It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I have to change my mind on the ME...Again!

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: nwtrucker

Im glad you accept Bush was a idiot to invade Iraq.

After that though?

To be honest I dont know what was the right or wrong. We were dammed if we stayed in iraq and dammed it seems now we left.

The event leading up to today were set in motion the day we declared war on Saddam. Not sure we could of avoided ISIS after that, though bombing libya didn't help.

As you know I am not a war hawk and can be about as anti intervention you can get.

But ISIS? Well I just cant see us avoiding military action now. Whether we like or not we are at war with them it seems. Hopefully if we do go in we take the gloves off and exterminate them to the last jihadi scum bag a d only leave when the jobs 100% done. Then once left never go back to the ME.

O and cut off all support to the dammed Saudis.


Excepting your first line, I agree.


O come on!

If he had not invaded iraq most the crap going on never would have happend!

And Iraq was never the US and UK buisness!


Yes, none of our business, just like when you were up the creek with no paddle after Dunkirk. NO OF OUR BUSINESS...yeah, right.


Dont start that bollocks.

We fought off the German invasion before you guys entered. Dunkirk was our pear habour, didnt mean we lost the war.

And the USA never entered because they wanted to help or interfere but because you had war thrust on you by the Japanese! You got dragged into WW2! You didnt enter out of charity or to save anyone so dont use that bull#!


How soon the forget.....lend lease, food, kids to fly your planes....nah, we were dragged into it. Of course, your right. The majority of the population believed as you say "none of our business". Hello?

Let's see, next. You fought off the German invasion? If I recall correctly, old Adolf took pity on you and let your troops go home. More like a gentlemanly reprieve than a Pearl Harbor....


You dont seem to have a clue what your talking about. Do you get your history from hollywood?

1) Dunkirk was one battle among many. And at the very start of the war and only happend because our french "allies" cut and run. But it was irrelevant to the battle of britain anyway.

2) the battle of Britain was fought over many months and mainly by our airforce and Navy. A battle we won about 6 months before the US got involved.

3) American volunteers made up one squadron (barely ) one squadron amoung hundreds. Sure we are grateful but they were not vital or strategic to victory.

4) lend lease was not charity or free. The UK brought and paid for all that material.

Yes the US played a important part in the war once it got involved. But the UK played its fair part and was not a bunch of weak feeble kittens like France was. Just get over the fact we won a fair share of our own battle before the US turned. Plenty of "glory" to go around.




posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scouse100

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: nwtrucker

Listen, I'm fine with some other solution. No one seems to have come up with one. So what is the alternative?

I have a hard time buying into the motivation of individual oppression as an 'reason' for messing with the whole world. Mess with those in your own country if that's one's 'beef'. Bring it here and there needs to be consequences. Consequences so significant that even the slow witted can understand that continuing is fruitless.

If you are correct in your assessment, does that mean take no action? If it is then I cannot agree.



Yes take action, just not military action. Starve IS of the very things they need to survive (recruits, weapons and funding) and help Syria unite together to weaken IS' position.


If it was practical to do so, I'd agree. Here's the problem.

1. We're given them weapons, either directly or via "good rebels" as the U.S. and the U.K. call them.
2. Isis is, apparently feeding and supplying medical services to much of the population.(as long as you go along with their version of Islam.)
3. Their recruits are largely coming from that civilian population and will continue to do so as there isn't much alternative for survival.
4. Don't comply/agree/join one likely ends up dead.
5. Cut off outside supplies in munitions, etc., they just hunker down and wait it out...or until we go in. They're in no rush.

Sooner or later boots on the ground. Simple.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok


I was jerking your chain...LOL.

Seriously, 'none of our business' is a fickle argument, at best.

We've tangled over that one many times...to no result.

P.S. For some unknown reason, I was fascinated with WWII in my teens. I read just about every non-fiction publication available and ended up pretty knowledgeable. Not to a university level but far more than most. A big fan of the ghost divisions of Rommel and Guderian. The Admiral sheer, the various code breaking successes and the O.S.S. and their sister groups in Britain.

A long time ago....
edit on 23-11-2015 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

The why ISIS was created and who had a hand in it is very important, because the solution to them is the same line of thought that let them rise to power.
Insert AQ and we had the same argument that was pitched in 01.
That they are a threat to the west as we know it and it is only a matter of time before we are fighting them on main street not over there.

I for one don't want to get sucked into another 10 year war that cost trillions of dollars and thousands of innocent life's on both sides,



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker



1. We're given them weapons, either directly or via "good rebels" as the U.S. and the U.K. call them.


Yes I know, and we are still selling arms to the ME which will end in the wrong hands, has to stop.



