ISIS Strikes Deal With Moderate Syrian Rebels that Obama wanted to support.

[Jabu_Rule]

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 balls 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.

 

[kingblaze84]

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 balls 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.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

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 balls 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 fuck them. They are mostly pieces of shit without a leg to stand on anyway. This shit has interest that reaches us. Its not good to have a reckless terrorist free zone existing anywhere in the world. Fuck 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 shit 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. Shit like that can't go unchecked because then planes start crashing into buildings and fools claim ignorance about the facts. Fuck their feelings. ISIS gonna get caught up like Al Qaeda focusing on little shit like blowing up their own people. Yo. The French just caught 75 ISIS bodies today. Viva la France.

 

[Plutarch]

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 kill 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.

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 balls 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.

 

[Plutarch]

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, shit. You're right about that. My bad.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

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 kill 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.

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 balls 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.

 

[janklow]

LOL I always laugh when you say American weapons and money did not indirectly help out the mujahadeen back in the 80s

the "first two" are the Iranians (#1) and the Viet Cong (#2). the mujaheddin are the #3 group in that sentence.

...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.

I think he was mainly speaking about the Vietcong and Iran.

ding ding ding

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Oh, shit. You're right about that. My bad.

the internet is a cruel mistress

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.

side note: this dismissive "with Russian help" highlights a large problem with your complaints about nations interfering in other nations.

 

[kingblaze84]

@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.

 

[kingblaze84]

@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 bloody 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 dirty 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.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

@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 bloody 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 dirty 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 fuck with anybody until the 70s when they saw Russia making power moves. I'm sure other shit was involved too. Britain is more directly responsible for this clusterfuck. But then, America fought Britain too so, it's not like we not willing to go in on non Arab countries. Materfact, America even fucked 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 shit 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 stfu 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 shit don't go down again. Like i said before, it was a civil war until ISIS started recruiting from abroad and crossing boarders. Shit is different now. We can't allow them to create a Calafate with the shit they preaching. Period. Has shit 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 fart, and they shit themselves. I'm thinking, if we help the Kurds, then that's even more of a bargaining chip to keep Turkey's bitch 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.

 

[zombie]

look at the end of the day Isis has to be destroyed and seemingly we are the only ones willing and capable to do it. all this talk about our history in the mid east is nonsense. it is what it is and we have to deal with it

 

[zombie]

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 kill 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.

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 balls 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.

because we are dealing with religiously motivated fighters the only way to stop the cycle of wars is with their total defeat and humiliation. or our complete withdrawal. the former takes lots of blood and money the later is out of the question because it creates more potential problems.

 

[kingblaze84]

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 kill 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.

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 balls 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.

because we are dealing with religiously motivated fighters the only way to stop the cycle of wars is with their total defeat and humiliation. or our complete withdrawal. the former takes lots of blood and money the later is out of the question because it creates more potential problems.

This isn't a job for America to do. Babysitting the Middle East isn't America's job,our job is to protect our borders and make sure the homeland is safe. Getting involved in a civil war half a world away will only create more enemies for America, read what intelligence officials are saying all over the world. Out of all the bad choices, getting involved is the worst one. ISIS recruitment is increasing ever since America got involved,but I guess you want ISIS to grow in numbers.

 

[kingblaze84]

 

[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.

i an going to submit that people saying this based on many, many varied conspiracies that say things like "the CIA trained UBL" or "we armed the Taliban"

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.

keep in mind, though, that you're stating it as a reason for the US to not get involved, as if 'Russia has it covered,' as opposed to just "people shouldn't be doing this kind of thing"

 

[kingblaze84]

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.

i an going to submit that people saying this based on many, many varied conspiracies that say things like "the CIA trained UBL" or "we armed the Taliban"

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.

keep in mind, though, that you're stating it as a reason for the US to not get involved, as if 'Russia has it covered,' as opposed to just "people shouldn't be doing this kind of thing"

Considering how close Russia is to Asia (some parts of Russia are in Asia), I don't blame Russia too much for getting involved. Russia doesn't have a great history in the Middle East, but it still is quite close to Iraq and Syria. Russia is also allies of Syrian president Assad AND the Iraqi president, but notice Russians themselves aren't doing the bombing so far. It's because they are sensitive to its history of the brutal campaign in Afghanistan back in the 80s.

