ISIS Strikes Deal With Moderate Syrian Rebels that Obama wanted to support.
Options
Comments
-
When do we ? learn? We armed the Viet Congs 1960's, mujahedeen1987, Iran 1979, this ? backfires 99% of the time. Nuke Iraq, Nuke Syria, Nuke Iran ,Nuke Yemen, Nuke North Korea, you don't have to put one soldier on the ground. ? who gets mad we run the world towel heads can eat a ? . We invaded Iraq we got nothing out of that ? gas didn't drop one cent.
-
When do we ? learn? We armed the Viet Congs 1960's, mujahedeen1987, Iran 1979, this ? backfires 99% of the time. Nuke Iraq, Nuke Syria, Nuke Iran ,Nuke Yemen, Nuke North Korea, you don't have to put one soldier on the ground. ? who gets mad we run the world towel heads can eat a ? . We invaded Iraq we got nothing out of that ? gas didn't drop one cent.
LOL I don't think nuking is the best idea but you damn right in that America can't learn for ? .....one would think Iraq would have been enough of a lesson to learn. But when Al-Qaeda and ISIS team up to create a super group, you can believe America will regret getting involved in this mess again. I told ? Americans the air strikes in August would be a bad idea, now look what the ? we've gotten into.
American politicians are some of the dumbest brands of idiots the world has ever known. -
uh... what is going on hereWhen do we ? learn? We armed the Viet Congs 1960's, mujahedeen1987, Iran 1979, this ? backfires 99% of the time.
Viet Congs: we supported the Viet Minh during WORLD WAR II against the Japanese... but we certainly weren't supporting them when they were fighting the French only for it to backfire. also, this is a bad example because FDR supported France not getting that colony back and we were always in favor of an independent Vietnam of some sort even during the post-WWII French colony days. also, to be more specific, we wouldn't have been arming the Viet Cong in the 1960s because we were fighting the Vietnam War in the 1960s. and had advisers there in the 1950s.
Iran: yeah, we weren't supporting the guys that overthrew the Shah in 1979. we were supporting the Shah. remember why they stormed the embassy?
-
American politicians today just gave ISIS I mean Syrian rebels 500 million dollars in bullets, weapons, aid, and ? knows what else. This couldn't possibly go wrong....
-
Why has this story not made national headlines?
It's basically impossible to negotiate with IS, yet these "moderates" did it. Meanwhile, Iran is backing Assad. This should have definitely impacted the vote.
Lose lose situation -
Rand Paul slams Obama's and Congress' foolish plan to arm Syrian rebels
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DveDwEk122Y
SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY) (remarks prepared for delivery): If there is one theme that connects the dots in the Middle East, it is that chaos breeds terrorism.
They say nature abhors a vacuum. Radical jihadists have again and again filled the chaotic vacuum of the Middle East.
Secular dictators, despots who terrorized their own people, are replaced by radical jihadists who seek terror at home and abroad.
Intervention when both choices are bad is a mistake.
Intervention when both sides are evil is a mistake.
Intervention that destabilizes the region is a mistake.
And yet here we are again, wading into another civil war in Syria. I warned a year ago that involving us in Syria's civil war was a mistake.
That the inescapable irony is that someday the arms we supply would be used against us, or Israel.
That day is now. ISIS has grabbed up U.S., Saudi, Qatari weapons by the truckload and we are now forced to fight against our own weapons.
-
we need to take care of the problem ourselves instead of helping so called moderates.
unless they are under our direct command no help -
A big problem for me with all of this is how naive and sanctimonious so many Americans are when it comes to war. War is no joke at all. So many men, women, and children will inevitably die when war is waged, and the civilians get the worst of it (e.g., twice as many civilians died in WWII than the servicemen and women who were actually fighting the damn war). And the type of wars that we're involved with are half-assed, sneaky, playing both sides, and never-ending. War should always be the last resort, yet we're over here beating the war drum, and most of us don't even half the ? to join the military and practice what we're preaching so much about. That ? ? Cheney, the worst of the warmongers, got five draft deferments to avoid Vietnam, but now he's talking ? like he's Rambo.
Since ISIS is the new boogeyman for America, Americans want to play them as the bad guys and help whoever is fighting them, but the people who are fighting ISIS is just as bad. People still don't understand that there really are no good guys in this (or in war in general), which is partly the reason why we're playing both sides. We support Mubarak for 50 years, then we switch sides and support the Egyptian Brotherhood, then we switch sides again and take out the Egyptian Brotherhood. Same thing with Saddam, Batista, Gaddafi, and so many others. Still can't believe that people aren't waking up to this. Some Americans still think we're over in the Middle East to save the innocents and promote democracy, like the dollar, oil, and other resources have nothing to do with what we're doing. -
Iran: yeah, we weren't supporting the guys that overthrew the Shah in 1979. we were supporting the Shah. remember why they stormed the embassy?
