To think that Mohammed left the ancient sites alone.
The Ottoman Empire left them alone.
1400 years of Islamic government have left them alone, and now they must go?
Orlanth wrote: To think that Mohammed left the ancient sites alone.
The Ottoman Empire left them alone.
1400 years of Islamic government have left them alone, and now they must go?
If you look at them from space (or rather from the back of a really tall donkey on top of a hill as rockets are meant for blowing up the enemies of god, not for invading the heavens) they look like a picture of mohammed and so clearly must go...
Something like a reinforce Marine Battalion there I think and a brigade from the 82nd there at BIAP. This is going to get interesting. Will Obama pull them out along with all US citizens or go on the offensive. Route Irish Bar Room Brawl up in the air
Brings to mind when that giant statue of Buddha was blown up because a group of historians wanted to restore it and the local terrorist group said something along the lines of "if you want to spend so much money on your cause then you'll have to help ours too". Though its hardly like this type of crap hasn't been going on for thousands of years, but that doesn't make it any less petty.
ISIS is attempting to destroy the shared history of the people who live in that region. If it is all gone then nobody will be able to remember a time with out Islam. That is how ISIS will make themselves legitimate.
Except for in Iran....that won't work over there interestingly.
maybe these historic sites shouldn't have provoked ISIS in the first place...
what a bunch of douches!
In all seriousness, last year some pretty awesome historical sites were also destroyed forever, unfortunately this will continue and likely get worse before it gets better.
Soladrin wrote: To be fair, if they keep destroying historical sites and other relics we won't have all that many reservations about flattening the entire area.
But we want the players in the Game of Life (combat)
We don't want a bunch of bystanders getting in the way of good bombing, shoot out, fire fight, drone, naval artillery, air strike, M1 tank, Stryker MG, MRAP though front door...
At this rate we should just break out the B52 bombers and pound the gak out of em the old fashioned way.
120 tons of HE removes everything in a large area, guaranteed.
If they want war, give them the full arsenal not some half hearted effert, in the end your fighting or your not, the military advantages the west has is enormous.
That and back Syria to help kill them, Assad is bad, ISIS is worse.
British Broadcasting Company wrote:The US says its special forces have killed a senior Islamic State (IS) member and captured his wife in a rare raid in eastern Syria.
Abu Sayyaf helped direct oil, gas and financial operations for IS, as well as holding a military role, the US Department of Defense statement said.
It said forces tried to capture him, but he was killed after engaging them.
Oil and gas have been an important source of revenue for IS, which controls territory in Syria and Iraq.
The operation was authorised by President Barack Obama and was carried out by forces based in Iraq.
None of the US troops involved in the overnight operation was killed or injured, the White House said.
It said that Abu Sayyaf's wife, Umm Sayyaf, is suspected of being an IS member and of being complicit in the enslavement of a young Yazidi woman who was rescued in the raid.
Umm Sayyaf has been taken into military detention in Iraq.
Oil and gas have been an important source of revenue for IS, which took control of large swathes of territory in Syria and Iraq last year.
Details of Abu Sayyaf's real identity were not immediately clear, and there was little information on jihadist websites, though an unnamed US official told the Associated Press that he was a Tunisian citizen.
Syrian state media reported earlier on Saturday that government forces had killed at least 40 IS fighters, including a man they described as IS's "oil minister", in an attack in Deir al-Zour province on the country's largest oil field.
The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which uses activists inside Syria, said the report was incorrectly taking credit for the US raid.
The US said the operation in Syria was conducted "with the full consent of Iraqi authorities", though Reuters news agency reported that it did not warn the Syrian government in advance.
"We have warned [President Bashar al-Assad's] regime not to interfere with our ongoing efforts against [IS] inside of Syria," it quoted National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan as saying.
One source with contacts in Deir al-Zour told the BBC that the operation lasted for about 30 minutes around dawn in the residential quarters of the al-Omar oil field, which houses about 500 families of IS fighters.
The bodies of 13 IS fighters, as well as many more who were injured, were later brought to the town of al-Mayadeen, he said.
The US has been carrying out air strikes against IS in Iraq and Syria since August last year. Shortly after they began, the Pentagon said there had been a failed ground operation in Syria to free American hostages - the only other raid inside the country that it has acknowledged.
Over the past week there has been fierce fighting against IS in both Iraq and Syria.
Iraqi forces have been battling IS in the city of Ramadi, where militants seized key buildings on Friday. In Syria, government forces have been trying to drive back IS fighters from the desert World Heritage Site of Palmyra.
On Wednesday, the Iraqi government said IS's second-in-command had been killed in a US-led coalition air strike in northern Iraq - a claim that has not been confirmed by the US.
Also this week, IS released an audio message that it said was from its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. If verified, it would be his first such message for several months.
Looks like not everything's going ISIS's way at least.
Orlanth wrote: To think that Mohammed left the ancient sites alone. The Ottoman Empire left them alone. 1400 years of Islamic government have left them alone, and now they must go?
ISIS has as much to do with the teachings of Muhammed as the Westboro Baptist Church has with the teachings of Jesus.
I tend to think that ISIS knows full well that their days are numbered, and so they do these things purely out of spite. Their leaders know that as long as they keep their followers focused on violence and hate, that gives those followers little time to actually think about what they're doing.
jhe90 wrote: At this rate we should just break out the B52 bombers and pound the gak out of em the old fashioned way.
120 tons of HE removes everything in a large area, guaranteed.
If they want war, give them the full arsenal not some half hearted effert, in the end your fighting or your not, the military advantages the west has is enormous.
That and back Syria to help kill them, Assad is bad, ISIS is worse.
Talk to me when Britain has B-52s and can do carpet bombing of anything. You go. We'll hold your coat.
Looks like not everything's going ISIS's way at least.
It really goes to show that this is what we should have been doing from the start. Our special forces and air superiority units are so kick-ass that there's really no reason to use a bulldozer to kick over an ant-hill by flooding the region with our boys. Go in quietly, kill the right people with minimal collateral damage, boom- you've dealt them a grievous blow without creating a dozen martyrs for their cause in the process.
These actions really infuriate me. This alone is all the justification we should need to steam roll these guys back to the stone age, let alone the mass slaughter they've been committing. I still can't believe people are hesitant about destroying these people.
Looks like not everything's going ISIS's way at least.
It really goes to show that this is what we should have been doing from the start. Our special forces and air superiority units are so kick-ass that there's really no reason to use a bulldozer to kick over an ant-hill by flooding the region with our boys. Go in quietly, kill the right people with minimal collateral damage, boom- you've dealt them a grievous blow without creating a dozen martyrs for their cause in the process.
Except that has been proven time and again not to work against extremists and Insurgent groups. I can't tell you the number of times we wiped out the senior Taliban/insurgent leadership in Sangin/Helmand only for new figure heads and leaders to step forwards the next day...hell we had a commander appointed within hours of us killing the last one.
With extremists their is no head to cut off. Its an all or nothing scenario and history has proven that America/Western countries lack the stomach for the All or nothing approach.
Looks like not everything's going ISIS's way at least.
It really goes to show that this is what we should have been doing from the start. Our special forces and air superiority units are so kick-ass that there's really no reason to use a bulldozer to kick over an ant-hill by flooding the region with our boys. Go in quietly, kill the right people with minimal collateral damage, boom- you've dealt them a grievous blow without creating a dozen martyrs for their cause in the process.
Except that has been proven time and again not to work against extremists and Insurgent groups. I can't tell you the number of times we wiped out the senior Taliban/insurgent leadership in Sangin/Helmand only for new figure heads and leaders to step forwards the next day...hell we had a commander appointed within hours of us killing the last one.
With extremists their is no head to cut off. Its an all or nothing scenario and history has proven that America/Western countries lack the stomach for the All or nothing approach.
Do we not do the same when someone in a leadership position get opted out be it death or wounded? They (ISIS, AQ, Taliban etc etc) are not an exception to the rule. They have individuals willing to step forward and take over when someone gets popped out of the equation. Time is on their side and they know it
Da Boss wrote: Reckon people are hesitant about getting involved in another quagmire after the costs of the previous one.
I'm afraid that, like it or not, we're going to be over there again in force within a few years.
Unfortunately, I believe you are right. Combat deployments to Iraq have already begun again and it is only a matter of time before the Iraqi government asks for an intervention to keep their government from collapsing. It actually breaks my heart to see Iraq fail this hard after having so many of my friends spend months and years in that country and having lost brothers and sisters and the mental anguish attached to many deployments.
To be honest, I find it kinda sad that ISIS is slaughtering thousands of innocent men, women and kids, but what gets people really mad is that they break a few dusty stones.
These ruins are insignificant compared to the lives being lost.
jhe90 wrote: At this rate we should just break out the B52 bombers and pound the gak out of em the old fashioned way.
120 tons of HE removes everything in a large area, guaranteed.
Including many thousands of innocents.
Take care that you do not become even worse than ISIS.
djones520 wrote: These actions really infuriate me. This alone is all the justification we should need to steam roll these guys back to the stone age, let alone the mass slaughter they've been committing. I still can't believe people are hesitant about destroying these people.
People are hesitant because pretty much every intervention by the West in the past has made things actually much worse rather than improving. You can't solve problems with violence.
Iron_Captain wrote: To be honest, I find it kinda sad that ISIS is slaughtering thousands of innocent men, women and kids, but what gets people really mad is that they break a few dusty stones.
These ruins are insignificant compared to the lives being lost.
jhe90 wrote: At this rate we should just break out the B52 bombers and pound the gak out of em the old fashioned way.
120 tons of HE removes everything in a large area, guaranteed.
Including many thousands of innocents.
Take care that you do not become even worse than ISIS.
djones520 wrote: These actions really infuriate me. This alone is all the justification we should need to steam roll these guys back to the stone age, let alone the mass slaughter they've been committing. I still can't believe people are hesitant about destroying these people.
People are hesitant because pretty much every intervention by the West in the past has made things actually much worse rather than improving. You can't solve problems with violence.
I think this guy pretty much has it right.
However, they're SPECIAL dusty stones. I'd like it if they remained piled up for a few more years.
I think it's important to consider that ISIS needs to hold territory to maintain its legitimacy as an Islamic state. If a caliph doesn't hold land than according to Islamic law he loses the authority to declare war in the name of Islam. ISIS has been pretty orthodox about that sort of thing.
Ghazkuul wrote: Except that has been proven time and again not to work against extremists and Insurgent groups.
Compared to the numerous "troop surges" and land-invasions/occupations we've initiated that clearly worked in Vietnam and the War on Terror? ISIS owes quite a bit of its existence (and success) to the full-scale operations we've been carrying out over the years.
With extremists their is no head to cut off. Its an all or nothing scenario and history has proven that America/Western countries lack the stomach for the All or nothing approach.
What in your opinion would an "all or nothing approach" be, and how does it contrast with what we've been doing since 2002?
I never said troop surges worked in the past, don't put words in my mouth. No the all or nothing approach in this matter is we either sink Trillions of dollars and millions of troops into iraq for 20+ years hoping to stabilize the country and help them attain at least partial independence (which in cases of nations like Iraq wont work) or more cold blooded, but far more effective, we should have gone in, got our missions accomplished (WMD searched...yeah, and finding Saddam) and then gotten the HELL OUT!. At least the notion of rebuilding Iraq is somewhat plausible if highly unlikely, compared to Afghanistan which is only a Nation on a Map and not in any other real sense of the word. Our Military is not equipped to nation build, they are a force of destruction and of immediate relief....that is it.
A) The country couldn't afford to spend trillions on war even in 2002- it's been 14 years and we're 5 trillion in the hole despite winding down over the past half decade. Flooding the region with "millions of troops" wouldn't be tenable either considering geopolitical realities- the "real fight" so to speak isn't in the middle east, it's in the pacific. This isn't even taking into consideration that 20 years of occupying other countries and stepping on peoples' necks would leave us in the exact same situation we're in now: a completely destabilized region filled with radicalized, pissed off people who hate the west.
