Where is obama foreign policy?

[Bitek]

My personal opinion, isis poses the greatest threat to the united states since maybe world war II.

Osama bin laden could only have dreamed of having an army like isis does. In the grand scheme of things, bin laden is small scale to what has happened after he died.

I think ISIS is incredibly dangerous, I'd say "greatest threat since world war II" is very much an overstatement and I'm not jumping on the bandwagon yet.

So we attack ISIS. Fairly strong support for that in the US. OK, what exactly do we plan on doing? You deride the airstrikes that have helped our Kurdish allies push them back from the Mosul Dam and some other key areas. Reports are coming out we just killed some senior leaders (almost got al-Bagdadi too.)
But you say do more.

Are we putting boots on the ground then? Where are we marching too? Here is the territory they control:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29068416

If we really go after them, that means we're going into Syria. What about just supporting our allies the Kurds? They can kick their ass. Look where the Kurds are:

Look how that lines up with the bigger problem in the ME, the fact that these ethnic and religious groups spill over arbitrary borders set after the fall of the last empire in the area, the Ottomans.

Either way, Syria is being attacked, and it really calls into question the long term viability of that state. If we empower the Kurds, why would they stop and concede power back to Damascus? They will want to enlarge the federal state they now enjoy into the Kurdish areas in Syria. Turkey won't be happy either.

Speaking of the viability of Syria, look at this map. Assad in an Alawite, a minority in a mostly Sunni country (ISIS in Sunni).

Map source and good primer.


If we invade or assist Kurds & other rebels, we will be going way into Syria and will likely end with cutting a deal with Assad, or flushing him out with the other trash. How does this state stay together? Kurds will want autonomy or their trouble. Would we let Sunni's take power? Who would that be anyway?
If Sunnis do take power, they will want to ally with the Sunnis in western Iraq and oppose the Iranian aligned Shias in Iraq now that run the show. . Don't forget they will likely want some revenge against the Alawites who have killing them under Assad.

Start the count down to the next sectarian war.

Ok, leave Assad in power. Now we've neutered the Sunnis in Iraq and Syria effectively in their main homeland. Should go over well...

Plus, Assad is Putin's boy. Syria is the one sphere of influence Russia has in the ME. They will oppose us going into Syria, and especially putting anyone in power that aligns to us and not Russia. How's Putin going to react to this?

Maybe we want to do this for revenge for him invading Ukraine, but I wouldn't think for a second he won't retaliate by pushing somewhere else, either towards Kiev or elsewhere in E Europe.

So then we are back to escalating war with Russia again, the war we are trying to avoid right now. Worst comes to worst and we end up having masses of troops/arms/tension in the ME and in Europe.

Its so fucked its beyond belief. Maybe most dangerous since WWII, but not because of goat-humping ISIS itself. The ME and its artificially-created borders has been on a path of self-immolation for a while and is ready to split at the seams.

Maybe we should really consider the earthquakes we may set off if we go in there and insert ourselves into this chaos again. What is the exit strategy you are envisioning? What do we want to commit ourselves too?
I'm sure this is keeping Obama up at night. Could easily spin into something bigger than Iraq II.

 

[kage69]

Its so fucked its beyond belief. Maybe most dangerous since WWII, but not because of goat-humping ISIS itself. The ME and its artificially-created borders has been on a path of self-immolation for a while and is ready to split at the seams. Maybe we should really consider the earthquakes we may set off if we go in there and insert ourselves into this chaos again. What is the exit strategy you are envisioning? What do we want to commit ourselves too?
I'm sure this is keeping Obama up at night. Could easily spin into something bigger than Iraq II.

Well said. Domestic politics aside, I'm glad we have a cautious president for this period of crazy instead of a pretend cowboy with no brains and only other people's balls, or a senile lunatic itching for a fight. The ME is a huge loaded bar, with sporadic pockets of violence on the verge of going full on Road House. I'd prefer to walk in quietly, big stick in hand ready to adjudicate if need be, and leave the fighting to others while I tend my drink. Seems like a more sensible alternative to the 'call everyone a pussy and start flipping tables' strategy.

Yet again I find myself sighing in relief that McCain didn't win. Can you imagine?

