ISIS Takes Control of Mosul

#927
#927
Grand Vol said:
What do you think?

Because even though you didn't ask, I think ISIS is the largest threat to Middle Eastern security than has come along in a long time. More than Iran, a Ba'ath Party Iraq, Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, et al.

And if Assad is hitting them, awesome.
Click to expand...

It's a confusing foreign policy. Last August, we were going to go to war with Assad, who was fighting Syrian rebels which would later turn into ISIS. Now, we are rooting for Assad. In Iraq, we put Maliki in as the puppet leader, now we've asked him to step down. Iran has been our enemy since 1979, now e are working with them to fight the ISIS threat.

Just looking at this entire debacle from 20,000 ft level, can you see the problem? Why are we even over there?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#928
#928
Rasputin_Vol said:
It's a confusing foreign policy. Last August, we were going to go to war with Assad, who was fighting Syrian rebels which would later turn into ISIS. Now, we are rooting for Assad. In Iraq, we put Maliki in as the puppet leader, now we've asked him to step down. Iran has been our enemy since 1979, now e are working with them to fight the ISIS threat.

Just looking at this entire debacle from 20,000 ft level, can you see the problem? Why are we even over there?
Click to expand...

Ever hear of the old saying that it's better to deal with the devil you know?
 
#930
#930
Rasputin_Vol said:
It's a confusing foreign policy. Last August, we were going to go to war with Assad, who was fighting Syrian rebels which would later turn into ISIS. Now, we are rooting for Assad. In Iraq, we put Maliki in as the puppet leader, now we've asked him to step down. Iran has been our enemy since 1979, now e are working with them to fight the ISIS threat.

Just looking at this entire debacle from 20,000 ft level, can you see the problem? Why are we even over there?
Click to expand...

I would add in we also had a bro love-with the Afghan Mujahadeen and Saddam Hussein at one point.
 
#931
#931
rjd970 said:
I would add in we also had a bro love-with the Afghan Mujahadeen and Saddam Hussein at one point.
Click to expand...

Those are a bit different circumstances. Our support for Saddam was a counter to Iran who had revolted against our guy (the Shah), held our citizens hostage and made it their national goal to destroy us. All was well until Saddam invaded Kuwait and threatened the Saudis--both more important to us than he thought.

In Afghanistan, we are still great friends with the Muj's, most of them are way past retirement age, but several are leading cabinet members or senior military officers. Remember, there were at least 2, some say 3 governments from the time the Soviets departed until we invaded in Oct 2001 to oust the Taliban government. And we were never friends with the Talibs.

Today's foreign policy is really amateurish. We seem to not have any over arching goals and are treating every situation as an isolated event. The fact that ISIS crosses from Syria to Iraq shows that these are all connected.

Plus, we don't seem to be able to learn from our mistakes and incorporate these lessons into future policies. Leaving Iraq without a Status of Forces Agreement in place was a huge mistake that allowed ISIS to develop. If we leave Afghanistan without one, we'll watch that country implode into chaos again.
 
#932
#932
Rasputin_Vol said:
It's a confusing foreign policy. Last August, we were going to go to war with Assad, who was fighting Syrian rebels which would later turn into ISIS. Now, we are rooting for Assad. In Iraq, we put Maliki in as the puppet leader, now we've asked him to step down. Iran has been our enemy since 1979, now e are working with them to fight the ISIS threat.

Just looking at this entire debacle from 20,000 ft level, can you see the problem? Why are we even over there?
Click to expand...
I posted an article previously about how the US fails to ever consider the long term ramifications of its actions. The fight in Syria is a perfect example since many in our govt wanted to remove Assad and hand over Syria to the rebels. Imagine the fight wet would have if they were rolling around with Syria's arsenal at their disposal
 
#933
#933
YorkVol said:
Those are a bit different circumstances. Our support for Saddam was a counter to Iran who had revolted against our guy (the Shah), held our citizens hostage and made it their national goal to destroy us. All was well until Saddam invaded Kuwait and threatened the Saudis--both more important to us than he thought.

In Afghanistan, we are still great friends with the Muj's, most of them are way past retirement age, but several are leading cabinet members or senior military officers. Remember, there were at least 2, some say 3 governments from the time the Soviets departed until we invaded in Oct 2001 to oust the Taliban government. And we were never friends with the Talibs.

Today's foreign policy is really amateurish. We seem to not have any over arching goals and are treating every situation as an isolated event. The fact that ISIS crosses from Syria to Iraq shows that these are all connected.

