All things Middle East related

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

Here's the deal, and it's really a lot more simple than people want to make it. ISIS is coming to fight the West, whether you like it or not, no matter what.

They are either going to be permitted to operate in Iraq and Syria where they control lots of revenue-generating assets, and thus enabled to coordinate attacks throughout Europe, or someone is going to fight them on their turf, disrupting their ability to generate the cash necessary to fund their operations. But either way people are going to die, it's just a matter of how many, on whose side, and where that happens.

We are extremely fortunate here in the US that we don't face the same threat to our homeland that Europe does. Belgium demonstrates the severity of Europe's problem. So you could say there's no way we should put American boots on the ground without Europe (and Saudi Arabia and Jordan and Egypt and...) being along for the ride.

Except we were the ones who created the mess in the first place, by toppling Saddam and leaving before the power vacuum was adequately filled. So we, the United States of America, are to blame for creating an environment for ISIS to operate and fund its machine. Build a coalition, fine. But we have to go in. ISIS doesn't exist if we never toppled Saddam, and ISIS doesn't kill hundreds of Parisians and 30+ Belgians if not for our extremely serious mistakes.

Are these nations our NATO allies or not? We belong there, cleaning up our mess properly. Blame it on Bush if you want, that's appropriate. But nevertheless it's the mess we left. We can't just practice sea gull foreign policy - fly in, sqwauk a lot, shit all over the place, and fly away.

We have a responsibility to the world now, like it or not.

[Chico23231]

Obama had multiple opportunities to help end the Syrian Civil war. Obama had multiple opportunities to stop the ISIS breakout when they crossed into Iraq. Obama had multiple opportunities to not let ISIS dig in.

ISIS is clearly Obama problem and his willingness not to act. Pathetic to blame Bush. This is from a guy who hated the Bush administration.

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

Could you imagine the daily outrage and calls for impeachment from republicans if Pres Obama did decide to unilaterally put US troops in harms way without the authorization of republican controlled congress? Imagine the feigned rage from o'reilly and cruz and mccain's blow hard wife every time a service member died -- "there is dead american blood on the president's hands!!" ... words like treason would be used.

Are republicans actually trying to spin this back at the Pres by saying he should have just violated the Constitution?

Wow.

maybe republicans should have put partisan politics to the side for once and worked with the Pres on this one.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

Could you imagine the daily outrage and calls for impeachment from republicans if Pres Obama did decide to unilaterally put US troops in harms way without the authorization of republican controlled congress? Imagine the feigned rage from o'reilly and cruz and mccain's blow hard wife every time a service member died -- "there is dead american blood on the president's hands!!" ... words like treason would be used.

Are republicans actually trying to spin this back at the Pres by saying he should have just violated the Constitution?

Wow.

maybe republicans should have put partisan politics to the side for once and worked with the Pres on this one.

Aside from military force...what about just leadership from the highest position in the land? give me a break....Obama been a disaster with the Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Israel, Iran, Russia.

Look around the world, hello, its on fire...your satisfied with his leadership?



This Cuba thing makes no sense...Fidel Castro to Obama: 'We don't need the empire to give us anything'

Its hilarity at its finest. Cuba is punking Obama now.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

Could you imagine the daily outrage and calls for impeachment from republicans if Pres Obama did decide to unilaterally put US troops in harms way without the authorization of republican controlled congress? Imagine the feigned rage from o'reilly and cruz and mccain's blow hard wife every time a service member died -- "there is dead american blood on the president's hands!!" ... words like treason would be used.

Are republicans actually trying to spin this back at the Pres by saying he should have just violated the Constitution?

Wow.

maybe republicans should have put partisan politics to the side for once and worked with the Pres on this one.

And if they did they'd be a disgrace. But that's neither here nor there. Fact of the matter is Obama doesn't need Congressional approval on this because the US isn't declaring war on another nation state. He doesn't need congressional approval for military action against terrorists.

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

And if they did they'd be a disgrace. But that's neither here nor there. Fact of the matter is Obama doesn't need Congressional approval on this because the US isn't declaring war on another nation state. He doesn't need congressional approval for military action against terrorists.

He was trying to get congressional approval for military action against Syria. Assad used chemical weapons on August 21, 2013. Less than 10 days later, Pres Obama sent his AUMF to congress re Assad and Syria. Republican controlled congress never voted on it or come up w their own proposal.

