there rule, so america will have some support among the sunni we also have the kurds we can work with. THIS WON'T TAKE YEARS i am not as impressed by isis as you are,

    i don't believe for one second that isis can stand up to an american force in urban combat so the cities will be the first place they get run out of i have full confidence that the american military can crush isis without very high troop levels. WE CREATED the iraq government and that was a mistake, part of the reason for the rise of isis was the corruption of that government, i also want maliki gone.

    ISIS headquarters is in Syria.....smashing ISIS with weak Iraqi support in Iraq would be a waste of time if fighters keep pouring in from Syria. Maliki should be gone, yes, but without specifics on your plan, I must say it doesn't seem very well thought out.

    the fighters of isis i am pretty sure don't number in the millions or even the 10,000 thousands, they are not endless plus in syria they would have to fight a two front war further weakening them all we would have to do is hold iraq that's it and by the way you don't have a plan your plan is to hide and hope the problem goes away
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zombie wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE we have to fight all you are doing @kingblaze84 is opting for a later and harder struggle.

    Be specific in your plan and maybe I'll change my mind. Hell maybe 77% of Americans may change their mind. So far, me and the 77% of Americans have yet to hear a good idea regarding sending troops back into Iraq. Your plan sounds like a disaster in the making even Bush would be hesitant to try out. Even ? Cheney doesn't have the ? to say we should send troops into Syria.

    I am not a ? general i don't have all the info but i do have what they released and from what i read isis can be defeated. WHAT 77% of AMERICANS think should not affect any decision made because that 77% don't have the big picture in mind. How many times do i have to tell you i just want to flush isis out of iraq.

    Ok well until I see some specifics on your plan, it doesn't sound very good.

    well neither does yours

    My ideas are supported by most at this point, including most Republicans LOL, but maybe sometime soon, people will be anxious to send a lot more troops in Iraq again and fight alongside cowardly Iraqi troops who can't even be trained properly after 9 pathetic years. We'll see if the ? Cheney approach becomes popular again.
  • zombie
    zombie Members Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zombie wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE we have to fight all you are doing @kingblaze84 is opting for a later and harder struggle.

    Be specific in your plan and maybe I'll change my mind. Hell maybe 77% of Americans may change their mind. So far, me and the 77% of Americans have yet to hear a good idea regarding sending troops back into Iraq. Your plan sounds like a disaster in the making even Bush would be hesitant to try out. Even ? Cheney doesn't have the ? to say we should send troops into Syria.

    I am not a ? general i don't have all the info but i do have what they released and from what i read isis can be defeated. WHAT 77% of AMERICANS think should not affect any decision made because that 77% don't have the big picture in mind. How many times do i have to tell you i just want to flush isis out of iraq.

    Ok well until I see some specifics on your plan, it doesn't sound very good.

    well neither does yours

    My ideas are supported by most at this point, including most Republicans LOL, but maybe sometime soon, people will be anxious to send a lot more troops in Iraq again and fight alongside cowardly Iraqi troops who can't even be trained properly after 9 pathetic years. We'll see if the ? Cheney approach becomes popular again.

    Yes your lack of doing anything is supported the easy way always is and i believe this isis problem won't go on for much longer. america will give the iraq army a little help in the form of airpower and isis in iraq will be defeated.
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    zombie wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE we have to fight all you are doing @kingblaze84 is opting for a later and harder struggle.

    Be specific in your plan and maybe I'll change my mind. Hell maybe 77% of Americans may change their mind. So far, me and the 77% of Americans have yet to hear a good idea regarding sending troops back into Iraq. Your plan sounds like a disaster in the making even Bush would be hesitant to try out. Even ? Cheney doesn't have the ? to say we should send troops into Syria.

    I am not a ? general i don't have all the info but i do have what they released and from what i read isis can be defeated. WHAT 77% of AMERICANS think should not affect any decision made because that 77% don't have the big picture in mind. How many times do i have to tell you i just want to flush isis out of iraq.

    Ok well until I see some specifics on your plan, it doesn't sound very good.

    well neither does yours

    My ideas are supported by most at this point, including most Republicans LOL, but maybe sometime soon, people will be anxious to send a lot more troops in Iraq again and fight alongside cowardly Iraqi troops who can't even be trained properly after 9 pathetic years. We'll see if the ? Cheney approach becomes popular again.

    Yes your lack of doing anything is supported the easy way always is and i believe this isis problem won't go on for much longer. america will give the iraq army a little help in the form of airpower and isis in iraq will be defeated.

    We'll see how that goes.....
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Al-Maliki, the horrible president of Iraq, refuses to share more power in his govt with Kurds and Sunnis.....another reason why helping Maliki at this point will only inflame anger toward America in the Sunni world....

    http://news.yahoo.com/iraqi-pm-rejects-calls-form-unity-government-125822236.html

    Iraqi PM rejects calls to form unity government

    BAGHDAD (AP) — A defiant Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki rejected calls Wednesday for an interim "national salvation government" intended to undermine the Sunni insurgency by presenting a unified front among Iraq's three main groups, calling it a "coup against the constitution."

