Honest Question: Should We Go to War AGAIN....in the ME?
Like Tree10Likes
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 42

Thread: Honest Question: Should We Go to War AGAIN....in the ME?

  1. #1
    XCR Guru Sean K.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    21,230

    Honest Question: Should We Go to War AGAIN....in the ME?

    According to this article....it sounds like Americans are going to support this.

    What Obama Must Say Tonight Beyond, 'I'm Ready to Fight'

    I'm not posting the text now, so I can comment without the distraction.....but I'll post the text in a minute.

    My question is: Do you support this attack on ISIS/ISIL and why? Do you support it knowing that while we may be told it won't involve ground troops, that could literally change in a matter of days and then we have boots on the ground again?

    I'll go on record as saying I'm against it. Not because I'm not fully against the atrocities committed by ISIS....but b/c of several reasons. How will it be fought? Where do you draw the line as to what religious persecution and humanitarian atrocity we will respond to? What is the goal of this police action? What will this latest police action actually accomplish?

    We are No Better Off now....than we were before we invaded IRQ. IRQ is markedly less stable as an independent nation and is a bigger threat to regional stability....and that's after spending $4T and 4500 US soldier's lives with another 32K wounded of the younger generation's best and brightest (IMO).

    We've turned a blind eye to Darfur, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Syria (other than sabre rattling), Rwanda, Burma, etc., etc. Why are we playing world police in this situation and not in others? B/c they killed/beheaded journalists that went into combat zones of their own volition knowing the consequences of being captured? Whose fault is that really? Why are we so up in arms over the killing of these journalists when thousands of human beings were slaughtered/raped/displaced by ISIS before these two events and that will continue even after we launch another crusade to the region?

    ISIS poses a threat to the stability of the region, undoubtedly. I believe that is our real reason for intervention. The Saudis (who funded 9/11 let us not forget) and other Sunni dictatorships in the region are scared of what ISIS is accomplishing....effectively setting up a true Sunni Islamic state that threatens these tyrants rule. The West is rightly concerned about the spread of radical (or what I maintain is "true") Islam and the destabilization to the region and world that it could bring. But, are we going to actually go to war; real war....not some bullshit policing action, to stop it? No. We aren't. If we're not going to go 100%, take and hold ground and kill everything in our path....then don't go. Period. But if you do go 100%....realize full well the ramifications of such an action. Lastly, don't go if you cannot get a declaration of war from Congress. It's not legal and if we are to be more than just an Imperial power......then we should live up to our founding documents, the rule of law and the Constitutional Republic we were meant to be.

    This is a lose/lose proposition and we'd better be preparing for what's coming; not participating in what can't be avoided. IMO, you're seeing the beginnings of a Sunni/Shia war (as I've said before) that will engulf the region and then the world. This movement started with Arab Spring (though one could argue the origins are as old as Islam itself)....and we are the ones that set that in motion (in large part) with our economic policy which caused massive inflation in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Yemen. That inflation, which destabilized those countries with outrageously high food prices, was caused by our economic crash in 2008.

    The dominant/majority religion of the ME is Sunni....and the followers have had it with their hypocrite (munafiq in Arabic) leaders and are looking to depose them and install true believers to run their countries under Islam and Sharia. Naturally, this is making their rulers nervous. They want to maintain power....which is why they are aligning with the "Great Satan" and the West in addition to sworn enemies like Syria and even Israel, to try and control the threat to their power. This isn't simply ISIS that the world is gathering to fight....it's Sunni Islam's true believers.

    Are you prepared for what that's going to entail? It's not just ISIS....it's the vast majority of the Sunni Muslims who have been through Arab Spring/Arab Winter in all these different countries from Africa to the ME to even SE Asia who support establishment of a world wide caliphate. It's Egyptians, Tunisians, Yemenis, Bahrainis, Iraqis, Algerians, Sudanese, Kuwaitis, Somalis, Jordanians, Palestinians, Moroccans, etc.