B) Saddam and the WMD's had almost nothing to do with 9/11, and finding Saddam had minimal impact on the War on Terror. To the contrary, Saddam (along with Assad and Gaddafi) were lynch-pins who held the region together, and bringing them down contributed heavily to the preeminence of more radical forces like ISIS.
Neither of your suggestions address the issue, which is fighting terrorism (presumably the entire reason for why we're in the ME in the first place).
Yep, my wife laughs tells me the kids have me wrapped around their fingers. We both want them growing up knowing they are loved and how they should treat their own kids and spouse.
That's a big reason that picture got to me, because here is a kid cheated of his father, but honoring his memory. Seeing things like that make me hold my family closer. You never know how long life is, and you want to leave good things behind for your children, like the man in the picture seems to have for his son.
BlaxicanX wrote: A) The country couldn't afford to spend trillions on war even in 2002- it's been 14 years and we're 5 trillion in the hole despite winding down over the past half decade. Flooding the region with "millions of troops" wouldn't be tenable either considering geopolitical realities- the "real fight" so to speak isn't in the middle east, it's in the pacific. This isn't even taking into consideration that 20 years of occupying other countries and stepping on peoples' necks would leave us in the exact same situation we're in now: a completely destabilized region filled with radicalized, pissed off people who hate the west.
B) Saddam and the WMD's had almost nothing to do with 9/11, and finding Saddam had minimal impact on the War on Terror. To the contrary, Saddam (along with Assad and Gaddafi) were lynch-pins who held the region together, and bringing them down contributed heavily to the preeminence of more radical forces like ISIS.
Neither of your suggestions address the issue, which is fighting terrorism (presumably the entire reason for why we're in the ME in the first place).
I don't understand why you are arguing this with me. I pretty much agree with you completely. Iraq is a quagmire and nothing is going to save it. WMD's did exist and we found a bunch of them while we were in Iraq, the problem is that we were looking for NUCLEAR WMD's and we never found any of those. (Large numbers of Chemical weapons were found and Chem weapons are WMDs) As far as Saddam, yeah he was a lynchpin but he was a dictator responsible for heinous human rights crimes against him own people and tons of other infringements upon peoples rights. Yeah it was stupid to take him out but like I said, our mission was to find WMDs and find/kill Saddam. When we did that we should have pulled out.
As far as the fundamental cause of terrorism? Well in this case its extreme Islam. The only way to combat that realistically would be a region wide campaign to teach the Iraqi's how to read. That way when the Imam starts teaching them that the Koran tells them to kill Americans/Westerners so they become good Muslims, they can think for themselves...hey wait...thats not what the Koran says. And even then it wont stop because Islam is a religion easily turned towards radicalism. if the last 2,000 years of history haven't proven that I don't know what more will.
As far as the fundamental cause of terrorism? Well in this case its extreme Islam. The only way to combat that realistically would be a region wide campaign to teach the Iraqi's how to read. That way when the Imam starts teaching them that the Koran tells them to kill Americans/Westerners so they become good Muslims, they can think for themselves...hey wait...thats not what the Koran says. And even then it wont stop because Islam is a religion easily turned towards radicalism. if the last 2,000 years of history haven't proven that I don't know what more will.
You seem to be contradicting yourself here. If the problem is that people are being misled due to being unable to read the Koran themselves, how is Islam, and not lying Imams, the problem?
As far as the fundamental cause of terrorism? Well in this case its extreme Islam. The only way to combat that realistically would be a region wide campaign to teach the Iraqi's how to read. That way when the Imam starts teaching them that the Koran tells them to kill Americans/Westerners so they become good Muslims, they can think for themselves...hey wait...thats not what the Koran says. And even then it wont stop because Islam is a religion easily turned towards radicalism. if the last 2,000 years of history haven't proven that I don't know what more will.
You seem to be contradicting yourself here. If the problem is that people are being misled due to being unable to read the Koran themselves, how is Islam, and not lying Imams, the problem?
I am not contradicting myself, I clearly pointed out that one of the biggest causes of people turning to extreme islam is a lack of insight into what the religion is actually about. However, you can take a look at western countries where the literacy rate is in the 90%+ area and you still have people converting to Radical Islam. Yes a lot of it has to do with the Imams but you can't blame every part of it on them. And on top of that how do you explain the Imams themselves? These are men who have devoted their lives to the Koran and these are the ones trying to convince people to start Jihad against anyone not of the same faith. Is it because you become an Imam and turn evil or because the religion itself is easily corrupted and border line evil to begin with?
In the case of the Boston Marathon bomber, he was clearly literate, he was in college when he committed his crimes. His brother and him were found to have large amounts of radical islamic materials on their computers and in the home. The religion itself is to blame not just the Imams.
People are hesitant because pretty much every intervention by the West in the past has made things actually much worse rather than improving. You can't solve problems with violence
I am not sure how else you can stop ISIS or anything else similar?
The problem seems to be the various powers in the area and the world have different desires for who will rule Syria -
We in the West have decided Assad is no longer a man we can do buisiness with - despite all the past history and our continuing support of Saudi regime and other repressive Arab regimes.
The Russians and Iranians are still happy to do so
and the rest of the Arab world is torn between suppprting a fellow dictator and geting rid of a rival....
not sure about China?
Meanwhile religious fanatics kill, maim and destroy at will.
As far as the fundamental cause of terrorism? Well in this case its extreme Islam.
The fundamental cause of terrorism and the islamic state and w/e is western involvement in the middle east. Occupation creates a need for resistance and religious organisations happened to be the ones that could take advantage of that. Not the least because they had been armed by the west to fight leftist organisations.
People are hesitant because pretty much every intervention by the West in the past has made things actually much worse rather than improving. You can't solve problems with violence
I am not sure how else you can stop ISIS or anything else similar?
The problem seems to be the various powers in the area and the world have different desires for who will rule Syria -
We in the West have decided Assad is no longer a man we can do buisiness with - despite all the past history and our continuing support of Saudi regime and other repressive Arab regimes.
The Russians and Iranians are still happy to do so
and the rest of the Arab world is torn between suppprting a fellow dictator and geting rid of a rival....
not sure about China?
Meanwhile religious fanatics kill, maim and destroy at will.
You have to ask first where ISIS comes from and why and how it got so powerful. Take away the reasons so many people support ISIS, and ISIS will lose its power. Western violence against ISIS is exactly what they want. It confirms their ideology of (Sunni) Islam being threatened and opressed by Shi'a heretics supported by Western crusaders. ISIS gets its power from the Sunni tribes of the area that are opressed by Shi'ite and Alawite governments, as well as from Sunni muslims in the West that feel opressed by Western governments. Take this support away and ISIS crumbles. Using violence against these people only confirms their ideas and increases their support.
People are hesitant because pretty much every intervention by the West in the past has made things actually much worse rather than improving. You can't solve problems with violence
I am not sure how else you can stop ISIS or anything else similar?
The problem seems to be the various powers in the area and the world have different desires for who will rule Syria -
We in the West have decided Assad is no longer a man we can do buisiness with - despite all the past history and our continuing support of Saudi regime and other repressive Arab regimes.
The Russians and Iranians are still happy to do so
and the rest of the Arab world is torn between suppprting a fellow dictator and geting rid of a rival....
not sure about China?
Meanwhile religious fanatics kill, maim and destroy at will.
You have to ask first where ISIS comes from and why and how it got so powerful. Take away the reasons so many people support ISIS, and ISIS will lose its power. Western violence against ISIS is exactly what they want. It confirms their ideology of (Sunni) Islam being threatened and opressed by Shi'a heretics supported by Western crusaders. ISIS gets its power from the Sunni tribes of the area that are opressed by Shi'ite and Alawite governments, as well as from Sunni muslims in the West that feel opressed by Western governments. Take this support away and ISIS crumbles. Using violence against these people only confirms their ideas and increases their support.
Sadly I am not convinced - the initial fight against ISIS was carried out by regional Arab states, the Syrian Government and Non ISIS rebels - they could not stop them (quit the opposite) and their power, territory and numbers grew - the West and Iran used its muscle - with a wary eye on each other - Russia backed the Syrians and still ISIS fights on but nwo is lees likely to steam roller the Middle East.
If the "West" and I assume you include Russia in this, backs off - ISIS will just grow stronger and more repressive unless Iran can defeat them and the other Arab states are unlikely to let that happen.
ISIS thrives on repression and violence against anyone or anything that they don;t agree with - I don't think you can fight them with words - they don't care about anyone - if you sacntioned them into the stone age - they would be appy as thats the world they want to live in - and would still burnign and tortuing people....
BBC wrote:Islamic State militants have been pushed back from the ancient Syrian site of Palmyra, officials and a monitoring group say.
Militants seized part of the town of Tadmur on Saturday, which is located on a strategic east-west route next to Palmyra's World Heritage-listed ruins.
Nearly 300 have reportedly died in four days of fighting.
Meanwhile, the number of militants reported killed in a rare US ground raid in Syria on Saturday rose to 32.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based monitoring group, said that among those killed were "IS oil chief Abu Sayyaf, the deputy IS defence minister, and an IS communications official".
US officials had said about 12 militants were killed at the scene of the raid in the eastern province of Deir al-Zour.
They said Abu Sayyaf had been killed in a firefight during the special forces raid, and his wife was captured.
'Palmyra safe'
The Syrian Observatory said at least 295 people had been killed since IS began advancing on Palmyra on Wednesday. It said they were mainly militants and government troops, though it said 57 civilians were also killed, including dozens executed by IS.
Militants had pulled out of the northern parts of Tadmur, but still held a village north of Palmyra, the group said.
The Unesco World Heritage site is located on the road that leads from the contested eastern city of Deir al-Zour to the city of Homs and the capital, Damascus. It is also close to gas fields and home to a major airbase.
"Palmyra is safe and the road linking Homs with Palmyra is absolutely safe," Talal Barazi, governor of Homs province, told state-run news agency Sana.
Maamoun Abdulkarim, Syria's head of antiquities, said the army was in control of the whole of Tadmur, including the outskirts, and that the ruins south-west of the town - already damaged in previous fighting - had not suffered further harm.
Palmyra: IS threat to 'Venice of the Sands'
Battle for Ramadi
IS has ransacked and demolished several ancient sites that pre-date Islam in Iraq, leading to fears that it might attempt to damage or destroy the Palmyra ruins.
The militant group took control of control of swathes of territory in north-eastern Syria and northern Iraq last year.
In Iraq, the government has been trying to retake some of that territory by advancing in Anbar province, but has faced an IS offensive against the strategic city of Ramadi since Friday.
Fighting in Ramadi has forced thousands to flee
IS has now tightened its grip over large areas of the city while controlling more than half the surrounding province, the BBC's Ahmed Maher reports from Baghdad.
Ramadi is just 70 miles (112) west of the capital and has direct supply lines to IS strongholds in neighbouring Syria. Our correspondent says the government is extremely worried.
A local official said more than 500 people had been killed in the last two days of fighting around Ramadi, including policemen who were trapped after running out of ammunition and civilians caught in the crossfire.
Some 8,000 people have been displaced over the same period, according to the International Organisation for Migration.
Yeah, but I reckon the existence of ISIS overall is owed to "Western" (hate that term) interference in the region. I reckon it's that interference that has lead to the rise in fundamentalism. The region was becoming more progressive for a while, but western interference of one form or another destabilised the region. Not to mention western support for the likes of the Saudis, whose extreme version of Islam is pretty nasty and oppressive.
That's not to take away the responsibility from the people who join and support these organisations- they would have been there anyway, Western intervention or not. But I think the social and political situations created by Western intervention provide fertile soil for their brand of hatred and frankly, evil.