True, but we did overthrow their democratically-elected prime minister so that we could re-install the Shah dictator, and that's why they stormed the embassy and that's also what sparked the Iranian revolution that put in an anti-American regime that has lasted even today. You probably know all of that, but I think that that was what homie was getting at. It's still blowback.we need to take care of the problem ourselves instead of helping so called moderates.
unless they are under our direct command no help
I don't support the war, but if we have to go to war, then the people should vote on it through their representatives in Congress, and if the vote is yes, then we should actually formally declare war, go all out to complete the necessary war objectives once and for all, and then finally pull out instead of pussyfooting around like we've done for the last half century. Though this is all much easier said than done... -
Iran: yeah, we weren't supporting the guys that overthrew the Shah in 1979. we were supporting the Shah. remember why they stormed the embassy?
True, but we did overthrow their democratically-elected prime minister so that we could re-install the Shah dictator, and that's why they stormed the embassy and that's also what sparked the Iranian revolution that put in an anti-American regime that has lasted even today. You probably know all of that, but I think that that was what homie was getting at. It's still blowback.we need to take care of the problem ourselves instead of helping so called moderates.
unless they are under our direct command no help
I don't support the war, but if we have to go to war, then the people should vote on it through their representatives in Congress, and if the vote is yes, then we should actually formally declare war, go all out to complete the necessary war objectives once and for all, and then finally pull out instead of pussyfooting around like we've done for the last half century. Though this is all much easier said than done...
That's not how War works at all. You aren't going anywhere because soon as you leave, someone else takes over. America stayed in Germany and Japan for years after they were defeated to insure that their success remains. The only way around that is to do what was done in Iran, install a puppet leader but make sure he has the same infrastructure you built. Easier said then done as evidenced by the overthrow. Even then, after hundreds of years of rule, you may get something like what happened in Scotland where people still desire independence.
They were part of England in overall good standing long enough to convince some that that was too much of a dramatic rule even though they do seek more autonomy. The only way to win a war in the Middle east, is to affect the majority culturally and you have to be around to do that. Still, a minority just may have enough ? to shift control like Saddam did when he first came to power. The bottom line to me is, they attacked our land and have a chance to do it again. People claim America incited them, but Muslims have been conquering lands to spread their influence for centuries so i don't trust that they would leave us alone if we left them alone. See Africa for example.
-
read his post again; he explicitly talks about groups WE ARMED, and compares them to the Viet Cong and the mujaheddin. but we did not arm the first two and the situations are really not comparable across the board either way.True, but we did overthrow their democratically-elected prime minister so that we could re-install the Shah dictator, and that's why they stormed the embassy and that's also what sparked the Iranian revolution that put in an anti-American regime that has lasted even today. You probably know all of that, but I think that that was what homie was getting at. It's still blowback.
also, they specifically stormed the embassy the Shah was in the US for medical treatment. remember, it wasn't stormed the second they overthrew him; the revolution predates it by quite some time.
-
read his post again; he explicitly talks about groups WE ARMED, and compares them to the Viet Cong and the mujaheddin. but we did not arm the first two and the situations are really not comparable across the board either way.True, but we did overthrow their democratically-elected prime minister so that we could re-install the Shah dictator, and that's why they stormed the embassy and that's also what sparked the Iranian revolution that put in an anti-American regime that has lasted even today. You probably know all of that, but I think that that was what homie was getting at. It's still blowback.
also, they specifically stormed the embassy the Shah was in the US for medical treatment. remember, it wasn't stormed the second they overthrew him; the revolution predates it by quite some time.
LOL I always laugh when you say American weapons and money did not indirectly help out the mujahadeen back in the 80s, yes Pakistan fronted a lot of the American money but Americans knew damn well many of the weapons were entering mujahadeen hands indirectly. There are enough internet sources out there for you to stop saying this. -
By the way my fellow Americans, ISIS recruitment has been INCREASING since America has entered the war. As people around the world predicted, including myself, Americans getting involved would make the situation worst. The chances of a terror attack in America grow with each new air strike. I understand we felt the need to protect Americans who were in Baghdad and our precious oil and contract companies, but we could have evacuated these Americans within weeks at worst. But now thanks to American involvement, we have united the Sunni world against us. ISIS now has 100 K fighters according to Iraqi military experts.....
ISIS has 100,000 fighters, growing fast - Iraqi govt adviser
http://rt.com/news/183048-isis-grow-expand-jihadist/
The number of Islamic State recruits is much higher than that estimated by foreign observers – around 100,000, says one of Iraq’s foremost security experts with unique access to intelligence. The terrorists are swallowing up other insurgent groups.
Foreign estimates put the figure between 20,000 and 50,000.
More worryingly still, its growth is being spurred along by American airstrikes.
Recruitment has never been easier, according to al-Hashimi. The organization’s leader, “Baghdadi carries now the flag of the jihadi against the crusader.”
--Good job America, keep helping to increase recruitment for ISIS and make things even easier for them. While the Sunni nations of the Middle East are smart enough to not get involved lol -
FuriousOne wrote: »Iran: yeah, we weren't supporting the guys that overthrew the Shah in 1979. we were supporting the Shah. remember why they stormed the embassy?