2. Isis is, apparently feeding and supplying medical services to much of the population.(as long as you go along with their version of Islam.)


Yes, fair point, I believe this to be true. But then who needs food when you've been blown to bits?



3. Their recruits are largely coming from that civilian population and will continue to do so as there isn't much alternative for survival.


IS have many thousands of recruits from outside of their area of control. If they are isolated and unable to recruit from outside they can't grow.



4. Don't comply/agree/join one likely ends up dead.


Agree this no doubt happens at least some of the time.



5. Cut off outside supplies in munitions, etc., they just hunker down and wait it out...or until we go in. They're in no rush.


Munitions down and confined is better than the alternative, and they are largely are ruling by force then they need arms just to hold position.



Sooner or later boots on the ground. Simple.


"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Albert Einstein



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Scouse100

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Albert Einstein

No argument from me. Debate all day about the pros and cons of going in. The insanity is leaving before the job is done. Time and again.

Germany and Japan took decades. One stays until there is no situation left to address.

There would be no Isis if the U.S. still maintained a dominant military presence in Iraq. Period. They'd have been slobber-knocked coming out of the womb...





posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Would there even be an "isis" today if the U.S. still maintained a strong military presence in Iraq?

Watch again the link in the OP By Bush.....



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: nwtrucker

I don't believe I said anything about "letting them in." The fact is, some are going to get in - hell, some may be in already. You do realize that American citizens could end up joining Isis, right? My point is, let ISIS argue with a nation full of armed civilians and don't let them bring the US into a war. Why isn't ISIS attacking Switzerland? Could it have anything to do with the rather high ratio of population:gun owner in that country? I'm not an expert in this field, but I'd guess that being a terrorist is a lot harder with a double barrel in your face.


NO, I said it. I don't disagree with the point at all. It is workable. Frankly, it's occurring as we speak. Every time something happens, guns sales spike.

It's one level though. I am unconvinced that leaving the source un-addressed will allow any chance of long term winning at home. Yes, they are here. There will be more with the refugees. That doesn't stop until there's no need for the refugees to leave in the first place.....



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
The solution is easy. Leave them alone. By alone, I mean the following: Support Israel-not the apartheid-but their right to exist. Support Jordan. They are our closest ally there. Get the heck out of Iraq, Syria and stop helping Saudi Arabia in anyway.

Everything will work out on it's own then. Remember that we made up most of those borders for oil and colonialism. When we quick meddling things will work out. Iraq was about oil and making money for Dick Cheney and Haliburton. That's it.

Russia and France are more than capable of defeating ISIS>

9/11, Boko Harem, ISIS, Bin Laden, extremist ISlam...it all comes from Saudi Arabia. ISolate them.


What about the "refugees"? You know damn well it will increase the number of Isis members in the U.S.. The only thing we don't know is how many. That's what tips me from staying out of it back to boots on the ground, as I posted in the OP.

Passivity at home, passivity in the ME...it has my alarm bells ringing. The Saudis aren't going away until the EU is no longer addicted to their oil. Period.

Halliburton had their contract start with the feds during the Clinton administration and Cheney had his money from the BEFORE Bush ran for office. Cheney had to divest all interests to become V.P.. apropos of nothing....



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: nwtrucker

I don't believe I said anything about "letting them in." The fact is, some are going to get in - hell, some may be in already. You do realize that American citizens could end up joining Isis, right? My point is, let ISIS argue with a nation full of armed civilians and don't let them bring the US into a war. Why isn't ISIS attacking Switzerland? Could it have anything to do with the rather high ratio of population:gun owner in that country? I'm not an expert in this field, but I'd guess that being a terrorist is a lot harder with a double barrel in your face.


NO, I said it. I don't disagree with the point at all. It is workable. Frankly, it's occurring as we speak. Every time something happens, guns sales spike.

It's one level though. I am unconvinced that leaving the source un-addressed will allow any chance of long term winning at home. Yes, they are here. There will be more with the refugees. That doesn't stop until there's no need for the refugees to leave in the first place.....


I don't advocate that we let them attack and do nothing, I just advocate that we are a little smarter about it. My gut feeling about the situation is that ISIS is a convenient excuse to get involved in a full scale war in Syria. Maybe part of the whole deal with Iran is to entice them to join the coalition, since they've done more than anyone else in fighting ISIS. We've already launched a full-scale assault on a terrorist group - Al Qaeda - and what has that brought us? I think I mentioned above about Abu Sayyaf ...back during part of Operation Enduring Freedom, the U.S. backed the Philippines, yet still both militaries couldn't take care of a couple hundred people running around on some islands.

