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.
The Middle East that Obama inherited in 2009 was largely at peace, for the surge in Iraq had beaten down the al Qaeda-linked groups. U.S. relations with traditional allies in the Gulf, Jordan, Israel and Egypt were very good. Iran was contained, its Revolutionary Guard forces at home. Today, terrorism has metastasized in Syria and Iraq, Jordan is at risk, the humanitarian toll is staggering, terrorist groups are growing fast and relations with U.S. allies are strained.
I usually despise Obama's actions, but he is at least partly right on this. Muslims in the ME have been killing each other and anyone else they can get their hands on for 1000 years. Neither Bush, Obama or anyone else is going to change that. I see no reason to waste any more American lives trying to help the people of the ME. We should get and keep all of our people out and let them keep doing what they do. Not our country, not our problem.
We aren't over there because we are "trying to help them"...we are doing what we can to establish some kind of stability over there so that WE and the rest of the western world can be safer. The goal is to help ourselves so that they don't become our problem.
Though, right now, our government doesn't seem to know how to do that (or isn't willing to do what is needed) and the result is that our efforts are just stirring things up.
I agree, to some extent. I'd sooner blame the CIA for not accomplishing their covert ops as they should be. NOW, we hear mainstream channels bringing on their retired Colonels and Generals who are saying we need to infiltrate ISIS and start working them from the inside... but that's like saying we need to stop Japan 2 days after Pearl.
It's all a little late.
Exactly, where the hell were we before all of this started, where was the intelligence community? The Iraqi army was trained and had the equipment to handily defeat Isis, they knew they would be beheaded, but elected to turn and run instead of giving themselves a fighting chance, leaving equipment behind to make Isis even more formidable. I am convinced these people will never enjoy let alone fight for their freedom. I guess after being controlled by ruthless dictators for so long, they have no idea what freedom is.
I usually despise Obama's actions, but he is at least partly right on this. Muslims in the ME have been killing each other and anyone else they can get their hands on for 1000 years. Neither Bush, Obama or anyone else is going to change that. I see no reason to waste any more American lives trying to help the people of the ME. We should get and keep all of our people out and let them keep doing what they do. Not our country, not our problem.
The Middle East that Obama inherited in 2009 was largely at peace, for the surge in Iraq had beaten down the al Qaeda-linked groups. U.S. relations with traditional allies in the Gulf, Jordan, Israel and Egypt were very good. Iran was contained, its Revolutionary Guard forces at home. Today, terrorism has metastasized in Syria and Iraq, Jordan is at risk, the humanitarian toll is staggering, terrorist groups are growing fast and relations with U.S. allies are strained.
All this according to Elliot Abrams, a very well-known neoconservative and propagandist Republican idealogue, who helped engineer the Iran-Contra affair and assisted in covering up up atrocities committed by the military forces of US-backed governments in El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua and who has participated in the political campaigns of Obama's opponents? That's some objective opinion piece by someone with no political agenda.
If we're going to go running back to Iraq to "save the people" then we'll also need to re-invade Libya to "save the people".
Both Iraq and Libya are examples of what we did. We are to blame for what these countries have turned into.
All to save the damn petrodollar.
We aren't over there because we are "trying to help them"...we are doing what we can to establish some kind of stability over there so that WE and the rest of the western world can be safer. The goal is to help ourselves so that they don't become our problem.
Though, right now, our government doesn't seem to know how to do that (or isn't willing to do what is needed) and the result is that our efforts are just stirring things up.
I really question if "helping them" would do anything to make the western world any safer. The people of Iraq SUPPORT ISIS and for the most part IS ISIS. Going over, losing the lives of some more young Americans, won't change that. They are Muslim and Arab, killing is what they do. As long as they do in the Middle East, I see no reason to get Americans killed to try to stop it. When the people of the ME are ready to live like civilized human beings they will step up and deal with it, we shouldn't get our people killed doing their fighting.
I'm sick of seeing young American lives thrown away by any administration just to try to make things better for people in the rest of the world. Not our problem, and we enough problems of our own. We should be making a much greater effort to research any ISIS or other terror cells in this country, and to see to what extent the Muslim leadership in the Mosques in this country are promoting this crap.
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.