    Al-Maliki's televised address to the nation was his first public statement since President Barack Obama challenged him last week to create a more inclusive government or risk his country descending into sectarian civil war.

    U.S. officials believe the leadership in Baghdad should seek to draw Sunni support away from the militants led by an al-Qaida breakaway group, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which has seized a chunk of northwestern Iraq and seeks to carve out a purist Islamic enclave across both sides of the country's border with Syria. The insurgency has drawn support from disaffected Iraqi Sunnis who are angry over perceived mistreatment and random detentions by the Shiite-led government

    --In more interesting news, Syrian warplanes bombed ISIS hideouts in Iraq today....the only problem is they missed. They killed 57 civilians, mostly women and children. Exactly why bombing ISIS from the air is very risky and risks inflaming the situation.....
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2014
    Just when I thought American foreign policy couldn't get any worse, IT DOES....

    Obama wants to give $500 MILLION DOLLARS in weapons and aid to Sunni militants who want to take out Assad. MIND YOU, Assad is fighting against ISIS HAHAHAHAHA......even worse then that, ISIS was created by Sunni militants who were supported with American aid in Jordan and Turkey according to numerous reports. So America wants to give more in aid to help fund MORE Sunni militants LMAO ? ....you CANNOT make this ? up

    http://news.yahoo.com/obama-seeks-500m-train-equip-syrian-rebels-185903098--politics.html

    Obama seeks $500M to train, equip Syrian rebels

    President Barack Obama is asking Congress for $500 million to train and arm vetted members (lol) of the Syrian opposition, as the U.S. grapples for a way to stem a civil war that has also fueled the al-Qaida inspired insurgency in neighboring Iraq.

    The military training program would deepen the Obama administration's involvement in the more than four-year conflict between rebels and forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad. If approved by Congress, the program would supplement a covert train-and-assistance program run by U.S. intelligence agencies.

    --Can anyone tell me why this is a good idea? Because Assad wants to take out ISIS and now we're trying to take out Assad out? Whose passing the ? pipe around in the White House?
  • zombie
    zombie Members Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Just when I thought American foreign policy couldn't get any worse, IT DOES....

    Obama wants to give $500 MILLION DOLLARS in weapons and aid to Sunni militants who want to take out Assad. MIND YOU, Assad is fighting against ISIS HAHAHAHAHA......even worse then that, ISIS was created by Sunni militants who were supported with American aid in Jordan and Turkey according to numerous reports. So America wants to give more in aid to help fund MORE Sunni militants LMAO ? ....you CANNOT make this ? up

    http://news.yahoo.com/obama-seeks-500m-train-equip-syrian-rebels-185903098--politics.html

    Obama seeks $500M to train, equip Syrian rebels

    President Barack Obama is asking Congress for $500 million to train and arm vetted members (lol) of the Syrian opposition, as the U.S. grapples for a way to stem a civil war that has also fueled the al-Qaida inspired insurgency in neighboring Iraq.

    The military training program would deepen the Obama administration's involvement in the more than four-year conflict between rebels and forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad. If approved by Congress, the program would supplement a covert train-and-assistance program run by U.S. intelligence agencies.

    --Can anyone tell me why this is a good idea? Because Assad wants to take out ISIS and now we're trying to take out Assad out? Whose passing the ? pipe around in the White House?

    This is all the more reason why in the next 15 years there will be another american war in the middle east, because we are not actually attacking the problem and the problem is fundamentalist islam.
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2014
    zombie wrote: »
    Just when I thought American foreign policy couldn't get any worse, IT DOES....

    Obama wants to give $500 MILLION DOLLARS in weapons and aid to Sunni militants who want to take out Assad. MIND YOU, Assad is fighting against ISIS HAHAHAHAHA......even worse then that, ISIS was created by Sunni militants who were supported with American aid in Jordan and Turkey according to numerous reports. So America wants to give more in aid to help fund MORE Sunni militants LMAO ? ....you CANNOT make this ? up

    http://news.yahoo.com/obama-seeks-500m-train-equip-syrian-rebels-185903098--politics.html

    Obama seeks $500M to train, equip Syrian rebels

    President Barack Obama is asking Congress for $500 million to train and arm vetted members (lol) of the Syrian opposition, as the U.S. grapples for a way to stem a civil war that has also fueled the al-Qaida inspired insurgency in neighboring Iraq.

    The military training program would deepen the Obama administration's involvement in the more than four-year conflict between rebels and forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad. If approved by Congress, the program would supplement a covert train-and-assistance program run by U.S. intelligence agencies.

    --Can anyone tell me why this is a good idea? Because Assad wants to take out ISIS and now we're trying to take out Assad out? Whose passing the ? pipe around in the White House?

    This is all the more reason why in the next 15 years there will be another american war in the middle east, because we are not actually attacking the problem and the problem is fundamentalist islam.