Attacking ISIS head-on would be kind of like blowing up an asteroid, IMHO. Instead of one fragment, we have more...heck, didn't that already happen with Al-Qaeda? I think the solution to an asteroid hitting is to try to nudge it off course - and that's what I think should be done with ISIS. Attacking just makes the problem worse (plus, whether or not they support ISIS, inhabitants of the region will not support our bombs falling on their homes). Here's a rudimentary plan of action:

1). Do not let refugees settle in the United States. We can hold them in refugee camps until it can be ascertained that they are not a threat. If you don't like refugee camps, I don't blame you - but I can't forget that my own ancestors were refugees. Yes, there may be some ISIS members, but the vast majority are not ISIS. They are hard working people who want to go about their lives. Still, we can't just let them loose on the streets without some major vetting.

2). Do a massive check for links to ISIS. This could include going through bank records and/or phone records. It's an invasion of privacy, but sometimes sacrifice is important. Muslims aren't the only ones linked to ISIS - the Chinese Triads 24K are as well, and I wouldn't be surprised to find others were as well.

3). Send covert teams to kill ISIS leadership and any enemy along the way. Do not arrest them - kill them all.

4). Make execution the mandatory punishment for terrorism that results in or was intended to result in death. Not a single one of the 9/11 masterminds should be behind bars. They should be pushing up daisies. I realize there will still be people to join, but I'll venture a guess that recruitment will fall horribly once people see that a). they are failing at getting the change they're fighting for and b). fighting for ISIS (or any terrorist group) is suicide.

5). Support Iran in fighting ISIS. Iran, despite its rhetoric, is not a threat. "Death to America" is about the American government - apparently they just don't know how to say "Down with the American Government!" or something...anyhow, it's a sentiment I think a lot of Americans would share. I don't think Iraq should have been given sovereignty so quickly. Considering ISIS took over half their country, they clearly are not ready to rule. The best to hope for is that the Iraqi leadership would realize this and turn over control of the country to the UN.

I don't think we're going to be able to avoid conflict, but let's at least keep it contained. This whole World vs. ISIS thing...come on. Does it really take the combined might of the West to defeat an army of well under half a million, many of whom hardly know the first thing about warfare other than 'aim and fire?'

As for Syria - for those who say Assad needs to step down or be overthrown, I have one question. Who do you suggest should take over?



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Dude Iraq wanted us out!

End of story, period, full stop. I have shown you that, you refuse to pull your out of the sand. We couldn't stay. Show me where iraq wanted us, your last link didn't say that.
With all that being said, if we couldn't get it done in ten years are we going to try for 20 this time and rack up trillions in debt again? Or is it just a blank check for war...



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

DUDE! WE Won. WE "leave" when WE want. If the drawdown isn't working you stop it.

DUH

P.S. By your 'logic' then the Iraq gov't is responsible for the formation of Isis..Not the U.S., Hello?

Double duh.
edit on 23-11-2015 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: scorpio84

I'm sorry. I'm done with the containment mentality. The 'qualified' wars. THAT keeps it going without end. End it.

On this Putin has it right, I believe. In or out. All in. AKA WWII. Germany, Japan.

All your scenario does is give the DHS crowd an unending power over us and individual rights. More gray areas and 'most are good people who just want jobs'. Hell, that's the whole damn planet. Not in my house...

Maybe take the lesson from Israel. Take care of those that are there. Shut it down for the rest and end those that don't accept it and do anything out of line.

Bah, I don't know.... Anything as long as it doesn't keep going the way it is...or prolongs this without end.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker




I'm sorry. I'm done with the containment mentality.


How about the "killing a few of our citizens won't force the world into war" mentality? The real problem with ISIS taking over some areas is that if inhibits our ability to conduct business. War is waged for money - that the people are suffering is a convenient sob story to tell the masses back home.




All your scenario does is give the DHS crowd an unending power over us and individual rights. More gray areas and 'most are good people who just want jobs'. Hell, that's the whole damn planet. Not in my house...



Well, we could just shut down immigration completely - but I'm not so sure that's a brilliant idea, considering one of the reasons America is on top of the world is due to the fact we bring in the best and brightest from around the world. I would like to see more pressure being made on Middle Eastern countries to accept the refugees to the tune of "if you don't, then forget about foreign aid."





Maybe take the lesson from Israel. Take care of those that are there. Shut it down for the rest and end those that don't accept it and do anything out of line.


