The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

[Rover]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

So...if I have this correct, what some conservatives would do differently is essentually nothing (disengage until we're absolutely needed....kinda like what we did with ISIS), or kiss Bibi's @ ss more (Bob's opinion summed up neatly ). Is that about right?

Middle East is a mess. Its always been a mess. I'm happy to support the Prez bombing ISIS, but this needs to be handled Bosnia style. Someone else has boots on the ground while the US uses its unmatched air capabilities to turn the tide. Beyond that, after throwing off aging tyrants in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, etc - residents of those countries need to decide for themselves how they want to live - in anarchy or a civilized society. The ability of the US to influence that is limited to say the least.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

What's your take on Obama's policies in the Middle East and how effective or not effective they've been and what he could have done better/different?

The one area in which the President made a huge foreign policy mistake, and one fervently hopes non-lethal mistake, came very early in his first term. At that time, I still had hopes that Obama would govern as he described himself during his campaign. Then came the Green Revolution in Iran.

I am sure that the US intelligence apparatus has informed both the prior and current President that, were the mullahs in Iran ever able to develop nuclear weapons, it would have a hugely destabilizing effect throughout the entire Middle East. The Saudi royal family and the mullahs of Iran have been conducting proxy Shia - Sunni wars in the Middle East for decades (and before that it was Saddam's Iraq vs the mullahs, they fought an eight-year long war from 1980 through 1988!). If one side had nuclear weapons in that conflict, the other side would surely feel an existential threat, and purchase / develop their own instantly. The chances of Israeli entanglement in an armed conflict were this to happen would be pretty high as well.

Here were everyday Iranians saying they were tired of rule by the mullahs and wanted change, perhaps the initial germination of a popular movement that could overthrow the mullahs and replace them with a government that enjoyed broad-based popular support. The chances of that kind of Iranian government agreeing to dismantle the nuclear weapons program would be pretty high, IMHO: there are widespread reports of how miserable life is in Iran, most people surely would prefer an increase in material well-being from peaceful coexistence than a fanatical fundamentalist pursuit of destruction. They were saying so, loudly and clearly!

And the President sat idly by and did, and said, nothing. I was shocked, almost horrified. How could he do this? I'm sure the popular movement was inspired in part by an assumption that the USA, the bastion of freedom and human rights worldwide, would at least provide moral support and covert assistance. What better way to defuse the Middle East than to have the Iranian people themselves overthrow the mullahs? You could not have dreamed a better scenario for long-term peace!

Complete, utter silence, bordering on the disinterested. I kept raging whenever he deflected or dodged a question, "what is wrong with him? can't he see what an opportunity this is? and even beside that, has he no heart, no feeling? people are getting brutalized and he can at least provide moral suasion against it, and he says nothing at all?" A few supportive words might have made a difference, who knows? there'd be no bombing, no troops, not even any shipping of arms and munitions. Maybe rally other nations to express their outrage as well. After all, even the most cynical part of me thought, Obama loves to make speeches, and here is a natural opening for him to make a stirring speech that could change the course of history!





Utter silence.



Indefensible as well, IMHO, no matter what perspective you examine it from, be it moral or practical.

[joecct]

I think we've now got Far Left, Center-Left, Center, Center-Right. Far Right, anyone? Pio? Bob? (Bob is somewhere between Center-Right and Far Right but I guess he counts.)

Wonderful! Now if we could just get our political masters to agree. We'd still keep the industry busy supplying bombs, bullets and guns to our good guy of the week. We just wouldn't do the dying.

What could be wrong with that? (sarcastically)

[Rover]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

The one area in which the President made a huge foreign policy mistake, and one fervently hopes non-lethal mistake, came very early in his first term. At that time, I still had hopes that Obama would govern as he described himself during his campaign. Then came the Green Revolution in Iran.

