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 have read your comments about all you "know" about the ME, justified confidence perhaps that you have two decades of experience but a little too confident about all you "know," or that everyone with equal or more experience will necessarily agree with you. Indeed, many do not...
A good friend of my father's, for example, a long-time good friend of our family, has better than twice that amount of experience doing business in all these countries in the ME (now a wealthy man). We are still in touch with one another. Though now 90, he is still sharp as can be and writes me quite a bit about this subject. His opinion differs from yours in many respects. Then too, there is Robin Wright, who wrote her book, "Dreams and shadows the future of the Middle East." I suspect she may have a bit better insight than both of you as well, and she draws different conclusions. Look her up and tell me I'm wrong.
All to say, one can have plenty enough knowledge and experience and still draw incorrect conclusions. Others with far less experience and knowledge can even draw better conclusion(s) by way of better reason and logic. More objective critical thinking rather than subjective bias also plays an important roll when determining right from wrong, the better way rather than worse.
Right?
I don't have only two decades of experience. Read what I typed in relation to which part of the ME I mentioned. I actually have around four decades of experience to work off of from multiple views (these include tourist, military and contractor) that cover from the Mediterranean to China. There are certain countries in the Middle East I would not step in now nor would I have stepped in prior to 9/11. That being said there are currently two countries I'd look at for state sponsored funding. They are Iran and Qatar.
As to the wars in the Middle East, I don't see it coming to an end in 2017. From what I can tell, Lebanon will be joining the conflict in it's entirety and not just the east where Hezbollah sits. Lebanon's ruling party has shifted towards Iran to where the UAE has banned it's citizens from going there and Saudi Arabia has cut off all aid to it.
As to the US, it has nothing to gain in Syria and should leave it to the other countries who've had stakes in it all the way back to WW1. Can it leave the region completely? No. The US destabilized two countries for nothing and gained a never ending headache. The US will have to live up to it's part of NATO whether it likes to or not and the US will have to protect the nations it has treaties with in the region no matter what other nations say or think.
The key question, always, is about the short-term and long-term strategies. What is the end game? If military force is to be used, America simply must have a strategy that has some chance of improving the situation in the ME, for the sake of the innocent people there and for the sake of world peace in general. If that strategy can't be made clear, somehow demonstrating a result better than just more war and more victims that generates still more war and more victims -- and still more enemies -- then we should simply not engage militarily.
At a minimum, that argument should be made clearly to Congress, and if the use of military might makes sense in terms of achieving a worthy goal, then Congress should approve the use of that force just like we did the day after Pearl Harbor when we declared war on Japan. If not approved by Congress or if not even put to a vote in Congress, why not? THIS IS THE QUESTION?
When Obama attempted that better approach, going to Congress for the same reasons, Trump was against. A strong majority of Republicans in Congress were against. Why?
BECAUSE THERE IS NO REAL END GAME STRATEGY THAT MAKES ANY SENSE!
For this reason, we should ALL be against committing more American lives and resources to these acts of war/violence that only makes matters worse rather than better, makes us Americans all the more their enemy in addition to all their own home-grown enemies. You simply cannot bring about a healthy change where there is no base on which to build an economy and/or government that serves the people.
Right?
Nothing else is going to transpire in the Middle East. Trump is learning the hard way, about the might of the USA and False Flags there, by 3rd parties wanting the USA to do their dirty work for them.
Now, that fat Kim guy.... I usually took care of bidness, quickly and to the point, when anyone threatened my little skinny ass.
The end-game is for the US to gain control of "Siberia." The US does this by expanding NATO eastwards to box in Russia; reduce Russian influence in the Mediterranean and deny Russia allies by destroying Yugoslavia (accomplished), Libya (accomplished), Tunisia (accomplished), Syria (in progress and Yemen (in progress); then gain control of Iran; then gain control of Central Asia via Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan; the arm "pro-democracy" groups in the eastern Russian republics of Altai, Tuva, Buryatia, Khakassia, Sakha and the Far Eastern Republic to foment revolution and secessionist movements, which allows the US to gain political control and set up puppet governments.
Interesting...
