Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, maybe after 20 years of being over there and billions of dollars spent on trying to help people who are beneath savages and animals, maybe the US voters will take to the streets to demand withdrawal from the ME.
One can only hope. After all, people who wholeheartedly supported GWB are now saying the Iraqi invasion was a mistake.
Can't really disagree with you there.
I voted for Gary Johnson (the first time I've ever voted) and Trump.
Not doing something about ISIS is as bad as not bombing Auschwitz or standing by doing nothing during the awful machete genocide in Rwanda! Never again!
I used to make the same mistake of thinking there are parallels between WW2 and the Middle East. 6000 lives and many trillions of dollars later I am proven to be very wrong. Marines can liberate Raqqa but the day after the same people who were losing their necks at the hands of ISIS will march in the street chanting death to America. They will not become a US ally as Germany and Japan did. I cheered for shock and awe but not anymore.
I think the Middle East has a few aspects that make it seem more complex: its non-cohesive different ethnic groups/languages/people, the region's history has seen the origins of Judaism/Christianity/Islam, its geography puts it at the crossroads between the West and East (Europe/Asia), and is home to abundant energy resources. These factors make the Middle East very complex, certainly, but not incomprehensible to most people.
The Middle East was a board game for world powers playing their ‘Great Game’ and current day borders were drawn up by one Frenchman (Picot) and one Englishman (Sykes). As a consequence, tribes were found on either side of borders, polarizing spheres of influence were euphemistically interesting.
1. Sunni-Shia conflict
2. Israeli-Palestinian (or you can say Arab for Palestinian) dispute.
3. Terrorism, you know ISIS/ISIL/IS/Daesh, Al Qaeda, Taliban, Hezbollah and many others.
I have to wonder just who the "allied forces" are we are supporting here. These convoluted and mixed up conflicts like Syria I would prefer to not see our people having to be in harms way with. If we just HAVE to support whatever "Ally" here the Navy could handle such support from offshore. With missiles and aircraft. Having toput in a forward deployed artillery unit, within rocket range of hostile forces, seems odd tome. But hey, I'm not on the joint chiefs. Mores the pity....
You thought Iraq was fuzzy. The only legitimate ally in Syria is the Syrian army. You take Raqqa with shiite militias behind you, you are handing over more of Syria to Iran. Worse, they will claimwe never needed the US anyway. They have already said that in Iraq.
WHY would you do it? At what cost in American blood and taxpayer $$$? Why not lleave the killing to those most threatened?
Fighting ISIS or fighting the forces of those who oppose him under the guise of fighting ISIS?
Assad is primarily fighting the rebels who oppose him with Russia's support (he's fighting ISIS, too). Turkey is fighting ISIS and Assad by coordinating the rebels who oppose Assad.
Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and the Kurds are all fighting ISIS. Iran is coordinating with Assad. The Kurds have close cooperation with the US, but suspect to Turkey.
There are two big dangers in intensifying US participation: 1) direct conflict with the Syrian government and its supporters--Iran and Russia, 2) direct conflict with NATO-ally Turkey. Those dangers have incredible long-range consequences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
Both. His main fight has been with anti-Assad forces because those forces held the border area between Assad and the ISIS, thus creating a buffer. Now that the buffer has shrank, Assad forces are in more direct contact with ISIS.
Assad was concerned that the rebels would win. They are mostly under control after the siege of Aleppo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoloforLife
Is that so? Didn't Cheney and W say the Iraqis would be dancing in the streets greeting our troops with flowers. Fourteen years and no revelry yet. Quick and war = oxymoron.
ISIS will never be defeated. They are stateless and regardless of how much territory they may relinquish temporarily, they will re-emerged again and again. Now that is reality.
I agree that the war is not likely to be short. The reason, though, is not ISIS but regional geopolitics. Unless the US plans to abandon support for the Kurds, the north of Syria risks being the next stage in the Syrian Civil War. That war would almost certainly encompass Kurdish regions of Syria and Iraq, and would risk spreading to Kurdish regions of Turkey.
Assad will not be satisfied with Kurdish control of the north.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