True, but we did overthrow their democratically-elected prime minister so that we could re-install the Shah dictator, and that's why they stormed the embassy and that's also what sparked the Iranian revolution that put in an anti-American regime that has lasted even today. You probably know all of that, but I think that that was what homie was getting at. It's still blowback.we need to take care of the problem ourselves instead of helping so called moderates.
unless they are under our direct command no help
I don't support the war, but if we have to go to war, then the people should vote on it through their representatives in Congress, and if the vote is yes, then we should actually formally declare war, go all out to complete the necessary war objectives once and for all, and then finally pull out instead of pussyfooting around like we've done for the last half century. Though this is all much easier said than done...
That's not how War works at all. You aren't going anywhere because soon as you leave, someone else takes over. America stayed in Germany and Japan for years after they were defeated to insure that their success remains. The only way around that is to do what was done in Iran, install a puppet leader but make sure he has the same infrastructure you built. Easier said then done as evidenced by the overthrow. Even then, after hundreds of years of rule, you may get something like what happened in Scotland where people still desire independence.
They were part of England in overall good standing long enough to convince some that that was too much of a dramatic rule even though they do seek more autonomy. The only way to win a war in the Middle east, is to affect the majority culturally and you have to be around to do that. Still, a minority just may have enough ? to shift control like Saddam did when he first came to power. The bottom line to me is, they attacked our land and have a chance to do it again. People claim America incited them, but Muslims have been conquering lands to spread their influence for centuries so i don't trust that they would leave us alone if we left them alone. See Africa for example.
Solid points but how you figure ISIS attacked our land? We've been the ones on offense against them. And America did and does incite situations in the Middle East, people warned America to not get involved in a civil war and here we are now.
I do agree though that Muslims have a long history of expansion activities and there are doing this in some parts of Africa without a doubt. But generally, humans have a history of expansion, so we can't just keep finding excuses to bomb that part of the world without thinking of long term consequences. America, being the most hated nation in the Middle East, has no business getting involved in Iraq-Syrian civil wars, wars caused by America being dumb in 2003. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »
read his post again; he explicitly talks about groups WE ARMED, and compares them to the Viet Cong and the mujaheddin. but we did not arm the first two and the situations are really not comparable across the board either way.True, but we did overthrow their democratically-elected prime minister so that we could re-install the Shah dictator, and that's why they stormed the embassy and that's also what sparked the Iranian revolution that put in an anti-American regime that has lasted even today. You probably know all of that, but I think that that was what homie was getting at. It's still blowback.
also, they specifically stormed the embassy the Shah was in the US for medical treatment. remember, it wasn't stormed the second they overthrew him; the revolution predates it by quite some time.
LOL I always laugh when you say American weapons and money did not indirectly help out the mujahadeen back in the 80s, yes Pakistan fronted a lot of the American money but Americans knew damn well many of the weapons were entering mujahadeen hands indirectly. There are enough internet sources out there for you to stop saying this.
I think he was mainly speaking about the Vietcong and Iran. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »Iran: yeah, we weren't supporting the guys that overthrew the Shah in 1979. we were supporting the Shah. remember why they stormed the embassy?
True, but we did overthrow their democratically-elected prime minister so that we could re-install the Shah dictator, and that's why they stormed the embassy and that's also what sparked the Iranian revolution that put in an anti-American regime that has lasted even today. You probably know all of that, but I think that that was what homie was getting at. It's still blowback.we need to take care of the problem ourselves instead of helping so called moderates.
unless they are under our direct command no help
I don't support the war, but if we have to go to war, then the people should vote on it through their representatives in Congress, and if the vote is yes, then we should actually formally declare war, go all out to complete the necessary war objectives once and for all, and then finally pull out instead of pussyfooting around like we've done for the last half century. Though this is all much easier said than done...
That's not how War works at all. You aren't going anywhere because soon as you leave, someone else takes over. America stayed in Germany and Japan for years after they were defeated to insure that their success remains. The only way around that is to do what was done in Iran, install a puppet leader but make sure he has the same infrastructure you built. Easier said then done as evidenced by the overthrow. Even then, after hundreds of years of rule, you may get something like what happened in Scotland where people still desire independence.
They were part of England in overall good standing long enough to convince some that that was too much of a dramatic rule even though they do seek more autonomy. The only way to win a war in the Middle east, is to affect the majority culturally and you have to be around to do that. Still, a minority just may have enough ? to shift control like Saddam did when he first came to power. The bottom line to me is, they attacked our land and have a chance to do it again. People claim America incited them, but Muslims have been conquering lands to spread their influence for centuries so i don't trust that they would leave us alone if we left them alone. See Africa for example.
Solid points but how you figure ISIS attacked our land? We've been the ones on offense against them. And America did and does incite situations in the Middle East, people warned America to not get involved in a civil war and here we are now.