Also, no doubt the US could absolutely paste the bastards, probably in a week or two, with little difficulty or loss. The US military did a great job in Iraq at achieving it's tactical objectives, because it is an amazing organisation. Unfortunately, that would not solve the social and political problems that make extremism attractive to people in the region, I think.
But hey, what do I know. Maybe military intervention is the right thing to do. When I read about what ISIS gets up to, I do wish there was something I could do to stop them. The accounts of sex slavery and slaughter of heretics is infuriating.
As far as the fundamental cause of terrorism? Well in this case its extreme Islam. The only way to combat that realistically would be a region wide campaign to teach the Iraqi's how to read. That way when the Imam starts teaching them that the Koran tells them to kill Americans/Westerners so they become good Muslims, they can think for themselves...hey wait...thats not what the Koran says. And even then it wont stop because Islam is a religion easily turned towards radicalism. if the last 2,000 years of history haven't proven that I don't know what more will.
You seem to be contradicting yourself here. If the problem is that people are being misled due to being unable to read the Koran themselves, how is Islam, and not lying Imams, the problem?
I am not contradicting myself, I clearly pointed out that one of the biggest causes of people turning to extreme islam is a lack of insight into what the religion is actually about. However, you can take a look at western countries where the literacy rate is in the 90%+ area and you still have people converting to Radical Islam. Yes a lot of it has to do with the Imams but you can't blame every part of it on them. And on top of that how do you explain the Imams themselves? These are men who have devoted their lives to the Koran and these are the ones trying to convince people to start Jihad against anyone not of the same faith. Is it because you become an Imam and turn evil or because the religion itself is easily corrupted and border line evil to begin with?
In the case of the Boston Marathon bomber, he was clearly literate, he was in college when he committed his crimes. His brother and him were found to have large amounts of radical islamic materials on their computers and in the home. The religion itself is to blame not just the Imams.
Unfortunately, literacy and a Koran in every hand is not the answer. I forget the name for it, but there is a belief within much of Islam (well, pretty much most religions and it's one that also took Chritianity 1000+ years to get over) is that, in addition to what the holy texts say, the religious leaders' words are also binding. A priest speaks for God, and thus speaks with God's authority and the faithful must obey. After all, if the priest was lying or wrong, would not God strike him down? And since God has clearly not struck them down, therefore they are right and their commands are to be obeyed. Faith is a powerful thing, and from an early age many are taught to not question that faith. After all, just look at America and see how much power religious leaders here still hold over their congregations. Sure, if Reverend Jim says to kill someone, you're not going to kill that person. but if Reverend Jim says that Bob is the best candidate in the current election, quite a lot of his congregation will quite likely now vote for Bob. There's a reason why you still see politicians courting the favor of religious leaders.
Unfortunately, literacy and a Koran in every hand is not the answer. I forget the name for it, but there is a belief within much of Islam (well, pretty much most religions and it's one that also took Chritianity 1000+ years to get over) is that, in addition to what the holy texts say, the religious leaders' words are also binding. A priest speaks for God, and thus speaks with God's authority and the faithful must obey. After all, if the priest was lying or wrong, would not God strike him down? And since God has clearly not struck them down, therefore they are right and their commands are to be obeyed. Faith is a powerful thing, and from an early age many are taught to not question that faith. After all, just look at America and see how much power religious leaders here still hold over their congregations. Sure, if Reverend Jim says to kill someone, you're not going to kill that person. but if Reverend Jim says that Bob is the best candidate in the current election, quite a lot of his congregation will quite likely now vote for Bob. There's a reason why you still see politicians courting the favor of religious leaders
That is definitely what I was hinting at, but a lot of that can be stopped by reading the Koran for themselves. I can't tell you the number of Imams and Madrasas we targeted for intelligence collection efforts. Some of the BS that these guys were teaching the kids was mind boggling. Even removing the ultra vulgar stuff what these imams were teaching would go above and beyond anything I would expect to hear in a school.
But yeah faith is a powerful thing, the problem is that we in the Westernized world have gotten away from the Blind faith and believing everything the preachers/reverends/priests tell us. Unfortunately the Islamic world is not even close to that point yet.
Unfortunately, literacy and a Koran in every hand is not the answer. I forget the name for it, but there is a belief within much of Islam (well, pretty much most religions and it's one that also took Chritianity 1000+ years to get over) is that, in addition to what the holy texts say, the religious leaders' words are also binding. A priest speaks for God, and thus speaks with God's authority and the faithful must obey. After all, if the priest was lying or wrong, would not God strike him down? And since God has clearly not struck them down, therefore they are right and their commands are to be obeyed. Faith is a powerful thing, and from an early age many are taught to not question that faith. After all, just look at America and see how much power religious leaders here still hold over their congregations. Sure, if Reverend Jim says to kill someone, you're not going to kill that person. but if Reverend Jim says that Bob is the best candidate in the current election, quite a lot of his congregation will quite likely now vote for Bob. There's a reason why you still see politicians courting the favor of religious leaders
That is definitely what I was hinting at, but a lot of that can be stopped by reading the Koran for themselves. I can't tell you the number of Imams and Madrasas we targeted for intelligence collection efforts. Some of the BS that these guys were teaching the kids was mind boggling. Even removing the ultra vulgar stuff what these imams were teaching would go above and beyond anything I would expect to hear in a school.
But yeah faith is a powerful thing, the problem is that we in the Westernized world have gotten away from the Blind faith and believing everything the preachers/reverends/priests tell us. Unfortunately the Islamic world is not even close to that point yet.
It's more so the fact that the various Christian/Catholic & Jewish states have realised that in order for your society to function without being a regressive, medieval mess, you need to separate the State from the Church.
Yes there's still a small minority of sects & ultra orthodox groups who still cling to the past, but as a rule, it's only in the Muslim world where the Church still controls up to 100% of the state's functions.
Until they can make that separation, there's no hope for any real change, let alone peace.
djones520 wrote: These actions really infuriate me. This alone is all the justification we should need to steam roll these guys back to the stone age, let alone the mass slaughter they've been committing. I still can't believe people are hesitant about destroying these people.
Frazzled wrote: Because no one asked "then what" twice before and that resulted in both AlQaeda and ISIL.
Then what?
You keep killing them... until there's no more ISIS / AlQaeda. You see... that's the part we haven't done.
As in. Go total war... not, these excursions where we try to win the hearts/minds of the region. If we're going to use our military, at the cost of our own blood and money, then you let 'em loose.
Otherwise, continue what we're doing now. Fortify our national interests and work with the local government for intelligence to deal with these issues.
There's no "easy button" here Frazzled and opining that we out to go isolationist mode won't help. See Garland.
Frazzled wrote: Because no one asked "then what" twice before and that resulted in both AlQaeda and ISIL.
Then what?
You keep killing them... until there's no more ISIS / AlQaeda. You see... that's the part we haven't done.
As in. Go total war... not, these excursions where we try to win the hearts/minds of the region. If we're going to use our military, at the cost of our own blood and money, then you let 'em loose.
Otherwise, continue what we're doing now. Fortify our national interests and work with the local government for intelligence to deal with these issues.
There's no "easy button" here Frazzled and opining that we out to go isolationist mode won't help. See Garland.
1. How is that our national interest?
2. Lets assume godlike power. All Al Qaeda and ISIL are wiped out in six months once Team Texas enters the picture. Then what? There's still a power vacuum there. The factors that helped form ISIL are still there.
Frazzled wrote: Because no one asked "then what" twice before and that resulted in both AlQaeda and ISIL.
Then what?
You keep killing them... until there's no more ISIS / AlQaeda. You see... that's the part we haven't done.
As in. Go total war... not, these excursions where we try to win the hearts/minds of the region. If we're going to use our military, at the cost of our own blood and money, then you let 'em loose.
Otherwise, continue what we're doing now. Fortify our national interests and work with the local government for intelligence to deal with these issues.
There's no "easy button" here Frazzled and opining that we out to go isolationist mode won't help. See Garland.
1. How is that our national interest?
2. Lets assume godlike power. All Al Qaeda and ISIL are wiped out in six months once Team Texas enters the picture. Then what? There's still a power vacuum there. The factors that helped form ISIL are still there.
1. stability of that region, trades, etc... we have plenty of interests. The biggest is oil, of course.
2. the better response would be this: how do we (and the world) reduce the oil dependencies? Answer: we ought to go full bore nukes.
Al Jazeera did some excellent analysis IMO on the Ramadi situation.
The main points:
1) More Iranian backed militias are moving into the area to fight ISIS. Makes sense in the short term, but big problems ahead in the long term.
2) Sunni areas that have been 'liberated' from ISIL still remain empty, as the Sunni population, with some justification, are fearful of Shia reprisals. Long term, Iraq looks dead.
On the military side, perhaps the Americans can answer these points.
3) The Iraqi army has been suffering from ammunition shortages, and other logistic shortages, despite American support. Logically, we can only assume that the US military has run out of ammo or liaison efforts with the Iraq army are not up to it, or communications have broken down.
4) The presence of a US divisional headquarters is not doing much, according to this Al-Jazeera report. Co-ordination between Iraq forces and US air assets is poor, Special Forces deployment has been sporadic (unlike in the north with Kobane) and intelligence work is patchy at best. Despite the US having at least 5-6 years experience of operating in that region/area
So, is the Iraq army not up to the task? Are US efforts incompetent (which I doubt given their high level of professionalism) , or half-hearted (which I suspect to be the case. It is an unpopular war in the US) or are there other factors at play?
Predictably, the US is blaming the Iraq army, and the Iraq army is blaming the US...and Iran is consolidating its influence...
Yes we have interests in the region. In actuality oil is the only security interest. How does wiping out the region help that interest?
Going "full bore" means hitting the sunnis, who will resist (again). Not going full bore keeps the crazy sunnis in place so they can fight the crazy shiities (miltias).
If you took the religion off of it and were Italian you would say this is Persia vs the Anatolian provinces or Carthage. You can either take it over Roman style and own it, or leave it alone until this generation's flare up fades.
2. Lets assume godlike power. All Al Qaeda and ISIL are wiped out in six months once Team Texas enters the picture. Then what? There's still a power vacuum there. The factors that helped form ISIL are still there.
Once Team Texas cleans up the place, they can just colonize it and form New Texas! Crappy land full of oil? Toss some cattle around and they’ll feel right at home. And as it will now be full of texans, nobody will mess with it.
Well that is a true statement. Plus we can import their crocodiles and poisonous snakes to make Texas even more Australia like. We could put water maccasins in the Jordan and Nile for grins and willies.
We could turn the Great Pyramids into a giant Buckeys gas station sign. Yes!
Interesting note on Deathworlds. The actor playing the bad guy in the latest Mad Max movie, played the bad guy in the first Mad Max movie.
Frazzled wrote: Well that is a true statement. Plus we can import their crocodiles and poisonous snakes to make Texas even more Australia like. We could put water maccasins in the Jordan and Nile for grins and willies.
Pretty sure there are already crocodiles in the Nile. Snakes'd be a welcome break.
Frazzled wrote: Well that is a true statement. Plus we can import their crocodiles and poisonous snakes to make Texas even more Australia like. We could put water maccasins in the Jordan and Nile for grins and willies.
Pretty sure there are already crocodiles in the Nile. Snakes'd be a welcome break.
For clarity. Import crocodiles and asps to Texas. Export water mocassins, brown recluses, copperheads, and crew cut sporting rednecks to the ME. This will insure the Deathworld that is Texas gets even stronger. After all, Dog created Texas to train the Faithful.
No worries there, ISIS is the group lighting people's hair on fire when there's a setback against them.
I truly hate this administration.
Agreed. The White house seems remarkably relaxed about this setback. Perhaps there's something they know that we don't know?
More weapons have been promised to Iraq, but if ISIL gets their hands on them, and it's likely that they will...
Does the US have plans drawn up for any further advances? ISIL's only 70 miles away from the capital, but everybody's acting like it were 700 miles. Nothing to see here, move on.
