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

[janklow]

I didn't say America has to completely sit this one out, I'm all for sending humanitarian aid.

humanitarian aid without projecting power (like we have done in Syria) is in many respects a recipe for throwing money at a situation only to gain zero credit for it. should we blow shit up to get a little credit? maybe not, but it is what it is.

But taking sides in an Iraqi civil war that was largely started because of America being nosy and greedy for petrodollar status is not the wise thing to do.

see, i still take issue with this because it completely ignores the fact that Iraqis are, in fact, independent actors, many of whom choose to have sectarian beefs and feud for personal gain. Maliki's probably an overused example, but Americans did not force him to be a selfish, short-sighted asshole.

I know Jordan and Turkey have done minor things to contain ISIS but they so far aren't sending in massive amounts of troops to take on ISIS, so I see no reason for America to be so threatened by them. Turkey has a big military and is part of NATO, so what the fuck. Jordan and Saudi Arabia have tons of military weapons and armor from America, what are they using it for, playing GI Joes?

there is a large element of free-riding from countries like Saudi Arabia, but i'm not sure everyone involved has the military power that you believe they do. some of this comes back to, as i have said before, a military that never gets used not really being an impressive or effective thing, despite how much you spend on it. i would submit that Jordan's contributions are more subtle but not "minor."

Amazingly, you are correct in that there are more REPUBLICANS then Democrats now (publicly at least) who are anti-US military action. What the hell happened to the Democrat party? I have a hard time recognizing the difference btw the two when it comes to foreign policy lately.

remember how the Democrats all voted for the Iraq War?

and then their excuse was "Bush lied to us" and Democrats ate it up because it suited their narrative of Their Side being the honest and just one?

and yet it's the same kind of people (hello Feinstein) who have the same unquestioning attitudes now.

so maybe instead of saying "what happened to the Democrats," it's time to say "wait, nothing happened to them, they're the same people they were all along."

 

[kingblaze84]

I didn't say America has to completely sit this one out, I'm all for sending humanitarian aid.

humanitarian aid without projecting power (like we have done in Syria) is in many respects a recipe for throwing money at a situation only to gain zero credit for it. should we blow shit up to get a little credit? maybe not, but it is what it is.

But taking sides in an Iraqi civil war that was largely started because of America being nosy and greedy for petrodollar status is not the wise thing to do.

see, i still take issue with this because it completely ignores the fact that Iraqis are, in fact, independent actors, many of whom choose to have sectarian beefs and feud for personal gain. Maliki's probably an overused example, but Americans did not force him to be a selfish, short-sighted asshole.

I know Jordan and Turkey have done minor things to contain ISIS but they so far aren't sending in massive amounts of troops to take on ISIS, so I see no reason for America to be so threatened by them. Turkey has a big military and is part of NATO, so what the fuck. Jordan and Saudi Arabia have tons of military weapons and armor from America, what are they using it for, playing GI Joes?

there is a large element of free-riding from countries like Saudi Arabia, but i'm not sure everyone involved has the military power that you believe they do. some of this comes back to, as i have said before, a military that never gets used not really being an impressive or effective thing, despite how much you spend on it. i would submit that Jordan's contributions are more subtle but not "minor."

Amazingly, you are correct in that there are more REPUBLICANS then Democrats now (publicly at least) who are anti-US military action. What the hell happened to the Democrat party? I have a hard time recognizing the difference btw the two when it comes to foreign policy lately.

remember how the Democrats all voted for the Iraq War?

and then their excuse was "Bush lied to us" and Democrats ate it up because it suited their narrative of Their Side being the honest and just one?

and yet it's the same kind of people (hello Feinstein) who have the same unquestioning attitudes now.

so maybe instead of saying "what happened to the Democrats," it's time to say "wait, nothing happened to them, they're the same people they were all along."

I agree America isn't completely responsible for Iraq's problems, Maliki was a jerk off and he committed war and political crimes against his own people, especially the Sunnis. He badly mistreated him, and it's one reason why ISIS got so big. Legit grievances turned to an all out war against anything affiliated with the corrupt Iraqi govt, a war that in the end, only the region can help settle down.

Perhaps the Middle East doesn't have the military we hope for, but it's no reason for America to babysit them. Iran has a very capable military and if Turkey is pushed to the limit, their military will surprise many people. They're a member of NATO and as we all remember, the Turks had a very powerful Ottoman Empire for a long time. I'm sure a lot of that military prowess they had in the past didn't COMPLETELY go away. While Saudi Arabia and Jordan probably don't have the most capable forces, they still have BILLIONS of dollars worth of air planes and equipment. With ALLLL that oil money, I'm sure they could do more to take on ISIS. I am NOT willing to fight battles for Saudi Arabia and Qatar. They have filthy rich oil money and tons of American equipment, fuck their laziness. If ISIS overreaches, I'm confident the regional players will then step up. It's not like America is seen as the good guy in the region anyway.

Fully agreed on the Democrats, it's why I consider myself an independent.