I do agree though that Muslims have a long history of expansion activities and there are doing this in some parts of Africa without a doubt. But generally, humans have a history of expansion, so we can't just keep finding excuses to bomb that part of the world without thinking of long term consequences. America, being the most hated nation in the Middle East, has no business getting involved in Iraq-Syrian civil wars, wars caused by America being dumb in 2003.
I'm not talking about simple expansion, i'm talking about conquering and implementing their way of life which is being done in Europe now. ISIS taking over Iraq (a land that thousands gave their lives for wrong or right) is not a good look for long term security. You can't tell me that zealots like this would turn their targets on America eventually. Don't tell me that others around the world are making moves that they are. They are also an offshoot of Al Qaeda, so by default, they gonna have the same ideology, but it's proven worse. The problem with not getting involved is that America was looking bad when they didn't get involved in places like Rwanda. We are in the end on one planet and hiding behind borders isn't going to cut it. Maybe bombing isn't a good look, but telling them to put down their bombs first isn't going to work either. They could have taken the King approach. They don't have an argument to stand on for their actions. If America wasn't helping in other regions simultaneously through various means. The decisions that Bush made aren't the same decisions that are presented now. There is active slaughtering and attempted genocide is actually happening. -
FuriousOne wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »Iran: yeah, we weren't supporting the guys that overthrew the Shah in 1979. we were supporting the Shah. remember why they stormed the embassy?
True, but we did overthrow their democratically-elected prime minister so that we could re-install the Shah dictator, and that's why they stormed the embassy and that's also what sparked the Iranian revolution that put in an anti-American regime that has lasted even today. You probably know all of that, but I think that that was what homie was getting at. It's still blowback.we need to take care of the problem ourselves instead of helping so called moderates.
unless they are under our direct command no help
I don't support the war, but if we have to go to war, then the people should vote on it through their representatives in Congress, and if the vote is yes, then we should actually formally declare war, go all out to complete the necessary war objectives once and for all, and then finally pull out instead of pussyfooting around like we've done for the last half century. Though this is all much easier said than done...
That's not how War works at all. You aren't going anywhere because soon as you leave, someone else takes over. America stayed in Germany and Japan for years after they were defeated to insure that their success remains. The only way around that is to do what was done in Iran, install a puppet leader but make sure he has the same infrastructure you built. Easier said then done as evidenced by the overthrow. Even then, after hundreds of years of rule, you may get something like what happened in Scotland where people still desire independence.
They were part of England in overall good standing long enough to convince some that that was too much of a dramatic rule even though they do seek more autonomy. The only way to win a war in the Middle east, is to affect the majority culturally and you have to be around to do that. Still, a minority just may have enough ? to shift control like Saddam did when he first came to power. The bottom line to me is, they attacked our land and have a chance to do it again. People claim America incited them, but Muslims have been conquering lands to spread their influence for centuries so i don't trust that they would leave us alone if we left them alone. See Africa for example.
Solid points but how you figure ISIS attacked our land? We've been the ones on offense against them. And America did and does incite situations in the Middle East, people warned America to not get involved in a civil war and here we are now.
I do agree though that Muslims have a long history of expansion activities and there are doing this in some parts of Africa without a doubt. But generally, humans have a history of expansion, so we can't just keep finding excuses to bomb that part of the world without thinking of long term consequences. America, being the most hated nation in the Middle East, has no business getting involved in Iraq-Syrian civil wars, wars caused by America being dumb in 2003.
I'm not talking about simple expansion, i'm talking about conquering and implementing their way of life which is being done in Europe now. ISIS taking over Iraq (a land that thousands gave their lives for wrong or right) is not a good look for long term security. You can't tell me that zealots like this would turn their targets on America eventually. Don't tell me that others around the world are making moves that they are. They are also an offshoot of Al Qaeda, so by default, they gonna have the same ideology, but it's proven worse. The problem with not getting involved is that America was looking bad when they didn't get involved in places like Rwanda. We are in the end on one planet and hiding behind borders isn't going to cut it. Maybe bombing isn't a good look, but telling them to put down their bombs first isn't going to work either. They could have taken the King approach. They don't have an argument to stand on for their actions. If America wasn't helping in other regions simultaneously through various means. The decisions that Bush made aren't the same decisions that are presented now. There is active slaughtering and attempted genocide is actually happening.
So why aren't Sunni nations doing more to put down or contain ISIS if they are such a threat? Iran and Syria are containing ISIS, with Russian help, no need for America to butt in. Why does it have to be Americans that do all the fighting, I don't see any Sunni Muslim nations standing up to ISIS. Do they privately support ISIS or are they WISE enough to not butt in a civil war? Yes ISIS is an offshoot of Al-Qaeda but sources are already saying Americans getting involved is making the problem go worse, you already know America is seen (rightly) as the Great Satan in that part of the world. Hell, even Iran doesn't want America getting involved. ISIS is tied down fighting a civil war against Iraqi govt and Syrian president Assad, ZERO reason for America to make this a messier situation. You admit yourself bombing isn't a good look, so I say let the nations around ISIS take care of them. I GUARANTEE ISIS will become a bigger threat BECAUSE America is aiding the Syrian rebels and getting involved. The game of wack a mole will grow and grow, as America's enemies laugh as it FOOLISHLY gets tangled in this web again.