Thinking to dig up what further support of your theory might be out there, I Googled your first sentence in bold above, nothing much comes up other than a review of Russia's conquest of Siberia by Wikipedia.
American foreign policy has always revolved around the purported want to expand democracy and/or thwart countries wanting to expand and export non-democratic principles/governments, or so the cover argument goes. When does that overall strategy or goal not apply; in Vietnam, the Cold War, Cuba, all over the world? Hopefully as well over time even in the ME?
Accordingly, your end-game theory fits the narrative, but whether Siberia, specifically, is the ultimate goal when it comes to these more immediate challenges posed by Syria, Iraq, Libya..., I would be interested to know what more information/justification you have that this is the over-riding actual US government "end game," aside from the theory appearing entirely plausible all considered.
Then too, does such an end game justify what we have done and/or are doing in the ME? Is our strategy working? Toward a better end or making things worse all considered? Nation building? That working for us so far...?
I don't have only two decades of experience. Read what I typed in relation to which part of the ME I mentioned. I actually have around four decades of experience to work off of from multiple views (these include tourist, military and contractor) that cover from the Mediterranean to China. There are certain countries in the Middle East I would not step in now nor would I have stepped in prior to 9/11. That being said there are currently two countries I'd look at for state sponsored funding. They are Iran and Qatar.
As to the wars in the Middle East, I don't see it coming to an end in 2017. From what I can tell, Lebanon will be joining the conflict in it's entirety and not just the east where Hezbollah sits. Lebanon's ruling party has shifted towards Iran to where the UAE has banned it's citizens from going there and Saudi Arabia has cut off all aid to it.
As to the US, it has nothing to gain in Syria and should leave it to the other countries who've had stakes in it all the way back to WW1. Can it leave the region completely? No. The US destabilized two countries for nothing and gained a never ending headache. The US will have to live up to it's part of NATO whether it likes to or not and the US will have to protect the nations it has treaties with in the region no matter what other nations say or think.
Fair enough, but again, knowledge and experience do not necessarily make for better critical thinking over another. I'll take smarts and an informed intelligent strategist over knowledge and experience any day of the week (and why many military experts are not called upon to direct our foreign policy). I would simply, respectfully, suggest that what you claim to "know" is really what you think and not necessarily beyond question or correction, not when it comes to the right or wrong of future foreign policy strategy in any case...
The subject of this thread relates more specifically to Trump's most recent decision to drop this mega-bomb in Syria in retaliation for Assad's alleged gassing of Syrians, an act for the most part widely condemned internationally. The question or justification related to that bombing is not so much about the U.S. having "stakes" in Syria. So the question remains, "to bomb or not to bomb" in that particular case.
Otherwise, your more measured assessment of where things stand in the ME all makes perfect sense. Agreed the wars in the ME won't be coming to an end in 2017. Funny, but will they ever come to an end? Seemingly not, so how do we keep away from owning still more of that mess while at the same time we have serious concerns about who fills the power vacuums if we stay out of the fray?
Fair enough, but again, knowledge and experience do not necessarily make for better critical thinking over another. I'll take smarts and an informed intelligent strategist over knowledge and experience any day of the week (and why many military experts are not called upon to direct our foreign policy). I would simply, respectfully, suggest that what you claim to "know" is really what you think and not necessarily beyond question or correction, not when it comes to the right or wrong of future foreign policy strategy in any case...
The subject of this thread relates more specifically to Trump's most recent decision to drop this mega-bomb in Syria in retaliation for Assad's alleged gassing of Syrians, an act for the most part widely condemned internationally. The question or justification related to that bombing is not so much about the U.S. having "stakes" in Syria. So the question remains, "to bomb or not to bomb" in that particular case.
Otherwise, your more measured assessment of where things stand in the ME all makes perfect sense. Agreed the wars in the ME won't be coming to an end in 2017.
Funny, but will they ever come to an end? Seemingly not, so how do we keep away from owning still more of that mess while at the same time we have serious concerns about who fills the power vacuums if we stay out of the fray?
Historically France and England have had their hands in everything in the Middle East. They created most of this mess and it should be theirs alone to deal with it. Russia decided to join in this mess and now it's mixed in with it and thus it's up to them where they move from here. As to an end? There is none until there is a top tribe again. The US? Just as I stated in my past post.
