we don't have a plan to defeat isis

[jenkinscreekdawg]

we are waiting on the pentagon to devise a plan ! the pentagon stated that they have given prez
lots of plans . he always blames other folks for his failure . this has been going on too long , he
needs to make a decision to stop these murdering radicals .

 

[Radi Nabulsi]

Can't believe they won't arm the folks there that want to fight them. Hell. at least give the Jordanians and Egyptians the intel you have.

 

[Coyote89]

we are waiting on the pentagon to devise a plan ! the pentagon stated that they have given prez
lots of plans . he always blames other folks for his failure . this has been going on too long , he
needs to make a decision to stop these murdering radicals .

Maybe we should just sit this one out and let the Arab world clean up it's own mess. Seems like every time we attempt to own the problem and dictate the outcome, it comes back to haunt us. Consider the following...

• Iranian Revolution: We led a coup of the democratically-elected Prime Minister of Iran, installed the Shah, and even helped them build their nuclear program. Years later, the Iranian people led an overthrow of the Shah, brought Khomeni back from exile to establish an extremist Islamic state, and we've been in a cold war with Iran ever since. But it was ultimately the US coup that facilitated the change from what was once a secular democracy to an extremist Islamic Republic.
  
• Russian-Afghan war: We supplied arms, funding, and military training to Mujaheddin rebels in Afghanistan in an attempt to expel the Russians. Those rebels later formed Al Qaeda, planned and executed 911, and we've been fighting against them in various countries and forms ever since. Our CIA also provided billions of dollars and worked with the Pakistani intelligence agency to create the Taliban we've been fighting against these last 14 years.
  
• Iran-Iraq war: We supported Saddam Hussein in fighting a war against Iran by supplying him with weapons. Just two years after that war ended, Saddam invaded Kuwait and we ended up fighting a war against the very leader and country we had just supported for 8 years. Worse yet, he was using the weapons we gave him to invade Kuwait and to kill Americans.
• US-Iraq war: By invading and forcing a regime change, based on false assumptions about WMDs no less, Iraq has been plunged into chaos. We removed a secular dictator and replaced him with radical Shiites. The Sunnis were then forced out of their jobs and homes and have turned to ISIS (formerly Al Qaeda in Iraq) to fight back. Iraq has been experiencing massive sectarian violence ever since our invasion. We waged war for a dozen years, spent trillions of dollars, lost thousands of soldiers, not to mention 1 million Iraqi civilians being killed, yet the atrocities that are occurring now are even worse than when Saddam was in power and the region is even less stable than it was previously. Plus, in order to fight ISIS, we now have to side with Iranian-backed Shiites.
• Syria: We essentially created ISIS by funding and arming rebels against the Assad regime in Syria. We did so because Assad is a key Russian ally. But many of those rebels have turned out to be ISIS thugs and have been openly brandishing the M16 assault rifles that we supplied them as they seize territory and commit acts of genocide. So, once again, if we put boots on the ground, our enemies will be using the weapons we gave them to kill Americans.
  
• Egypt: By facilitating a regime change, this country has also been plunged into chaos. Mubarak was initially replaced by Morsi who was put into power by the Muslim Brotherhood. This led to a radical Islamist takeover and systematic persecution of non-Muslims. A year later, Morsi was then overthrown via a military coup, and Egypt is now under authoritarian military command. They have been attempting to imprison or execute Muslim Brotherhood leaders ever since and Egypt remains embroiled in political and military hostility.
  
• Libya: By facilitating the killing of Gaddafi and thereby forcing a regime change, this country has also been plunged into chaos and remains torn among rival militias, most notably ISIS. Oh, and there was that small issue of US Ambassadors being murdered by terrorists in Benghazi.

I certainly don't consider my self a "dove" when it comes to national defense. But I think it's very fair to ask what we have gained from all of this. Has any of it made us safer or created greater regional stability? Or has it only made us the target of hostility, diverted our attention, drained our resources, necessitated a massive buildup of domestic surveillance, resulted in American deaths, and strained our relationships with key allies?

Still not sure if Rand Paul is ready to be President, but I agree with him on this key point. Our military interventions in the Arab world have largely been failures and have come back to haunt us.

 

[InsureDawg02]

We screwed up...Saddam was key to that region being somewhat peaceful. He is not around anymore. You need a ruthless dictator over there that strikes fear in any uprising....

 

[letthebigdogeat]

Maybe we should just sit this one out and let the Arab world clean up it's own mess. Seems like every time we attempt to own the problem and dictate the outcome, it comes back to haunt us. Consider the following...

• Iranian Revolution: We led a coup of the democratically-elected Prime Minister of Iran, installed the Shah, and even helped them build their nuclear program. Years later, the Iranian people led an overthrow of the Shah, brought Khomeni back from exile to establish an extremist Islamic state, and we've been in a cold war with Iran ever since. But it was ultimately the US coup that facilitated the change from what was once a secular democracy to an extremist Islamic Republic.
  
• Russian-Afghan war: We supplied arms, funding, and military training to Mujaheddin rebels in Afghanistan in an attempt to expel the Russians. Those rebels later formed Al Qaeda, planned and executed 911, and we've been fighting against them in various countries and forms ever since. Our CIA also provided billions of dollars and worked with the Pakistani intelligence agency to create the Taliban we've been fighting against these last 14 years.
  