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »Iran: yeah, we weren't supporting the guys that overthrew the Shah in 1979. we were supporting the Shah. remember why they stormed the embassy?
True, but we did overthrow their democratically-elected prime minister so that we could re-install the Shah dictator, and that's why they stormed the embassy and that's also what sparked the Iranian revolution that put in an anti-American regime that has lasted even today. You probably know all of that, but I think that that was what homie was getting at. It's still blowback.we need to take care of the problem ourselves instead of helping so called moderates.
unless they are under our direct command no help
I don't support the war, but if we have to go to war, then the people should vote on it through their representatives in Congress, and if the vote is yes, then we should actually formally declare war, go all out to complete the necessary war objectives once and for all, and then finally pull out instead of pussyfooting around like we've done for the last half century. Though this is all much easier said than done...
That's not how War works at all. You aren't going anywhere because soon as you leave, someone else takes over. America stayed in Germany and Japan for years after they were defeated to insure that their success remains. The only way around that is to do what was done in Iran, install a puppet leader but make sure he has the same infrastructure you built. Easier said then done as evidenced by the overthrow. Even then, after hundreds of years of rule, you may get something like what happened in Scotland where people still desire independence.
They were part of England in overall good standing long enough to convince some that that was too much of a dramatic rule even though they do seek more autonomy. The only way to win a war in the Middle east, is to affect the majority culturally and you have to be around to do that. Still, a minority just may have enough ? to shift control like Saddam did when he first came to power. The bottom line to me is, they attacked our land and have a chance to do it again. People claim America incited them, but Muslims have been conquering lands to spread their influence for centuries so i don't trust that they would leave us alone if we left them alone. See Africa for example.
Solid points but how you figure ISIS attacked our land? We've been the ones on offense against them. And America did and does incite situations in the Middle East, people warned America to not get involved in a civil war and here we are now.
I do agree though that Muslims have a long history of expansion activities and there are doing this in some parts of Africa without a doubt. But generally, humans have a history of expansion, so we can't just keep finding excuses to bomb that part of the world without thinking of long term consequences. America, being the most hated nation in the Middle East, has no business getting involved in Iraq-Syrian civil wars, wars caused by America being dumb in 2003.
I'm not talking about simple expansion, i'm talking about conquering and implementing their way of life which is being done in Europe now. ISIS taking over Iraq (a land that thousands gave their lives for wrong or right) is not a good look for long term security. You can't tell me that zealots like this would turn their targets on America eventually. Don't tell me that others around the world are making moves that they are. They are also an offshoot of Al Qaeda, so by default, they gonna have the same ideology, but it's proven worse. The problem with not getting involved is that America was looking bad when they didn't get involved in places like Rwanda. We are in the end on one planet and hiding behind borders isn't going to cut it. Maybe bombing isn't a good look, but telling them to put down their bombs first isn't going to work either. They could have taken the King approach. They don't have an argument to stand on for their actions. If America wasn't helping in other regions simultaneously through various means. The decisions that Bush made aren't the same decisions that are presented now. There is active slaughtering and attempted genocide is actually happening.
So why aren't Sunni nations doing more to put down or contain ISIS if they are such a threat? Iran and Syria are containing ISIS, with Russian help, no need for America to butt in. Why does it have to be Americans that do all the fighting, I don't see any Sunni Muslim nations standing up to ISIS. Do they privately support ISIS or are they WISE enough to not butt in a civil war? Yes ISIS is an offshoot of Al-Qaeda but sources are already saying Americans getting involved is making the problem go worse, you already know America is seen (rightly) as the Great Satan in that part of the world. Hell, even Iran doesn't want America getting involved. ISIS is tied down fighting a civil war against Iraqi govt and Syrian president Assad, ZERO reason for America to make this a messier situation. You admit yourself bombing isn't a good look, so I say let the nations around ISIS take care of them. I GUARANTEE ISIS will become a bigger threat BECAUSE America is aiding the Syrian rebels and getting involved. The game of wack a mole will grow and grow, as America's enemies laugh as it FOOLISHLY gets tangled in this web again.