An opinion: Send all the male adult Syrian refugees back to Syria and let them fight for whatever side they choose. They should be getting their hands dirty and not someone else's for them.
Historically France and England have had their hands in everything in the Middle East. They created most of this mess and it should be theirs alone to deal with it. Russia decided to join in this mess and now it's mixed in with it and thus it's up to them where they move from here. As to an end? There is none until there is a top tribe again. The US? Just as I stated in my past post.
An opinion: Send all the male adult Syrian refugees back to Syria and let them fight for whatever side they choose. They should be getting their hands dirty and not someone else's for them.
Right. The mega bomb was in Afghanistan, not Syria, what I meant...
True as well that France and England have been involved a long time, Russia too, but you seem inclined to give America a pass for its involvement as well? Not so easy for me, but regardless who created the mess in the ME or to what extent, the question remains what to do about it. Other than the concern about alliances that can grow among our enemies if/when we divorce ourselves from involvement, it does appear we are best off to keep hands off. This too, because our foreign policy history in the region has not been altogether successful by just about any measure.
Again there is also the question about addressing "crimes against humanity" that are rather compelling in terms of a response, but also again why not use the filter of Congressional approval? At a minimum?
If all so obvious that America should stay out, why do we continue to stay involved?
Opinion: not all males/refugees are interested in fighting, war. In fact, the opposite.
...
If all so obvious that America should stay out, why do we continue to stay involved?
...
Because there is no equivalence to Hejaz in the region.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
...
Opinion: not all males/refugees are interested in fighting, war. In fact, the opposite.
Doesn't matter if their not interested. Their country, their problem thus war dodgers passing their problems onto to someone else to deal with. No other country in the past 100 years had this many of its citizens run away.
Doesn't matter if their not interested. Their country, their problem thus war dodgers passing their problems onto to someone else to deal with. No other country in the past 100 years had this many of its citizens run away.
Does matter. I strongly disagree...
You seem to think all males are soldiers of one kind or another, wanting to fight. This is not true. Most people if given the chance simply want to live a life of basic comforts; to work, have a family, eat, sleep in peace, do it again the next day. That someone happens to be born in a war-torn country where violence rules the day and survival is a daily challenge instead, fighting poverty, hunger, anarchy, tyrants..., at a young age, who can't understand the want to escape all that? Who wouldn't become a refugee in those cases? Why fight a losing battle in any case? Most people are smarter than that and not so wanting of the violence you seem to think everyone should necessarily be victim if born there.
Of course the citizens run away! Who in their right mind wouldn't?
The problem in Syria and so many other parts of the ME are not caused by the children becoming adults in those countries, the young men just becoming old enough to use a rifle. They are caused by the elders in those countries, the leaders.
Were those who didn't want to die in Vietnam not right to want to "dodge" that war? Is anyone who wants to escape the mindless and endless violence and killing in places like Syria a "war dodger" for wanting nothing to do with that lunacy?
You seem to think all males are soldiers of one kind or another, wanting to fight. This is not true. Most people if given the chance simply want to live a life of basic comforts; to work, have a family, eat, sleep in peace, do it again the next day. That someone happens to be born in a war-torn country where violence rules the day and survival is a daily challenge instead, fighting poverty, hunger, anarchy, tyrants..., at a young age, who can't understand the want to escape all that? Who wouldn't become a refugee in those cases? Why fight a losing battle in any case? Most people are smarter than that and not so wanting of the violence you seem to think everyone should necessarily be victim if born there.
Of course the citizens run away! Who in their right mind wouldn't?
The problem in Syria and so many other parts of the ME are not caused by the children becoming adults in those countries, the young men just becoming old enough to use a rifle. They are caused by the elders in those countries, the leaders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
"War dodgers?"
What a way to describe refugees...
Were those who didn't want to die in Vietnam not right to want to "dodge" that war? Is anyone who wants to escape the mindless and endless violence and killing in places like Syria a "war dodger" for wanting nothing to do with that lunacy?
You can't be serious...
They are running away from their own country.They are not running away to fight for someone else's country.
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.
