All things Middle East related

some people are just fucked up :/

Anybody care that ISIS is using Chlorine and Mustard Gas against multiple cities within Iraq?

Our president let this happen. Let genocide happen. Remember that folks, remember it.

He was up in arms when Assad did it...haven't heard a word from that pussy in the white house about these attacks.

from 2013 ..

Obama urges military action against Syria but will seek Congress' OK - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/31/world/meast/syria-civil-war/)

Obama sent a letter to the heads of the House and Senate on Saturday night, hours after announcing that he believes military action against Syrian targets is the right step to take over the alleged use of chemical weapons.
The proposed legislation from Obama asks Congress to approve the use of military force "to deter, disrupt, prevent and degrade the potential for future uses of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction."
...
In a televised address from the White House Rose Garden earlier Saturday, the president said he would take his case to Congress, not because he has to -- but because he wants to.
"While I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective," he said. "We should have this debate, because the issues are too big for business as usual."
...
Some members of Congress applauded Obama's decision.
House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy and Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers issued a statement Saturday praising the president.
"Under the Constitution, the responsibility to declare war lies with Congress," the Republican lawmakers said. "We are glad the president is seeking authorization for any military action in Syria in response to serious, substantive questions being raised."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since 2013, congress has failed to vote on Pres Obama's AUMF. Seems both parties in congress are to blame.

I read a great article from foxnews this weekend that laid it out pretty clearly (cant find it now) ... republicans dont want to give obama unlimited war powers and democrats want specific limitations on # of troops, concrete twillight language, etc. (as well as ending the 2001 aumf that obama is currently using to bomb isis in syria).

--------------------------------------------------

my short version -- its not Pres Obama fault that our engagement has been limited to air strikes. Its congresses. either way, im glad we are not "boots on the ground". that whole area is a shit show.

ive had trouble harmonizing my thoughts that i value american lives over those non-americans in syria and beyond.

Anybody care that ISIS is using Chlorine and Mustard Gas against multiple cities within Iraq?

Our president let this happen. Let genocide happen. Remember that folks, remember it.

He was up in arms when Assad did it...haven't heard a word from that pussy in the white house about these attacks.

Couldn't agree more. We should have put boots on the ground long before this. In fact, we never should have pulled out of Iraq.

I still contend that the biggest failure of the Bush administration was not in toppling Saddam Hussein, but it was in the failure to build Iraq up to the point where it could police itself and stand on its own two feet. If that was never possible then Saddam should have been left in power.

But understanding that, Obama made a bad situation even worse by pulling our troops out. He left an even bigger power vacuum than Bush did.

Obama was dealt a very bad hand by the Bush administration. A point every democrat loves to acknowledge. What they don't like to acknowledge is you have to play the hand you're dealt, and Obama has played his like shit.

ISIS crossed a red line long ago, the chemical weapons usage is just the latest example. It's another example of impotent foreign policy.

from 2013 ..

Obama urges military action against Syria but will seek Congress' OK - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/31/world/meast/syria-civil-war/)

Obama sent a letter to the heads of the House and Senate on Saturday night, hours after announcing that he believes military action against Syrian targets is the right step to take over the alleged use of chemical weapons.
The proposed legislation from Obama asks Congress to approve the use of military force "to deter, disrupt, prevent and degrade the potential for future uses of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction."
...
In a televised address from the White House Rose Garden earlier Saturday, the president said he would take his case to Congress, not because he has to -- but because he wants to.
"While I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective," he said. "We should have this debate, because the issues are too big for business as usual."
...
Some members of Congress applauded Obama's decision.
House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy and Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers issued a statement Saturday praising the president.
"Under the Constitution, the responsibility to declare war lies with Congress," the Republican lawmakers said. "We are glad the president is seeking authorization for any military action in Syria in response to serious, substantive questions being raised."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since 2013, congress has failed to vote on Pres Obama's AUMF. Seems both parties in congress are to blame.