Idk why Middle East countries aren't doing more, but ? them. They are mostly pieces of ? without a leg to stand on anyway. This ? has interest that reaches us. Its not good to have a reckless terrorist free zone existing anywhere in the world. ? Russia. I'm not going to explain anything further regarding them. They've been a far bigger enemy to our way of life the Muslims and the last 50 years is proof of that. They concerned about themselves so let them cook but they can't eat at our table. The way i see it, you might as well show good faith no matter the situation with the moderates because their intentions are good. They aren't aligned with ISIS. They fought each other and had a cease fire. The world is a web bro. No way to untangle yourself. We been involved and ? only gonna get worse for them if the don't ease up selecta. It would be a simple civil war if ISIS then run up on the set claiming cross border connections. They did this to themselves trying to reach for the stars and importing and influencing fanatics in Europe and here with their savy media techniques. ? like that can't go unchecked because then planes start crashing into buildings and fools claim ignorance about the facts. ? their feelings. ISIS gonna get caught up like Al Qaeda focusing on little ? like blowing up their own people. Yo. The French just caught 75 ISIS bodies today. Viva la France. -
FuriousOne wrote: »That's not how War works at all. You aren't going anywhere because soon as you leave, someone else takes over. America stayed in Germany and Japan for years after they were defeated to insure that their success remains. The only way around that is to do what was done in Iran, install a puppet leader but make sure he has the same infrastructure you built. Easier said then done as evidenced by the overthrow. Even then, after hundreds of years of rule, you may get something like what happened in Scotland where people still desire independence.
Yeah, I know. I was hoping that my "Though this is all much easier said than done" conveyed that. If I'm not mistaken, we still have "troops" in Germany and Japan. I'm actually against the wars though.
I still disagree to a small extent though. If the United States effected a non-interventionist policy (which, as it stands today, will not), then we could literally pull out completely after winning a war. The problem lies in what are objective would be. If our objective was to exploit the region for profit (and I believe that this is mostly the case), then pulling out completely would be impossible. However, if our objective was to, say, capture and try an international terrorist (e.g. Osama bin Laden and the original intent for the war in Afghanistan), then I don't see any reason why we can't capture or ? the terrorist (or depose him if he's a national leader) and then completely pull out...
Well, now that I think about it, I think that you're exactly right. Even if we take out an international terrorist, we'd still have to take out his buddies and secure the area because if we pull out, someone else will take his place and do the same thing, which would force us to go back and take care of business, and the cycle continues.
My bottom line is that I'm against the wars because they're not justifiable (among other things) and therefore shouldn't be fought for. The best alternative to war is to avoid it altogether, but we have provoked it and made it worse. For over half a century, our foreign policy has created the anti-American sentiment that has caused these groups to attack us. We need to fix our foreign policy in order to stop the cycle of war.FuriousOne wrote: »They were part of England in overall good standing long enough to convince some that that was too much of a dramatic rule even though they do seek more autonomy. The only way to win a war in the Middle east, is to affect the majority culturally and you have to be around to do that. Still, a minority just may have enough ? to shift control like Saddam did when he first came to power. The bottom line to me is, they attacked our land and have a chance to do it again. People claim America incited them, but Muslims have been conquering lands to spread their influence for centuries so i don't trust that they would leave us alone if we left them alone. See Africa for example.
But America has incited them! And "them" and "Muslims" seem like pretty big generalizations. And the world has changed a lot since Muhammad's days. Iran is a Muslim country, and I've heard that it hasn't invaded a country in the last 150 years. Yet, for the past decade, we've treated Iran like it was Soviet Russia, which had a thousand nuclear weapons. Like Iraq's nonexistent WMDs, Iran still doesn't have one nuclear weapon. -
read his post again; he explicitly talks about groups WE ARMED, and compares them to the Viet Cong and the mujaheddin. but we did not arm the first two and the situations are really not comparable across the board either way.
Yeah, I know that. He was wrong there, and you're right. But he's still right about his general point about how what we do backfires on us. Besides, we did sell weapons to Iran via Iran-Contra. I know that that wasn't '79, but it shortly after that.
I disagree about the mujaheddin point. I believe that we armed them or, at the very least, gave them money to buy arms. Either case is as guilty as the other. And regardless, it backfired on us.also, they specifically stormed the embassy the Shah was in the US for medical treatment. remember, it wasn't stormed the second they overthrew him; the revolution predates it by quite some time.
Oh, ? . You're right about that. My bad.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »That's not how War works at all. You aren't going anywhere because soon as you leave, someone else takes over. America stayed in Germany and Japan for years after they were defeated to insure that their success remains. The only way around that is to do what was done in Iran, install a puppet leader but make sure he has the same infrastructure you built. Easier said then done as evidenced by the overthrow. Even then, after hundreds of years of rule, you may get something like what happened in Scotland where people still desire independence.
Yeah, I know. I was hoping that my "Though this is all much easier said than done" conveyed that. If I'm not mistaken, we still have "troops" in Germany and Japan. I'm actually against the wars though.
I still disagree to a small extent though. If the United States effected a non-interventionist policy (which, as it stands today, will not), then we could literally pull out completely after winning a war. The problem lies in what are objective would be. If our objective was to exploit the region for profit (and I believe that this is mostly the case), then pulling out completely would be impossible. However, if our objective was to, say, capture and try an international terrorist (e.g. Osama bin Laden and the original intent for the war in Afghanistan), then I don't see any reason why we can't capture or ? the terrorist (or depose him if he's a national leader) and then completely pull out...
Well, now that I think about it, I think that you're exactly right. Even if we take out an international terrorist, we'd still have to take out his buddies and secure the area because if we pull out, someone else will take his place and do the same thing, which would force us to go back and take care of business, and the cycle continues.