• Iran-Iraq war: We supported Saddam Hussein in fighting a war against Iran by supplying him with weapons. Just two years after that war ended, Saddam invaded Kuwait and we ended up fighting a war against the very leader and country we had just supported for 8 years. Worse yet, he was using the weapons we gave him to invade Kuwait and to kill Americans.
• US-Iraq war: By invading and forcing a regime change, based on false assumptions about WMDs no less, Iraq has been plunged into chaos. We removed a secular dictator and replaced him with radical Shiites. The Sunnis were then forced out of their jobs and homes and have turned to ISIS (formerly Al Qaeda in Iraq) to fight back. Iraq has been experiencing massive sectarian violence ever since our invasion. We waged war for a dozen years, spent trillions of dollars, lost thousands of soldiers, not to mention 1 million Iraqi civilians being killed, yet the atrocities that are occurring now are even worse than when Saddam was in power and the region is even less stable than it was previously. Plus, in order to fight ISIS, we now have to side with Iranian-backed Shiites.
• Syria: We essentially created ISIS by funding and arming rebels against the Assad regime in Syria. We did so because Assad is a key Russian ally. But many of those rebels have turned out to be ISIS thugs and have been openly brandishing the M16 assault rifles that we supplied them as they seize territory and commit acts of genocide. So, once again, if we put boots on the ground, our enemies will be using the weapons we gave them to kill Americans.
  
• Egypt: By facilitating a regime change, this country has also been plunged into chaos. Mubarak was initially replaced by Morsi who was put into power by the Muslim Brotherhood. This led to a radical Islamist takeover and systematic persecution of non-Muslims. A year later, Morsi was then overthrown via a military coup, and Egypt is now under authoritarian military command. They have been attempting to imprison or execute Muslim Brotherhood leaders ever since and Egypt remains embroiled in political and military hostility.
  
• Libya: By facilitating the killing of Gaddafi and thereby forcing a regime change, this country has also been plunged into chaos and remains torn among rival militias, most notably ISIS. Oh, and there was that small issue of US Ambassadors being murdered by terrorists in Benghazi.

I certainly don't consider my self a "dove" when it comes to national defense. But I think it's very fair to ask what we have gained from all of this. Has any of it made us safer or created greater regional stability? Or has it only made us the target of hostility, diverted our attention, drained our resources, necessitated a massive buildup of domestic surveillance, resulted in American deaths, and strained our relationships with key allies?

Still not sure if Rand Paul is ready to be President, but I agree with him on this key point. Our military interventions in the Arab world have largely been failures and have come back to haunt us.

For the most part, I agree. A modest answer would be this: Harvest our wealth of oil and natural gas reserves. Use them to drive down the world wide price of oil. Pull ALL personnel out of the Middle East. Put the entire region, absent Isreal, on the "dangerous travel" list. The lower oil price will help dry up the money supply, which will cause them problems funding their terrorism, and if they start blowing shit up over there, we can always go back and stomp the crap out of them. Screw them, they're a bunch of barbarians

 

[letthebigdogeat]

We screwed up...Saddam was key to that region being somewhat peaceful. He is not around anymore. You need a ruthless dictator over there that strikes fear in any uprising....

Yup. Look what happened in Yugoslavia when Tito died. All these people understand is raw, naked power. Step out of line, you get shot. Disobey, you get shot. Act up, you go to the gulag, or you get shot. The only way to deal with them.

 

[shonuff253]

For the most part, I agree. A modest answer would be this: Harvest our wealth of oil and natural gas reserves. Use them to drive down the world wide price of oil. Pull ALL personnel out of the Middle East. Put the entire region, absent Isreal, on the "dangerous travel" list. The lower oil price will help dry up the money supply, which will cause them problems funding their terrorism, and if they start blowing shit up over there, we can always go back and stomp the crap out of them. Screw them, they're a bunch of barbarians

Rad I've got to agree with Bigdog here. If you thought of who the U.S. backed in the middle east to that of picking the Super Bowl, the U.S. would have picked Buffalo all 4 times and San Diego over the 49ers in Super Bowl XXIX by 15. No one, expect for Israel, share our values and we should just back the hell away from the region. Lets not waste one more American life or dollar in the place.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

Boys, I agree with what most of you said. But we can not let some Islamic Army gain control of the middle East and control all that oil. They will become a grave danger over night. Sadly, because of the mistakes, we're going to have to go back at some point. i'd rather do it before they can get the money to buy the weapons that will make it tougher and allow them to kill more Americans. Its a fcked up situation......but one we simply can't sit out and ignore

 

[shonuff253]

Here's the thing Rolo with renewables and domestic production, the U.S. doesn't need foreign oil right now. Our domestic production is the reason the price of oil has plummeted this year. Add that to Saudi pledging not to reduce the amount of oil they're producing for at least another year, we're whipping out the Russian economy without even firing a shot. We just need to leave the Arab people alone and stay our of they're business. Every time we go there we make things worse. Have we ever made anything better there?