I really don't mind outside nations backing up their allies or whatever, I just don't want America aka the Great Satan to get involved. America's reputation in that part of the world is tarnished because of our horrible support for Israel's evil govt, and other things American govt has done in that region, so it's best for America to stay out of this mess for now. Sadly it may be too late for that........

 

[Jabu_Rule]

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.

i an going to submit that people saying this based on many, many varied conspiracies that say things like "the CIA trained UBL" or "we armed the Taliban"

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.

keep in mind, though, that you're stating it as a reason for the US to not get involved, as if 'Russia has it covered,' as opposed to just "people shouldn't be doing this kind of thing"

Considering how close Russia is to Asia (some parts of Russia are in Asia), I don't blame Russia too much for getting involved. Russia doesn't have a great history in the Middle East, but it still is quite close to Iraq and Syria. Russia is also allies of Syrian president Assad AND the Iraqi president, but notice Russians themselves aren't doing the bombing so far. It's because they are sensitive to its history of the brutal campaign in Afghanistan back in the 80s.

I really don't mind outside nations backing up their allies or whatever, I just don't want America aka the Great Satan to get involved. America's reputation in that part of the world is tarnished because of our horrible support for Israel's evil govt, so it's best for America to stay out of this mess for now. Sadly it may be too late for that........

Our money is still good there. Fuck they feelings. They'll be alright and continue to ask for our support on the low with dealing with those backwards jihadists. Those bitches aren't sensitive to the shit that went down in Afghanistan. They have no issue with bombing Ukraine. They trying to get money like everybody else. It's not like the Afghans stood a chance without American support against Russia. Russia still mad at us over that. We gonna do them dirty in Ukraine too if they continue their saber rattling. If they were really friends with Iraq and Syria. They wouldn't be sitting on the side lines letting ISIS fuck them up.

 

[kingblaze84]

Flames Of War by ISIS, full movie....after watching this, I'm convinced ISIS badly wants American troops back in Iraq and even Syria. It seems to say they will provoke Americans into sending ground troops soon. Obama sending in the air strikes has been the perfect propaganda tool for ISIS, what's funny is that the video itself admits this....good job Obama, good job Bush.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=S-P602KxblI

 

[Jabu_Rule]

Flames Of War by ISIS, full movie....after watching this, I'm convinced ISIS badly wants American troops back in Iraq and even Syria. It seems to say they will provoke Americans into sending ground troops soon. Obama sending in the air strikes has been the perfect propaganda tool for ISIS, what's funny is that the video itself admits this....good job Obama, good job Bush.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=S-P602KxblI

What's the point of you posting these propaganda pieces? So they predicted that America would bomb them if they massacred everybody in their path? Good on them. They will get what they want, but i don't see it working out for them exactly as they predicted.

 

[kingblaze84]

Flames Of War by ISIS, full movie....after watching this, I'm convinced ISIS badly wants American troops back in Iraq and even Syria. It seems to say they will provoke Americans into sending ground troops soon. Obama sending in the air strikes has been the perfect propaganda tool for ISIS, what's funny is that the video itself admits this....good job Obama, good job Bush.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=S-P602KxblI

What's the point of you posting these propaganda pieces? So they predicted that America would bomb them if they massacred everybody in their path? Good on them. They will get what they want, but i don't see it working out for them exactly as they predicted.

I posted the video cuz I thought it was interesting, someone emailed it to me awhile ago. I agree ISIS will be very disappointed down the line, they're creating so many enemies they won't last too long. Then again, America will be disappointed fighting them as well, especially when we eventually send ground troops there.