Nice to have a cautious president during times with few if any good choices. If unpleasantness is in the future for us, I'd prefer it to be on the part of an enemy and not come in the form of a self-inflicted wound that refuses to heal.

 

[ivwshane]

I think ISIS is incredibly dangerous, I'd say "greatest threat since world war II" is very much an overstatement and I'm not jumping on the bandwagon yet.

So we attack ISIS. Fairly strong support for that in the US. OK, what exactly do we plan on doing? You deride the airstrikes that have helped our Kurdish allies push them back from the Mosul Dam and some other key areas. Reports are coming out we just killed some senior leaders (almost got al-Bagdadi too.)
But you say do more.

Are we putting boots on the ground then? Where are we marching too? Here is the territory they control:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29068416

If we really go after them, that means we're going into Syria. What about just supporting our allies the Kurds? They can kick their ass. Look where the Kurds are:

Look how that lines up with the bigger problem in the ME, the fact that these ethnic and religious groups spill over arbitrary borders set after the fall of the last empire in the area, the Ottomans.

Either way, Syria is being attacked, and it really calls into question the long term viability of that state. If we empower the Kurds, why would they stop and concede power back to Damascus? They will want to enlarge the federal state they now enjoy into the Kurdish areas in Syria. Turkey won't be happy either.

Speaking of the viability of Syria, look at this map. Assad in an Alawite, a minority in a mostly Sunni country (ISIS in Sunni).

Map source and good primer.


If we invade or assist Kurds & other rebels, we will be going way into Syria and will likely end with cutting a deal with Assad, or flushing him out with the other trash. How does this state stay together? Kurds will want autonomy or their trouble. Would we let Sunni's take power? Who would that be anyway?
If Sunnis do take power, they will want to ally with the Sunnis in western Iraq and oppose the Iranian aligned Shias in Iraq now that run the show. . Don't forget they will likely want some revenge against the Alawites who have killing them under Assad.

Start the count down to the next sectarian war.

Ok, leave Assad in power. Now we've neutered the Sunnis in Iraq and Syria effectively in their main homeland. Should go over well...

Plus, Assad is Putin's boy. Syria is the one sphere of influence Russia has in the ME. They will oppose us going into Syria, and especially putting anyone in power that aligns to us and not Russia. How's Putin going to react to this?

Maybe we want to do this for revenge for him invading Ukraine, but I wouldn't think for a second he won't retaliate by pushing somewhere else, either towards Kiev or elsewhere in E Europe.

So then we are back to escalating war with Russia again, the war we are trying to avoid right now. Worst comes to worst and we end up having masses of troops/arms/tension in the ME and in Europe.

Its so fucked its beyond belief. Maybe most dangerous since WWII, but not because of goat-humping ISIS itself. The ME and its artificially-created borders has been on a path of self-immolation for a while and is ready to split at the seams.

Maybe we should really consider the earthquakes we may set off if we go in there and insert ourselves into this chaos again. What is the exit strategy you are envisioning? What do we want to commit ourselves too?
I'm sure this is keeping Obama up at night. Could easily spin into something bigger than Iraq II.

Fuck all that noise! We just need Obama to be a better leader! Don't ask me what that means and don't ask me what I'd do! I'm just a turd on the internet with no clue! But my gut tells me we need to do something and we need to do something now! Fuck consequences! Fuck history! 'Merica! Fuck ya!


That is what you are dealing with and while I applaud your post for the wealth of information you provided, it will do little to change the mind of the gut thinkers (tm) like the OP.

 

[michal1980]

on the golf course.

 

[alzan]

Well said. Domestic politics aside, I'm glad we have a cautious president for this period of crazy instead of a pretend cowboy with no brains and only other people's balls, or a senile lunatic itching for a fight. The ME is a huge loaded bar, with sporadic pockets of violence on the verge of going full on Road House. I'd prefer to walk in quietly, big stick in hand ready to adjudicate if need be, and leave the fighting to others while I tend my drink. Seems like a more sensible alternative to the 'call everyone a pussy and start flipping tables' strategy.

Yet again I find myself sighing in relief that McCain didn't win. Can you imagine?