Airstrikes have been largely ineffective, and it seems to be like the fall of Saigon all over again.
Please tell me I'm exaggerating, but I'm getting that impression.
No worries there, ISIS is the group lighting people's hair on fire when there's a setback against them.
I truly hate this administration.
Agreed. The White house seems remarkably relaxed about this setback. Perhaps there's something they know that we don't know?
More weapons have been promised to Iraq, but if ISIL gets their hands on them, and it's likely that they will...
Does the US have plans drawn up for any further advances? ISIL's only 70 miles away from the capital, but everybody's acting like it were 700 miles. Nothing to see here, move on.
Airstrikes have been largely ineffective, and it seems to be like the fall of Saigon all over again.
Please tell me I'm exaggerating, but I'm getting that impression.
Robert Gates, our previous SecDef was quoted yesterday as saying that the US does not have a Middle East strategy. The White House is relaxed about this, because they simply don't give a damn.
Robert Gates, our previous SecDef was quoted yesterday as saying that the US does not have a Middle East strategy. The White House is relaxed about this, because they simply don't give a damn.
Maybe because there isn't a good one except RUN AWAY
What you guys forget is that Baghdad is a HUGE city. Millions of people live here. It is also the heart of the Iraqi Shia majority as a whole, the metropolis is basically the heart and brain of the entire country.
I highly doubt ISIS will EVER be able to take the city. Remember they got their butts handed to them at the village of Kobani.
No worries there, ISIS is the group lighting people's hair on fire when there's a setback against them.
I truly hate this administration.
Agreed. The White house seems remarkably relaxed about this setback. Perhaps there's something they know that we don't know?
More weapons have been promised to Iraq, but if ISIL gets their hands on them, and it's likely that they will...
Does the US have plans drawn up for any further advances? ISIL's only 70 miles away from the capital, but everybody's acting like it were 700 miles. Nothing to see here, move on.
Airstrikes have been largely ineffective, and it seems to be like the fall of Saigon all over again.
Please tell me I'm exaggerating, but I'm getting that impression.
Robert Gates, our previous SecDef was quoted yesterday as saying that the US does not have a Middle East strategy. The White House is relaxed about this, because they simply don't give a damn.
Except to take credit for "ending" the war in Iraq. This compilation pretty much tells it all about Obama and the way he ran the situation. Trying to take credit, then realizing he could look bad and trying to shift blame:
The thing about ISIS is that eventually someone will paste them. They pose way too big a threat for the powers in the region to leave alone. Even if Baghdad somehow falls I doubt the Iranians will let the entire region fall into ISIS control and I seriously doubt that either the Israelis or the Turks want something like ISIS on their borders. Its only a matter of time before someone smacks them down, my money is on Iran.
Right now however both the regional powers and the great powers seem content to let the Arabs kill each other.
EmilCrane wrote: The thing about ISIS is that eventually someone will paste them. They pose way too big a threat for the powers in the region to leave alone. Even if Baghdad somehow falls I doubt the Iranians will let the entire region fall into ISIS control and I seriously doubt that either the Israelis or the Turks want something like ISIS on their borders. Its only a matter of time before someone smacks them down, my money is on Iran.
Right now however both the regional powers and the great powers seem content to let the Arabs kill each other.
No its Sunnis vs. Shiites. Arabs (and gang) vs. Persians. I can almost see some guys in leather jockstraps coming over the hill, flexing pecs and shouting this is Sparta.
Sure, Iran doesn't want ISIS around. But since our two governments are having a hissyfit with each other, we don't want Iran involved. We should be working together, building bridges and all that, to make things better for all. But that's just my idealism talking.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Sure, Iran doesn't want ISIS around. But since our two governments are having a hissyfit with each other, we don't want Iran involved. We should be working together, building bridges and all that, to make things better for all. But that's just my idealism talking.
EmilCrane wrote: The thing about ISIS is that eventually someone will paste them. They pose way too big a threat for the powers in the region to leave alone. Even if Baghdad somehow falls I doubt the Iranians will let the entire region fall into ISIS control and I seriously doubt that either the Israelis or the Turks want something like ISIS on their borders. Its only a matter of time before someone smacks them down, my money is on Iran.
Right now however both the regional powers and the great powers seem content to let the Arabs kill each other.
No its Sunnis vs. Shiites. Arabs (and gang) vs. Persians. I can almost see some guys in leather jockstraps coming over the hill, flexing pecs and shouting this is Sparta.
Still getting this image of Americans hanging from the last helicopter out of Baghdad, as ISIL overruns the place.
EmilCrane wrote: The thing about ISIS is that eventually someone will paste them. They pose way too big a threat for the powers in the region to leave alone. Even if Baghdad somehow falls I doubt the Iranians will let the entire region fall into ISIS control and I seriously doubt that either the Israelis or the Turks want something like ISIS on their borders. Its only a matter of time before someone smacks them down, my money is on Iran.
Right now however both the regional powers and the great powers seem content to let the Arabs kill each other.
No its Sunnis vs. Shiites. Arabs (and gang) vs. Persians. I can almost see some guys in leather jockstraps coming over the hill, flexing pecs and shouting this is Sparta.
Shiite does not equal persian, currently its ISIS, an Arab movement, fighting the governments of Syria and Iraq, Arab nations
Frazzled wrote: Thats my point. They tend to get hammered when they get out of Sunni territory. Its almost like they lose their support base...
I hate to say it but Biden was right...
Don't hate to say it. Biden May make lots of stupid off the cuff remarks, but he knows his stuff. His problem is he is too much like the average American to get elected by Americans. I make stupid comments all the the time ( just ask my students). I had a roommate for three years from Ethiopia that used to work at a hotel in dc as a doorman that Biden used to frequent, and though he was extremely conservative, my roommate always complimented Biden on his ability to remember his name, always offer a tip, and ask how he was doing.
EmilCrane wrote: The thing about ISIS is that eventually someone will paste them. They pose way too big a threat for the powers in the region to leave alone. Even if Baghdad somehow falls I doubt the Iranians will let the entire region fall into ISIS control and I seriously doubt that either the Israelis or the Turks want something like ISIS on their borders. Its only a matter of time before someone smacks them down, my money is on Iran.
Right now however both the regional powers and the great powers seem content to let the Arabs kill each other.
No its Sunnis vs. Shiites. Arabs (and gang) vs. Persians. I can almost see some guys in leather jockstraps coming over the hill, flexing pecs and shouting this is Sparta.
Shiite does not equal persian, currently its ISIS, an Arab movement, fighting the governments of Syria and Iraq, Arab nations
There is no government in Iraq now. There are the Sunnis (ISIL), Kurdestan, and Shiistan (Iran - aka Persia).
But agreed, ISIL is in Syria. I don't see how they can beat the Syrian military.
To quote the Roman Senator in Spartacus: "It takes us five years to train a legion, and these slaves build an army in six months!"
That would solve a lot of problems, but proving it is potentially difficult, unless the bar is low. Then the cries of oppression will start.
I have a solution at least on the US side. Anyone leaving the US who doesn't have incriminating photos of attending drunken parties at Sandals or Cancun, shall not be allowed to re-enter the country, unless they can sing the Star Spangled Banner in proper key and recite Travis' letter from the Alamo word for word.
Albatross wrote: Soooo... Any Americans on here starting to understand how the British Empire came into existence yet? No?
OK, I'll come back in a few years and ask again.
You may have to come back. It shows why it ended though...
Nope. You literally could not be more wrong, and that's why this gak keeps happening on America's watch. You want to be able to sit thousands of miles away and access other people's resources without getting your hands dirty. You expect them to just act in your interests more or less spontaneously, or through a series of comparitively 'light-touch' economic and/or diplomatic levers, but what happens when that fails? You can install puppets, but what happens when the people try to overthrow them? It seems like the USA has yet to figure out what we figured out a couple of hundred years ago which is sometimes you have to just take over, and once you've taken over, stay the course. Even if it takes decades. The problem you have is that you start out by selling it to the American public in terms of 'regime change', 'Iraqi Freedom' and other such wooly terms, as if you're doing 'the natives' a favour. When bodies draped in flags start coming home, the public naturally grow fatigued of it. Even in this thread (and in other such threads) you have people blaming the Iraqis and Syrians for this mess, and making grotesquely ignorant statements to the effect of 'just bomb them all'. Everything that is happening in the ME is more or less a direct result of Western foreign policy; we sneezed, the whole region caught a cold.
We need to start telling the truth which is that our nations went to war with Iraq to safeguard our economic interests, and with that being the case we had a responsibility to stay there until Iraq was truly stable, however long that took, even if it meant annexing the country temporarily. The problem is, Yanks have no appetite for Empire because they think its primary purpose is power for its own sake, as opposed to expedience.
Automatically Appended Next Post: tl;dr - you break it, you bought it
Er no. Syria has no oil. Iraq is still selling oil. Frankly its in the US's interest to discontinue all production of Iraqi oil, and Iranian oil. The US economy is partially a petrodollar economy now. We want $100 a barrel oil.
We could respond with a heavier touch but "nuke everything" seems to be frowned on in certain quarters.
I love how you somehow just made this into "America BAAD!" Did you miss that, even if we wanted to play empire, we pulling back. You want someone to play empire, call the Chinese bad.
I always said, the world will miss us when we're gone. This is what happens. Too bad.
It's been a bloodbath over there since 2002- what difference does it make whether it's sectarian or secular?
The United States has zero capability to positively influence the events going on over there, so again I'm waiting for someone to provide a viable strategy for what it is we should be doing once we get there.
Maybe Obama is sitting on this because he realizes that the situation is fethed and there's nothing American troops can do over there except die?
BlaxicanX wrote: It's been a bloodbath over there since 2002- what difference does it make whether it's sectarian or secular?
The United States has zero capability to positively influence the events going on over there, so again I'm waiting for someone to provide a viable strategy for what it is we should be doing once we get there.
Maybe Obama is sitting on this because he realizes that the situation is fethed and there's nothing American troops can do over there except die?
It's not just the Middle East - there's challenges all over the world for America to face. Putin on the march in Eastern Europe, China flexing its muscles etc etc
So far, Obama has failed to rise to any of these. To be fair to Obama, none of the contenders for President in 2016 look likely to do anything about them either, but the next decade will be crucial for the USA.
If ever the USA needed a FDR, or a Harry Truman, then it's 2016.
BlaxicanX wrote: It's been a bloodbath over there since 2002- what difference does it make whether it's sectarian or secular?
The United States has zero capability to positively influence the events going on over there, so again I'm waiting for someone to provide a viable strategy for what it is we should be doing once we get there.
Maybe Obama is sitting on this because he realizes that the situation is fethed and there's nothing American troops can do over there except die?
It's not just the Middle East - there's challenges all over the world for America to face. Putin on the march in Eastern Europe, China flexing its muscles etc etc
So far, Obama has failed to rise to any of these. To be fair to Obama, none of the contenders for President in 2016 look likely to do anything about them either, but the next decade will be crucial for the USA.
If ever the USA needed a FDR, or a Harry Truman, then it's 2016.
BlaxicanX wrote: It's been a bloodbath over there since 2002- what difference does it make whether it's sectarian or secular?
The United States has zero capability to positively influence the events going on over there, so again I'm waiting for someone to provide a viable strategy for what it is we should be doing once we get there.
Maybe Obama is sitting on this because he realizes that the situation is fethed and there's nothing American troops can do over there except die?
It's not just the Middle East - there's challenges all over the world for America to face. Putin on the march in Eastern Europe, China flexing its muscles etc etc
So far, Obama has failed to rise to any of these. To be fair to Obama, none of the contenders for President in 2016 look likely to do anything about them either, but the next decade will be crucial for the USA.
If ever the USA needed a FDR, or a Harry Truman, then it's 2016.
So it's the US fault?
Where's Europe?
Europe is up to its neck in debt, worried about health and safety, and decided in 1945 that warfare is definently a bad thing.