I read a great article from foxnews this weekend that laid it out pretty clearly (cant find it now) ... republicans dont want to give obama unlimited war powers and democrats want specific limitations on # of troops, concrete twillight language, etc. (as well as ending the 2001 aumf that obama is currently using to bomb isis in syria).

--------------------------------------------------

my short version -- its not Pres Obama fault that our engagement has been limited to air strikes. Its congresses. either way, im glad we are not "boots on the ground". that whole area is a shit show.

ive had trouble harmonizing my thoughts that i value american lives over those non-americans in syria and beyond.

Yet he starts out by saying he believes he has the authority to take the military action without Congressional approval. You blaming congress for refusing to answer when Obama himself acknowledges he didn't have to ask is the ultimate example of passing off responsibility.

Hold your president accountable.

all these armchair generals, the answer to everything is to go send other folks to die for you in another foreign war without any idea of what that actually entails.

we put troops in syria then what? topple assad's regime and get into a conventional war with russia? stay there forever? cause after assad or isis goes, someone has to fill that vacuum. right now we've shown we can't nation build effectively, and we don't have the patience to run a proper counter insurgency (which can take over 20 years).

the problem with iraq wasn't pulling american troops, it was the horribly mismanaged peace process and a series of very bad decisions about who to leave in charge and how to proceed with a bunch of very piecemeal and sometimes misguided rebuilding projects/goals. the violence in iraq went down when we put 100,000+ militia men on the payroll, and it surged back up when the iraqi government decided they didn't want to be giving money to sunni militias and stopped paying them.

in an effort to try and articulate a bit better...

170,000+ people have died in iraq (over 60% civilians) since our involvement began there, and the security situation is worse than when we started, both locally and globally - in large part because we helped to create the conditions necessary for isis to form and gain strength (and because we didn't pay enough attention to the political situation).

you literally just said that if we did the math and thought that would be the result, we shouldn't have gone in, yet in the same breath are advocating doing the exact same thing in syria, which is lunacy.

1. drop a bunch of US troops into a country where everyone hates them, blow a bunch of shit up (isis, assad, misc extremist militias), possibly get into a real war with russia.
2. ????
3. profit?

syria is one of russia's foreign bases, they have a vested interest there, while we really do not. if you think we should be world police and fight everyone all the time en masse, that's fine, but i hope you're signing up to enlist, cause we don't have that kind of manpower or budget for endless war. taking a short view of dropping US troops in an area as some kind of panacea is a view that has no common ground with reality.

what we do have is small groups of trainers and specialists that help us extend power and influence and act as force multipliers among foreign powers/armed forces. right now, believe it or not, we're actually winning in syria. we're moving slower than we could militarily because of the slow political process on the ground (which militia is going to move into this position, who's going to control or police this area once isis leaves, etc). big isis leaders are dying 2-3 times a week, and the platoons on the ground are generally dissolving once engaged now without a real fight (fading into the populace or running away).

the problem after isis (or assad/isis if that's your view) is that anyone with money (like doctors, etc) has generally left if they could, and there are real problems with basic things right now, like not starving to death. what you really need is a humanitarian/peace keeping mission after those guys are gone, and the US military is not the best avenue for that, as they're seen as an interfering foreign power and not as someone that's honestly trying to help just for the sake of helping. you need people that speak the language, aren't carrying guns and body armor, and aren't directly involved in midnight raids and arrests if you want any real trust.

anyways, my 2 cents.

in an effort to try and articulate a bit better...

170,000+ people have died in iraq (over 60% civilians) since our involvement began there, and the security situation is worse than when we started, both locally and globally - in large part because we helped to create the conditions necessary for isis to form and gain strength (and because we didn't pay enough attention to the political situation).

you literally just said that if we did the math and thought that would be the result, we shouldn't have gone in, yet in the same breath are advocating doing the exact same thing in syria, which is lunacy.