 

[letthebigdogeat]

Boys, I agree with what most of you said. But we can not let some Islamic Army gain control of the middle East and control all that oil. They will become a grave danger over night. Sadly, because of the mistakes, we're going to have to go back at some point. i'd rather do it before they can get the money to buy the weapons that will make it tougher and allow them to kill more Americans. Its a fcked up situation......but one we simply can't sit out and ignore

I'd be down for that as long as we do away with these ridiculous ROE. If we go back in, we go back in to WIN. Its sad when there are civilian casualties, but as WT Sherman said, "War is Hell". ISIS controls a town, and you live in that town? Probably a good idea to pack your camel and move, because the infidels are coming to flatten it. If you're a bad guy, you die, no questions asked. Under the current ROE, bring em home.

 

[MinnesotaDawg]

Maybe we should just sit this one out and let the Arab world clean up it's own mess. Seems like every time we attempt to own the problem and dictate the outcome, it comes back to haunt us. Consider the following...

• Iranian Revolution: We led a coup of the democratically-elected Prime Minister of Iran, installed the Shah, and even helped them build their nuclear program. Years later, the Iranian people led an overthrow of the Shah, brought Khomeni back from exile to establish an extremist Islamic state, and we've been in a cold war with Iran ever since. But it was ultimately the US coup that facilitated the change from what was once a secular democracy to an extremist Islamic Republic.
  
• Russian-Afghan war: We supplied arms, funding, and military training to Mujaheddin rebels in Afghanistan in an attempt to expel the Russians. Those rebels later formed Al Qaeda, planned and executed 911, and we've been fighting against them in various countries and forms ever since. Our CIA also provided billions of dollars and worked with the Pakistani intelligence agency to create the Taliban we've been fighting against these last 14 years.
  
• Iran-Iraq war: We supported Saddam Hussein in fighting a war against Iran by supplying him with weapons. Just two years after that war ended, Saddam invaded Kuwait and we ended up fighting a war against the very leader and country we had just supported for 8 years. Worse yet, he was using the weapons we gave him to invade Kuwait and to kill Americans.
• US-Iraq war: By invading and forcing a regime change, based on false assumptions about WMDs no less, Iraq has been plunged into chaos. We removed a secular dictator and replaced him with radical Shiites. The Sunnis were then forced out of their jobs and homes and have turned to ISIS (formerly Al Qaeda in Iraq) to fight back. Iraq has been experiencing massive sectarian violence ever since our invasion. We waged war for a dozen years, spent trillions of dollars, lost thousands of soldiers, not to mention 1 million Iraqi civilians being killed, yet the atrocities that are occurring now are even worse than when Saddam was in power and the region is even less stable than it was previously. Plus, in order to fight ISIS, we now have to side with Iranian-backed Shiites.
• Syria: We essentially created ISIS by funding and arming rebels against the Assad regime in Syria. We did so because Assad is a key Russian ally. But many of those rebels have turned out to be ISIS thugs and have been openly brandishing the M16 assault rifles that we supplied them as they seize territory and commit acts of genocide. So, once again, if we put boots on the ground, our enemies will be using the weapons we gave them to kill Americans.
  
• Egypt: By facilitating a regime change, this country has also been plunged into chaos. Mubarak was initially replaced by Morsi who was put into power by the Muslim Brotherhood. This led to a radical Islamist takeover and systematic persecution of non-Muslims. A year later, Morsi was then overthrown via a military coup, and Egypt is now under authoritarian military command. They have been attempting to imprison or execute Muslim Brotherhood leaders ever since and Egypt remains embroiled in political and military hostility.
  
• Libya: By facilitating the killing of Gaddafi and thereby forcing a regime change, this country has also been plunged into chaos and remains torn among rival militias, most notably ISIS. Oh, and there was that small issue of US Ambassadors being murdered by terrorists in Benghazi.

I certainly don't consider my self a "dove" when it comes to national defense. But I think it's very fair to ask what we have gained from all of this. Has any of it made us safer or created greater regional stability? Or has it only made us the target of hostility, diverted our attention, drained our resources, necessitated a massive buildup of domestic surveillance, resulted in American deaths, and strained our relationships with key allies?

Still not sure if Rand Paul is ready to be President, but I agree with him on this key point. Our military interventions in the Arab world have largely been failures and have come back to haunt us.

Two points . Mosaddeq was a communist that was bent on nationising all foreign investment and moving Iran into the Soviet sphere. He needed to go. Secondly, Jimmy Carter's actions deposed the Shah and installed Khomeni, the chief exporter of terror at the time. One can argue the merits of either move or the merits of doing nothing in either case. I'm not sure that "doing nothing" in the early 50's with regard to the hegemonic proclivities of the soviet union would have been wise, however, Carter's meddling in the late 70's is the root of many, if not most, of the problems in the region today.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

Here's the thing Rolo with renewables and domestic production, the U.S. doesn't need foreign oil right now. Our domestic production is the reason the price of oil has plummeted this year. Add that to Saudi pledging not to reduce the amount of oil they're producing for at least another year, we're whipping out the Russian economy without even firing a shot. We just need to leave the Arab people alone and stay our of they're business. Every time we go there we make things worse. Have we ever made anything better there?

Wasn't my point. If they get access to all that oil they will become awash in cash. That money can make them very powerful. We already have a President who is helping IRAN get the bomb. Imagine if these nuts get one.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

I'd be down for that as long as we do away with these ridiculous ROE. If we go back in, we go back in to WIN. Its sad when there are civilian casualties, but as WT Sherman said, "War is Hell". ISIS controls a town, and you live in that town? Probably a good idea to pack your camel and move, because the infidels are coming to flatten it. If you're a bad guy, you die, no questions asked. Under the current ROE, bring em home.