You guys have the $600 billion defence budget, take it for a drive.
BlaxicanX wrote: It's been a bloodbath over there since 2002- what difference does it make whether it's sectarian or secular?
The United States has zero capability to positively influence the events going on over there, so again I'm waiting for someone to provide a viable strategy for what it is we should be doing once we get there.
Maybe Obama is sitting on this because he realizes that the situation is fethed and there's nothing American troops can do over there except die?
It's not just the Middle East - there's challenges all over the world for America to face. Putin on the march in Eastern Europe, China flexing its muscles etc etc
So far, Obama has failed to rise to any of these. To be fair to Obama, none of the contenders for President in 2016 look likely to do anything about them either, but the next decade will be crucial for the USA.
If ever the USA needed a FDR, or a Harry Truman, then it's 2016.
So it's the US fault?
Where's Europe?
Europe is up to its neck in debt, worried about health and safety, and decided in 1945 that warfare is definently a bad thing.
Dude... our unfunded liabilities are ginormous!
You guys have the $600 billion defence budget, take it for a drive.
We have the toys... so what? The world seems to want "Team 'Murrica" to take a hike.
Nope. You literally could not be more wrong, and that's why this gak keeps happening on America's watch. You want to be able to sit thousands of miles away and access other people's resources without getting your hands dirty. You expect them to just act in your interests more or less spontaneously, or through a series of comparitively 'light-touch' economic and/or diplomatic levers, but what happens when that fails? You can install puppets, but what happens when the people try to overthrow them? It seems like the USA has yet to figure out what we figured out a couple of hundred years ago which is sometimes you have to just take over, and once you've taken over, stay the course. Even if it takes decades. The problem you have is that you start out by selling it to the American public in terms of 'regime change', 'Iraqi Freedom' and other such wooly terms, as if you're doing 'the natives' a favour. When bodies draped in flags start coming home, the public naturally grow fatigued of it. Even in this thread (and in other such threads) you have people blaming the Iraqis and Syrians for this mess, and making grotesquely ignorant statements to the effect of 'just bomb them all'. Everything that is happening in the ME is more or less a direct result of Western foreign policy; we sneezed, the whole region caught a cold.
I agree with this. The 2003 campaign had a long term goal of divide and rule. However the US led coalition didn't expect this type of division. The crap that happened post Iraq invasion was convertable, and that mission was accomplished. Troops in, instill a puppet government in a divided country, troops out. Now the oil flows and the profits are skimmed.
However when you get division you get a melting pot of extremism, add in other factors like the 'Arab spring' and Israel in particular and the melting pot overheats. Islamic extremism is becoming more and more extreme. I was watching an ISIS new video about the rape auctions yesterday (no its doesn't show the rapes). The feth-heads had devolved so low that the extremes of societies ills are the norm. Once a region gets that bad there is no stopping them beyond either pulling out or going in fully.
One of Bush seniors bees in his bonnet was burying Vietnam ghosts, Mogadishu put a downer on this and effected the Clinton administration, then Bush junior compounded on he dad and lots of flags were waved when Iraq was taken. 9/11 ironically isn't a major factor as even Bush didn't try to blame Saddam for Al Quaeda.
However now the hornets nest is well and truly stirred, and for all Obama's many faults he can see that actually trying to sort ISIS out in thier own backyard, even with todays tech will be even more unwinable than Vietnam was, and considerably more viscious.
Well once ISIS take Baghdad, secure the various oil fields and start selling more of it on the black market who does everyone think their target is going to be eh? Europe and Russia isn't immune but lone wolf style attacks this year have lead to a hardening of security in the major countries, not to mention some countries have far less scruples about dealing with terrorism than others.
Exercise Jade Helm is being done by the US military in, I think, 10 states that just happen to be close to the highly porous US / Mexico border. It's not hard to connect the dots to see what the fear is and why the military is either, at best, training for this or, at worst, using this as a cover to put forces in place in response to intelligence.
Strategy wise; I honestly think that Obama's strategy is the Democrat strategy to not be associated with beginning a conflict ever. In the same way that strikes on Syria in 2014 were torpedoed by UKMPs voting it down through the same fear.
History tells us that in this situation then the only way to stop ISIS is force. It's the modern equivalent of the Third Reich, you cannot negotiate peace because their objective is unacceptable.
Way I see it is this plays out one of two ways;
1) The US builds the will, once Obama is gone, for a multi national force to engage them in Iraq and Syria, and ensures the overthrow of Assad.
2) The current inaction plays out to the point ISIS mount a major attack on the US, which then leads to a NATO force going in anyway, except by that point the civilian population in Iraq is close to 100% sympathetic to ISIS and it results in something that makes Iran and Afghanistan look like a training exercise.
Current literature suggests ISIS actually wants the US to engage it for their "end of days" style prophecy, and logically the current policy of inaction would only be changed by an attack.
A key factor in the balance of power between nations is retaliation; North Korea can shout all it wants about miniaturisation of nukes, but ultimately the power structure supports the status quo. Think ISIS cares ?
A danger lies in how far they believe they have to go to incite it, in a way that's probably why they continue to showcase what they do to build a general level of fear around the group. How far could they go, well try looking up a case study of biological terrorism, a wargames scenario called "Dark winter" that took place pre 9/11. It's a truly terrifying scenario, not just for the impact it has in terms of life but the financial damage which then changes everything, worldwide.
You forgot to mention thats 2002 BC. To quote Newt in Aliens "It won't make any difference."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TwilightSparkles wrote: Well once ISIS take Baghdad, secure the various oil fields and start selling more of it on the black market who does everyone think their target is going to be eh? Europe and Russia isn't immune but lone wolf style attacks this year have lead to a hardening of security in the major countries, not to mention some countries have far less scruples about dealing with terrorism than others.
Exercise Jade Helm is being done by the US military in, I think, 10 states that just happen to be close to the highly porous US / Mexico border. It's not hard to connect the dots to see what the fear is and why the military is either, at best, training for this or, at worst, using this as a cover to put forces in place in response to intelligence.
Strategy wise; I honestly think that Obama's strategy is the Democrat strategy to not be associated with beginning a conflict ever. In the same way that strikes on Syria in 2014 were torpedoed by UKMPs voting it down through the same fear.
History tells us that in this situation then the only way to stop ISIS is force. It's the modern equivalent of the Third Reich, you cannot negotiate peace because their objective is unacceptable.
Way I see it is this plays out one of two ways;
1) The US builds the will, once Obama is gone, for a multi national force to engage them in Iraq and Syria, and ensures the overthrow of Assad.
2) The current inaction plays out to the point ISIS mount a major attack on the US, which then leads to a NATO force going in anyway, except by that point the civilian population in Iraq is close to 100% sympathetic to ISIS and it results in something that makes Iran and Afghanistan look like a training exercise.
Current literature suggests ISIS actually wants the US to engage it for their "end of days" style prophecy, and logically the current policy of inaction would only be changed by an attack.
A key factor in the balance of power between nations is retaliation; North Korea can shout all it wants about miniaturisation of nukes, but ultimately the power structure supports the status quo. Think ISIS cares ?
A danger lies in how far they believe they have to go to incite it, in a way that's probably why they continue to showcase what they do to build a general level of fear around the group. How far could they go, well try looking up a case study of biological terrorism, a wargames scenario called "Dark winter" that took place pre 9/11. It's a truly terrifying scenario, not just for the impact it has in terms of life but the financial damage which then changes everything, worldwide.
Russian has no problem curb stomping Islamic terrorist armies with extreme prejudice. They are happily bombing entire regions in Chechnya as we speak.
Europe? Well thats your problem. Your civilization goes back 3,000 years. I think you can deal.
Nope. You literally could not be more wrong, and that's why this gak keeps happening on America's watch. You want to be able to sit thousands of miles away and access other people's resources without getting your hands dirty. You expect them to just act in your interests more or less spontaneously, or through a series of comparitively 'light-touch' economic and/or diplomatic levers, but what happens when that fails? You can install puppets, but what happens when the people try to overthrow them? It seems like the USA has yet to figure out what we figured out a couple of hundred years ago which is sometimes you have to just take over, and once you've taken over, stay the course. Even if it takes decades. The problem you have is that you start out by selling it to the American public in terms of 'regime change', 'Iraqi Freedom' and other such wooly terms, as if you're doing 'the natives' a favour. When bodies draped in flags start coming home, the public naturally grow fatigued of it. Even in this thread (and in other such threads) you have people blaming the Iraqis and Syrians for this mess, and making grotesquely ignorant statements to the effect of 'just bomb them all'. Everything that is happening in the ME is more or less a direct result of Western foreign policy; we sneezed, the whole region caught a cold.
We need to start telling the truth which is that our nations went to war with Iraq to safeguard our economic interests, and with that being the case we had a responsibility to stay there until Iraq was truly stable, however long that took, even if it meant annexing the country temporarily. The problem is, Yanks have no appetite for Empire because they think its primary purpose is power for its own sake, as opposed to expedience.
Automatically Appended Next Post: tl;dr - you break it, you bought it
I agree with you that U.S. has done a pretty godawful job trying to "help" Iraq. However, there's a few things I disagree with.
1) Not all Americans feel entitled to other people's resources. Don't generalize we're not a hive mind.
2) Install a puppet? Never mind that they don't always provide stability what about the egregious human rights abuses they involve?
3) You're seriously advocating taking over? Besides there being a massive conflict of interests for the U.S., consider that most of the horrible things happening around the world are a direct result of of colonialism and how it bled countries dry of resources and bred divisiveness. LOOKING AT YOU BRITISH EMPIRE. The U.S. has pretty much done the same in South America. Are you suggesting that the same happen again?
Nope. You literally could not be more wrong, and that's why this gak keeps happening on America's watch. You want to be able to sit thousands of miles away and access other people's resources without getting your hands dirty. You expect them to just act in your interests more or less spontaneously, or through a series of comparitively 'light-touch' economic and/or diplomatic levers, but what happens when that fails? You can install puppets, but what happens when the people try to overthrow them? It seems like the USA has yet to figure out what we figured out a couple of hundred years ago which is sometimes you have to just take over, and once you've taken over, stay the course. Even if it takes decades. The problem you have is that you start out by selling it to the American public in terms of 'regime change', 'Iraqi Freedom' and other such wooly terms, as if you're doing 'the natives' a favour. When bodies draped in flags start coming home, the public naturally grow fatigued of it. Even in this thread (and in other such threads) you have people blaming the Iraqis and Syrians for this mess, and making grotesquely ignorant statements to the effect of 'just bomb them all'. Everything that is happening in the ME is more or less a direct result of Western foreign policy; we sneezed, the whole region caught a cold.
We need to start telling the truth which is that our nations went to war with Iraq to safeguard our economic interests, and with that being the case we had a responsibility to stay there until Iraq was truly stable, however long that took, even if it meant annexing the country temporarily. The problem is, Yanks have no appetite for Empire because they think its primary purpose is power for its own sake, as opposed to expedience.
Automatically Appended Next Post: tl;dr - you break it, you bought it
I agree with you that U.S. has done a pretty godawful job trying to "help" Iraq. However, there's a few things I disagree with.
1) Not all Americans feel entitled to other people's resources. Don't generalize we're not a hive mind.
The US economy patently has need of access to foreign markets. That is just a fact.
2) Install a puppet? Never mind that they don't always provide stability what about the egregious human rights abuses they involve?
Well, yes. Did you not read my post. Puppets governments are of limited effectiveness unless the territory in question has been your colony for long enough that the people living their have roughly comparable culture, values, aims etc. You can't just take over, install a puppet and then feth off home, expecting it to all 'just work out because freedom yay', as Iraq and Afghanistan have proven.
3) You're seriously advocating taking over? Besides there being a massive conflict of interests for the U.S., consider that most of the horrible things happening around the world are a direct result of of colonialism and how it bled countries dry of resources and bred divisiveness. LOOKING AT YOU BRITISH EMPIRE.