    I believe this war between Sunni and Shiite is going to happen regardless of whether or not we intervene. It's already happening. ISIS/ISIL ranks are burgeoning from Sunni fighters from all over the region and the world. When it does, it will undoubtedly engulf Israel. The oil will stop flowing. Our nation will grind to a halt with the increased cost. Economic collapse will come from that alone. Are we prepared for that? No.

    If we go in and utterly destroy ISIS, will that buy us enough time to get energy independent? Possibly. But....First of all, we're not going to "utterly destroy" them. We've forgotten what it means to wage real warfare. If we go in and do what we did with Al Qaeda....we'll weaken them, only to have a stronger entity pop up in the vacuum just as ISIS has done. But will we be working towards an energy solution in the mean time? Unlikely. B/c we, the people....the ones supposedly running this country....will NOT demand it.

    If our goal is to maintain stability in the region, I'm not sure that can even be accomplished. A real, conquer-ground-and-hold-it war prosecuted by the US (and a diverse coalition) will ENRAGE Islamic followers of all stripes...that will not result in stability. A half-assed, yet incredibly expensive air campaign, followed with more of the same GWOT bullshit (and another multi-national coalition), complete with renditions, SF targeting of HVTs and ISIS leadership and more boots on the ground trying to win "hearts and minds"....may placate some...but will likely just embolden even more Islamic radicals to join the fight against us.

    If the goal is to "buy time"....then the current policing philosophy may be the best solution short of staying out of it altogether or arming/training the factions directly fighting ISIS...but those same people we arm and train could very well end up being the next group of radicals. The question becomes: what do we do with that time that we're buying? And we don't seem to have any answer for that.

    I know it may seem I've picked a side here....and I have to an extent with a whole lot of caveats. I believe it's unconscionable for any human being to be a slave, or to live in fear of being murdered/executed/maimed for their beliefs. But I also believe at some point, people have to stand up for themselves. I believe in the sovereignty of nations...and that if the people of a nation want freedom, they must fight for it and if they choose slavery to their religion...it is ultimately their choice. I believe we should help people that are trying to stand up for themselves, but I'm very much on the fence as to what is the best way to accomplish that goal. I want to try and reason this out. I recognize the threat that Islam poses, but I believe people have the right to choose their religion....right up until it violates someone else's rights. This isn't happening here, in the US....where we have our own set of laws and beliefs. It's happening in another sovereign nation. I would not condone someone in Iraq or Syria arming Islamists in this country trying to overthrow our system and instill Sharia in place of the Constitution anymore than they would if the roles were reversed.

    I've said a mouthful....curious as to others take.
    Last edited by Sean K.; 09-10-2014 at 12:18 PM.
    "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty. It is the argument of tyrants; the creed of slaves."-William Pitt the Younger

  2. #2
    XCR Guru Sean K.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    21,230
    Text of article:

    What Obama Must Say Tonight Beyond, 'I'm Ready to Fight'


    Provided by National Journal
    Obama at West Point.
    2 hr ago By Ron Fournier of National Journal share
    188