Completely agree, if we send men to war, don't put any restrictions on them. Win and be done with it. There is collateral damage in every war, its regretful, but no way around it.

 

[letthebigdogeat]

Completely agree, if we send men to war, don't put any restrictions on them. Win and be done with it. There is collateral damage in every war, its regretful, but no way around it.

We tend to forget that we fire-bombed Dresden and Cologne, and during the week between the two atomic bombs, we torched Tokyo. Sad that a lot of innocent people died, but how many more would have been killed if the Germans and Japanese hadn't surrendered?

 

[MinnesotaDawg]

Here's the thing Rolo with renewables and domestic production, the U.S. doesn't need foreign oil right now. Our domestic production is the reason the price of oil has plummeted this year. Add that to Saudi pledging not to reduce the amount of oil they're producing for at least another year, we're whipping out the Russian economy without even firing a shot. We just need to leave the Arab people alone and stay our of they're business. Every time we go there we make things worse. Have we ever made anything better there?

I believe we still import about 4MM BBLS/Day. We ain't there yet.

 

[letthebigdogeat]

I believe we still import about 4MM BBLS/Day. We ain't there yet.

We could be in pretty short order. There's the Shell Oil find in the gulf that's capped. They've just scratched the surface in the Permian Basin. We need to expand our refining capacity for domestic use, which would help. We might need to open some Federal lands, but in 2 or 3 years, we could have enough to supply the US and at least part of Western Europe. At that point, we could tell the Sauds and everybody else over there to pound sand, literally.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

We could be in pretty short order. There's the Shell Oil find in the gulf that's capped. They've just scratched the surface in the Permian Basin. We need to expand our refining capacity for domestic use, which would help. We might need to open some Federal lands, but in 2 or 3 years, we could have enough to supply the US and at least part of Western Europe. At that point, we could tell the Sauds and everybody else over there to pound sand, literally.

And simplify the formulation rules. Right now because of the eco nuts we have a hundred different formula's of gas for different states. We all use the same cars. Use one formula

 

[Riotch]

Maybe we should just sit this one out and let the Arab world clean up it's own mess. Seems like every time we attempt to own the problem and dictate the outcome, it comes back to haunt us. Consider the following...

• Iranian Revolution: We led a coup of the democratically-elected Prime Minister of Iran, installed the Shah, and even helped them build their nuclear program. Years later, the Iranian people led an overthrow of the Shah, brought Khomeni back from exile to establish an extremist Islamic state, and we've been in a cold war with Iran ever since. But it was ultimately the US coup that facilitated the change from what was once a secular democracy to an extremist Islamic Republic.
  
• Russian-Afghan war: We supplied arms, funding, and military training to Mujaheddin rebels in Afghanistan in an attempt to expel the Russians. Those rebels later formed Al Qaeda, planned and executed 911, and we've been fighting against them in various countries and forms ever since. Our CIA also provided billions of dollars and worked with the Pakistani intelligence agency to create the Taliban we've been fighting against these last 14 years.
  
• Iran-Iraq war: We supported Saddam Hussein in fighting a war against Iran by supplying him with weapons. Just two years after that war ended, Saddam invaded Kuwait and we ended up fighting a war against the very leader and country we had just supported for 8 years. Worse yet, he was using the weapons we gave him to invade Kuwait and to kill Americans.
• US-Iraq war: By invading and forcing a regime change, based on false assumptions about WMDs no less, Iraq has been plunged into chaos. We removed a secular dictator and replaced him with radical Shiites. The Sunnis were then forced out of their jobs and homes and have turned to ISIS (formerly Al Qaeda in Iraq) to fight back. Iraq has been experiencing massive sectarian violence ever since our invasion. We waged war for a dozen years, spent trillions of dollars, lost thousands of soldiers, not to mention 1 million Iraqi civilians being killed, yet the atrocities that are occurring now are even worse than when Saddam was in power and the region is even less stable than it was previously. Plus, in order to fight ISIS, we now have to side with Iranian-backed Shiites.
• Syria: We essentially created ISIS by funding and arming rebels against the Assad regime in Syria. We did so because Assad is a key Russian ally. But many of those rebels have turned out to be ISIS thugs and have been openly brandishing the M16 assault rifles that we supplied them as they seize territory and commit acts of genocide. So, once again, if we put boots on the ground, our enemies will be using the weapons we gave them to kill Americans.
  
• Egypt: By facilitating a regime change, this country has also been plunged into chaos. Mubarak was initially replaced by Morsi who was put into power by the Muslim Brotherhood. This led to a radical Islamist takeover and systematic persecution of non-Muslims. A year later, Morsi was then overthrown via a military coup, and Egypt is now under authoritarian military command. They have been attempting to imprison or execute Muslim Brotherhood leaders ever since and Egypt remains embroiled in political and military hostility.
  
• Libya: By facilitating the killing of Gaddafi and thereby forcing a regime change, this country has also been plunged into chaos and remains torn among rival militias, most notably ISIS. Oh, and there was that small issue of US Ambassadors being murdered by terrorists in Benghazi.