Your understanding of Empire, specifically the British empire is poor, and that's being generous. Seriously, to the point that I'm questioning whether or not it's worth discussing this with you.
The U.S. has pretty much done the same in South America. Are you suggesting that the same happen again?
Nope. I'm not suggesting that invading Iraq was necessary or even desirable, but there's no such thing as light-touch imperialism. The US engineered a unipolar world post WWII and that comes with responsibilities, responsibilities that the USA has shirked with disastrous consequences. Iraq: You break it, you bought it. You can't remake the world in your image without boots on the ground and flags in it. The USA ousted Saddam and just expected that Iraq would coalesce miraculously into a fully functioning US-style democracy. You should (if you haven't already) read 'Imperial Life in the Emerald City'. There is evidence that the UK tried to basically say to the US what I'm saying here now and received much the same response.
What's happening in the ME is a direct result of these failures. Basically, if you're going to do Empire, do Empire. If not, mind your own fething business and let people run their own affairs.
The US economy patently has need of access to foreign markets. That is just a fact.
Nope it's dependent on foreign resources. If we went through foreign markets we wouldn't be invading anyone for their resources.
Well, yes. Did you not read my post. Puppets governments are of limited effectiveness unless the territory in question has been your colony for long enough that the people living their have roughly comparable culture, values, aims etc. You can't just take over, install a puppet and then feth off home, expecting it to all 'just work out because freedom yay', as Iraq and Afghanistan have proven.
I agreed with you. You didn't read mine. I think that even if it did work it shouldn't be done as a result of the human rights abuses these governments inevitably commit.
Your understanding of Empire, specifically the British empire is poor, and that's being generous. Seriously, to the point that I'm questioning whether or not it's worth discussing this with you.
So what are you saying? That empires don't exploit other countries resources? That the shoddily constructed political borders, dictators, and class systems haven't caused genocide and civil wars? As of now you are discussing it with me. You're just doing a terrible job. If you're not going to tell me what I have wrong with no support and drop a thinly veiled insult, then by all means don't discuss it with me.
Nope. I'm not suggesting that invading Iraq was necessary or even desirable, but there's no such thing as light-touch imperialism. The US engineered a unipolar world post WWII and that comes with responsibilities, responsibilities that the USA has shirked with disastrous consequences. Iraq: You break it, you bought it. You can't remake the world in your image without boots on the ground and flags in it. The USA ousted Saddam and just expected that Iraq would coalesce miraculously into a fully functioning US-style democracy. You should (if you haven't already) read 'Imperial Life in the Emerald City'. There is evidence that the UK tried to basically say to the US what I'm saying here now and received much the same response.
What's happening in the ME is a direct result of these failures. Basically, if you're going to do Empire, do Empire. If not, mind your own fething business and let people run their own affairs.
Your opening line on that last post just shows you've got zero right to be discussing this.
Please, show me what resources we have gained from invading Iraq of Afghanistan. Just about zero. Iraqi oil, and Afghani mineral resources are just about all being consumed by China.
djones520 wrote: Your opening line on that last post just shows you've got zero right to be discussing this.
Please, show me what resources we have gained from invading Iraq of Afghanistan. Just about zero. Iraqi oil, and Afghani mineral resources are just about all being consumed by China.
Military industrial complex.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, the U.S. shut down Iraq's nationalized cement industry and replaced it with foreign companies. EDIT: Either way some groups in the U.S. are benefiting economically. Not everyone is.
Also, both the U.S. and China are huge participants in the global economy. To a large extent what benefits one can benefit the other.
I think obama/america are doing the right thing (at the moment) by letting the countries with enough broadly similar values alone. Look at egypt, they're about to execute mubarak along with 100 other guys and america is basically keeping quiet (which i think they should). Countries like these need to be supported so they can remain stable and defend themselves/provide a barrier when the time comes. Iraq is a culturally fractured society with no significant leadership structure in place at the moment, it is going to be a s***fight for decades to come.
Just when you think things can't get any worse, Vladimir Putin has offered military assistance to Iraq.
Putin describes Iraq "as an old and reliable ally."
The Iraqi PM, visiting Moscow, has not ruled out accepting Russian help...
Back in Washington, John McCann is threatening to invade Iraq, the US military wants to rush 1000 anti-tank missiles to the Iraq army, but Al-Jazeera is saying that not enough people in Iraq are trained in their use...
This is a complete and utter mess. I'd be laughing if it weren't so tragic.
djones520 wrote: Your opening line on that last post just shows you've got zero right to be discussing this.
Please, show me what resources we have gained from invading Iraq of Afghanistan. Just about zero. Iraqi oil, and Afghani mineral resources are just about all being consumed by China.
djones520 wrote: Your opening line on that last post just shows you've got zero right to be discussing this.
Please, show me what resources we have gained from invading Iraq of Afghanistan. Just about zero. Iraqi oil, and Afghani mineral resources are just about all being consumed by China.
A whole lot of nothing.
Are you not concerned about Senator McCann launching a one man invasion of Iraq?
djones520 wrote: Your opening line on that last post just shows you've got zero right to be discussing this.
Please, show me what resources we have gained from invading Iraq of Afghanistan. Just about zero. Iraqi oil, and Afghani mineral resources are just about all being consumed by China.
A whole lot of nothing.
Next time we have to invade, we should do a little pillaging. This whole spending trillions and (failing) to make friends if for the birds. 21st century Viking raids should be the American military's new modus operandi. Seriously, next time, we depose you government, destroy your institutions, and secure your oil fields… and that's it. We'll pump out whatever we need to to pay for the war and then we leave.
djones520 wrote: Your opening line on that last post just shows you've got zero right to be discussing this.
Please, show me what resources we have gained from invading Iraq of Afghanistan. Just about zero. Iraqi oil, and Afghani mineral resources are just about all being consumed by China.
A whole lot of nothing.
Are you not concerned about Senator McCann launching a one man invasion of Iraq?
Do you mean Senator McCain? Cause Senator McCann is an Illinois State Senator, and quite frankly, I couldn't care less about what any state senator has to say.
djones520 wrote: Your opening line on that last post just shows you've got zero right to be discussing this.
Please, show me what resources we have gained from invading Iraq of Afghanistan. Just about zero. Iraqi oil, and Afghani mineral resources are just about all being consumed by China.
A whole lot of nothing.
Are you not concerned about Senator McCann launching a one man invasion of Iraq?
Do you mean Senator McCain? Cause Senator McCann is an Illinois State Senator, and quite frankly, I couldn't care less about what any state senator has to say.
I did mean McCain. Damn that auto-correct!!
Anyway, strange things are afoot in Washington. The defence secretary is criticising Iraq, Iraq says it can re-capture Ramadi within 'days'
Easy E wrote: If I was him, I wouldn't want to get involved in the Iraq/ISIS mess either.
That's why I have underlings.
Of course not, it would mean admitting he screwed the pooch. The only way this is going to end in anything resembling something good for us, is if we boot combat troops on the ground again. The Iraqi's won't fight for themselves, the other Arab nations will only put troops in once it's to late. We cannot let these guys grow into a real international power. It's that simple.
Easy E wrote: If I was him, I wouldn't want to get involved in the Iraq/ISIS mess either.
That's why I have underlings.
Of course not, it would mean admitting he screwed the pooch. The only way this is going to end in anything resembling something good for us, is if we boot combat troops on the ground again. The Iraqi's won't fight for themselves, the other Arab nations will only put troops in once it's to late. We cannot let these guys grow into a real international power. It's that simple.
So send our guys to die because they don't want to, even though its in their own backyard? In the words of Raptor Jebus: that.
But I'd rather be over here fighting those people then letting them continue to grow and solidify their base of power. Look what Al Qaeda was capable of doing with the Taliban as their backers.
What do you think these guys would be capable of doing, when they have access to all the money that they will when they take over a large part of the Arabian peninsula?
Sticking your head in the sand won't do anything but get people killed Frazz. This is our problem, because these people hate us, and want to kill us. These people want to get into our country, walk into our malls, and blow themselves up. They want to walk into our schools and murder our children. They want YOU dead, simply because you are an American. I don't know why you have a problem seeing that. I don't know why you think you need to stand up for those of us who have already sworn to give our lives to stop those types of people from doing that, if that is what it comes to.
djones520: I can respect your bravery. And I think the american military, fully deployed, would absolutely paste these guys in no time. No question about that.
But what happens after that? The US can win militarily, for certain. But if it doesn't have a clear political plan, then it's just postponing the problem for 5 years, 10 years or whatever. Then what? You go back in, kill a new generation of these bastards?
BTW, this is not meant as a criticism of the US political classes either- I think a political solution is incredibly difficult, maybe impossible to find. I truly believe that those searching for solutions are working honestly toward that aim, but the region is so unstable and full of problems that I can't see what a solution would even look like.
So I can see why Frazzled would be hesitant to be dragged in there again, when the last intervention created a monster much worse than Saddam ever was, due to the failure of politics after the invasion.
I can also understand your desire to go in and do something about it, though I don't believe americans are at a huge threat from these guys (or any other guys) unless they are actually in the Middle East. It's an admirable desire because ISIS do deserve to be stopped.
I get the "what is the end game question". For all we know, there may very well be no end game.
We may have opened Pandora's box that is going to require us to be there for the next 50-100 years. I don't know. But the west needs to wake the hell up about this issue. I'm not just talking about America. France, Britain, Spain, etc... you've all had a taste of what these guys want to do with us.
To many Arabs support these guys. Al Jazeera just the other day announced a poll they conducted that found 81% of their respondents supported ISIS in some form or another. Hell, we can't go a week without finding out Americans, Brits, Germans, whatever are trying to go and join them.
This is a huge problem, and right now we need to curb it militarily, before it ends up more on our doorsteps then it already has. I'm thinking the long game here. Sure, they may only be showing up in small groups right now, but what happens when they topple Iraq and Syria? What happens when they solidify their base of power? When they get Assads chemical weapons, and tanks, when they get Iraqi oil?
What then? Cause the odds of that happening are way to high for me to be comfortable thinking the Atlantic will protect us. I don't know why you guys aren't more up in arms, when you've basically got an open door policy for these people to walk into your back yards.
I think you don't see the debate in Europe, but we are not generally interventionist. But there is a debate, I guess we just fall more on the side of war not being the answer.
But I'd rather be over here fighting those people then letting them continue to grow and solidify their base of power. Look what Al Qaeda was capable of doing with the Taliban as their backers.
We have had two attacks in Texas, and multiple attacks nationwide. Being over there hasn't helped. Its only drawn more recruits.
What do you think these guys would be capable of doing, when they have access to all the money that they will when they take over a large part of the Arabian peninsula?
Then you're hitting the wrong target. You should be attacking Turkey for buying the oil. Under this logic Turkey, all the Gulf States, and Iran should be obliterated. Alternately, if we do nothing, the usual pattern is a dictatorship will arise or expand dominion over these areas.
in contrast the Reagan strategy would have us selling arms to both sides. Regional conflagration + leading arms industry sales = PROFIT!
Sticking your head in the sand won't do anything but get people killed Frazz.
How exactly has it helped? ? ?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
To many Arabs support these guys. Al Jazeera just the other day announced a poll they conducted that found 81% of their respondents supported ISIS in some form or another. Hell, we can't go a week without finding out Americans, Brits, Germans, whatever are trying to go and join them.
And thats the problem. You're not actually helping...anything.