Plus, we don't seem to be able to learn from our mistakes and incorporate these lessons into future policies. Leaving Iraq without a Status of Forces Agreement in place was a huge mistake that allowed ISIS to develop. If we leave Afghanistan without one, we'll watch that country implode into chaos again.
Click to expand...

Understand, but lets face it, we knew Saddam was a devil when we supported him.

It just seems one day we arm/support a group, the next we are fighting them. Circumstances my be different, but the end result seems to always be the same. The enemy of my enemy, trust the devil you know...never seems to work long-term.
 
#935
#935
Rasputin_Vol said:
Why are we even over there?
Click to expand...

Do you need to ask?

crude-oilbarrel.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#937
#937
YorkVol said:
Those are a bit different circumstances. Our support for Saddam was a counter to Iran who had revolted against our guy (the Shah), held our citizens hostage and made it their national goal to destroy us. All was well until Saddam invaded Kuwait and threatened the Saudis--both more important to us than he thought.

In Afghanistan, we are still great friends with the Muj's, most of them are way past retirement age, but several are leading cabinet members or senior military officers. Remember, there were at least 2, some say 3 governments from the time the Soviets departed until we invaded in Oct 2001 to oust the Taliban government. And we were never friends with the Talibs.

Today's foreign policy is really amateurish. We seem to not have any over arching goals and are treating every situation as an isolated event. The fact that ISIS crosses from Syria to Iraq shows that these are all connected.

Plus, we don't seem to be able to learn from our mistakes and incorporate these lessons into future policies. Leaving Iraq without a Status of Forces Agreement in place was a huge mistake that allowed ISIS to develop. If we leave Afghanistan without one, we'll watch that country implode into chaos again.
Click to expand...

We supported the Shah after we overthrew Mossedgh in 1953. Then when The Shah outlived his usefulness, we flew in from France The Ayatollah and made a deal with him to only release the hostages once Reagan was in office. Then, we made promises to so-called moderate forces in the Ayatollah's camp to assist them with arms (in spite of the arms embargo) so that they could fight Saddam and it would be a goodwill gesture that would help the moderates in Iran establish relationships with the US once The Ayatollah died. Little did Iran know that the US was also supplying weapons to Iraq at the same time, the game plan being to divide and conquer and let these 2 countries exhaust all of their resources in a war. Once that happened, the US was supposed to come in, re-unite and skim off the creame from both of these oil rich nations.
 
#938
#938
Velo Vol said:
Do you need to ask?

crude-oilbarrel.jpg
Click to expand...

Not necessarily oil... but making sure all oil sales are settled in dollars. Once Saddam started accepting Euros and Khadaffi began talking about a gold backed dinar to settle oil trade, we had to go in and remove them from power.

It is all about propping up the dollar.
 
#939
#939
Rasputin_Vol said:
Not necessarily oil... but making sure all oil sales are settled in dollars. Once Saddam started accepting Euros and Khadaffi began talking about a gold backed dinar to settle oil trade, we had to go in and remove them from power.

It is all about propping up the dollar.
Click to expand...


**** it man, survival of the fittest.
 
#943
#943
Rasputin_Vol said:
We supported the Shah after we overthrew Mossedgh in 1953. Then when The Shah outlived his usefulness, we flew in from France The Ayatollah and made a deal with him to only release the hostages once Reagan was in office. Then, we made promises to so-called moderate forces in the Ayatollah's camp to assist them with arms (in spite of the arms embargo) so that they could fight Saddam and it would be a goodwill gesture that would help the moderates in Iran establish relationships with the US once The Ayatollah died. Little did Iran know that the US was also supplying weapons to Iraq at the same time, the game plan being to divide and conquer and let these 2 countries exhaust all of their resources in a war. Once that happened, the US was supposed to come in, re-unite and skim off the creame from both of these oil rich nations.
Click to expand...

Yeah, mostly agree, some of the details could be debated, but we did play both sides against each other...and not always well.
 
#945
#945
Velo Vol said:
If the flow was stopped, for whatever reason, it would be irrelevant what currency people used to trade.
Click to expand...

Even the so-called terrorists aren't that stupid to stop the oil flow. They are going to sell it because they need the revenue.
 
#948
#948
Kind of disturbing

There are now more than twice as many British Muslims fighting for Islamic State than there are serving in the British armed forces, according to a British MP.

Khalid Mahmood, the MP for Perry Barr in Birmingham, estimates that at least 1,500 young British Muslims have been recruited by extremists fighting in Iraq and Syria in the last three years.
. . .
According to the Ministry of Defence, there are only around 600 British Muslims currently serving in the Armed Forces, making up approximately around 0.4% of total personnel. 4.3% of the British population are Muslim.
Click to expand...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top