    tweet
    27

    email



    Often in U.S. history, the president stands virtually alone at the precipice of war. He gathers Congress for an address to an uncertain nation and declares, "Here is why we must fight." This is not one of those times.
    In a few hours, President Obama will stand before a public that, without his leadership, largely determined that the Islamic State must be stopped. What they want to hear from their commander-in-chief is, "I'm ready to fight." With that dynamic in mind, here are five things to watch for tonight.
    Does the president recognize the Islamic State as a serious threat? Obama compared ISIS to a "JV team," blamed social media for exaggerating the threat, and called ISIS a "manageable problem." The rhetoric didn't match public outrage over the executions of two American journalists, nor the dire warnings of Obama's own Cabinet members. White House officials say Obama's address tonight is carefully scripted to show that he shares the public's sense of urgency.
    Can he strike the right balance between hawk and dove? Obama has to find a way to be tough—but not too tough, knowing that most voters, paradoxically, appreciate his deliberative style and are frustrated by it. He says he won't order U.S. ground troops into battle against ISIS, which aligns him with the public. Polls suggest a majority of Americans don't want to be drawn that deeply into another war in the Middle East.
    Is he building a genuine coalition of Muslim states? The so-called coalition of the willing under President George W. Bush was largely a mirage. With ISIS posing an existential threat to regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey, Obama has both a responsibility and opportunity to convince Muslim allies to do the heavy lifting. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius asked the right question: "Is the United States walking into a trap that has been constructed by the Islamic State—launching attacks that will rally jihadists around the world? From everything the jihadists proclaim in their propaganda, we can sense that they have been dreaming of this showdown. This is why the United States needs to make sure that, with every step it takes, it is surrounded by Muslim friends and allies."
    Does he blame Bush or Republicans—or anybody other than ISIS? Leave it to historians to second-guess U.S. policies that created a vacuum for ISIS's ideology of hatred, starting with Bush's ill-advised invasion of Iraq in 2003 and including Obama's ill-fated withdrawal. Obama should focus on the future, hopefully one without another 9/11-size attack.
    What is Obama's exit strategy? The New York Times reported this week that Obama's plan calls for a campaign that could last three years. That time frame seems falsely precise—and overly optimistic. Once again, Ignatius asks the right questions: "How will the United States and its allies know when they have "won"? Or will this be more like the Cold War, a decades-long ideological battle punctuated by periods of intense local combat? If so, are the American people ready for such a long and patient struggle?"
    That last question stuck with me. We're angry and scared now. We want to fight. History suggests that we will rally behind the commander in chief in the immediate aftermath of tonight's address. But it wasn't that long ago—a matter of weeks, really—when "war weary" was the go-to adjective for "Americans." We will grow weary again, and Obama may need to draw on tonight's speech to remind people, "This is why we must fight."
    "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty. It is the argument of tyrants; the creed of slaves."-William Pitt the Younger

  3. #3
    XCR Guru Sean K.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    21,230
    Airstrikes in Syria? Obama outlining Mideast plans - Middle East - Stripes

    WASHINGTON — In a high-stakes address to the nation Wednesday night, President Barack Obama planned to outline a broad expansion of the U.S. military role in combating extremists in Iraq and Syria, including a call for arming Syrian opposition forces and potentially launching airstrikes in both countries.