My bottom line is that I'm against the wars because they're not justifiable (among other things) and therefore shouldn't be fought for. The best alternative to war is to avoid it altogether, but we have provoked it and made it worse. For over half a century, our foreign policy has created the anti-American sentiment that has caused these groups to attack us. We need to fix our foreign policy in order to stop the cycle of war.FuriousOne wrote: »They were part of England in overall good standing long enough to convince some that that was too much of a dramatic rule even though they do seek more autonomy. The only way to win a war in the Middle east, is to affect the majority culturally and you have to be around to do that. Still, a minority just may have enough ? to shift control like Saddam did when he first came to power. The bottom line to me is, they attacked our land and have a chance to do it again. People claim America incited them, but Muslims have been conquering lands to spread their influence for centuries so i don't trust that they would leave us alone if we left them alone. See Africa for example.
But America has incited them! And "them" and "Muslims" seem like pretty big generalizations. And the world has changed a lot since Muhammad's days. Iran is a Muslim country, and I've heard that it hasn't invaded a country in the last 150 years. Yet, for the past decade, we've treated Iran like it was Soviet Russia, which had a thousand nuclear weapons. Like Iraq's nonexistent WMDs, Iran still doesn't have one nuclear weapon.
All wars aren't unjustifiable because you can't not fight all wars. People keep conflating multiple issues. Bush doing what he did was unjustifiable in Iraq, Afghanistan, not so much. What was the justification for them attacking us during 911 after we aided them against the Russians? Embargoes are usually our first go to until they get too active but even that causes deaths. So they didn't try to invade Israel? I know we not a big fan of Israel but that does count. Let's not act like this isn't how this entire mess started. Before that, Turkish Muslims had a vast empire which didn't end until 1922. That's less then 150 years. I mention Muslims and say them because that is the banner they carry when they on their mission.
We obviously not focused on Buddhist terrorism and Muslims team up with one another through insurgency and outside funding. I'm talking about whatever Muslim focus group that is intent on attacking us any way they can. I'm not even talking about Iran. For whatever issue we have with them, they haven't been physically active. If they want to start something, it can be something. Regardless, i wouldn't call Muslims bombing the world over not encroaching on other lands. Their people are already there and they are trying to import their laws in other lands. All invasions don't have to be blatant ones. Speaking of Russia. We've been treating Russia just like Iran recently with sanctions. Like i said before, the Iraq mission was a mistake, but this isn't the same. This is an overt group that is plotting more widespread mayhem. The cat is out of the bag already. -
the "first two" are the Iranians (#1) and the Viet Cong (#2). the mujaheddin are the #3 group in that sentence.kingblaze84 wrote: »LOL I always laugh when you say American weapons and money did not indirectly help out the mujahadeen back in the 80s
...also, i have always, ALWAYS stated that American weapons/money went to the mujaheddin indirectly back in the 1970s and 1980s in threads where i am actually talking about them; what i am usually pointing is that it wasn't direct, we didn't fund UBL, etc. so where does this "i always say nothing ever got to them from the US" theory come from? because it CAN'T be from reading my past posts.
ding ding dingFuriousOne wrote: »I think he was mainly speaking about the Vietcong and Iran.
well, the thing is, the larger point of blowback is entirely ruined by using a very specific and inaccurate example. so if that's your argument... well, i'm going to dump on THAT and not really worry about your larger conclusions.Yeah, I know that. He was wrong there, and you're right. But he's still right about his general point about how what we do backfires on us. Besides, we did sell weapons to Iran via Iran-Contra. I know that that wasn't '79, but it shortly after that.
Iran-Contra, aside from the EXACT timing, also comes right back to simply not being an example of arming groups for reason X and then having it come back to haunt us in circumstance Y.
okay, since i worded this awkwardly, let me be clear: i am saying we didn't arm the VC/Iranians and, also, that none of three situations should be directly compared.I disagree about the mujaheddin point. I believe that we armed them or, at the very least, gave them money to buy arms. Either case is as guilty as the other. And regardless, it backfired on us.
the internet is a cruel mistressOh, ? . You're right about that. My bad.
side note: this dismissive "with Russian help" highlights a large problem with your complaints about nations interfering in other nations.kingblaze84 wrote: »So why aren't Sunni nations doing more to put down or contain ISIS if they are such a threat? Iran and Syria are containing ISIS, with Russian help, no need for America to butt in. -
@janklow
Okay I hear your clarification. So we on the same page on the American and 1980s mujahedeen situation. The reason some people say America gave Osama and the mujahedeen direct support is because CIA and other agencies knew Islamists were getting all these weapons from Pakistan and other front nations.