1. drop a bunch of US troops into a country where everyone hates them, blow a bunch of shit up (isis, assad, misc extremist militias), possibly get into a real war with russia.
2. ????
3. profit?

syria is one of russia's foreign bases, they have a vested interest there, while we really do not. if you think we should be world police and fight everyone all the time en masse, that's fine, but i hope you're signing up to enlist, cause we don't have that kind of manpower or budget for endless war. taking a short view of dropping US troops in an area as some kind of panacea is a view that has no common ground with reality.

what we do have is small groups of trainers and specialists that help us extend power and influence and act as force multipliers among foreign powers/armed forces. right now, believe it or not, we're actually winning in syria. we're moving slower than we could militarily because of the slow political process on the ground (which militia is going to move into this position, who's going to control or police this area once isis leaves, etc). big isis leaders are dying 2-3 times a week, and the platoons on the ground are generally dissolving once engaged now without a real fight (fading into the populace or running away).

the problem after isis (or assad/isis if that's your view) is that anyone with money (like doctors, etc) has generally left if they could, and there are real problems with basic things right now, like not starving to death. what you really need is a humanitarian/peace keeping mission after those guys are gone, and the US military is not the best avenue for that, as they're seen as an interfering foreign power and not as someone that's honestly trying to help just for the sake of helping. you need people that speak the language, aren't carrying guns and body armor, and aren't directly involved in midnight raids and arrests if you want any real trust.

anyways, my 2 cents.

Too long, didn't read

While I generally don't agree with That Guy on a lot of politics, I am with him on this one.

Boots on the ground? If history has shown us anything, it has demonstrated that putting troops into a place is always easier than withdrawing them. Once Americans die, there had damn well better be a reason for being there and, if there is, we damn well better win. In the Middle East, barring the economic need for oil, there is no reason for young Americans to die. I bought into that theory once. Not again.

Who is in those boots? Young Americans fighting ... who? Assad? ISIS? For the rebels? For some of the Rebels but against others? With Turkey but not with the Kurds? And when in this mish mash of religious radicalism, rampant ethnic loyalty, and generally undemocratic forces, we end up siding with folks who - it turns out - also commit atrocities, we inevitably make more enemies.

ISIS is bad. Assad is bad. Many of the rebels are bad. Not a lot of folks fighting for "Truth Justice and the American Way."

I don't know what the right answer is. I am convinced, however, "boots on the ground" is the wrong answer unless their is a clear, rock-solid, exit strategy. Because war is messy - particularly the war being fought in the ME, I just don't see a scenario that warrants Americans dying in the dessert.

I still have a hard time with folks who don't understand what's going on and who is Isis.

This is the greatest terror organization in the history of the modern world..they are well funded, have an army, are currently at war with the west, hold large swaths of land, are well trained, proven logistical capabilities to strike in multiple countries across the world. Have/used chemical weapons, currently seeking weapons of mass destruction. Their ability to recruit and communicate globally is unprecedented.

The nazis tried to hide their war crimes and their crimes against humanity...burned records, hid concentration camps, destroyed camps, etc. ISIS Proudly captures genocide on video and then distributes to everyone. Folks. Think about it.


We must understand a couple things...we are at war. We are spending tons of resources on them. And we do actually have some boots on the ground.

Two, this is a major problem within the Muslim community. We need to admit this and so do the folks within the religion.

Schneed is right if history could be changed we should have enacted the equivalent of a new Marshall plan after we toppled Saddam, bringing in US power to unite Iraq Saudi Arabia Jordan Egypt and Israel in a Mideast defense pact. Likely internal to the borders we could have strengthened the governments favorable to us, and in a real good case lifted the standard of living enough to move the needle away from extremism. Unfortunately, like in the aftermath of WW1, the world felt war weary and that simple good feelings would bring the peace of universal wisdom and enlightenment to that region.

Now we are in a world where the enemies of the US are in a stronger position. And the death toll to make civil society safe is gonna be a whole lot higher.


Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk