Under fire


Off-Topic Discussions

1,001 to 1,050 of 1,056 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
JohnLocke wrote:
thejeff wrote:
For the record, while I don't expect this to be quick or easy, I also don't expect it to turn into another occupation
No, I'd imagine not. Obama's all about the lean, mean, drone strike and JSOC assassins machine.

The best bet, of course, would be for the U.S. to stay out of this conflict altogether. ISIL is a direct result of America's wars and policies - just as al-qaeda, the previous bogeyman, was. Have we learned nothing from history, here?

Fearmongering the US into yet another war.

Everything is of course the US's fault. I know.

Most of those fearmongers cited are committed to bashing Obama for not doing enough to stop ISIL yet, while trying to avoid having to vote on authorizing anything, so that they can bash Obama for doing too much later on.


thejeff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
thejeff wrote:
For the record, while I don't expect this to be quick or easy, I also don't expect it to turn into another occupation
No, I'd imagine not. Obama's all about the lean, mean, drone strike and JSOC assassins machine.

The best bet, of course, would be for the U.S. to stay out of this conflict altogether. ISIL is a direct result of America's wars and policies - just as al-qaeda, the previous bogeyman, was. Have we learned nothing from history, here?

thejeff wrote:
Fearmongering the US into yet another war.

Everything is of course the US's fault. I know.

Most of those fearmongers cited are committed to bashing Obama for not doing enough to stop ISIL yet, while trying to avoid having to vote on authorizing anything, so that they can bash Obama for doing too much later on.

I'm glad you accept America's responsibility in spreading war and death around the world. That's progress!

Who cares who's bashing Obama? When he arrogates the powers of war to himself, bypassing congress (who are pathetically supine, that's true) then he deserves every syllable of rebuke. ISIL poses no threat to the US - why get involved? What's the strategic interest here? Neutralizing a "future threat"? Protecting Israel? Keeping the money flowing to the "defence" industries?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
thejeff wrote:
For the record, while I don't expect this to be quick or easy, I also don't expect it to turn into another occupation
No, I'd imagine not. Obama's all about the lean, mean, drone strike and JSOC assassins machine.
Which is still better than full scale war. I know some people think that drones are somehow especially evil, but I'd far rather see drones and the "JSOC assassins machine" used than a hundred thousand troops.

Yes, all the benefits of high-tech imperialist terrorism, none of the domestic drawbacks of American GIs coming back in body bags.

F*$$ that shiznit.

Smash US Imperialism!


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
thejeff wrote:
For the record, while I don't expect this to be quick or easy, I also don't expect it to turn into another occupation
No, I'd imagine not. Obama's all about the lean, mean, drone strike and JSOC assassins machine.
Which is still better than full scale war. I know some people think that drones are somehow especially evil, but I'd far rather see drones and the "JSOC assassins machine" used than a hundred thousand troops.

Yes, all the benefits of high-tech imperialist terrorism, none of the domestic drawbacks of American GIs coming back in body bags.

F&@& that shiznit.

Smash US Imperialism!

You also tend to do even more local damage and stir up even more blowback when you bring in the occupation force. Yes, that's even considering how much the drone strikes do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
thejeff wrote:
For the record, while I don't expect this to be quick or easy, I also don't expect it to turn into another occupation
No, I'd imagine not. Obama's all about the lean, mean, drone strike and JSOC assassins machine.
Which is still better than full scale war. I know some people think that drones are somehow especially evil, but I'd far rather see drones and the "JSOC assassins machine" used than a hundred thousand troops.

Yes, all the benefits of high-tech imperialist terrorism, none of the domestic drawbacks of American GIs coming back in body bags.

F&~& that shiznit.

Smash US Imperialism!

With regards to drone strikes - how many "high ranking Al-qaeda leaders" need to be killed before the organization collapses? Obama and his band of merry murderers might want to crunch those numbers when coming up with their ISIL strategy.

Also, it would be interesting to see how many civilians have been reported killed in said "precision strikes". If Gaza was any indication, precision strikes are anything but.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JohnLocke wrote:
thejeff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
thejeff wrote:
For the record, while I don't expect this to be quick or easy, I also don't expect it to turn into another occupation
No, I'd imagine not. Obama's all about the lean, mean, drone strike and JSOC assassins machine.

The best bet, of course, would be for the U.S. to stay out of this conflict altogether. ISIL is a direct result of America's wars and policies - just as al-qaeda, the previous bogeyman, was. Have we learned nothing from history, here?

thejeff wrote:
Fearmongering the US into yet another war.

Everything is of course the US's fault. I know.

Most of those fearmongers cited are committed to bashing Obama for not doing enough to stop ISIL yet, while trying to avoid having to vote on authorizing anything, so that they can bash Obama for doing too much later on.

I'm glad you accept America's responsibility in spreading war and death around the world. That's progress!

Who cares who's bashing Obama? When he arrogates the powers of war to himself, bypassing congress (who are pathetically supine, that's true) then he deserves every syllable of rebuke. ISIL poses no threat to the US - why get involved? What's the strategic interest here? Neutralizing a "future threat"? Protecting Israel? Keeping the money flowing to the "defence" industries?

Congress is not supine. That's not the point. Congress is actively avoiding responsibility while simultaneously attacking the President for taking the responsibility and not doing so.

As for who cares about the bashing, that's the motivation for the fearmongering you linked to. Far more than attempting to drum up war, it's about attacking Obama.

What's the strategic interest? Shutting down a force that's disrupting an entire strategically important region. Or at least knocking them back down to terrorist threat/Syrian rebels, rather than allowing them to become a terrorist state, which they're in the process of doing.