Nice to have a cautious president during times with few if any good choices. If unpleasantness is in the future for us, I'd prefer it to be on the part of an enemy and not come in the form of a self-inflicted wound that refuses to heal.

No lie! I can (unfortunately) imagine; thanks for reminding me (us).

I think ISIS is incredibly dangerous, I'd say "greatest threat since world war II" is very much an overstatement and I'm not jumping on the bandwagon yet.

So we attack ISIS. Fairly strong support for that in the US. OK, what exactly do we plan on doing? You deride the airstrikes that have helped our Kurdish allies push them back from the Mosul Dam and some other key areas. Reports are coming out we just killed some senior leaders (almost got al-Bagdadi too.)
But you say do more.

Are we putting boots on the ground then? Where are we marching too? Here is the territory they control:

If we really go after them, that means we're going into Syria. What about just supporting our allies the Kurds? They can kick their ass. Look where the Kurds are:

Look how that lines up with the bigger problem in the ME, the fact that these ethnic and religious groups spill over arbitrary borders set after the fall of the last empire in the area, the Ottomans.

Either way, Syria is being attacked, and it really calls into question the long term viability of that state. If we empower the Kurds, why would they stop and concede power back to Damascus? They will want to enlarge the federal state they now enjoy into the Kurdish areas in Syria. Turkey won't be happy either.

Speaking of the viability of Syria, look at this map. Assad in an Alawite, a minority in a mostly Sunni country (ISIS in Sunni).

If we invade or assist Kurds & other rebels, we will be going way into Syria and will likely end with cutting a deal with Assad, or flushing him out with the other trash. How does this state stay together? Kurds will want autonomy or their trouble. Would we let Sunni's take power? Who would that be anyway?
If Sunnis do take power, they will want to ally with the Sunnis in western Iraq and oppose the Iranian aligned Shias in Iraq now that run the show. . Don't forget they will likely want some revenge against the Alawites who have killing them under Assad.

Start the count down to the next sectarian war.

Ok, leave Assad in power. Now we've neutered the Sunnis in Iraq and Syria effectively in their main homeland. Should go over well...

Plus, Assad is Putin's boy. Syria is the one sphere of influence Russia has in the ME. They will oppose us going into Syria, and especially putting anyone in power that aligns to us and not Russia. How's Putin going to react to this?

Maybe we want to do this for revenge for him invading Ukraine, but I wouldn't think for a second he won't retaliate by pushing somewhere else, either towards Kiev or elsewhere in E Europe.

So then we are back to escalating war with Russia again, the war we are trying to avoid right now. Worst comes to worst and we end up having masses of troops/arms/tension in the ME and in Europe.

Its so fucked its beyond belief. Maybe most dangerous since WWII, but not because of goat-humping ISIS itself. The ME and its artificially-created borders has been on a path of self-immolation for a while and is ready to split at the seams.

Maybe we should really consider the earthquakes we may set off if we go in there and insert ourselves into this chaos again. What is the exit strategy you are envisioning? What do we want to commit ourselves too?
I'm sure this is keeping Obama up at night. Could easily spin into something bigger than Iraq II.

Good post and info.

 

[brycejones]

Unlike the other troll crap others are posting, your post makes a good point.

The substance is not your post, but what your post reflects. Since late 2001 the United States has been involved in a non-stop conflict. Not a major conflict where 20,000 are dying in one day, like what happened Battle of Gettysburg where over 50,000 died. The middle east has worn down our desire to fight. The middle east has been like a river against its banks. The constant flow has slowly worn us down. Little by little the American people have lost interest in the middle east.

The American people will be against attacking isis until they are on our door step. I doubt anythign short of nuking London or New York will get the people fired up again.

We are isolated from the conflict by 2 oceans. Instead of isis being just a few hundred miles from our borders, they are several thousand away. As long as the enemy is "over there", people just are not going to care.

I can only guess you are afraid to address this:

This from someone who posted the answer is to "bomb them back to the stone age" you don't think innocent people get killed in that scenario?

 

[alzan]

I can only guess you are afraid to address this:

This from someone who posted the answer is to "bomb them back to the stone age" you don't think innocent people get killed in that scenario?