I certainly don't consider my self a "dove" when it comes to national defense. But I think it's very fair to ask what we have gained from all of this. Has any of it made us safer or created greater regional stability? Or has it only made us the target of hostility, diverted our attention, drained our resources, necessitated a massive buildup of domestic surveillance, resulted in American deaths, and strained our relationships with key allies?

Still not sure if Rand Paul is ready to be President, but I agree with him on this key point. Our military interventions in the Arab world have largely been failures and have come back to haunt us.

Well stated. We need to stay out of this war. Everyone we start in the Middle East in time we end up losing.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

The biggest mistake I see ppl in this tread make is.....If we stay out of it, then we won't have to worry about them. Wrong. We are the target. They hate us, and they will kill us regardless if its there or here. Ignoring it and pretending its a regional issue is naive at best.

 

[letthebigdogeat]

And simplify the formulation rules. Right now because of the eco nuts we have a hundred different formula's of gas for different states. We all use the same cars. Use one formula

But, but, but......CALIFORNIA!!!!!

 

[im4thedawgs]

Wasn't my point. If they get access to all that oil they will become awash in cash. That money can make them very powerful. We already have a President who is helping IRAN get the bomb. Imagine if these nuts get one.

Carter's lack of support for the Shah and the most progressive and westernized ally of the U.S. was a huge mistake. With our full support he and his family could have remained in power and we would have an ally there today instead of a middle eastern version of N. Korea except with oil money and power. Everything which has happened in the region since has been a direct result of that mistake. FWIW, we invested too much in Iraq to have it pissed away by Obama. We've kept a small force in Korea since the 50s, but I guess thats okay because Obama didn't make a campaign promise to leave there. Now he's sending a few hundred troops back. LOL....what a ridiculous thing to do. Even if Obama knew how to defeat ISIS with reportedly only a force of 20,000, he doesn't have the real desire to do it.

 

[im4thedawgs]

The biggest mistake I see ppl in this tread make is.....If we stay out of it, then we won't have to worry about them. Wrong. We are the target. They hate us, and they will kill us regardless if its there or here. Ignoring it and pretending its a regional issue is naive at best.

Good point. We weren't fighting anyone in the Middle East on 9/11. Had almost a zero military "imprint" there at the time.

 

[im4thedawgs]

Can't believe they won't arm the folks there that want to fight them. Hell. at least give the Jordanians and Egyptians the intel you have.

This is the most fxxked up administration to ever occupy the White House. You really have to question every decision and action they take since it always appears to be self-serving and with no regard to common sense or morals. The same folks who decried waterboarding have no problem with Barry systematically executing U.S. citizens suspected as terrorist and what other unlucky bastards happen to be with them using drones.

 

[letthebigdogeat]

This is the most fxxked up administration to ever occupy the White House. You really have to question every decision and action they take since it always appears to be self-serving and with no regard to common sense or morals. The same folks who decried waterboarding have no problem with Barry systematically executing U.S. citizens suspected as terrorist and what other unlucky bastards happen to be with them using drones.

No kidding. 400 advisors? Holy crap, we've done this already. After my Dad's hitch in '62, they offered him a raise to go back active and go to "this little backwater country in Southeast Asia" to help train arty. Thank God he had the good sense to say no thanks. If we're going to go, we go with the Powell doctrine and open up a serious can of whoop ass. To quote Toby, they need to "feel like the whole damn world is rainin' down on you". Fxxk, advisors. We have a DB in the White House.

 

[Coyote89]

Boys, I agree with what most of you said. But we can not let some Islamic Army gain control of the middle East and control all that oil. They will become a grave danger over night. Sadly, because of the mistakes, we're going to have to go back at some point. i'd rather do it before they can get the money to buy the weapons that will make it tougher and allow them to kill more Americans. Its a fcked up situation......but one we simply can't sit out and ignore

The real answer here is this is a proxy war with Russia. We keep getting involved and trying to dictate the outcome to ensure the Russians don't get to influence the outcome to their benefit.


ISIS is currently seizing territory from Syria and Iraq. Why not let the Syrian and Iraqi armies deal with them rather than attempting to do so ourselves? If certain opposition militia groups need to be armed or funded to put down the uprising, why can't other regional powers do that rather than the US? After all, they have a lot more at stake? Every time we go into the middle East and attempt to own the problem and dictate the outcome, it comes back to haunt us. We end up supporting governments or rebel groups that are hostile to the US while making ourselves the object of their hatred.

Two points . Mosaddeq was a communist that was bent on nationising all foreign investment and moving Iran into the Soviet sphere. He needed to go. Secondly, Jimmy Carter's actions deposed the Shah and installed Khomeni, the chief exporter of terror at the time. One can argue the merits of either move or the merits of doing nothing in either case. I'm not sure that "doing nothing" in the early 50's with regard to the hegemonic proclivities of the soviet union would have been wise, however, Carter's meddling in the late 70's is the root of many, if not most, of the problems in the region today.

There's a big difference between facilitating a coup and doing nothing. Was a coup really the only option?