As far as Russia working against ISIS, I merely am responding to the people who are saying America must do more, when 3 nations are already working against them. Whether the Russians SHOULD do this is a whole other issue. -
@FuriousOne
I hear what you saying but there's a huge problem with what you said about America being connected to the world....America's HORRIBLE track record in the Middle East the last 50 years. It's a very ? history we have there and like others are saying here, America isn't solving any problems there, it obviously makes things worse there. Americans tend to not realize this because the media constantly sugar coats how hated America is in that region, but if you watch the news enough, you'll realize America getting involved in this civil war is gonna explode the situation. Jihadists from 70 nations are DYING to come to Syria and Iraq now, they badly want to shoot down American planes and capture one of those 1,600 American soldiers on the ground. This is a hornet's nest and frankly, this has potential to end even worse then the Iraq war. This could be the war that eventually breaks America into another failed empire in history, just like 3rd world Spain, Egypt, and parts of Portugal. Italy had an empire and their govt is so broke now trash piles up all over cities in Italy. Playing war games forever is NOT a good thing, I say this as a student of history. America in some ways is already a 3rd world nation, this ain't the time to be picking another fight that won't end well. I have ZERO faith in American military to solve problems in the Middle East, this should be obvious to anyone.
I agree the Middle East has weak ass armies and it's the main reason Israel can get away with anything it wants, but Turkey has a powerful military and Saudi Arabia has a large military force with lots of money behind it. They just want America to do its ? work because they know Americans love to fight and are paranoid. ISIS is in a civil war, that's the main reason nations around it aren't doing much. Neither should America, although I do feel sorry for the Kurds and even the Christians who are being slaughtered off. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »@FuriousOne
I hear what you saying but there's a huge problem with what you said about America being connected to the world....America's HORRIBLE track record in the Middle East the last 50 years. It's a very ? history we have there and like others are saying here, America isn't solving any problems there, it obviously makes things worse there. Americans tend to not realize this because the media constantly sugar coats how hated America is in that region, but if you watch the news enough, you'll realize America getting involved in this civil war is gonna explode the situation. Jihadists from 70 nations are DYING to come to Syria and Iraq now, they badly want to shoot down American planes and capture one of those 1,600 American soldiers on the ground. This is a hornet's nest and frankly, this has potential to end even worse then the Iraq war. This could be the war that eventually breaks America into another failed empire in history, just like 3rd world Spain, Egypt, and parts of Portugal. Italy had an empire and their govt is so broke now trash piles up all over cities in Italy. Playing war games forever is NOT a good thing, I say this as a student of history. America in some ways is already a 3rd world nation, this ain't the time to be picking another fight that won't end well. I have ZERO faith in American military to solve problems in the Middle East, this should be obvious to anyone.
I agree the Middle East has weak ass armies and it's the main reason Israel can get away with anything it wants, but Turkey has a powerful military and Saudi Arabia has a large military force with lots of money behind it. They just want America to do its ? work because they know Americans love to fight and are paranoid. ISIS is in a civil war, that's the main reason nations around it aren't doing much. Neither should America, although I do feel sorry for the Kurds and even the Christians who are being slaughtered off.
Actually, America didn't ? with anybody until the 70s when they saw Russia making power moves. I'm sure other ? was involved too. Britain is more directly responsible for this ? . But then, America fought Britain too so, it's not like we not willing to go in on non Arab countries. Materfact, America even ? Spain up which is what caused their overall collapse. We actually have friendly relations with most middle east Nations. It may be shady dealings intertwined, but that's how nation states work. They work with one another but try to gain the most benefit for their citizens which is why spying exist and has always existed to a degree. The main reasons nations around ISIS isn't doing anything is because they don't want to spark ISIS minded individuals to turn on them. If they see money available in working with ISIS, they will do it.
I'm sure they don't want to work with ISIS, and they don't want to strike out against them because they are too close to threat region and can have far greater backlash then the United States. Also, Saudi Arabia and other countries have helped us or at least went in alone in the past but they don't advertise it. For the most part though, Americans have bought the Middle East money for their oil and didn't take over their production like Britain did. We showed them how to eat which is why Saudi Arabia can talk one way on the surface and act indignant, but they know what's up. Their military isn't ? compared to ours and Iran has shown that they can't even keep up with ISIS with their so called best people on deck. Russia already got that work in Afghanistan and they are on the wrong side of history. They should fall way back. If Americans would ? and let Drone tech shine, there wouldn't be as many American deaths.
We lost 3000 citizens out the gate, so soldiers that committed to defending their brethren signed up to make sure that ? don't go down again. Like i said before, it was a civil war until ISIS started recruiting from abroad and crossing boarders. ? is different now. We can't allow them to create a Calafate with the ? they preaching. Period. Has ? all to do with past engagements or who's right and wrong. I'm thinking, when the dust settles, Saudi Arabia will not be able to hide behind their oil. We shaking off Oil dependence anyway. Last statement. We are not an empire, but we are influential. America at one point at an iron curtain and survived on its own. I don't think the rest of the world wants that though. We ? , and they ? themselves. I'm thinking, if we help the Kurds, then that's even more of a bargaining chip to keep Turkey's ? ass in line and have a base right smack in the middle of an overtly friendly ally. The Kurds should carve out Iraq and Syria to make their own country. I would rather them then ISIS. Besides their religion, they seem to be a more honorable people.