I am sure that the US intelligence apparatus has informed both the prior and current President that, were the mullahs in Iran ever able to develop nuclear weapons, it would have a hugely destabilizing effect throughout the entire Middle East. The Saudi royal family and the mullahs of Iran have been conducting proxy Shia - Sunni wars in the Middle East for decades (and before that it was Saddam's Iraq vs the mullahs, they fought an eight-year long war from 1980 through 1988!). If one side had nuclear weapons in that conflict, the other side would surely feel an existential threat, and purchase / develop their own instantly. The chances of Israeli entanglement in an armed conflict were this to happen would be pretty high as well.

Here were everyday Iranians saying they were tired of rule by the mullahs and wanted change, perhaps the initial germination of a popular movement that could overthrow the mullahs and replace them with a government that enjoyed broad-based popular support. The chances of that kind of Iranian government agreeing to dismantle the nuclear weapons program would be pretty high, IMHO: there are widespread reports of how miserable life is in Iran, most people surely would prefer an increase in material well-being from peaceful coexistence than a fanatical fundamentalist pursuit of destruction.

And the President sat idly by and did, and said, nothing. I was shocked, almost horrified. How could he do this? I'm sure the popular movement was inspired in part by an assumption that the USA, the bastion of freedom and human rights worldwide, would at least provide moral support and covert assistance. What better way to defuse the Middle East than to have the Iranian people themselves overthrow the mullahs? You could not have dreamed a better scenario for long-term peace!

Complete, utter silence, bordering on the disinterested. I kept raging whenever he deflected or dodged a question, "what is wrong with him? can't he see what an opportunity this is? and even beside that, has he no heart, no feeling? people are getting brutalized and he can at least provide moral suasion against it, and he says nothing at all? A few supportive words might have made a difference, who knows? there'd be no bombing, no troops, not even any shipping of arms and munitions.

Utter silence.



Indefensible as well, IMHO, no matter what perspective you examine it from, be it moral or practical.

Fishy your whole premise is nonsense. What influence do you expect the United States to have in Iran, at the drop of a hat no less after 30 years of isolation, that would have made any difference to internal Iranian politics? More likely US influence is used against the reformers if we tried any token intervention.

In fact, this idea of yours is so absurd even Fox News hasn't picked it up!

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

You're simply claiming the charge has been disproven over and over again? Sorry, that's not a take down. That's just saying you disagree.

Again, you're better than to carry water for the trolls around here, even if they agree with your liberal leanings.

Fair enough.

I don't believe for a minute it would be any better if we followed what you or any right wing pundit is saying. The place is a cesspool and will always be a cesspool. You want to stay clean, stay out of the pool.

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Fishy your whole premise is nonsense.

How dare you insult the Red State piece it's copied almost verbatim from!

The amazing thing about the GroupThink of the right is it doesn't even occur to them they've been exposed. These guys have been forwarding the same Old Man Shouts At Cloud chain emails since 2008, continually re-indoctrinating one another. When they step outside their bubble the exchange goes like this:

RWNJ: x
World: {points out 12 logical errors}
RWNJ: No, no. x!
World: {points out 5 citations back to sources which have been rebutted, including many that are known to simply be lying}
RWNJ: You guys are so ignorant, and I can prove it. x!!!
World: I give up. Just stay away from sharp objects.

[joecct]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

How dare you insult the Red State piece it's copied almost verbatim from!

The amazing thing about the GroupThink of the right is it doesn't even occur to them they've been exposed. These guys have been forwarding the same Old Man Shouts At Cloud chain emails since 2008, continually re-indoctrinating one another. When they step outside their bubble the exchange goes like this:

RWNJ: x
World: {points out 12 logical errors}
RWNJ: No, no. x!
World: {points out 5 citations back to sources which have been rebutted, including many that are known to simply be lying}
RWNJ: You guys are so ignorant, and I can prove it. x!!!
World: I give up. Just stay away from sharp objects.