Meanwhile, our obsession with opposing the Russians on every front has led us down a lot of disastrous paths. Nearly every communist regime that aligned itself with the Soviets has since fallen, including many former Soviet Republics, and that was accomplished via economic sanctions and political alliances, not war. Meanwhile, each time we've intervened militarily, it has led to something worse. Conducting a coup on the Iranian PM led to that country eventually becoming a radical Islamic state rather than a secular democracy. Arming and funding the Mujahedin rebels in Afghanistan led to the creation of Al Qaeda whereas our desperate attempts to prevent a communist regime led to the creation of the Taliban. Forcing a secular dictator like Saddam out of power has plunged Iraq into a sectarian struggle among the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. Our actions are the reason the country is now overrun with ISIS terrorists and its the reason Iran is poised to significantly increase its influence. Our desperate efforts to oppose Assad (a key Russian ally) in Syria, led to us arming and training the wrong rebels, many of whom later turned out to be ISIS, while the moderate rebels have only been weakened. Likewise, are Libya or Egypt really better off now than they were under Gaddafi and Mubarak?

Every time we take military action to fix what we think is a bad situation in the Middle East/North Africa, it turns out worse, and if we don't learn from our mistakes, we are doomed to repeat them.

 

[shonuff253]

The real answer here is this is a proxy war with Russia. We keep getting involved and trying to dictate the outcome to ensure the Russians don't get to influence the outcome to their benefit.


ISIS is currently seizing territory from Syria and Iraq. Why not let the Syrian and Iraqi armies deal with them rather than attempting to do so ourselves? If certain opposition militia groups need to be armed or funded to put down the uprising, why can't other regional powers do that rather than the US? After all, they have a lot more at stake? Every time we go into the middle East and attempt to own the problem and dictate the outcome, it comes back to haunt us. We end up supporting governments or rebel groups that are hostile to the US while making ourselves the object of their hatred.

People keep saying this, but only Saddam has invaded another country and tried take over their oil. We have many enemies in that region, but most of them, including the two largest Islamic powers (Iran and Saudi Arabia) haven't invaded anyone and Israel is our ally. So, unless some dictator tries to invade another country, I think we need to stay out of it and just defend ourselves from foreign attack.

There's a big difference between facilitating a coup and doing nothing. Was a coup really the only option?

Meanwhile, our obsession with opposing the Russians on every front has led us down a lot of disastrous paths. Nearly every communist regime that aligned itself with the Soviets has since fallen, including many former Soviet Republics, and that was accomplished via economic sanctions and political alliances, not war. Meanwhile, each time we've intervened militarily, it has led to something worse. Conducting a coup on the Iranian PM led to that country eventually becoming a radical Islamic state rather than a secular democracy. Arming and funding the Mujahedin rebels in Afghanistan led to the creation of Al Qaeda whereas our desperate attempts to prevent a communist regime led to the creation of the Taliban. Forcing a secular dictator like Saddam out of power has plunged Iraq into a sectarian struggle among the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. Our actions are the reason the country is now overrun with ISIS terrorists and its the reason Iran is poised to significantly increase its influence. Our desperate efforts to oppose Assad (a key Russian ally) in Syria, led to us arming and training the wrong rebels, many of whom later turned out to be ISIS, while the moderate rebels have only been weakened. Likewise, are Libya or Egypt really better off now than they were under Gaddafi and Mubarak?

Every time we take military action to fix what we think is a bad situation in the Middle East/North Africa, it turns out worse, and if we don't learn from our mistakes, we are doomed to repeat them.

Coyote I agree with you 100%. Military action has always failed in the middle east every single time but people want that to be our first course of action which is lunacy.

There have been two very successful example of defeating an insurgency within the last 25 years and they are the IRA in Ireland and ETA or Basque in Spain. For decades both yhe Spanish and UK governments tired to defeat these insurgencies with military force and failed with the cost of hundred of lives. But then they decided to actually sit down and negotiate with the insurgents and both countries have had peace now for over 20 years. We can't win every fight with military force sometimes for the sake of the greater good we have to cut our loses, talk to the enemy and negotiate.

 

[letthebigdogeat]

The real answer here is this is a proxy war with Russia. We keep getting involved and trying to dictate the outcome to ensure the Russians don't get to influence the outcome to their benefit.


ISIS is currently seizing territory from Syria and Iraq. Why not let the Syrian and Iraqi armies deal with them rather than attempting to do so ourselves? If certain opposition militia groups need to be armed or funded to put down the uprising, why can't other regional powers do that rather than the US? After all, they have a lot more at stake? Every time we go into the middle East and attempt to own the problem and dictate the outcome, it comes back to haunt us. We end up supporting governments or rebel groups that are hostile to the US while making ourselves the object of their hatred.

People keep saying this, but only Saddam has invaded another country and tried take over their oil. We have many enemies in that region, but most of them, including the two largest Islamic powers (Iran and Saudi Arabia) haven't invaded anyone and Israel is our ally. So, unless some dictator tries to invade another country, I think we need to stay out of it and just defend ourselves from foreign attack.

There's a big difference between facilitating a coup and doing nothing. Was a coup really the only option?