From what I can tell TH takes a spaghetti western attitude towards Muslims, "The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim."

 

[Victorian Gray]

Bomb them back to the stone age.

By killing our citizens and making threats towards the united states, isn't that an act of war? Shouldn't we respond as such?

Personally, I do not care if we invade Syria. The alternative is isis taking control of weapons and escalating the conflict.

isis is a cancer and it is growing fast. How long should obama wait before he takes action? Until the royal family of Saudi Arabia is overthrown? Until the oil fields in Kuwait and Saudi are seized?

Maybe when chemical weapons are released on Israel? Maybe then obama should take action?

You'll be enlisting soon?

 

[Victorian Gray]

My personal opinion, isis poses the greatest threat to the united states since maybe world war II.

Osama bin laden could only have dreamed of having an army like isis does. In the grand scheme of things, bin laden is small scale to what has happened after he died.

Seek professional help. Seriously, do it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Good post and info.

One of the better ones, but all of that said we are going to have to consider "what happens next" if ISIL does something nasty.

As far as now I believe we should be less casual. Obama should be leading here and stop perpetually running for office. Don't say that we haven't a strategy or won't have "boots on the ground". Just STFU if you don't know what you are going to do and don't tell your enemies that you won't do something to help them form their own strategy.

This really isn't rocket science and we're doing things mostly right.

Get "a coalition of the willing", not that "abhorrent bribed group to give the appearance of legitimacy" of Jr, but the one Daddy had. I wish we had Sr. right now. Well you work with what you are given.

Get the nations in the region on board. They may not like us but we can be the enemy of their enemy. Whether we have any diplomatic skills is questionable, but hire a friggin PR firm if you have to. This is really important so we don't get bit in the butt.

Ideally we'd have material support but I'd take good wishes or even a turn of a blind eye.

The next part is military and it's straightforward. Tell the armed forces to get 'er done and get the hell out of the way.

 

[boomerang]

Obama does need to step it up and start being, well, Presidential. Or something. Anything.

I think it's completely unrealistic to expect more from him. The nation is just going to have to ride the remainder of his presidency out. What's key is if we'll learn anything from the experience. I fully expect that we won't.

http://americanthinker.com/2014/09/...cence_explain_his_presidential_lassitude.html

 

[dank69]

One of the better ones, but all of that said we are going to have to consider "what happens next" if ISIL does something nasty.

As far as now I believe we should be less casual. Obama should be leading here and stop perpetually running for office. Don't say that we haven't a strategy or won't have "boots on the ground". Just STFU if you don't know what you are going to do and don't tell your enemies that you won't do something to help them form their own strategy.

This really isn't rocket science and we're doing things mostly right.

Get "a coalition of the willing", not that "abhorrent bribed group to give the appearance of legitimacy" of Jr, but the one Daddy had. I wish we had Sr. right now. Well you work with what you are given.

Get the nations in the region on board. They may not like us but we can be the enemy of their enemy. Whether we have any diplomatic skills is questionable, but hire a friggin PR firm if you have to. This is really important so we don't get bit in the butt.

Ideally we'd have material support but I'd take good wishes or even a turn of a blind eye.

The next part is military and it's straightforward. Tell the armed forces to get 'er done and get the hell out of the way.

I thought you were anti-war? Why should the US do anything about ISIL at this point?

Here's a plan for you: Keep an eye on them and try to prevent them from carrying out attacks on US soil. Anyone that travels over there is on their own.

 

[bshole]

I thought you were anti-war? Why should the US do anything about ISIL at this point?

Here's a plan for you: Keep an eye on them and try to prevent them from carrying out attacks on US soil. Anyone that travels over there is on their own.

Now that is a strategy I can live with!

 

[Texashiker]

From what I can tell TH takes a spaghetti western attitude towards Muslims, "The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim."

That is so untrue.

A muslim owns a local corner store. He raises pigeons, chickens and goats. we talk about life, raising animals, loving the land,,,, and a lot of other stuff.

I can only guess you are afraid to address this:

This from someone who posted the answer is to "bomb them back to the stone age" you don't think innocent people get killed in that scenario?

Why do we have special forces, rangers, seal team, cia?