No way the Pres could have used the 9/11 AUMF to justify averting the US Constitution mandated congressional approval for a declaration of war and unilaterally authorize military action against the country of Syria.

Maybe he could have played word games and called syria terrorists and missile attacks on another country's army not a "declaration of war" (even though the AUMF allowed for boots on the ground) ... imagine how well that would have gone over w the o'reilly and cruz' of the world.

With the current political climate and the grid lock of a dem Pres and a repub congress ... damned if you, damned if you dont for both sides.

eff it - trump2016

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

They are either going to be permitted to operate in Iraq and Syria where they control lots of revenue-generating assets, and thus enabled to coordinate attacks throughout Europe, or someone is going to fight them on their turf, disrupting their ability to generate the cash necessary to fund their operations.

again, we're already doing this and the speed at which we're doing this is being bottle-necked by political concerns between the many groups on the ground, not by military limitations. throwing 30,000+ more americans in the way would, in all likelihood, make the situation even more complicated then it already is.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by That Guy

again, we're already doing this and the speed at which we're doing this is being bottle-necked by political concerns between the many groups on the ground, not by military limitations. throwing 30,000+ more americans in the way would, in all likelihood, make the situation even more complicated then it already is.

2 things...essentially we will not at this point because the Iraq troops and Iranian Shia brigades have refused our help on combat troops (you know we are supporting Iranian troops on the ground...insane) You can call it an agreement or not, but right now at this moment, they don't want our help on the ground(but love our air campaign and proudly cheer it).

Now in the Peshmerga and Yadiz controlled areas(large chunk of Northern Iraq), their troops would absolutely welcome us with open arms. They have asked us to come. They have been far and away the most effective group fighting against ISIS...but we will not help them because of an agreement with Turkey. We refuse to even arm them, which is some cowardly-Obama, state department bullshit.

We do have 2 firebases right now near Mosel within the Peshmerga controlled area which will serve as artillery with the coming assault on that city. These are being run by several hundred US Marines *only* with top-line artillery pieces...we also have an airstrip built near by.

We don't need 30k troops...Im not gonna talk the past because Obama fuck it up already but before we certainly coulda handled fuckin ISIS with 5k troops at the time of the break-out...easily too.

[Chico23231]

Saudis warn of economic reprisals if Congress passes 9/11 bill - CNNPolitics.com

Well because Saudi Arabia tells the Obama to jump and how high and Obama promptly does it. I mean come on, tell the Saudis to fuck off. They don't threaten us economics...sell the shit. This administration is so effin weak.

And the government should release the 28 page classified report becuase 9/11 victims deserve to know what foreign government would sponsor the attack.

[dmek25]

the saudis have been telling our presidents what to do for a long while now.

[That Guy]

if we strip their countries sovereign immunity, does that mean families of civilians killed by US troops or the innocent people we've tortured can turn around and sue us?

because it seems like that's where that kind of precedent would lead. it's not just the saudis who think this might be a bad idea.

[Chico23231]

Clapper: ISIS can stage Europe-style attacks in U.S. - CNN.com

Well ISIS have already have "inspired" 3 attacks. Islamic Terrorists have already committed multiple lone wolf operations here and in Canada.

So now, the administration is admitting we are vulnerable to a direct isis attack. That's quite an admission, but really no surprise. Obama and his administration have left the country and the world in a much more unsafe place.

[JoeRedskin]

... and Hilary will continue increasing the hazard.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

... and Hilary will continue increasing the hazard.

well considering she was apart of the administration that put us in this position, its highly likely.

Remember, when she was given her first major job in her career as Secretary of State she had 2 major failures in a short time:

Bengahzi where she ignored requests to protect Americans, putting them in harms ways

And

Was negligent in the handling of highly classified information


If this was my organization or another major corporation, her fat ass would be on the streets effectively fired.

Good nuff for government work folks. This is her record in a major leadership position...a major clusterfuck

[That Guy]

you say obama, but you should be saying obama/bush, at the very least. isis is on the decline though, recruiting is down by over 80% over last year, and their money is drying up, leading to a lot of awol soldiers.

...
and hillary is an interventionist, so in all likelyhood, yes, she will meddle in places against good advice. better than trump, but she'll (probably) continue our 16 year tradition of terrible foreign policy decisions.