Meanwhile, our obsession with opposing the Russians on every front has led us down a lot of disastrous paths. Nearly every communist regime that aligned itself with the Soviets has since fallen, including many former Soviet Republics, and that was accomplished via economic sanctions and political alliances, not war. Meanwhile, each time we've intervened militarily, it has led to something worse. Conducting a coup on the Iranian PM led to that country eventually becoming a radical Islamic state rather than a secular democracy. Arming and funding the Mujahedin rebels in Afghanistan led to the creation of Al Qaeda whereas our desperate attempts to prevent a communist regime led to the creation of the Taliban. Forcing a secular dictator like Saddam out of power has plunged Iraq into a sectarian struggle among the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. Our actions are the reason the country is now overrun with ISIS terrorists and its the reason Iran is poised to significantly increase its influence. Our desperate efforts to oppose Assad (a key Russian ally) in Syria, led to us arming and training the wrong rebels, many of whom later turned out to be ISIS, while the moderate rebels have only been weakened. Likewise, are Libya or Egypt really better off now than they were under Gaddafi and Mubarak?

Every time we take military action to fix what we think is a bad situation in the Middle East/North Africa, it turns out worse, and if we don't learn from our mistakes, we are doomed to repeat them.

That's all well and good, but all that's already taken place and it can't be changed. What we have now is a freaking mess, and it's getting worse. In addition, ISIS is not a State, it's a movement. There goal is to establish a new Caliphate, which entails conquering a bunch of territory. Let's say we step back, and let them take over Iraq. What do we do when they decide to take over Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia. In addition, the Isrealis aren't going to sit still for long, in particular if ISIS decides they're next. As much as I'd like them to clean up this mess like they did in 1967, it will mean the Middle East will be in flames. That's okay by me, but ISIS has decided the US is a target. The vacuum in Iraq came about because the "President", and I use that term loosely, decided to pull the troops all at once. We may be forced to go in again, which would have been a lot easier if we still had bases there.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

Coyote I agree with you 100%. Military action has always failed in the middle east every single time but people want that to be our first course of action which is lunacy.

There have been two very successful example of defeating an insurgency within the last 25 years and they are the IRA in Ireland and ETA or Basque in Spain. For decades both yhe Spanish and UK governments tired to defeat these insurgencies with military force and failed with the cost of hundred of lives. But then they decided to actually sit down and negotiate with the insurgents and both countries have had peace now for over 20 years. We can't win every fight with military force sometimes for the sake of the greater good we have to cut our loses, talk to the enemy and negotiate.

How do you negotiate with ISIS? Give them a cap on beheadings? A certain number of young slave girls? Muslim courts for muslims? Maybe live burning's on the third Thursday of every month? Honor Killing Mondays? what?

 

[Coyote89]

The biggest mistake I see ppl in this tread make is.....If we stay out of it, then we won't have to worry about them. Wrong. We are the target. They hate us, and they will kill us regardless if its there or here. Ignoring it and pretending its a regional issue is naive at best.

Three questions:

1. Who are "they?" Are you referring the Sunnis, the Shiites, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the state governments of Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Russia, etc.? Will your answer be the same a year from now? If we go over there to wipe out our enemies before they can attack us, exactly who are we fighting for and against? Just kill them all I guess?
   
   
2. How exactly does waging war in the Middle East prevent some terrorist from blowing something up here in the US? If anything, it gives them even more reason to target us, not only out of hatred, but out of a fight for their own survival.
   
   
3. Any chance our many interventions in the Middle East are the reason they hate us and target us in the first place? Nah, must be because of our freedom (as if we're the only country on earth that has freedom).

The neocon approach of trying to pro-actively identify and wipe out any potential foreign threat has failed us for decades. Yet some people want to just keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

 

[letthebigdogeat]

Coyote I agree with you 100%. Military action has always failed in the middle east every single time but people want that to be our first course of action which is lunacy.

There have been two very successful example of defeating an insurgency within the last 25 years and they are the IRA in Ireland and ETA or Basque in Spain. For decades both yhe Spanish and UK governments tired to defeat these insurgencies with military force and failed with the cost of hundred of lives. But then they decided to actually sit down and negotiate with the insurgents and both countries have had peace now for over 20 years. We can't win every fight with military force sometimes for the sake of the greater good we have to cut our loses, talk to the enemy and negotiate.

We're talking about Europeans vs Islamic murderers. I don't recall seeing videos of IRA or Basque separatists chopping peoples' heads off. In addition, they just wanted to be left alone. These lunatics will only be happy when they have conquered as much territory as suits them, and only then when they have killed anybody that doesn't bow before Allah.

 

[letthebigdogeat]

Three questions:

1. Who are "they?" Are you referring the Sunnis, the Shiites, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the state governments of Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Russia, etc.? Will your answer be the same a year from now? If we go over there to wipe out our enemies before they can attack us, exactly who are we fighting for and against? Just kill them all I guess?
   
   
2. How exactly does waging war in the Middle East prevent some terrorist from blowing something up here in the US? If anything, it gives them even more reason to target us, not only out of hatred, but out of a fight for their own survival.
   
   
3. Any chance our many interventions in the Middle East are the reason they hate us and target us in the first place? Nah, must be because of our freedom (as if we're the only country on earth that has freedom).