We can not drop some kind of specially trained unit in a given area to ensure civilians are not hurt?

Isn't that what those guys signed up for? Didn't they volunteer to do those kinds of missions?

 

[brycejones]

Why do we have special forces, rangers, seal team, cia?

We can not drop some kind of specially trained unit in a given area to ensure civilians are not hurt?

Isn't that what those guys signed up for? Didn't they volunteer to do those kinds of missions?

But that isn't what you said. You said "bomb them back to the stone age". So are you now changing your strategy?

 

[Texashiker]

But that isn't what you said. You said "bomb them back to the stone age". So are you now changing your strategy?

Bomb "them", meaning radical muslim enemy combatants.

 

[brycejones]

Bomb "them", meaning radical muslim enemy combatants.

You can't be that ignorant of modern warfare.

 

[zinfamous]

That is so untrue.

A muslim owns a local corner store. He raises pigeons, chickens and goats. we talk about life, raising animals, loving the land,,,, and a lot of other stuff.

I love your cute personal anecdotes about "this guy I know" to explain away your prejudices that everyone here knows you have, based on your history of posting.

--"I don't hate gays! I have these two gay friends that come to eat dinner with us every week!" ...(never-mind that I believe they are sinners in the eyes of Gawd, are bound for hell and damnation, and in no way deserve the same human rights as I do...because gay. If I don't tell them what is in my heart, I am not a bigot. My conscience is therefore clear to vote them into 2nd class separate status)

--"I don't hate muslims! There is is this muslim guy at a store down the way, whom I sometimes talk to!" (at least, I think he's muslim. He's brown..so he must be. As long as I don't tell him to his face that he is an evil blackhearted infidel who probably worships his Gawd, the evil "Obama," it is perfectly fine to chat with him. I'm not biggoted because I haven't reported him to DHS...yet. I mean, I need to stay friendly, right? He's obviously planning something!)

 

[dank69]

I love your cute personal anecdotes about "this guy I know" to explain away your prejudices that everyone here knows you have, based on your history of posting.

--"I don't hate gays! I have these two gay friends that come to eat dinner with us every week!" ...(never-mind that I believe they are sinners in the eyes of Gawd, are bound for hell and damnation, and in no way deserve the same human rights as I do...because gay. If I don't tell them what is in my heart, I am not a bigot. My conscience is therefore clear to vote them into 2nd class separate status)

--"I don't hate muslims! There is is this muslim guy at a store down the way, whom I sometimes talk to!" (at least, I think he's muslim. He's brown..so he must be. As long as I don't tell him to his face that he is an evil blackhearted infidel who probably worships his Gawd, the evil "Obama," it is perfectly fine to chat with him. I'm not biggoted because I haven't reported him to DHS...yet. I mean, I need to stay friendly, right? He's obviously planning something!)

lol :awe:

 

[madoka]

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I thought you were anti-war? Why should the US do anything about ISIL at this point?

Here's a plan for you: Keep an eye on them and try to prevent them from carrying out attacks on US soil. Anyone that travels over there is on their own.

I am against war. I wish there was no reason for it's existence. I'm also against killing in general but make no mistake- If I were faced with someone who I believed was an imminent threat to my loved ones and I felt there was no alternative I would not hesitate to dispatch the threat most effectively. I can kill. Does that mean I'd boast about it after? No. Would I regret it? On one hand I would. I do not find it a noble act to do what must be done at the cost of a life, however justified. That said I would not hesitate to do it again because standing by while those I love are murdered would be the worst thing I can imagine. I would have failed them miserably.

That's how I view any military action. There are times when we need to defend others or ourselves. That does not make me brave. That does not invoke pride in the flag. It is a failure in a sense to not have found another way. Whenever a life is to be taken there had better be a damn good reason. Pride or prejudice isn't good enough. Expediency isn't. Fear isn't. There's a whole lot of reasons not to, but if the determination is made with due diligence and an honest evaluation of a threat determines we act, then act we must. Not indiscriminately. Not without a mind to consequences. Not without restraint but with judicious application. That requires considerable understanding and planning. Ignoring an issue does not make it go away. "Hope for the best but prepare for the worst" is often good policy, and that means having a plan of action which is decisive and that means many die who ought not to. That is why I hate war. The innocent so often pay the price, but that does not mean the cost can always be avoided. That is my regret.

 

[dank69]

I am against war. I wish there was no reason for it's existence. I'm also against killing in general but make no mistake- If I were faced with someone who I believed was an imminent threat to my loved ones and I felt there was no alternative I would not hesitate to dispatch the threat most effectively. I can kill. Does that mean I'd boast about it after? No. Would I regret it? On one hand I would. I do not find it a noble act to do what must be done at the cost of a life, however justified. That said I would not hesitate to do it again because standing by while those I love are murdered would be the worst thing I can imagine. I would have failed them miserably.

That's how I view any military action. There are times when we need to defend others or ourselves. That does not make me brave. That does not invoke pride in the flag. It is a failure in a sense to not have found another way. Whenever a life is to be taken there had better be a damn good reason. Pride or prejudice isn't good enough. Expediency isn't. Fear isn't. There's a whole lot of reasons not to, but if the determination is made with due diligence and an honest evaluation of a threat determines we act, then act we must. Not indiscriminately. Not without a mind to consequences. Not without restraint but with judicious application. That requires considerable understanding and planning. Ignoring an issue does not make it go away. "Hope for the best but prepare for the worst" is often good policy, and that means having a plan of action which is decisive and that means many die who ought not to. That is why I hate war. The innocent so often pay the price, but that does not mean the cost can always be avoided. That is my regret.

So why should we go after ISIL then?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So why should we go after ISIL then?

That is an excellent and necessary question and I've been thinking about it. I can tell you that ISIL isn't "just" a terrorist organization. It's announced intentions which it has been pursuing is a Caliphate, a nation that would execute anyone who does not bow to their government. I can tell you that it is not crying out for ignorant martyrs to bomb buildings with no regard to it's goals. No, it's malicious and intelligent. Rather than hoping for aid from sympathetic sources it is working on becoming a regional financial by the forced acquisition of resources. It is self financing and money buys a great deal of power. It ultimately wants religious control, but not for religion sake, but for complete control. ISIL and Saudi Arabia are Sunni, but the former will kill the latter if possible to gain that ultimate power. This goes way beyond anything Al Qaeda wanted, and they were a demonstrable threat. An unopposed ISIL is a disaster in the making, for us, those in the region, and the West in general. The region is of vital importance and it is entirely possible, probable perhap, that they could ultimately shut down ME oil with a resulting economic collapse. There is little evil I can imagine that I believe would be off limits to them if they feel the desire and have the means.

There's all that and I think the argument for the destructive will and potential of ISIL is a good one.

But the real reason I entertain substantial military action happened at 0315 GMT on 19 March 2003. That was the moment where the US declared war on Iraq. That was the beginning of something based on untruths which ultimately unleashed ISIL on the region. We broke Iraq and we bought it. Much ill happens elsewhere, such as in Africa, but what people face in and around Iraq is in great part our fault. So yes I could say it's their problem and leave it at that, but we owe them in ways we cannot repay. Done with careful consideration the removal of ISIL outweighs the accompanying destruction. That's a very cold and calculating statement on my part, but the world is not amenable to arrests and trials. Sanctions, diplomacy, all of that are entirely alien to the mentality of those who go about beheading by the hundreds because they can.

So for me it's mostly about a sense of duty and responsibility to people we supposedly went in to liberate. Lie or not, we went in and are morally obligated to aid where we can.

Just how, when, where, and to what degree that action takes is not something I'm going to guess, but I think we'd better be serious about making things as right as we can.

 

[zinfamous]

That is an excellent and necessary question and I've been thinking about it. I can tell you that ISIL isn't "just" a terrorist organization. It's announced intentions which it has been pursuing is a Caliphate, a nation that would execute anyone who does not bow to their government. I can tell you that it is not crying out for ignorant martyrs to bomb buildings with no regard to it's goals. No, it's malicious and intelligent. Rather than hoping for aid from sympathetic sources it is working on becoming a regional financial by the forced acquisition of resources. It is self financing and money buys a great deal of power. It ultimately wants religious control, but not for religion sake, but for complete control. ISIL and Saudi Arabia are Sunni, but the former will kill the latter if possible to gain that ultimate power. This goes way beyond anything Al Qaeda wanted, and they were a demonstrable threat. An unopposed ISIL is a disaster in the making, for us, those in the region, and the West in general. The region is of vital importance and it is entirely possible, probable perhap, that they could ultimately shut down ME oil with a resulting economic collapse. There is little evil I can imagine that I believe would be off limits to them if they feel the desire and have the means.

There's all that and I think the argument for the destructive will and potential of ISIL is a good one.

But the real reason I entertain substantial military action happened at 0315 GMT on 19 March 2003. That was the moment where the US declared war on Iraq. That was the beginning of something based on untruths which ultimately unleashed ISIL on the region. We broke Iraq and we bought it. Much ill happens elsewhere, such as in Africa, but what people face in and around Iraq is in great part our fault. So yes I could say it's their problem and leave it at that, but we owe them in ways we cannot repay. Done with careful consideration the removal of ISIL outweighs the accompanying destruction. That's a very cold and calculating statement on my part, but the world is not amenable to arrests and trials. Sanctions, diplomacy, all of that are entirely alien to the mentality of those who go about beheading by the hundreds because they can.

So for me it's mostly about a sense of duty and responsibility to people we supposedly went in to liberate. Lie or not, we went in and are morally obligated to aid where we can.

Just how, when, where, and to what degree that action takes is not something I'm going to guess, but I think we'd better be serious about making things as right as we can.

:thumbsup:

 

[Fern]

That is an excellent and necessary question and I've been thinking about it. I can tell you that ISIL isn't "just" a terrorist organization. It's announced intentions which it has been pursuing is a Caliphate, a nation that would execute anyone who does not bow to their government. I can tell you that it is not crying out for ignorant martyrs to bomb buildings with no regard to it's goals. No, it's malicious and intelligent. Rather than hoping for aid from sympathetic sources it is working on becoming a regional financial by the forced acquisition of resources. It is self financing and money buys a great deal of power. It ultimately wants religious control, but not for religion sake, but for complete control. ISIL and Saudi Arabia are Sunni, but the former will kill the latter if possible to gain that ultimate power. This goes way beyond anything Al Qaeda wanted, and they were a demonstrable threat. An unopposed ISIL is a disaster in the making, for us, those in the region, and the West in general. The region is of vital importance and it is entirely possible, probable perhap, that they could ultimately shut down ME oil with a resulting economic collapse. There is little evil I can imagine that I believe would be off limits to them if they feel the desire and have the means.

There's all that and I think the argument for the destructive will and potential of ISIL is a good one.

Basically agree.

But the real reason I entertain substantial military action happened at 0315 GMT on 19 March 2003. That was the moment where the US declared war on Iraq. That was the beginning of something based on untruths which ultimately unleashed ISIL on the region. We broke Iraq and we bought it.

But we 'fixed' it too. Just ask Obama and Biden they said so.

So, we're not responsible for Iraqi screwing itself up for all eternity.

IMO, Obama should have been more proactive in preventing ISIS spread. But that's not how he works. I believe we could have helped Iraqi contain ISIS to Syria had we acted earlier. We would have also prevented the mass murder of Iraqi minorities. That was a real tragedy and one I think likely preventable.

So for me it's mostly about a sense of duty and responsibility to people we supposedly went in to liberate. Lie or not, we went in and are morally obligated to aid where we can.

They were brutalized under Saddam. Let's not ignore that or pretend it didn't exist. They 'got' their democracy and it didn't work; they couldn't make it work. That's on them. For me the big lesson is that not all nations/people can handle democracy. "Spreading democracy' is a nice thought and all, but it's not realistic nor do-able.

I think the prevailing trend is towards isolation to some extent. Unfortunately those who support that also seem to support open borders and oppose drilling enough to be self sufficient. IMO, that's a crazy mix of contradictory policies just begging to result in disaster. If you wanna go isolationism you better get your policies in accordance and that wouldn't be easy, and perhaps not even possible.

I'm afraid we're just cycling back to pre-WWII attitudes and we're going to get bit hard right on the azz resulting in a huge cost, just like in WWII.

Fern