Nope. You literally could not be more wrong, and that's why this gak keeps happening on America's watch. You want to be able to sit thousands of miles away and access other people's resources without getting your hands dirty. You expect them to just act in your interests more or less spontaneously, or through a series of comparitively 'light-touch' economic and/or diplomatic levers, but what happens when that fails? You can install puppets, but what happens when the people try to overthrow them? It seems like the USA has yet to figure out what we figured out a couple of hundred years ago which is sometimes you have to just take over, and once you've taken over, stay the course. Even if it takes decades. The problem you have is that you start out by selling it to the American public in terms of 'regime change', 'Iraqi Freedom' and other such wooly terms, as if you're doing 'the natives' a favour. When bodies draped in flags start coming home, the public naturally grow fatigued of it. Even in this thread (and in other such threads) you have people blaming the Iraqis and Syrians for this mess, and making grotesquely ignorant statements to the effect of 'just bomb them all'. Everything that is happening in the ME is more or less a direct result of Western foreign policy; we sneezed, the whole region caught a cold.
We need to start telling the truth which is that our nations went to war with Iraq to safeguard our economic interests, and with that being the case we had a responsibility to stay there until Iraq was truly stable, however long that took, even if it meant annexing the country temporarily. The problem is, Yanks have no appetite for Empire because they think its primary purpose is power for its own sake, as opposed to expedience.
Automatically Appended Next Post: tl;dr - you break it, you bought it
I agree with you that U.S. has done a pretty godawful job trying to "help" Iraq. However, there's a few things I disagree with.
1) Not all Americans feel entitled to other people's resources. Don't generalize we're not a hive mind.
The US economy patently has need of access to foreign markets. That is just a fact.
2) Install a puppet? Never mind that they don't always provide stability what about the egregious human rights abuses they involve?
Well, yes. Did you not read my post. Puppets governments are of limited effectiveness unless the territory in question has been your colony for long enough that the people living their have roughly comparable culture, values, aims etc. You can't just take over, install a puppet and then feth off home, expecting it to all 'just work out because freedom yay', as Iraq and Afghanistan have proven.
3) You're seriously advocating taking over? Besides there being a massive conflict of interests for the U.S., consider that most of the horrible things happening around the world are a direct result of of colonialism and how it bled countries dry of resources and bred divisiveness. LOOKING AT YOU BRITISH EMPIRE.
Your understanding of Empire, specifically the British empire is poor, and that's being generous. Seriously, to the point that I'm questioning whether or not it's worth discussing this with you.
The U.S. has pretty much done the same in South America. Are you suggesting that the same happen again?
Nope. I'm not suggesting that invading Iraq was necessary or even desirable, but there's no such thing as light-touch imperialism. The US engineered a unipolar world post WWII and that comes with responsibilities, responsibilities that the USA has shirked with disastrous consequences. Iraq: You break it, you bought it. You can't remake the world in your image without boots on the ground and flags in it. The USA ousted Saddam and just expected that Iraq would coalesce miraculously into a fully functioning US-style democracy. You should (if you haven't already) read 'Imperial Life in the Emerald City'. There is evidence that the UK tried to basically say to the US what I'm saying here now and received much the same response.
What's happening in the ME is a direct result of these failures. Basically, if you're going to do Empire, do Empire. If not, mind your own fething business and let people run their own affairs.
Aren't you a music major? I thought you needed a degree in the subject to be able to critique somebody else's work? Yeah...not letting you live that down.
On topic, I'd fully approve if we got the hell out of the ME and paid attention to our own damn country. Let it be dealt with internally.
Da Boss wrote: I think you don't see the debate in Europe, but we are not generally interventionist. But there is a debate, I guess we just fall more on the side of war not being the answer.
Its certainly not going to be a permanent solution.
The sad thing is, at this point I doubt there is a permanent solution. Like Djones said, it may indeed be a situation where we just have to go in every 20 years or so and level the place. We can't get rid of the cancer, we can just keep ripping it out every time it comes back before it causes problems.
Its a gakky solution to a gakky problem, but the best solution isn't always the ideal solution. Usually, ideal doesn't even exist. We had to end WW2 with 2 Atomic bombs. It wasn't the ideal solution, but it was the best solution. This situation might best be fixed by leaving nothing standing of ISIS and then just getting out. Sure, they'll become martyrs and may inspire a new generation of jihadis, but we can also make it clear that if that happens we'll just come back and clean them out again. And again. And again, until they realize they can't win.
Frazzled wrote: Or alternatively, just let Iraq break up into its three kingdoms.
Breaking it into multiple countries initially might have been the best when we first went in. But now its not really an option. ISIS if left alone would eventually conquer the entire country, killing any who defy them along the way.
Frazzled wrote: Or alternatively, just let Iraq break up into its three kingdoms.
Breaking it into multiple countries initially might have been the best when we first went in. But now its not really an option. ISIS if left alone would eventually conquer the entire country, killing any who defy them along the way.
Nothing can change in the Arab world until they decide to pull their collective heads out of their nether regions, and separate the State from the Church like the rest of civilised world did a few centuries ago...
Right now we have the joys of dealing with a repressive, medieval culture where the religious heads are also the true heads of state.
Frazzled wrote: Or alternatively, just let Iraq break up into its three kingdoms.
Breaking it into multiple countries initially might have been the best when we first went in. But now its not really an option. ISIS if left alone would eventually conquer the entire country, killing any who defy them along the way.
ISIL can't conquer Shiistan. Iran would just officially invade.
ISIL can't conquer Kurdestan if Kurdestan gets a modicum of support. I'd be ok with that support.
ISiL can control Shiistan for awhile. Not certain how to tell the difference between them and SA on a rulership basis.
timetowaste85 wrote: On topic, I'd fully approve if we got the hell out of the ME and paid attention to our own damn country. Let it be dealt with internally.
Nope. You literally could not be more wrong, and that's why this gak keeps happening on America's watch. You want to be able to sit thousands of miles away and access other people's resources without getting your hands dirty. You expect them to just act in your interests more or less spontaneously, or through a series of comparitively 'light-touch' economic and/or diplomatic levers, but what happens when that fails? You can install puppets, but what happens when the people try to overthrow them? It seems like the USA has yet to figure out what we figured out a couple of hundred years ago which is sometimes you have to just take over, and once you've taken over, stay the course. Even if it takes decades. The problem you have is that you start out by selling it to the American public in terms of 'regime change', 'Iraqi Freedom' and other such wooly terms, as if you're doing 'the natives' a favour. When bodies draped in flags start coming home, the public naturally grow fatigued of it. Even in this thread (and in other such threads) you have people blaming the Iraqis and Syrians for this mess, and making grotesquely ignorant statements to the effect of 'just bomb them all'. Everything that is happening in the ME is more or less a direct result of Western foreign policy; we sneezed, the whole region caught a cold.
We need to start telling the truth which is that our nations went to war with Iraq to safeguard our economic interests, and with that being the case we had a responsibility to stay there until Iraq was truly stable, however long that took, even if it meant annexing the country temporarily. The problem is, Yanks have no appetite for Empire because they think its primary purpose is power for its own sake, as opposed to expedience.
Automatically Appended Next Post: tl;dr - you break it, you bought it
I agree with you that U.S. has done a pretty godawful job trying to "help" Iraq. However, there's a few things I disagree with.
1) Not all Americans feel entitled to other people's resources. Don't generalize we're not a hive mind.
The US economy patently has need of access to foreign markets. That is just a fact.
2) Install a puppet? Never mind that they don't always provide stability what about the egregious human rights abuses they involve?
Well, yes. Did you not read my post. Puppets governments are of limited effectiveness unless the territory in question has been your colony for long enough that the people living their have roughly comparable culture, values, aims etc. You can't just take over, install a puppet and then feth off home, expecting it to all 'just work out because freedom yay', as Iraq and Afghanistan have proven.
3) You're seriously advocating taking over? Besides there being a massive conflict of interests for the U.S., consider that most of the horrible things happening around the world are a direct result of of colonialism and how it bled countries dry of resources and bred divisiveness. LOOKING AT YOU BRITISH EMPIRE.
Your understanding of Empire, specifically the British empire is poor, and that's being generous. Seriously, to the point that I'm questioning whether or not it's worth discussing this with you.
The U.S. has pretty much done the same in South America. Are you suggesting that the same happen again?
Nope. I'm not suggesting that invading Iraq was necessary or even desirable, but there's no such thing as light-touch imperialism. The US engineered a unipolar world post WWII and that comes with responsibilities, responsibilities that the USA has shirked with disastrous consequences. Iraq: You break it, you bought it. You can't remake the world in your image without boots on the ground and flags in it. The USA ousted Saddam and just expected that Iraq would coalesce miraculously into a fully functioning US-style democracy. You should (if you haven't already) read 'Imperial Life in the Emerald City'. There is evidence that the UK tried to basically say to the US what I'm saying here now and received much the same response.
What's happening in the ME is a direct result of these failures. Basically, if you're going to do Empire, do Empire. If not, mind your own fething business and let people run their own affairs.
Aren't you a music major? I thought you needed a degree in the subject to be able to critique somebody else's work? Yeah...not letting you live that down.
Heh. It's a fair cop. This is me just purely in 'opinion mode' fwiw. The above analysis of the British Empire does appear to have been lifted from Ferngully though. Just saying.
On topic, I'd fully approve if we got the hell out of the ME and paid attention to our own damn country. Let it be dealt with internally.
I neither agree nor disagree. It's certainly a perfectly valid option. The other option being running Iraq as a colonial administration and settling in for the next 50 years or so. This middle of the road stuff? Not working. Just one musician's opinion.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Incidentally, I've been demoing my new stoner rock side-project if anyone fancies a listen?
Toxic Nation: After Ramadi, USA Shows Itself to be the Worst Kind of Friend
On the fall of Ramadi, Ash Carter, the U.S. secretary of defense, had this to say on CNN: “What apparently happened was that the Iraqi forces just showed no will to fight. They were not outnumbered. In fact, they vastly outnumbered the opposing force, and yet they failed to fight.” A few days earlier, Martin Dempsey, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made a similar point to a group of reporters in Brussels: “The ISF was not driven out of Ramadi. They drove out of Ramadi.”
These remarks constitute the latest evolution of administration talking points on our failing campaign against the Islamic State. Shortly before Ramadi fell, U.S. officials were complaining to the press that its coverage of the war was biased against American efforts. In particular, the officials wanted television news to stop recycling old B-roll footage of IS from 2014, showing the fighters moving in mass formations of vehicles. The argument was that because our bombing campaign was so successful, IS could not and did not operate “in broad daylight” like that anymore.
Then Ramadi fell, after which “convoys of heavily armed Islamic State fighters paraded triumphantly through the streets” of the city. The initial response was to pretend that the capture of the capital of Anbar Province, a city that U.S. Marines fought and died in large numbers to secure during the last decade, wasn’t a significant event. It was a “tactical setback,” in the words of President Obama. The president’s spokesman, Josh Earnest, asked in a peevish tone if we were “going to light our hair on fire” over every such manageable “setback” like this.
With Carter’s questioning of the courage of the Iraqi forces, the administration’s spin has evolved from “everything is going great,” to “this is not a big deal,” to “it’s not our fault—it’s those cowardly Iraqis who can’t get it done.” And Carter may have a point. Reports from Ramadi indeed suggest that a combination of weak leadership and poor logistical planning in the face of a bold Islamic State assault cost the Iraqis control of the city.
It is also the case that hundreds (at least) of Iraqis loyal to their government died in the defense and fall of Ramadi. It is pretty rich for the American secretary of defense, who supervises a strategy designed to keep American servicemen out of the fight on the ground, to claim that the Iraqis lack fighting spirit. What about American fighting spirit? Our airstrikes are ineffectual, hampered by the same strict rules of engagement that held troops back in Afghanistan during 2009 and 2010. Our special operations troops are forbidden from leaving their bases to coordinate air support for the Iraqis, thus preventing the kind of campaign waged in Afghanistan in 2001, where a handful of American advisers partnered with the Northern Alliance achieved a stunning and swift victory over the Taliban.
We refuse to share any risk with our Iraqi partners, and then call them cowards in public when they fail. As a strategic matter, who will want to fight alongside us in the future after a display as pathetic as this?
In Brussels, General Dempsey had this to add to his witty putdown of the men actually doing the fighting and dying in Iraq: “But I said then, and I reiterate now, there may be tactical exchanges—some of which go the way of Iraqi security forces and others which go the way of ISIL. But the coalition has all the strategic advantages over time.” It is a strange sort of general who congratulates himself for maintaining the “strategic advantage” in the face of what most people would consider to be a string of major defeats. And it is a strange sort of strategy that is based on an expectation that, “over time,” we will have any friends left, if our leaders continue to find it politically expedient to belittle allies after sending them out to die alone. The only thing being degraded in the campaign against the Islamic State is American prestige.
I don't disagree with the SecDef's comments. Every defeat they have had so far, has been because they just refused to fight. The Iraqi's have been numerically superior, and better equipped in all situations, and yet are constantly retreating.
They have no will to fight.
My thought? feth the Iraqi's. I don't give a gak about them. They won't stand up for their own nation, that's their own issue.
We do like we did in Iraq the first time. We put 3 divisions on the ground, and we crush them. We hunt them down, and absolutely destroy them. It's not like we don't know the lay of the land. That we don't know where they would go to ground to. We've beaten them once before, it will not be that hard to do so again.
We start crushing the Iraqi forces, and the Syrians will most likely start to gain ground on them. Once we crush the Iraqi side of ISIS, we seal the Syrian border off, and let Syria's military finish the fight. At least those guys have some back bone.
We go in there, we hit them so hard with the hammer of the 21st century warfare that their heads break orbit, and we leave.
Then next time some donkey-cave tries to raise up and do it again, we don't sit on our asses for years on end until it becomes a problem that it takes a full Corp of the Army to deal with, like we've done this time.
djones520 wrote: We do like we did in Iraq the first time. We put 3 divisions on the ground, and we crush them. We hunt them down, and absolutely destroy them. It's not like we don't know the lay of the land. That we don't know where they would go to ground to. We've beaten them once before, it will not be that hard to do so again.
We start crushing the Iraqi forces, and the Syrians will most likely start to gain ground on them. Once we crush the Iraqi side of ISIS, we seal the Syrian border off, and let Syria's military finish the fight. At least those guys have some back bone.
We go in there, we hit them so hard with the hammer of the 21st century warfare that their heads break orbit, and we leave.
Then next time some donkey-cave tries to raise up and do it again, we don't sit on our asses for years on end until it becomes a problem that it takes a full Corp of the Army to deal with, like we've done this time.
Don't get me wrong... I love this idea.
But... could we do that, and then leave. That is... let the rest of the world and the Iraqis pick up the pieces/?
djones520 wrote: We do like we did in Iraq the first time. We put 3 divisions on the ground, and we crush them. We hunt them down, and absolutely destroy them. It's not like we don't know the lay of the land. That we don't know where they would go to ground to. We've beaten them once before, it will not be that hard to do so again.
We start crushing the Iraqi forces, and the Syrians will most likely start to gain ground on them. Once we crush the Iraqi side of ISIS, we seal the Syrian border off, and let Syria's military finish the fight. At least those guys have some back bone.
We go in there, we hit them so hard with the hammer of the 21st century warfare that their heads break orbit, and we leave.
Then next time some donkey-cave tries to raise up and do it again, we don't sit on our asses for years on end until it becomes a problem that it takes a full Corp of the Army to deal with, like we've done this time.
Don't get me wrong... I love this idea.
But... could we do that, and then leave. That is... let the rest of the world and the Iraqis pick up the pieces/?
djones520 wrote: We do like we did in Iraq the first time. We put 3 divisions on the ground, and we crush them. We hunt them down, and absolutely destroy them. It's not like we don't know the lay of the land. That we don't know where they would go to ground to. We've beaten them once before, it will not be that hard to do so again.
We start crushing the Iraqi forces, and the Syrians will most likely start to gain ground on them. Once we crush the Iraqi side of ISIS, we seal the Syrian border off, and let Syria's military finish the fight. At least those guys have some back bone.
We go in there, we hit them so hard with the hammer of the 21st century warfare that their heads break orbit, and we leave.
Then next time some donkey-cave tries to raise up and do it again, we don't sit on our asses for years on end until it becomes a problem that it takes a full Corp of the Army to deal with, like we've done this time.
Don't get me wrong... I love this idea.
But... could we do that, and then leave. That is... let the rest of the world and the Iraqis pick up the pieces/?
Isn't that basically what we did the first time?
We spent billions rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure and their military.
If we whack this mole again, we're going to break Iraq. Do we fix it again?
Can't watch the vid at work, I'm guessing she said she would give them all layoffs?
Anyway, the problem with any solution to the ISIS problem is to make sure their children don't create ISIS2 10 years later because they grow up hating us.
It's sad, really. Once upon a time, the Middle East was the beacon of art, science, and rational thought while Europe was killing each other in the name of God.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Can't watch the vid at work, I'm guessing she said she would give them all layoffs?
Ya know... I never got this criticism. Is it because she's a CEO? Because CEO does this all the time.
REmember, this was the time when they merged with Compaq. Mergers & Acquisitions is fugly, but necessary business.
Anyhoo... if you wanna discuss this further, come to my Political Junkie thread.
Anyway, the problem with any solution to the ISIS problem is to make sure their children don't create ISIS2 10 years later because they grow up hating us.
It's sad, really. Once upon a time, the Middle East was the beacon of art, science, and rational thought while Europe was killing each other in the name of God.
ANDREA MITCHELL: Southern strategy. Hillary Clinton is in South Carolina for the first time since an epic defeat to Barack Obama in 2008. But she's being shadowed by the only woman in the Republican race.
12:17 PM ET SEGMENT:
ANDREA MITCHELL: And joining me now is Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina, who is here in South Carolina as well today. Ms. Fiorina, thank you very much for being with us.
CARLY FIORINA: It's great to be with you, Andrea.
MITCHELL: You were really the breakout star according to all reports from Iowa last weekend, the biggest crowds, especially when you went after Hillary Clinton. Is that because you’re the only woman in the Republican field, that you feel enabled to go after her? Or what is the strategy here?
FIORINA: You know, it's interesting. I come from a world where titles are just titles and talk is just talk. You know, it's only in politics where titles and words mean a lot. In the rest of the world, it's actually about, “What have you done?” Actions speak louder than words. People want to know are your words and your actions consistent and are they consistent over time?
And so, I think when 82% of the American people now believe that there is a professional political class more interested in preserving its own power and privilege than it is in serving the American people, people expect basic questions to be asked of anyone running for president. “What have you done? Are you trustworthy? Are you transparent? Will you answer questions?”
MITCHELL She's had a lifetime, though, in public service.
FIORINA: Yes, she has.
MITCHELL: Going back to before she was first lady in Arkansas. She can argue that she's got a record on women's issues, from the Beijing Women's Conference to all of her work with the Children's Defense Fund going up through the Senate, senator from New York, that’s a record. Secretary of state. How do you compare yourself to her?
FIORINA: You know, first I would say that, yes, she did – she said many wonderful things at the Beijing Women's Conference and she has without a doubt been a role model and a woman to be greatly admired by many women around the world.
It's also true that as secretary of state she took women's rights and human rights off the table for discussion with China. It's also true as secretary of state that she called Bashar al-Assad a “positive reformer.” It’s also true in 2011, when she was secretary of state, she said that Iraq was a “free, stable, sovereign nation” and now we have a nation falling apart, Iranian influence growing, ISIS growing. It’s true that she said that she could reset our Russia – our relationship with Russia and Vladimir Putin is on the march.
So I think all of those things I just named go fundamentally to what is her track record.
MITCHELL: You could also argue that a lot of Republicans in the White House and in Congress supported those policies, waged the war in Iraq.
FIORINA: Absolutely, and – that’s right. And by the way, every single Republican candidate has been asked about their vote for the war in Iraq. The one person who's not been asked that question, because she won't answer the question, is Hillary Clinton. The one person who was on the job in 2011 when Iraq started to fall apart was not the Republican nominees or candidates for president, it's Hillary Clinton. She hasn't been asked yet. What would she do now Iraq?
MITCHELL: Well, she actually was asked and she did say last week in New Hampshire that it was a mistake, her vote Iraq, she wrote that in her book. So she’s spoken of that in New Hampshire and in Iowa. You know, you're absolutely correct that she hasn't had a news conference-
FIORINA: She hasn't said what happened from 2011, when both she and President Obama declared victory in Iraq. They declared victory in Iraq in 2011. She was the secretary of state. No one is declaring victory in Iraq now. What happened? What would she do? What would she have done?
MITCHELL: What would you do now against ISIS?
FIORINA: I would do very specific things. First, instead of having a Camp David conference to talk our Arab allies into a bad deal with Iran, I would have had a Camp David conference to talk with our Arab allies about how we can support them to fight ISIS.
Let me give you very specific examples. The Kurds have been asking us to arm them for three years, we still have not. The Jordanians have been asking us to provide them with bombs and materiel. We know King Abdullah of Jordan, I’ve known him for many years, he took the appropriate leadership steps when a Jordanian pilot was burned alive. He was here in this country asking us for bombs and materiel, we haven't provided him with any of them. He's now looking to China for that. The Egyptian president, a very brave and pious Muslim, who has said there's a cancer in the heart of Islam, has asked us to share intelligence. We are not. The Turks have asked us to help them topple Bashar al-Assad, we are not. There are a whole set of things that we've been asked to do by our allies who know this is their fight and we're not doing any of them. So I would hold a summit and talk with them about that.
MITCHELL: And what about the issue of Hillary Clinton saying she represents everyday Americans? Here she's talking about equal pay. Do you support equal pay for women?
FIORINA: Of course I support equal pay for equal work. And that's why in 1963 when a law was passed guaranteeing that, if a woman is being discriminated against in the workforce purely because of her gender she should take every advantage of the law.
But I also know this, a seniority system which exists in federal government that allows a man to watch pornography all day long in the federal government and earn the same pay, pension, and benefits as a woman sitting next to him trying to do a good job, that is not equal pay for equal work. And the seniority system in the federal government that promotes that seniority system, and the unions as well, they're not willing to talk about that.
So before federal government or Hillary Clinton – who by her own measures is not paying women equally in her own office, nor is President Obama – before they lecture others, maybe they ought to look into their own offices or look into the seniority system in the federal government.
MITCHELL: Are you being discriminated against by the Republican National Committee trying to keep you and others who haven't run before, perhaps, and don't have the name identification and the poll results yet – are you being discriminated against by being kept out of the initial debate?
FIORINA: Why do you assume I'm going to be kept out? The debates are not for another 11 weeks. I’m actually glad to have a goal. I'm glad to have clarity about what it takes to get to that stage and I will work very hard to meet the goal.
It's sad, really. Once upon a time, the Middle East was the beacon of art, science, and rational thought while Europe was killing each other in the name of God.
That's a bit of a incorrect assessment. Religious warfare didn't really take off in Europe till the Protastant Reformation, which was also a time of great scientific advancement in Europe and stagnation in the Middle East.
The Pope instituted the Crusades partially because of all the fighting which was going on, very little of which was religious in nature at the time. Sure, they'd burn the occasional suspected witch, but those were relatively rare occurrences, and not particularly religious in nature. Europeans had been doing that when they were pagan.
Muslims have also been fighting each other for religious reasons since the death of Muhammad. Its not a new thing.
Frazzled wrote: Turkey's also conveniently not stopped aid and soldiers going to ISIL, and oil/distillates being sold from ISIL. They are playing us.
Or at least they aren't a unified front. An entire country of people who are on the same page is pretty rare.
When your country is an active funnel for supplies, armaments, troops, monies, and contraband its more than they aren't unified. They are getting actiuve help at least from some segment sof the government.
Well seems we're using Delta Force to whack some leaders. Can make the current situation in Iraq as training ground for the Dark Side (Special Operation Forces)
or liaison efforts with the Iraq army are not up to it, or communications have broken down.
Now we play the waiting game
that.