JohnLocke wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
thejeff wrote:
For the record, while I don't expect this to be quick or easy, I also don't expect it to turn into another occupation
No, I'd imagine not. Obama's all about the lean, mean, drone strike and JSOC assassins machine.
Which is still better than full scale war. I know some people think that drones are somehow especially evil, but I'd far rather see drones and the "JSOC assassins machine" used than a hundred thousand troops.

Yes, all the benefits of high-tech imperialist terrorism, none of the domestic drawbacks of American GIs coming back in body bags.

F&~& that shiznit.

Smash US Imperialism!

With regards to drone strikes - how many "high ranking Al-qaeda leaders" need to be killed before the organization collapses? Obama and his band of merry murderers might want to crunch those numbers when coming up with their ISIL strategy.

Also, it would be interesting to see how many civilians have been reported killed in said "precision strikes". If Gaza was any indication, precision strikes are anything but.

Well, ISIL is currently functioning as something closer to an actual military force. Taking and holding territory. That makes them much easier to target. Blowing up the heavier equipment they got, either in Syria or in the early stages of their invasion of Iraq, will help a lot.


thejeff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
thejeff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
thejeff wrote:
For the record, while I don't expect this to be quick or easy, I also don't expect it to turn into another occupation
No, I'd imagine not. Obama's all about the lean, mean, drone strike and JSOC assassins machine.

The best bet, of course, would be for the U.S. to stay out of this conflict altogether. ISIL is a direct result of America's wars and policies - just as al-qaeda, the previous bogeyman, was. Have we learned nothing from history, here?

thejeff wrote:
Fearmongering the US into yet another war.

Everything is of course the US's fault. I know.

Most of those fearmongers cited are committed to bashing Obama for not doing enough to stop ISIL yet, while trying to avoid having to vote on authorizing anything, so that they can bash Obama for doing too much later on.

JohnLocke wrote:

I'm glad you accept America's responsibility in spreading war and death around the world. That's progress!

Who cares who's bashing Obama? When he arrogates the powers of war to himself, bypassing congress (who are pathetically supine, that's true) then he deserves every syllable of rebuke. ISIL poses no threat to the US - why get involved? What's the strategic interest here? Neutralizing a "future threat"? Protecting Israel? Keeping the money flowing to the "defence" industries?

Congress is not supine. That's not the point. Congress is actively avoiding responsibility while simultaneously attacking the President for taking the responsibility and not doing so.

As for who cares about the bashing, that's the motivation for the fearmongering you linked to. Far more than attempting to drum up war, it's about attacking Obama.

What's the strategic interest? Shutting down a force that's disrupting an entire strategically important region. Or at least knocking them back down to terrorist threat/Syrian...

Recent polls show americans 60% in favour of airstrikes against ISIL. That's directly related to the fearmongering Obama and the other hawks (of whatever "party") have been engaging in: stirring up fear of another attack against the homeland. Fear Obama's own people say is unfounded. Of course these fools are demanding blood. If they can take down a president they hate, I'm sure that's a great bonus. But he's no innocent peacenik, he's the head cheerleader of violence.

Maintaining the western-sanctioned status quo is what's causing the violence and discord in the middle east in the first place. The west stirs up ancient enmity between sunni and shia, and then uses that as a pretext to attack. Have you considered, for a moment, that ISIL is not only a brutal military machine, but actually enjoys popular support from the regions' sunnis, who feel marginalized and discriminated against by the shia governments of Syria, Iran and Iraq?


thejeff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
thejeff wrote:
For the record, while I don't expect this to be quick or easy, I also don't expect it to turn into another occupation
No, I'd imagine not. Obama's all about the lean, mean, drone strike and JSOC assassins machine.
Which is still better than full scale war. I know some people think that drones are somehow especially evil, but I'd far rather see drones and the "JSOC assassins machine" used than a hundred thousand troops.

Yes, all the benefits of high-tech imperialist terrorism, none of the domestic drawbacks of American GIs coming back in body bags.

F&~& that shiznit.

Smash US Imperialism!

With regards to drone strikes - how many "high ranking Al-qaeda leaders" need to be killed before the organization collapses? Obama and his band of merry murderers might want to crunch those numbers when coming up with their ISIL strategy.

Also, it would be interesting to see how many civilians have been reported killed in said "precision strikes". If Gaza was any indication, precision strikes are anything but.

Well, ISIL is currently functioning as something closer to an actual military force. Taking and holding territory. That makes them much easier to target. Blowing up the heavier equipment they got, either in Syria or in the early stages of their invasion of Iraq, will help a lot.

You sound like a military or ex-military guy sometimes - that means both you and I know boots on the ground is the ONLY way to hold territory. A broader military intervention sounds more and more inevitable, despite some politicians claims to the contrary.


Oh man, I don't know whether I want to get involved in these kinds of discussions but.. oh well.

The boots on the gournd in this case should be Syrian, Kurdish and Shia Iraqi. All of these peoples HATE ISIS completely and totally for quite a few very good reasons and would be willing to fight tooth and nail to keep ISIS away from their families. The people in the region that are either ISIS allies or willing to live/work with them are SOME of the extremist and/or fed up Sunnis in the region. ISIS is a brand new thing that never existed before so it doesn't have any strong roots or traditions. If the Sunni people in the region can be convinced to fight against and not support ISIS (which will involve a whole hell of a lot of diplomacy and assurances from the Kurds, Syrians, and Shia Iraqis that they will be respected and have autonomy) then ISIS doesn't have much internal strength honestly.

The Sunni monarchies like Saudi and Kuwait in the region are a big obstacle though (Newsflash to Western govts. THESE ARE NOT YOUR ALLIES). As they support Sunni insurgents all over the place.