    Obama has told congressional lawmakers that he has the authority to proceed with much of his plan without their formal approval. However, he is seeking authorization from Congress for the train-and-equip operation for Syrian rebels, a request he first made earlier this summer.
    House Republicans threw a potential roadblock in front of those plans Wednesday by not including the measure in a temporary funding measure. It was unclear whether Republicans were rejecting the request completely or would leave open another avenue.
    On the Senate floor, Democratic leader Harry Reid urged quick authorization of the president's request to help arm moderate opposition forces in Syria. He also backed another key element of Obama's proposal: the formation of a coalition of countries in Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere that would also contribute military and political assistance.
    "Going it alone is not going to work," Reid said. "We must have the support of the international community if we're to rid the world of ISIS" — an acronym for the Islamic State group.
    For Obama, a sustained U.S. intervention in the Middle East is at odds with the vision he had for the region when he ran for president on a pledge to end the war in Iraq, where the role of American fighting forces drew to a close nearly three years ago. The timing of his announcement Wednesday night was all the more striking, just hours before anniversary commemorations of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
    Earlier Wednesday, Obama met with his national security advisers. He also spoke by phone with Saudi King Abdullah, ahead of a gathering of Arab leaders on their contributions to a global coalition against the Islamic State.
    Secretary of State John Kerry was traveling to Saudi Arabia and Jordan this week. He first made a stop in Baghdad to meet with Iraq's new leaders and pledge U.S. support for eliminating the extremist group and the threat it poses.
    Republicans have pressed Obama to be specific about his plans.
    Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell called Obama "a rather reluctant commander in chief" and urged him to outline a military strategy to defeat the terrorists and any funding and authorization he needs.
    "It's pretty clear to me at least that the American people fully appreciate the nature of this threat," McConnell said. "After the beheadings of two American citizens, they don't want an explanation of what's happening. They want a plan. They want some presidential leadership."
    Meanwhile, Francis Taylor, the Homeland Security Department's undersecretary for intelligence and analysis, told lawmakers U.S. officials are currently unaware of any credible threat of a potential attack in the United States by the Islamic State. But Taylor testified that the militants are a serious threat to the Middle East and could attack U.S. targets overseas with little or no warning.
    Obama has long resisted deepening U.S. involvement in Syria. But recent events, including the Islamic State's beheading of two American journalists, has changed his calculus, putting him on the brink of launching airstrikes in Syria.
    The U.S. is already launching airstrikes against Islamic State targets inside Iraq, undertaken at the invitation of the Iraqi government and without formal authorization from Congress. But the mission has been limited to strikes that help protect American interests in the region and prevent humanitarian crises.
    U.S. officials said Obama was expected to loosen those limitations and open a broader counterterrorism campaign against the militants in Iraq. Obama also told foreign policy experts at a private dinner Monday that the Islamic State must be viewed as one organization, not two groups separated by a border — raising expectations that he would press into Syria.
    Administration officials and others familiar with Obama's thinking spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to be identified.
    Even as he ramps up airstrikes, Obama has continued to rule out sending U.S. troops into ground combat operations in the Middle East. Instead, the administration is focused on bolstering the capacity of the Iraqi security forces and Syrian opposition.
    The U.S. already has been running a smaller CIA program to train the rebels, but Obama is seeking approval for a more overt military effort that could involve staging training locations in countries near Syria.
    Administration officials said Obama also sees a congressional authorization for a Syrian train-and-equip message as sending a strong signal to allies who are considering similar efforts.
    Germany has decided to send assault rifles, ammunition, anti-tank weapons and armored vehicles to Kurdish forces in Iraq fighting the Islamic State, breaking with Berlin's previous reluctance to send weapons into conflicts. The deliveries haven't started, but last week Germany sent a first planeload of military equipment such as helmets, protective vests, field glasses and mine-searching devices to Iraq.
    Following a meeting between Obama and congressional leaders Tuesday, an aide to House Speaker John Boehner said the Ohio Republican expressed support for efforts to increase the effectiveness of the Iraqi security forces and for equipping the Syrian opposition. Boehner also said he would support the deployment of U.S. military personnel to Iraq in a training and advisory role and to "assist with lethal targeting" of Islamic State leadership.
    In a shift for a war-weary nation, new polls suggest the American people would support a sustained air campaign. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released Monday showed 71 percent of Americans support airstrikes in Iraq, up from 54 percent just three weeks ago. And 65 percent say they support extending airstrikes into Syria.
    "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty. It is the argument of tyrants; the creed of slaves."-William Pitt the Younger

  4. Remove Advertisements
    XCRForum.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    XCR Guru Tech Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,311
    The powers to be not only allowed ISIS to get rolling, they actually supported them with money, weapons, and training. Does anyone think that is a rather harsh speculative statement? Ok, well then here:

    Honest Question: Should We Go to War AGAIN....in the ME?-john-mccain-meets-syrian-rebels-isis-islamic-state-caliph-ibrahim-al-qaeda-islamic-state-20.jpg

    Honest Question: Should We Go to War AGAIN....in the ME?-unnamed1-vi.jpg

    Click on first picture and read what McCain said about brave freedom fighters. John McCain isn't a representative of the people. He is nothing more than a complicit, silly cartoon character.
    Last edited by Tech Man; 09-10-2014 at 02:27 PM.

  6. #5
    XCR Guru Tech Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,311
    Sean K. likes this.