The neocon approach of trying to pro-actively identify and wipe out any potential foreign threat has failed us for decades. Yet some people want to just keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

It's like a young infantryman told me. "We fight them there to keep you from having to fight them here." Unfortunately, there's only one solution, and that is to kill EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. Seriously, that's all they understand.
BTW, what have we ever done to the Middle Easterners. Hmmmm.........freed them from the Nazis? No, that can't be it. Their problem is that they follow a religion of Death, and they're not happy unless they're killing somebody. It's the Jews! It's the Christians! It's each other! This shit has been going on for a long time. The only reason we haven't heard about it before is that the iron-handed dectators in the region killed everybody who stepped out of line. Marshal Tito died, and Yugoslavia turned into a long bloodsoaked ethnic cleansing, started by the Muslims. Hell, we went in on their side. Do we get credit for that? Without us, they would have been wiped out.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

Three questions:

1. Who are "they?" Are you referring the Sunnis, the Shiites, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the state governments of Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Russia, etc.? Will your answer be the same a year from now? If we go over there to wipe out our enemies before they can attack us, exactly who are we fighting for and against? Just kill them all I guess?
   
   
2. How exactly does waging war in the Middle East prevent some terrorist from blowing something up here in the US? If anything, it gives them even more reason to target us, not only out of hatred, but out of a fight for their own survival.
   
   
3. Any chance our many interventions in the Middle East are the reason they hate us and target us in the first place? Nah, must be because of our freedom (as if we're the only country on earth that has freedom).

The neocon approach of trying to pro-actively identify and wipe out any potential foreign threat has failed us for decades. Yet some people want to just keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

1.ISIS

2. Have the blown up anything since 2001?

3. No, we've saved more Muslims than anyone on Earth. speaking for myself IDGAS why they hate us, we've made mistakes. Attacking Assad in Syria, not leaving troops in Iraq and electing a POS who would rather appease these savages then fight them. Like it or not, they are at war with us. Doesn't matter what we do, they want to kill us. Now we can just be nice and ignore the slaughter of Christians and Muslims cause its not in our back yard......you know, like we did with Hitler. We can wait until the take over all of Iraq, and start rolling in oil money........Or we can put an end to them now.

No one wants war. What had we done to deserve 911? Nothing. That was pulled off by a guy who had 300m. I wonder what they can do when they have 100s of billions?

 

[letthebigdogeat]

1.ISIS

2. Have the blown up anything since 2001?

3. No, we've saved more Muslims than anyone on Earth. speaking for myself IDGAS why they hate us, we've made mistakes. Attacking Assad in Syria, not leaving troops in Iraq and electing a POS who would rather appease these savages then fight them. Like it or not, they are at war with us. Doesn't matter what we do, they want to kill us. Now we can just be nice and ignore the slaughter of Christians and Muslims cause its not in our back yard......you know, like we did with Hitler. We can wait until the take over all of Iraq, and start rolling in oil money........Or we can put an end to them now.

No one wants war. What had we done to deserve 911? Nothing. That was pulled off by a guy who had 300m. I wonder what they can do when they have 100s of billions?

The only caveat I'll add is that our military MUST be allowed to prosecute the war as they see fit. They're holed up in a Mosque? BOOM! Some of these liberals need to talk to our service personnel. They've got to ask permission to pull the trigger. It's unfair to our guys. They do their damndest to avoid killing civilians, but mistakes happen in war.

 

[im4thedawgs]

The only caveat I'll add is that our military MUST be allowed to prosecute the war as they see fit. They're holed up in a Mosque? BOOM! Some of these liberals need to talk to our service personnel. They've got to ask permission to pull the trigger. It's unfair to our guys. They do their damndest to avoid killing civilians, but mistakes happen in war.

For those saying it will take years to defeat ISIS and it's 20,000 Toyota pickup riding fighters, just for a historical reference I wonder how long it would've taken Patton to drive ISIS out of Iraq and Syria? After the first few weeks whatever was left of them would be somewhere in hiding.

 

[im4thedawgs]

The only caveat I'll add is that our military MUST be allowed to prosecute the war as they see fit. They're holed up in a Mosque? BOOM! Some of these liberals need to talk to our service personnel. They've got to ask permission to pull the trigger. It's unfair to our guys. They do their damndest to avoid killing civilians, but mistakes happen in war.

Obama has no real desire to defeat ISIS. Our military spy satellites can read a license plate and ISIS is holding parades after capturing a town. If the military was allowed to execute a "war plan" they'd either be dug in or dead. Air campaigns are devastating if actually pursued with the goal of destroying the enemy. A couple of old fashioned "daisy cutters" strategically dropped would get their attention for starters. We only pretend to be "at war" now. Ask those who survived in Dresden Germany about what a real air campaign looks like.

 

[''M'']

Obama has no real desire to defeat ISIS. Our military spy satellites can read a license plate and ISIS is holding parades after capturing a town. If the military was allowed to execute a "war plan" they'd either be dug in or dead. Air campaigns are devastating if actually pursued with the goal of destroying the enemy. A couple of old fashioned "daisy cutters" strategically dropped would get their attention for starters. We only pretend to be "at war" now. Ask those who survived in Dresden Germany about what a real air campaign looks like.

Obama has no real desire to defeat ISIS. Our military spy satellites can read a license plate and ISIS is holding parades after capturing a town. If the military was allowed to execute a "war plan" they'd either be dug in or dead. Air campaigns are devastating if actually pursued with the goal of destroying the enemy. A couple of old fashioned "daisy cutters" strategically dropped would get their attention for starters. We only pretend to be "at war" now. Ask those who survived in Dresden Germany about what a real air campaign looks like.

Dresden