Unless, of course, those who are there are Palestinians, right? Also, if we were doing things the Israeli way, I suppose we should build settlements in Mexico near the US border. As far as not doing anything out of line - are you sure you want to use Israel as your example? Honestly, Austria would be a better example of this than Israel (post WW2 Austria, of course).

My two main concerns are not dragging the world into an avoidable war and not repeating the mistakes of the past. At first we fought the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Then we supported the rebels in Syria (who were Al-Qaeda)...and I'm jumping some steps here ...now we use the Taliban to fight ISIS...it's basically use one group when convenient. Even the terrorists are pawns in a larger game.



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 04:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: nwtrucker




I'm sorry. I'm done with the containment mentality.


How about the "killing a few of our citizens won't force the world into war" mentality? The real problem with ISIS taking over some areas is that if inhibits our ability to conduct business. War is waged for money - that the people are suffering is a convenient sob story to tell the masses back home.




All your scenario does is give the DHS crowd an unending power over us and individual rights. More gray areas and 'most are good people who just want jobs'. Hell, that's the whole damn planet. Not in my house...



Well, we could just shut down immigration completely - but I'm not so sure that's a brilliant idea, considering one of the reasons America is on top of the world is due to the fact we bring in the best and brightest from around the world. I would like to see more pressure being made on Middle Eastern countries to accept the refugees to the tune of "if you don't, then forget about foreign aid."





Maybe take the lesson from Israel. Take care of those that are there. Shut it down for the rest and end those that don't accept it and do anything out of line.


Unless, of course, those who are there are Palestinians, right? Also, if we were doing things the Israeli way, I suppose we should build settlements in Mexico near the US border. As far as not doing anything out of line - are you sure you want to use Israel as your example? Honestly, Austria would be a better example of this than Israel (post WW2 Austria, of course).

My two main concerns are not dragging the world into an avoidable war and not repeating the mistakes of the past. At first we fought the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Then we supported the rebels in Syria (who were Al-Qaeda)...and I'm jumping some steps here ...now we use the Taliban to fight ISIS...it's basically use one group when convenient. Even the terrorists are pawns in a larger game.


I guess we will have to agree to disagree. My view is the mistakes of the past are, first and foremost, not finishing the job. Not correcting the mistakes made. That is what has led to Isis. Be it the Iraqi gov't or the U.S. at fault....or both.

You wish to avoid a war. I see that war as already in progress. Neither Russia nor France will see this thing through. Putin has the intention-no one knows what his motivation really is-but lacks the funds, etc. to follow this through. France is pissed but when have they ever followed through, war-wise? Napoleon is the last one I can recall...

Much of this will be decided by who wins the Presidential election, I suppose.

I believe, without reservation, that your views on this will lead to a worse situation than the one we have now. I hope, however, that I am wrong....again...



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

The thing is, I'm not so sure it is a job that can be finished. Well, perhaps if the West would stop being a part of the problem - kind of like the war on drugs. It's hard to win that war when you are both fighting it and selling it. The truth of the matter is this "war" is making someone rich - and it isn't the little folk.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 06:11 AM
link   
a reply to: scorpio84

I had to ruminate on your post for a while.

I suspect you may be right.

To truly END this one would have to address the grass-root recruiters. They tend to be protected as many, if not most, are Imams and the like. Taking them out as well as the leaderships-which has gotten us nothing but new 'leaders'- would seem mandatory.

Yet taking them out would/could drive those undecided full blown ape-sh*t....

A no win scenario.

OK. I'm convinced. I change my mind AGAIN...LOL. Leave the bastards be and hope they do each other in seems the best route for the ME.

Except for nuclear weapon development. That one I will NOT compromise on. Build bombs, that takes a gov't, and they get flattened...Period.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 08:58 AM
link   
I am all for turning the place into glass. I don't know what winning will look like over there. But as long as there is this kind of religion, attacks will never stop as long women give birth. I am for winning a war. The wars i.e. starting with Korea, are meant to last to make weapons and money.

Or we could take away their money. Throw bankers in Gitmo. Make their Imams and other royalty go back to living in tents and riding camels.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

No the US did the invasion and created the ability for isis to rise since they destabilized everything. And no we can't just stay there as long as we want, our troops would have no protection and we would end up being in a war against iraq as a nation and not being there as 'liberators'. They are a sovereign nation just as much as us.

I don't want the US to foot the bill AGAIN for a damn war on a group that as soon as we destroy it another group comes up. All for supporting from air or arming our allies but nit the full blown invasions that cost us TRILLIONS. You bitch about the debt all the time, try thinking about it here too.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

Hope you are just being hyperbolic talking about turning the area to glass.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join