  7. #6
    XCR Guru Sean K.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    21,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Tech Man View Post
    The powers to be not only allowed ISIS to get rolling, they actually supported them with money, weapons, and training. Does anyone think that is a rather harsh speculative statement? Ok, well then here:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	john-mccain-meets-with-syrian-rebels-isis-islamic-state-caliph-ibrahim-al-qaeda-islamic-state-20.jpg 
Views:	260 
Size:	144.4 KB 
ID:	7668

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	unnamed1-vi.jpg 
Views:	240 
Size:	101.8 KB 
ID:	7669

    Click on first picture and read what McCain said about brave freedom fighters. John McCain isn't a representative of the people. He is nothing more than a complicit, silly cartoon character.
    Allegedly this guy is NOT Al-Baghdadi....the claim is being debated currently. Far from conclusive proof.

    The ISIS leader was NOT trained by the CIA or Mossad, and Snowden didn?t say it | Liberal Conspiracy

    Did John McCain take selfies with ISIS? | Rare

    http://shoebat.com/2014/08/26/john-m...arlot-babylon/

    I hate McStain with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns (okay, not really....I just think he's a douche bag and a dumbass statist)....but I'll with hold judgement on this until it's more established.
    Last edited by Sean K.; 09-10-2014 at 03:34 PM.
    "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty. It is the argument of tyrants; the creed of slaves."-William Pitt the Younger

  8. #7
    XCR Guru Sean K.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    21,230
    BTW, I'm not saying we didn't support, train or arm ISIS or people that are now in ISIS; just that the McStain photo op isn't proven as yet.

    We supported Al-Nusra which is just another arm of AQ. ISIS was part of AQ at one point and Al-Baghdadi was our prisoner in Abu Ghraib IIRC at one point as well.
    "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty. It is the argument of tyrants; the creed of slaves."-William Pitt the Younger

  9. #8
    XCR Guru Tech Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,311
    Quote Originally Posted by Sean K. View Post
    BTW, I'm not saying we didn't support, train or arm ISIS or people that are now in ISIS; just that the McStain photo op isn't proven as yet.

    We supported Al-Nusra which is just another arm of AQ. ISIS was part of AQ at one point and Al-Baghdadi was our prisoner in Abu Ghraib IIRC at one point as well.
    There have been numerous pictures of them published holding M16's. They may have stolen them from armories they raided, because when the U.S. backs someone covertly, they typically send them the weapons common to their AO. (AK 47's)

  10. #9
    XCR Guru Tech Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,311
    Work hard people...ISIS needs your taxpayer funded financial support:

    Honest Question: Should We Go to War AGAIN....in the ME?-xisis-trucks-toyota.png
    Last edited by Tech Man; 09-10-2014 at 08:21 PM.

  11. #10
    Marksman KiowaDriver85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Savannah, GA
    Posts
    312
    I for one don't think it is in America's best interest to get involved in any form of armed conflict that we are not 100% dedicated to seeing through to the point of our enemies submission. We can't arbitrarily decide to "end" wars. They are either won or lost. If you can't say you won, then guess what, you lost. We haven't won anything since WWII and look where it has gotten us. A lot of debt, even more people that hate us, and tens of thousands of dead American service members. War is ugly, but doesn't have to go on for 13+ years if you deliver deliberate, unrelenting violence onto your opponent and remove his will to fight. That is what our armed forces should be called upon to perform. War isn't new, it's only recently that we've decided we can somehow be nice about it and still end up on top. Human nature just doesn't work that way.
    Last edited by KiowaDriver85; 09-10-2014 at 08:27 PM.
    Sean K., Merlin, mjorin and 1 others like this.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Sponsors

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. POF question
    By bpnkrtn in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 06-13-2010, 09:50 AM
  2. NFA Question
    By Rated21R in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 11-28-2009, 10:06 AM
  3. SBR Question
    By Martens in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-17-2009, 01:24 PM
  4. Sig 556 question
    By Prizm in forum Endless Debate and Whining
    Replies: 150
    Last Post: 10-22-2008, 11:48 PM
  5. 7.62 x 39 kit question
    By MrChem in forum 7.62x39mm
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-05-2008, 09:32 AM

Search tags for this page

i go to war with isis pic

Click on a term to search for related topics.