 

[kingblaze84]

@kingblaze84

How we deal with the mid-east and how we deal with china are night and day reactions, china may be evil but it's a logical and organized state. and we already have troops in japan and south korea just incase. Russia has historically held influence in eastern europe especially in ukraine i am more than willing to respect their power in that region to a point. and anyway these are real nations with nuclear weapons so how we treat them should reflect that reality unlike isis

the nigerian army needs to link with america and destroy boko haram by any means. i am running on pure logic when it come to the mid-east you down play how dangerous so called islamic extremism is. it's one of the ultimate long term threats to human civilization and must be destroyed.

all the nations you mentioned are not really doing a fucking thing they are pinching isis, but isis needs a fucking bullet to the head.

you like some other so called mid -east experts don't present any solutions to the problems all you want to do is hide and hope that some one else fixes the problems that in some cases we caused but that's called being irresponsible like it or not iraq is a problem we have to fix

I'm not downplaying Islamic extremism, I've said several times it is a danger to the world. But most Muslims aren't terrorists and most just want to live a normal life, so there's no need to wage neverending wars against them. Like Alkindus said in another thread, many of them are already fighting the battles for us. You hate Iran and Assad, but what's the alternative, sending in American troops who are hated in that region to be tortured and beheaded? America makes things worse in the region, why can't you fucking see that. I don't want to see Americans fight civil wars for other countries.

ISIS is being pinched and maybe isn't being hurt too much by the regional forces, but at least ISIS isn't an imminent threat to America. Not my words, those are the words of Obama and the military. If ISIS isn't an imminent threat, then no need to fix the problem. I am very confident the region will take care of ISIS down the line and IF THEY DON'T, ISIS needs to be dealt with the way we deal with let's say, North Korea. North Korea is always threatening to send nuclear bombs to America, but you don't see America rushing in to take out NK leadership. ISIS is a rogue nation at this point, and America getting involved will only make them bigger legends in the region. America and the west have an evil history in that region, so western nations getting involved will only build more recruitment for ISIS. ISIS recruitment has INCREASED since America began bombing them. Let Iran and Assad fight ISIS and let the Sunnis whine like little bitches about it. I don't see the Sunni nations doing shit, so if Iran and Assad fighting ISIS causes sectarian beef, FUCK IT. The Sunnis and Shiites have been killing and raping each other for 1400 years anyway, nothing will change no matter what we do. We might as well stay out of it.

 

[kingblaze84]

http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:arc:video:thedailyshow.com:6489d794-ca27-44d3-8616-828216f4b2f9

Jon Stewart making fun of people who are whining and scared shitless of ISIS, when American govt officals are admitting ISIS is NOT an imminent threat to America

 

[janklow]

I agree America isn't completely responsible for Iraq's problems, Maliki was a jerk off and he committed war and political crimes against his own people, especially the Sunnis.

and honestly, sometimes you might need an outside broker to get past stuff like that. whether or not the US is the best choice for that is, i guess, the debate.

Iran has a very capable military-

debatable due to my "when was the last time it did shit" thesis, which i suppose doesn't prove it's NOT capable.

-and if Turkey is pushed to the limit, their military will surprise many people. They're a member of NATO and as we all remember, the Turks had a very powerful Ottoman Empire for a long time. I'm sure a lot of that military prowess they had in the past didn't COMPLETELY go away.

going to be honest: "the Ottoman Empire was once powerful" is the worst argument for Turkey's competence i have heard in a long time. we could also point out that for a long time, the Ottoman Empire ran all these drama-filled Middle Eastern nations, so they should be able to control them now...

anyway, i DO remain seriously disappointed in the Turks.

While Saudi Arabia and Jordan probably don't have the most capable forces, they still have BILLIONS of dollars worth of air planes and equipment. With ALLLL that oil money, I'm sure they could do more to take on ISIS.

but this still comes back to whether or not they can actually DO SHIT with all that oil money. not going to argue the merits of whether or not they should do more (or all) of the real work, but i would submit that if some groups mistrust Iran because of the Shiite thing, others might distrust SA... anyway, though, maybe an interesting stance is less "they should handle this" and more "they should use this as an opportunity to see what they can handle." flights alongside the US, for example, would be a good start.

Fully agreed on the Democrats, it's why I consider myself an independent.

well, anyway, single-issue voter here, fuck those guys

 

[mc317]

When do we fucking learn? We armed the Viet Congs 1960's, mujahedeen1987, Iran 1979, this fuckin 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. Fuck who gets mad we run the world towel heads can eat a dick. We invaded Iraq we got nothing out of that shit gas didn't drop one cent.

 

[kingblaze84]

When do we fucking learn? We armed the Viet Congs 1960's, mujahedeen1987, Iran 1979, this fuckin 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. Fuck who gets mad we run the world towel heads can eat a dick. We invaded Iraq we got nothing out of that shit 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 shit.....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 dummy Americans the air strikes in August would be a bad idea, now look what the fuck we've gotten into.

American politicians are some of the dumbest brands of idiots the world has ever known.

 

[janklow]

When do we fucking learn? We armed the Viet Congs 1960's, mujahedeen1987, Iran 1979, this fuckin backfires 99% of the time.

uh... what is going on here

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?

 

[kingblaze84]

American politicians today just gave ISIS I mean Syrian rebels 500 million dollars in bullets, weapons, aid, and god knows what else. This couldn't possibly go wrong....

 

[soul rattler]

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

 

[kingblaze84]

Rand Paul slams Obama's and Congress' foolish plan to arm Syrian rebels


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.

 

[zombie]

we need to take care of the problem ourselves instead of helping so called moderates.

unless they are under our direct command no help

 

[Plutarch]

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 balls to join the military and practice what we're preaching so much about. That asshole Dick Cheney, the worst of the warmongers, got five draft deferments to avoid Vietnam, but now he's talking shit 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.

 

[Plutarch]

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...

 

[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.

 

[janklow]

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.

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.

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.

 

[kingblaze84]

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.

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.

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.

 

[kingblaze84]

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

 

[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.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

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.

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.

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.