JohnLocke wrote:
You sound like a military or ex-military guy sometimes - that means both you and I know boots on the ground is the ONLY way to hold territory. A broader military intervention sounds more and more inevitable, despite some politicians claims to the contrary.

Not at all military.

You're right that boots on the ground are the only way to hold territory. Which is why we need to not do it. Because it's not about the US holding territory. The US can't hold territory in the region, we've seen how that goes.


Quote:
I'm glad you accept America's responsibility in spreading war and death around the world. That's progress!

You mean just like other nations in the world have done and continue to do?

Quote:
Who cares who's bashing Obama? When he arrogates the powers of war to himself, bypassing congress (who are pathetically supine, that's true) then he deserves every syllable of rebuke.

Kind of like how previous presidents have done in the past? Interesting how people forget that important fact. I do find it disgusting when it does happen (no matter who the president is) - it reeks of hypocracy. "It's ok if my guy does it but if your guy does it it's wrong." How many presidents, both Democrat and Republican, have decided to use the military in a foreign land without prior approval of Congress? It's a case of "It's easier to ask forgiven than permission." I'm not saying it's right - it's not - but it happens.

The U.S. is in a "danged if we do and danged if we don't" position when it comes to the rest of the world. If we don't come to the aide of a group of people, no matter what the cause of the distress, we are accused of being inhuman monsters. Yet if we come to their aide we are accused of being imperialistic warmongers. Do any of you who either say "we should be involved" or "we shouldn't be involved" have any solution to this conundrum. I know I don't.

Now here's something for everyone to think about. How many of the organizations and nations that are hostile to the U.S. have received aide from the U.S. in the past? I can name one such organization that received covert aide from the U.S. in the 80's and returned the favor by attacking us 13 years ago today.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The U.S. is in a "danged if we do and danged if we don't" position when it comes to the rest of the world. If we don't come to the aide of a group of people, no matter what the cause of the distress, we are accused of being inhuman monsters. Yet if we come to their aide we are accused of being imperialistic warmongers. Do any of you who either say "we should be involved" or "we shouldn't be involved" have any solution to this conundrum. I know I don't.

Now here's something for everyone to think about. How many of the organizations and nations that are hostile to the U.S. have received aide from the U.S. in the past? I can name one such organization that received covert aide from the U.S. in the 80's and returned the favor by attacking us 13 years ago today.

It's the price of being a superpower. And it's generally accompanied by a lot of abuse of that power.

An awful lot of those actions were not really motivated by coming to the aid of a group of people, but by larger strategic or economic concerns. Painting the US as just "Coming to help" is disingenuous at best. Though it is often how things are portrayed in the mass media, so it's not surprising.

The root of the current crisis is the US invasion of Iraq and the subsequent occupation and power vacuum. (Though there are even deeper roots.) That's on the US. I'm just not convinced that letting IS consolidate a power base and continue to expand is the best response.


Azih wrote:

Oh man, I don't know whether I want to get involved in these kinds of discussions but.. oh well.

The boots on the gournd in this case should be Syrian, Kurdish and Shia Iraqi. All of these peoples HATE ISIS completely and totally for quite a few very good reasons and would be willing to fight tooth and nail to keep ISIS away from their families. The people in the region that are either ISIS allies or willing to live/work with them are SOME of the extremist and/or fed up Sunnis in the region. ISIS is a brand new thing that never existed before so it doesn't have any strong roots or traditions. If the Sunni people in the region can be convinced to fight against and not support ISIS (which will involve a whole hell of a lot of diplomacy and assurances from the Kurds, Syrians, and Shia Iraqis that they will be respected and have autonomy) then ISIS doesn't have much internal strength honestly.

The Sunni monarchies like Saudi and Kuwait in the region are a big obstacle though (Newsflash to Western govts. THESE ARE NOT YOUR ALLIES). As they support Sunni insurgents all over the place.

No. The Kurds to some extent, but focusing on helping the Syrian government and the Iraqi Shia makes this even more a Shia vs Sunni thing, hardens the lines more and makes the whole situation worse.

That "whole hell of a lot of diplomacy and assurances from the Kurds, Syrians, and Shia Iraqis" is the only real chance of making anything work here. Though the Syrian government is essentially unreachable by US.

I do think the Sunni monarchies are as much potential allies as obstacles though. IS is more of a threat to them than to Shia countries, because it's within the Sunni countries that IS can find support and many of those monarchies are not well loved.

Which admittedly puts us on the side of repressive governments again.


Quote:
thejeff wrote:

The U.S. is in a "danged if we do and danged if we don't" position when it comes to the rest of the world. If we don't come to the aide of a group of people, no matter what the cause of the distress, we are accused of being inhuman monsters. Yet if we come to their aide we are accused of being imperialistic warmongers. Do any of you who either say "we should be involved" or "we shouldn't be involved" have any solution to this conundrum. I know I don't.

Now here's something for everyone to think about. How many of the organizations and nations that are hostile to the U.S. have received aide from the U.S. in the past? I can name one such organization that received covert aide from the U.S. in the 80's and returned the favor by attacking us 13 years ago today.

It's the price of being a superpower. And it's generally accompanied by a lot of abuse of that power.

An awful lot of those actions were not really motivated by coming to the aid of a group of people, but by larger strategic or economic concerns. Painting the US as just "Coming to help" is disingenuous at best. Though it is often how things are portrayed in the mass media, so it's not surprising.

The root of the current crisis is the US invasion of Iraq and the subsequent occupation and power vacuum. (Though there are even deeper roots.) That's on the US. I'm just not convinced that letting IS consolidate a power base and continue to expand is the best response.

Well put. Part of the strategic concern is the alliance between regional Shia powers - Iran, Iraq and Syria. Some strategists are looking past ISIL and wondering what sort of impact that triad would have on regional politics. I say, let them go and see what happens. Iran is already on the ground in Iraq, fighting ISIL. Let the regional players handle the threat ISIL poses (a purely regional one at this time) rather than jumping at shadows and cowering at some "experts" prognostications.


JohnLocke wrote:
Well put. Part of the strategic concern is the alliance between regional Shia powers - Iran, Iraq and Syria. Some strategists are looking past ISIL and wondering what sort of impact that triad would have on regional politics. I say, let them go and see what happens. Iran is already on the ground in Iraq, fighting ISIL. Let the regional players handle the threat ISIL poses (a purely regional one at this time) rather than jumping at shadows and cowering at some "experts" prognostications.

Actually one of the most interesting and potentially most significant long term possibilities is an easing of tension with Iran if we're able to cooperate with them on this, as we appear to already be doing behind the scenes.


thejeff wrote:

It's the price of being a superpower. And it's generally accompanied by a lot of abuse of that power.

An awful lot of those actions were not really motivated by coming to the aid of a group of people, but by larger strategic or economic concerns. Painting the US as just "Coming to help" is disingenuous at best. Though it is often how things are portrayed in the mass media, so it's not surprising.

The root of the current crisis is the US invasion of Iraq and the subsequent occupation and power vacuum. (Though there are even deeper roots.) That's on the US. I'm just not convinced that letting IS consolidate a power base and continue to expand is the best response.

Actually, a lot of this was happening even before the U.S. was considered a "superpower". You may find it interesting to note that, during the French Revolution, the U.S. was looked to for aide - and the U.S. was far from being any sort of power - super or otherwise - back then. As for blaming the mass media - again, a lot of this was happening even before there was a "mass media".

I never said our actions were motivated solely by a desire to help others - I said that it doesn't seem to matter whether or not we help, no matter the reason, that we're looked upon negatively.

The U.S. has developed a "Big Brother" reputation over the world - and yes, part of it is because of colonialism and expansionism just as a part of it is humanitarianism and a part of it historically, I think, is to be like the "big boys" (i.e. Europe). Unfortunately to me it seems we have now reached a point that the rest of the world would rather sit back and let the U.S. deal with things than get involved and help, at least most of the time. Am I wrong? Perhaps. Yes, I don know that other nations were involved more with "boots on the ground" in Libya, but that is usually not the case.

The U.S. has come to the aide of others for a variety of reasons - economic, social, humanitarian, and yes, even a feeling of guilt over past actions. But for people to say that the U.S. is getting involved only for this reason or that reason is just plain wrong. We don't know why our individual leaders want to get involved. I suspect it is often a mix of reasons.

The root of the current crisis is not the U.S. invasion of Iraq - it actually goes back farther than that and has been brewing for a long time. It is merely another indicator of the instability in the region. ISIS was there and Hussein was keeping them in check. The invasion was, unfortunately, the match that lit the fuse. To say it is the root is fallacy and ignores the greater issues in the region.

Did I think the invasion of Iraq was a good thing when it happened? No, I did not. I knew that Hussein was a bad man but I also understood just how unstable the region is. There was no knowing what would happen once Hussein was out of power and the U.S. supposedly left the region. I would have loved to have seen Hussein removed from power when Iraq invaded Kuwait during the presidency of Bush Senior but I was much younger then. I know now just how dangerous that would have been.

The Middle East is a hotbed - it has been even before the U.S. was a bunch of British colonies. We don't know what will happen with any action we do there. Will some other group far worse come to power? We don't know. We can only guess. And what many people seem to forget as a few of those nations are supposed to be allies of the U.S.

To blame the U.S. solely for everything is just plain wrong. Other nations are just as guilty. And yet, that is what is happening. The U.S. is being accused of being imperialistic and engaged in empire-building - interesting how the U.S. was also accused of such things under our previous president and yet those that are accusing our current president of the exact same thing are ignoring that fact.

Yes, the U.S. has interests in the Middle East - so does any nation that receives their oil from the area. Yes, the U.S. is involved because of those interests. To say that this current conflict is only a regional thing is misleading.

Personally what I would like to see us do is just step back and let the other nations of the Middle East deal with ISIS - or any other similar organization that pops up. Heck, I know that Iran is there fighting them. But what do you think other nations will say if the U.S. doesn't do something? What I want to happen (and never will I'm afraid) is for our leaders to say "Listen, you guys deal with this one. If you need help please ask and we'll see what we can do. And as for the rest of you nations out there - it would be nice if you helped too instead of expecting us to do all of the heavy lifting." But that's just me - I think the U.S. has done enough helping the rest of the world that it's time to step back and let other nations show what they can do.


thejeff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
Well put. Part of the strategic concern is the alliance between regional Shia powers - Iran, Iraq and Syria. Some strategists are looking past ISIL and wondering what sort of impact that triad would have on regional politics. I say, let them go and see what happens. Iran is already on the ground in Iraq, fighting ISIL. Let the regional players handle the threat ISIL poses (a purely regional one at this time) rather than jumping at shadows and cowering at some "experts" prognostications.

Actually one of the most interesting and potentially most significant long term possibilities is an easing of tension with Iran if we're able to cooperate with them on this, as we appear to already be doing behind the scenes.

Sir, you are correct - that is something I would love to see. Who knows? This might be the start of what was missing in establishing stability in the area.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem is that the richest Sunni powers in the region are obsessive about destabilizing the Shia powers for the simple reason that they have large Shia minorities that they need to keep down in order to maintain their power. Look at what happened to the Arab Spring rising in Bahrain where Saudi Arabia rolled in the tanks to crush peaceful protestors and prop up the Sunni minority elites that rule an impoverished Shia majority.

And take a look at the US complete lack of response to this as an indicator of the short sighted US policy towards this which is basically to act as the Sunni power's enabler and cover.

The Western and Sunni funding of the Sunni opposition to the Assad Syrian regime is a significant part of the destabilisation of the region. And Obama's talk about funding 'moderate' Sunni opposition is kinda bunk. There are no moderate fighters in Syria (how can you 'moderately' fight a civil war?) just different extremist factions. One part of these 'moderate rebels', funded by Saudi and the West, morphed into ISIS and invaded Iraq. Make no mistake the West stopped funding them, but no matter what official Saudi policy might be ISIS is still getting tons of cash from the Sunni regimes in the region.

Acting like a Saudi guard dog and growling at Iran and Syria whenever the Saudis want it to has not done the U.S any favours. The oil in those countries can't run out fast enough.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


Yes, all the benefits of high-tech imperialist terrorism, none of the domestic drawbacks of American GIs coming back in body bags.

F%#! that shiznit.

Smash US Imperialism!

Fewer body bags for the locals as well. If there's no troops to shoot at, there's no need for the troops to shoot back.

Dark Archive

JohnLocke wrote:
thejeff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
thejeff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
thejeff wrote:
For the record, while I don't expect this to be quick or easy, I also don't expect it to turn into another occupation
No, I'd imagine not. Obama's all about the lean, mean, drone strike and JSOC assassins machine.

The best bet, of course, would be for the U.S. to stay out of this conflict altogether. ISIL is a direct result of America's wars and policies - just as al-qaeda, the previous bogeyman, was. Have we learned nothing from history, here?

thejeff wrote:
Fearmongering the US into yet another war.

Everything is of course the US's fault. I know.

Most of those fearmongers cited are committed to bashing Obama for not doing enough to stop ISIL yet, while trying to avoid having to vote on authorizing anything, so that they can bash Obama for doing too much later on.

JohnLocke wrote:

I'm glad you accept America's responsibility in spreading war and death around the world. That's progress!

Who cares who's bashing Obama? When he arrogates the powers of war to himself, bypassing congress (who are pathetically supine, that's true) then he deserves every syllable of rebuke. ISIL poses no threat to the US - why get involved? What's the strategic interest here? Neutralizing a "future threat"? Protecting Israel? Keeping the money flowing to the "defence" industries?

Congress is not supine. That's not the point. Congress is actively avoiding responsibility while simultaneously attacking the President for taking the responsibility and not doing so.

As for who cares about the bashing, that's the motivation for the fearmongering you linked to. Far more than attempting to drum up war, it's about attacking Obama.

What's the strategic interest? Shutting down a force that's disrupting an entire strategically important region. Or at least

...

to be fair I do think that in this case the beheadings have more to do with the increase desire to bomb than anything else


Kevin Mack wrote:
to be fair I do think that in this case the beheadings have more to do with the increase desire to bomb than anything else

More to do with public support and pressure, perhaps.

Strikes on ISIL in Iraq started before the beheadings (of US journalists, not of Iraqis) and there's been talk of expanding to Syria since then.

Dark Archive

thejeff wrote:
Kevin Mack wrote:
to be fair I do think that in this case the beheadings have more to do with the increase desire to bomb than anything else

More to do with public support and pressure, perhaps.

Strikes on ISIL in Iraq started before the beheadings (of US journalists, not of Iraqis) and there's been talk of expanding to Syria since then.

yeah but I seem to recall that before the journalists were killed there was a more lukewarm feel towards it all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kevin Mack wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kevin Mack wrote:
to be fair I do think that in this case the beheadings have more to do with the increase desire to bomb than anything else

More to do with public support and pressure, perhaps.

Strikes on ISIL in Iraq started before the beheadings (of US journalists, not of Iraqis) and there's been talk of expanding to Syria since then.

yeah but I seem to recall that before the journalists were killed there was a more lukewarm feel towards it all.

Saudi Arabia beheads people all the time for some pretty minor offences, for example, practicing sorcery.

Saudi beheadings.

I don't see the US government attacking Saudi Arabia, nor even getting upset. But then the extremist dictatorship in Saudi Arabia is buddy-buddy with US "interests". Funny how that happens.


Kevin Mack wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kevin Mack wrote:
to be fair I do think that in this case the beheadings have more to do with the increase desire to bomb than anything else

More to do with public support and pressure, perhaps.

Strikes on ISIL in Iraq started before the beheadings (of US journalists, not of Iraqis) and there's been talk of expanding to Syria since then.

yeah but I seem to recall that before the journalists were killed there was a more lukewarm feel towards it all.

I agree. Especially among the public - and some Congresscritters who see advantage. Bumped up the rhetoric some. I don't think it's changed the basic approach at all though.

I think Obama's doing a pretty good job of not falling into the trap. Here's an interesting take on ISIL

Quote:
“What these guys do not like, to a man, is the US sitting back and using air power,” McCants said. “This is very damaging to them. It’s an ‘unmanly’ activity, and it doesn’t give them a huge propaganda bump. [So] you need to hit the United States hard right on the nose. You force it to either completely get out of the region, or you force it to stop acting through proxies and commit ground forces.”

So yes, they're trying to provoke us or scare us off. Either works for them. A ground war means we're playing on their turf and us backing off lets them build on what they've already taken. So far Obama's strategy is aimed at threading that needle.


Pink Dragon wrote:
Kevin Mack wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kevin Mack wrote:
to be fair I do think that in this case the beheadings have more to do with the increase desire to bomb than anything else

More to do with public support and pressure, perhaps.

Strikes on ISIL in Iraq started before the beheadings (of US journalists, not of Iraqis) and there's been talk of expanding to Syria since then.

yeah but I seem to recall that before the journalists were killed there was a more lukewarm feel towards it all.

Saudi Arabia beheads people all the time for some pretty minor offences, for example, practicing sorcery.

Saudi beheadings.

I don't see the US government attacking Saudi Arabia, nor even getting upset. But then the extremist dictatorship in Saudi Arabia is buddy-buddy with US "interests". Funny how that happens.

There's some truth in that of course and I'd love to see the US withdraw support from the Saudi regime. We back far too many dictators in the name of our strategic interests and it's caused most of the blowback we've faced over the decades.

That said, ISIL is different. First these were American journalists and that makes a PR difference, even if it shouldn't. Second and more important, Saudi Arabia is brutal, but stable. It's not conquering territory and executing people living there who won't convert. It's a stable country following its own laws. It's been doing so for years and isn't likely to change drastically. ISIL is an escalating situation with the potential to get much worse, very fast if it takes more territory.
Also, because of that, the price of intervention is much lower. Intervening in an existing war doesn't carry the same increase in risk to civilians that starting one does, because the risk is already very high.


Oil and Erbil

"Obama’s defense of Erbil is effectively the defense of an undeclared Kurdish oil state whose sources of geopolitical appeal—as a long-term, non-Russian supplier of oil and gas to Europe, for example—are best not spoken of in polite or naïve company, as Al Swearengen would well understand. Life, Swearengen once pointed out, is often made up of “one vile task after another.” So is American policy in Iraq."

From The New Yorker, of all places.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Second and more important, Saudi Arabia is brutal, but stable. It's not conquering territory and executing people living there who won't convert. It's a stable country following its own laws. It's been doing so for years and isn't likely to change drastically. ISIL is an escalating situation with the potential to get much worse, very fast if it takes more territory.

Iraq was a stable but brutal country until US interference destabilized it.

Syria was a stable but brutal country until US interference destabilized it.

Iran is a stable country and the US government would like nothing better than to destabilize it.

US government actions in the middle east have nothing at all to do with keeping it stable. It's about money, control and hubris.

The US has a long history of brutality around the world in the interest of their transnational business community, but always disguised as some humanitarian intervention to keep the public placated.


thejeff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
Well put. Part of the strategic concern is the alliance between regional Shia powers - Iran, Iraq and Syria. Some strategists are looking past ISIL and wondering what sort of impact that triad would have on regional politics. I say, let them go and see what happens. Iran is already on the ground in Iraq, fighting ISIL. Let the regional players handle the threat ISIL poses (a purely regional one at this time) rather than jumping at shadows and cowering at some "experts" prognostications.

Actually one of the most interesting and potentially most significant long term possibilities is an easing of tension with Iran if we're able to cooperate with them on this, as we appear to already be doing behind the scenes.

I wish that was the case, but the American administration seems to be doing everything it can to keep Iran and Syria out of the loop. In fact, currently, it appears to be Obama's plan to attack ISIL within Syria without coordinating with the government there. That's needlessly aggressive and makes me wonder if they aren't indeed still plotting another assisted regime change there.

Where else will his promise to pursue ISIL take American forces? This is just another bad, bad idea.

The cynic in me is very worried.

"While Syria’s President is of Alawi religious background, the Defense Minister is Sunni Muslim and the Foreign Minister is Christian. The majority of soldiers are Sunni. In fact it is a secular country where it’s considered impolite to ask one’s religion."

"While any Syrian can start his or her own business with modest restrictions and taxes, foreign corporations investing in Syria are limited to 49% ownership. Thus the country is not under the thumb of Wall Street or the International Monetary Fund, and you do not see Burger King/Pizza Hut/Bank of America or Bank of London in downtown Damascus. The country has lots of economic and social challenges but compared to other countries in the Arab world is a bastion of secularism and independence from Western domination."

I think I see part of the reason America has been funding and arming the Syrian rebels, now. Does anyone share my reserve at yet another foreign engagement?

Speaking of American reporters being executed - do you think this tweet made Sotloff a target? Syrian rebels, in Turkey, stocking up on sarin gas. Wonder what that was for.....


JohnLocke wrote:
thejeff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
Well put. Part of the strategic concern is the alliance between regional Shia powers - Iran, Iraq and Syria. Some strategists are looking past ISIL and wondering what sort of impact that triad would have on regional politics. I say, let them go and see what happens. Iran is already on the ground in Iraq, fighting ISIL. Let the regional players handle the threat ISIL poses (a purely regional one at this time) rather than jumping at shadows and cowering at some "experts" prognostications.

Actually one of the most interesting and potentially most significant long term possibilities is an easing of tension with Iran if we're able to cooperate with them on this, as we appear to already be doing behind the scenes.

I wish that was the case, but the American administration seems to be doing everything it can to keep Iran and Syria out of the loop. In fact, currently, it appears to be Obama's plan to attack ISIL within Syria without coordinating with the government there. That's needlessly aggressive and makes me wonder if they aren't indeed still plotting another assisted regime change there.

Where else will his promise to pursue ISIL take American forces? This is just another bad, bad idea.

Syria yes. There's not going to be any cooperation there. Not for awhile yet. Years at least. Years after the civil war ends, if Assad remains in power.

And we will be supporting the rebels fighting ISIL, which will also strengthen them against Assad. We won't go beyond that. No airstrikes against Assad's forces. No troops on the ground. That's my prediction anyway.

For Iran, I suspect there already is, just not openly.


thejeff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
thejeff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
Well put. Part of the strategic concern is the alliance between regional Shia powers - Iran, Iraq and Syria. Some strategists are looking past ISIL and wondering what sort of impact that triad would have on regional politics. I say, let them go and see what happens. Iran is already on the ground in Iraq, fighting ISIL. Let the regional players handle the threat ISIL poses (a purely regional one at this time) rather than jumping at shadows and cowering at some "experts" prognostications.

Actually one of the most interesting and potentially most significant long term possibilities is an easing of tension with Iran if we're able to cooperate with them on this, as we appear to already be doing behind the scenes.

I wish that was the case, but the American administration seems to be doing everything it can to keep Iran and Syria out of the loop. In fact, currently, it appears to be Obama's plan to attack ISIL within Syria without coordinating with the government there. That's needlessly aggressive and makes me wonder if they aren't indeed still plotting another assisted regime change there.

Where else will his promise to pursue ISIL take American forces? This is just another bad, bad idea.

Syria yes. There's not going to be any cooperation there. Not for awhile yet. Years at least. Years after the civil war ends, if Assad remains in power.

And we will be supporting the rebels fighting ISIL, which will also strengthen them against Assad. We won't go beyond that. No airstrikes against Assad's forces. No troops on the ground. That's my prediction anyway.

For Iran, I suspect there already is, just not openly.

I really hope you're right. Maybe I've grown too cynical.


thejeff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
And we will be supporting the rebels fighting ISIL, which will also strengthen them against Assad. We won't go beyond that. No airstrikes against Assad's forces. No troops on the ground. That's my prediction anyway.
I really hope you're right. Maybe I've grown too cynical.

Speaking of NH journalists, Comrade Locke, I wonder if you saw this earlier piece on Counterpunch by Rick Sterling?

Foley & Sotloff’s Reporting Show Why the US Should Stop Its Proxy War on Syria: Both Journalists Documented the Reality of Free Syria Army

Interesting read.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
thejeff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
And we will be supporting the rebels fighting ISIL, which will also strengthen them against Assad. We won't go beyond that. No airstrikes against Assad's forces. No troops on the ground. That's my prediction anyway.
I really hope you're right. Maybe I've grown too cynical.

Speaking of NH journalists, Comrade Locke, I wonder if you saw this earlier piece on Counterpunch by Rick Sterling?

Foley & Sotloff’s Reporting Show Why the US Should Stop Its Proxy War on Syria: Both Journalists Documented the Reality of Free Syria Army

Interesting read.

I did, Comrade, thank you. It's where I found Sotloff's most interesting tweet re: rebel groups purchasing sarin in Turkey, three months before the false-flag sarin attack that outraged the international community.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
The U.S. is in a "danged if we do and danged if we don't" position when it comes to the rest of the world. If we don't come to the aide of a group of people, no matter what the cause of the distress, we are accused of being inhuman monsters.

It's more that at this point, the rest of the world knows that your state only acts if it directly benefits the US imperium.

You're not "danged if you don't, danged if you do", you're "danged if you let horrible atrocities happen because it benefits you, danged if you invade countries because it benefits you". (You as in your country - I know you're not a bad guy).

I promise you, if the US dropped its war machine budget to 2001 levels and invested those 250 billions per year in unconditional humanitarian aid to various countries, preferably through unions and humanitarian groups with good rep rather than governments that you make into puppet regimes, made a full stop on military exports, and restricted your military intervention to those directly and concretely threatening your country, you'd see opinions shift over the decades.

And yes, that may sound drastic, but as a military and economic imperium that is known across the world for its atrocities, if you want to get more goodwill, you have to start act more good. The reason why people call you bad for not intervening in various genocides is that you so so obviously have no issue intervening when it's beneficial to you, and you have given support (military, economic, propagandistic) and sometimes caused many dictatorships, atrocities and genocides.

We already know the US state is completely, 100%, morally bankrupt, so yes, until your state shows the slightest hint at remorse and actually doing things that are actively good to the point of at least slightly self-sacrificing, people will blame your state for it. As they should. And no matter of how many economically and strategically sound choices of intervention/no intervention you make that is not going to help, as we know they are just that - decisions on how to grow your empire as large as possible and dominate the rest of the world as easy as possible.

(You in this text refers to your country - I know you're not a bad guy, jeff).

Quote:


Yet if we come to their aide we are accused of being imperialistic warmongers. Do any of you who either say "we should be involved" or "we shouldn't be involved" have any solution to this conundrum. I know I don't.

Easy. Lend massive aid, don't lend military aid. Because let's face it, everytime you lend military aid it just happens to end up in either a US-friendly dictatorship (eg Pinochet, Ukraine currently, the Shah of Iran etc) or a new enemy that just has shiny american toys (see ISIL, Al-Quaeda, Hussein etc).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, here's a little bit of the result of the "ceasefire":
link


Gaberlunzie wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The U.S. is in a "danged if we do and danged if we don't" position when it comes to the rest of the world. If we don't come to the aide of a group of people, no matter what the cause of the distress, we are accused of being inhuman monsters.

It's more that at this point, the rest of the world knows that your state only acts if it directly benefits the US imperium.

You're not "danged if you don't, danged if you do", you're "danged if you let horrible atrocities happen because it benefits you, danged if you invade countries because it benefits you". (You as in your country - I know you're not a bad guy).

I promise you, if the US dropped its war machine budget to 2001 levels and invested those 250 billions per year in unconditional humanitarian aid to various countries, preferably through unions and humanitarian groups with good rep rather than governments that you make into puppet regimes, made a full stop on military exports, and restricted your military intervention to those directly and concretely threatening your country, you'd see opinions shift over the decades.

