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.
I'm not so sure if i'm buying this notion completely that Iraqis are turning these weapons over to Iranian backed militias. Is it possible that WE'RE giving Iran these weapons through back channels and giving these militias the training too?
Or am i being a bit too conspiratorial? I mean, there's a photo in this link of then using a frickin Abrams tank! I didn't even know we were giving those to Iraqis.
Still though, the Iraqis can't fight effectively against ISIS without Iranian backed Shiite militias.
I thought this part of the link was interesting:
It's all quite convoluted, and clearly we've lost whatever control we've ever had of the situation...unless we haven't.
But here's the kicker; McCain just acknowledged that Iranian proxies are doing all of the fighting, or at least the effective fighting. But why would he say that it's not in the U.S. interest if the common goal is to defeat ISIS?
Moreover, it makes more sense to me to just cut the Iraqis out of the deal completely and just deal directly with Iran. I mean, if they're using our weapons anyway and are doing the only fighting that's even noteworthy, why keep bothering with the Iraqis?
I already know the legalities of that proposal so don't bother me with that. But this seems like a good reason to change those legalities and deal with the reality...Iran is the major power in that region now. And we may as well face up to it and deal with them as a temporary partner if this ISIS thing is so important to us, as many Americans seem to think it is. (i don't...by the way)
what it means is that the US federal government trusts other countries more with american made firearms more than they trust the people who put them in power.
Installing a Shia government right next to Iran was a bad idea? Who could have guessed?
Not a soul in the Bush Administration, apparently.
However, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle between the clueless and the duplicitous, amongst those who have made fortunes in the armament industry influencing the need for all these weapons to fight "terrorists"
Agreed. Like or dislike McCain he knows the players in that region
He does?
McCain implored Pres. Obama to sell arms to "rebels" after his junket to Syria. McCain is as clueless as Bush was before him. We have no friends over there. He has no clue as to who is who, as most Americans don't, even those in the intelligence business
McCain implored Pres. Obama to sell arms to "rebels" after his junket to Syria. McCain is as clueless as Bush was before him. We have no friends over there. He has no clue as to who is who, as most Americans don't, even those in the intelligence business
I wasn't commenting about McCains foreign policy which I do not like. I was commenting on him knowing those in power in the Middle East, which he obviously does.
McCain implored Pres. Obama to sell arms to "rebels" after his junket to Syria. McCain is as clueless as Bush was before him. We have no friends over there. He has no clue as to who is who, as most Americans don't, even those in the intelligence business
In McCain's defense, he dad no way of knowing these rebels might turn out to be bad guys. Yes, he pushed hard to give them heavy arms but he probably assumed they were freedom fighters.
In McCain's defense, he dad no way of knowing these rebels might turn out to be bad guys. Yes, he pushed hard to give them heavy arms but he probably assumed they were freedom fighters.
He also was a huge proponent of invading Iraq (Pres. Obama was not) and has called for bombing Iran (which would further destabilize the region and make the U.S. even more of a target amongst terrorists)
The arms he would have given to Syrians, even those with good intentions like the Free Syrian Army, would inevitably end up in the hands of ISIS or other rogue players. There are no good options for Syria. None. Sending the "rebels" arms is a Faustian bargain with NO return on investment, UNLESS you are an arms dealer.
I'm not so sure if i'm buying this notion completely that Iraqis are turning these weapons over to Iranian backed militias. Is it possible that WE'RE giving Iran these weapons through back channels and giving these militias the training too?
Or am i being a bit too conspiratorial? I mean, there's a photo in this link of then using a frickin Abrams tank! I didn't even know we were giving those to Iraqis.
Still though, the Iraqis can't fight effectively against ISIS without Iranian backed Shiite militias.
I thought this part of the link was interesting:
It's all quite convoluted, and clearly we've lost whatever control we've ever had of the situation...unless we haven't.
But here's the kicker; McCain just acknowledged that Iranian proxies are doing all of the fighting, or at least the effective fighting. But why would he say that it's not in the U.S. interest if the common goal is to defeat ISIS?
Moreover, it makes more sense to me to just cut the Iraqis out of the deal completely and just deal directly with Iran. I mean, if they're using our weapons anyway and are doing the only fighting that's even noteworthy, why keep bothering with the Iraqis?
I already know the legalities of that proposal so don't bother me with that. But this seems like a good reason to change those legalities and deal with the reality...Iran is the major power in that region now. And we may as well face up to it and deal with them as a temporary partner if this ISIS thing is so important to us, as many Americans seem to think it is. (i don't...by the way)
You think the Iranians are better than ISIS?
If you get cancer from Kools or Newports doesn`t really matter if the end result is lung cancer.
If you get cancer from Kools or Newports doesn`t really matter if the end result is lung cancer.
Yes, they are better than ISIS. They are a stable government with a lot to lose. ISIS is not.
In an abysmally anti-democratic region, Iran is . . . well, it's in the top half at least. And well ahead of key American allies Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, and Egypt.
You agree with the troll because you're uninformed.
Unlike iran, pakistan is not running terrorist proxies, stationing its army in four other countries. Pakistan is not conquering one nation after another, gobbling one after another like the wehrmacht in 1940, the way iran is.
Whats needed a new, real president, who can take the iranian filth head on, and crush their terrorist machine.
Pakistan not backing terrorist proxies. I guess Kashmir, Punjab, and The Pashtun of Afganistan don't count?
If you get cancer from Kools or Newports doesn`t really matter if the end result is lung cancer.
Your premise is so asinine that answering it is pointless.
You're REALLY gonna equate ISIS with Iran?
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.