Repeating from an earlier post:

LWNJ: BUTITSFORTHECHLDREN!!!!!!

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Repeating from an earlier post:

LWNJ: BUTITSFORTHECHLDREN!!!!!!

WONTSOMEONETHINKOFTHECHILDREN! is an equal opportunity gambit. RWNJ is no stranger to it when it comes to sex or gays or whatever else bothers his Celestial Santa Claus. And good god don't get him started on WONTSOMEONETHINKOFTHETROOPS!, which rakes in 100x as much grift as WSTOTC.

[joecct]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

WONTSOMEONETHINKOFTHECHILDREN! is an equal opportunity gambit. RWNJ is no stranger to it when it comes to sex or gays or whatever else bothers his Celestial Santa Claus. And good god don't get him started on WONTSOMEONETHINKOFTHETROOPS!, which rakes in 100x as much grift as WSTOTC.

Touche!

[MattS]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I think we've now got Far Left, Center-Left, Center, Center-Right. Far Right, anyone? Pio? Bob? (Bob is somewhere between Center-Right and Far Right but I guess he counts.)

I consider myself a libertarian socialist. I want you to make sure you placed me in the correct part of the spectrum!

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Yeah that sounds so like me...

Unfortunately you have a habit of coming into threads and supporting folks, at least tacitly, when they are trying to bait me.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Fair enough.

I don't believe for a minute it would be any better if we followed what you or any right wing pundit is saying. The place is a cesspool and will always be a cesspool. You want to stay clean, stay out of the pool.

How quickly you forget that I've said over and over again that Iraq was a mistake and I'm not big on these military adventures. But there are many ways to work with folks in the region, including our long time allies, to try to address regional issues without putting boots on the ground. Boots on the ground make no sense in a place like Iraq where basically everyone hates us and always likely will regardless of what we do.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

How quickly you forget that I've said over and over again that Iraq was a mistake and I'm not big on these military adventures. But there are many ways to work with folks in the region, including our long time allies, to try to address regional issues without putting boots on the ground. Boots on the ground make no sense in a place like Iraq where basically everyone hates us and always likely will regardless of what we do.

Absolutely. I agree 100%. Except every one of our allies isn't really an ally all the time. See Turkey, and they're in NATO for cripes sake.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Absolutely. I agree 100%. Except every one of our allies isn't really an ally all the time. See Turkey, and their in NATO for cripes sake.

No ally is perfect, and countries like Saudi and Turkey are particularly blemished by some of their behavior. There are of course levels of engagement and I think we need to have some level of engagement with countries like this, while being wary of them using us to forward some of their less savory behaviors. It's easy to say we should just not have anything to do with the entire region, but we can do some good in the region while avoiding putting our soldiers' lives at risk as has happened all to often lately. Anyone trying to paint me as an interventionist hawk is sadly off-base.

[burd]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

How quickly you forget that I've said over and over again that Iraq was a mistake and I'm not big on these military adventures. But there are many ways to work with folks in the region, including our long time allies, to try to address regional issues without putting boots on the ground. Boots on the ground make no sense in a place like Iraq where basically everyone hates us and always likely will regardless of what we do.

Absolutely. I agree 100%. Except every one of our allies isn't really an ally all the time. See Turkey, and their in NATO for cripes sake.

I think we Americans also tend to forget how complicated internal politics can be for leaders of countries with many conflicting tribal interests. They often represent one thing to the outside world to serve their domestic political needs while also working with western governments such as ours covertly or through third parties and back-door channels. Turkey, for instance, is in a sensitive position with regard to ISIS' attack on Kobani. The Turks generally see Syrians as terrorists and are willing to fight ISIS, but they have long-standing conflicts with some, but not all, Kurdish groups. The Kurdish army defending Kobani (YPG, I think) is one that Turkey has been butting heads with, and many think that is why ISIS has chosen to invade this city, which is not that strategically important. Somepeoplealsoforgetthatthegopherssuck.