And yes, that may sound drastic, but as a military and economic imperium that is known across the world for its atrocities, if you want to get more goodwill, you have to start act more good. The reason why people call you bad for not intervening in various genocides is that you so so obviously have no issue intervening when it's beneficial to you, and you have given support (military, economic, propagandistic) and sometimes caused many dictatorships, atrocities and genocides.

We already know the US state is completely, 100%, morally bankrupt, so yes, until your state shows the slightest hint at remorse and actually doing things that are actively good to the point of at least slightly self-sacrificing, people will blame your state for it. As they should. And no matter of how many economically and strategically sound choices of intervention/no intervention you make that is not going to help, as we know they...

For the record, those quotes weren't mine, but Uncle Teddy's. I screwed up the attribution when I responded to him.


Ah, I see. Was a bit surprised to see you write something that seemed so stupid, since I know you as smart and reasonable, especially for a moderate ;P


Gaberlunzie wrote:
Ah, I see. Was a bit surprised to see you write something that seemed so stupid, since I know you as smart and reasonable, especially for a moderate ;P

<blushes>


Progressive Democrats Follow Obama to War in Syria


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Progressive Democrats Follow Obama to War in Syria

He's like the pied piper of evil. All the same imperialist BS as Bush. But because Obama pays lip service to gay rights and an increased minimum wage he gets a pass from tons of "progressives".

Obama gives not a single f@~~ about ISIL. Syria and Iran are still squarely in the neocon's sights, and this bastard is trying to backdoor his way into starting a fight with those regimes. American forces "accidentally" attack Syrian forces - Syrian forces defend themselves - and boom, rationale to attack and depose Assad. And funding the so-called "moderate" rebel forces in Syria - bloody hell, will these people not learn???

Like I said...

"Among anti-neocon “realists” inside the U.S. intelligence community, the concern about how these airstrikes into Syria might lead to dangerous mission creep is so great that I’m told that some senior analysts are even suspicious of President Obama’s repeated use of the acronym “ISIL” – for the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant – instead of the more common “ISIS,” referring only to Iraq and Syria.

The concern is that “the Levant” suggests a larger area including all “Mediterranean lands east of Italy,” that theoretically could include everything from Turkey to Palestine and Jordan to parts of Egypt. One source said inclusion of the phrase “ISIL,” instead of “ISIS,” in any “use of force” resolution could be significant by creating a possibility of a much wider war."

I used ISIL because I hate that the name of the ancient Goddess has been adopted by these monsters :-(


Who Pays the Pro-War Pundits? Conflicts of Interest Exposed for TV Guests Backing Military Action


The war on ISIS already has a winner: The defense industry


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
The war on ISIS already has a winner: The defense industry

In other news:grass is green.

Remember those bombers that RF supplied to Iraq in a week after signing
contract?
I suspect that those were at low,low price at triple the cost of new.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arturius Fischer wrote:
If Israel wanted to take over Palestine, it would have been done in days, a week at most. The IDF also wouldn't care about a thousand or so casualties in a population of millions.

The only real reason Israel hasn't done exactly that is because it would lose it's major ally, the United States which depends heavily on oil from nations while not willing to take the Palestinians as citizens still profess sympathy to their cause. The Arabs of the Middle East know that Israel is an American front, but they tolerate that in the name of buisness. If the U.S. allowed the Israelis to exterminate the Palestinians, the repercussions would be immediate and devastating.


If israel had officially taken over palastine they would either have to admit denying the vote to people, or let them vote Israel as a jewish state out of existence.

They need to take over as much of palastine as possible but exclude the Palestinians from it while doing so.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
The war on ISIS already has a winner: The defense industry

In other news:grass is green.

Remember those bombers that RF supplied to Iraq in a week after signing
contract?

No, I don't.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The state of Israel claims Hamas has broken the truce by firing a rocket at the state of Israel. Since the truce was negotiated, the state of Israel has:

- promised the biggest expansion in settlements in years;
- shot at fishing boats off the coast of Gaza;
- held back 56 million dollars in Palestinian taxes;
- killed a 22 year old the week before his marriage;
- killed a 16 year old with a shot in the head;
- tortured a prisoner until he had to go to the hospital;
- kept having 500 Palestinians in illegal detention;
- kept having 33 Palestinian lawgivers in illegal detention;
- destroyed a dairy outside of Hebron, which was the only source of income for a orphanage;
- set fire to an olive plantation near Hebron;
- destroyed fields in the southern Gaza by driving over them in tanks.


thejeff wrote:
You also tend to do even more local damage and stir up even more blowback when you bring in the occupation force. Yes, that's even considering how much the drone strikes do.

White House exempts Syria airstrikes from tight standards on civilian deaths

Amid reports of women and children killed in U.S. air offensive, official says the 'near certainty' policy doesn’t apply

Oh, goodie, it's somewhere in between.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
thejeff wrote:
You also tend to do even more local damage and stir up even more blowback when you bring in the occupation force. Yes, that's even considering how much the drone strikes do.

White House exempts Syria airstrikes from tight standards on civilian deaths

Amid reports of women and children killed in U.S. air offensive, official says the 'near certainty' policy doesn’t apply

Oh, goodie, it's somewhere in between.

Not good at all.

Doesn't change my point that an occupation force would be far worse and not just because of US casualties. Both in terms of civilian casualties and blowback.


thejeff wrote:

Not good at all.

Doesn't change my point that an occupation force would be far worse and not just because of US casualties. Both in terms of civilian casualties and blowback.

I'm not interested in arguing about which form of imperialist terrorism is least worst.

Just thought it was interesting that the U.S. terrorists are going for a middle-of-the-road option we hadn't considered.

1,001 to 1,050 of 1,056 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Under fire All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.