    I agree there will definitely be another war in the Middle East, and I predict it will be sooner then 15 years. Fundamentalist Islam is indeed a problem but it can only be fought with world cooperation, not America going alone with weak governments.
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    I agree there will definitely be another war in the Middle East, and I predict it will be sooner then 15 years. Fundamentalist Islam is indeed a problem but it can only be fought with world cooperation, not America going alone with weak governments.
    well, he did predict an AMERICAN war, so do you consign that prediction or not

  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2014
    janklow wrote: »
    I agree there will definitely be another war in the Middle East, and I predict it will be sooner then 15 years. Fundamentalist Islam is indeed a problem but it can only be fought with world cooperation, not America going alone with weak governments.
    well, he did predict an AMERICAN war, so do you consign that prediction or not

    I don't know if it will be an American war. Likely, the next war there will be btw regional nations in the Middle East or nations close to it (Russia, China maybe, etc). I would hope America doesn't get involved again directly with the Middle East via war or invasions, and my instinct tells me Americans won't have the appetite for that for a long time. After Vietnam, it took Americans another 25 years to do another invasion. I'm thinking (maybe just hoping) that Americans will just stay away from invasions for a long time and let other world powers handle the problems of the Middle East.
  • zombie
    zombie Members Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    janklow wrote: »
    I agree there will definitely be another war in the Middle East, and I predict it will be sooner then 15 years. Fundamentalist Islam is indeed a problem but it can only be fought with world cooperation, not America going alone with weak governments.
    well, he did predict an AMERICAN war, so do you consign that prediction or not

    I don't know if it will be an American war. Likely, the next war there will be btw regional nations in the Middle East or nations close to it (Russia, China maybe, etc). I would hope America doesn't get involved again directly with the Middle East via war or invasions, and my instinct tells me Americans won't have the appetite for that for a long time. After Vietnam, it took Americans another 25 years to do another invasion. I'm thinking (maybe just hoping) that Americans will just stay away from invasions for a long time and let other world powers handle the problems of the Middle East.

    what other world powers?? there are no other real "world powers" accept america and her allies. china does not have the reach nor the impulse to fight for anything outside of asia. RUSSIA is basically confined to it's surrounding areas and that's what they concern themselves with. if you get your way when the time comes it's going to take a D-DAY STYLE LANDING TO fix this problem except this time it could be worse.
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    After Vietnam, it took Americans another 25 years to do another invasion.
    not sure how you identify invasion, but it wasn't 25 years (also, not sure if you're calling Vietnam an invasion or not)

  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2014
    zombie wrote: »
    janklow wrote: »
    I agree there will definitely be another war in the Middle East, and I predict it will be sooner then 15 years. Fundamentalist Islam is indeed a problem but it can only be fought with world cooperation, not America going alone with weak governments.
    well, he did predict an AMERICAN war, so do you consign that prediction or not

    I don't know if it will be an American war. Likely, the next war there will be btw regional nations in the Middle East or nations close to it (Russia, China maybe, etc). I would hope America doesn't get involved again directly with the Middle East via war or invasions, and my instinct tells me Americans won't have the appetite for that for a long time. After Vietnam, it took Americans another 25 years to do another invasion. I'm thinking (maybe just hoping) that Americans will just stay away from invasions for a long time and let other world powers handle the problems of the Middle East.

    what other world powers?? there are no other real "world powers" accept america and her allies. china does not have the reach nor the impulse to fight for anything outside of asia. RUSSIA is basically confined to it's surrounding areas and that's what they concern themselves with. if you get your way when the time comes it's going to take a D-DAY STYLE LANDING TO fix this problem except this time it could be worse.

    So let American allies do the job of battling ISIS then. America doesn't have the appetite for a full on war now. 76% of Americans want us out of Afghanistan or do not approve of the war there, so going for ANOTHER one in Iraq will not happen, unless ISIS strikes us directly and even then it would just be military strikes with airplanes and special ops to take out leaders.

    If the problem does indeed get worse, then America can gather its allies again and do damage where it can there. Just remember though that ISIS is very tight with the Sunnis in Syria and Iraq but reports show the alliance is temporary at best because some Sunnis don't like the extremism. This is why I say let the dust clear and let the Mideast handle it. I'm willing to bet Russia and Iran can take care of this problem themselves, as you said earlier, ISIS isn't that powerful (but they definitely are getting stronger I'll admit that, thanks to America wanting to take out Assad)
  • kingblaze84
    kingblaze84 Members Posts: 14,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2014
    janklow wrote: »
    After Vietnam, it took Americans another 25 years to do another invasion.
    not sure how you identify invasion, but it wasn't 25 years (also, not sure if you're calling Vietnam an invasion or not)

    I should have said wide scale invasions since Vietnam, yes I forgot America invaded Panama and some other places in the 80s, although they weren't really huge invasions like those in Iraq or Vietnam. Vietnam was an invasion for sure and I meant to say it took America a long time to do another wide scale invasion after Vietnam