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.
So...are you gonna go to Syria and participate? Or cheer people like me on as we go over unwillingly because we've been trying to fix Iraq since 2006 with very little progress?
So you're assuming I'm not a veteran or active service, and that you're the only one in the world with skin in the game?
What happens when the field artillery doesn't work (and it won't...trust me)? Then what? Who do we send next? And that won't work either. Then what? That won't be anymore successful than the previous so-called solution.
This is how little wars become much bigger ones. And this president has too much hubris to back down. He's a Sunk Cost Fallacy guy all the way.
If Mattis recommended this, then he's a damn fool.
I think it might be the same reason why Osama bin Laden must be destroyed.
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe Americans should be responsible for destroying Isis. I think it is up to the Muslims to make a decision.
But, One thing we should not underestimate: the power of reputation. If the American President has the reputation of being strong, decisive and swift, this reputation will act as a deterrent. But gain a reputation of being weak, indecisive and slow, and trouble will appear in every corner of the earth.
So this might be the reason why ISIS must be destroyed.
I think it might be the same reason why Osama bin Laden must be destroyed.
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe Americans should be responsible for destroying Isis. I think it is up to the Muslims to make a decision.
But, One thing we should not underestimate: the power of reputation. If the American President has the reputation of being strong, decisive and swift, this reputation will act as a deterrent. But gain a reputation of being weak, indecisive and slow, and trouble will appear in every corner of the earth.
So this might be the reason why ISIS must be destroyed.
Reputation does not mean nearly as much as some would like to imagine. That's especially true when the opponents are non-state actors with little to lose. ISIS would eventually collapse under the assault of Assad, Russia, Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Turkey. There is no need for American troops there. ISIS is already shedding territory rapidly.
There has never been a period of time when trouble did not appear in every corner of the planet. Imperial efforts accelerate trouble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
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.
what a hell hole that place is.
Sykes-Picot was never implemented. The Peace Conference in Paris after WWI substantially deviated from Sykes-Picot for reasons both obvious (e.g., the Bolshevik Revolution) and less obvious (e.g., the discovery of oil near Kirkuk and British anticipation of the strategic importance of oil).
The people of the Middle East were not tribes during WWI. The Arabs were a settled people long before the Ottoman Turks came to rule them. The same is true of the Persians.
The Sunni-Shia split was old when the former Ottoman Empire was divided by the imperial powers into mandates. Yet it was routinely managed under singular empires for centuries. Today's Sunni-Shi'a clashes are primarily about Iraq, which was cobbled together after WWI out of historically Persian, Arab, and Kurdish territories. It is also about Yemen, which is in essence a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
The disputes to which Israel is a party stem from events after WWI, including Zionist violence in the British Mandate and the Holocaust.
Terrorism is a tactic. It is used by weak actors to bend strong ones. Al Qaeda has more in common with the IRA during the Troubles than it does with any of the nations of the Middle East.
Reputation does not mean nearly as much as some would like to imagine. That's especially true when the opponents are non-state actors with little to lose. ISIS would eventually collapse under the assault of Assad, Russia, Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Turkey. There is no need for American troops there. ISIS is already shedding territory rapidly.
There has never been a period of time when trouble did not appear in every corner of the planet. Imperial efforts accelerate trouble.
Sykes-Picot was never implemented. The Peace Conference in Paris after WWI substantially deviated from Sykes-Picot for reasons both obvious (e.g., the Bolshevik Revolution) and less obvious (e.g., the discovery of oil near Kirkuk and British anticipation of the strategic importance of oil).
The people of the Middle East were not tribes during WWI. The Arabs were a settled people long before the Ottoman Turks came to rule them. The same is true of the Persians.
The Sunni-Shia split was old when the former Ottoman Empire was divided by the imperial powers into mandates. Yet it was routinely managed under singular empires for centuries. Today's Sunni-Shi'a clashes are primarily about Iraq, which was cobbled together after WWI out of historically Persian, Arab, and Kurdish territories. It is also about Yemen, which is in essence a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
The disputes to which Israel is a party stem from events after WWI, including Zionist violence in the British Mandate and the Holocaust.
Terrorism is a tactic. It is used by weak actors to bend strong ones. Al Qaeda has more in common with the IRA during the Troubles than it does with any of the nations of the Middle East.
well, I respect your opinion. The post was nothing but my own opinion only.
I personally don't believe America is ready to lose control over the region. I don't really believe defeating isis is the real goal here, I believe it is about money, control, interests, etc.
Stay out of Syria, we have nothing to gain with some dictator being replaced by some religious dictator.
And by stay out...I mean completely. No special forces, no drones, no nothing.
Agree. We would do better staying home and beefing up our military so we can act appropriately if anyone tries to attack us here. We are wasting resources and lives over there in unstable territory that has little hope of becoming stable soon. Let other countries handle it, they might do a better job. Who are we to judge.
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.
