Yall think Obeezy gonna get bullied into war?

[theworldismine13]

1. Nah, the stability was a facade. We're talking about people who were suppressed and brutalized under the Hussein regime, they weren't ready to forgive or forget. Baathism was originally pan-Arabic/Islamic, it became pro-Sunni through tribal happenstance, more or less. But by the end of Saddam's regime, the split was clear. The army personnel have joined ISIS not so much out of religious zealotry but of a desire to return to power in Iraq. It's the rank and file that are heavily religious. I agree that American troops were keeping Iraq stable, I'm just saying it was a band-aid solution that couldn't possibly, and was never designed to, last.

2. The territory thing is pretty overrated imo. Bin Laden took down the twin towers from some caves in Afghanistan. This is the first time a Jihadist group has formed a "real" state, but the problem has been here for quite a while.

3. agree to disagree, I think cultural diversity is a point of strength in western societies and I would hate for us to become some white monoculture.

1. im not disputing that the stability was a facade and that the troops were a band aid, in fact that is my point, im just saying that that was better than what we have now, if obama had kept troops there or slowed down the withdrawal it will still be facade and and band aid but with a lot less people dead, i think that situation is 1000x better than what we have now

2. its not overrated at all, bin laden wasnt living in caves, he was living in training camps with the full support of the government of afghanistan

im monday morning quarterbacking but the biggest strategic error the us made was allowing the taliban government to exist during the 90's

there are hundreds of terrorists group all over the place but thats mostly a just policing issue, when terrorists start gaining territory or forming pseudo governments, it requires military action

if isis was a group running around planting bombs in iraq that wouldnt be the world's problem that would be the iraqi's police problem, and that is where you want to keep it

3. yeah we agree to disagree, cultural diversity is some corny liberal bullshyt

assimilation does not create a white mono culture because assimilation requires the white majority to change also

 

[theworldismine13]

Dozens of American soldiers were dying as late as 2010 and 2011. You can look it up.

Just how long did you want us to stay in Iraq?

we should have stayed at least 5 more years, i think whats happened the past 5 years shows that

 

[theworldismine13]

Like a complete pull out. Zero presence, no air campaigns, no nothing.

that would just create a vacuum where the russians and iranians would fill in

 

[Tony D'Amato]

we should have stayed at least 5 more years, i think whats happened the past 5 years shows that

And then it woulda been 5 mo yrs. And on and on. Oytside of nuking all em, we arent stopping them from fighting. A war for islam needs to happen in the middle east. Extremist are outnumbered, so good muslims need to fight for their own land.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

You a got damn clown this is not a war you want. Let them proxies fight it out as you stand by and watch slowly picking a side to destroy once it is all over.

sounds like Syria in 2011

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Man, its like 9/12 all over again. Even Dems are poppin shyt. Did 200 people even die? This is nothing like 9/11.

Oh I thought this thread had to do with the south china sea

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Is this what it's really about?

Are we looking to create stability and security or just using them as covers to use force to placate our fragile egos?

neither.

Can you/we even define stability and security?

 

[tru_m.a.c]

smart thing would be to leave the region, like when vietnam went to sh*t, we dipped.

What? Leave the region? Sir Vietnam was a war with borders and diplomatic terms (despite the ruthlessness and carnage and human rights violations). Not to mention, thousands were slaughtered after we left. There is no option to "leave the region" as we are an economic and political source of instability within the region.

We're only 40 years removed and people still have no idea what went down in Vietnam. Don't take that as disrespect....

Finally, in January 1973, representatives of the United States, North and South Vietnam, and the Vietcong signed a peace agreement in Paris, ending the direct U.S. military involvement in the Vietnam War. Its key provisions included a cease-fire throughout Vietnam, the withdrawal of U.S. forces, the release of prisoners of war, and the reunification of North and South Vietnam through peaceful means. The South Vietnamese government was to remain in place until new elections were held, and North Vietnamese forces in the South were not to advance further nor be reinforced.

In reality, however, the agreement was little more than a face-saving gesture by the U.S. government. Even before the last American troops departed on March 29, the communists violated the cease-fire, and by early 1974 full-scale war had resumed. At the end of 1974, South Vietnamese authorities reported that 80,000 of their soldiers and civilians had been killed in fighting during the year, making it the most costly of the Vietnam War.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

There is a growing sentiment that a massive pullout is the cleanest way out. ISIL is starting to engage in tit for tat attacks and we have had 14 years of zero progress. Our destabilization of the region is probably one of the biggest tragedies of the 21st century, but ultimately we can't put it back together again. Mite be time to hit that Vietnam button and let them sort themselves out. IMO the best course of action is just splitting the whole region up between the Sunnis and Shi'ites and moving all the Jews to Long Island.

Jersey is right down the road

 

[tru_m.a.c]

I don't think there is any doubt that ISIS military leadership comes from experienced soldiers/officers in Saddam's former army. It's pointless to spend American lives and treasure on a country that is in the middle of a civil war.

How Saddam’s Former Soldiers Are Fueling the Rise of ISIS – The Rise of ISIS - FRONTLINE

Unless of course you are the reason there is a civil war in the first place.

And unless of course, fighting this never ending war in the middle east is the only way to prevent said jihadist from forming a real offensive outside of the area they are "allowed" to possess

 

[Poh SIti Dawn]

Can't force him to do anything his last year in office.

Another war isn't going to fix this.

I think the real key here is Iraq.

I woulda hit France with that Future-Where ya at (9/11 remix)

 

[CHL]

Lol at twism having no idea what he's talking about in regard to de-bathifying and the link between former army personnel and ISIS commanders/troops

 

[88m3]

Lol at twism having no idea what his talking about in regard to de-bathifying and the link between former army personnel and ISIS commanders/troops

I'm not going to bother reading what he wrote. I think that was/is a legitimate problem. Realistically most of the men are dead today so it's largely irrelevant. Also the idea that on a large scale Baathists would throw in with ISIL is laughable they're completely at odds with one another politically and socially.

 

[CHL]

I'm not going to bother reading what he wrote. I think that was/is a legitimate problem. Realistically most of the men are dead today so it's largely irrelevant. Also the idea that on a large scale Baathists would throw in with ISIL is laughable they're completely at odds with one another politically and socially.

Isis: the inside story | Martin Chulov

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

that would just create a vacuum where the russians and iranians would fill in

OK, and? Power over what exactly?